WASHINGTON PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

September 5, 2006

 1.0  Assembly:

1.1  Members Present: Jack Sheehy, Charlie Fields, Tom Taylor, Bill Rhoades and Lynne Cook

1.2   Alternates Present: Marv Jager and Frank Musmanno

1.3   Members & Alternates absent: None

1.4   Visitors: Gerald H. Miller, Brian and Pamela Valliancourt, Don Damm, Camille Palladino-Dufffy, Jack Kelleher, John Laboe, Hank Amsdem, Gary Springs, Karen Saffian, Barbara and John Cash, Carol Andres, Jed Schwartz, David Hunt, Denise Caffill, Matthew Serge, Charlene Cobb, Laura Rizzi, Tom Talpey, Kim Tuttle, Tom and Linda Marshall, Steve Terani, Sharon and Mike Otterson, Peter France, Mark Florence, Lynn Hendrickson, and Andrew Hatch.

 2.0  Minutes:

2.1  Fields made a motion that the minutes of August 1, 2006 were accepted as written. Cook seconded the motion. All voted in favor.

3.0  Public Hearing:

3.1  Major Subdivision for John and Barbara Cash, Ayers Pond Road TM# 09-015

Sheehy advised those in attendance with the status of the proposed subdivision. Stating the application status is in question. It was accepted at the August 1st meeting but not accepted as complete. There are still four issues to be resolved. These issues will be discussed in time during this meeting. Sheehy advised on the order of the proceeding:

a.       Summary of events to date

b.      Review statement of open items due to the Board

c.       Administrative tasks by the Board

d.      Hear from the applicant

e.       Hear from the Board members

f.        Hear from any abutters who wish to intervene

g.       Hear from any person with a demonstrable interest who wishes to intervene

h.       Comments from the general public will be last – but allowed as time permits

i.         Planning Board review of the proposed covenant for the brook

j.        Set the schedule for the remaining milestones and identify open items

 1. Summary of events to date:

a.       May thru July 2006 John and Barbara Cash reviewed the proposed Subdivision with the Board.

b.      August, Application with reservations was accepted. See Planning Board minutes for reservations.

c.       August 15th the Planning Board conducted a site review with Cash representatives. Planning Board requested applicant to propose covenants for protection of the brook and designated wetland.

d.      August 28th the Road Agent provided an evaluation of Ayers Pond Road.

e.       August 29th several letters from the Cash's attorney – copies available for review.

 2. Open Issues:

a.       The items reserved on the application when filed. Yet to be discussed.

b.      The proposed Brook and wetland covenant language from the applicants. The Board has received the applicants proposed language for the brook. The request for the applicants proposal for the wetland has not been responded to.

c.       The Road Agent has identified deficiency in the road and the Board will address this during the process.

 4.0  Administrative Tasks:

Taylor read a challenge from the Cash's attorney dated 8/31/06(copies available for review) requesting that Linda Cook recuse herself,

 "Please consider this letter to be our formal request that Linda Cook recuse herself from participating, directly and indirectly, in the Planning Board review, deliberation, and vote upon the subdivision application for John and Barbara Cash's property located on Ayer's Pond Road. It would be Barbara Cash's further testimony that Linda Cook took what appeared to be an active interest in acquiring the Cash's property as did other members of Ms. Robinson consortium. For example; Ms. Robinson and Mrs. Cook both visited the Cash's home for the purpose of inspecting it. Arrangements were subsequently made on Mrs. Cook's behalf to have Mrs. Cook's husband, Richard Cook, inspect the Cash's house. Similar arrangements were made by Ms. Robinson to have Peter France inspect the Cash's house.  Sheehy advised that he had received a correspondence from Sandy Robinson advising that Rich and Lynne Cook were not part of the group who made an effort to purchase the Cash property, contrary to what Barbara Cash asserts."

 Sheehy read a statement on behalf of Lynn Cook.

 "It has come to my attention that I will be asked to recuse myself from the Planning Board meeting on September 5, 2006 in reference to the John and Barbara Cash subdivision. I would like to bring these facts to your attention for your consideration. Prior to Barbara and John listing this property with a real estate agent Sandy Robinson and I met with Barbara and John Cash at their home to discuss the possibility of buying this property. After this meeting Richard and I decided that we were not interested in buying this property. I understand that an offer was made by Sandra Robinson but we were not part of this offer. At this time Richard and I are still not interested in purchasing this property."

Cook reiterated the statement that she was not part of an offer to purchase the Cash's property and has no interest in the property. Cook then recused herself from the hearing in the best interest of the Board.

 Bill Rhoades moved that Marv Jager stand in for Lynn Cook. Fields seconded the motion All voted in favor.

 Taylor read part of a letter from attorney Laboe regarding the Conservation Commission.

Taylor made a motion regarding the Washington ConCom "In consideration of Mr. Laboe's challenges of three members of the Washington ConCom, effectively decimating the Washington ConCom, Planning Board, without prejudice in the question of conflict by ConCom members shall immediately cease using the Washington Conservation Commission for technical expertise in the evaluation of the Cash subdivision application, but rather the Board shall retain the Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission or other wetland specialist as required for the review of documents, investigation of the wetland issue and technical advice. The cost of these authorized non-town government services to be paid by the applicant as required by Section 3.07 Costs and Fees, Washington Subdivision Regulation."  Fields seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Sheehy stated in trying to move the application along the Board requested the Conservation Commission's technical support. The Woodward Brook is an area of concern of surface water runoff and outside help is essential.

 Sheehy asked who speaks for the Cash's. John E. Laboe, attorney for the Cash's, advised the Board he would be representing the Cash's. Laboe advised Hank Amsdem would be presenting the technical issues to the Board. Laboe stated he appreciated the communication efforts put forth by the Planning Board. Laboe presented the revised protection covenants stating the Cash's recognized the Board goal to protect public interest and a property owner is a balance. The proposed covenants for proposed lots 3, 4&5 are as follows:

A.                          No machinery/equipment building material construction debris, vehicles (registered and unregistered) scrap metal scrap lumber, stumps compost, manure, earth products (crushed stone, sand stone dust and the like) and/or hazardous materials of any kind shall be store within 75 feet of the centerline of Woodard Brook. 

B.                           No permanent buildings the construction of which would require the disturbance of the soil, such as garages, barns, and the like shall be erected within 75 feet of the centerline of Woodward Brook.

C.                          No clear cutting of trees shall be done within 75 feet of the centerline of Woodward Brook. The Landowners will be allowed to cut and maintain the protected 75 foot wide area, for example, (and without limitation) for the following purposes:

1.      Forest management:

2.      Creation or preservation of wildlife habitat;

3.      Safe recreational use; and or

4.      Landscaping aesthetics.

D.                          No soil shall be disturbed within 75 feet of Woodward Brook without necessary and standard erosion controls in place for the protection of Woodward Brook.

E.                           No livestock shall be sheltered and/or allowed to graze within 75 feet of the centerline of Woodward Brook.

These restrictions are to be incorporated into the individual deeds for each of the Lots 3, 4 and 5.

These restrictions may be modified in the future by application made by the landowner to the Planning Board, Town of Washington, NH; any decisions on such application may be appealed in the same manner provided by statute for appeals from the Board making that decision as set forth in RSA 677:2 –14, or RSA 677:15, as the case may be. 

Laboe stated that these proposed covenants are far more restrictive that necessary and feels that the landowners are giving up more than is required. Laboe stated that the Road Agents report is somewhat confusing to most recent standards. Laboe asked if the Town of Washington has an impact fee ordinance and a Capital Improvement Plan. Sheehy advised the Town has both. Laboe advised the impact fee cannot be inacted for substandard requirement fifty foot right-of-way and a traveling area of twenty feet. Laboe stated the road is in compliance now and would be identical after development. Laboe read RSA 674.21 V subsection (a)

The amount of any such fee shall be proportional share of municipal   capital improvement costs which is reasonably related to the capital needs created by the development, and to the benefits accruing to the development from the capital improvements financed by the fee. Upgrading of existing facilities and infrastructures, the need for which is not created by new development, shall not be paid for by impact fees.

Laboe stated the upgrade to the infrastructure already exists and is not in the statute also stating the CIP major street plan is the Town's responsibility. Laboe advised they contest the impact fee at this time but a proposal from the Cash's to resolve the issue and for the protection of the Brook is to dedicate by easement deed to the Town for a fifty-foot right-of-way in place of the impact fee.

Taylor asked Attorney Laboe to share his recording of this Public Hearing. Laboe advised the Town could have a copy.

 Amsdem presented the proposed subdivision plans for the west side (3 lots) of the road to the Planning Board. Taylor advised to refer to 3.01 from the Town of Washington Subdivsion Regulations general. Taylor stated that if there is intent to apply for a subdivision the language of 3.01 prohibits from clearing the land. Taylor stated he thought this would be an issue to be addressed in the other portion of the subdivision and was not raised in the context of this subdivision.

Amsdem presented site plans for the proposed subdivision. Taylor asked Amsdem to delineate the wetland lines on the plan; which he did. Amsdem advised there was no change in the wetlands on the plans.  Sheehy asked in regards to a wall made as a boundary line at one time stating that now it is acting as a retaining wall in which drainage is going over the wall. Amsdem stated that the wetland scientists have advised him that the wetlands are the perfect filter. Fields asked about the line. Amsdem advised that there are erosion controls in place until the area is stabilized. Taylor advised that the Boards concerns are beyond construction, nutrient excessiveness and keeping animals away from the wetlands.  

Laboe requested that the Board go through the checklist again in this a Public Hearing. Timothy Britain representing Sandra Robinson and Peter France stated it not fair to the applicants, abutters and public hearing this information for the first time and for the Board to subsequently go through the application tonight would not be just and it should be deferred until the next Planning Board meeting. Taylor stated the Board was going to summarize and the Board should proceed. Britain suggested the Board start the subdivision application process again.

 Gary Springs a water quality consultant on behalf of the Cash's and advised of his qualifications and experiences. Springs stated he understood the concerns of nutrient loading. Taylor asked if he was aware of the TDML study that was released in August; he advised he was not familiar with the study. Springs advised that wetlands are a benefit for nutrient loading area and advised that in regards to the wetlands building setbacks are controlled by the State and protection of these areas are in place. Sheehy advised he had concern of a wetlands fill. Springs advised that if this were to happen the State would require it to be restored and would monitor the site.

 Sheehy advised he would like to hear from the abutters.

Tim Britain addressed his procedural and preliminary concerns and provided a letter to the Board (copy on file) and asked that the letters become part of the proceeding and part of the deliberations. Britain advised the Board of his areas of concern.

1.      Asked the Board if five lots appropriate for this property.

2.      One lot does not have 200 feet of contiguous road frontage.

3.      Ayers Pond Road is secluded part of Town only two houses on this road to the point of were the proposed subdivision would begin. Advised to contemplate what may be down the road. There are a number of issues with Ayers Pond Road itself the amount of traffic with existing properties and anticipated traffic puts this road into the category of a major road. The right-of-way should be 60' wide and traveling width of 20' and stated he concurred with the Road Agent's advisement.

4.      Advised a memo attached to letters regarding impact fees not distinguishing between impact and an exaction. There is a long-standing authority under NH State regulations RSA 674. J.

5.      Wildlife and open space.

Requested that reserve the right to adjust the letter with further review of the information.

 Mark Florence and Lynn Hendrickson, 410 Ayers Pond Road provided the Board with the letter advising of their position. Sheehy read letter provided.

Tom Marshall, 484 Ayers Pond Road provided the Board with the letter advising of his position.

Kim Tuttle advised she was from NH Fish and Game Department but speaking as individual. Advising that there is a rare species of turtle recorded from Woodward Brook area wood turtle. Advised that there is a great concern for the wood turtle. Advised that the buffer would be inadequate and development would be devastating to a known habitat for the wood turtle. Advised that the Eastern Brook Trout Report states that sedimentation is the number one concern.  Asmdem advised that there are regulations are in place to protect the area of concern.

Mark Giglio stated his concern of silt fence around his property.

 Taylor addressed the road issue from a Town standpoint advised that there is more than a standard issue there are emergency issues and this is the Town's charter. Advised that absent the funding we cannot proceed. Taylor advised that the Road Agent is not a highway engineer and cannot in accordance with 307. Taylor motioned that "Whereas, such 4.10 Classification of Streets and 4.11 Street Improvements requires funding for the road improvements, the Planning Board agrees to table the Cash subdivision application until the costs of improvements can be determined, subject to the applicant agreement: to fund the necessary highway engineering study cost analysis, and, provided the applicant consents in accordance with Section 3.08 Formal Consideration; Time Limits to exclude the time the application is tabled from the 90 day limit required for board action.: Fields seconded the motion. All voted in favor.

 The Board will provide the Cash's with the costs for the Highway Engineering study and cost analysis. The Planning Board will provide the Cash's the fee for the wetland study. The applicant is to confirm and pay fees.

Open Issues

Page 3 par 22E Hydrology map – action is for the applicants to provide hydrology map request.

Page 8 par 11 Performance and Maintenance Bond. Action pending the outcome of the Highway Engineering Study.

Page 8 par XVII Title Matters. Action is for applicants to provide proposed covenants or restrictions which are part of the water and road issues.

Page 5 par VI Surface Water runoff, Sedimentation and Erosion. Action is for the application to provide a plan to control the surface water runoff.

Sheehy advised the hearing is concluded. 

3.2 Miller presented the final plan to the Board for the subdivision and annexation of the Bibbo property. The purpose of this is one owner plans to sell her holdings on the parcel and before she sells her brother will be given the land to allow him access to his property. Requested the Board sign the Mylar for his meeting with the Town of Bradford next week and he would return Washington's copy after this meeting. Cook asked the new acreage on Map 6 Lot 5. Miller advised he did not survey the land.  Fields made a motion to accept as a minor subdivision as presented. Rhoades seconded the motion. All voted in favor. The Board signed the Mylar as requested. Fields motioned to accept the annexation of a portion of TM# 06-005 and TM#06-007. Rhoades seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Fields questioned the form and advised if he had any problems to contact the Board.  Miller advised the language Fields is referring to is in the deed.

4.0 Business Permit:

4.1 None.

5.0 Mergers:

5.1 None

 6.0 Driveway Permits:

6.1 A.W.  Hatch 1134 Faxon Hill Road TM#15- 57.  Taylor made a motion that the Board approve the permit. Cook seconded. All voted in favor. Taylor advised Hatch should check the 911#.  

6.2 David L.Faulkenberry on Bailey Road TM#16-131-132. Rhoades advised he believed there was a twenty foot. Taylor made a motion that the Board approve the permit. Fields seconded. All voted in favor.

6.3 Paul and Sophie Souza on Marlow Road TM# 14-468. Rhoades made a motion that the Board approve the permit. Taylor seconded. All voted in favor.

 7.0 New Business:

7.1 Brian and Pamela Vaillancourt to inquire about a planned subdivision on Main Street. Advised the Board of a preliminary proposal for a major subdivision consisting of five lots. The Vaillancourt's present the Board with the preliminary site plans. Jager asked about the visibility issues. Pamela advised one lot had a concern that would be addressed. Advised perk test have been preformed and does not believe there are any wetlands on the property. Cook asked about the topography. Vaillancourt advised on the site plan of the plateau. Taylor asked about the driveways. Rhoades agreed with the shared driveway proposal. Vaillancourt advised they would be potentially adding two driveways.

7.2 Don Damm, as the president of LAE, asked the Board for preliminary guidance regarding surveying a possible subdivision. The Board advised the preliminary plan would be considered as a minor subdivision. 

8.0 Communications

8.1 Department of Environmental Services Wetland Bureau. (Dredge and Fill Application approved to be filed.

8.2 Shaping New HampshireÕs Built Environment-Filed.      

8.3 Site Plan and Development Review (order form attached)

8.4 SelectmenÕs office regarding Flood Maps.   

8.5 CPI Parks & Rec, Planning Board, Fire Chief, Highway Department, Transfer Station, and SelectmenÕs Office.

8.6 Town of Bradford Planning Board regarding Nancy Bibbo Wilson boundary line adjustment TM# 8-008 &009 Placed in Bibbo file.  

8.7 Town of Chesterfield Planning Board regarding a 160 foot monopole tower, 12 x 30 equipment shelter.

8.8 Letter from the Zoning Board re: Mike & Laurie Carter for a business permit at TM#22-004 with two conditions, was approved. - filed

8.9 Letter from Road Agent regarding Nuthatch Way.

9.0 Next Meeting – October 3, 2006. Time 7:00 PM in the Town Hall.

10.0 Adjournment – Cook moved to adjourn. Fields seconded the motion Time 10:20 PM

 Respectfully,

Michelle Dagesse

Secretary to the Planning Board