The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Chairman Stu Lewin. Present were regular member Mark Suennen, alternate Dean Mehlhorn, 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 Tom Morgan, Conservation Commission, and Bob Todd, LLS.
Discussion with Tim White, SNHPC, re: Ten-Year Highway Plan
The Chairman advised that the above-referenced discussion had been canceled and rescheduled for November 23, 2010.
The Chairman seated Dean Mehlhorn as a full-voting member in Peter Hogan’s absence.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2010
1 Approval of minutes of October 12, 2010, distributed by email.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the meeting minutes of October 12, 2010, as written. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
2 Notice of Decision recording cover sheet, relative to the subdivision plan for TownesFamily Trust, Tax Map/Lot #13/37, South Hill Road, subdivision of 2 lots, for the Planning Board Chairman’s signature. No Copies.
The Chairman executed the above-referenced recording cover sheet.
3 Endorsement of a Site Plan for Michael J. & Janie A. Boyle, Tax Map/Lot #14/56-7, 45 Barss Drive, by Planning Board Chairman and Secretary. No Copies.
The Chairman indicated that he would execute the above-referenced Site Plan at the close of the meeting. Dean Mehlhorn agreed to sign the above-referenced Site Plan at the close of the meeting in Peter Hogan, Secretary’s, absence.
6 Email received November 1, 2010, from Dan Rothman of Town Farm Road, New Boston, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
7 Draft minutes of October 7, 2010, meeting of the New Boston Sign Committee, for the Board’s information.
8 Draft minutes of November 2, 2010, meeting of the New Boston Sign Committee, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed item 7 and 8 together as they were related. He asked for confirmation that the Committee had addressed the issue of size limitations for signs. The Coordinator answered that the issue of size limitation had been discussed. She continued that relative to special event signs the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer would have discretion on what maximum size was allowable.
The Chairman commented that posting seasonal signs for 90 days seemed too long. The Coordinator explained that the Committee’s reasoning for the 90 days posting was based on seasons where temporary selling of items such as strawberries, pumpkins, apples, and Christmas trees occurred and thinking that three months constituted a season. The Chairman asked if farm owners were permitted to post seasonal signs every season. The Coordinator answered that permanent signs for farms would be required to obtain permitted signs under the Agricultural definition, following the requirements for the sign ordinance.
The Coordinator welcomed any thoughts from the Board on this matter and advised that the Committee would be present at the next meeting.
The Chairman asked if the Sign Ordinance could be previewed prior to the next meeting. The Coordinator answered yes.
Rodney Towne questioned whether the Town had the authority to regulate the triangleof land that existed at the intersection of Central Square and Mont Vernon Road/Route 13 or whether it fell under the State’s jurisdiction. The Coordinator answered that she was unsure.
Mark Suennen stated that it was his recollection that the triangle was within the State’s right-of-way and an easement existed for the Town’s monument. The Chairman requested that the Coordinator look into this matter further prior to the next meeting.
9 READ FILE: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Amherst, re: installation of a telecommunication cell tower.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
10 READ FILE: Notice of Public Hearing from the Town of Merrimack, re: installation of a telecommunication cell tower.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
12 Email copy received November 8, 2010, from Earl Sandford, P.E., Sandford Surveying and Engineering, Inc., to Jed Z. Callen, Esq., re: notice of abutter discussion session, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman stated that the above-referenced abutter discussion session was scheduled for November 16, 2010.
13 Distribution of October 26, 2010, minutes for approval at the November 23, 2010, meeting. (Distributed by email).
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
14 READ FILE: Legal Notice from the Town of Amherst, re: Balloon Test, 22 North Meadow Road, Amherst, NH, November 12 & 13, 2010.
The Chairman acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussionoccurred.
5 Letter received November 5, 2010, from Todd Land Use Consultants, LLC, to Planning Board, re: Robert & Crystal L. Nadeau Subdivision, Map/Lot #4/14, Route 136, request for extension of deadline for completion of conditions precedent, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman advised that the applicant was requesting an extension of the deadline date for the completion of the conditions precedent for a period of one year. He noted that the driveway permits had expired and the applicant would be reapplying for those permits. He continued that the wetlands permit had not expired and the State subdivision approval would not expire.
Mark Suennen asked if the conditions subsequent also needed to be extended. It was determined that the conditions subsequent also needed to be extended.
The Chairman asked for any further discussion. Mark Suennen stated that he did not have any problem extending the deadlines.
Mark Suennen MOVED to extend Robert & Crystal L. Nadeau Subdivision, Map/Lot #4/14, Route 136, deadline for completion of the conditions precedent to November 24, 2011, and extend the deadline for completion of the conditions subsequent to August 24, 2012, based on the economic conditions cited in the November 15, 2010, letter, from Bob Todd, LLS. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
11a Letter dated November 8, 2010, from Kevin P. Leonard, P.E., Northpoint Engineering, LLC, to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Bond Release Recommendation for Indian Falls/Susan Road Connection, SIB Trust, for the Board’s action.
11b Subdivision Guarantee Release Worksheets for SIB Trust, for the Board’s information.
The Chairman addressed item 11a and 11b together as they were related. Rodney Towne asked if the applicant was looking to release a portion of the above-referenced bond. The Chairman answered that the applicant was looking to have a little less than half of the bond released.
The Chairman asked if the developer had reviewed the above-referenced letter. The Coordinator advised that the developer was emailed the letter at the same time as the PlanningOffice. She noted that she had not heard from the developer on this matter. Mark Suennen asked if it would be reasonable to allow the developer more time to comment as receipt of the above-referenced letter had occurred in the last twenty-four hours. The Coordinator advised that today was the last day the applicant could receive any money back from the bond reduction otherwise he would have to wait an additional six months and as such he would not want to wait for a decision. Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, commented that the applicant wanted a bondreduction because he would obtain a percentage of his money back
from investments.
The Chairman stated that Kevin Leonard, P.E., suggested that $669,770.85 be released, leaving $799,901.86 as the security. He asked for additional comments or questions; there were no comments or questions.
Mark Suennen MOVED to authorize the release of $669,770.85 from the original bond of the Indian Falls/ Susan Road connection project, SIB Trust. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
4a Letter received November 1, 2010, from Morgan A. Hollis, Esq., of Gottesman & Hollis, P.A., to Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Forest View II Subdivision, McCurdy Road, for the Board’s review and discussion.
4b Letter received November 3, 2010, from William R. Drescher, Esq., of Drescher & Dokmo, P.A., to Ms. Nicola Strong, Planning Coordinator, re: Document Review – Forest View II – McCurdy Road – Map 12, Lots 19, 96, & 93-34, for the Board’s review and discussion.
The Chairman addressed item 4a and 4b together as they were related. He asked the Coordinator if she was satisfied with the calculation of contiguous dry land for lot # 12/19-44 that was provided by applicant. The Coordinator answered that she was satisfied that lot # 44 met current Zoning Regulations for contiguous dry land.
The Chairman stated that the applicant did not wish to renumber the lots as suggested by the Coordinator’s checklist review the applicant would endure additional costs for a matter that appeared arbitrary. He noted that the issue of lot numbering had been brought up by the Coordinator and asked her if after reading the applicant's response she had changed her mind relative to renumbering the lots. The Coordinator explained the difference between the currentnumbering and her suggestion. The Chairman asked if the current numbering was inconsistent with all of the plans approved in Town. The Coordinator answered that typically numbering was done along the road and usually followed phases. She pointed out that this subdivision was unusual as it was subdividing a lot that was previously
subdivided. She commented that she could understand the applicant not wanting to go back to the State with an issue as minor as changing lot numbers on all the plans. The Chairman asked if requiring the lots to be renumbered would require the applicant to go through the permitting process with the State over again. The Coordinator answered that she was unsure.
The Chairman stated that the applicant’s suggestion to require the renumbering of the lots as a condition of approval seemed reasonable.
Rodney Towne asked if the renumbering would occur off McCurdy Road. The Coordinator answered yes.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board should wait to make a decision on this matter until the next hearing when the applicant would be present. The Chairman stated that he was concerned about delaying the applicant by postponing the decision.
Dean Mehlhorn asked if the applicant had a reason for the way they had chosen to number the lots. The Coordinator answered that the numbering had been completed by the designer.
Mark Suennen stated that he was fine with the current numbering. He continued that the issues that the Assessing Department had with the numbering were a non-issue as there were no guarantees that the lots would be sold in numerical order. Dean Mehlhorn commented that he did not see a problem with the current numbering. Rodney Towne stated that he did not like the idea of requiring the applicant to resubmit information. He asked the Coordinator if she anticipated any increase in time to track the lots due to the current numbering. The Coordinator answered that she did not see an increase in time to track the lots as an issue.
The Chairman stated that the consensus of the Board was to leave the current numbering as it appeared on the plans.
The Chairman advised that the Board needed to decide whether or not to release the letter referenced in item 4b to the applicant.
The Chairman stated that he did not agree with Town Counsel’s analysis with regard to well radii. He went on to say that he did agree with Town Counsel that the reserved rights areas needed to be clearly shown. Rodney Towne stated that the issues Town Counsel addressed and caused the greatest heartache were issues that could be fixed by the developer.
The Chairman suggested releasing Town Counsel’s letter to the developer and asking him to be prepared at the next meeting to discuss how the issues could be addressed.
Rodney Towne commented that he had a problem with spillover onto other lots. He stated that if the well and septic systems could not be fit on the lots then they should not be deemed lots.
The Chairman asked for additional thoughts from the Board members with regard to this issue. Mark Suennen inquired if any discussions with Town Counsel had accompanied the above-referenced letter. The Coordinator indicated that she had spoken with Town Counsel and everything discussed was contained in his letter. Mark Suennen asked if Town Counsel was willing to speak with the applicant’s counsel relative to the issues raised. The Coordinator answered that Town Counsel was always willing to speak with the applicant’s counsel.
The Coordinator advised that most likely the PLC was not interested in holding the proposed easement for this project because it was only an easement on certain areas within the open spaces and not the entire open space. The Chairman asked for clarification that everything that was not a lot within the outer property bounds was open space. He further asked if the conservation easements were a smaller subset of the open space when originally it was thought that the easement would encompass all of the open space. The Coordinator answered that she had thought the conservation easement was going to be over the entire open space. She noted that the PLC generally was interested in land that was large and contiguous and not in small parts or only wetlands. She stated that it may be worth having a
discussion with the PLC, the Conservation Commission, and the Planning Board in order to give the applicant proper guidance.
Dean Mehlhorn asked when the open space had been chopped up. The Coordinator explained that all of the open space still existed and the Town would continue to receive the deed for the open space; however, within the open space extra conservation areas had been created with more restrictions. She questioned if there were problems with the lots that had not been disclosed to the Planning Board creating the need for the number of rights the applicant reserved. Mark Suennen pointed out that the applicant had mentioned allowing passive recreation in the open space area and perhaps they were reserving that right. The Chairman noted that Town Counsel had not included passive recreation in his review and concerns.
The Chairman reiterated that the Board could make a decision to release Town Counsel’s letter to the applicant and recommend that the applicant speak with Town Counsel. He also suggested that the applicant discuss the open space issues at the next meeting and provide a plan that illustrated the open space and highlighted the surface and sub-surface flow, sub-surface flow for septic, well water withdrawal, and septic receiving areas. He also suggested that a representative from the PLC attend the next meeting or submit a letter that indicated that they were not interested in holding the easement.
Mark Suennen MOVED to release the confidential and privileged letter of November 1, 2010, from William R. Drescher, Esq., to the applicant and its assigns. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman requested that the applicant provide a graphic that would illustrate the reserved rights to the open space as previously discussed. Mark Suennen requested that the applicant describe to the Board what rights they were reserving on the open space. The Chairman added that the applicant also indicate where on the open space the rights were being reserved. Rodney Towne questioned whether it was out of line for the Board to request that the applicant explain the necessity of the rights they were reserving. The Chairman answered that he did not believe such a request was out of line and the Coordinator agreed.
The Chairman asked the Coordinator to suggest to the PLC that they attend the next meeting. Mark Suennen asked if Town Counsel’s letter could also be forwarded to the PLC.
The Coordinator indicated that she could forward the letter.
The Chairman asked for further comments or questions; there were no further comments or questions.
15 Discussion, re: Site Walk for Cell Tower, Old Coach Road, Tax Map/Lot #8/132.
Mark Suennen advised the Board that he had attended the site walk for the AT&T wireless communication tower located on Old Coach Road and would provide written notes at a later date.
The Chairman asked for Mark Suennen’s general thoughts from the site walk. Mark Suennen stated that everything that was reflected on the site plan had been built with the exception of two shrubs; he identified the location of the missing shrubs on the plan.
The Chairman inquired about a steep bank that existed on the lot. Mark Suennen explained that the steep area in question had been graded and stabilized.
The Chairman stated that he would view the lot on November 12, 2010. He asked Mark Suennen if he believed a compliance hearing could be scheduled for this matter. Mark Suennen stated that he had told the developer to plant the missing shrubs and provide the Board with as-builts and everything else was fine to move forward with the compliance hearing.
The Chairman advised the Coordinator that a compliance hearing could be scheduled.
16 Planning Board Calendar/Zoning Schedule
The Coordinator handed out a calendar for the Board that began in November 2010 and ran through December 2011. She indicated the dates for public hearings on Zoning amendments: December 28, 2010, and January 11, 2011. She noted that the Deliberative Sessions would be held in February 2011 and Town Meeting would be held in March 2011.
The Coordinator stated that at the next meeting items to be discussed for Zoning Amendments were suggestions for rezoning parcels to commercial, Sign Ordinance update, Residential-Agricultural, re: issue with one principal use, and removing parking requirements from Zoning and moving to Site Plan Review.
The Coordinator indicated that with regard to rezoning parcels of land to commercial,
Sue Tingley was not interested in rezoning her parcels of land on Mont Vernon Road and she had not heard back for Emile Bussiere, Jr., regarding the rezoning of the Klondike Corner parcels.
The Coordinator explained that the removal of the requirement for a special exception relative to Accessory Dwelling Units had been changed last year; however, it stayed on the special exceptions list on the district page and needed to be moved over.
The Coordinator explained that the 50’ strip requirement for back lots needed to be discussed.
The Coordinator stated that she had not heard back from the Fire Inspector as to whether he had anything to amend in the Building Code.
The Chairman asked if the above-mentioned items were to be discussed at the next meeting. The Coordinator answered that the above-mentioned items should be given consideration. The Chairman asked the Coordinator if she would provide further information for the discussion and the Coordinator indicated that she could.
SUSANA LECLAIR REVOCABLE TRUST
Compliance Hearing/CUP/(2) Wetland Crossings
Location: Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads
Tax Map/Lot #9/24
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the compliance hearing notice and noted that there were no abutters or interested parties in the audience. Bob Todd, LLS, was present in the audience.
The Chairman stated that the application and plans with conditions were approved on June 28, 2005. He continued that the deadline for the Conditions Subsequent was June 30, 2007, and that extensions had been granted, moving the deadline to June 1, 2010. He stated that a site walk had taken place on August 4, 2010. He advised that a letter dated October 5, 2010, from NH DES Wetlands Bureau, had been sent to Susana LeClair, and received with an attached amended Wetlands Permit extending the date for completion of the wetland crossing to May 17, 2013. He stated that there were outstanding fees in the amount of $140.00. He noted that the Board had viewed photographs at the last meeting that showed grass growth and silt fence. He continued that the letter of credit had expired on the
project leaving the Town with no security.
The Chairman explained that the Board could either adjourn the application or consider moving to confirm compliance with the conditions subsequent to the approval of the CUP for the installation of two wetland crossings and include a condition precedent that would require the outstanding $140.00 be submitted.
The Chairman asked for comments or questions from the Board. Mark Suennen stated that the physical construction had been completed but he could not determine from his drive-by/walk-on if there was full stabilization. He noted that it may not matter if full stabilization existed as the letter of credit no longer existed and questioned whether the Board could make a condition precedent that security be provided for proper stabilization by the spring. The Coordinator answered yes. Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, advised that the applicant would want to know specifically what issues the Board had with the stabilization as the applicant had been advised by her contractor that grass was growing. Mark Suennen pointed out that grass was growing in one area but not another.
The Chairman stated that the Board could adjourn the hearing to November 23, 2010, and in the meantime provide the applicant with an annotated plan that identified the areas that needed to be stabilized.
Mark Suennen commented that this was a terrible time of year to obtain permanent stabilization; the Chairman agreed. Mark Suennen pointed out that number seven of the applicant’s dredge and fill permit required permanent stabilization and that requirement had not been met. The Chairman reiterated that the Board needed to be specific on which areas were not stabilized. Mark Suennen asked if the Chairman wanted him to draw pictures on the plans. The Chairman answered that graphics were always good and suggested that he meet with Mark Suennen at the property to either draw or describe the areas in question. Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, asked upon entering the site which side was not deemed stabilized. Mark Suennen answered that with regard to the driveway off Bedford Road
the left side of the driveway was not stabilized and was bare dirt. He continued that the slopes around the culvert were also not stabilized.
Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, asked what could be done to establish stabilization during this time of year. The Coordinator answered that stabilization could not be established and the applicant would need to submit a bond for this purpose, utilizing the bond estimate worksheet to calculate the amount.
The Chairman questioned the requirement that the applicant had silt fence. Mark Suennen stated that it appeared the applicant had silt fence in the appropriate places and it was installed correctly.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the compliance hearing of Susana LeClair, Location: Wilson Hill & Bedford Roads, Tax Map/Lot #9/24-12 & 13, to December 14, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
LOCUS FIELD, LLC, By Rob Starace
Submission of Application/Public Hearing
Minor Subdivision/NRSPR/Condominium
Location: Kettle Lane
Tax Map/Lot #13/15-6
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
Present in the audience was Bob Todd, LLS. The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He advised that the subdivision application had been received and there were no outstanding fees. He continued that State Subdivision Approval had been received. He noted that all the items for a completed application had been provided with the exception of the Traffic, Fiscal, and Environmental Impact Studies as a waiver requested had been submitted. He stated that the Site Plan application had been submitted.
Bob Todd, LLS, submitted a revised Declaration of Condominium that addressed errors pointed out by the Coordinator.
Bob Todd, LLS, explained that the above-captioned subdivision dealt with a lot that was approved in 2004. He stated that this subdivision was planned as a condominium development from the start and as such each lot was approved by the State for six bedroom septic loading. He pointed out on the plan that the lot was located at the south-east corner of the project. He indicated that a large amount of wetland existed on the lot and there was 1.508 acres of buildable area. He advised that each unit had approximately 15,000 s.f. of limited common area and the remainder was all common land. He noted that each unit was approximately 1,600 s.f. on two levels with unfinished basements. He pointed out that each unit had its own separate septic system; he identified the locations on the plan. He stated that the unit had a common driveway that was located off the tip of the Kettle Lane cul-de-sac. He advised that two wells existed side-by-side that straddled the limited common area
boundary.
Bob Todd, LLS, stated that the applicant had requested waivers for the Fiscal, Traffic, and Environmental Impact Studies as those factors were the same considered in the original subdivision that was approved in 2004. He added that being required to submit the studies would be a duplication of effort. The Chairman asked for clarification that the studies were previously completed and submitted for the eleven lots.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments from the Board; there were no questions or comments.
Mark Suennen MOVED to grant the waiver request to not require the applicant to submit a Fiscal Impact Study and a Traffic Impact Study based on the previously submitted Fiscal Impact Study and Traffic Impact Study from the original subdivision that meet the spirit and intent of the regulations. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED that the one lot with two condominium units does not need a separate environmental impact statement and that the work done to date on the original subdivision is satisfactory to meet the spirit and intent of our regulations. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the Subdivision and Non-Residential Site Plan Review Application for Locus Field, LLC, Kettle Lane, Tax Map/Lot # 13/15-6, Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District, as complete. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman advised that the deadline for Board action was January 14, 2011.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments. Mark Suennen asked for clarificationthat the house had already been built and the contractor was working on the interior. The Coordinator answered yes and Bob Todd, LLS, added that the house was substantially complete. The Chairman asked for why the applicant was required to complete the applications if the house was already constructed. Mark Suennen answered that the applicant would not be able to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy without the completed applications. Bob Todd, LLS, further explained that in order to satisfy condominium law the units had to be substantially complete and shown as such on the plans.
The Chairman asked for questions or comments. Mark Suennen asked if the Board needed to address the issue of active and substantial development as the house was already built. The Chairman indicated that the issue of active and substantial development did not need to be addressed until the Board was ready to approve the site plan. Mark Suennen pointed out that he had made an earlier motion to accept both the subdivision and site plan as complete. He suggested that the Board require that the foundation be in place to meet the active and substantial development requirement. He went on to say that the foundation was already in place and therefore the applicant met the requirement.
The Chairman asked if the Board believed a site walk was necessary. The consensus of the Board was that a site walk was not needed.
The Coordinator asked if the Board was going to add language to the approval for the 12 month active and substantial development requirement, could they also add language to fulfill the substantial completion of improvements that would vest the lot forever. Mark Suennen suggested making a roof a requirement for substantial completion of improvements.
The Chairman stated that with regard to active and substantial development and substantial completion of improvements within 12 months after the date of approval, the following items must be complete in order to constitute “active and substantial development or building” pursuant to RSA 674:39,I, relative to the 4-year exemption to regulation/ordinance changes: the foundation shall be constructed and backfilled. The Chairman went on to say that the following items must be completed in order to constitute “substantial completion of improvements” pursuant to RSA 674:39,II, relative to final vesting: structure shall have a weather tight roof.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the Condex Site Plan, Salisbury Crossing, Tax Map/Lot #13/15-6, Kettle
Lane, Locus Field, LLC, subject to:
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT:
1.Submission of a minimum of four (4) revised site plans that include all of the checklist corrections and any corrections as noted at this hearing;
2.Submission of a suitable mylar for recording at the HCRD;
3.Submission of a revised Declaration of Condominium that includes the minor corrections noted during review thereof;
4.Submission of any outstanding fees and the fees for recording at the HCRD.The deadline for complying with the conditions precedent shall be January 9, 2011, 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 prior to that date, the applicant is hereby put on notice that the Planning Board may convene a hearing pursuant to RSA 676:4-a to revoke the approval.
ACTIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS:
1. Within 12 months after the date of approval, the following items must be completed in order to constitute "active and substantial development or building" pursuant to RSA 674:39,I, relative to the 4-year exemption to regulation/ordinance changes:
foundation shall be constructed and backfilled.
2. The following items must be completed in order to constitute "substantial completion of the improvements" pursuant to RSA 674:39,II, relative to final vesting:
structure shall have a weather tight roof.
Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Bob Todd, LLS, advised that a town policy had been established for giving condex units addresses. He explained that when standing on the road looking at the structure, the unit on the left was designated “Unit A” and the unit on the right was designated “Unit B”.
Before Bob Todd, LLS, left the meeting, Mark Suennen asked what he would suggest, as a certified erosion control specialist, for temporary stabilization in the winter. Bob Todd, LLS, said that he had had success with compost blankets, crushed stone, ground up stumps, and 1”-2” of yard mulch.
Earth Removal Discussion
The Chairman stated that two public input sessions had taken place with regard to the Earth Removal Regulations and many comments had been generated as a result. He advised that the Coordinator had created examples of forms as had been previously discussed. He continued that there would be one more public input session scheduled followed by a public hearing.
The Chairman indicated that there had been some resistance on the part of the gravel pit owners relative to the requirement of going through the public hearing process in order to obtain a permit. He explained that the Town had been out of compliance with how the gravel pit permits were being issued and the Planning Board was attempting to remedy this situation by requiring one public hearing for the issuance of an indefinite permit. He commented that as a Board an agreement needed to be made.
Rodney Towne asked if the gravel pit owners were required to go through the public hearing process if even they have gone through the work of providing paperwork that demonstrated the history of the operation. The Coordinator answered that it was a different public hearing, but yes a hearing would be required. Rodney Towne commented that it appeared easier to move forward with a public hearing rather than trying to track down records.
The Chairman asked for a percentage of gravel pits in Town that had “grandfathered” status. The Coordinator answered that when strictly applying the statute language a report needed to be filed by a specific year and the only pit to do so was Granite State Concrete. The Chairman stated that theoretically the Town only had one gravel pit that met the grandfathered requirements and the remaining pits would need to go through the regular process. The Coordinator answered that theoretically the Chairman’s statement was true; however, she indicated that she had spoken with Town Counsel regarding this matter and had asked if the Planning Board could review past permits to determine if requirements had been met for grandfathered status and he had answered yes. Mark Suennen asked if a
public hearing was required to prove the grandfathered status. The Coordinator answered yes. Mark Suennen pointed out that either way a public hearing would be required. The Coordinator stated that the hardest part with regard to the grandfathering of a pit was proving at the time of original approval what areas were intended for expansion.
The Chairman asked if any Board members believed a public hearing was not necessary. Rodney Towne commented that the Board did not have a choice because the statute required it. The Chairman agreed that he did not believe the Board had a choice but explained the Board did not appear to be clear and consistent on this issue at the last public input session when it was met with resistance. Rodney Towne stated that the Board would not be in compliance with the statute if it did not require the public hearing. Dean Mehlhorn agreed that the Board did not have a choice on this matter.
The Coordinator advised that because of scheduling conflicts with zoning articles this matter would most likely be scheduled for the third public input session at the end of January or the beginning of February. She suggested that a letter be mailed to the interested parties advising of the Board’s scheduling intentions. The Board agreed with the Coordinator’s suggestion.
The Chairman asked for any further discussion on this matter; there was no further discussion.
MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9, 2010
17.Discussion, re: RSA 674:39, “Vesting” and existing previously approved subdivisions in New Boston.
The Coordinator advised that she had forgotten to place the active and substantial development discussion relative to the two previously discussed expired lots on the Miscellaneous Business agenda. The Chairman asked if this should be added to the next agenda and then pointed out that the next Planning Board meeting would be on the night after the special Board of Selectmen’s meeting on cul-de-sacs. He wondered if the discussion of the 10 year Transportation Plan should be bumped. Mark Suennen said that the plan needed to be updated in January so SNHPC would need to discuss it with the Board to make sure they fulfilled their requirements before December. He suggested that discussion of the two “expired” subdivisions was less time sensitive since they had already “expired”. He did agree that discussing the cul-de-sac meeting probably made sense.
18 Recommendation of Permanent Planning Board Member to Selectmen
The Chairman advised that Douglas Hill had submitted his resignation at the last meeting and as such the Board had a vacancy for a fulltime member. He asked alternate Dean Mehlhorn if he was interested in becoming a fulltime member of the Board. Dean Mehlhorn answered that he was interested.
Mark Suennen MOVED to recommend to the Selectmen that Dean Mehlhorn be promoted from an alternate member of the Planning Board to a full voting member. Rodney Towne seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
19.November 22, 2010, Selectmen Meeting
The Chairman advised that a facilitator was going to be present at the above-referenced meeting. He asked that all members attend the meeting with an open mind and attempt to keep an open mind throughout the meeting.
The Chairman stated that the Coordinator and Planning Assistant had completed a lot of work with regard to gathering the detailed information on the cul-de-sacs that had been requested. He noted that the information would be included in the next meeting under Miscellaneous Business in order to make it public record.
The Chairman pointed out that the very first cul-de-sac approved after a length had been added to the regulations had exceeded the regulatory length.
The Chairman stated that at several of the meetings where the issue of cul-de-sac length waivers had been discussed, representations had been made that none of the surrounding towns granted similar waivers. He continued that after the Planning Assistant had called various towns it was determined that all the towns deal with this same issue and did grant waivers. Mark Suennen inquired as to which towns had been contacted. The Coordinator answered that all of the towns included in the Southern New Hampshire Planning Region as well as neighboring towns. Shannon Silver, Planning Assistant, pointed out that many of the towns had Technical Review Committees in the past but no longer do. She commented that this issue appeared to be a common problem.
The Chairman asked if the agenda for the meeting had been distributed. The Coordinator answered no. The Chairman asked if the Coordinator could email the agenda of the meeting to the Board members. The Coordinator indicated that she would send the requested information.
The Coordinator reminded the Board that the meeting was to take place at the Whipple Free Library on November 22, 2010, from 6:30 p.m. – 9:00 p.m.
The Chairman stated that one of the ground rules for the meeting that needed to be identified at the meeting was that pending applications could not be discussed, i.e., Forest View and Twin Bridge. The Coordinator stated that addressing the subject was fine but it became tricky when specific measurements were addressed. She explained that if a quorum was present at the meeting it would be considered an official Planning Board meeting and specific applications could not be discussed as notice was not given to applicants and abutters.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Dean Mehlhorn seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted,
Minutes Approved: 12/14/10
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk
| 
