Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes, 3/1/2007

April 10th, 2007

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
March 1, 2007


“These minutes of the Town of Carroll Planning Board have been recorded by its Secretary. Though believed to be accurate and correct they are subject to additions,
deletions, and corrections by the Planning Board at its next meeting when the Board votes its final approval of the minutes. They are being made available at this time to conform to the requirements of New Hampshire RSAS 91-A:2.”

Members of the Board present: Chairman John Birknes, Bill Wright, Connie Oliver,
Evan Karpf

Members of the Public present: Edith Tucker, Bonnie Moroney, Donna Matz, Mike Matz, Earle Temple, Lorraine Monahan, Harold Garneau, Marilyn Garneau, Ray Dubreuil, Annette Samson, Mark Vander Heyden, Bruce Seymourian, John Trammell, Kelly Trammell, John L. Foster, Leo Charrette, Joyce Charrette, Bill Dowling, Michael C. Gooden, Claire B. Gritzer, Mac McQueeney, Douglas Bews, Jean Goodney, John Goodney, Al Strasser, Chris Hancock, Roy Ramsdell, Jeff Duncan, Scott Sonia, George Spaulding, Paul Bussiere, Rena Vecchio, Fred Hollis, Tadd Bailey, Roger Gorbich, Cheryl Gorbich, Lori Hogan, Mary Hogan, Sabrina Rines, Bill Rines, Dick Piper, Selwyn Lane, Carmine Fabrizio, Ann Fabrizio, Roberta McGee, Thomas Gately, Catherine B. Warren, Leslie Bergum, Joan Karpf, Lee Hallquist, Mollie White, Kathy Saffian, George Saffian

Minutes taken by Maryclare Quigley, Secretary:

Pledge of Allegiance

Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM

The Board reviewed the minutes of January 25, 2007, and February 1, 2007. Evan Karpf made a MOTION to: accept the minutes as written. Connie Oliver seconded, and the Motion was approved unanimously.

Chairman Birknes then reviewed correspondence, which included information for a course by UNH Cooperative Extension on “Landscaping at the Water’s Edge” on March 27 and 28, and the Annual Spring Planning & Zoning Conference by NH Office of Energy and Planning on April 28. Mr. Birknes asked anyone interested in attending to let Maryclare know. There was also a letter from the State DES regarding an application they received from the BW Club, LLC of Bretton Woods, for an Alteration of Terrain Permit for the renovation they plan to do on their existing 18-hole golf course. Lastly, was a letter from Public Service of New Hampshire regarding “Transmission Line Easements, Procedures and Survey Requirements.” It asked that parties submitting subdivision plans, site plans, etc. that involve their easements, be advised of PSNH’s interest in also reviewing the same. The signatory, Mr. Russell Maille, Engineering Technician, requested that copies of their plans be forwarded to him or for them to contact him by phone at 634-2477.

Next was Richard Piper, of R.M. Piper, Inc., General Contractors, agent for William and Sabrina Rines. Mr. and Mrs. Rines will be seeking permission to excavate material from their property, Map 206, Lot 10, between Route 302 west and Route 3 north. While they will be going before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, they gave a brief presentation to the Planning Board for informational purposes.

Mark Vander Heyden, representing the Alfred Picconi subdivision, came next for a continuance of their public hearing in January. Mr. Vander Heyden advised that the road to be built is about 750 feet and the map has been revised so the road will come in at more of an angle, the source of water is still undetermined and they have applied to the state for a driveway permit. As the owners have no immediate plans, test pits have not yet been done. State approval has been received. As is Board policy, Provan and Lorber Engineers & Planners reviewed the plans and submitted their report to which much of Mr. Vander Heyden’s presentation was in response. It was noted that a large part of the Provan and Lorber report was drainage, and Mr. Vander Heyden advised this was being addressed. Mr. Birknes advised awaiting the drainage plan before moving further. Discussion ensued about when the construction of the road will be and the amount regarding a surety bond. The Chairman advised that the Planning Board’s concern is that all is in order because the Picconis’ plans may not go as expected now, and that the hearing should be continued to April. At that time, they should have a cost estimate for the construction of the road, and which may then be used for a bond figure. Dr. Karpf asked if the revised plans had been submitted to Provan & Lorber for confirmation that all points in their prior review have been met. Mr. Vander Heyden said they could review as all is in compliance and Dr. Karpf requested that Mr. Vander Heyden contact Provan & Lorber for this review.

Evan Karpf made a Motion to: continue the Picconi Subdivision Public Hearing to the April Planning Board meeting. Connie Oliver seconded and it passed unanimously.

The next item was the Sugarloaf Drive Subdivision owned by Bruce Seymourian. Chairman Birknes read a letter from Stan Borkowski, Code Enforcement Officer, regarding installing water lines on Sugarloaf Drive and also possible wetlands issues (copy attached). Mr. Birknes also brought up the issue of maintaining and plowing the road. It was brought up that John Trammell, a property owner on Sugarloaf Drive had to have the waterline installed at this own expense. Mr. Seymourian said there is water to Mr. Trammell’s house and went on to explain that he and Mr. Trammell had split the cost of the installation. Regarding the plowing of the road, he said he did take care of it this year, but is looking to make other arrangements for the future. He said his lawyer told him he did not have to as it is a right of way. He said that there had been nothing orally or in others’ deeds that he would plow the road, and therefore he believes he does not have to. Upon questioning, Mr. Seymourian advised that he does intend to keep it as a private road. Chairman Birknes read the subdivision regulation pertaining to roads, Section 4.12, A, 18 (copy attached). Mr. Birknes reiterated that it is incumbent on the owner to take care of the road, and pointed out that the main purpose is for access of emergency vehicles. When asked, Mr. Trammell agreed that he is satisfied thus far if Mr. Seymourian is going to maintain the road. The solution for the road was supposedly already in the process. The Chairman asked Mr. Seymourian to let the Planning Board know what arrangements are made-- to please send a copy to the Secretary, which he said would be no problem.

Chairman Birknes brought forth the issue of the four Ordinances that were currently on the ballot. He then explained that due to an error at the press, publishing the ad for the Public Hearing on January 16, did not take place in the “Democrat” and the “Courier” as requested and required. When this was discovered, to fulfill the time requirement, it was published in “The Caledonian Record,” a newspaper, while sold in all the surrounding towns, is not sold in the Town of Carroll. Doing this was questioned by Jack Sylvester, a property owner in Bretton Woods, and as this could be open to challenge and possible litigation should they pass, it was Town Counsel’s advice that the articles containing these Ordinances be removed from the ballot this year and brought up again either at a special meeting or at next year’s town meeting. As the Planning Board members are the only ones who may remove them, Chairman Birknes entertained a Motion to: Remove these Ordinances from the ballot this year, and to put them before the voters next year. Bill Wright moved the Motion and Connie Oliver seconded. It passed unanimously.

Next was the Public Hearing to the Town of Carroll Site Plan Review Regulations for Architectural Design Review. Chairman Birknes explained various changes that were made after hearing that day from Town Counsel, Bernie Waugh. Mr. Birknes then referred to an email that was circulating that called the regulation his and Evan Karpf’s, and that they were putting it through as a regulation to assure its passage rather than as an Ordinance when everyone could vote on it and it may fail. He explained that this was originally presented to the Planning Board as an Ordinance with all of the others and was questioned if it should be considered an Ordinance or a Regulation. The Board was asked to defer to Town Counsel. It was Town Counsel’s advice that this is a regulation and therefore should not be put on the warrant as an article.

Mr. Birknes returned to discussion of the regulation and Attorney Waugh’s review. He read a section from Mr. Waugh in which he wrote that he expected to see, but did not, any standards relating to layout of buildings relative to roads, highways, parking lots, etc., such as to “avoid the sea of pavement look.” Mr. Birknes reiterated that the Board is awaiting further word from Atty. Waugh and would like to incorporate any changes made and then send back for further review, wording, etc.

Dr. Karpf explained that the regulation does not involve single or two family homes – it is for three or more family homes and commercial buildings. He said the Office of Energy and Planning was a major resource for writing this and reminded everyone that it had originally been presented as a warrant article.

Dr. Karpf continued with a power point presentation, saying that the sole intent is to benefit the town and is based on comments made by local citizens who are concerned about the Town of Carroll, and Twin Mountain specifically. He explained a major benefit of a regulation is that it is less restrictive than an ordinance which must go before the voters to make amendments and/or changes. He reemphasized having this regulation is not to stifle anything—but to encourage good planning and design, and that it is only for commercial and three-and-more-family homes. During the presentation, Dr. Karpf had numerous pictures of various buildings in neighboring and nearby towns to give examples of what is unappealing and what is appealing. Most of these were chain stores that showed even within the same chain the architectural style could be vastly different. Mollie White pointed out that one was a Walgreen’s in Bedford where they do have architectural design review. Dr. Karpf wished to thank Joan Karpf and Mollie White for their invaluable help in taking the pictures and putting together the power point presentation.

The meeting then returned to the Chairman who continued with the discussion of the regulation and Attorney Waugh’s review. The subject of cost was brought up and the general consensus was that while the regulation more than likely may add some to the cost, if (when) considered right at the start of the project, it should not add exponentially.

Claire Gritzer said she applauds Evan Karpf’s power point presentation and expressed a great job, but added that she believes what is needed is a Master Plan. Mrs. Gritzer was advised that one is being worked on and is about 90% complete, but that a Master Plan would not be used for this type of regulation. It is more of a guideline, and regulations and ordinances reflect it. Mrs. Gritzer then went on to say that she feels the regulation involves too much and perhaps should be less detailed. Dr. Karpf explained that such details are needed and Mr. Birknes said with growth only becoming greater, it is important to have something on the books to work with. It was said that when the storage buildings came in, they may have had to be put somewhere else rather than on the main street of the town. This will allow the addressing of issues before they happen—helping to make sure things are compatible with and enhance the area.

Statements were made that the purpose is understood but that the way it is worded would be questioned and the power point presentation showed only large corporations that can afford special designs, etc. Some feel the way it is written may be too broad. Many agree that the town does need some form of control, but would like to see what they don’t want. Mr. Birknes said they may not be able to write as specific as that based on Town Counsel’s advice.

The question was asked if it would be cost prohibitive to have Town Counsel come to some of these meetings, and consensus was that it would be. The statement was made that this was not publicized well enough and that perhaps that was a way to slide the regulation in. It was also stated that there is very little commercial space left to work with, thus questioning the need for such regulation. Numerous people questioned the fact that they will be unable to vote on what they believe is a major issue—that it is not something that should be left up to the few on the Planning Board to decide. Many of them feel it is something that should wait and be put on the ballot next year.

To facilitate asking questions of Town Counsel, it was asked if the public can write questions and get them answered by Town Counsel. Dr. Karpf answered that he believes if the public has questions they deserve to be answered and suggested that people bring their questions into the office. Evan Karpf made a Motion that: the Planning Board accept questions regarding the Architecture Regulation to be reviewed by Town Counsel and at the next public meeting the questions will be answered. Connie Oliver and Bill Wright both seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

These questions will be accepted until Friday, March 9, when they will be forwarded to Attorney Waugh, to allow him time to review them.

Discussion ensued about this being an Ordinance which the public will vote on rather than a regulation which only the Planning Board will vote on.

It was restated that this is not trying to hurt anyone, but merely hoping to help the town remain or become more attractive, and that maybe things have gotten way out of perspective. It was also stated that it is important to understand that it does apply to small business as well as the large franchises, and gives everyone the same opportunity right from the start.

While the various Boards in town were encouraged to meet together occasionally, it was stated that it is important that the people get a chance to have their say as well. They were also advised to look to the future of the Board, as members will change through the years.

The question was then asked that while the regulation pertains only to new construction, was there anything in the plans about properties being let go, and that have become junk yards or eyesores. Chairman Birknes responded that this would be the so-called blight ordinance which is only as good as its enforcement, which can be very costly. When questioned, it was stated that there are existing buildings that should be cleaned up to look more respectable, and that the Board of Selectmen are the enforcement authority. There is no mandate in the regulation for this. Mr. Birknes suggested looking at the Ordinance and if it is not what they are looking for, to bring wording in for an amendment. Allen Strasser explained the process for addressing these situations-- bringing the complaint to the Selectmen and so on.

It was requested that the regulation be put on-line before the continuation of the Public Hearing and Chairman Birknes advised that this will be done.


At this point, Evan Karpf made a Motion to: Continue this Public Hearing to the regular Planning Board meeting on April 5. Bill Wright seconded and the Motion passed unanimously.

The Chairman declared the meeting ended at 9:30 p.m.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024