The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Mark Suennen and Peter Hogan, alternate Dean Mehlhorn and Ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Rodney Towne, Jason Martel, Earl Sandford, P.E., Brandy Mitroff and Rick Kohler, [ ].
Discussion, re: Road Construction Monitoring Memorandum (Distributed at 5/11/10 Meeting)
Present in the audience were Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, and Rodney Towne. The Chairman stated that the first item on the agenda was to discuss a road construction monitoring memorandum from the Coordinator. He explained that the memorandum contained information regarding road inspections and consulting engineer procedures. He noted attached to the memorandum were discussion points from the interview process with Northpoint Engineering, a letter dated July 6, 2007, from Kevin Leonard, P.E, and a copy of the July 10, 2007, Planning Board meeting minutes.
The Chairman explained that the memorandum was created to address questions that the Board had with regard to what specific items were required of the Town Engineer. He asked the Board for any questions or comments.
Peter Hogan asked the Chairman to summarize the memorandum. The Chairman explained that a question had been asked of what exactly Northpoint Engineering used as their basis for what they do for construction monitoring and inspections. He continued that a list of requirements from the Town had been provided to Northpoint Engineering upon hire and was now being reviewed. He stated that if the Board agreed with the requirements they could be left as is or modifications could be made.
Peter Hogan stated that the inspection costs seemed to be large; however, he was not in favor of leaving the contractors to their own methods as he believed that could be disastrous. He stated that there may not be a way around the high cost of the inspection fees. He added that the costs seemed to escalate when the engineer watched projects being built. He said that he was curious if other towns had the same type of costs. The Chairman clarified that the two things that make up the cost were hourly rate and mileage. Mark Suennen added that the cost is also affected by what the Town required the engineer to inspect, i.e., a forty hour per five day week inspection versus a drop in inspection. The Chairman agreed with Mark Suennen and questioned how long it would take to perform each task listed in the
requirements. He stated that the number of hours to conduct fulltime inspections would most likely be the same in any town. He noted that there was a possibility that some current fulltime inspection requirements could be adjusted to part-time inspections and some current part-time inspections could be adjusted to not require inspections at all. He asked the Board if they believed any of the requirements needed to be adjusted.
Peter Hogan asked who conducted inspections of underground electrical installations. Dean Mehlhorn answered that typically the utility company that is responsible for the wire conducted the inspections as they are the owner of the wire. He pointed that Kevin Leonard, P.E., stated that he conducts part-time inspections of the underground electrical installations. The Chairman asked if the telephone companies and the cable companies operated the same way as the electric company with regard to inspections of installations. Dean Mehlhorn answered yes.
The Chairman asked Mark Suennen for his thoughts on modifying the list of requirements from the Town. Mark Suennen stated that he was offering his comments as a town resident. He believed that the fulltime inspection of pipe installation was unnecessary and stop by inspection was appropriate. He further noted that the Road Agent had apparently agreed with these inspections but Northpoint was not new to the Town any longer.
Mark Suennen stated that the engineer was tasked with creating an appropriate cost for the bond and escrow and that those amounts needed to be based on a reasonable worst case situation. He explained that the engineer needed to assume fulltime inspections and then back-off to part-time should the conditions warrant. The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen’s explanation meant that the bond estimate would not be affected and that it created the likelihood money would be returned at the completion of a project. Mark Suennen confirmed the Chairman’s statement and added that it was easier to give money back than to ask for more midway through a project.
Mark Suennen stated that the Board could give guidance during hearings as to the complexity of a particular project and as to whether fulltime or part-time inspections were required for a particular project.
Mark Suennen believed that with regard to box culverts, excavation and compaction only some of the projects warranted fulltime inspections. He continued that modular wall construction did not need fulltime observation. He indicated that he did not have any issues with the remaining requirements. The Chairman asked if Mark Suennen would suggest that the wording be changed on the aforementioned projects to part-time. Mark Suennen suggested incorporating a general statement that states that the Board shall make recommendations for each application. He added that it should be assumed that fulltime inspections are required unless the Board made recommendations during a hearing that part-time inspections were appropriate.
The Coordinator pointed out that any changes needed to be reviewed by the Road Agent and Selectmen because ultimately a Town road was being created.
The Chairman asked if Northpoint Engineering had a year to year contract with the Town. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman asked if the Town did not look at other engineering options as long as Northpoint Engineering’s rates and terms seemed reasonable. The Coordinator answered that the Town had been moving forward as the Chairman explained; however, she noted that at any time other engineering firms could be reviewed.
The Chairman asked if an average hourly rate was easily obtained from engineering firms. The Coordinator answered that the bigger firms had information packets readily available. She added that the company may like to tailor to a smaller town’s needs.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions from the Board. Christine Quirk commented that she would have liked to have heard Douglas Hill’s opinion on this matter.
The Chairman asked if there were any comments or questions from the audience. Willard Dodge stated that he was present for the purposes of learning more about the road construction requirements. The Chairman gave Willard Dodge a copy of the memorandum.
The Board decided to table this matter until Douglas Hill could be present for further discussion.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board had any sense of the Road Agent and Road Committee’s position on this matter. The Coordinator answered no, as this information had not been reviewed in recent history. Christine Quirk asked if it would be a good idea to send this information to the Road Agent and Road Committee. The Chairman answered that it would be good to have the Road Agent and Road Committee review the information. Willard Dodge advised that this discussion had taken place at the last two meetings of the Road Committee. He continued that the Committee was waiting to obtain the inspection requirements from the Road Agent for further review. Christine Quirk suggested that Willard Dodge supply the Road Committee with the inspection requirements he had received from the Board. Willard Dodge
asked for confirmation that the document he had received was the most current document relative to the inspection requirements. The Chairman answered yes and asked Willard Dodge to advise the Board if the Road Committee had any concerns with the requirements. Willard Dodge stated that the Road Committee would definitely get back to the Board with any comments.
Christine Quirk asked when the next Road Committee meeting would be held. Willard Dodge answered stated that the Road Committee would meet June 8, 2010, and most likely would skip July and August. He added that he would attempt to deliver this information to the Road Committee members prior to the June 8, 2010, Road Committee meeting.
The Chairman again asked for the Road Committee to advise the Board of their position on the inspection requirements. Willard Dodge advised that the Road Committee would do so.
TWIN BRIDGE LAND MANAGEMENT, LLC
Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/26 Lots
Location: Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place
Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5
MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Rodney Towne, Jason Martel, and Earl Sandford, P.E.
The Chairman stated that the Board had received a letter dated May 21, 2010, from Meridian Land Services that requested this evening’s hearing be adjourned to June 22, 2010. He also noted that the applicant had requested that the deadline for Board’s action be extended. He explained that the applicant had made the aforementioned requests because the NH DES Wetlands Bureau was still in the process of reviewing their permit. He noted that NH DES Wetlands Bureau had 75 days to review the permit.
The Chairman asked the Board for any comments or questions; there were no comments or questions.
Christine Quirk MOVED to adjourn and extend the deadline for Board action, for Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Twin Bridge Rd & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District, to June 22, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 25, 2010.
1. Approval of minutes of April 15, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the special meeting minutes of April 15, 2010, as written. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2. Approval of minutes of April 27, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of April 27, 2010, as written. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Distribution of May 11, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of June 8, 2010.
The Chairman asked if the May 11, 2010, meeting minutes had been distributed. The
Coordinator answered that she believed she had sent them via email but would resend.
4. Endorsement of a Subdivision Agreement for Jacqueline M. Bussiere, et al, and the Town of New Boston, for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature.
The Chairman advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
5. Notice of Adoption of Open Space Plan on May 11, 2010, for the Board’s signature.
The Board endorsed the Notice of Adoption of Open Space Plan. Mark Suennen asked if the Open Space Plan would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The Coordinator answered that it would only be filed internally.
10. Fax copy received May 19, 2010, from John C. Montgomery, to Burton Reynolds, Town Administrator, re: Town Easement, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the above-referenced letter advised that the applicant had made a decision not to proceed with any future development at the Gravity Tavern and Kiki’s Restaurant. The Coordinator explained that the lot would not accommodate the septic system needed for further expansion of the property and the owners had approached the Town for an easement but had withdrawn that request.
11. Letter received May 17, 2010, from Joseph A. Foistner, Esq., to Planning Board Members, re: Expired Wetlands approvals, for the Board’s information.
Mark Suennen asked if the Coordinator could explain the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator explained that the Dredge and Fill Permit that was part of the Waldorf Estatessubdivision expired and as such the new owner would need to figure out how to obtain a new permit. She continued that she had met with the engineer for the project and he was aware of thesituation and would be approaching DES to figure out how to obtain the necessary permits.
12. Letter dated May 21, 2010, from Tom Miller, Chairman, Road Committee, to New Boston Planning Board, re: Cul-de-sacs, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman commented that the above-referenced letter was exactly what he had been looking for with regard to department’s opinions on cul-de-sac length. He further commentedthat the letter explained reasons specifically that created issues with cul-de-sac roads and their maintenance.
13. Read File: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Litchfield, re: installation of a wireless telecommunication facility.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
9. Letter Copy received May 19, 2010, from Ed Hunter, Code Enforcement Officer, to Mr. Bob Waller, re: Permits/Site Plan, for the Board’s review & discussion. (previous correspondence attached)
The Chairman stated that this business was not in compliance. The Coordinator addedthat the Board had met with Bob Waller in the past and explained to him how to get a site plan. She continued that he did not get a site plan and that he was very concerned that he would be denied. She stated that currently he was not in compliance with Town regulations. She commented that she was unsure if the Code Enforcement Officer was going to speak to the Selectmen about taking appropriate action and whether the Board wanted to weigh in on that or not. She indicated that this site plan would be very similar to “The Restoration Station” site plan on Chestnut Hill Road, which had recently been approved; however, she noted that there were no assurances that Bob Waller’s site plan would have the same
information that gave the Board cause to approve the Restoration Station.
The Chairman asked if Bob Waller had been provided with a copy of the Restoration Station site plan as an example of a successful site plan. The Coordinator answered that the Planning Office had shown him the Restoration Station site plan. She also had asked Bob Waller in the alternative to provide information and proof that the business had been running prior to the zoning requirements; none of that information had been provided. The Chairman asked when the zoning started. The Coordinator answered that the zoning started in 1990 and that a form could have been filled out that stated the owner had been operating for a number of years in which case a grandfathered status would be obtained. The Chairman asked if Bob Waller knew when he had started his business. The Coordinator answered that Bob Waller
had indicated that he had began his business prior to 1990.
Jay Marden asked where the forms that Coordinator had referred to relative to grandfathered status were filed. The Coordinator answered that the forms were filed in the Planning Department. Jay Marden asked how the forms were filed. The Coordinator answered that the forms were either filed by map and lot or owner.
Peter Hogan commented that this was not a Planning Board issue. The Chairman clarified that it was not a Planning Board issue unless Bob Waller chose to submit a site plan. Peter Hogan agreed with the Chairman’s statement.
The Chairman stated that the Board would encourage Bob Waller to come to the Board with a site plan. Peter Hogan added that the Board could not beg Bob Waller to come to the Board with a site plan and he could not blame him for not wanting to come to the Board.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
8. Letter dated May 19, 2010, from Kevin M. Leonard, P.E. Principal Engineer, Northpoint Engineering, LLC, re: Foxberry Drive – Field Observations, for the Board’s review & Discussion.
The Chairman asked if the bond was about to expire for the above-referenced matter. The Coordinator answered that the bond was due to expire in August but the status of the bond was in question because the ownership of the property changed. She stated that the above-referenced letter as well as the notice of decision for the subdivision had been sent to the bonding company for their review and opinion on what they would be willing to do with regard to the bond. The Chairman asked if the Board would hear back from the bonding company. The Coordinator answered yes.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board; there were no questions or comments.
7. Discussion re: CUP bonding process
The Coordinator stated that there was a discussion at the beginning of the last meeting in which Douglas Hill had questioned the timing and how the bond for a CUP was submitted. The Coordinator advised that the Zoning Ordinance stipulated when the bond for a CUP had to be submitted. She noted that the bond needed to be submitted at the time the application was submitted in order for the approval to be granted.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that the Board could not waive Zoning requirements. The Coordinator confirmed that the Board could not waive Zoning requirements and that a variance would be required through the ZBA.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board. Mark Suennen asked if the Board had previously run afoul of this bonding process. The Coordinator answered no and added that the Board had been asked on a previous application to allow the applicant to record the subdivision plans without the bond because the applicant did not have an intention to build for a long period of time. She continued that the applicant had been advised that this was a ZBA issue and the applicant had decided not to go to the ZBA and submitted the bond instead.
6.Memo dated May 21, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Vesting of Subdivision/Site Plans; Active & Substantial Development; Substantial Completion of Improvements, for the Board’s review & discussion.
The Chairman stated that the above-referenced matter had been discussed at a trainingsession that he had attended. He continued that there had been a suggestion that Planning Boards create something specific.
The Coordinator stated that the Planning Board did not currently put a stipulation on subdivisions as to the definition of active and substantial development which meant, by law, the applicant would receive an automatic vesting from changes from the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations for four or six years depending on when it was approved. She advised that lots of towns provided a threshold of what the applicant would need to meet within twelve months of approval in order to be vested from changes. She stated that some towns did not do anything, some towns specify for each application what the threshold would be specific to the application, some towns have language that states unless otherwise stated this is what the threshold would be, and some towns have a general statement that applies to all applications.
Mark Suennen asked how many developments had passed the four year vesting. The Coordinator answered that the Indian Falls development had passed the four year vesting. Mark Suennen asked if the Indian Falls development had lost its vesting. The Coordinator answered that she was unsure if it was in the time period for the six year vesting.
The Chairman asked if Byam Road was an example of this issue. The Coordinator explained that the applicant for Byam Road went to court regarding vesting and the court determined that the road was vested based on the rough dirt road and tree cutting that had been done. She noted that when construction started in 1997 the applicant was following the 1988 plan which had created some problems.
The Chairman asked if any changes would need to be reflected in the Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator answered yes. She pointed out that a disadvantage of requiring specific items to be completed in order to maintain a vested status may result in roads being constructed to lots that are not constructed.
The Chairman asked for Dean Mehlhorn’s opinion of this matter. Dean Mehlhorn stated that he was unsure about making any changes.
Peter Hogan asked what problem was being fixed by implementing any changes. Mark Suennen stated that there was not a problem and he believed if there was something in the future that may need substantial changes the discussion should take place at that time. He noted that the Board had the option to make a declaration at any hearing as to what would be considered active and substantial development. The Chairman stated that Mark Suennen would be in favor of option number four that stated there would be no changes to the regulations and a decision about active and substantial would be made at the time the application is approved. Mark Suennen confirmed the Chairman’s statement.
Mark Suennen asked the Chairman what problem he believed was being fixed by changing the regulations. The Chairman answered that changing the regulations would not address a specific problem but would allow for any future problems to be addressed.
The Coordinator pointed out that the Town of Belmont had the applicant submit a description of what they thought active and substantial development should be within twelve months for their project. Mark Suennen stated that the example of an applicant submitting their own description of active and substantial development was a good idea but he did not believe it needed to be codified.
The Chairman asked Christine Quirk for her opinion on this matter. Christine Quirk stated that she had nothing to add at this time.
The Chairman stated that this information would be kept on file and the Board should consider each application on an individual basis.
KMMM PROPERTIES, LLC
Public Hearing/NRSPR/Restaurant
Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/6
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Earl Sandford, P.E., Willard Dodge, Jay Marden, Rodney Towne, and Brandy Mitroff. The Chairman stated at the last hearing the applicant had submitted the following proposals: adding a fenced area on the lawn, amending the hours of operation, amending the southerly parking lot and the addition of a deck and patio. He advised that the applicant had withdrawn the proposed deck and patio on May 19, 2010.
The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, P.E., if had addressed the minor issues with the plan.
Earl Sandford, P.E., indicated that he had corrected the issues on the plan that the Chairman had referred to.
Earl Sandford, P.E., noted that the major issues with the plan involved the deck and patio and both had been withdrawn. He advised that he had spoken with DOT and explained that two triggers would create the need to amend the permit: 1) change in the geometry of the entrance, including drainage; and 2) change in use. He continued that Scott Looney of DOT did not believe that it was necessary for the applicant to obtain an amended driveway permit for additional parking.
Earl Sandford, P.E., agreed with the Chairman that this was a housecleaning plan and showed what the existing conditions were. He noted that the hours of operation had been amended to have Kiki’s Restaurant and the Gravity Tavern operating under the same hours.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the removable fence for the Gravity Tavern was shownfor informational purposes only for the Liquor Commission as the Board had determined at the last hearing that it was not a Board issue.
Earl Sandford, P.E., advised that an additional handicapped space had been added per the regulations and he added that all four handicapped spaces were van accessible. He stated that at last hearing there had been some discussion regarding more parking shown on the plan than the previous owner had shown. He explained that because large amount of fill had been removed from the parking area creating a larger parking lot. He noted that there was enough room in the parking lot for eighty spaces.
Earl Sandford, P.E., explained that the residential use for the restaurant that had been used by the previous owner had been discontinued and as such a note was added to the plan to remove the residential use.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that changes that had been made to the entryway of the Gravity Tavern were shown in the plan was well as the addition of a chimney and a covered area of the back deck.
Earl Sandford, P.E., asked the Board for any questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
The Chairman asked the audience for questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
The Coordinator clarified for the record that the residential use for the restaurant was a grandfathered use and if stopped the applicant had two years to reinstate the residential use. She added that after two years the property could never go back to residential. She stated that the Planning Office also called DOT and was waiting for response with regard to the permitting process. The Chairman asked if the Coordinator could send a notice to the applicant with regard to the residential use to ensure that she is aware of the two year reinstatement period.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if a compliance hearing was necessary. The Coordinator stated that the Board could make that determination. Peter Hogan pointed out that the parking area was one of the biggest areas of contention. The Chairman stated that he had seen the area and there were boulders set up along the edge of the parking lot.
Peter Hogan stated that the abutters were concerned with lights shinning into their windows. The Coordinator stated that the only abutter who had appeared at the last hearing was Bill Foster. The Chairman added that Bill Foster’s only concern was with regard to noise.
Jay Marden asked if the applicant decided to reoccupy the residential area of the restaurant would it be necessary for her to advise the Board. The Coordinator stated that if the applicant had removed everything inside the home that made it a residential unit then most likely a building permit would need to be obtained to make it residential again. Jay Marden asked if the applicant would have to come before the Board if they decided to use the residential area as an office space temporarily and then convert back into bedrooms within the two year period. The Coordinator answered was not sure.
Peter Hogan commented that the applicant should incorporate part of their cook’s pay as rent and have him live at the restaurant in an effort not to lose the residential use. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the applicant did not believe Peter Hogan’s statement was an option. Peter Hogan stated that the property had been grandfathered. The Coordinator advised that during an informational discussion with Town departments Mrs. Montgomery had stated that her sister had been renting the property and had been advised of the two year period. Peter Hogan stated that Mrs. Montgomery probably thought that they could have someone live at the property for only two years.
The Chairman asked if the Board was of the opinion that the property needed to be viewed or if the Board was satisfied. Peter Hogan asked if the abutters had been given notice of the updated plan. The Chairman answered that the abutters had been advised at the last hearing that the hearing was being adjourned to this evening. Peter Hogan stated that as long as the statutory requirements had been made to the abutters that the plan was going to be reviewed and considered then he did not have a problem with the plan.
Mark Suennen asked what the acronym FIRM stood for under note eight of the plan. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that FIRM was an acronym for Flood Insurance Rate Map and noted that it related to FEMA.
The Chairman asked for any other questions or comments; there were no questions or comments.
Earl Sandford, P.E., agreed to a date certain of June 22, 2010, for the date of approval.
Peter Hogan suggested that the applicant remove note 4, d, that eliminated the residential use in the restaurant. Mark Suennen pointed out that the decision was the owner’s not Earl Sandford, P.E.’s. Peter Hogan stated that the issue should be discussed with the owner. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he would discuss the issue with the owners.
The Coordinator advised that if the elimination of the residential use remained on the site plan the applicant would have to amend the site plan to reinstate the residential use. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he would remove the note as it had nothing to do with the current site plan.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the Non-Residential Site Plan Application by KMMM Properties, LLC, by Kirsten Montgomery, Kiki's Restaurant and Gravity Tavern, to add a fenced lawn area off the tavern; to amend the hours of operation; to amend the southerly parking lot to reflect improvements; and, to show other improvements since the last site plan approval for Tax Map/Lot #19/6, 35 Mont Vernon Road, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
Submission of a minimum of four (4) blue/blackline copies of the revised plat, including all checklist corrections, waivers and any corrections as noted at this hearing.
The deadline date for compliance with the conditions precedent shall be June 22, 2010, the confirmation of which shall be an administrative act, not requiring further action by the Board. Should compliance not be confirmed by the deadline date and a written request for extension is not submitted by that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing under RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
Peter Hogan seconded the motion with the discussion that note four, d, be removed and it PASSED unanimously.
Earl Sandford, P.E.
Informal Session – John Neville
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he would like to speak with the Board informally on behalf of John Neville. Present in the audience were Willard Dodge, Rodney Towne and Brandy Mitroff.
Earl Sandford, P.E., pointed out the location of John Neville’s land on Whipplewill Road on the tax map. He noted that John Neville owned two lots one of which was re-zoned as commercial.
Earl Sandford, P.E., explained that the commercial lot was a ledge lot and John Neville was issued a cease and desist order because crushing the material was a disturbance to the area. He indicated that John Neville had asked Earl Sandford, P.E., to find out what needed to be done so that the ledge could be removed to create an even grade between both lots.
Earl Sandford, P.E., asked the Board without being specific what type of buffer might be required. He acknowledged that the Board may not be able to answer his question this evening but noted that John Neville was interested in moving forward with this project and eventually constructing a large commercial building on the platform that will be created.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he was looking for generalities from the Board relative to issues and other projects that have had commercial districts with residential abutters.
Peter Hogan did not believe the Planning Board had jurisdiction over earth removal. Mark Suennen clarified that the Planning Board was involved with gravel pits.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the Town had provided him with two options: 1) create a site plan for the building; or 2) apply for a gravel pit permit. He indicated that John Neville would rather create the site plan for the building.
Dean Mehlhorn asked what the grade difference was from low to high points. Earl Sandford, P.E., estimated that there was about a 15’ cut but it could go up to 20’ or 25’. Christine Quirk asked if John Neville was looking to level the lot. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered yes.
The Chairman asked if all the lots surrounding John Neville’s lot were residential. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that John Neville had informed him that all but one abutter was fine with the project. He noted that none of the abutter’s views would be impacted by the project.
Christine Quirk stated that she recalled when John Neville had initially appeared before the Board and that an abutter was concerned with lights going into his property; she asked for the abutter’s home to be identified on the map. Earl Sandford, P.E., pointed out the location of the abutter’s home and noted that the abutter worked the night shift and construction during the day was not desirable.
The Coordinator advised that the setbacks were bigger for commercial property abutting residential property. Earl Sandford, P.E., asked if the setbacks the Coordinator had referred were building setbacks. The Coordinator answered yes. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the building setbacks should not be an issue. He continued that he was concerned with the ledge. He pointed out the location of the proposed building. The Coordinator stated that under the landscaping requirements the Board could stipulate as part of the site plan what would be required as a buffer and planting. She also noted that minimal requirements existed for the buffers and that ledge could be done 1:1.
Peter Hogan asked what type of business John Neville was thinking of operating. He noted that the only reason he was asking was because sound tended to travel up and John Neville may be building himself an echo chamber. He also pointed out that consideration should be given to light going onto the abutting properties.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that they understood that removal of the ledge would be disturbing to someone trying sleep and as such they were looking for guidance as far as hours of operation. Peter Hogan commented that a reasonable person would not expect to be on the property blasting ledge on a Sunday afternoon. Earl Sandford, P.E., indicated that he was not looking for operation time beyond normal hours. The Chairman asked if the business would create noise other than for the construction. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he was not familiar enough with the plans for the property.
Rodney Towne, Selectmen, stated that this matter had come before the Selectmen as a complaint from a neighbor. He stated that the cease and desist order was based on the absence of a gravel pit permit and there were no plans at the time for construction. He added that a neighbor was concerned about the hours of operation for construction.
MARRINAN, WILLIAM & DONNA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/38
MARRINAN, WILLIAM & DONNA, Cont.
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Rick Kohler,Willard Dodge and Rodney Towne.
The Chairman stated that the items to discuss were the security estimate, determiningwhat form the security will be submitted and voting on the CUP.
The Chairman asked if Rick Kohler had any changes to make to the plan. Rick Kohler stated that he did not have any changes to make to the plan. He stated that the applicant had requested that a conditional approval be given to the CUP to reflect that the new owner would be encumbered by the bonding fees. He continued that the applicant had no intentions of developing the property and that he was simply posturing himself to make the property marketable by having all the permits in order. The Chairman advised that in accordance with the Town’s Zoning Ordinance the bond would need to be submitted at the time of the submission of approval. Rick Kohler clarified that he was not requesting a waiver but was asking for a condition of approval that at the time the property was sold and developed the new owner
would be required to secure funds for improvements.
The Coordinator stated that the only way the Board could consider the request was with regard to the date for the conditions precedent. She explained that the date for submitting the bond could be the same date as the expiration of the dredge and fill permit. The Chairman asked if this had ever been done before. The Coordinator answered no. Rick Kohler added that the applicant’s request was that the funds be secured within the time frame of the permit, five years.
The Chairman asked what form would be used and if it needed to be specified now. The Coordinator stated that the form could be stated in cash or letter of credit. Rick Kohler stated that it might be prudent to require that a new guarantee worksheet be filled when the property was sold to account for future cost increases.
The Chairman suggested that the applicant table the application until they were ready to move forward. He pointed out that the abutters would need to be re-noticed. He asked the Coordinator how many abutters needed to be noticed. The Coordinator answered seven. The Chairman indicated that to re-notice seven abutters would cost the applicant about $50.00 and there would not be the issue of conditions upon conditions.
Mark Suennen pointed out that Bob Todd, LLS, may not be holding the plans in perpetuity and that he does not have a fiduciary responsibility to the future purchaser of the property. He clarified that the cost may end up being $50.00 plus the cost the new owner would incur from negotiating with Bob Todd, LLS, to purchase the plan. Christine Quirk stated that it was not the responsibility of the Board to be involved in the costs.
The Chairman stated that he did not have an issue with tabling the issue. Peter Hogan commented that he did not feel like breaking any new ground. Christine Quirk stated that she was not looking to set any precedents. Mark Suennen noted that he would be in favor of approving the proposal but would go with the consensus of the Board.
Rick Kohler advised that the wetlands crossing needed to be implemented under the jurisdictional oversight of the Wetlands Bureau and as such he believed the Town would be protected the Town from liability. The Chairman stated that he was not concerned with the standards of the plan. He continued that the issue was granting the request and setting a precedent. Rick Kohler asked if there was ever a time that a CUP was being sought by a landowner that was not to be implemented by that owner. The Chairman answered the request Rick Kohler had made had never been granted.
Rick Kohler stated that he was not trying to set any precedents but was just trying to do what seemed most logical.
The Chairman stated that the Board would take a vote to either table the request or deny it. The Coordinator advised that the applicant could also choose to withdraw the request without prejudice. Rick Kohler stated that he would like to withdraw the request without prejudice. The Chairman indicated that the Board could also adjourn the hearing to the next meeting to give Rick Kohler an opportunity to speak with the applicant. Rick Kohler decided that adjourning the meeting was the best option.
Peter Hogan thought that a long deadline for submission of the bond with a 10% escalation factor per year might be okay. The Chairman suggested that the cleanest way to deal with the situation was to have the application withdrawn and resubmitted when someone was ready to install the wetland crossing. Peter Hogan agreed.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the Conditional Use Permit application for William & Donna Marrinan, Wilson Hill Road Tax Map/Lot #6/38, to June 8, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk 06/22/2010
| 
