TOWN OF NEW BOSTON
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 23, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 6:45 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Mark Suennen, alternate Dean Mehlhorn, and Ex-officio David Woodbury. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Selectman Rodney Towne, Brian Pratt, PE, and Victor & Lise Lemay.
Discussion, re: Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation Amendments
(previously distributed)
Present in the audience were Selectman Rodney Towne and Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was a discussion with regard to Subdivision and Non- Residential Site Plan Review Regulation Amendments. He noted that he had been absent from the previous meeting when the amendments were made and he had questions.
The Chairman asked the Board for any comments or questions. Mark Suennen stated that his questions had been addressed during review of the first and second drafts of the amendments. David Woodbury asked if the amendments that were being reviewed had been reviewed by counsel. The Coordinator answered that the amendments had not yet been sent to counsel. David Woodbury stated that he did not have any further comments or questions.
The Chairman noted that the section of the Subdivision Regulation amendments that addressed dam owners did not match up stylistically with references to the NH state departments elsewhere in the regulations. The Coordinator explained that the first draft of the amendments was put together based on legislative changes. She continued that after receiving the 2009 -2010 Edition of the NH Planning and Land Use Regulations book she had noticed additional changes relative to dams and as such added the section to the amendments. She noted that the dam section required notification by certified mail be made for “proposals near rivers or streams and downstream of a dam.” She pointed out that she had added language that stated, “send notice as necessary”, leaving discretion to the Board as to what they deemed necessary.
The Chairman stated that with regard to proposed amendment #3 of the Subdivision Regulations, he believed that “NH” should be placed in front of “DES” and that “DES” should be capitalized so that it remained consistent with the rest of the document. The Coordinator explained that she had pulled the language for the section in question directly from the statute whereas other parts may have been drafted by the Board. David Woodbury, Mark Suennen, and Dean Mehlhorn did not have any objections to the Chairman’s suggestion.
The Chairman directed the Board’s attention to proposed amendment #6 of the Subdivision Regulations and referenced the section on digital plat filing requirements. It was his opinion that the language, “or by email” should be removed for the section. He believed that the Board should require a physical delivery of a CD to avoid any unforeseen issues with email, i.e., not being delivered or being lost. He added that perhaps the Board should require a CD or a DVD. He also suggested striking the requirement for a “sticky label” to be attached with the CD/DVD and replace with the requirement, “each disk shall be labeled with the applicant’s name and the tax map.” He explained that a sharpie marker or printing directly
onto the CD/DVD would be an acceptable form of a label. The Chairman asked why state plane coordinates were not required by the Board. The Coordinator answered that she would need to ask Bob Todd, LLS, why the state plane coordinates were not required as his office had authored this section.
The Chairman referred the Board’s attention to the Subdivision Regulations, proposed amendment # 15, and pointed out that the description should read, “1”= 500’” not the listed “1”=50’”. David Woodbury asked for the Coordinator to refresh his memory about a discussion that had taken place at a previous meeting with regard to amendment # 15. The Coordinator stated that the current regulations state that the locus map on the ISWMP needed to be 1” = 500’. She explained that the current requirement produced a very small picture and that in most cases waivers are requested to the most common size 1” = 2,000’.
The Chairman directed the Board to the Subdivision Regulations, proposed amendment # 23, item vii, and stated that he believed the language that was being added should merely state, “stump dumps” rather than the proposed, “stump dump locations” as “locations” seemed redundant to him. David Woodbury asked for clarification if the Chairman expected stump dumps to be located as a matter course. The Chairman stated that he believed that the stump dump locations should be shown but the word “locations” should be removed. The Board did not object to the striking of “locations” for proposed amendment # 23.
The Chairman referred the Board’s attention to the Subdivision Regulations, proposed amendment # 24, Driveways. He suggested adding an additional item that stated the following language, “all driveways shall be constructed in accordance with the Driveway Regulations.” He believed that by adding this language there would be no confusion after obtaining a driveway permit of how the driveway should be constructed. David Woodbury questioned whether the Board had previously established that their jurisdiction did not extend beyond exit, entrance, or approach to a right-of-way and if so would mandating how a driveway’s interior was built be beyond their capacity. The Coordinator answered that the Board did have authority over the driveways relative
to subdivisions and site plans. She asked the Chairman if he would like his suggestion to be item #1 of the driveway section. The Chairman answered yes. David Woodbury agreed that the Chairman’s suggestion should be re-numbered to be item #1. Mark Suennen offered an alternate suggestion of adding language under the definition of driveways in the Subdivision Regulations as follows, “driveways in accordance with Driveway Regulations.” The Coordinator pointed out the driveways were not defined in the Subdivision Regulations. She added that the Board could add a definition of driveway. Mark Suennen stated that if driveway was not already defined then he would be in favor of implementing the Chairman’s suggestion.
The Chairman asked the Board to refer to proposed amendment #25 of the Subdivision Regulations. He suggested the following change to the proposed language, “the Planning Department staff may consist of a Planning Coordinator, a Planning Board Assistant, and/or a Planning Board Clerk, whose duties shall be listed.” The Coordinator pointed out that the Planning Department staff did consist of all 3 positions and as such the Chairman’s suggestion would not be appropriate, especially since the language read “may consist of” which would allow variation in actual persons employed.
The Chairman believed that the language contained within proposed amendment #11, Waivers, of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review, should replace the language found in proposed amendment #26 of the Subdivision Regulations.
The Chairman addressed proposed amendment #8, Section 4, 4.17, A, of the Non-Residential Site Plan Review Regulations. He asked if the applicant would be responsible for submitting copies of all appropriate state permits to the Town of New Boston Health Officer and New Boston Fire Department directly, independent of what is submitted to the Planning Office. The Coordinator answered yes. He suggested having all the copies of the permits submitted to the Planning Office for distribution to the Health Officer and Fire Department to ensure delivery. The Coordinator informed the Board that open space subdivisions required that the applicant copy the Conservation Commission on their application and there has never been an issue.
The Chairman asked if the there were any other questions or comments; there were no other questions or comments. He asked when a public hearing would be scheduled on the proposed amendments. The Coordinator advised that the amendments would be sent to Town Counsel and she would schedule the public hearing for March 23, 2010.
David Woodbury stated that the Board of Selectmen had an issue unrelated to the Planning Office with regard to use of counsel. He indicated that the Board should be notifying Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, of when counsel is used and for what purpose. Rodney Towne asked if the Planning Office had a legal budget. The Coordinator answered no. Rodney Towne stated that notifying Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, was not for the purpose of approval or disapproval of use of counsel it was only meant for knowledge and could be accomplished with an inter office memo. The Chairman asked for clarification that the Board of Selectmen was requesting the Planning Office to notify Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, of any use of counsel by inter office memo or
email. Rodney Towne answered yes. The Coordinator stated that a better solution would be copying Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, on correspondence sent to counsel. Rodney Towne approved of the Coordinator’s suggestion. David Woodbury added that it was important for the Planning Office to advise Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, should use of counsel exceed expectations. The Coordinator asked how the Selectmen would like the Planning Office to handle counsel expenses that will be paid for by the applicant. Rodney Towne believed that it would be a good idea to copy Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, on all counsel expenses. David Woodbury stated that any applicant expenses that are copied should indicate what they are. The Coordinator stated that the standard letter contains a paragraph indicating that the applicant needs to be billed separately.
Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations
Present in the audience were Selectman Rodney Towne, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Brian Pratt, PE, and Victor & Lise Lemay.
The Chairman stated that the Earth Removal Regulations were one of the Board’s 2010 objectives. He indicated that a memo provided by the Coordinator had been distributed that contained a background and chronology of the Earth Removal Regulations. He asked if the current draft of the regulations had been reviewed by counsel. The Coordinator indicated that the current draft had been reviewed by counsel.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she had any comments to share with the Board. She advised the Board that the pits that were currently permitted would mostly be grandfathered and, therefore, not affected by the adoption of the Earth Removal Regulations. She continued that any new pits would follow the regulations. She pointed out that Sections 1 through 11 pertained to statute and would not really be productive to review for discussion. She continued that it would be important to review Sections 12 and 14 to the end.
The Chairman invited question or comments from the Board and audience. David Woodbury asked the Coordinator where renewal information could be found in the regulations. The Coordinator referred David Woodbury to page 26, Section 19, B, of the Earth Removal Regulations. David Woodbury asked if the section was blank because the number of years required for renewal had not been determined. The Coordinator acknowledged that this was so. David Woodbury believed that the operation of a gravel pit was static and as such he did not feel it was productive to have yearly renewals; he suggested a five year permit period. He also suggested staggering the expirations of the permits. He asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, how many
permits were currently issued. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that there were currently 14 permits.
The Chairman asked for the Board’s opinion on the requirement that would automatically withdraw permits for non-work. David Woodbury stated that it was reasonable to believe that a pit may be abandoned for a short period of time, i.e., two or three years, because of economic times. Rodney Towne added that the current economy created a situation where dirt was not being moved. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, stated that he had been told that this past year only two pits were active. The Coordinator suggested creating a requirement for a check-in process with the owner after a certain period of time rather than an automatic withdrawal. She continued that an indicator that the pit was not active would be if no taxes were paid for materials removed. David
Woodbury stated that he would prefer to see an automatic date of a reasonable length and let the owner come before the Board and argue why the permit should not be withdrawn. The Chairman asked if David Woodbury for confirmation that he would not suggest making a date longer than five years. David Woodbury answered that he would be inclined to suggest that after five years non-use of the pit would be considered abandonment. The Coordinator asked if the Town should consider sending notification that would advise the owner that their permit was going to automatically expire. David Woodbury stated that notification of automatic expiration would be good to do. Mark Suennen suggested making a time period of 54 months to allow for a 6 month window between the end of the 54 months and the renewal date. The Coordinator read the following from the regulations regarding consideration of abandonment, “no earth material has been moved during any two
year period, either, before, on, or after August 4, 1989”. Mark Suennen stated that the renewal should be two years. David Woodbury stated that the Board could decide to vary the terms of the statute. He continued that he was aware that the Board could make the terms more stringent but questioned whether they could make the terms more generous. Rodney Towne suggested referencing the RSA. Mark Suennen agreed with Rodney Towne. The Coordinator informed the Board that the owner could ask to extend the time frame for not removing materials by submitting a reclamation timetable to be approved by the regulator as well as posting a bond. The Chairman stated that the Board could think about this issue for discussion at a later time.
The Chairman asked if the Board had any further questions or comments. Mark Suennen stated that the statute’s definition of “earth” did not include bedrock. He asked if his understanding that bedrock had been considered earth in the past but currently a special permit was needed for the removal of bedrock was accurate. David Woodbury noted that the Town had dealt with this issue previously when slabs of stone were being removed from property on Joe English Road. He continued that the question that arose was whether or not the property owners would be regulated under the 155-E, Gravel Operation, or whether they would be regulated under dimension stone, which meant that they would be regulated as a mine. He explained that the State decided that the property owners should be
regulated under Gravel Operations. The Coordinator stated that she was not aware if in the past bedrock had been considered “earth”. Mark Suennen stated that he would re-read the definition for clarification.
Mark Suennen asked if the definition of “incidental” conveyed that the primary use of the property could be residential-agricultural use and that the subordinate use could be a commercial gravel pit or visa-versa. The Coordinator clarified that the use of “incidental” referred to incidental to construction, therefore, in order to do what the primary use of the property was going to be, the material that was in the way would have to be removed incidentally. David Woodbury added that counsel had drawn a distinction for the Board regarding this issue. He continued that an example of ‘incidental” would be the removal of an esker from a big subdivision and the applicant needing to use the gravel that was removed to build the houses. He noted that on the other hand
where there is no reasonable use for the gravel on site it could be sold.
Mark Suennen asked if the following language should be added to Section 6, A, paragraph 3, of the Earth Removal Regulations, “the New Boston Planning Board, excepting before March 2009, the regulator was the Board of Selectmen”. David Woodbury stated that he was concerned whether or not the Board of Selectmen was justified in doing so. He noted that the statute specified that the regulator would be the regulator from day one of its enactment. He continued that the Town either was not aware or did not appreciate that the Planning Board was suppose to act as the regulators and by adding Mark Suennen’s proposed language a problem could be created for the Town that might not otherwise occur. The Coordinator pointed that the vote in 2009 rescinded prior votes which had established the
Board of Selectmen as the regulator. David Woodbury expressed that he would not want to make any changes until the issue was researched more. The Chairman asked if the Coordinator could look into the issue to confirm the history and the wording.
Mark Suennen asked who was responsible for defining “of sufficient weight or volume to be commercially useful” relative to Section 6, A, 2, of the regulations. David Woodbury stated that the transaction would have to be an arms length transaction. The Coordinator noted that the first draft of the regulations did contain a space for a definition of commercial, however, counsel had advised against offering a specific definition.
The Chairman asked if the audience members had any comments or questions; they did not have any comments or questions.
It being time for a scheduled hearing, the Chairman suspended discussion of the Earth Removal Regulations, noting that the Board may return to the Regulations during Miscellaneous Business.
The Chairman appointed alternate Dean Mehlhorn as a full voting member in Douglas Hill’s absence.
LEMAY, VICTOR & LISE S.
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/9 Lots
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #’s 9/21-5
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brian Pratt, PE, and Victor & Lise Lemay.
The Chairman stated that the application was accepted as complete on January 26, 2010, with a deadline for Board action of April 1, 2010. He stated that no revised plans were received by the deadline for review and consideration at this meeting. He stated that there were no waivers and that some of the plans were currently being reviewed by counsel and the Road Agent. He asked Brian Pratt, PE, to address the Board.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that at the last hearing there was an issue with the engineering review. He indicated that he had received the engineering review yesterday and as such he was unable to provide revised plans. He did note, however, that he had thoroughly reviewed the Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, comments. He continued that there did not appear to be any major changes that needed to be made and that he had already made about half of the minor changes to the plan.
The Chairman noted that the Board had not had an opportunity to review the changes and because the applicant would be required to appear before the Board in the future it was not necessary to review all the changes at this time. He suggested that Brian Pratt, PE, address any questions or concerns that he had at this point.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the detention pond was going to be bigger because Kevin Leonard, P.E., had asked that the amount of detention be increased for added safety. He also stated that some of the swales will become deeper. He indicated that wooden guardrails would be added to the wetland crossing to ensure that the homeowner will not drive over the wetlands. He noted that drainage computations would be revised.
Brian Pratt, PE, informed the Board that Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, interpretation of the length of the new road was 1,024’, whereas, his interpretation was 999’. He explained that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had interpreted the road length from the centerline of the intersection of the proposed road with Wilson Hill Road and that he had interpreted it from the edge of the right-of-way. The Coordinator stated that the regulations require that the measurement start at the intersection of the existing road with the proposed road. The Coordinator noted that usually the engineer will go to the centerline of Wilson Hill Road to start and go down. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that he had prepared a waiver for the 24’. The Chairman stated that he could
submit the waiver now or wait until the updated plans were submitted.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the last issue he had was with regard to the offsite improvements. He asked if the Board had a chance to discuss the fair share contribution with the Road Agent. The Chairman answered that the Board had not heard back from the Road Agent and hoped to have an answer for the applicant at the next hearing.
The Coordinator pointed out that Kevin Leonard, P.E., had recommended that the Board discuss with the applicant what their plan was with regard to timing of construction of the wetland crossing. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that the wetland crossing would be constructed at the same time as the road to avoid issues with the permit expiring. He stated that he would add a note to that effect on the plan.
The Chairman asked if Brian Pratt, PE, had any issues with the review provided by the Planning Office. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that he did not have any issues.
The Chairman stated that there was a question of whether an ISWMP was needed for lot 5 because of an issue with the slopes. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that ISWMP’s had already been completed for lots 2 and 3 and ISWMP’s would be done for lots 4, 5, and 6.
The Chairman noted that an issue remained with the driveway for lot 1. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the driveway was not shown on the plan but explained that the driveway for lot 1 would be constructed off the new road.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that with regard to road construction for lot 2, a temporary easement was now shown on the revised plan that would go through lot 1. The Coordinator stated that she had spoken with Dwight Sowerby, Esq., that day and he had noted that he had some issues with the temporary driveway easement. She explained that what Dwight Sowerby, Esq., had pointed out was that when the subdivision was approved there would be no legal frontage for lot 2; she noted that this had not happened before. She stated that the only way to rectify the issue was to get frontage from Wilson Hill Road by creating either a 50’ strip to a 5 acre back lot or combining lots 1 and 2 currently and at some point in the future when the road is accepted subdividing lots 1 and 2 into the configuration that is
currently shown. Brian Pratt, PE, asked if the applicant could apply for a variance from the ZBA. The Coordinator answered that the applicant could apply for a variance from the ZBA and a release of liability from the BOS. Mark Suennen suggested phasing the road construction prior to occupancy of lot 2. The Chairman stated that road phasing could not begin until the plan was approved. Mark Suennen asked if the road could be constructed as a private road. The Coordinator answered yes, if the applicant chose not to bond the road and did the construction first. Dean Mehlhorn asked how far along the house construction was for lot 2. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that the house construction had been completed. The Chairman stated that the applicant needed to come up with a plan to deal with this matter. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that they would come up with a plan.
The Chairman indicated that he resided in the subdivision at the top of Byam Road and Wilson Hill Road. He continued that he was curious how the engineer decided that 30% of the traffic would go down Wilson Hill Road to Bedford Road and the other 70% would go down Byam Road to River Road. He also asked if the percentages were based on a traffic count. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that a traffic count had been conducted for Hutchinson Lane and the engineer had used that as a reference. He indicated that he was unsure if the engineer had used the same distribution or if he had used his own. Mark Suennen pointed out that Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s, engineering review addressed this issue. Rodney Towne asked if the Board had received notes from the Road Committee as they had issues with the
numbers provided as well. The Coordinator answered that the Board had not been provided with any information from the Road Committee. The Chairman asked that the applicant confirm that the traffic study has justification for the percentages that have been provided contained within it or request the information from the engineer. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the traffic study determined that 30% was access from Wilson Hill Road and 70% from Byam Road. The Chairman stated that it appeared that there were two levels of indirection because the study that was completed for Hutchinson Road was based on the study that was completed for the Fieldstone project. The Chairman asked that current reasoning be used to justify the numbers. Mark Suennen clarified that the new cul-de-sac would be named Fieldstone Drive. The Chairman stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., needed a copy of the traffic study. Rodney Towne asked how long ago the Hutchinson Lane
study had been done. Brian Pratt, PE, answered 2004. It was the Chairman’s opinion that a larger number of people were driving down Wilson Hill Road to Bedford Road than what was being represented. The Chairman asked that the applicant provide Kevin Leonard, P.E., with the traffic study. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that he would provide the traffic study to Kevin Leonard, P.E. Mark Suennen added that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission conducted tube counts. He asked the Coordinator if Byam Road was one of the locations that were tubed. The Coordinator answered that she would have to check if Byam Road was one of the locations tubed.
The Chairman asked about the plans for the concrete pad issue. Brian Pratt, PE, indicated that the Road Agent wanted to remove the pad and he noted that the plans would reflect the removal.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the only information he had with regard to the traffic counts was on Wilson Hill and Bedford Roads from 2007 and 2008. He stated that he did not have any information on Byam Road.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments. David Woodbury stated that relative to his decision on whether to approve the waiver of the 24’ for the cul-de-sac length he wanted to know what was involved in bringing the cul-de-sac back by 24’. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that the entire road would need to be re-designed. David Woodbury asked if the lot configurations would be affected by bringing the cul-de-sac up by 24’. Brian Pratt, PE, answered that he was unsure. The Chairman asked if the cul-de-sac could be made bigger. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that it could cost the applicant an additional $5,000.00 to $10,000.00 in engineering to find out.
The Chairman stated that the next available meeting was March 23, 2010, which meant that the deadline for submission of items for Board review would be March 16, 2010.
Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he would like to recap the issues discussed this evening. He noted that he could either combine lot 1 and 2 or apply for a variance to solve the issue with lot 2 having no frontage. The Chairman added that there was also an option for road phasing. Brian Pratt, PE, asked for confirmation that the road would need to be built prior to occupancy on the lot. The Chairman confirmed that the road needed to be completed prior to occupancy. Brian Pratt, PE, stated that he did not believe that road phasing was an option. The Chairman clarified that road phasing was an option; however, the applicant may choose to reject it. Brian Pratt, PE, asked if the road could be constructed now or if they would need to wait for approval. The Coordinator answered that
approval was necessary prior to construction of the road. Brian Pratt, PE, continued that the Board needed justification of the 30% split for the traffic study. The Chairman added that a waiver for the 24’ for the new road was needed or the cul-de-sac needed to be re-designed to be 1,000’. Brian Pratt, PE, asked for clarification that the Board was waiting for comments from the Road Agent with regard to the offsite improvements. The Chairman answered that the Board was still waiting and would have the Road Agents comments to the applicant by the next hearing.
David Woodbury MOVED to adjourn Victor & Lise S. Lemay, Major Subdivision/9 Lots, Location: Wilson Hill Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/21-5, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, to March 23, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Discussion, re: Earth Removal Regulations, Cont.
The Chairman asked for any questions or comments; there were no questions or comments. The Chairman commented that the Board should focus review on Sections 12 and 14 for the next meeting.
The Chairman believed with regard to Section 10 of the regulations, “Board” should be replaced with “Regulator”. The Coordinator agreed that “Board” should be replaced with “Regulator”.
The Chairman asked if the dam bureau should be added to page 17 of the regulations, re: notice requirements. The Chairman asked the Board to review the Earth Removal Regulations prior to the next meeting for discussion.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of January 26, 2010, distributed by email.
The Chairman indicated that he would like the proposed amendments to be referred to in the same manner for the purposes of clarity. He pointed out that the “the first amendment” should be changed to “proposed amendment #1”. He also noted that proposed amendment #4 appeared to be missing and indicated that it may be located on line 35. The Coordinator confirmed that line 35 was referring to proposed amendment #4.
The Chairman asked if the minutes needed to be recorded in chronological order. The Coordinator answered that the minutes generally tried keeping the minutes in chronological order. The Chairman recommended that the meeting minutes should reflect any change in conversation to previous unrelated discussion.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of January 26, 2010, as amended. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of February 9, 2010, distributed by email.
David Woodbury MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of February 9, 2010, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Townes Family Trust, Tax Map/Lot #13/55, South Hill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Charles M. & Rachel L. B. Swinford, Tax Map/Lot #2/15, Tucker Mill Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
5. Endorsement of a Condex Site Plan for Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-4, Kettle Lane & Salisbury Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
6. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for The Clark Family Trust, Tax Map/Lot #8/1, Clark Hill & Dennison Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
7. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for New Era C.F. Trust & Turtle Cove Revocable Trust, and the Town of New Boston, by the Planning Board Chairman.
The Chairman advised that the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
8. Letter dated February 11, 2010, from Dwight D. Sowerby, Esquire, Drescher & Dokmo, P.A., to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Town of New Boston, re: Swinford Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #2/15, Declaration of Common Driveway Easement for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked if the above-mentioned matter referred to an issue with easements. The Coordinator answered that it was relative to easements. The Chairman commented that it was Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s, suggestion to have the Board request as a condition precedent for final approval a proposed deed to be prepared containing the appropriate easement language. The Chairman stated that he agreed with Dwight Sowerby’s suggestion. Mark Suennen stated that the Board had already accepted the application and could not add conditions. TheCoordinator clarified that one of the conditions of approval had been approval of the legal document, therefore, the condition was already there.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the Board should notify the applicant by sending a copy of Dwight Sowerby, Esq.’s, letter or if she would draft a letter. The Coordinator explained that the Board could move to release the letter or the letter could be paraphrased and sent from the Planning Office. David Woodbury stated that he did not have any objections to releasing the letter.
Mark Suennen MOVED to release the letter from Dwight Sowerby, Esq., re: Swinford Subdivision, Tax Map/Lot #2/15, Declaration of Common Driveway Easement, to the Swinford’s and their agent. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
9. Letter dated February 18, 2010, from David J. Preece, AICP, Executive Director, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, to Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: SNHPC Representative from New Boston, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman noted that the New Boston representative to the SNHPC’s term had
expired. He asked if the Coordinator had checked with the representative to obtain his position on continuing as the New Boston Representative. The Coordinator indicated that she had contacted him and he was interested in continuing. The Chairman invited questions or comments. Mark Suennen praised the representative for volunteering. Mark Suennen MOVED to thank Bo Strong for his commitment and to encourage the Board of Selectmen to nominate him for reappointment. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
10. Letter copy dated February 15, 2010, from Ridgely Mauck, P.E., Terrain Alteration Bureau, NH, DES, to SIB Trust, re: Indian Falls and Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/89 & 93-38, issuance of Alteration of Terrain Permit, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
11. Letter copy dated February 15, 2010, from Ridgely Mauck, P.E., Terrain Alteration Bureau, NH, DES, to Jacqueline M. Bussiere, et al, re: Indian Falls and Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, issuance of Alteration of Terrain Permit, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator noted that the above-referenced matter extended the applicant’s time frame for the permit, as did miscellaneous business item #10.
12a. Notice of Decision received February 19, 2010, from New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
12b. Meeting Minutes from New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment received February 19, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
13. PowerPoint presentation about BMP’s for Rock Blasting Activities to Protect Water Resources, by Brandon Kernen, PE, NH Department of Environmental Service, for the Board’s information.
The Coordinator advised that it appeared as though requirements would be added to make blasting a consideration of the AOT permitting process.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. David Woodbury seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved: 03/23/2010
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
