The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Vice Chairman Douglas Hill in the absence of the Chairman who would be arriving later in the meeting. Present were regular members Mark Suennen and Douglas Hill and Ex-officio Christine Quirk. Also present were Planning Coordinator Nic Strong, Planning Assistant Shannon Silver and Recording Clerk Valerie Diaz.
Present in the audience for all or part of the meeting were Ken Lombard, Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden, Earl Sandford, P.E., Kirsten Montgomery, Julie Katz, Randy Parker and Bill Foster.
Public Hearing – Adoption of Open Space
Douglas Hill read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Ken Lombard and Brandy Mitroff.
Ken Lombard identified himself as the Chairman of the Open Space Committee. He stated that the Board had been provided with copies of the New Boston Open Space draft. He noted that since the last time he had met with the Board the Open Space draft had been updated to reflect minor changes such as typographical errors.
Ken Lombard explained that the Open Space Plan was developed as an output of the Master Plan and was designed to be a stand alone plan for the purposes of protecting open space in New Boston. He stated that the Open Space Plan contained a list of items that the Committee planned to do with regard to prioritizing the land for protection. He indicated that maps that identified land the Committee hoped to protect had been updated.
Ken Lombard asked the Board for any questions on the revised Open Space Plan. Mark Suennen referred to the Open Space Plan; page XI, item number five. He commented that the section stated the following, “preserve and protect at least 25% of New Boston’s open land”. He asked Ken Lombard what the Committee was using as a starting basis for the 25% of land to be preserved and protected, i.e., undeveloped land, total acreage. Ken Lombard answered that the 25% of preserved and protected open land was based on total acreage of the Town. Mark Suennen asked for clarification if the goal was 25% of open land even if some of the that 25% included developed land and if so was the Committee looking to convert the developed land back into open space. Ken Lombard answered that there was plenty of
open land in New Boston and the Committee was not looking to convert developed land into open space. He continued that the 25% of open space for the Town was a state wide goal issued by the Forestry Department. He commented that the 25% of open space appeared to be a reasonable goal to maintain New Boston’s rural character.
Mark Suennen referred to the Open Space Plan, page 31, Action Plan for Implementation. He asked if the reference to establishing conservation easements on existing forests owned by the Town referred to Town forests or Town owned land that is forested. Ken Lombard answered that when the section was written the Committee intended for the section to refer to Town Forests but noted that it could also apply to Town owned land. Mark Suennen asked who would hold the easement. Ken Lombard pointed out that easements on Town owned land would need to be held by someone other than the Town. He explained that PRLAC, NH Forest Society, New England Forestry would all be viable choices to hold an easement. Mark Suennen asked if the goal of the Committee was that the Town would donate or offer land at low prices to an
organization, such as PRLAC, to establish and hold a conservation easement. Ken Lombard agreed with Mark Suennen’s statement.
Douglas Hill referred back to Mark Suennen’s question regarding the Committee’s goal of preserving 25% of open space land. He stated that his development, Christian Farm Estates, was an open space development. He explained that 26 of the 70 acre development was open space and asked what amount of land was included in the 25% calculation. Ken Lombard answered that the 26 acres would be included in the calculation towards the Town’s 25% goal of open space. Douglas Hill asked for clarification that in cases where open space was part of a development it was still used in the calculation towards the 25% goal of open space. Ken Lombard answered yes and continued that another of the Committee’s goals was to try and encourage more conservation developments in Town.
Mark Suennen referred to the Open Space Plan, page 25, citing the following section, “the remainder of this section delineates techniques and strategies for fulfilling these recommendations”. He asked if the Committee believed the strategies should be applied or if the strategies should be used as a toolbox that could be applied. Ken Lombard answered that the strategies were listed as a toolbox. He added that the Committee tried to attend conferences as much as possible with regard to the strategies as they were revised periodically.
Christine Quirk stated that she had no questions to ask at this time.
Brandy Mitroff asked if the Open Space Plan was to become part of the Master Plan. Ken Lombard answered yes. Douglas Hill noted that the Open Space Plan would become part of the Master Plan as an adjunct.
Douglas Hill asked for any further questions or comments; there were no further questions or comments.
Douglas Hill closed the public hearing portion of the meeting. He asked the Board to move to adopt, not adopt or amend the Open Space Plan.
Christine Quirk MOVED to accept the Open Space Plan prepared by Southern New
Hampshire Planning Commission and the New Boston Open Space Committee for the Town of New Boston as an adjunct to the Town’s Master Plan, pursuant to RSA 674:4, as presented at the public hearing. Mark Suennen seconded the motion.
Discussion: Mark Suennen asked if the motion could be amended as follows, “subject to editorial changes that do not change the content of the Plan”. Christine Quirk agreed to add this to her motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 11, 2010.
2. Approval of minutes of April 13, 2010, distributed by email.
Douglas Hill asked if the Board had any issues with the April 13, 2010, meeting minutes. Mark Suennen stated that a typographical error appeared under the section of Miscellaneous Business with regard to the approval of the Bussiere three stage escrow holding; the word “drips” should be changed to “drops”.
Mark Suennen MOVED to approve the minutes of April 13, 2010, as amended.
Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
3. Information re: Workshop, “Practical Steps for Planning Community Transportation”, Thursday, May 27, 2010, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. at NH Local Government Center, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
4. Distribution of the April 27, 2010, meeting minutes via email for approval at the meeting of May 25, 2010.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
5. Letter received by fax, May 7, 2010, from Susana LeClair, to Shannon Silver, Planning Board Assistant, re: Susana LeClair Revocable Trust, Major Subdivision, Bedford Road, Tax Map/Lot #9/24, CUP, request for extension of Condition Subsequent deadline from June 1, 2010, to June 2013, for the Board’s action.
Douglas Hill stated that the Board did not typically extend a CUP for three years.
Shannon Silver explained that the above-referenced application had been approved in June of 2005. She stated that the date for conditions subsequent for the CUP was June 30, 2007. She noted that the Board granted a previous extension request in June of 2007 to June of 2010. She stated that the applicant was again requesting a three year extension.
Douglas Hill noted that since the time of the last request the Board had changed the regulations and applicants did not have to bond until they pulled a building permit. Shannon Silver was unsure if that would apply to this situation as it had already been approved.
Douglas Hill asked if what the applicant was proposing was something that may be completed in the future to ensure feasibility of a lot. Shannon Silver confirmed Douglas Hill’s statement. Douglas Hill asked if the process presently was that when someone came in for a wetland crossing the bond would be due when the building permit was pulled. Shannon Silver stated that she was unaware if Douglas Hill’s statement was accurate. Douglas Hill stated that it was the case with driveway issues. He said that prior to the change in the regulations if an applicant had, for example, five lots with issues on each, a bond would be required for each lot. He continued that the Board viewed this as a hardship and as such now required that a bond be paid when a building permit was issued. Shannon Silver
stated that Douglas Hill’s statement was accurate with regard to ISWMPs and may also apply to CUPs, however, she had not come across a situation in which a bond had been submitted at building permit level for a CUP.
Douglas Hill stated that he did not have problem approving the extension for three years. Mark Suennen asked if the Town had a bond in the amount of $16,066.29. Shannon Silver answered yes and noted that the bond would expire in August 2010 and would need to be renewed.
Mark Suennen MOVED to extend the deadline for compliance of the Conditions Subsequent to June 2013 contingent upon the extension of the bond through that same date. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
7. Copy of Supreme Court Case, William Batchelder & a. v. Town of Plymouth Zoning Board of Adjustment, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill acknowledged receipt of the above-referenced matter; no discussion occurred.
8. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for SIB Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Susan Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
9. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for SIB Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Indian Falls & Campbell Pond Roads, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
10. Endorsement of a Subdivision Plan for Jacqueline M. Bussiere et al, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Indian Falls Road, by the Planning Board Chairman & Secretary.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
11. Endorsement of a Notice of Decision Cover Sheet for Jacqueline M. Bussiere et al, Tax Map/Lot #12/88, Indian Falls Road, by the Planning Board Chairman.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
12. Endorsement of a Notice of Decision Cover Sheet for SIB Trust, Tax Map/Lot #12/89, Indian Falls & Campbell Pond Roads, & Tax Map/Lot #12/93-38, Susan Road by the Planning Board Chairman.
Douglas Hill advised the endorsement would be made at the close of the meeting.
The Board took a seven minute recess prior to the next hearing. The Chairman and Coordinator arrived during the recess.
KMMM PROPERTIES, LLC
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/NRSPR/Restaurant
Location: 35 Mont Vernon Road
Tax Map/Lot #19/6
Commercial “Com” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. Present in the audience were Brandy Mitroff, Jay Marden, Kirsten Montgomery, Earl Sandford, P.E., Julie Katz, Randy Parker and Bill Foster. The Chairman stated that a number of proposals had been requested. He stated that all
fees had been paid and were up to date. He noted that it appeared that all items required for a completed application had been submitted. He noted that there had been a couple of meetings with the applicant and the Board decided that a consolidated site plan needed to be completed at which point the Board would ask questions.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he would be presenting for the Montgomery’s, or more specifically, KMMM Properties. He pointed out the location of the existing Kiki’s Restaurant,Gravity Tavern and parking lot on the plan. He noted the location of a proposed deck and patio on back of Kiki’s Restaurant. He stated that the patio would be at grade with some adjustmentsfor purpose of leveling it slightly.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the purpose of the proposed plan was to obtain approval for the deck and patio. He further stated that the applicant was seeking approval of a removablefence that would be installed at the back of the Gravity Tavern to allow for open containers outside. He stated that there were would be signs posted that directed patrons to enter through the Gravity Tavern to gain access to the fenced in outdoor area. He stated that the installation of the removable fence did not constitute an increased use.
Earl Sandford, P.E., indicated that there was detailed plan that showed a blown up view of the proposed deck that would service patrons who wished to eat outside.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he had attempted to address all of the plan reviewcomments. He noted that he had addressed the comments regarding adding driveways within 200’. He also noted that he had added height to the buildings. He stated that the buildings were drawn to scale, however, he did not place dimensions at every jig and jog. He continued that he had included elevations for the deck and noted that the deck would be level with the restaurant door. He explained that there would be a 5’ drop from the deck to the patio area.
Earl Sandford, P.E., advised that the plan did have implications with regard to the septic system and Shoreland Protection and possibly DOT. He stated that he had not spoken with DOT but had spoken with DES regarding the Shoreland Protection issue. He stated that it was confirmed that DES did treat decks, stairs and patios as impervious areas. He explained that should a deck or patio be constructed within 250’ of a body of water it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act. Douglas Hill read Earl Sandford, P.E.’s, plan note regarding Shoreland Protection. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that DES capped impervious surfaces at 20% of a lot and explained that you could go up to 30%, however, drainage plans needed to be submitted. He added that the applicant
had not reached the 20% yet.
Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that when the septic system was replaced several years ago it was oversized so that it had a little more capacity. He continued that he had done the calculations to determine what capacity would be allowed with the extra capacity that had been built into it. He advised that there was enough capacity in the septic to handle the extra loading that would result if both the inside and outside of the restaurant were full.
Earl Sandford, P.E., asked the Board for at least a conditional approval to keep things as efficient as possible as the construction of the deck was minimal and that the surface below the deck would be impermeable. He noted that the construction of the deck was treated the same as if an addition was being added and pointed out that clearly an addition was not being proposed. He continued that the applicant was trying to keep the deck construction as simple as possible, recognizing that it was not an enclosed structure. He indicated that since the last site plan approval the plan had been revised to reflect the minimal improvements that had been made.
Earl Sandford, P.E., asked the Board for any questions. The Chairman asked if there was any new landscaping that was being proposed. Kirsten Montgomery answered no.
The Chairman asked Earl Sandford, P.E., to address the parking area as proposed on the plan. Earl Sandford, P.E., pointed out that the plan reflected the existing parking lot. He noted that three parking spaces were not completely stable because of gravel placement. He further noted that the three unstable parking spaces required vehicles on both grass and gravel. He indicated that the parking spaces were out of the 250’ range of the Shoreland Protection. The Chairman asked if the spaces had been delineated. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered no and explained that the plan showed how many spaces were available.
The Chairman asked if all of the signs had been put up. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that the one-way signs for directional flow were up. He stated that the only additional signs proposed were “Enter Through Tavern” and “Enter Through Restaurant”.
The Chairman noted that previously the Gravity Tavern and Kiki’s Restaurant had two different sets of operational hours. He asked if the applicant was proposing to create operational hours that were the same for both the Gravity Tavern and Kiki’s Restaurant. Kirsten Montgomery stated that she had sent a letter to the Board prior to the opening of the Gravity Tavern and Kiki’s Restaurant that requested amending the opening hours to accommodate morning brunch at 10:30 a.m. with lunch at 11:30 a.m. She continued that the Board had already approved the proposed hours of operation amendment. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he had added the previously approved hours of operation to the plan for purposes of clarity. He indicated that there had been a discussion of having the hours for both the
Gravity Tavern and Kiki’s Restaurant the same for simplicity. Mark Suennen asked if the ½ hour difference that was shown on the plan was accurate. Douglas Hill asked if the proposed hours of operation on the plan were correct. Kirsten Montgomery answered no and then proceeded to review the proposed hours of operation on the plan. She stated that the current hours of operation were correct. Earl Sandford, P.E., added that the proposed hours of operation should be struck from the plan. Douglas Hill suggested that the applicant reconsider moving forward with the proposed hours of operation as it allowed for more hours. Kirsten Montgomery agreed to keep the proposed hours of operation on the plan. The Chairman asked for confirmation that the applicant was requesting the proposed hours of operation. Kirsten Montgomery confirmed that she was requesting the proposed hours of operation.
The Chairman asked if a driveway permit from the State had been obtained because the proposal requested spaces for additional cars. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the three things that may involve the state were subsurface, DES for Shoreland Protection, and DOT. Douglas Hill asked why the Shoreland Protection would be required. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he was covered under the Shoreland Protection to his satisfaction. The Chairman asked if the applicant was expecting an approval from DES regarding the Shoreland Protection. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that there was an application format to follow. Douglas Hill asked if an application submitted to DES would need to be approved. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered yes. Christine Quirk asked if an application had been submitted. Earl
Sandford, P.E., answered no. Douglas Hill asked for clarification that the driveway met the regulations, however, the applicant needed to have confirmation from DOT to this regard. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the applicant needed a plan dedicated to Shoreland Protection. Douglas Hill clarified that he was not addressing the Shoreland Protection he was addressing the driveway and asked what was needed from DOT. Earl Sandford, P.E., asked what would give the Board satisfaction. Douglas Hill indicated that the applicant needed to meet the State requirements to satisfy the Board. Kirsten Montgomery asked if the State calculated the number of allowable spaces by dividing the occupancy by two. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the state would most likely go by the number of parking spaces. Douglas Hill asked if the plan presented this evening met DOT requirements. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that DOT would reissue the current
permit and add the additional parking spaces.
Douglas Hill asked what “subsurface” referred to on the plan. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that there was an approval for the current septic system. He noted that because the applicant was staying within the capacity of the septic system he was fine with it.
The Chairman asked if the Board had any further questions or comments prior to allowing the public to comment. Mark Suennen asked if the Board needed to determine if the plan was complete before allowing the public comment. The Chairman answered that the Board could determine the completeness prior to public discussion.
Mark Suennen MOVED to accept the application for KMMM Properties, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, Commercial “Com” District, as complete. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
The Chairman stated that the deadline for Board action was July 15, 2010. He asked the Board for further comments or questions; there were none. The Chairman asked the audience for any questions or comments. Randy Parker of 14 Mill Street pointed to the location of a canal that had been filled in over the years on the plan. He stated that the canal was a dead end that was full of water. He pointed out that the Town was going to face a potential problem of the water sitting in the canal behind the library. He believed that consideration should be given to draining the canal back into the river. Kirsten Montgomery stated that this had been an issue since the previous owner. Randy Parker agreed and noted that the issue had not gotten any better and it would become difficult to disrupt the area with a
parking area on top of it. Kirsten Montgomery pointed out that the parking area on the plan already existed. Randy Parker reiterated that the Town should consider draining the canal at some point. Douglas Hill asked why there were problems with having water sit in the canal. Randy Parker answered stated in the spring the canal can be three or four feet deep causing potential risks to the nearby library and children outside playing. Douglas Hill stated that the area in question was located on private property and the Town was not able to do anything. Randy Parker clarified that most of the land was Town property.
Randy Parker stated that at the time the previous owners had received a permit for the previous Tavern there were concerns regarding noise. He continued that a walk around had been conducted to determine the noise levels and that the noise needed to be contained within the Tavern. He asked if the previous conditions regarding noise were still in effect. Brandy Mitroff stated that the issue with the noise had to do with bands. She continued that the music had to stay contained within the Tavern and as such the doors to the Tavern could not be kept open. She stated that she was not aware of any discussion that dealt with the noise of people sitting outside. Douglas Hill stated that the applicant was not permitted to have bands play outside.
Bill Foster of 49 Mont Vernon Road stated that since Kirsten Montgomery had started operating her business things had been going well. He commented that he was in favor of the outdoor seating behind the Gravity Tavern as he believed it would alleviate potential loitering in the parking lot. He asked if there were any intentions of placing speakers or music outdoors. Kirsten Montgomery answered no. Bill Foster stated that he would like to keep the late night noise to a minimum because he had a son who was hard to get back to sleep. Kirsten Montgomery advised that she would not be investing in outdoor lighting and as such as soon as the sun set the outdoor area would be shutdown. She noted that the area would be seasonal.
The Chairman asked for any further comments or questions from the audience; there were no further comments or questions.
The Chairman asked if the plan should be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee. The Coordinator stated that the plan had been forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments. She added that the Board had not had the Technical Review Committee review site plans in the past. Douglas Hill pointed out that when the plan was initially submitted the Board did receive input from the Police Department.
The Chairman stated that the three items that remained were as follows: 1) Verification/Approval from the state regarding the driveway permit; 2) Septic system application/approval; 3) Shoreland Protection approval/permit.
Douglas Hill asked if the time crunch was relative to the construction of the deck not the actual servicing of it. He asked Earl Sandford, P.E., what he believed a realistic time frame was for obtaining the three items listed by the Chairman. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that administrative decisions could be received within a matter of days. He believed that the Shoreland Protection decision would take a few weeks to receive. Douglas Hill asked when Kirsten Montgomery wanted to have the deck completed for use. Kirsten Montgomery answered May 30, 2010, Memorial Day Weekend. Douglas Hill asked if Earl Sandford, P.E., believed that he would have the Shoreland Protection permit by May 30, 2010. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that he was unsure. Douglas Hill stated that he would be inclined to
propose approvals so that construction of the deck could begin but noted that the use of the deck could not commence until the three items had been received. He continued that the downside to his proposal was the risk that the permits could not be obtained making the deck unusable. He stated that he did not have a problem with providing the approvals.
The Chairman asked how the spreadsheet provided by the applicant that referred to calculations of flow and the use of paper and regular plates was reflected in the approval. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that it would be on what was received from the State. The Coordinator stated that Shannon Silver did not believe that Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, would issue a building permit without the Shoreland permit if it was needed. Shannon Silver commented that she was unsure if Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer, could issue a building permit without the Shoreland permit under the new standards.
Kirsten Montgomery asked for the Board’s opinion on the removable fence for behind the Gravity Tavern. She continued that she needed a letter of approval from the Board to be sent to the Liquor Commission that stated she had Town approval to install the removable fence.
The Chairman stated that if the Board gave conditional approval for the three items previously listed then the Board would be finished with this matter and it would move onto the jurisdiction of the Building Inspector. He asked what would happen if the State permits were not issued after the Board had approved the conditional approval. The Coordinator answered that if the conditions were not met then the site plan would not be approved.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicant could build the deck if they did not have people sitting on it. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated no, because a deck is considered an impervious surface. Christine Quirk stated that the applicant should not go through with the construction of the deck until they obtained the three items previously listed. Douglas Hill believed that the applicant would receive the three items from the State.
The Chairman asked if the Coordinator believed the Board could grant a conditional approval. The Coordinator answered that it was up to the Board to determine and added that historically the Board had not granted conditional approval when septic issues were pending, i.e., The Community Church and Little People’s Depot. Earl Sandford, P.E., asked if partial approval could be granted. The Chairman asked if Earl Sandford, P.E., was referring to the approval of the removable fence and not the deck. The Coordinator stated that a separate plan would need to be submitted to avoid confusion. Douglas Hill stated that the Board could grant a conditional approval pending a new plan.
Mark Suennen stated that the plan did not appear to have the correct number of handicapped parking spaces and asked if a count had been conducted. Kirsten Montgomery stated that the plan was missing one handicapped parking space. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that there was two spaces next to the Gravity Tavern and there was plenty of space to add additional handicapped parking spaces. He continued that the parking that was proposed in the site plan was the parking that had been approved in the previous site plan.
Mark Suennen asked if eighteen parking spaces were being added. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that they had determined eighteen different ways to fit eighteen spaces on the gravel. Mark Suennen asked that the applicant ensure that there was an adequate number of ADA spaces.
Mark Suennen stated that lighting symbols appeared to be on the plan for the deck. Earl Sandford, P.E., advised that the applicant was going to light the deck and noted that the placement of the lights may be moved around from what was shown on the plan. Mark Suennen asked what kind of lighting was going to be used. Kirsten Montgomery answered that decorative outdoor lighting would be used on the deck. Douglas Hill asked if the applicant intended on using flood lights or sconces. Kirsten Montgomery stated that she planned on using sconces. The Chairman stated that the plan needed to accurately depict the location of the lighting as the Board would be conducting a compliance walk. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that by code lighting would need to be installed at the doorways and stairways.
Douglas Hill commented that it was easy to pick out things that were wrong with the plan and that needed to be done. He continued that Kiki’s Restaurant and the Gravity Tavern were great for New Boston. He believed that anything that could be done to help out economically was important. He added that sometimes it was easy to lose sight of the importance when the details and the checklists were being reviewed. He believed that sometimes it was more important to look at the big picture.
Brandy Mitroff pointed out that after the deck was built and all the items that were listed in the plan had been implemented a compliance hearing and site walk would need to be scheduled. She stated that she wanted the applicant to be aware that even though approvals may be granted this evening it would still take a couple of weeks following the completion of the project to schedule and conduct the compliance hearing and site walk before she could open the deck. The Chairman commented that Brandy Mitroff had made a good point.
Earl Sandford, P.E., asked if the removable fence really required a new site plan. Douglas Hill did not believe another site plan was necessary. Randy Parker pointed out that he had held an event on his property along the river last summer at which time he served alcohol. He stated that he was required to obtain a temporary liquor permit and place a temporary fence around the area where there was alcohol. He believed that approval of a temporary fence was not necessary if the state liquor laws were being met. Douglas Hill and Brandy Mitroff agreed with Randy Parker’s statement. Shannon Silver stated that height requirements needed to be followed for fences. She asked the applicant if she intended on putting concrete in the ground for the fence. Kirsten Montgomery answered no.
Shannon Silver stated that the applicant would not need a building permit for the fence. Christine Quirk stated that she had no problem with the applicant moving forward with the removable fence and not including it on the site plan. She did question granting conditional approval for the septic before all the appropriate permits were in place.
Douglas Hill asked if the applicant could receive the septic and DOT permits within a week. Earl Sandford, P.E., answered that he believed he would receive the permits within a week.
Mark Suennen stated that the consensus of the Board seemed to be that the fence was not a Planning Board issue. He continued that the rest of the plan had some outstanding issues that could not be resolved this evening. Christine Quirk agreed with Mark Suennen’s statements.
Kirsten Montgomery asked for clarification that the Board wanted to see the permits before the plan could be approved. The Chairman answered yes. Kirsten Montgomery asked if she had obtained all three of the permits within two weeks could she come back before the Board for approval of the plan at that time. The Chairman believed the plan would be approved if the three outstanding issues were resolved. Kirsten Montgomery asked if she could appear before the Board if she received the permits earlier than two weeks. Douglas Hill indicated that a quorum was needed to grant approval and as such another meeting was necessary. He also pointed out that a compliance hearing would need to be scheduled at the completion of the project. Kirsten Montgomery asked if she could obtain a building permit after she
obtained the three permits. Douglas Hill answered yes. Christine Quirk pointed out that the applicant wanted to begin construction prior to receiving approval from the Planning Board. Douglas Hill clarified that the applicant would need approval from the Planning Board prior to the start of construction.
Kirsten Montgomery asked if the Planning Board would write a letter to the Liquor Commission stating that the Town approved the outdoor area behind the Gravity Tavern. The Chairman stated that the Board did not have any jurisdiction over the applicant’s request. Shannon Silver advised that the Building Inspector would mostly likely provide a letter that stated a permit was not required for a fence of that height or for a temporary fence. Earl Sandford, P.E., asked if it was possible to get a memo from the Board that stated that Board did not have an issue with the outdoor fenced area. The Chairman believed that the proper person from whom to obtain such a letter was Ed Hunter, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Jay Marden asked why it was not possible to grant a conditional approval subject to obtaining the three permits. He commented that granting the conditional approval would save the Board and the applicant another meeting. The Chairman stated that there had been many discussions regarding this issue and historically the Board did not tend to give conditional approval when State permits were required. Douglas Hill commented that not granting conditional approvals in the past did not mean it was right. Earl Sandford, P.E., added that the previous applications that had been denied conditional approval were more in depth than a deck. Christine Quirk stated that the Little People’s Depot application was not in depth.
Julie Katz of 5 Central Square stated that she had been to a lot of Planning Board meetings with her father because he had a lot of big plans for the Town. She stated that she grew up going over why it was necessary to have more parking for the Apple Barn and that there were always rules and little things that could be bent. She stated that she did not like breaking rules because she liked rules but she did not understand why a conditional approval could not be granted. Julie Katz continued that she strongly believed in being part of the project and that she cared about and wanted to see the best for the Town. She stated that she would never want to have deck that would hurt the river. She believed that this was a good project for the Town and noted that there was a time crunch to have the deck for Memorial
Day and the summer season. She stated that if the deck was completed and opened in September the entire summer season would be wasted. Kirsten Montgomery added that she would have to shelve this project if the time frame stretched too far.
Brandy Mitroff pointed out that the applicant could have made the request earlier. The Chairman stated that Julie Katz had made an impassioned plea but he was willing to bet that if he were to go back to the previous applicants that were made to wait under the same circumstances they would mostly say the same thing. Kirsten Montgomery stated that the reason she did not come before the Board earlier with this request was because she was only four months into the opening of Kiki’s Restaurant and the Gravity Tavern. Brandy Mitroff understood Kirsten Montgomery’s point but noted that it still put the Board in a bad position. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that most people did not think of a deck as being a big improvement. Brandy Mitroff believed that the Shoreland Protection Permit was causing the
issue and if it was not in play the Board would not be against the project. Earl Sandford, P.E., questioned why the applicant could not receive the blessing through a conditional approval. Brandy Mitroff answered that the Building Inspector would not issue a building permit without the Shoreland Protection Permit.
Mark Suennen asked if the Board was willing to accept changes to the plan in a shorter time frame then the required two weeks for submittal. The Chairman clarified that the applicant had one week prior to the hearing to submit revisions. Mark Suennen asked if it was reasonable that the revisions to the plan could be made in one week. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the current plan contained the majority of the revisions. He continued that he hoped anything outstanding could become part of the conditions. He noted that there was an issue with the ADA parking spaces and asked the Board for any other outstanding issues. Mark Suennen indicated that the outdoor lighting needed to be defined. Earl Sandford, P.E., stated that the applicant definitely wanted to do the plan right. He continued
that there seemed to be an awful lot of rigidity if the Planning Board was not flexible in allowing a light fixture to be moved three feet to the left if it made sense. He stated that the applicant wanted a safe, lit deck. The Chairman stated that with regard to the compliance walk the lighting would need to be installed where it was reflected on the plan. Christine Quirk stated that the plan could be updated at that point. Mark Suennen clarified that any changes made by the Building Inspector after the Board’s approval would be as-built changes. Douglas Hill stated that the compliance walk would be based on the plan presented.
Mark Suennen MOVED to adjourn the application of KMMM Properties, LLC, Tax Map/Lot #19/6, 35 Mont Vernon Road, to May 25, 2010, at 7:30 p.m. Christine Quirk seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MISCELLANOUS BUSINESS AND CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE MEETING OF MAY 11, 2010, Cont.
6. Memorandum dated May 11, 2010, from Nic Strong, Planning Coordinator, to Planning Board Members, re: Road Inspections/Consulting Engineer Procedures, for the Board’s information.
Douglas Hill suggested discussing the above-referenced matter at the next meeting so that the Board members could review the information provided in detail.
Mark Suennen asked the Coordinator to explain the packet of information that the Board had been provided. The Coordinator explained that the Board had inquired about the inspections that the Town asked the Town’s Consulting Engineer to conduct. She stated that she had referred to a document that was prepared when Northpoint Engineering was hired by the Town. She continued that Northpoint Engineering was advised of what the Town’s expectations were regarding inspections.
Mark Suennen asked if the information provided to the Board was the basis of Kevin Leonard, P.E.’s. escrow estimates. The Coordinator answered yes. The Board decided to move the discussion in the above-referenced matter to the next meeting.
1. Discuss and vote on holding once monthly meetings for July and August of 2010.
The Chairman stated that the Board would meet the second meeting in July and the second meeting in August. Mark Suennen asked if the Board had any sense of anything on the horizon that would prevent the Board from cutting down to one meeting in July and August. The Coordinator answered that she did not have any knowledge of anything. Christine Quirk commented that the same schedule had been implemented last summer. The Chairman stated that he wanted to ensure advance notice to avoid any issues with potential applicants.
Douglas Hill asked for the dates of the two summer meetings. The Coordinator answered July 27, 2010, and August 24, 2010.
Mark Suennen MOVED to suspend or eliminate the second Tuesday in July and the second Tuesday in August as meetings to be reconsidered at the first meeting in June 2010. Douglas Hill seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
MARRINAN, WILLIAM & DONNA
Submission of Application/Public Hearing/CUP/to install one wetland crossing
Location: Wilson Hill Road
Tax Map/Lot #6/38
Residential-Agricultural “R-A” District
The Chairman read the public hearing notice. He noted that neither the applicant nor any representative was present and there were outstanding issues that needed to be addressed.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the hearing of William & Donna Marrinan, Tax Map/Lot #6/38, Wilson Hill Road, to May 25, 2010, at 8:00 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Douglas Hill MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:08 p.m. Mark Suennen seconded the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
Respectfully Submitted, Minutes Approved:
Valerie Diaz, Recording Clerk 06/08/2010
| 
