Members present: Brian Sullivan, Matt Fish, Alec MacMartin, Andrew Fairbank, Neil Faiman and NRPC Rep. Steve Wagner.

Page 1: “Don and Dorothy Taylor” is the correct names on page 1 item 10.

Correct “Wilton Center Road, Reclamation Plan Update”, directly below title line 37.

Lasts para first sentence:  “Dawn Tuomala of Monadnock Survey”
A note to maintain the existing silt fences.

Page 2: title should be “Wilton Center Road Subdivision”, take out reclamation.
Last paragraph the company is called “Monadnock Survey, Inc.”

Page 3: vote: “Motion to accept the application”.  The Board didn’t accept the plan.

Page 5: line 20 is Fairbank-remove “s” on end of name.

Line 28: Donovan is the correct name.

Page 6, line 46: Reference to Bill Condra.

Page 8,line 1 “regarding” instead of regards

Page 10, line 8: delete selectman for Donovan, it is the applicant
Page 10, line 17 is the applicant is Robert Donovan and not the selectman Dan.

Page 8: “Mr. Bob Bragdon” instead of spectator:

Bakery: says Page 8 strike the “selectman” for Donovan.

Page 11, line 33 Stated “Torre” pit is correct.

Page 12, “Mr. Fish stated that Chalet Susse…”

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Fairbank seconded the motion.  Mr. MacMartin and Mr. Fish abstained.  Motion passed.

Mr. Cooper mentioned that the other carriers would not allow Nextel to paint their antennas.  The microwave dish is still white.  The Board will check to see if there was a color restriction when U.S. Cellar came in for their site plan.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to approve subject to the requirement that the lighting that has been installed will be maintained in its downcast position.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

Quinn Brothers will be refunded about $2,400 for Normandue’s review.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue to the Oct. 19, 2005 meeting.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion passed unanimously.

It was discussed that a road bond typically goes through one winter weather cycle before being released.  Discussed leaving the bond in place for the winter.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman moved to approve the plan.  Mr. Sullivan seconded it.  Motion passed unanimously.

VOTE:  Mr. MacMartin moved to reopen the reclamation matter that was previously before the board.  Mr. Faiman seconded it. Motion approved.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to hold the reclamation bond that was previously discussed until late Spring 2006, at which point they will have a hearing as to the status of the reclamation in the June 2006 meeting.   Mr. Faiman seconded it.  Motion carried unanimously.

The plans were signed and Ms. Tuomala left the documents to be recorded.
Fees $330 for NRPC was paid and HCRD fee for $50.37 was paid.

Status on infiltration basin: Mr. Quinn was pleased to report a fully functionally infiltration basin the size of the footprint shown on the plan but it is 50 ft. south of the location on the plan.  The basin is 3/4 acre in size.  It is located on lot E-29 and will be moved back another 50 ft. as excavation continues.

The Board was concerned it was not designed by an engineered.  Mr. Quinn replied that this a self-proposed basin that they proposed.  Discussed a review.

Ms. Tuomala reviewed the ZBA approval on the Bragdon’s lot from Oct. 99 and presented the case file.  “The proposed driveway is not to affect the water coming or going”.

According to Ms. Tuomala’s research, in 1992 Mr. Watkins subdivided the property.  He did a lot line adjustment and transferred two-tenths of an acre parcel from one lot to the other and that was when the variance came into effect.  The driveway was to come from Interval Road and not Rt.101 for residential use.  It was the same language as in the minutes.  She presented minutes from Planning Board hearings on Oct. 1999.  There was discussion on drainage but no motion and was made as part of the variance.  In November, a conditional approval was granted with some language changes.  This carried on for several months and finally approved by Attorney Si Little according to Ms. Tuomala.

Ms. Tuomala submitted photos taken Sept. 21, 2005. The first photo shows the culvert depression.  The area on the second sheet highlighted in orange is the area below the culvert.  There is a ponded area in front.  The blue is the top of the culvert.
Ms. Tuomala reviewed the drainage calculations and found the culvert is not low enough and the pipe is not big enough and in her opinion the pipe should be about 18 inches and about a half-foot lower.  (See file)

It was noted that the Bragdons built a new garage where the pool was located and it has been built up a bit more.  The last photo is from the back-side of the garage looking down the rest of the swale and Rt.101 is the left and the houses are on the right.

Decision was not to affect drainage to and from the property.

Mr. Bragdon approached the table to give a better explanation of the culvert and the water flow before and after work was done to the area.   Discussed a 25-year storm would flood the driveway.

Discussed replacing the culvert. Mr. Bragdon feels he should not have pay for anything and does not want to damage his driveway.  He is not disagreeing with the subdivision but had a problem with one of the lots.  Mr. Bragdon said if the house and driveway has not been built the water there would still be there and that he has contained the water

The Board believes this is an appropriate time for an outside review if the parties can’t come to a resolution.

Water flow and drainage was discussed.  Mr. Sullivan is not sure if the water issue will promote health and welfare to the owner the property and wondered if the lot will have a building envelope left after the water issue is addressed.  It was noted the proposal should not increase water off-site.

Ms. Tuomala presented calculations to be sent out for review (see file).  It has whole water shed, existing, proposed and so forth.

Ms. Tuomala was granted permission to send her crew to Mr. Bragdon’s to do some detail work to address the water problems.

Read B-1 4th paragraph of article 2.  Talked about the spirit of the ordinance and does the small dwelling unit promote safety and health.

The Board had the 500 sq. foot requirement as part of the approval.  If there is a restriction of the plan then they have to follow the plan but some members are not sure if it is justified.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue to October.  Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion.  Motion carried.

VOTE: Mr. Sullivan moved to release the bond.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion carried unanimously.

The meeting was turned over to Brian Sullivan to chair because Mr. Fish needed to leave the meeting.  Mr. MacMartin is back on the Board.

VOTE: Mr. Faiman moved to approve the sign application mounted in the same location and with the same mounting as the previous sign and with no illumination. It is a projecting sign.  Mr. MacMartin seconded the motion.  Mr. Sullivan abstained. Motion carried.
 

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to continue to the Oct 19, 2005.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Mr. Sullivan abstained.  Motion passed.

Road frontage was discussed.  The parcel does not have 500 feet of contiguous road frontage.  It does have 203 ft. along Proctor Road and another 100 ft. on Abbot Acres Road and if you include lot 123-3 they have another 100 ft.

3.1.10 was read and discussed regarding road frontage.
C-9 #9 was discussed and read regarding cluster developments.
Absence of development of frontage of lots was discussed.  The lot does not have the frontage as of March 14, 1989.  Discussion continued.

On Concept C the road agent does not like the existing curve which had the radius as 6 ft. and the old subdivision plan the lines are not parallel.  It has a “T-type” intersection for the road then it went down 600 ft. then did the cul’du sac

Concept D has a “Y” which has an in and an out.  The Board has concerns with the intersection.

Minimum elevation is 2-4 ft higher than the proposed area while the Western edge’s slope is less than projected.  The Eastern edge slopes are more than projected because didn’t take out as much material as projected but does not exceed 2:1.  The vegetation is well established around the edge.

It was summarized to the applicant that the drainage will be handled on-site as to not harm the wetlands or move offsite to an undesirable area.  There were drainage concerns. The Board’s goal is to address concerns while there is equipment on-site.  The Board would like a plan that shows the flow of the water and the applicant was informed that a GPS site plan is not reliable.  The Board requested photos.

Joe Torre arrived at the end of the discussion and the Board did a review with him of their concerns of water flow and concerns about GPS indications on the plan and would like to see water flow on the plan.

Mr. Demaries talked with Conservation Commission about the possibility to sell half of buildable land to the town of Wilton if the town votes for it.  Instead of a 34 lots the development it could be only 17 lots if the sale is approved.

Mr. Demaries believes the intent of a cluster development is to contract open space but the town ordinance does not make it appealing.  He said this plan is laid out to be conventional.

The applicant would like to have snowmobile trails and walking trails with views.
They have on-site and aerial photography of the parcel.

Discussed cluster ordinances.  Discussed cluster road and collector roads.
Collectors have to meet.

The Board questions if there are two generators on the site plan.  Mr. Sullivan will review it.

Put this on next month’s agenda and notify them of the hearing.  The notice has to go in the paper two times, with the last notice seven days prior to the hearing.
The Board will send PSNH a letter requesting payment for two publications of the notice.

VOTE: Mr. MacMartin made a motion to adjourn at 11:10pm.  Mr. Faiman seconded the motion.  Motion passed.

Respectfully submitted.
Kathleen Humphreys, Secretary