Town of Henniker      Planning Board - Minutes For the year 2003

Members Present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate Members: Jim McElroy, voting in Rachel Lehr’s absence, and Gail Abramowicz.

Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott.

Guests Present: Mark Hubbell, Jennifer McCourt, Rick Patenaude, Leon Parker, Dick Mower, Marylin Mower, Andrew H. Sullivan, Esq., John V. Kjellman, Barbara Abbott, Chris McAllister, Mike Damour, Jean Lewis, Joe Cox, Kirk Abbott, Lance Moulton, Art Siciliano, Patricia Skoby, Tami Kingsland Corbett, and Richard Uchida.

Mr. Hirsch reminded the audience the audio tapes were for the benefit of the clerk for transcription purposes. At a previous meeting it was decided the tapes are available to the public until the meeting minutes are approved. After that they are unavailable.

Ms. Abbott suggested the tapes remain available until the time lapses for an appeal to be made on an approved application.

Mr. Johnston read from NH State Right to Know – Section 91-A: 4 (8).

Ms. Abramowicz stated she was not obligated to record the meetings, but has done so to clarify her notes if necessary.

Mr. Hirsch also reminded guests that no new business would be taken up after 10:00 p.m. Any remaining business on the agenda will be continued to the next meeting. One noted exception was the last public hearing scheduled for this meeting. Mr. Hirsch stated the Board will consider the application for completeness, but may not get to the public hearing if it is past 10:00 p.m.

Members reviewed the draft minutes from the September 10, 2003 meeting. Minor technical and grammatical corrections were made. Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Englander seconded. The minutes were approved as amended.

Site Plan application for Mower Fitness LLC, d/b/a Curves of Henniker, submitted by Marylin Ash-Mower on behalf of K. Daniel Realty to create a new 1,386 sq. ft. business at 10 Main Street, Map 2 Lot 473 in the Commercial Village (CV) district.

Ms. Scott stated the Board would be reviewing this application on its own, and the issue of the possible increase in total square footage of the interior of the building at a future meeting.

Ms. Scott gave a summary of her review of the application, stating it meets all the requirements for completeness, with the exception of information regarding adequate parking.

Ms. Mower summarized the proposed business. Curves, is a fitness center designed for women for a 30-minute workout. Ms. Mower stated she has concerns about the parking situation in the River Lot. As noted in her narrative, she would need at least 16 spaces to accommodate her clients throughout the operating hours, but specifically during the hours of 6 – 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 – 6 p.m.

Ms. Scott stated with municipal parking, the idea is to park anywhere available and walk to your destination. It was discussed that the square footage ratio for parking would not apply in this instance. Ms. Scott also noted that the parking lot is not striped. Some of the parking issues in the River Lot could be alleviated if it was striped.

Mr. Parker, speaking on behalf of Mr. Daniel, and as a tenant with an office on the second floor, stated students are issued parking permits, but they are not required to renew them every year.

Ms. Abramowicz stated the police department, since the beginning of this school year, has put 2003/2004 on the stickers before issuing them. She will look into updating the permits issued to the present tenants.

Mr. Parker stated the renovations that have been made to the building have resulted in less rentable space. He restated that parking has been an issue in the downtown area for a while, and will continue to be a problem until more space is made available for parking.

Discussion continued on the ratio of parking spaces required per square footage of the business. It was concluded that 1 space per 500 sq. ft. was not applicable.

Mr. Johnston agreed that adequate parking is still an issue but also agreed that downtown is designed to have people walk to their destination.

Ms. Englander stated the busy times Ms. Mower stated might not be busy for other businesses, so it may not be a big problem for her clients.

Ms. Ash-Mower stated she has concerns about the building renovations. Ms. Scott stated she has spoken to the Code Enforcement Officer, Mr. Soucy, and he will be looking into the matter further.

MOTION made by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

The public hearing was open for comments about the application.

Mr. Osgood asked if the building renovation is complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Parker stated the work presently being done would address the entryway. The width of the corridors and doors already meet code requirements.

Mr. Ferguson spoke in favor of the application. He noted that people who attended the fitness center that was previously located on Bridge Street would walk down from the church parking lot.

Public hearing was closed for board deliberation.

Members again commented on the parking situation in the downtown area, and stated it could be a positive sign for the businesses, but also voiced it may drive the Town to make some changes to the issues at hand. It was noted businesses may have immediate issues with parking concerns in the River Lot . They may be able to sort them out with the landlords.

MOTION made by Mr. Osgood to approve the application. Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. Ms. Makocy Philbrick abstained.

Ms. Scott will follow up with Mr. Daniel about the possible increase in total square footage issue, and will speak with Mr. Soucy about the building code issues. The highway department will be contacted about striping the parking lot. Ms. Scott will ask the Board of Selectmen to schedule a discussion on the downtown parking issues at a future meeting.

A Final Major Subdivision application submitted on behalf of Mark Hubbell to consider a proposed six (6)-lot subdivision. The property is located at 74 Weare Road, Map 1 Lot 742 in the Rural Residential (RR) zoning district.

Ms. Scott summarized the information received since the approval of the preliminary application. Ms. Scott said that town counsel responded to the questions the Board asked regarding the shared driveway. Counsel stated the proposed driveway violated zoning regulations. With that answer, Mr. Hubbell applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance and was denied. Mr. Hubbell is now proposing a private-road design for the subdivision.

Ms. Scott stated all state permits have been submitted. The town fire, highway, and police departments have signed off on the proposed plan, with no concerns or issues expressed regarding the application.

The engineer outlined where the easement right of way is on the plan. He also showed the adjustment to the boundary line at the back of the proposed lots. Mr. Hubbell stated the proposed private road would be known as Quarry Hill Court.

Members reviewed the draft of the Declaration of Private Road Easement and Maintenance Agreement. Mr. Sullivan noted the draft where the applicant and board members made minor changes.

MOTION by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete subject to the revision of the easement and boundary line shown on the final plan. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Public hearing was open for comments or questions regarding the application.

Mr. Parker spoke in favor of the motion. He stated, even though the ZBA denied the variance, it was more for semantics of the private driveway versus the private road. Having driven the dirt road as it exits now, he favored the changes being proposed.

There was a brief discussion about the homeowners association and the road maintenance agreement.

MOTION made by Ms. Englander to approve the application subject to receiving revised plans and the review of and approval by town counsel of the road easement and maintenance agreement.

Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was five members in favor of the motion. Mr. Osgood voted against.

A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Lance Moulton to consider a proposed subdivision of 36.25 acres to create nine (9) new lots at property located on Bradford Road, Tax Map 1 Lot 102-X in the Medium Commercial (CM) district.

Ms. Scott summarized her review of the application since the applicant’s submittal of revised plans from her first review for completeness. A letter dated September 24, 2003 from Hoyle, Tanner & Associates, Inc. was also reviewed. Ms. Scott reminded the members a request for a waiver regarding the turnaround design was before them to consider.

There was a brief discussion if there was a need for a Traffic Impact Assessment. Ms. Englander stated, from her observation at the site walk and knowledge of the area, it seemed apparent there was not a need for a traffic study. The Board will review the NHDOT evaluation of the proposal before stating a final decision.

Ms. Scott will follow up with fire, highway and police departments for additional comments on the application. Ms. Scott will contact the state highway department on the procedure for additional signage for road entryway at Route 114.

Ms. Scott outlined several minor revisions still required on the plan. Mr. Siciliano noted these for his engineer.

MOTION by Mr. Osgood to accept the application as complete subject to successful resolution of issues outlined in town engineer’s letter, revisions made as noted in Ms. Scott’s review letter, and the legend on the plan being corrected.

Mr. Johnston seconded. The vote for the motion was 2-4. Mr. Osgood and Ms. Makocy Philbrick voted in favor. The remaining Board voted against. The application was deemed incomplete at this time.

Mr. Moulton can present revisions to the application at the October 22, 2003 meeting. If the application is accepted as complete at that meeting, the public hearing may be open for public comment and questions.

9:46 p.m. Ms. Makocy Philbrick left the meeting. Ms. Abramowicz will be a voting member.

Public Hearing #4

A Final Major Subdivision application submitted by Jennifer McCourt of Keach-Nordstom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider the proposed twenty seven (27)-lot Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95 in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) zoning district.

The applicant and members of the board took a few minutes to read letters recently received from abutters.

Mr. Osgood asked Ms. McCourt to clarify paragraph two in her letter dated 9/24/03, regarding lot sizing and property values. Ms. McCourt explained, with the proposed open-space design, the developer proposes to place a large home on a 1-acre lot; but with the open space figured in, the property owner will have the value of a 2+-acre lot and be taxed on that amount.

Ms. Scott stated that the information has been submitted that was required by her review dated September 17, 2003. The performance guaranty will need to be a condition of approval of the final plan.

There was a brief discussion about the homeowners association. Ms. Scott stated all technical requirements have been met.

MOTION made by Mr. Johnston to accept the application as complete. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

The public hearing was open for comments and questions.

Ms. Abbott stated she was satisfied her recent letter has been submitted to the file, so she did not see the need to outline her objections again to the application as proposed.

Ms. Skoby stated she has concerns about the traffic on Pine Hill Road, is not happy there are three lots proposed to abut her property, and would rather have the two-acre minimum followed. She stated again she was not opposed to the development of the property, just the proposed design.

Ms. Skoby stated abutter Mr. Losik had similar concerns, but he was not able to stay for the public hearing.

Ms. McCourt addressed Ms. Skoby’s concerns by indicating on the plan where the no-cut zone is on proposed lots 95-A20, A19, A18 and A17.

Ms. Kingsland Corbett highlighted concerns voiced in her letter dated September 24, 2003 regarding traffic safety issues.

Ms. McCourt summarized traffic analysis and remarks made by the Police Chief. She stated the applicant has agreed to traffic-calming measures by offering to paint a double yellow line and fog lines from Pine Hill Road to Liberty Hill Road.

There was a brief discussion of the 50 foot buffer of trees between proposed lots. The applicant offered to add trees and bushes (conifers) to these areas.

Mr. Uchida suggested this item be added to the covenant agreement.

Mr. Damour spoke in favor of the application, but has reservations as to the continued maintenance of the access road. He further stated it may not be the best design, but commended the applicant on fulfilling all the requirements as stated in the regulation.

Ms. Kingsland Corbett asked if individual homeowners could disturb the wetlands at random. It was stated that legally they couldn’t, as there is a permit process required. Since this application has already been granted a special exception to impact wetlands, no further impact can be permitted, even through the regular process.

As there were no other questions of comments, Mr. Hirsch closed the hearing for Board deliberation.

Ms. Englander stated she is more comfortable with the proposed plan now that the buffer has been described in more detail.

Mr. McElroy asked if the revisions to the covenants agreement would be made quickly. Mr. Uchida stated they will be made the following day and a copy will be sent to town counsel.

Mr. Hirsch restated his past objections to the proposed plan.

Mr. Johnston agreed with Mr. Damour. Although not a subdivision plan he would like to see, it is the best the Board could do.

Mr. Osgood stated the neighbors are going to be impacted by the proposed plan, but credited the developer for working with the Board and offering the town a plan as outlined in the Master Plan. He

stated the animal corridor is a positive aspect in the open space design, and agreed the modified buffers is a plus to the proposal.

Ms. Abramowicz voiced no objection to the proposed plan.

MOTION by Mr. Johnston to grant final approval, subject to:

Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was 5-1 in favor of the motion with Mr. Hirsch voting against.

Ms. Scott outlined the contents of the correspondence file. One noted item was the agenda item for the October 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting. They will address the no-right-turn sign at Post Office Street. Planning Board members were invited to attend.

NEXT MEETING- October 8 is a scheduled Work Session for the Board to review proposed amendments to the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance.

Meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.

Members Present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick and Thea Braiterman, Selectmen Ex-Officio.

Alternative Members: James McElroy (voting).

Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott.

Guests Present: Barbara Abbott, Joan O’Connor, Peter D. Mellen, Art Siciliano, Joan Stambaugh, Lori Womersley, Maurice Gagne, Diane Mallet, Ken & Theresa Richard, Lance Moulton

Chairman Geoffrey Hirsch called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.

Review of August 27, 2003 Minutes

The Board reviewed the August 27, 2003 draft minutes, and made revisions:

(Page 1, after 6:03pm, add "than usual.") by Cordell Johnston.

Page 3, 2/3 down the page, Mr. Rick Patenaude (actually Luke Johnson) recess…"of the hearing." Next sentence Member continued…"during the recess."

Page 4, Old Business third line – "available to the Board and public."

End of paragraph, "Memo will be posted at Town Hall to outline this policy."

Correspondence, regarding the memo from Peter Flynn: "Proposals on town letterhead must be approved by the Town Administrator and/or the Board of Selectmen."

MOTION by Cordell Johnston to approve the August 27, 2003 minutes, as amended. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 6-0.

Public Hearing

Chairman Hirsch presented the letter from Ms. Laura Scott, detailing her preliminary review of the subdivision plan.

Peter Mellon, a landscaper from Hillsborough, presented the minor subdivision plan on behalf of Ken & Theresa Richard, explaining it is a standard subdivision requesting a division of Lot 628 into Lot 628A, 12 acres with 647 feet of frontage road, and Lot 628, 21 acres with about 1,200 feet of frontage road. The plan shows the existing buildings on Lot 628, with 5 foot contours from USGS, and soil types indicated.

Mr. Mellon confirmed he had reviewed Ms. Scott’s notes, and the Board reviewed the list: Note 1) Please explain note 2: Parcel A (not listed on the plan). Mr. Mellon said Parcel A is the 25 feet of land to be conveyed to the town, off the center line of the travelway. Thea Braiterman asked if the town requested this, and Mr. Mellon said this is the 25 foot easement required by town regulation for a right of way. Jim McElroy asked if the stone wall is included in the easement, and Mr. Mellon said yes. Note 2) provide revised addresses of the abutters for the recording of the plan; Note 3) provide date of soil survey for the plan. Mr. Mellon agreed to provide all of this information. Jim McElroy asked about the driveways. Mr. Mellon said there is an existing one on Lot 628A, with a 12 inch culvert, and two that will be built on Lot 628. Ms. Scott said this subdivision is complete, except for these minor issues.

Thea Braiterman asked if the abutters were notified, and Ms. Scott said yes. Cordell Johnston asked if there are already two houses on Lot 628, and Mr. Mellon said yes. Ms. Scott confirmed that this plan meets town regulations, setbacks, and lot sizes.

Chairman Hirsch reviewed the public hearing process for the guests, explaining that the first part is for the Board to consider the completeness of the submitted application; if complete, the Board then opens the hearing to the approval phase, including public comments and questions.

Thea Braiterman asked the reason for the subdivision, although this is not a need for the Board to know. Mr. Mellon said he believes the smaller lot is to be conveyed to construct a single-family dwelling.

Cordell Johnston asked about the difference in total square footage of the two lots, and Mr. Mellon confirmed that the square footage difference of Parcel A is what will be conveyed to the town.

Chairman Hirsch asked for a motion.

MOTION by Cordell Johnston to accept the subdivision plan as complete, subject to the revised abutter addresses and the date of the soil survey on the final submitted subdivision plan. Seconded by Jim McElroy and unanimously approved 6-0.

Chairman Hirsch said the application has been determined to be complete. He opened the approval phase of the meeting, including public comments and questions.

Ms. Lori Womersley, as an abutter, asked where the house will be located pertaining to its septic system, since her lot, 566E, abuts this property and her well is at the back of it.

Jim McElroy asked if the house site is known, and Mr. Mellon said no. Mr. Richards indicated on the map the possible site, and Ms. Womersley was satisfied with this information. Mr. McElroy said there are specific offsets of existing wells on any property that have to be followed. Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked if this will be resolved in the building permit process, and Mr. Johnston said yes, in addition, the State will address concerns about the septic system.

Ms. Womersley asked about Parcel A and Mr. Mellon showed her where it was on the larger plan.

There were no additional questions or comments from the public or the Board.

Chairman Hirsch closed the public hearing at 7:27 PM.

MOTION by Jim McElroy to approve the subdivision application, subject to the three conditions for additional information. Seconded by Cordell Johnston and unanimously approved 6-0.

Public Hearing

Ms. Scott stated there is no written preliminary review by her, just a letter from Joan Stambaugh providing additional information for the submitted site plan application for the business, Feathers and Threads. The application is complete.

Jim McElroy asked if this is an application for a Change of Use, and Ms. Scott said yes; the abutters have been notified, state licensing information has been submitted as well as the business’s operational information. Ms. Stambaugh will need a Sign Permit from the Board of Selectmen when she changes the sign. Ms. Stambaugh stated she is just going to replace the current sign with a similar one. Cordell Johnston asked if a sketch of the interior plan is needed, and Ms. Scott said no, there are no interior changes.

MOTION by Karen Makocy Philbrick to accept the submitted site plan application as complete. Jim McElroy seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved 6-0.

Chairman Hirsch opened the hearing for the approval phase, including public comment.

Joan O’Connor said she has known Ms. Stambaugh for over 20 years; Ms. Stambaugh had a pet store in Bradford; she knows animals and she endorses her ability to have this business. The consignment part is a plus.

Cordell Johnston asked if there are concerns about parking for this business, even if this is an existing space. Ms. Scott said this is not an issue for a Change of Use, unless it would be a new building or if the Use would drastically change.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked if there is parallel parking for this business in front, as well as parking in back, and Ms. Stambaugh said yes, the back parking is accessed by the Pop Schultz store and is for the residents. Ms. Englander asked if there are designated spaces for the residents, and Ms. Stambaugh said yes, there are 10 spaces. Mr. McElroy asked about deliveries, and Maurice Gagne said they would be in front, mostly by federal express, and generally small, quick deliveries.

Ms. O’Connor said she favored more retail in town, in order to attract more foot traffic and to get people to come to Henniker as a destination.

Chairman Hirsch asked about the residents upstairs, and Mr. Gagne said they are mostly college students. Ms. Stambaugh said her birds can be noisy, and they will put up a curtain to reduce the disturbances to them from onlookers.

Chairman Hirsch asked about the classes she mentioned in her plan, and Ms. Stambaugh said it will be single events in the afternoon for such groups as the 4-H clubs; not a planned schedule; she did not plan to be open later than 5 or 6 PM.

Ms. Englander asked how many of the 10 parking spots in back are used by the residents in the building, and Mr. Gagne said there are 8 residents. They receive parking stickers from the Police Department and are told not to park out front.

Ms. Stambaugh added that she is planning to give 1% of all consignment net sales to the NEC or a high school of the person’s choice. She believes it is important to give back to the community.

MOTION by Karen Makocy Philbrick to approve the site plan application, as submitted. Seconded by Judie Englander and unanimously approved 6-0.

The public hearing was closed at 7:45 PM.

The Board congratulated Ms. Stambaugh on her new business. She plans to open Monday. Mr. Gagne asked about information listing the types of businesses that can be opened in this zoning district, and the Board referred him to the Zoning Board’s information book. The listing is general, but could guide him.

New Business

Art Siciliano distributed additional subdivision plans. Ms. Scott said she reviewed this application on August 28, 2003 and, at that time, it was not complete. Since then, more information has been submitted, so many of the issues on her list to the Board have been resolved. Because this information was submitted too late to schedule a public hearing, this is a preliminary review of the application.

The Board restated that this is the first time they have seen this information, so it will be a general review of this application. Mr. Johnston asked about Cressy Street, versus Bradford Road; Ms. Scott clarified that Cressy Street is the applicant’s mailing address, not the site address.

Ms. Scott reviewed the list of issues on the plan:

Under Submitted Plan: 1) resolved; 2) the site for the utility pole; Mr. Siciliano said this will be decided by PSNH. Under Procedure: five complete sets of the small plans are still needed for the Board. The last two items are resolved. Ms. Scott asked if the Board would like to schedule a site walk, which is necessary for this application.

Cordell Johnston asked if the road will be laid out, and Mr. Siciliano said that can be done by the time of the walk, but he also wants to make sure the Board will have a chance to review the plans before then. The Board assured him they would. Ms. Scott advised doing the walk within the next two weeks, in order to be able to schedule the public hearing for the next Board meeting. The Board agreed to do a site walk on September 24^th, at 4:30-pm, with Mr. Johnston, Chairman Hirsch, and Ms. Englander. Mr. McElroy will be the backup.

Mr. Osgood asked if they have dug any test pits, and Mr. Siciliano said yes, and showed them on the property plan. Mr. McElroy advised reviewing the abutter information again, and noted the error with 49 Old Concord Road. Ms. Scott said she would review and correct.

Mr. McElroy asked about the status of the stone walls. Mr. Siciliano confirmed they will stay. Ms. Scott added that all stone walls can be moved, unless used as a lot boundary line, and even then they can be jointly agreed to be moved.

For the 202-7(B) issue, the Board requested the deed for the road Right Of Way (ROW). Mr. McElroy asked if the ROW on Route 114 is clear and Mr. Siciliano said yes. The Board requested Ms. Scott send this plan to the Highway, Fire, and Police departments, as well as send the road and stormwater plans to the town’s consulting engineer. Ms. Scott requested one more set of the big plans to send to the town engineer - Hoyle, Tanner & Associates.

Mr. Osgood requested the town engineer work up a cost of bonding this road. Ms. Braiterman asked if the town has to accept this road, and Ms. Scott said she would look into this issue. The Board discussed whether a new road has to be approved at town meeting. Mr. Siciliano said he believed that once the Planning Board approves this plan, the road is accepted by the town. It was noted that town regulations request the road deed, so Ms. Scott agreed to research this issue further. Thea Braiterman asked that this information be copied to the Board of Selectmen, as well.

One more copy of the drainage plan was requested. Ms. Scott said that the 207-B(10) issue is resolved, but for 207-C(1), the Board needs to decide whether or not to request a traffic impact assessment. The Board agreed that further research of the plan, and the responses from the town departments, were needed before making this decision. Mr. Siciliano asked how long it will be for these departments to respond. Ms. Scott said she would send the information to them, letting them know the Planning Board will have the public hearing on September 24^th, and try to get their responses as soon as possible.

Mr. Osgood said he is concerned about the intersection details for this plan; that the State will want to know this information. Mr. Siciliano said those details have already been submitted to the State.

Ms. Scott mentioned one more correction for the abutters, and then said the last piece is for the site walk to occur. The Board discussed considering the completeness of this plan at this meeting, with the intent to take the official vote at the public hearing, but decided that full discussion of the plan’s completeness during the hearing will better serve the public.

The Board asked for a brief overview of the submitted plan, to be better prepared for the site walk. Mr. Siciliano explained the plan to build 10 lots on the 36.25 acres. The wetlands have been flagged, with no crossing of them planned. There is a proposed turnaround that has been discussed with the town Road agent, which will need a waiver. The length of the road is 1,300 feet and will be paved to town standards.

Mr. McElroy asked about the road elevation, and Mr. Siciliano said it climbs about 100 feet. The Board discussed the 1-acre+ buildable area the plan indicates, and agreed this part needs to be clearer on the maps. Ms. Scott noted that town regulations do not require a plan to that detail. Ms. Scott agreed to mark out the septic areas on the maps for the public hearing. Mr. Osgood asked about the radius of the road curve, and Mr. Siciliano said it was 200 at the center line, in order to avoid the surrounding wetlands.

Mr. McElroy asked about the state permit for exiting onto Route 114, and Mr. Siciliano said he has this. The Board discussed the possibility of a future bus stop at this entrance, and Mr. Siciliano said the road has a wide shoulder, should this be needed.

The Board asked about the houses being planned, and Mr. Lance Moulton confirmed he is building them with his business. Mr. McElroy asked if a driveway permit is needed for each one, and Mr. Siciliano said yes. Chairman Hirsch asked about utilities and Mr. Moulton said they will be underground. He has had experience with these and other issues with the building of several subdivisions in the state. There will be split entranceway; he plans to landscape with trees and stone; there will be a street sign, but not a subdivision sign.

Chairman Hirsch asked about soil types, and Mr. Siciliano said it is almost all Gloucester soil, and this will be put on the next map. Ms. Scott asked him to show the slope and soil indicators on a separate map, in order to clarify the details. Mr. Siciliano agreed.

Chairman Hirsch asked about the degree of the slope; Mr. Siciliano said it is mostly less than 25%, with 33% in one spot, which is the highest allowed. He agreed to mark this out.

Ms. Englander asked about the amount of traffic expected for this new area, and the Board discussed using the assumption of 10 trips per day per household, therefore, 100 trips to and from the subdivision. It was noted the speed limit drops to 35 at the subdivision entrance. The Board agreed to further discuss at the next meeting.

Ms. Scott said she will write up this new list of requests from the Board; get information out to them with the required applications; all before the site walk on September 24th. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Osgood noted that the road grade and the curve radius is at the maximum in this subdivision.

Correspondence:

Ms. Scott encouraged Board members to attend the NH Office of State Planning conference that will cover the responsibilities of planning boards. Chairman Hirsch said he would try to attend. Ms. Scott encouraged members to attend the NH Society for Protection of Forests event next week in Bow, NH.

Ms. Scott referenced a letter she sent to Mr. Jack Bopp about a business in his home; no action is necessary from the Board. Ms. Englander asked about the part-time person to be employed at this business, and Ms. Scott clarified that town regulations refer to workers, not whether they are full-time or part-time. The Board confirmed the Code Enforcement Officer is responsible for checking for any violations of home businesses, but will likely take action only from a complaint.

Ms. Scott referenced an inquiry from the New England College about changing a fraternity into a dorm building. The Board stated this is only allowed in an educational district, and invited the College to come in for more discussion. Ms. Englander asked about the district overlay issue; the Board said this was discussed, but not acted upon.

Ms. Scott noted that the NH Municipal Association bulletin is available for anyone interested. She also noted the NHMA can come in to discuss with the Planning Board their responsibilities and other issues. The Board agreed to a joint meeting with the town ZBA, with the date to be decided later.

Planning Consultant’s Report

Ms. Scott said there is an issue with the Harvester Market; the owner realizes he has left the storage lights on past 8 PM in violation of the site plan review restrictions. He would like to come in for another site plan review to withdraw this restriction. Mr. McElroy asked if this is because of security concerns, and Ms. Scott said yes, according to the owner. The Board agreed; Ms. Scott added that Roland Soucy, the town Code Enforcement Officer, has already spoken to him about the lights, in the meantime.

Ms. Scott asked about the work Mr. Kevin Daniel is doing in his building. Previous board minutes indicate the building permit in 2000 was approved only for the foundation. The site plan review was waived based on no new occupants, except on a one for one exchange.

The Board discussed the parking issues with this building and the fact that a lot of their review seemed to be after the work was already done. Ms. Scott said he is building new spaces within the building and new tenants are moving in. Mr. Johnston said the Board had only waived site plan review for one to one exchange of tenants. If new tenants are coming in, he will need to come in for a site plan review. Mr. Osgood noted that it is in the best interests of the town to make sure businesses downtown are fully utilized, not restricted.

Ms. Scott confirmed that a tenant of this building is coming in for a site plan review to open up "Curves", a fitness center for women. The applicant is aware she needs the building owner to give her a certificate of occupancy, which he cannot do until he has a building permit. The Board discussed the difficulty of considering this plan when it does not know the total square footage of the entire building, how many tenant businesses are expected to be there, and how much parking is required for them all. The Board agreed that the Building Inspector needs to review the interior work of the building in order to sign off on a building permit, even if after the fact.

Ms. Scott requested the Board read the September 3^rd letter from Mr. Danny Aucoin, regarding the Advanced Towing business. Ms. Braiterman said the Board of Selectman approved this towing company as an option for the Police Department to call, but the issues now raised by Mr. Aucoin, and not raised at the meeting, questioned this decision.

Mr. Johnston said this is an exaggeration of the existing problem of this current business moving into the space of a non-conforming business in that zoning district, with the position that it is a continuation of that grandfathered business. The Board discussed this previous issue, and further agreed that this new use for storing towed cars is a violation of this non-conforming use, if not with change of use, at least with expansion. Mr. McElroy suggested that town counsel may need to assist with this issue.

Mr. Osgood requested assistance from the Code Enforcement officer; Ms. Scott noted that the person in that position at that time had said yes, too. The Board reiterated their

belief that it is their authority to determine whether a new business is a change of use of a non-conforming use. The Board agreed to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen in response to Mr. Aucoin’s issues, emphasizing that this new towing business will need to find another place to store cars immediately. It will be copied to all the relevant parties. Mr. Osgood noted the site work being done there currently, and the Board noted that Mr. Soucy needs to be aware of this issue, as well.

The Board agreed to send flowers to Marnee Saltalamacchia.

Ms. Englander asked about the sign for the new business, Dino’s Purple Moon, and the Board discussed requesting Dr. Belson to come in for site plan review.

The Board discussed the building site previously used for Wilmott Auctions, but now has a new sign for an auto repair and sales business. Ms. Scott said Mr. Soucy and her met with the owners, the Caldwells, and advised that they needed a variance; they are scheduled for this variance request at the next ZBA meeting on Wednesday, September 17, 2003. She will follow up on this possible illegal sign.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick noted correspondence advising against using emails to convey legal question and answers; Ms. Scott confirmed she puts all substantive issues in the appropriate files.

Ms. Scott said the next meeting would be fairly lengthy; scheduled are the Curves site plan review, the Hubble subdivision, the Lance Moulton subdivision, and Hilltop Estates. She did not know if they were all complete at this time, but rescheduling them would be difficult, since October 8^th is a Work Session for the planning board.

The Board further discussed the Curves site plan review application and the interior work being done by Mr. Daniel. Ms. Scott noted that Mr. Soucy is following up with Mr. Daniel, but that leases are also being signed right now. The Board discussed the need to know total square footage of this building before reviewing any site plan reviews for businesses inside it; also the need to know how each business will affect the parking issue.

(Mr. Osgood left at 9:40 PM)

The Board advised Ms. Scott to tell the applicant for the Curves site plan review to bring her plan in for the next meeting, but that we will also be requesting information about the

entire building. The Board further agreed to request Mr. Daniel to come before the Board to discuss this issue.

The Board noted that new business will not be taken up after 10 PM, and Jennifer McCourt, representative of the Hilltop Estates, should be advised of the possibility that her plan may need to be rescheduled.

Ms. Scott reminded the Board that Mr. Hubble is applying for a variance on the driveway in his plan next week at the ZBA meeting, based on the letter from town counsel stating that his proposed driveway is illegal because it crosses setbacks. Chairman Hirsch said he will try to attend.

A motion to adjourn was made at 9:45 PM.

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy (voting) and Gail Abramowicz.

Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott

Guests present: Brian Dubreuil, Joan Stambaugh, Bob Richards, Mark Hubbell, Lisa Jutras, Barbara Abbott, Lloyd Henderson, Rick Patenaude, Thomas E. Fisher II, Kerry Coffin, Ken Skoby, Patti Skoby, Jacob Prever, Kirk Abbott, Tim Russell, Joyce Blythe, John Kjellman, Thomas Johnson, Doug Tackett, Ken Tackett, Frank Collins, Luke Johnson, Rob Howard, William Johnson, Chris McAllister, Jennifer McCourt, Wayne Patenaude, and Sally Patenaude.

7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Mr. Hirsch announced that Ms. Lehr will be absent from the board until January, and therefore, Mr.

McElroy will be a voting member in her absence.

Informal Discussion

Ms. Stambaugh asked the board to consider a small-animal pet shop and consignment shop as a continued use of office space at 36 Main Street. She stated the pet shop will be for small birds and fish, with clothing and small home furnishings on the other side of the office space.

After a brief discussion, it was concluded by the board the project is a change of use and Ms. Stambaugh is required to apply for Site Plan Review. Ms. Scott gave Ms. Stambaugh the application and asked her to call the Selectmen’s office to make an appointment to review the completed application form.

Minutes

The draft minutes of July 23, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

Public Hearing - Continued from July 23, 2003

A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Ron Burd of Burd Engineering, on behalf of Mark Hubbell, to consider a proposed six (6)-lot subdivision. The property is located at 74 Weare Road, Map 1, Lot 742 (after the voluntary merger is recorded), in the Rural Residential (RR) district.

Mr. Vanson gave an overview of the proposal, highlighting changes made to the plan since the last meeting.

Mr. Hubbell defined what a shared driveway is and presented a draft of the deed and easement that outlined the maintenance of the shared driveway, which will be the responsibility of the property owners.

There was a discussion on where the proposed individual driveways could be located, but Ms. Scott reminded the Board that was not a requirement because the shared driveway onto Route 114 is shown on the plan. It was also stated the applicant has met the State requirements for a driveway access onto the state road.

Ms. Scott then read a letter from the fire chief, which stated his concern of the width of the driveway. Mr. Hubbell said he resides at that site, and he is able to get his dump truck through there without any problem.

Police Chief Russell stated he saw no pedestrian traffic concerns, sight distance issues or vehicle traffic delays at the site. He did voice concern with regard to emergency services because of the number of homes sharing one driveway, and suggested a sign at the entrance from Route 114 indicating the multiple house numbers.

As the road agent was unavailable to attend the meeting, Ms. Scott informed the Board she had spoken to him and he stated his issues were answered since the July 23 meeting.

Board members further discussed the shared driveway. At present there is no regulation that limits the number of homes that can share one driveway.

Members suggested a common-driveway agreement that would give the property owner adequate information about how the landowners were responsible for the snow removal and overall maintenance of the driveway.

Mr. Hubbell stated language in the deed would inform the property owner(s) of their responsibility to collectively maintain the driveway.

As stated in Ms. Scott’s review dated July 31, 2003, per subdivision regulation 202-7 (A) (b), an on-site inspection of the property by at least three members is required. The site walk was conducted on

July 30^th, with Ms. Englander and Mr. Johnston in attendance.

Ms. Englander stated she did not see any issues while at the site.

Mr. Hubbell asked the board to waive the requirement that three (3) board members be present.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to waive subdivision regulation 202-7(A) (b) that requires three members to attend a site walk.

Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Public hearing was opened for comments and questions from abutters and guests. There were none made.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked the criteria difference between a private driveway and a private road.

Ms. Scott stated a private driveway does not have to be constructed to town road specifications. A proposed private road is required to follow town specifications in the event that it could be voted to become a town maintained road in the future.

There was additional discussion on this topic.

Ms. Scott reminded the members the road agent had no further comments about the driveway; and, since it will access a state road, the applicant will need approval from the State for a driveway permit.

Mr. Hubbell said the State is still reviewing his permit application, but he will submit a copy of the approval for the file when obtained.

Mr. McElroy and Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked additional questions about the driveway.

Mr. Hirsch stated it would be up to the individual homeowners if they wished to upgrade the driveway width or surface material.

Mr. Hubbell stated it would be a personal preference on how the landowner(s) choose to upgrade their personal driveway onto the common driveway.

Mr. Vanson stated, for those not familiar with the driveway, as it exists now, looks like a private road.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick suggested perhaps legal counsel should review the proposed common driveway.

Mr. Hirsch stated that because of the absence of any present regulation, there may not be sufficient reason to make that request.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick said because there is not a regulation is the reason a review should be requested.

Mr. Hirsch asked if the conditions had been met as stated in the acceptance of the application as complete.

Ms. Scott stated the information has been submitted to the file.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the proposed subject to the following conditions:

Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion. The preliminary application for major subdivision has been approved.

Public Hearing- Continued from July 23, 2003

Public Hearing- Continued from July 23, 2003A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Jennifer McCourt of Keach Nordstrom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider a proposed twenty eight (28)- lot Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95 in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) district.

Ms. Scott summarized the supplemental Traffic Study Review received on this date from HTA, the town retained engineering firm.

Supplemental comments addressed the width of Davison Road, site distance from the proposed Ridge Top Lane, and the projected 25% increase in traffic on Davison Road.

The review concluded:

Ms. Scott then addressed questions posed in abutter Barbara Abbott’s letter of August 4, 2003:

With regard to lot sizing in a proposed Open Space development, the planning board can be flexible in negotiating with the developer, as stated in Sections 133-117A and 113-119E of the Zoning Regulations, and Section 202-6A (5)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations.

Ms. Abbott’s letter further stated concerns in the calculation used to determine the designated open space area, the reduction of the cul-de-sac, the spirit and intent of the proposed development design, and the additional impact to school services. Ms. Abbott suggested, in her letter, that many of the issues could be resolved with a reduction in the number of lots by designing larger lots that would ensure more usable land for the future homeowner.

In response to Ms. Abbott’s letter, Ms. McCourt addressed some issues, as did Ms. Scott and members of the Board.

Police Chief Tim Russell addressed traffic safety issues with regards to Davison Road. He stated, based on accident and speed-citation data compiled since 1997, that Davison Road is considered a secondary road. Having been in attendance at the site-walk, Chief Russell stated he saw no issues with the sight distance. With regards to pedestrian traffic, he stated the responsibility should be with both the pedestrian and the vehicle driver.

There was a brief discussion on the posted speed limit of 35 MPH and the location and adequacy of posted signs. The Board of Selectmen is responsible for addressing citizen suggestions to lowering the speed limit on town roads and additional posting of street signs.

Ms. McCourt stated the applicant has offered to stripe the roadway for traffic calming measures. The developer will absorb the initial cost of striping. The town would then decide if the striping will be maintained and incur the cost.

Ms. McCourt indicated on the plan where all the property owners could access the open space by way of the trail system.

Mr. McCourt passed out copies to the Board of the preliminary draft of the Land & Building Restrictions for Ridge Top Estates. There was considerable discussion on some of the language in the draft and several suggestions for changes were made. (Par. 3, Item 1, Item 2, Item 9, Item 12) Mr. Patenaude outlined the function of the homeowners’ association in the maintenance of the trail system and the emergency access road.

Mr. Hirsch formally opened the public hearing for abutter comments and questions.

Mr. Abbott restated issues voiced in Ms. Abbott’s letter, with the addition to questioning the buildable area on Lot 95A-23. Ms. Abbott voiced additional concerns on the availability of the open space to all the homeowners, and voiced additional concerns as stated in her letter.

Ms. Jutrus submitted two photographs of skid marks left on Davison Road. She did not state what time of day/night they were produced, or the circumstances on how they might have been left.

Ms. Skoby wanted it known that the people who signed the petition, submitted at the July 9, 2003 meeting, are not anti-development. She stated they have concerns that the proposed open-space design may really be two different subdivision proposals submitted as one, because of the design difference between them.

It was asked by someone if this proposal is for affordable housing. Ms. Scott stated the Union Leader misquoted it is, but in fact, it is not.

There was more discussion on the lot sizing.

Ms. McCourt reminded the members the regulations for a standard?? subdivision design would allow the developer to propose 44 lots. She reiterated that the proposed design would allow the homeowner plenty of room for improvement to the property. For example, owners could add a deck or even a garage.

Mr. Rick Patenaude stated the market trend is for the construction of colonial-style homes with the option of a drive under garage.

At 10:20 Mr. Hirsch stated the Board would not take up any new business at this meeting.

Discussion for lot sizing continued.

Ms. Scott stated with regards to the proposed lots on Ridge Top Lane, from a professional planner’s point of view, an open space development does not have a buffer around the developed area, but that the open space is left as one large area.

Ms. Abramowicz asked what the proposed new road length is compared to that of Evergreen Circle.

Ms. McCourt stated it is 600 feet longer, meaning Ridge Top Lane is designed to be 1800 feet.

Ms. Abramowicz, as a resident on Evergreen Circle, stated the lot sizes in that development are slightly larger than the proposed subdivision; and, although there could be more side setback space, there is room for decks and garages. She asked the developer if the individual lots would be cleared of most of the trees or just enough to build a house.

Mr. Rick Patenaude said the usual practice is to cut as few trees as possible. Ms. Abramowicz stated, to put the proposed design plan in prospective, that there would be a natural ribbon of wooded area, instead of just the clear-cut looking rectangles on the paper plan.

Ms. Abbott asked if subdivision regulations were in place when Tanglewood was developed. It was stated they were. Mr. Fisher commented that the proposed plan meets the "letter of the law".

There was more discussion, as stated previously by Mr. Abbott, concerning the buildable area on Lot 95A-23. The developer was asked to consider combining Lots 95A-23 and 22. Mr. Patenaude stated they would rather not. Ms. McCourt suggested a mini- site plan of that lot be drawn to show where a home can be constructed and meet all setback, well and septic requirements.

Mr. Johnston, referring to the preliminary draft document, asked if Mr. Patenaude would consider omitting Item 4, which restricts the ground level floor area of a dwelling not be less than six hundred (600) square feet. Mr. Patenaude stated he would consider it.

As there was further discussion on previously stated issues, the Board agreed to continue the hearing before voting to approve the preliminary application.

The two issues to be discussed at the August 27 meeting:

Ms. McCourt offered to forward more information to the Planning Board on open space concept designs. The Board did not feel this was necessary.

Ms. Scott asked if a Conservation Easement were something the developer would consider. Ms. McCourt asked if a portion of the open space could be put in an easement. Further discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

Planner’s Report

Board of Selectmen (BOS).

Next Meeting- August 27, 2003 **This meeting will begin at 6:00 to continue with public hearing of Hill Top Estates application. At 7:00 the Board will begin the scheduled agenda of their first work session to discuss proposed zoning and ordinance amendments.

Next Meeting- August 13, 2003

Adjournment- The meeting came to a close at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy and Gail Abramowicz.

Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott.

Guests present: John V. Kjellman, Lisa Jutrus, Barbara Abbott, Jennifer McCourt, Jacob Prever, Kirk Abbott, Patricia Skoby, Mike Damour, Philip Womersley, Thomas Womersley, Rick Patenaude, Chris McAllister, Sally Patenaude, Wayne Patenaude, Richard Uchida,

6:03 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting. (This meeting was scheduled one hour earlier than usual.)

Minutes

It was brought to the Board’s attention there was a question of clarity in the approved minutes of July 23, 2003. Page 2, paragraph 5 was amended to clarify the emergency access and the common driveway was discussed as separate issues at the Henniker Highway Safety Committee meeting. This change will be shown on the revised approved minutes with an * and today’s date.

Minutes of August 13, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

Public Hearing- Continuation from August 13, 2003

A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Jennifer McCourt of Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider a proposed twenty-eight (28) lot Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95, in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) zoning district.

Mr. Hirsch summarized where the application was in the preliminary review process. The public hearing was briefly reopened to consider two additional letters from abutters.

Ms. McCourt presented the proposed site plan of Lots 95 and 95A-23, as requested by the Board at the last meeting. The plan showed a possible location for a four-bedroom home and a proposed location of the driveway.

Mr. Uchida presented a revised document of the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Hilltop Estates. He acknowledged this document replaces the original presented at the August 13 meeting. Members and Ms. Scott reviewed the draft and suggested a few text changes. There was a brief discussion on how the homeowners association would be set up and maintained. Mr. Uchida stated the developer would set up the association once the plan is approved. By-laws for the association will be in the conveyance.

The public hearing was reopened once again for public comment or questions pertaining to the new information presented.

Mr. Abbott, referring to the proposed location of the leach field and septic on the site plan for Lot 95A-23, he questioned the construction of the slope to create the driveway, which adds to the grade. He suggested again combining that lot with lot 95A-22.

Ms. McCourt once again outlined the NH state lot sizing calculations and stated the proposed plan is designed to accommodate a four-bedroom house on each lot.

Discussion continued with further negotiating lot size. References were made to minutes of March 13, 2003 and the previously adopted and current Master Plan.

Mr. Hirsch closed the public hearing for Board deliberation.

Ms. Scott reminded the Board there was a previous request by the applicant for a waiver to reduce the size of the cul-de-sac. After a brief discussion, Ms. Makocy Philbrick made a motion to waive the standard size. Ms. Englander seconded. The affirmative vote was in favor of the motion. Mr. Osgood abstained.

Mr. Johnston outlined the issues discussed, stating the proposed plan does comply with the intent of the open space design. He agreed the town engineer and the police chief addressed the traffic-safety issues. Mr. Johnston stated he does not agree this plan should be considered as two separate subdivisions because most of the lot sizing is consistent with an open space design. He did voice concern that the smaller lot sizing could affect some people, noting that according to the ordinance, abutters had a reasonable expectation to have two-acre lots in the new development.

With that said, Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the preliminary application subject to the combination of lots 95A-23 and 95A-22.

Mr. McElroy stated his positive opinion of the revised covenants document. He suggested the motion be amended to include additional traffic safety signage, at the initial expense of the developer.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick stated her appreciation to the applicant for revisions made to the covenants document and trail access.

Ms. Englander stated her traffic safety concerns had been addressed. She also agreed with the revised covenants document and the appropriateness to combine the two stated lots.

Mr. Osgood suggested the petition submitted by abutters and the surrounding landowners should be addressed further. He stated the design of one-acre lots diminishes the value of homes and the impact to the town is increased. Does not think the open space adds to the value of the land.

Mr. Hirsch asked if the open space land is included in the value of the lots.

Ms. Scott, from a town planner’s perspective, stated the open space adds value because the one-acre lot is assessed as if it were possibly a five-acre lot. She stated she was not an expert on the market- ability of the property, but from previous knowledge of open space design developments, the value of the property is increased.

Mr. Hirsch stated he was not convinced this proposal isn’t two subdivisions presented as one. He agreed with the suggestion of combining the stated two lots, and also voiced concern about the decreased value of the property as proposed.

Mr. Johnston agreed with Mr. Osgood’s comment about property values being decreased, stating that any subdivision negatively impacts the town. He added, however, that this proposed subdivision offers less of an impact than what could be proposed.

Mr. Johnston amended his motion. The Motion is to approve the preliminary application subject to the combination of lots 95A-23 and 95A-22, and the applicant agree to pay the initial expense of the traffic safety signs to be determined by the Board of Selectmen.

Mr. McElroy seconded.

There was further discussion on the intent of the ordinance for open space design, on the calculation of the swale and slope, and the lot configuration.

Mr. Luke Johnson asked for a short recess to consider the motion of the hearing.

During the recess, members continued with the agenda.

Planning Consultant Report

Ms. Scott distributed a waiver request from Mark Hubbell, and a copy of her review letter to James Roberts for a retail automotive business on his Brown’s Way property.

Ms. Scott stated in her letter to Mr. Roberts he would be required to apply for a variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to locate the proposed business in a rural residential zone, and then apply for a change of land use with the Planning Board because the property was previously used for an auction business.

Ms. Scott informed the Board that Mark Hubbell has requested a waiver requesting to submit his final subdivision application to be scheduled for the September 10 meeting. This request is contrary to the waiting 21 days after preliminary approval to submit the final application.

After a brief discussion, and review of the September 10 schedule, the consensus of the Board was to deny Mr. Hubbell’s request. He will be on the September 24 agenda.

The applicants returned from the recess.

Ms. McCourt stated the applicant would support the amendment.

Mr. Hirsch asked for a vote on the motion to approve the preliminary application as stated. Four votes were in favor of the motion. Mr. Hirsch voted against. Mr. Osgood abstained. The preliminary application was approved with conditions.

Old Business

Members discussed future policy on the tape recording of the meetings. The Board reviewed NH State regulations, Section 91-A: 4 (8), and Brent v. Paquette, 132 N.H. 415 (1989). Members concluded the tapes are for the use by the clerk and available to the Board and public until the minutes of that recorded meeting have been approved, as referenced in the State Land Use Book, Right to Know Law, RSA 91A. (Page 82-85) Memo will be posted at Town Hall to outline this policy.

New Business continued

Members discussed proposed revisions to the site plan review regulations. These suggested changes will improve the format of the regulations and are based in accordance with the recent changes to the application format. Once draft revisions are complete, a public hearing will be scheduled.

Continuation of Planner’s Report

Two errors were found in the official street map as presented previously by Ging Blanchard, and accepted by the Board. Lester Road should be Lester Lane and Hathorne Road should be designated on the map as a Class VI road. Members accepted the changes.

Correspondence

The Board reviewed a memo from Peter Flynn, town administrator. He suggested the Board consider requests for amendments to the zoning ordinance submitted formally in writing from citizens on personal stationary, and not on town letterhead. Proposals on town letterhead must be approved by the Town Administrator and/or the Board of Selectmen. The memo did not specify reasons.

Next Meeting- September 10, 2003

Adjournment- The meeting came to a close at 9:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gail Abramowicz,

Planning Board Clerk

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy (voting) and Gail Abramowicz.

Town Planning Consultant: Laura Scott

Guests present: Brian Dubreuil, Joan Stambaugh, Bob Richards, Mark Hubbell, Lisa Jutras, Barbara Abbott, Lloyd Henderson, Rick Patenaude, Thomas E. Fisher II, Kerry Coffin, Ken Skoby, Patti Skoby, Jacob Prever, Kirk Abbott, Tim Russell, Joyce Blythe, John Kjellman, Thomas Johnson, Doug Tackett, Ken Tackett, Frank Collins, Luke Johnson, Rob Howard, William Johnson, Chris McAllister, Jennifer McCourt, Wayne Patenaude, and Sally Patenaude.

7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Mr. Hirsch announced that Ms. Lehr will be absent from the board until January, and therefore, Mr.

McElroy will be a voting member in her absence.

Informal Discussion

Ms. Stambaugh asked the board to consider a small-animal pet shop and consignment shop as a continued use of office space at 36 Main Street. She stated the pet shop will be for small birds and fish, with clothing and small home furnishings on the other side of the office space.

After a brief discussion, it was concluded by the board the project is a change of use and Ms. Stambaugh is required to apply for Site Plan Review. Ms. Scott gave Ms. Stambaugh the application and asked her to call the Selectmen’s office to make an appointment to review the completed application form.

Minutes

The draft minutes of July 23, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

Public Hearing - Continued from July 23, 2003

A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Ron Burd of Burd Engineering, on behalf of Mark Hubbell, to consider a proposed six (6)-lot subdivision. The property is located at 74 Weare Road, Map 1, Lot 742 (after the voluntary merger is recorded), in the Rural Residential (RR) district.

Mr. Vanson gave an overview of the proposal, highlighting changes made to the plan since the last meeting.

Mr. Hubbell defined what a shared driveway is and presented a draft of the deed and easement that outlined the maintenance of the shared driveway, which will be the responsibility of the property owners.

There was a discussion on where the proposed individual driveways could be located, but Ms. Scott reminded the Board that was not a requirement because the shared driveway onto Route 114 is shown on the plan. It was also stated the applicant has met the State requirements for a driveway access onto the state road.

Ms. Scott then read a letter from the fire chief, which stated his concern of the width of the driveway. Mr. Hubbell said he resides at that site, and he is able to get his dump truck through there without any problem.

Police Chief Russell stated he saw no pedestrian traffic concerns, sight distance issues or vehicle traffic delays at the site. He did voice concern with regard to emergency services because of the number of homes sharing one driveway, and suggested a sign at the entrance from Route 114 indicating the multiple house numbers.

As the road agent was unavailable to attend the meeting, Ms. Scott informed the Board she had spoken to him and he stated his issues were answered since the July 23 meeting.

Board members further discussed the shared driveway. At present there is no regulation that limits the number of homes that can share one driveway.

Members suggested a common-driveway agreement that would give the property owner adequate information about how the landowners were responsible for the snow removal and overall maintenance of the driveway.

Mr. Hubbell stated language in the deed would inform the property owner(s) of their responsibility to collectively maintain the driveway.

As stated in Ms. Scott’s review dated July 31, 2003, per subdivision regulation 202-7 (A) (b), an on-site inspection of the property by at least three members is required. The site walk was conducted on

July 30th, with Ms. Englander and Mr. Johnston in attendance.

Ms. Englander stated she did not see any issues while at the site.

Mr. Hubbell asked the board to waive the requirement that three (3) board members be present.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to waive subdivision regulation 202-7(A) (b) that requires three members to attend a site walk.

Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Public hearing was opened for comments and questions from abutters and guests. There were none made.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked the criteria difference between a private driveway and a private road.

Ms. Scott stated a private driveway does not have to be constructed to town road specifications. A proposed private road is required to follow town specifications in the event that it could be voted to become a town maintained road in the future.

There was additional discussion on this topic.

Ms. Scott reminded the members the road agent had no further comments about the driveway; and, since it will access a state road, the applicant will need approval from the State for a driveway permit.

Mr. Hubbell said the State is still reviewing his permit application, but he will submit a copy of the approval for the file when obtained.

Mr. McElroy and Ms. Makocy Philbrick asked additional questions about the driveway.

Mr. Hirsch stated it would be up to the individual homeowners if they wished to upgrade the driveway width or surface material.

Mr. Hubbell stated it would be a personal preference on how the landowner(s) choose to upgrade their personal driveway onto the common driveway.

Mr. Vanson stated, for those not familiar with the driveway, as it exists now, looks like a private road.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick suggested perhaps legal counsel should review the proposed common driveway.

Mr. Hirsch stated that because of the absence of any present regulation, there may not be sufficient reason to make that request.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick said because there is not a regulation is the reason a review should be requested.

Mr. Hirsch asked if the conditions had been met as stated in the acceptance of the application as complete.

Ms. Scott stated the information has been submitted to the file.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to grant preliminary approval of the proposed subject to the following conditions:

Mr. McElroy seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion. The preliminary application for major subdivision has been approved.

Public Hearing- Continued from July 23, 2003

Public Hearing- Continued from July 23, 2003A Preliminary Major Subdivision application submitted by Jennifer McCourt of Keach Nordstrom Associates, Inc. on behalf of Patenaude Properties to consider a proposed twenty eight (28)- lot Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The property is located on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95 in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) district.

Ms. Scott summarized the supplemental Traffic Study Review received on this date from HTA, the town retained engineering firm.

Supplemental comments addressed the width of Davison Road, site distance from the proposed Ridge Top Lane, and the projected 25% increase in traffic on Davison Road.

The review concluded:

Ms. Scott then addressed questions posed in abutter Barbara Abbott’s letter of August 4, 2003:

With regard to lot sizing in a proposed Open Space development, the planning board can be flexible in negotiating with the developer, as stated in Sections 133-117A and 113-119E of the Zoning Regulations, and Section 202-6A (5)(b) of the Subdivision Regulations.

Ms. Abbott’s letter further stated concerns in the calculation used to determine the designated open space area, the reduction of the cul-de-sac, the spirit and intent of the proposed development design, and the additional impact to school services. Ms. Abbott suggested, in her letter, that many of the issues could be resolved with a reduction in the number of lots by designing larger lots that would ensure more usable land for the future homeowner.

In response to Ms. Abbott’s letter, Ms. McCourt addressed some issues, as did Ms. Scott and members of the Board.

Police Chief Tim Russell addressed traffic safety issues with regards to Davison Road. He stated, based on accident and speed-citation data compiled since 1997, that Davison Road is considered a secondary road. Having been in attendance at the site-walk, Chief Russell stated he saw no issues with the sight distance. With regards to pedestrian traffic, he stated the responsibility should be with both the pedestrian and the vehicle driver.

There was a brief discussion on the posted speed limit of 35 MPH and the location and adequacy of posted signs. The Board of Selectmen is responsible for addressing citizen suggestions to lowering the speed limit on town roads and additional posting of street signs.

Ms. McCourt stated the applicant has offered to stripe the roadway for traffic calming measures. The developer will absorb the initial cost of striping. The town would then decide if the striping will be maintained and incur the cost.

Ms. McCourt indicated on the plan where all the property owners could access the open space by way of the trail system.

Mr. McCourt passed out copies to the Board of the preliminary draft of the Land & Building Restrictions for Ridge Top Estates. There was considerable discussion on some of the language in the draft and several suggestions for changes were made. (Par. 3, Item 1, Item 2, Item 9, Item 12) Mr. Patenaude outlined the function of the homeowners’ association in the maintenance of the trail system and the emergency access road.

Mr. Hirsch formally opened the public hearing for abutter comments and questions.

Mr. Abbott restated issues voiced in Ms. Abbott’s letter, with the addition to questioning the buildable area on Lot 95A-23. Ms. Abbott voiced additional concerns on the availability of the open space to all the homeowners, and voiced additional concerns as stated in her letter.

Ms. Jutrus submitted two photographs of skid marks left on Davison Road. She did not state what time of day/night they were produced, or the circumstances on how they might have been left.

Ms. Skoby wanted it known that the people who signed the petition, submitted at the July 9, 2003 meeting, are not anti-development. She stated they have concerns that the proposed open-space design may really be two different subdivision proposals submitted as one, because of the design difference between them.

It was asked by someone if this proposal is for affordable housing. Ms. Scott stated the Union Leader misquoted it is, but in fact, it is not.

There was more discussion on the lot sizing.

Ms. McCourt reminded the members the regulations for a standard?? subdivision design would allow the developer to propose 44 lots. She reiterated that the proposed design would allow the homeowner plenty of room for improvement to the property. For example, owners could add a deck or even a garage.

Mr. Rick Patenaude stated the market trend is for the construction of colonial-style homes with the option of a drive under garage.

At 10:20 Mr. Hirsch stated the Board would not take up any new business at this meeting.

Discussion for lot sizing continued.

Ms. Scott stated with regards to the proposed lots on Ridge Top Lane, from a professional planner’s point of view, an open space development does not have a buffer around the developed area, but that the open space is left as one large area.

Ms. Abramowicz asked what the proposed new road length is compared to that of Evergreen Circle.

Ms. McCourt stated it is 600 feet longer, meaning Ridge Top Lane is designed to be 1800 feet.

Ms. Abramowicz, as a resident on Evergreen Circle, stated the lot sizes in that development are slightly larger than the proposed subdivision; and, although there could be more side setback space, there is room for decks and garages. She asked the developer if the individual lots would be cleared of most of the trees or just enough to build a house.

Mr. Rick Patenaude said the usual practice is to cut as few trees as possible. Ms. Abramowicz stated, to put the proposed design plan in prospective, that there would be a natural ribbon of wooded area, instead of just the clear-cut looking rectangles on the paper plan.

Ms. Abbott asked if subdivision regulations were in place when Tanglewood was developed. It was stated they were. Mr. Fisher commented that the proposed plan meets the "letter of the law".

There was more discussion, as stated previously by Mr. Abbott, concerning the buildable area on Lot 95A-23. The developer was asked to consider combining Lots 95A-23 and 22. Mr. Patenaude stated they would rather not. Ms. McCourt suggested a mini- site plan of that lot be drawn to show where a home can be constructed and meet all setback, well and septic requirements.

Mr. Johnston, referring to the preliminary draft document, asked if Mr. Patenaude would consider omitting Item 4, which restricts the ground level floor area of a dwelling not be less than six hundred (600) square feet. Mr. Patenaude stated he would consider it.

As there was further discussion on previously stated issues, the Board agreed to continue the hearing before voting to approve the preliminary application.

The two issues to be discussed at the August 27 meeting:

Ms. McCourt offered to forward more information to the Planning Board on open space concept designs. The Board did not feel this was necessary.

Ms. Scott asked if a Conservation Easement were something the developer would consider. Ms. McCourt asked if a portion of the open space could be put in an easement. Further discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

Planner’s Report

Board of Selectmen (BOS).

Next Meeting- August 27, 2003 **This meeting will begin at 6:00 to continue with public hearing of Hill Top Estates application. At 7:00 the Board will begin the scheduled agenda of their first work session to discuss proposed zoning and ordinance amendments.

Next Meeting- August 13, 2003

Adjournment- The meeting came to a close at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; and Scott Osgood.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy, (voting member) and Gail Abramowicz.

Town Planner Consultant: Laura Scott.

Guests present: Gary Spaulding, Don Blanchard, Shawn Richard, William Lull, Leslie Paul and Daniel Paul.

7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Minutes

Draft minutes of June 25, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

New Business

Item #1- Mr. Lull asked about establishing an automotive repair shop as a home business in his existing garage at 90 Old Hillsboro Road. The property is located at Map 1 Lot 323-X6 in the Rural Residential district.

As outlined in Ms. Scotts review of the proposal, dated July 2, 2003, she referred to Article VII, Section 133-27 of the zoning ordinance which defines a home business and its permitted use in the RR district.

In the review, Ms. Scott also referred to Article XII, Section 133-49 of what a home occupation or profession shall consist of, and Section 133-50 which states the general regulations for operating a home business.

The Board reviewed the regulations and asked Mr. Lull a few questions for clarity on the proposal.

As written in the ordinance, an automotive business is not defined as a home business and would not be permitted in the RR district. Mr. Lull was told his only chance would be to apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance, which would be very difficult to obtain. He was given an application and was briefly instructed on the process if he chose to proceed with his proposal.

Item #2- Mr. Spaulding presented revised construction plans from the June 12, 2002 conditionally approved site plan for St. Theresas Church, which is to be located on Old West Hopkinton Road, Map 1 Lot 511-X in the Residential Neighborhood (RN) district.

Mr. Spaulding indicated on the revised plan of the church building and hall would be reduced and completed in two phases. The retention pond was restructured to comply with State dam requirements. The phasing of the project will involve construction of one driveway access in phase one and the other to occur in phase two. Mr. Spaulding stated the project would be constructed in two phases, with phase one to begin in September 2003. The revised plan will not affect the construction of the drainage system or subsurface disposal system.

As part of the 2002 conditional approval, the applicant was required to submit copies of all approved state permits, which has been done. Mr. Spaulding submitted two copies of all permits for the file. Because of the phasing of the access driveways, the planning board will require testimony from the town fire chief and police chief as to the adequacy of emergency access before the plans are signed.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to accept and approve the revised plans, subject to satisfactory review of safety issues by the fire and police chiefs.

Ms. Braiterman seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion. When conditions are met, the plan will be signed.

Items #3 & 5- Voluntary Mergers.

The Board reviewed a memo from town cartographer, Ging Blanchard, in reference to the manner in which voluntary mergers are presently recorded by the property owner at the registry. To ensure the changes Ms. Blanchard makes to the town map are based on more accurate information, she suggests the recording process be reviewed and amended.

The Board discussed how currently voluntary mergers, approved subdivisions and boundary line adjustment plans are recorded. It was then decided the clerk, Gail Abramowicz, would record all signed plans at the registry of deeds.

It was noted the form for a voluntary merger would need to be revised to include a recording fee, as this was previously done and paid for by the property owner. Ms. Scott will recommend to the Board of Selectmen that they consider this change in the fee schedule.

Item #4- Mr. Blanchard presented documentation that an approved boundary line adjustment,

Case #94-03, approved June 22, 1994, was not filed at the registry. He submitted a Mylar of a recently completed survey of property located Rand Road, Map 1 Lot 134-A, owned by Leslie and Daniel Paul. The Chairman, Mr. Hirsch, signed the plans with the current date.

Item #6 - Approval for Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee.

Ms. Braiterman relayed to the members the concern voiced at the recent selectmen meeting as to the role of the CIP committee.

The warrant article from March 2003 was read and reviewed. It was determined the Committee is an advisory board to the budget committee and the selectmen in planning the town budget.

Mr. Hirsch made a motion to recommend the committee member list, as presented, to the selectmen for approval. Mr. Johnston seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion.

Item #7- Meeting Agenda Format

Members discussed options to the format of the bi-monthly meetings. It was concluded the review of the draft minutes will be conducted at the beginning of the meeting, and any correspondence will be reviewed after scheduled public hearings.

Ms. Braiterman suggested, as a separate agenda item, a report by Ms. Scott similar to what the selectmen have for the town administrator=s report. Ms. Scott stated this could be included with the correspondence information agenda item.

Old Business

Options to conduct work on proposed amendments to zoning ordinances and regulations were discussed. It was agreed that every third meeting will be a scheduled a work session, and no public hearings or informal discussions will be scheduled. Work Sessions are scheduled for August 27, October 8 and November 25. With this revised meeting schedule, Ms. Scott will coordinate her pro-active planning activities for the week before these meetings; therefore, no office appointments will be scheduled. Revised meeting and office schedules will be posted in the standard locations.

The Master Plan Implementation document was not available for this meeting because of technical reasons. The lengthy report will be available for members at the next meeting, or they may pick up their copy at town hall.

Correspondence

Ms. Scott presented reasons why a locus map on proposed plans is important. Recent applications did not have sufficient information listed, and although the members can waive certain requirements, she noted the importance of having complete information on the locus. The members considered the information and briefly discussed the circumstances where a deviation from the regulation was applied. .

Next Meeting- July 23, 2003.

Adjournment- The meeting came to a close at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz,  Planning Board Clerk

100-foot requirement.

Members reviewed the lighting plan submitted that showed how the lot will be illuminated by the 14'-16' mounting heights. It was noted in Ms. Scotts June 16, 2003 review of the plan there are 213 points where light from the proposed development will spill over outside of the site.

The review of the landscaping plan was complete in the planners opinion.

Guests present: Laura Scott, John Dur and Debra Dur.

Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk APRIL23-03.wpd

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; Rocky Lehr, Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy, voting member; and Gail Abramowicz.

Guests present: Roger Belson, Diana Tilton, Lance Moulton, Art Siciliano, Jennifer McCourt, Steve Connor, Dennis K. Sturms, Janine Bates and Laura Scott.

7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Informal Discussion

Mr. Moulton presented a conceptual plan for a 10-lot subdivision on 36 acres located on the west side of Bradford Road, Tax Map 1 Lot 102-X in the CM district.

Members reviewed the plan and topics discussed with Mr. Moulton and Mr. Siciliano were that of road design, state permits required, impact studies that may be required (school, traffic, and environmental), and if there is the presence of wetlands, Mr. Moulton will be required to obtain a Special Exception from the ZBA.

Minutes of March 18, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

Ms. Scott asked the Board if Hearing #3 can be tabled until the April 23 meeting since the applicant, Mr. Sturms, did not have a completed application to be considered at this time and he was not ready to present his application.

After a brief discussion about the legalities of postponing the hearing without notifying the abutters of the change, the Board agreed to continue the hearing for this application until the next scheduled meeting, which is Wednesday, April 23, 2003. It will be properly noticed according to public hearing regulations.

Site Plan Review application submitted by Diana Tilton and property owner Roger E. Belson Revocable Trust, for a proposed barber shop to be located at 10 Bridge Street, Tax Map 2 Lot 416 in the CV district.

Dr. Belson outlined his reasons why he submitted a site plan review waiver request along with Ms. Tiltons application, stating Ms. Tilton should not have been required to file for site plan review based on the information she presented at the March 18 meeting. He stated the proposed business was not a change in use from the former businesses he has leased to in the past. Using past planning board minutes, and citing past applications before the board for site plan review, Dr. Belson stated he didnt believe now or possibly in the future he should be required to apply for site plan review when he leases to regulation-allowed businesses.

Mr. Hirsch stated the Board based their decision that the proposed business was a significant enough change in use of the building by the information Ms. Tilton presented, and the members had reviewed his waiver request for site plan review.

The Board thanked Dr. Belson for his research and they discussed the information he presented. Based on that information, members agreed the applicant did not have to apply for site plan review, but explained to Dr. Belson that this may not be the case with future business-tenants he may lease to.

Public Hearing

Site Plan Review application submitted by Pats Peak, Inc. proposed to expand the Valley Lodge by adding 70 feet, a total of 8,400 square feet, to the existing building. The property is located on Flanders Road, Map 1 Lot 588-A in the CR district.

Mr. Osgood recused himself from discussion of this application.

Ms. McCourt presented a revised plan, addressing previously missing items from the application as outlined by Ms. Scott, the towns circuit rider from Central NH Regional Planning Commission.

Members discussed proposed exits, interior stairways, and asked if a sprinkler system will be installed. Ms. McCourt stated there will be an increase in the exits as required, the additional interior stairways were now possible because of the proposed expansion, and noted all building codes will be followed, so a sprinkler system will be installed.

Ms. McCourt requested three minimum requirements be waived as they are not relevant to this application.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick made a motion to accept the application as complete subject to a copy of the tax /zoning map be included in the applicants file, and the Board waiving two of the three minimum requirements requested. [203-9.E(1) and 202-9.E(6)]

Mr. Hirsch seconded. The vote was in favor of the motion to accept the application as complete.

Ms. McCourt noted the type and location of the existing solid waste storage facilities, and no changes or additional facilities are proposed.

Mr. Hirsch asked if the existing septic system was adequate for the proposed plan. Ms. McCourt stated the project is not designed to increase number of patrons, but to accommodate the present guests more comfortably. Ms. McCourt stated the main reason for the renovation was to increase the first floor where the rental shop area is. The limited space is not sufficient to service the bus groups adequately. The proposed plan will also increase the lost and found area and the lounge area.

Ms. Scott asked what the proposed start date of the project is, reminding Ms. McCourt the state building code is in effect as of September 14, 2003.

Mr. Johnston asked if the water runoff will be directed to the pond. Ms. McCourt answered it will.

Mr. Hirsch asked for comments or questions from guests and abutters.

Ms. Bates, abutter, commented on the number of cars parked on Flanders Road this past season, and the frequent traffic-safety issue from cars exiting the parking lot and not yielding to traffic on Flanders Road.

Ms. McCourt said the personnel at the Peak were aware of the parking issue and had adjusted ticket sales in those instances, alleviating the problem.

Ms. Braiterman directed Ms. Bates to attend a Board of Selectmens meeting to have her concern of the traffic issue addressed, where then the members could bring the matter before the Highway Safety Committee for their recommendation.

Ms. McCourt noted the abutters concern and will relay the issue to the applicant.

Ms. Bates asked if Pats Peak was aware that the lights on some of the trails does have an impact on the abutters. She asked if lamps with caps or hoods could be used on those lamps that illuminate into the abutting houses. Ms. McCourt noted the Valley trail as the trail Ms. Bates was referring to.

As there were no more questions from the members, nor from the guests, Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the application subject to the applicant erecting a standard-size traffic stop sign at the main exit of the parking lot.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Mr. Osgood rejoined the panel.

Ms. Scott outlined her duties to the planning board and suggestions to increase communication between the Board and Department Heads. Members reviewed the printed agenda format, an application for technical review service, and recommendations to enhance the clarity of the site plan review application.

Members briefly discussed additional changes to the SPR application, and will review a draft of those changes at the next meeting. Changes to the agenda format will be noticed on future postings.

Ms. Scott informed the members that it was the Planning Boards responsibility to form a Capital Improvements Program Subcommittee. The CIP is instrumental in aiding the selectmen and the budget committee in their consideration of the annual budget. Board members will present their nominations for this steering committee at the April 23 meeting.

NOTE OFFICE HOUR CHANGE: Ms. Scott will not be in the court-room office on Wednesday,

April 23, but will be at the planning board meeting that evening.

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Rocky Lehr, Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members: Jim McElroy, voting member; and Gail Abramowicz.

Guests present: Jennifer McCourt, Rick Patenuade, Scott Tilton, Diana Tilton, Scott Flood, Lloyd Henderson, Cheryl Damour, Alan Michie, W. Pullman, Kirk Abbott, David Giamperoli and Laura Scott.

7:05 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Informal Discussion #1

Mr. Flood responded to town counsels legal opinion regarding Article XXIV, Section 133-40 (C) of the Henniker Zoning Regulations, for a proposed Open Space Development Subdivision of 66 acres, located on Gould Pond Road, Tax Map 1, Lot 328 in the RR district.

The plan proposed a 14-lot open-space subdivision on a proposed cul-de-sac off Gould Pond Road. The ordinance requires a 10-acres minimum on the Class V road. Mr. Flood contends the ordinance is invalid because it asks for a minimum lot size on a road that the town has failed to maintain so it can be subdivided with less than the stated minimum. Mr. Flood asked the Board to take his interpretation of the ordinance under advisement. Mr. Hirsch stated the Board will do that and thanked Mr. Flood for bringing the matter forward.

Informal Discussion #2

Ms. Tilton presented a proposal for a barber shop to be located at 10 Bridge Street on the second floor above Dr. Belsons offices. Board members asked what was located in that space and for how long had it been vacant. Ms. Tilton stated there was a bicycle travel office there, but did not know how long it has been gone.

After a brief review of the proposal, it was determined there was a significant change in the use of the space to require a site plan review. Ms. Tilton received the information she needed to submit such an application.

Minutes

Minutes of February 26, 2003 were reviewed and approved as amended.

Continuation of Public Hearing

The hearing is continued from February 26 for the review of the preliminary lot configuration for a proposed, open-space, major subdivision on property located at Tax Map 2 Lot 95 on Davison Road.

Ms. McCourt, representing property owners Patenaude Properties, Inc. for the Hill Top Estates subdivision, responded to issues presented at the previous meeting.

In a letter addressed to Mr. Hirsch, Chairman of the Board, Ms. McCourt addressed and responded to the following issues:

1. For the Board to be comfortable using the state lot-sizing method for the purpose of the Open-Space Development. Final lot-sizing may vary from the proposed lot configuration after the final test pits are completed.

2. To recheck the density calculations, which indicate the permitted density of 44 lots. The proposal is for 28 new lots on the 93.32-acres, leaving 54.86 acres as open space.

3. It was suggested that the open-space area be place in an easement, held by the town, but the property owner is not inclined to grant such an easement.

4. At the request to have 22 feet of pavement on the proposed town road and to widen the area at the intersection of said road and Davison Road, Ms. McCourt quoted the Subdivision Regulation Section II.

The original proposal was within the stated regulation requirements, but the revised proposal includes a wider entrance to accommodate children waiting for the school bus. Additional revisions to widen the entrance may be made in the design process.

5. With regards to concern for the three proposed homes sharing one driveway from Pine Hill Road, Ms. McCourt stated there is no town regulation stating it cannot be done. However, an onsite meeting of fire and highway department personnel was conducted to discuss the proper design of the stormwater facility and the design of the driveway. The stormwater facility will be designed to minimize the impact to the existing Pine Hill Road, and the driveway will be sixteen-feet wide to accommodate fire trucks, with the grade designed as if it were a town road.

6. The memo drafted by the Conservation Commission Chair, concerning three lots north of the emergency access road, addressed a NHDES rule that a minimum of 20,000-square feet of contiguous square feet of soil suitable for receiving layer be provided. Although Ms. McCourt questioned the source of the rule, she stated the road shall be designed to accommodate 20,000 square feet of non-wetland area.

The Board discussed the memo submitted by the Conservation Commission with regards to three of the proposed lots being intersected by wetlands. Ms. McCourt stated the plan was reviewed by the Wetlands Bureau division, when it should have been reviewed by the Subsurface Bureau.

There was a lengthy discussion concerning traffic patterns and the possibility of shifting some proposed lots to the upper section of Lot 95. Ms. McCourt stated some of the traffic issues will be addressed when the traffic study is required and conducted.

PLANNING BOARD

February 26, 2003 Minutes

Members present: Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Thea Braiterman, Selectman Ex-Officio; Scott Osgood and Karen Makocy Philbrick.

Alternate members voting: Jim McElroy and Gail Abramowicz.

Guests present: Laura Scott, Jennifer McCourt, Scott Flood, Thomas Patenaude, Dawn Nelson, Denise Rico, Leo Aucoin, Rick MacLeod, Clark Greenwood, Dan Berry, Reggie Cleveland, Bill McKean, Ron Roberts, Jr., Kirk Abbott, Richard MacLeod, Jean Paul Aucoin, Bertha McComish, John Corbett, Marie Paul, Rachel Paul, Jeff Connor, Michael Damour, Cheryl Damour and James Giarrusso. Two guests signatures illegible.

7:00 p.m. Mr. Johnston opened the meeting.

Members reviewed minutes from the January 22 meeting. Brief discussion on the site plan review application for the construction of the snow-making pond. Ms. Englander asked if there is an issue to address in regards to the removal of dirt from one lot, Ms. Helen Chases lot, to the ski slope site which Pats Peak proposes to add the removed dirt to. It was determined that since there was no retail sale of the gravel, it isnt an issue.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Englander seconded. The minutes were approved with technical corrections.

Minutes from the February 12 meeting were reviewed and approved with minor corrections.

Denise Rico, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, reviewed a memo the commission sent to the Board with regards to the Wetlands Impact Procedure. Ms. Rico stated zoning regulations from Article XXIII and state law, RSA 482-A, defining jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Rico noted the Town Code allows for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to review proposed construction or subdivision when it impacts wetlands, and may grant a special exception.

Mr. Johnston stated the permitted uses and it was noted some items require application for state permits.

The regulation states an applicant is required to apply, and may be granted, a special exception prior to being approved for site plan or subdivision, when wetlands are to be impacted.

Ms. Braiterman asked how this effects building permit applications. Ms. Rico stated that unlessthe commission is notified of a proposed impact, they may not know to review an application.

Ms. Braiterman asked Ms. Rico to present this information at a future Board of Selectmens meeting. Ms. Rico stated she would, adding the oversight was discovered this past December.

Mr. Johnston noted the example that if a proposed applicant was building on the south side of the property that has no wetlands, even though the north side of the property does, the applicant would not be required to apply for a state permit nor apply for Special Exception.

Ms. Rico agreed with this statement.

Ms. Braiterman suggested a copy of the zoning ordinance be included with site plan review and subdivision applications. The Board will review the two application forms for additional changes at a future meeting.

Boundary Line Adjustment application submitted by Leo G. Aucoin, Jean Paul and Doris Y. Aucoin, to adjust the property line on Map 1 Lot 574-AX and 574-X, located on Gulf Road and Quaker Street in the RR district.

Mr. Leo Aucoin presented the application. He stated the proposal would move the boundary line adding 6.89 acres from Lot 574-X to his lot, 574-AX, enlarging his parcel to 13.82 acres. He noted the plan shows Lot 577-X3, belonging to abutter Brian Barrett, is incorrect since Mr. Barrett adjusted his property line with abutter Joseph Trier last year.

Ms. Englander noted Butter Road is written as Butler Road for Mr. Barretts address.

The members went through the checklist according to the regulations.

Ms. Englander moved to accept the application as complete. Mr. McElroy seconded the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Mr. Johnston opened the hearing to public comments or questions.

Ms. McComish, abutter, asked to view the map and see if this affected her property any. Mr. Aucoin indicated her lot in relation to his and stated this proposal will do nothing more than adjust the lot line between his property and his uncles, and will enable him to meet the criteria to put his land in current use.

Mr. Osgood noted Lot 572-X2 was not shown on the locus map and should be.

As there were no other questions or comments from the guests or members, Ms. Abramowicz moved to approve the application subject: to Lot 577-X3 be deleted as shown on the map; to correct the spelling of Butter Road on abutter Barretts address; to show Lot 574-X2 on the locus map. Mr. McElroy seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Corrected plans will be signed at a later date.

A Major Subdivision application submitted by Patenaude Properties, Inc. proposes a 2-lot open space residential development on Davison Road, Map 2 Lot 95 in the RN district.

Ms. McCourt, P.E. from Keach-Nordstrom Associates, Inc., presented the preliminary application to review the lot configuration. She gave an overview of the proposal, showing a map with the open space concept where the lot sizes are less than the required 2-acres each with a proportional amount of open space, and another map showing a conventional subdivision where all 92 acres are developed. Ms. McCourt stated recommendations made by the Board of Selectman from the Highway Safety Committees review of the proposal, and read the open space ordinance.

Ms. McCourt stated the applicant had requested Central NH Regional Planning Commission review the proposed lot configuration plan, and wished to address items in that review. Ms. McCourt added she had met with Conservation Commission earlier in the month, and apparently will be applying for Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

Members reviewed the information submitted by Ms. McCourt on the data for lot size, well radius, proposed septic locations and square footage of buildable land. Ms. McCourt stated some of this data could change after the soil data is complete.

Mr. Johnston questioned the wetlands ratio with regards to the total acreage buildable. Ms. McCourt stated a maximum of 45 lots could be proposed; but the plan proposes 28 lots, so the plan meets the criteria, but will check the data.

There was a discussion on the overlapping radius of the proposed well sites and the use of buffers. Brief discussion on how other towns view this issue and our ordinance.

Ms. McCourt stated the revised plan shows the trail and emergency easement as suggested at the Highway Safety Committee meeting.

Brief discussion on buildable area and the criteria for the different slopes.

Ms. Braiterman asked how the open space design would benefit property owners, and if that benefit outweighs more personal space with a larger lot size.

Ms. McCourt stated the property owner thought this design was better because it proposes fewer houses on the steepest part of Pine Hill, the proposed road is shorter, and the open space area can be used by the home owners.

Discussion on the uses of the open space included walking/biking trails for the common land property owners, the land being put into a land trust possibly held by the Conservation Commission, or labeling it as an easement.

Discussion on larger lots for more personal space, particularly the side setback, and the housing market suggesting people want smaller lots with an average size house and garage.

Mr. Cleveland, Henniker Highway Department employee, asked if could comment on the proposal with regards to safety and road maintenance issues. He compared the proposed road to that of Evergreen Circle, citing the increased number of houses this plan proposes, the steepness of the proposed road, the 20-foot-road width being inadequate for snow removal and safe travel with cars and children walking at the same time, and proposed a larger/safer area at the foot of the road for children to stand while waiting for the school bus.

Discussion on formula for house lots moved from the lower end of Pine Hill to further up the hill. Lengthy discussion on the number of houses that may share one driveway. The plan proposes three homes to share a common driveway; any more than that, Ms. McCourt would have proposed a new road.

Discussion on how it is determined if the proposed wells are too close with concern to depletion of water source. Ms. McCourt stated she has seen many more wells than proposed in this same size area without an issue. Factors such as the water table and pump tests would determine if there could be a problem. The elevation of Pine Hill and Davison Roads would suggest the water table is sufficient for the number of wells proposed.

Discussion on the increase in traffic coming out onto Davison Road, and the difference if the proposal followed a conventional design, with traffic coming from both Davison Road and Pine Hill Road.

Ms. Rico discussed the lots, numbered 15, 16 and 17,which are shown dissecting the wetlands. She stated the State reviewed the plan, and suggested this proposal opens up the door for additional impact to the wetlands. She submitted NHDES subsurface rules, Env-Ws 1005.02 (a), and wetlands rules, Wt304.09 (c).

Mr. Cleveland asked if a traffic study will be conducted for the increased traffic on Davison Road, and if the developer is obligated to repair Davison Road from damage to it while developing Pine Hill Road. Regulations state a traffic study can be requested, and with a major subdivision application, a developer is required to be bonded before construction begins.

Brief discussion if the Towns Master Plan addresses impact fees. Mr. Johnston stated there are several steps required to take before that is in place, but it is a recommendation and goal stated in the Master Plan.

Ms. McCourt asked what the Boards decision is for the overall lot configuration. Road design and number of lots, with regards to safety, were outlined as an issue, along with wetland impact issues that need to be resolved. The hearing is continued until March 18, 7:30 p.m. in the Grange Hall.

A Site Plan Review application submitted by Alliance Energy Corporation, on behalf of property owner Davison Service Center, proposes to convert the existing 2-bay service station and convenience sales to a full convenience store. A small addition is proposed at the rear of the building to house the new cooler and a small storage area. Minor renovations to the building front exterior and landscaping is also proposed. There is no proposal to modify the gasoline area of the facility. The property is located on Davison road in the RN district.

Mr. Giarrusso, Bohler Engineering, presented the application. He stated, with the exception of a small addition to the back of the building for walk-in coolers and storage, the architectural design of the building will remain the same. He submitted revised interior design plans as the original design had a layout that incorporated a drive-thru service window. There is not a proposal for a service window at this time.

Mr. Ditman presented information from a traffic study he conducted on Thursday, January 9, 2003, from 4 - 6 p.m., and Friday, January 10, from 7 - 9 a.m. The study reflected the number of cars driving into the station from Route 114 and the projected increase when the convenience store is in place. The study was conducted on a Thursday evening and a Friday morning.

Issues discussed concerned the possibility of a one-way driveway, new traffic patterns versus existing traffic patterns, direction of traffic flow, and striping on the road. Mr. Giarrusso noted there may be safety issues if the directional flow of the driveway were only one-way; information collected suggested traffic already going past the station would be likely to stop versus any new traffic purposely going in that direction to stop; and at present, there are no turning issues so the applicant is not proposing any striping to the road.

Brief discussion of hours of operation, type of gas pump service, and the addition of lighting. Mr. Giarrusso stated the hours at present are 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. and there was no proposal to change them. The gas station is a pay-as-you-pump service, so there will be no all-night service; and no additional lighting is proposed.

The board reviewed the checklist according to the site plan review regulations. Mr. Johnston moved to accept the application as complete subject to adding the location of the solid waste container to the plan and noting the abutters names and addresses on the plan. Ms. Englander seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Mr. Johnston opened the hearing for public comments and questions.

Mr. Richard MacLeod stated his questions on lighting and hours of operation were answered.

Mr. Rick MacLeod asked if there would be picnic tables, beer sales, and asked for the companys policy on loitering. Mr. Giarrusso stated there were no plans for tables; yes there would be beer sales; and if loitering becomes an issue, it will be addressed by the manager of the station.

As there were no further comments or questions from the Board or the audience, Mr. Johnston moved to approve the application subject to there be no change in the hours of operation, as stated. Ms. Makocy Philbrick seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Site Plans were stamped and signed by the Vice Chairman and Secretary. Two other previously approved plans were signed. They were for 16 Bradford Realty Trust and CASA Land & Timber, LLC.

Next Meeting

TUESDAY, MARCH 18, 2003 starting at 7:00 p.m. at THE GRANGE HALL.

Respectfully submitted,Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk

Members present: Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Karen Makocy Philbrick and alternate member Gail Abramowicz.

Guests present: Dawn Nelson, Jeff Callow, Donna Callow, Jennifer McCourt, Denise Rico, Dale Clement, Nancy Foley, John Osborne, Michele Bergh and Kris Blomback.

7:03 p.m. Mr. Johnston opened the meeting.

Mr. Johnston summarized the budget committee meeting he attended the previous night with regards to the proposed A circuit rider from the Central NH Regional Planning Commission. He stated overall the committee thought favorable on the idea, but wanted the scheduled hours per week included in the budget plan. As the circuit riders time will be shared with the zoning board and the Selectmans Office, this issue will be discussed with Peter Flynn, Town Administrator.

Ms. Abramowicz stated she received a call from Denis McComish, abutter to the approved site plan project behind Harvester Market. He requested that the time the exterior lights are to be turned off be stated in the conditional approval.

After a brief discussion, it was recalled the applicant, 16 Bradford Realty Trust, did state the exterior lights would be turned off at the same time as the market closes. A revised decision letter will be posted and issued, to state in the revised narrative, a condition of the approval should state the exterior lights are to be turned off by 8:00 p.m.

Draft minutes from the January 8, 2003 meeting were reviewed and approved as submitted with minor technical corrections.

The Board considered a proposal to amend section 133-26 of the zoning ordinance, regarding personal wireless service facilities, by deleting the words, A over a specified height: from the definition of A average tree canopy height.

Mr. Johnston read the proposal and explanation, which states this is a technical amendment to clarify the existing ordinance. Under the current ordinance, a personal wireless service facility (cell tower) in a wooded area may not project higher than 20 feet above the average tree canopy height of the proposed site. The term A average tree canopy height is defined to mean A the average height above ground level of all trees over a specified height within a 50-foot radius of a [tower], such average to be determined by inventorying the trees to remain after the construction of the [tower].This definition is confusing, and the planning board believes it would be clearer to delete the state text.

Mr. Johnston asked for comments in favor of, or against, the proposal from the audience. As there were no comments from the audience, or questions from the board members, he asked for a motion on the issue.

Ms. Englander moved to propose the zoning amendment as submitted. Ms. Makocy Philbrick seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion. This warrant article will be voted on by the citizens of Henniker on the March ballot.

Mr. Johnston recused himself from this hearing. Mr. Osgood, in the absence of Chairman Hirsch, will become the Acting Chairman.

A Site Plan Review Application, submitted on behalf of property owner Helen Chase, to construct a snow-making pond on Craney Pond Road, Tax Map 1 Lot 655 in the RR district.

Mr. Blomback gave an overview of the proposed project. He indicated on a map of the ski slopes at Pats Peak where the pond will be constructed on the Chase property.

Ms. McCourt stated the pond will be approximately 4.4 acres in size, with a maximum depth of approximately 16 feet. She explained the sides of the pond will be lined to control seepage, but the bottom will not be lined as soil samples indicated the presence of groundwater. The pond will be capable of holding between 15 - 20 million gallons of water.

Ms. McCourt stated this project does not fall under the usual dam permit criteria, and that they have submitted an application to the state already.

Mr. Osgood asked if the applicant will be filling in any wetlands. Ms. McCourt stated they will be excavating wetlands creating more wetlands. Ms. McCourt said Pats Peak is working with NHDES in reference to the time frame and the amount of water that Pats Peak can take from Craney Pond, to amend that permit and combine that criteria with this new pond.

Further discussion on the proposed project included placement of the pumps, the existence of utilities for the pumps, and plans for the ponds series of wildlife shelves.

The Board reviewed the minimum requirements and additional requirement according to the SPR regulations to determine if the application is now complete.

After clarification on some items in the review of requirements, Ms. Englander made a motion to accept the plan as complete, subject to the applicant submitting a copy of the following state permits:

1. Wetlands permit. 2. Dam permit. 3. Site specific permit.

Ms. Abramowicz seconded the motion. The vote was 3 members in favor of the motion.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick abstained.

Mr. Osgood asked for comments or questions from the guests.

Ms. Rico asked where the pond lines up with the ski slopes, and how far this will be to Craney Pond. Mr. Blomback indicated again where the pond will be located and stated the proposed pond will be 1700 feet from Craney Pond.

Ms. Foley asked where the excavated soil will be moved to. Mr. Blomback said there are two trails that they could add dirt to, and any remaining soil will remain on site. Soil content of the pond was briefly discussed.

Ms. Rico asked the size of the area to be impacted. Ms. McCourt stated it would be a 6-acre area impacted, and the pond will be approximately 4.5 acre.

The Clerk read two letters from abutters Walter A. Grant and Deborah Lea Grant. The concerns they voiced in their fax were addressed in this hearing.

Ms. Rico asked the average depth of the pond. Ms. McCourt stated it will be between 10-16 feet deep.

As there were no further questions, Ms. Abramowicz made a motion to approve the application, subject to the conditions stated previously. Ms. Makocy Philbrick seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Ms. Makocy Philbrick left the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Johnston returned to the panel for the next hearing.

A Site Plan Review Application submitted by McCallister Construction Services, LLC proposed to construct a 60' x 30' building to be used as office space for a law firm. The property is located at

30 Maple Street, Tax Map 2 Lot 194-B1 in the RV district. The property owner has been granted a Special Exception to allow commercial/professional use on this site.

The clerk reported the applicant has paid the balance due for notification fees.

The Board reviewed the revised plan that showed the proposed landscape/screening to the abutting properties, the contour lines, the proposed underground utilities and the location of exterior lighting.

Mr. Johnston suggested a revision to the narrative state there will be A approximately 10 employees.

The plan indicated there was ample parking for employees and clients.

Mr. Osgood made a motion to accept the application as complete. Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

The hearing was open to public comments and questions.

Ms. Englander asked Mr. McCallister if he had met with abutters to talk about the landscaping issues they had. Mr. McCallister stated he did and that Mr. Howard was willing to be accommodating with his new neighbors.

There was a brief discussion on style of exterior lighting. Mr. McCallister stated the lights would likely be on a motion sensor, and the entrances would have residence-style fixtures.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the application. Ms. Englander seconded. The unanimous vote was in favor of the motion.

Ms. McCourt submitted a pre-application plans for the major subdivision, Hill Top Estates, to be located off of Davison and Pine Hill Roads. She requested the plan be reviewed by the CNHRPC for open-space lot configuration. The clerk confirmed an escrow account has been set up. The application will be submitted to the Commission. The application will be considered at the February 26 meeting.

Mr. Clement asked what the decision was with regards to the proposed zoning amendment, as he missed the first hearing of the night. He was given an overview of the discussion. He informed the Board that ham radio operators are becoming popular again because of the emergency crisis with no service in New York on 09/11/01. He expressed his interest in further discussions of cell tower amendments.

Brief discussion on the proposed contract with HTA consulting engineers. Mr. Osgood will contact Peter Flynn on behalf of the planning board with suggested minor changes.

Plans for the approved CASA Land & Timber, LLC minor subdivision were signed.

Adjournment

The meeting came to a close at 9:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,  Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk

Members present: Geoffrey Hirsch, Chairman; Cordell Johnston, Vice Chairman; Judie Englander, Secretary; Scott Osgood, Rocky Lehr and alternate member Gail Abramowicz.

Guests present: Jennifer McCourt, Mark Zuckerman, Robert French, Dennis McComish, Rick MacLeod, Jenniker Osborne, John Osborne, Kevin Degnan, Wayne Patenaude, Rick Patenaude, Richard MacLeod, Ted Chumas and Susan Chumas.

7:04 p.m. Mr. Hirsch opened the meeting.

Draft minutes from the December 11, 2002 meeting were reviewed and approved as amended.

Draft minutes from the December 16, 2002 meeting were reviewed and approved with minor corrections.

Jennifer McCourt, engineer for proposed subdivision on Davison and Pine Hill Roads, reviewed and commented on minutes submitted to the Board of Selectmen from the Highway Safety Committee in regards to the project.

Ms. McCourt stated the proposed road design is already wider than the town standard, disagreeing with the committee recommendation of wider shoulders. Ms. McCourt stated narrow roads are being used more around the state for their calming effect and as a speed control method.

Also discussed in reference to the highway committee minutes was the issue of a second egress. Ms. McCourt proposed a hammerhead egress to eventually connect Liberty Hill Rd. Mr. Hirsch stated he would prefer to review the application based on what is existing instead of what may occur in the future.

Ms. McCourt asked if the design layout of the proposed 28 parcels be reviewed prior to their formal submission of the subdivision application. The Board agreed to her request.

A Site Plan Review Application, submitted by 16 Bradford Realty Trust, proposes to construct a self-storage facility with 119 units of various sizes on a 1.1 acre parcel behind the New Harvester Market. He property is located at 16 Bradford Road, Map 2 Lot 263 in the CM district.

Mr. Davenport presented the application and answered several questions asked by Board members. The application was reviewed according to the SPR regulations.

Mr. Hirsch made a motion to accept the application as complete subject to the following items:

1. Submit a revised narrative to incorporate notes on plan, hours of operation and type of lighting to be used on the exterior of the building.

2. Indicate location of underground utility lines.

3. Indicate location of proposed lighting on the building.

4. Indicate abutters name, address and lot number on the plan.

Mr. Hirsch asked if the Conservation Commission had reviewed this application, and if so, did they have any comment on the project. The clerk stated they received notice of the meeting, but was unsure if they reviewed the plan as no comments were forwarded prior to the meeting. It was noted that if any wetlands were impacted, the applicant would be required by state law to submit a permit to dredge and fill.

Mr. Osgood asked if erosion control methods would be in place during construction. Mr. French stated there will be.

Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The vote was in favor of the motion to accept the application as complete subject to the four items stated above.

Public hearing was open for comments or questions by guests.

Mr. McComish stated he had concerns about the outside lighting and made the suggestion to Mr. Davenport proposing a stockade fence be erected on the north side of the property. Mr. Davenport stated he would turn the outside lights off on the storage units when he closed the market for the night, which is around 8:00 p.m. Mr. Davenport also agreed to the fence, in addition to the security fence around the units.

Mr. Rick MacLeod reviewed the plan and hoped the storage units were to abut his property to shield the parking lot lights. He suggested security lights be added to the exterior of the sheds. Mr. Richard MacLeod stated his questions were answered in the presentation.

Mr. Davenport stated he would speak with Ms. Rico concerning issue of any wetlands present on the lot.

Mr. Johnston made a motion to approve the application subject to agreeing to construct a stockade fence on the north side of the property, and have the outside lighting on during operating hours only.

Mr. French stated that the property map hanging in the hall at town hall showing this lot is incorrect. It was noted at a previous planning board meeting that a proposed boundary line adjustment years ago never went through, and the map is now incorrect. The clerk stated the map in the hall may not yet be revised, but a correct map should be available in the office.

Ms. Englander seconded the motion. The vote was in favor of the motion.

A Site Plan Review Application submitted by McCallister Construction Services, LLC proposed to construct a 60' x 30' building to be used as office space for a law firm. The property is located at 30 Maple Street, Map 2 Lot 194-B in the RV district. Commercial/professional use of the property is allowed by Special Exception, granted in November 2002 by the zoning board. (Case #2002-06)

Mr. McCallister presented the application.

There was a discussion on the proposed location of the building, the driveway location, landscaping, and clarification in the narrative as to the number of proposed employees with regards to ample parking and scope of business projected.

The Board reviewed the checklist according to the SPR regulations. The following items were missing from the application:

1. Balance due of $54.56 for notification fees.

2. Proposed landscaping/screening to abutting property.

3. Location of proposed underground utilities and proposed lighting on the building.

4.Contour lines added to plan.

The Board discussed the issue of proposed employees. Mr. McCallister stated there could be approximately ten people employed. The narrative states four. The members reviewed the floor plan layout which suggested several offices and a conference room. Further discussion tabled until the applicant submits additional information.

The public hearing for this application is continued until the January 22 meeting.

Members briefly discussed the procedure for an application to be reviewed by an engineering firm.

The draft for the 2003 calendar was reviewed. Meetings will be held as scheduled unless otherwise posted.

Members briefly reviewed the memorandum from the Conservation Commission in regards to their Wetlands Impacts Procedure. This informational outline will be kept on hand for further review and referral to for future applications.

The meeting came to a close at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted, Gail Abramowicz, Planning Board Clerk

Return to Henniker homepage