The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular members Peter Hogan and Mark Suennen, and Ex-officio Rodney Towne. 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 Jay Marden, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Steve Caggiano, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Christine Quirk, Selectman, John Neville, Ken Lombard, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Jeff Rider, P.E., Shiv Shrestha, Dana Lorden, Earl Sandford, P.E., Jed Callen, Esq., Riitta & Larry Nemon, April Teshima, Heather Minnich, John Melito, Eileen Mahoney, Dave Elliott, Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Kris Stewart, Jeff Fillmore, Ben Defilippo, Robert Bird, Kathy Derby, Katie Napierkoski, Jennifer Webber, Laura Miller, and Valarie Thorgerson.
Planning Board Goals, including Workforce Housing, Parking, and Commercial Lots
Present in the audience were Jay Marden, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Steve Caggiano, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Christine Quirk, Selectman, and John Neville.
The Chairman noted that this evening’s discussion of the Planning Board goals was a continuation of the previous meeting that would focus on the following items:
The rezoning of three parcels of land from Residential-Agricultural, “R-A” District, Commercial;
Workforce/Multi-Family Housing;
Parking; and
Signage
The Chairman indicated that the Board needed to decide whether or not to rezone the following parcels of Residential-Agricultural, “R-A” District, land to Commercial, as suggested by the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee:
Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & 15/17 – Klondike Corner area
Tax Map/Lot #5/28, 5/21-2, 5/25 – NH Route 77 a/k/a Weare Road
Tax Map/Lot #8/106 & 8/107 – NH Route 13 South a/k/a Mont Vernon Road
The Board members reviewed the location of the above-referenced parcels on the appropriate tax maps.
Rodney Towne commented that he did not have a problem with rezoning Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & 15/17 as long as an apparent right-of-way was not an issue.
Mark Suennen pointed out that Tax Map/Lot #8/106 & 8/107 presented terrain that was uphill with huge slopes. Peter Hogan questioned how the rezoning affected the current use of the property. The Coordinator explained that any time rezoning was conducted the present use could continue until such a time it was abandoned, noting, that after a two year period of abandonment the use would no longer be allowed if it was prohibited in the district.
Mark Suennen commented that Tax Map/Lot #8/106 & 8/107 appeared to be a reasonable extension of the commercial area that existed north of the river.
Rodney Towne stated that Tax Map/Lot #5/28, 5/21, 5/25, were steep and wet and as such he suggested that the property be reviewed again to verify that a commercial use of the property was viable. Mark Suennen questioned the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee’s reasoning for suggesting the rezoning. The Coordinator answered that the parcels were in a corridor of existing commercial district. Mark Suennen stated that when reviewing a tax map it made sense to rezone the property to Commercial; however, a closer review of the property indicated that it was not practical to rezone.
The Board agreed to not rezone Tax Map/Lot #5/28 and to review the possible rezoning of Tax Map/Lot #5/21-2 & 5/25.
Mark Suennen asked why rezoning had not been proposed to Tax Map/Lot #15/18 as it appeared to be in the same region as Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & 15/17. It was Mark Suennen’s opinion that Tax Map/Lot #15/18 was better suited for Commercial zoning than Tax Map/Lot # 15/17 which appeared to be landlocked. The Chairman believed that a house existed on Tax Map/Lot #15/18.
Mark Suennen stated that Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & 15/17 appeared reasonable to be rezoned to Commercial. Rodney Towne and Peter Hogan both commented that the Board should move forward with the rezoning of Tax Map/Lot #15/16 & #15/17.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator for the next step in the rezoning process. The Coordinator stated that the property owners would be contacted to be advised of the potential rezoning and to obtain their thoughts on the matter.
The Chairman stated that the Board had received proposals for scopes of work and cost estimates from the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission to update the Town’s Master Plan and the Water Resources Management Plan. He asked the Coordinator if the Board was responsible for the funding. The Coordinator answered that the money would be requested through a Warrant Article.
The Chairman asked the Board to review the proposals and cost estimates and be ready for a discussion at the next meeting.
The Chairman asked the members of the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee, who were present, Mark Suennen and Jay Marden, if anything should be added to the current list of recommendations for future consideration. Jay Marden stated that he had not reviewed the recommendations for future consideration; the Chairman provided a copy of the recommendations.
Mark Suennen asked Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, for a status update on New Hampshire adopting the National Rehabilitation Building Code. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, answered that there had not been any recent discussion at the State level with regard to adopting the National Rehabilitation Building Code.
Mark Suennen advised the Board that he had suggested to the Committee members that they meet and discuss the recommendations and provide the Board with any updates for an October meeting.
Jay Marden asked if the Board was aware of any reasons as to why the Workforce Housing Overlay District failed. The Chairman stated that he was unsure and asked if the Coordinator had any information relative to the number of towns that had adopted a Workforce Housing Overlay District or other Workforce Housing Zoning. The Coordinator answered that she had not been able to find any such information. Jay Marden believed that a lack of publicity contributed to the failure of the adoption of the Workforce Housing Overlay District. He added that it was his impression that people misunderstood the Workforce Housing Overlay District and believed that it would provide low income housing. Mark Suennen pointed out that three articles had been printed in the New Boston Bulletin that explained the
Workforce Housing Overlay District, misconceptions, and reasons to support. The Chairman added that the Committee was concerned with misconceptions of the Workforce Housing Overlay District and had worked to publicize it properly. Jay Marden commented that publicity was essential prior to the next vote. Rodney Towne proposed the possibility that the three articles had provided voters with information and the vote was, therefore, accurate. Peter Hogan asked how the Workforce Housing Overlay District could realistically be accomplished if the cost of property was a fixed value. Mark Suennen stated that the Committee agreed with Peter Hogan in that the truest barrier to Workforce/Multi-Family Housing was the cost of land. He continued that the statute stated that towns could address the barriers that existed in their regulations to allow for the development of Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Jay Marden believed that reducing acreage and
frontage would help the owner afford to develop Workforce/Multi-Family Housing. Peter Hogan commented that anyone with any experience would recognize that there was always a starting point and when that did not produce the desired effect it would go a little bit further. He believed that people would question how much of a further stretch it would be to execute a requirement of under valuing a certain percentage of property so that people could build an affordable home on it. Rodney Towne commented that people realized that the Workforce Housing Overlay District brought cluster housing without open space. Mark Suennen could see how Rodney Towne’s statement might be true for some people.
Mark Suennen questioned whether the Board should wait to move forward on this matter to see if the State determined that they wanted new legislation to be enacted or if it was worth having the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee review what had been completed last year and determine what was practical for this year. Jay Marden stated that it was his understanding that the State had already made a determination regarding Workforce/Multi-Family Housing and that the only question was how the State would enforce it if the Town did not adhere to the statute. Mark Suennen explained that the State had enacted the legislation in 2007 and since had changed the date of requirement twice. He added that he anticipated that the date of requirement could be changed again.
The Chairman asked that the Committee meet together for at least one meeting and provided updated recommendations to the Board.
The Chairman indicated that the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee had made the following suggestions with regard to Parking:
Consider using parking maximums rather than minimums;
Discontinue the practice of allowing parking within the first 25% of the front lot setback; and
Consider keeping the minimum amount of parking spaces, perhaps some revisions to lower the number but add a maximum for each use.
The Chairman asked for the Board’s opinions on pursing the Parking suggestions made by the Small Scale Planned Commercial District Sub-Committee. Peter Hogan stated that the Board should not pursue the suggestion of using parking maximums rather than minimums. Mark Suennen agreed with Peter Hogan’s statement.
The Chairman asked if the Board wanted to pursue the suggestion of discontinuing the practice of allowing parking within the first 25% of the front lot setback. Peter Hogan stated that the aforementioned suggestion was better left to site plan review. The Coordinator pointed out that the parking requirements were contained in the Zoning Ordinance so a variance would be required to do anything differently. She stated that she knew of towns that had moved things like parking from Zoning to Subdivision or Site Plan Regulations and she could look into this idea if the Board wanted her to. The Chairman asked if it had to be removed from zoning to be allowed as site plan review. The Coordinator answered yes. The Chairman questioned if there were other issues the Board should think about
before removing this from zoning.
The Chairman stated that the Board would not move forward with the suggestion to consider using parking maximums rather than minimums; that the Coordinator would further review removing the practice of allowing parking within the first 25% of the front lot setback from zoning; and, the Board would not move forward with the suggestion to consider keeping the minimum amount of parking spaces but add a maximum number as well.
The discussion was suspended.
Meeting with Sign Committee to discuss Committee’s proposal and progress
Present in the audience were Jay Marden, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Steve Caggiano, Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, Christine Quirk, Selectman, John Neville, and Dave Elliot.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, appeared before the Board as a member of the Sign Committee. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement stated that the Sign Committee was comprised of four individuals, himself, Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, Christine Quirk, Selectman, and Fred Pineault. He noted that the Committee was reformatting the layout of the zoning ordinance section to make it easier to read and comprehend. He stated that the Committee was present to discuss their ideas with the Planning Board to make sure that everyone was on the same page before a lot of work was done that may not meet the Board's idea of what should be done. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Official said that the Committee was using as a starting point several recent examples of the Signs section of
the Zoning Ordinance in action that had made him think that it needed a little work.
Ed Hunter noted that the Committee was looking at the size of signs that would be permitted in town and how to determine the appropriate size for a particular site rather than having a blanket 100 square foot limitation. He thought that the size might be limited by the size of the building the sign was to be placed on or in front of so that there would be more relativity to the size of the lot or building in question. He further noted that this may or may not change the overall amount of signage permitted per lot.
Ed Hunter next noted that the Committee would be reviewing those signs that would not require a permit. He went on to say that the Signs section would be split up into general information relative to all signs and then information regarding signs in residential districts and signs in commercial and industrial districts. He also noted that the height of signs would be discussed, noting that the current ordinance allowed a 30' high sign to be installed. Ed Hunter noted that the Committee had been thinking that 8 - 10' in residential districts and 15' in commercial districts was more appropriate. He pointed out a discrepancy in the existing ordinance that allowed a 30' high sign in the commercial district but a sign not to exceed the height of the building in the residential district which, when strictly interpreted,
meant that someone could propose a 35' high sign in the residential district because 35' was the maximum height of a structure in that district. He noted that the Committee would fix this conflict and make sure that heights were more appropriate for each district.
Ed Hunter noted that the Committee would also be taking into account the changeable sign boards that business owners wished to use to advertise specials or sales and which currently were not permitted. He finished his presentation by noting that the Coordinator was writing a Purpose statement for the proposed new section.
The Chairman inquired as to when the Committee would complete their review and amendments to the Sign Ordinance. The Coordinator answered that a completion date had not been set; however, the review would be completed in time for the required Zoning public hearings in December.
Mark Suennen asked if the Sign Ordinance was being replaced or simply patched up. The Coordinator advised that the Sign Ordinance would be replaced.
Mark Suennen asked if the Committee proposed to continue the limitation of 100 s.f. or to calculate sign size based on building size or shape or scale. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, answered that the Committee had been discussing a limitation but had not yet set one. He added that the Committee was reviewing the Sign Ordinances of sixteen other towns.
Mark Suennen asked if the Committee had addressed temporary signs in relation to permits. Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, answered that the Committee had separated signs that did not require permits as well as the time limitations for temporary signs to be posted.
Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement, stated that the Board of Selectmen’s Ordinance needed to be referenced in the Sign Ordinance with regard to posting signs on the Town Common and other Town owned property.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator if the proposed Cistern Regulations had been approved by the Fire Wards yet. The Coordinator answered that she had not received anything back from the Fire Wards.
The Chairman reiterated that the Board members needed to review the proposal and cost estimates for the updates to the Master Plan and Water Resources Management Plan for discussion at the next meeting. He asked the Coordinator to provide further information on parking. He noted that if either the Workforce/Multi-Family Housing Committee and/or the Sign Committee wanted to meet with the Board for further discussion they were invited to do so. He asked for any comments or questions from the Board; there were no questions or comments from the Board.
The Board took a short recess.
FREDERICK K. LORDEN REVOCABLE TRUST (OWNER)
HARVEY J. DUPUIS FAMILY TRUST (OWNER)
S & R HOLDINGS, LLC (APPLICANT)
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/Major Subdivision/42 Lots
Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads
Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience were Jay Marden, Dwight Lovejoy, Selectman, Steve Caggiano, Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, John Neville, Ken Lombard, Morgan Hollis, Esq., Shiv Shrestha, Jeff Rider, P.E., Dana Lorden, and Jed Callen, Esq.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He advised that the application was determined to be complete at the August 24, 2010, meeting, with a deadline for Board action of October 28, 2010. He noted that there were no outstanding issues for final approval. He added that a site walk had taken place since the last meeting.
The Chairman stated that the Town Engineer had requested that the applicant submit a response letter regarding the engineering review addressing how changes were made to meet the Town Engineer’s comments. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that they would do so from now on.
Jeff Rider, P.E., stated that at the last hearing the applicant had submitted a waiver request for the construction of a driveway off McCurdy Road at a 9% grade. He noted that the Board had decided not to take action on the waiver until after the site walk. He asked if the Board was able to provide the applicant with guidance with regard to the waiver request as the site walk had been completed. The Chairman answered that the Board would address the waiver request.
The Chairman asked if there were any other items the applicant intended on discussing. Jeff Rider, P.E., advised that the applicant had received a letter from the Town Engineer earlier in the day and was not prepared to discuss its contents at this hearing.
The Chairman informed the Board that a waiver request had been submitted for a driveway on lot #42 as it entered McCurdy Road at a 9% slope. Jeff Rider, P.E., identified the location of the driveway on the plan. He explained that the driveway had been relocated in order to provide several hundred feet of sight distance from both directions.
The Chairman asked for comments and/or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen indicated that he had viewed the proposed driveway location and there was adequate sight distance. He explained that the sight distance should be about 435’ for a new design and it appeared that the proposed driveway’s sight distance was close to that number. He continued that he did not have a problem with the proposed driveway accessing the 9% roadway.
Rodney Towne questioned if further cutting was necessary to provide additional sight distance. Mark Suennen answered that part of the existing stonewall may need to be removed in order to get the alignment.
The Chairman asked for public input on the matter of the waiver request; there was no public input.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver and allow a driveway at the north western end of lot #42 on the 9% grade on McCurdy Road. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman indicated that the Board was going to postpone action on the pending runoff waiver request until after the Engineer’s review of the plans was completed. Jeff Rider, P.E., anticipated that the Board would not be ready to take action on the waiver this evening.
Jeff Rider, P.E., reiterated that the applicant had received comments from the Town Engineer today and was not ready to discuss those comments. He requested that the hearing be continued for two weeks at which time the Engineer’s comments would be discussed as well as any guidance from the Board. He added that he would submit a letter prior to the meeting highlighting discussion points.
Jeff Rider, P.E., advised that dedication of additional property along McCurdy Road could not be done as it conflicted with a previous negotiation with an open space covenant with NH DES and the Army Corps of Engineers. The Chairman asked Jeff Rider, P.E., to further explain the dedication of additional property. Jeff Rider, P.E., explained that McCurdy Road was listed as variable width road and the Town Engineer had suggested that the applicant donate a sliver of land to the Town in order to make the edge of the right-of-way a consistent 25’ from the center line. He continued that if the aforementioned suggestion was completed it would take away land from the open space and would void the Army Corps of Engineers and DES agreement. The Chairman asked how much land would be given to the Town in the Engineer’s suggestion. Jeff Rider, P.E., indicated that he was unsure of the amount of the land. The Chairman requested that the amount of land be determined; Jeff Rider, P.E.,
agreed to provide the information.
Mark Suennen asked if the land to create the 25’ right-of-way from the center line needed to be donated to the Town or if an easement could be utilized. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that he would need to check the agreement.
The Chairman asked if the bond amount for the project’s wetland crossings had been included in the total bond for the road construction. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered yes.
The Chairman asked if the legal documents relative to the Home Owners Association had been reviewed by Town Counsel. The Coordinator advised that the conservation easement had been changed to a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. She continued that the State was okay with the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions language replacing the conservation easement. She added that Kirsten Pulkinen, DES Wetlands Bureau, had indicated that she would be sending a letter that confirmed the language and Dredge and Fill Permit were acceptable.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that after speaking with DES and the Open Space Committee the Conservation Commission was not excited about this sensitive piece of land being managed by a Home Owners Association. He continued that he had spoken with Dana Lorden during the site walk about the possibility of deeding the land to the Town contingent on securing an entity to hold the easement. He indicated that since the site walk the PLC had stated that they would entertain holding the easement. He added that the easement may negate the need for an easement for a right-of-way on McCurdy Road as the Town would subsequently own the land in question. Rodney Towne commented that he doubted Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission’s, suggestion was as easy as it had been represented due to the involvement of
the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Chairman asked for input from the applicant regarding Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission’s, suggestion relative to the easement. Morgan Hollis, Esq., stated that the applicant did not have an issue with either of the solutions; however, he explained that under the Cluster Ordinance the lots were smaller because of the open space being part of the subdivision. He continued that a conservation easement could be given on top of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and appropriate modifications would be made to reflect that the Conservation Commission had full authority to conduct inspections and enforcement. He noted that the homeowners would continue to own the land in common because they were required to under the Cluster Ordinance. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, questioned the accuracy
that the homeowners were required to maintain ownership in common under the Cluster Ordinance. Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that he would be happy to work with Town Counsel and/or the Conservation Commission’s Counsel regarding this matter. He added that the applicant did not object giving the land to the Town and would provide an answer on this matter at the next hearing. Ken Lombard, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, agreed with Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, that a conservation easement would be preferable to a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions.
The Chairman stated that there was an issue with the lot numbering. Jeff Rider, P.E., stated he believed he had seen the comment relative to lot numbering but had not really gone over the Coordinator’s comments in detail. He noted he would address the Coordinator’s comments when he received the Town Engineer’s comments and make appropriate revisions.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that the applicant intended on bonding the entire project and not in phases. Morgan Hollis, Esq., answered that the applicant intended on bonding Phase I of the project, the construction of the road to the cul-de-sac. The Chairman asked for the locations of Phase I and Phase II to be identified. Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out the locations of Phase I and Phase II on the plan.
Mark Suennen readdressed the question of ownership in common under the Cluster Ordinance. He read Section 401.6 of the Open Space Development Standards, which offered several ways for the open space land to be protected. He surmised that the Board could agree to the Conservation Commission’s suggestion that the PLC hold the easement for the Town. Morgan Hollis, Esq., indicated that the applicant would be agreeable to the proposed suggestion. He added that initially the Conservation Commission did not want the conservation easement. Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, stated that there had been a problem with finding an entity to hold the conservation easement.
The Chairman stated that the Fire Wards had requested the installation of a cistern for the subdivision. Jeff Rider, P.E., pointed out that all of the proposed houses would have sprinklers installed. He explained that the installation of a cistern had been discussed if the applicant intended on extending the cul-de-sac longer than 1,000’ and the issue has since gone away. The Coordinator clarified that the issue of the cistern had not gone away and the Fire Wards continued to request a 10,000 gallon cistern in addition to the sprinklers. Morgan Hollis, Esq., pointed out that the Subdivision Regulations required either a cistern or sprinklers but not both. The Chairman asked for opinions from the Board on this matter; none were given. The Chairman asked that the Coordinator provide the email from
the Fire Wards with regard to the request for the cisterns for the next hearing. Peter Hogan commented that the request should be disregarded based on the current Subdivision Regulations. The Coordinator added that the current Subdivision Regulations stated that the installation of a cistern was the applicant’s choice; however, the Regulations also allowed and had always allowed for the Fire Wards to make a recommendation that the Planning Board would need to act on. She explained that the Board needed to act on the Fire Ward’s recommendation. The Chairman indicated that the Board would act upon the recommendation at the next hearing. He noted that the applicant’s position was that there was not a need for a cistern as sprinklers were being installed in all of the proposed houses.
The Chairman stated that with regard to a road connection the applicant was subject to Susan and Indian Falls Road being constructed through binder and the usual safety items being installed in order to receive Certificates of Occupancy for this subdivision. He continued that the aforementioned note was placed on three other subdivisions that tied into this subdivision and as such a note should also be placed on the plans for this subdivision. Jeff Rider, P.E., agreed to add the note to the plan.
The Chairman advised that the Road Agent was requiring a full turn-around for the temporary cul-de-sac.
The Chairman invited comments or questions from the audience. Jay Marden of Gregg Mill Road asked if the request from the Fire Ward’s relative to the installation of a cistern would be addressed at the next hearing. The Chairman answered that the Board would act on the Fire Ward’s request at the next hearing.
The Coordinator asked if the applicant had applied to amend the State Subdivision approvals with regard to the Susan Road lots. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered yes.
Burr Tupper, Conservation Commission, asked for the total amount of open space that was involved in the subdivision. Jeff Rider, P.E., answered that the open space was broken up into two places, one in the amount of 72 acres and the second 32 acres. Rodney Towne stated that the information provided to the Board was that the total amount of open space was 97.14.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the application of Frederick Lorden, Revocable Trust (Owner), Harvey J. Dupuis Family Trust (Owner), S& R Holdings, LLC (Applicant) Location: McCurdy & Susan Roads, Tax Map/Lot #12/19, 96 & 93-34, Residential- Agricultural “R-A” District, to October 12, 2010, at 8:30 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
JOHN & DENISE M. NEVILLE
Design Review/Major Site Plan
Development of Lot to Accommodate Commercial Building
Location: Whipplewill Road
Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24
Commercial “COM” District
Present in the audience were Jay Marden, Jed Callen, Esq., Earl Sandford, P.E., John Neville, Steve Caggiano, Ken Lombard, Dave Elliot, Jed Callen, Esq., John Melito, April Teshima, Eileen Mahoney, Ben DeFilippo, Larry & Riitta Nemon, Valarie Thorgerson, Heather Minnich, Katie Napierkoski, Jennifer Webber, Laura Miller, Kathy Derby, and Robert Bird.
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He stated that a preliminary hearing was held on August 24, 2010, and as this was a preliminary application there was no deadline for Board action. He continued that the application was submitted on August 9, 2010, and a site walk was held on September 9, 2010.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the applicant currently owned and operated a shop off Route 114 on Whipplewill Road and had purchased the adjacent lot which he re-zoned Commercial to be compatible with his current operation. He explained that the applicant proposed to flatten the lot in preparation for construction of the proposed building. He stated that the option of utilizing cuts and fills to accomplish the goal of flattening the lot was problematic as the building would be more visible to the abutting residential neighbors and it would limit the ability to create a contiguous arrangement between the lots.
Earl Sandford, P.E., advised that the applicant had begun working through the ledge; however, stopped after receiving a letter from the Town that required him to apply for either a gravel pit permit or a site plan; the applicant chose to apply for a site plan.
Earl Sandford, P.E., pointed out the location of the lot with the proposed improvements on the plan. He indicated that excavation would be completed to create a level area for the proposed building. He identified the location of the travelled way and entrance. He noted that stormwater runoff would be treated by the proposed detention pond. The site would be graded to 1:1 with a ledge of 1:2 and a platform every 10’ to 15’ to break up the slope.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he was interested in feedback from the Board regarding their opinions of the proposed project. He added that because of the state of the economy the applicant was looking to extend the project as much as possible.
The Chairman indicated that the Board members had attended a site walk at which they started at the entrance of the lot and walked the driveway, noting that the Board had questioned the slope of the road where it met the driveway. He further indicated that the site walk continued to the location of the proposed building and out to the back of the property. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the grade of the road where it intersected the driveway was less than 10% and he estimated that it was between an 8% and 10% grade.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen asked if any test pitting had been completed. John Neville confirmed that six or seven test pits were completed showing about four to eight feet of dirt above the ledge.
Peter Hogan asked what the depth of the setback was around the perimeter of the lot line. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that there was a 30’ buffer that would be maintained. Peter Hogan asked what the required setback was from Commercial to Residential Districts. The Coordinator stated that there was a difference between required setbacks and landscaping buffers, both of which were addressed in the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman commented that there were existing berms on the property which would be maintained before the cut slope began. He noted that the building corners had been staked at the site walk and the building would not be visible from the abutters’ lots if placed at the lower grade desired by the applicant.
Rodney Towne asked if the applicant chose to move forward with the second option for development how much fill would be required to place the building up higher. John Neville answered that about 20,000 to 30,000 yards would be needed.
Peter Hogan asked for the size of the proposed building. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the proposed building was 100’ x 100’. The Chairman inquired as to the height of the building. John Neville explained that the proposed building would be 24’ in the center and 22’ at the outer edges.
The Chairman invited questions and comments from the audience. Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he was an attorney at Baldwin & Callen out of Concord, NH, and he was representing nineteen neighbors with regard to the above-captioned matter. He asked if the Board had received the comments he had emailed on September 27, 2010. The Chairman confirmed receipt of the comments and noted that they had been received this evening. He advised that information should be submitted a week prior to the meeting to allow time for the Board members to review.
Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he would summarize his comments briefly. He made note that the comments that had been submitted reflected the representation of fifteen neighbors and he wanted to amend that number to reflect nineteen, five abutters and fourteen neighbors. He stated that he would attempt to be brief; however, he wanted to be complete enough to do justice this evening. The Chairman argued that if the completeness was based on the submitted comments than he could be brief in his synopsis as the Board had the comments and would review and be ready to discuss at the next hearing. Jed Callen, Esq., agreed that he would be brief and added that he would not go into the excruciating detail of his comments; however, he noted that the nature of the process was that he received no points for brevity but for
completeness. He continued that should this matter be brought to court the record was critical and he wanted the minutes to reflect that he had made this point.
Jed Callen, Esq., advised that the Planning Board could not, under the law, approve the proposed site plan because it violated Section 4.14 of the Site Plan Review Regulations that provided that all developments shall meet the standards and requirements in the Town’s Zoning requirements. He continued that the Commercial District listed permitted uses and uses allowed only by special exception, specifically, he indicated that removal of earth product was only allowed by special exception. He noted that the definition of the removal of earth product was the removal of loam, sand, gravel, stone, or other fill material for sale in commercial quantities or for use in another location. He stated that the important point to be made was that nothing in the earth removal definition tied the definition of removal of earth
products to the requirement for an earth removal permit under the draft ordinance or RSA 155-E.
The Chairman commented that Jed Callen, Esq., appeared to be reading directly from the comments he had submitted and he reiterated that the Board had a copy of the comments and would review them.
Jed Callen, Esq., stated that he would continue and be brief. He stated that the Board could not approve the site plan because it required a special exception. He stated that an additional reason the site plan could not be approved was that the requirement to obtain all necessary permits had not been met, i.e., an earth removal permit. He pointed out that the applicant would argue that the earth removal was incidental to construction and therefore would not require a permit. He stated that it was somewhat inconceivable to construe [this] to be incidental to construction based on the amount and the time scale. He continued that the Supreme Court had recently interpreted when earth removal was incidental to construction and exempt and when it was not; he referred the Board to the letter he had submitted for
further analysis of this argument.
Jed Callen, Esq., advised that based on the Site Plan Review Regulations, Sections 4.1, 4.4, 4.6, 4.10, 4.13, the Board could not approve the proposed site plan. He further advised that Section 4.4 of the Site Plan Review Regulations required 40’ and 50’ setbacks for side yards abutting Residential Districts. He argued that the proposed plan did not have the required 50’ side yard.
The Chairman asked for an explanation of Exhibit A that was included in the letter submitted from Jed Callen, Esq. Jed Callen, Esq., explained that Exhibit A was a summary of the exact gravel and sand excavation volumes for all twenty-two permitted gravel pits in New Boston over the last five years. He pointed out that his analysis showed the applicant would be considered the third largest gravel pit in New Boston with his projected excavation.
The Chairman asked for an explanation of Exhibit D that was included in the letter submitted from Jed Callen, Esq. Jed Callen, Esq., explained that Exhibit D was a letter from the New Boston Building Department advising that the applicant needed to obtain a gravel permit to excavate on his property or a site plan. He commented that he did not believe the advice given to the applicant to obtain a site plan was bad if the applicant had proposed to build a commercial building with an entrance off Whipplewill Road with minimal sand and gravel removal. He noted that the applicant had chosen to excavate 48’ deep and he believed that was a gravel removal operation which was not permissible without a gravel permit and special exception.
The Chairman again stated that Jed Callen, Esq.’s, letter would be reviewed further before the next hearing.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the audience; there were no comments or questions.
Jed Callen, Esq., wanted to clarify that he was not presenting all dry legal arguments and that a human dimension existed. He pointed out that direct abutters April Teshima and John Melito had been affected by the previous excavation that started in 2006 and had audio and video of the noise. The Chairman advised that April Teshima and John Melito both spoke at the last hearing to this regard.
The Chairman asked for clarification that five of Jed Callen, Esq.’s, clients were abutters and the rest were neighbors. Jed Callen, Esq., explained that all nineteen clients lived on Whipplewill Road and would be affected by traffic.
Rodney Towne commented that he believed Attorney Callen was wrong in his assumptions and suggested that Town Counsel review the letter to make that determination. Peter Hogan also believed that Jed Callen, Esq.’s, interpretations were wrong. He explained that the Planning Board used a set of regulations that were applied equally to everyone. He pointed out that abutters did not get a vote on whether or not an application was approved. He continued that abutters had an opportunity to vote on the regulations when they were presented for a Town vote. He stated that when a decision was made on this application he wanted the abutters to be aware that the Board was not disregarding their feelings or their neighborhood.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions. Eileen Mahoney of Whipplewill Road advised the Board that her son had asthma and she had documentation from his doctor relative to his condition. She stated that the plume of stone dust that would cover her home from the proposed excavation would harm her son. Peter Hogan stated that should the application be legally approved a fair request would be that any dust created be controlled and not be allowed to leave the site. Eileen Mahoney agreed with Peter Hogan’s statement. Peter Hogan commented that the type of information Eileen Mahoney shared was extremely important to the Planning Board as they may have control over alleviating concerns from the neighborhood, i.e., shielding views and controlling dust. Eileen Mahoney asked if noise
could be controlled. Rodney Towne noted that noise was indicative of a commercial site. John Melito of 26 Whipplewill Road placed an audio/video recording on the Board’s table of noise from the previous excavation. Peter Hogan commented that should the application be approved there were ways for the Planning Board to require that the noise be kept at a reasonable level. He continued that the Board had requested blasting during certain hours on other sites. Eileen Mahoney stated that her property suffered damage from the previous blasting completed by the applicant and questioned if the matter needed to be brought to court to be resolved. Peter Hogan answered that he was unsure of the answer to Eileen Mahoney’s question but noted that any blasting moving forward required a survey of the area to be completed. John Neville confirmed that the blasting required pre-blast surveys and seismographic
readings during the blast. Mark Suennen stated that the Board did not give legal advice and suggested that Eileen Mahoney contact an attorney.
John Melito stated that he appreciated the concern that the applicant had given to the visual nature of the project but noted his major concern was the noise. He believed that it was unreasonable to subject the neighbors to the noise generated from jackhammers and crushers for a period of five years. Peter Hogan stated that he agreed with John Melito’s statement and noted that the Board could address such concerns in the site plan. John Neville clarified that when he had given the time period of two to five years to complete the project, it was not his intention to be working five days a week for eight hours a day. He stated that it would be an ongoing project due to the current economic conditions.
The Chairman summarized that the abutters were concerned with the potential for dust, noise, property damage, and the duration of the project; he asked for any additional concerns. Peter Hogan commented that no decisions would be made on the application until the abutter’s opinions were heard. The Chairman added that there would be further hearings on this matter.
Ben DeFilippo of 65 Whipplewill Road felt that the application for the proposed building was a skirt around the real purpose which he believed was for an excavation company to gain access to 55,000 yards of aggregate. The Chairman acknowledged Ben DeFilippo’s concern and noted that it was included in Jed Callen, Esq.’s, letter to the Board. Peter Hogan asked if Ben DeFilippo had a problem with that. Ben DeFilippo answered that he had a problem with the proposed building and was looking for a way to stop its construction. He continued that he was concerned with the potential decrease in value of his neighborhood. He also noted that he was concerned with the duration of the project and the potential damage to his property from the blasting.
Larry Nemon identified himself as an abutter. He explained that his bedroom window was approximately 100 yards from the proposed site and his well was located 90 yards from the site. He stated that the noise from the previous construction was tough to deal with. He continued that it was obvious that the applicant intended on conducting an excavation operation as it did not make any sense to remove the proposed amount of material simply to construct a building. He added that he was ill and would be in his bed for quite a few months and did not want to endure the potential noise that he had experienced with the previous blasting.
Valarie Thorgerson of 45 Whipplewill Road questioned why the proposed location of building could not be moved. Earl Sandford, P.E., explained that the applicant would be increasing the value of his property by constructing the building on a separate lot. Valarie Thorgerson stated that she understood Earl Sandford, P.E.’s, explanation but pointed out that the value of her neighborhood would decrease; she questioned whose value was more important.
Heather Minnich of 48 Whipplewill Road stated that she and her neighbors were surprised when the lot in question changed from a Residential lot to Commercial. Eileen Mahoney added that the abutters never received any notice about the rezoning of the lot. The Coordinator explained that there was a petition to rezone that was discussed by the Planning Board and subsequently it was placed on the ballot for the Town wide vote. Eileen Mahoney stated that when this matter was discussed by the Planning Board the meeting minutes reflected that Mr. Woodbury commented the following: “I guess this isn’t a really big deal because no abutters came.” She continued that the reason no abutters were present at the meeting was because they were not notified. Eileen Mahoney asked John Neville to do the right
thing. Peter Hogan pointed out that the Town voted to rezone the property to Commercial. April Teshima reiterated that the abutters had not been notified. Rodney Towne explained that the Warrant Articles were printed three months in advance of the vote and were posted. April Teshima asked where the Warrant Articles were posted. Mark Suennen answered that the Warrant Articles were posted at the Town Hall, Post Office, Dodge’s Store, and the Whipple Free Library.
John Melito commented that the process of how the rezoning was conducted in New Boston needed to be changed because although it was legal and there was no requirement to notify the abutters, it did not seem fair that people could vote on the change when it would not affect them.
Peter Hogan asked what the rationale was behind rezoning the property. John Neville explained that he purchased the land and approached the Town about rezoning for Commercial use.
Mark Suennen suggested that the letter from Jed Callen, Esq., be released to the applicant. Jed Callen, Esq., advised that the applicant was entitled to a copy and provided him with one.
Robert Bird of 87 Whipplewill Road believed that a study should be conducted to evaluate potential road improvements that would be needed to support the heavy equipment going on and off the site. He also indicated that the road width should be looked into to ensure that it would support the use of low-beds. Mark Suennen commented that Robert Bird appeared to be making a request for a Traffic Impact Study.
Laura Miller of 25 Whipplewill Road stated that she believed the lot in question was initially purchased for the purpose of the applicant building a house for his son. The Chairman acknowledged the frustration of the abutters with regard to the rezoning but noted there was nothing that could be done at this point to change it.
Kathy Derby of 66 Whipplewill Road pointed out that at the last meeting as well as this one the Board had made mention of time constraints of the meetings. She asked if it was possible to extend the hearing time from a half hour to at least an hour. The Chairman explained that after an hour the hearings tended to become unproductive as individuals repeat the same concerns. Mark Suennen encouraged the abutters to submit their concerns in written form. Riitta Nemon asked if the correspondence needed to be submitted one week prior to the meeting. Mark Suennen answered that correspondence could be submitted at any time. John Neville requested that he be provided with a copy of any correspondence so that he may be able to address concerns prior to the hearing. Peter Hogan suggested that the abutters
in addition to submitting their thoughts on stopping the project they should also submit suggestions of how the proposal could be made more tolerable should it be approved. Rodney Towne stressed that the concern over the property being rezoned was not an issue in front of the Board.
April Teshima inquired as to the proposed use of the building. Mark Suennen indicated that the Board was not aware of the proposed use of the building and suggested that she ask the applicant. John Neville stated that one possible use for part of the building was a welding shop. He added that alternatively he may move his existing shop into the proposed building.
Riitta Nemon of 107 Whipplewill Road commented that the concerns being expressed were relative to business and the community and not the applicant’s personality. She continued that when development was being considered the question of “what good does this do for the Town” should be asked. She stated that she did not believe the proposal would do the Town any good unless Whipplewill Road was straightened out and reinforced. She asked that personalities be kept out of the discussion as it offended her to think that she was waging this war against a nice man. She explained that she was not fighting against the man but the site. Peter Hogan commented that Riitta Nemon’s statement was nicely stated.
John Neville suggested setting up a meeting with all the abutters prior to the next hearing to discuss concerns.
Eileen Mahoney asked where correspondence should be mailed. The Chairman answered that the correspondence could be emailed, dropped off, or mailed to the Town Hall but noted a preference for signed correspondence. Eileen Mahoney asked if the Board wanted to review the documentation from her son’s doctor. The Chairman answered that the Board would like a copy of the documentation.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the work session of John E. & Denise M. Neville, Location: Whipplewill Road, Tax Map/Lot #3/63-24, Commercial “COM” District, to October 26, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. for a full hour. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Board took a five minute recess prior to the start of the next hearing.
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 audience were Steve Caggiano, Henry Kunhardt, P.E., Kris Stewart and Jeff Fillmore.
The Chairman stated that the applicant had requested an extension. He explained that the applicant was looking into eliminating the cul-de-sac known as Walker Way and reducing the density from seven lots to five lots in that area. He advised that the applicant was waiting for the Town to develop and provide a CUP application pursuant to Section 204.7,G, 5, of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that the applicant also agreed in their letter to extend the statutory deadline.
The Chairman advised that the Board had received a letter from Town Counsel that he wanted to release to the applicant; the Board agreed to release the letter.
Peter Hogan MOVED to release the letter from Town Counsel to the applicant. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the public hearing of Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, Location: Twin Bridge Road & West Lull Place, Tax Map/Lot #2/62-12 & 3/5, MHP w/R-1 allowance & “R-A” District, to October 12, 2010, at 9:00 p.m. Peter Hogan seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28, 2010
1. Approval of minutes of August 24, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of August 24, 2010, as written. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2a. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., and Kris Stewart, Francestown Sand & Gravel, to discuss amending existing Excavation Site Plan, Tax Map/Lot #1/2-8, Bunker Hill Road. (Applicant to be present)
2b.Letter dated 9/21/10, from Henry Kunhardt, P.E., with attached draft language for proposed amendment, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed item 2a and 2b together as they were related. The Chairman explained that the applicant was looking to reduce the size of the approved gravel pit area without prejudicing himself in the future when he decided to go back to the previously approved operation. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., added that the applicant was reducing the gravel area to avoid having to obtain and pay for a Site Specific Permit at this time. Kris Stewart wanted the minutes to reflect that a Site Specific Permit would be required in the future if he wished to expand the pit size.
The Chairman suggested changing the language in the last sentence of the proposed amendment to, “A future request for expansion back to the original approval”. He explained that the proposed amendment currently read that any expansion should be allowed. Henry Kunhardt, P.E., stated that he had attempted to address the Chairman’s concern in the sentence prior to the one in question.
The consensus of the Board was that the proposed amendment language was acceptable.
The Chairman asked if the applicant had anything to add. Kris Stewart stated that the proposed amendment made it clear that any future expansion required a Site Specific Permit and that expansion could not exceed the original plan. The Chairman wanted the applicant to understand that the proposed amendment was merely a recommendation that the Board was making to a future Board and that a risk existed that the future Board would not follow the current Board’s recommendation.
Kris Stewart asked if there was any way to indicate that the pit was grandfathered and originally approved for five acres. Peter Hogan commented that the record would emphasize Kris Stewart’s point. Rodney Towne agreed that the future Board would have to rely upon the record. Mark Suennen pointed out that the current Board had taken the advice of prior Boards when looking at new applications. It was his opinion that most Boards would take the advice of a former Board.
Kris Stewart decided that he wanted to move forward with reducing the pit size and amending the Excavation Site Plan.
Peter Hogan MOVED to accept the amendment to the Excavation Site Plan, Planning Board File, N9904. Rodney Towne seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION: Mark Suennen stated that it was this Board’s opinion that some future Board should allow for the expansion up to the originally approved size. The motion PASSED unanimously.
11. Letter dated September 1, 2010, from Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Eugene & Helen Caggiano, 252 Bunker Hill Road, re: Home Business Qualifications, for the Board’s review and discussion.
Present in the audience were Steve Caggiano and Jeff Fillmore. The Chairman stated that based on advertising it appeared that Eugene “Steve” Caggiano had been operating a Home Business without a Non-Residential Site Plan. He indicated that the Board was interested in confirming whether or not Steve Caggiano was operating a business anywhere on his property.
Steve Caggiano advised that he had purchased the Hersey Farm in 1998. He stated that he had contacted the Board of Selectmen’s office to inquire if he needed to obtain licensing in order to sell, lease, and/or train horses. He continued that the Selectmen’s Office had advised him to contact the State and register the farm and obtain a dealers license. He noted that he had sold a portion of the farm, more specifically, 252 Bunker Hill Road had been sold about five or six years ago. He stated that in 2002 he had built an indoor riding arena and again he approached the Selectmen to determine whether he needed to obtain any permits, i.e., stable permits. He was again told that the Town did not require any permits. He added that he had requested a letter memorializing his conversation with the
Selectmen’s office which he received; however, when his house burned down three years ago the letter was not recovered. He noted that he did have a livestock dealer’s license that was issued by the State in 1998. He continued that he owned a private farm and conducting a lot of haying for which he did not advertise. He stated that he trained, sold, and leased horses as a hobby.
Steve Caggiano pointed out that he had appeared before the Board previously to speak on behalf of his neighbor and endorse her indoor riding arena. He wanted to make it clear to the Board that he was not trying to conceal his practices as the letter he received from the Board implied. He also noted that he had gone through the Building Department and obtained the necessary permits to construct his 100’ x 100’ indoor riding arena. He stated that he was not a boarding facility and owned every horse on the property and he did not have any employees.
The Chairman explained the Home Business process. Steve Caggiano believed that he did not fit the Home Business category but did fall under Agricultural. He explained that on an average he store 5,000 bales of hay and bred goats. He added that he did not operate a business out of his home and that an office was located in the riding arena. He stated that the farm was registered as Great Meadow Farms and he had been filing an Agricultural tax return for the last twelve years.
Rodney Towne pointed out that Steve Caggiano represented that he did not offer boarding services; however, a Craigslist advertisement indicated that he did offer such a service. Steve Caggiano explained that he had placed the advertisement to determine whether or not there was an interest. He indicated that the advertisement did not generate any business and that he owned all of the horses on his property.
Mark Suennen asked for clarification regarding the ownership of the home at 252 Bunker Hill Road. Steve Caggiano explained that he sold the house at 252 Bunker Hill Road along with forty acres of land. Mark Suennen asked for the address of Great Meadow Farms. Steve Caggiano answered that Great Meadow Farms was licensed at 231 Bunker Hill Road. Mark Suennen asked if the horse activities were conducted at 231 Bunker Hill Road. Steve Caggiano clarified that the horse activities took place at 231 Bunker Hill Road and he resided at 176 Bunker Hill Road. He added that there was a home at 231 Bunker Hill Road in which a tenant resided.
Steve Caggiano indicated that the Craigslist advertisement was merely a discovery mission that did not generate any business. Peter Hogan asked what exactly Steve Caggiano was looking to discover. Steve Caggiano answered that he was semi-retired and that he was not giving lessons or selling much hay. Rodney Towne commented that Steve Caggiano was hoping to create business. Peter Hogan stated that the operation sounded Agricultural.
The Chairman asked for clarification that Steve Caggiano was not offering boarding services. Steve Caggiano confirmed that he was not offering boarding services. The Chairman asked if Steve Caggiano offered training. Steve Caggiano answered that he did conduct training and that the horses he trained belonged to him.
Shannon Silver stated that a Site Plan would allow Steve Caggiano to offer services, i.e., boarding, training, lessons, etc., without being questioned.
The Coordinator pointed out that the issue of a Residential-Agricultural joint use needed to be reviewed by Town Counsel as currently the regulations prohibited the permitting of an agricultural business on the same lot as a dwelling.
The Board determined that the Residential-Agricultural joint use issue needed to be resolved before they could give guidance to Steve Caggiano. Peter Hogan stated that the Board would notify Steve Caggiano when the problem was resolved.
Jeff Fillmore
Jeff Fillmore of 41 Hopkins Road stated that the had attended this evening’s meeting in an effort to become a more informed citizen; however, after listening to the last discussion he had concerns that he may need a site plan. He advised that he was a self-employed home renovator and currently did not have any equipment on his property. He asked if needed to be permitted to keep equipment on his property. The Coordinator answered that should Jeff Fillmore decide to store equipment for his business on his property he would meet the criteria of a Home Shop.
4. Memorandum received September 22, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to CIP Committee, Planning Board, and Board of Selectmen & Town Administrator, re: CIP, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
5. Memorandum received September 23, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to CIP Committee, Planning Board, and Board of Selectmen & Town Administrator, re: CIP, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman stated that the Board endorsed the Coordinator’s alternate proposal with
regard to the above-referenced matter.
6. Sign Committee meeting minutes from September 16, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
8. Notice of Decision dated September 22, 2010, from the New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment received September 27, 2010, re: Tax Map/Lot #4/44-1, 289 Francestown Road, for the Board’s information.
Mark Suennen questioned if it was permissible to have both a veterinary hospital
and residential dwelling on the same lot.~ Peter Hogan said no because it was called out very specifically as a veterinary hospital.~ Mark Suennen asked if Peter Hogan was saying that the definition of veterinary hospital included a residential unit.~ Peter Hogan indicated that he did.~ Mark Suennen stated that he disagreed with Peter Hogan’s interpretation.~ He added that it appeared that the ZBA had advised the applicant did not need a variance even though Town Counsel would disagree.
Peter Hogan commented that the ZBA had allowed for the two uses as that was the
original intent of the Planning Board.~ The Coordinator clarified that she had not conducted research farther enough back to determine the intent of the permitted uses and she still needed to speak with Town Counsel regarding this issue.~
Peter Hogan stated that the permitting of a veterinary practice was an expressly permitted use in the Residential-Agricultural District.~ The Coordinator noted that the definition was added as being part of agricultural definition so that site plans could be developed as minor site plans instead of major site plans that would require engineering.~
Mark Suennen suggested adding the following language to the Residential-Agricultural District definition, “a one-family or two-family dwelling is defined as an accessory or subordinate use to any of these other permitted uses.”~ Peter Hogan stated that Mark Suennen’s suggestion was inferred.~ The Coordinator advised that Mark Suennen’s suggestion referred to Mixed Use and needed to be looked into further.
9. Notice of Decision dated September 22, 2010, from the New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment received September 27, 2010, re: 289 McCurdy Road, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
10. Copy of the New Boston Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting minutes of September 21, 2010, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
11. Notice of Fall Law Lecture Series.
The Coordinator stated that members should advise the Planning Office of interest in attending any of the above-referenced lectures.
7. Schedule Site Walk for Michael J. Boyle, Home Shop Application, 45 Barss Drive, Tax Map/Lot # 14/56-7.
The Board scheduled a site walk for October 13, 2010, at 5:30 p.m.
3. Draft Application for Conditional Use Permit for Groundwater Resource Conservation District, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman asked for confirmation that the Twin Bridge Land Management, LLC, subdivision was waiting for the above-referenced application. The Coordinator confirmed.
Mark Suennen questioned whether one application was needed for each use or if the applicant could check off all the uses that applied. The Coordinator answered that the applicant could check off all the uses that applied. Mark Suennen suggested adding language to the application that advised the applicant to “check all that apply”.
The Chairman noted that the form required an explanation of whether or not the property for which the CUP was being applied for was pending any other approvals from other agencies. He asked if there would ever be an occasion when this would not be the case. Mark Suennen thought that it could happen and the wording should remain as written.
Mark Suennen asked why the application fee of $50.00 was highlighted on the application. The Coordinator explained that $50.00 was the fee that was attached to a Wetland Crossing Conditional Use Permit and asked if it was an reasonable fee to use for this application. The Chairman asked if the fee should be increased. The Coordinator did not feel the fee should be more than $50.00. Mark Suennen commented that the fee of $50.00 seemed reasonable.
The consensus of the Board was to use to the Application for Conditional Use Permit for Groundwater Resource Conservation District as written.
Peter Hogan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 10:17 p.m. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
| 
