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

02-03-2011 PLBD Minutes

March 1st, 2011

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
February 3, 2011



“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: Vice-Chair Evan Karpf, Frank Maturo, Donna Foster, Bonnie Moroney, Erik Bergum

Member of the Public present: Joan Karpf (filming), Steve Boulanger

Minutes taken by Rena Vecchio, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

Vice-Chair Evan Karpf declared a quorum. The first item of business was the minutes of:

• December 16, 2011 – Vice-Chair Evan Karpf asked for these minutes to be tabled again. He said he wanted to review the video and had not had a chance yet. Erik Bergum made a motion to: table the minutes of December 16, 2010 until the March 3, 2011 PLBD meeting. Frank Maturo seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

• January 6, 2011 – Erik Bergum said he was not listed as being at that meeting but he was there. Erik Bergum made a motion to: accept the minutes with the correction (adding Erik Bergum to the roll call). Frank Maturo seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes and 1 abstaining (Bonnie Moroney was not at the meeting).

Next on the agenda was correspondence. The only item the Vice-Chair Karpf had was a letter from Jim Morgan of Irving Oil Marketing to Mark Catalano. The email was read;

“Mark,
Irving Oil Marketing leases the site of 350 Main Street, Bretton Woods, N.H. to
Convenience and Hospitality Services, LLC, DBA Bretton Woods Station. As part of that
lease made as of January 2nd 2004 under Article 5.1 USE. Irving here by grants
permission for the tenant to use premises as Snow sled rental destination.” (A hard
copy will be attached to the minutes in the office.)

Evan said he knew he was jumping the gun a little but he wanted to go to Agenda item 6, Catalano/Snowmobile Rentals. He corresponded with Stan on this and Stan was given all the

February 3, 2011 PLBD

minutes and information that everyone else got. Evan then read an email from Stan dated Feb.2, 2011, at 9:16 a.m.

“Evan, Mark stated to me that he would obtain a new letter from Irving which would confirm
their intent that he have rentals every season if desired. I agree with that. He also tells me he
filed site plan when the hearing was held last year. Presumably all that would be needed year
to year is a confirming visit to see that the operation is maintained within presented
the presented plan.” (A hard copy will be attached to the minutes in the office.)

Evan referenced back to the minutes of December 3, 2009 and asked the secretary to make copies for the board. He then stated that he had recused himself for these meetings last year. Once the board was presented with the minutes for December 3rd, the motion that was made that night for the approval of the Site Plan Review was read by Vice-Chair Karpf:

Charlie Cohn made a motion to: approve the Site Plan Review contingent upon the ZBA
Approval with these conditions attached:
• The trailer is not to exceed 30 feet
• They are to keep safely away from the delivery trucks and not encroach upon their space
• They are to use suitable decorations to disguise the look of the trailer (fencing, Christmas/pine trees)
• Make every effort to discourage the jumping of the snowmobiles on the septic system on the side
• The trailer will actually be on site from December 15th thru April 15th
Bonnie Moroney seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Vice – Chair Karpf stated that Stan and I are personally of the opinion that he needs to be in compliance with the conditions. It is up to Stan, the Code Enforcer, to enforce these conditions. So he has his Special Exception and his final Site Plan Review approval.

The secretary then asked if she could please speak to defend herself, as she knew stories were floating around. She had also called LGC and gotten a different opinion then Evan or Mark got. She said she talked to Paul Sanderson of LGC, read the approval to him as is stated above, read the letter from Irving stating they gave their approval for the winter season of 2009-2010 and the letter from Dana Bisbee, of Pierce Atwood, attorneys for the Mount Washington Hotel. Paul Sanderson stated that the date “December 15th thru April 15th” ended the site plan. The letter from Irving stated their approval for the snowmobile rentals for the season 2009-2010, enforced the ending. But yet Evan got a different opinion. On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, Stan stood in the office and said that Mark did need a site plan as far as he was concerned. Maryclare was in the office also.

Bonnie Moroney said she did not understand. Why did they come two years in a row for the site plan? Mark Catalano did not even come to the meeting in December 2009, only Kelly Chase. Donna Foster said she thought it was to get a better site plan. Donna said she believed that the

February 3. 2011 PLBD


way the conditions read from December 2009, she did not believe they had to come back for another site plan.

Evan asked for copies of the minutes for February 2009. He read “Chairman Temple said he would entertain a one year proposal, a temporary approval just for this season. Next year he would like to see a different design for the building, with a complete description of things to be changed. The minutes of February 2009 were read and it stated, “to approve the proposition as a temporary use until April 12, 2009.” Evan said there was an actual date put on the approval for the ending of the site plan.

Evan Karpf said that he was handed a letter from Mark Catalano that he had wanted read to the board and wanted a letter from the board in response to it. He read:

I want a letter from the town stating why I need:
• The requirement to provide another letter from Irving with no date on it.
• The requirement to erect a permanent building in order to meet the Special Exception.
• The requirement to provide, for the third time, the final project plan.
• The requirement to submit for a special exception for the exact same thing year after year.
• The town ordinance which states special exceptions are not attached to the specific property.

The vice-chair said he does not believe the board needs to address any of these. The letter from Irving has already arrived. Evan said he would except a motion that we send a letter to Mark Catalano that we expect him to follow the conditions stated forth on December 3, 2009, voted unanimously by the Planning Board. If he meets those conditions and has the approval of the Code Enforcer, then he may continue his operation within those bylines. Erik Begum said his only concern with that is that outside of the 1st condition and last condition from December 3, 2009, the minutes are rather nebulas, not very specific, no distance assigned to how far things need to be away. He continued to read “every effort to discourage the jumping of snowmobiles on the septic system” he said “every effort” is in the eye of the beholder. To use “suitable decorations to disguise the look of the trailer” once again is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I do not know if any of you have seen the trailer that is there now, it is not a particularly attractive structure. Erik said if we were to vote on this as a final site plan, than I would like to see some of that language tightened up. There is just too much left to interpretation.

Evan said as I understand it:
1. There is a fence around the septic system now.
(Erik said then he feels the conditions should have read “There will be a fence around the septic system”. Evan said if this was going to be arbitrated it would have to be done within 30 days after the decision.)
February 3, 2011 PLBD

2. This is the job of our Code Enforcer. When you say this is nebulas, which is the job for the Code Enforcer. It is up to him to say, “This is an issue, this needs to be corrected this way”.

Evan said the only way to have this more specific is to have Mark make another application for a site plan review other then that he has a decision in his hands that cannot be altered. However it comes under the Code Enforcer to interpret and enforce these conditions. RSA 647 states the Planning Board could chance after one year if they are not in compliance. Erik says that he does not see any trees or fencing around the trailer and that is an issue. Bonnie Moroney said that in February of 2009 there were a lot of stipulations or conditions for the Site Plan. She feels the new company needs to come before the board to understand what the board wanted. Erik said he could argue both ways on this and he understands that there is no date listed in the conditions. But he thinks the board should make the decision now. The secretary read the email she had received from Stan Borkowski after she had emailed him stating that Evan had just told her that everything was fine but he needed to get the conditions checked.

“Rena, what I said was if the board approves these type of applications, Catalano or
anyone, they should put a statement in their findings that the property is to be checked
Every year at the start of the season. That way we can measure the office trailer, check for
check for skirting, parking, signage, etc. Appreciate that I do not get copies of these
approvals and for the most part do not even know what was presented or said. Ultimately
all we get are verbal comments which cannot be applied to anything because there no facts.
Now…in Mark/s case he said he will obtain a new letter from Irving and Evan and I agree
with that. He also said he filed a final site plan which I have not seen, therefore do not know
if it is a final site plan. But it seems to me if the board feels this should be revisited that
they would initiate it. Otherwise I would call it complete.”
(A copy of the email will be attached to the minutes.)

Erik Bergum said he would like to see this revisited with the intent to grant a permanent Site Plan that would enable us to tighten up the conditions. And I do not feel that this presents a hardship to Mr. Catalano. Evan said his feeling is just to send Stan out there. That is his job. He can make Mark come into compliance. Evan said we have got to make note that every time there is a site plan approval we need to let Stan see a copy of the conditions. So Evan said he would have Stan go to the trailer and see if everything is in compliance and then we would know if there was a problem and we would then need to deal with it. Erik asked if the conditions from the February 2009 minutes would still apply. Evan said no. The December 3, 2009 meeting was where the motion was made, the conditions given and it was voted in. That was the final approval. Evan said the meeting of February 13, 2009 expired in one year and that is why he came back. He came back because they wanted to go over the conditions. Now it is up to Stan. Evan said his feeling is still to send Stan to the trailer instead of making Mark come back for another site plan.

Erik said he feels the since the last Site Plan Review Approval is not explicit about the time line, it would be in the town’s, the board’s and quite frankly in the applicants best interest to get a Site
February 3, 2011 PLBD

Plan Approval that’s a permanent approval, with a more comprehensive and specific set of conditions.

Evan said it is the board that made these conditions, not Mark. Erik said he would like to make that his motion. Erik Bergum made a motion to: have Mark Catalano be required to come
before the board for a Site Plan Review with the intention of making that approval a more permanent, non year to year requirement. And at that time a more comprehensive and specifically detailed set of conditions be agreed upon with the applicant and approved by the board. Bonnie Moroney second. Evan Karpf asked who was going to pay for the abutters because all the abutters have to be notified. Erik Bergum said he felt it was a minimal cost. Evan asked if all the fees should be paid for by the planning board. Erik asked if we usually paid for everything and if not make it a normal procedure. So, in his opinion the board should not pick up the fees. Erik said his intention is to make this final approval a permanent explicitly detailed approval. Bonnie Moroney said the last person renting snowmobiles had talked to us and knew what we wanted. Evan said it is Mark that will be accountable for the conditions, not the renter. He said he will talk against the motion. I feel Mark has come here 3 times already. The mere fact that the first approval was for one year and everyone was aware of that. Changes could have been made to have a finite or repetitive issue. He said he also feels that it would cause a hardship to come back each year and that it is the job of the Code Enforcer to make these decisions. There is now a fence around the septic. The look of the trailer is subjective. Someone may not want a white trailer but a blue or yellow one. That is the decision of the Code Enforcer. There is a specific size for the trailer. So I speak against the motion. Erik asked if anyone could speak. Donna Foster asked if we had a map on record. The secretary and Evan said we do. It is a hand written one. Donna said she could see both sides of this. Erik said he could see both sides too but there is too much room for interpretation. Donna said that in the letter that is to be sent, make sure that Mark knows this is for a permanent approval and not to have it recur. Also to have a more detailed map. She said it is going to be very important to know where the trailer is to go every year. Make sure there is no question. Evan Karpf asked the secretary to call the Local Government Center (LGC) to find out what kind of procedure this would be.

Vice-chair Evan Karpf said there is a motion on the floor, all those in favor say aye. Evan said “I oppose”. Then he said he was chair and did not have to break a tie so his vote did not matter. The motion passed with 4 ayes and 1 opposed.

Evan handed the questions from Mark Catalano to the secretary. She asked if he was writing the letter and then forwarding it to her or were they not writing a letter to Mark. Evan said he wanted (Mark) the letter in the minutes. That we should send a certified letter stating that the PLBD wanted to see him again. Evan said he would have to come in again and fill out the application and pay the fees. A notice would have to be placed in the paper again and abutters notified. So the secretary would have to notify him by certified mail that the board voted that he must return for Site Plan Review regarding snowmobile rental. And inform him of the fees he will have to pay.


February 3, 2011 PLBD

Vice-Chair Karpf apologized to Steven Boulanger representing Craig and William Swanson. He said he thought this last issue could be handled under correspondence but it took longer than expected. The Swanson’s are here for a Major Subdivision, 140 Old Cherry Mountain Road South, Bretton Woods, N.H., Map 419, Lot 14. The main purpose of the subdivision is to take one 3.6 acre lot and divide it into 3 lots. It is zoned Res-2.
Evan said at the last meeting we had mentioned a potential signed agreement releasing the town as it regards a subdivision on a Class VI road. We have since found out that this is not a Class VI
road but a Class III road. So we cannot ask for this agreement to be signed. The state maintains
this road in the summer and the town maintains a part of the road in the winter.
Evan said your subdivision had been looked at, it is a 3 lot subdivision and each lot is at least an acre. You have over a 200 foot frontage on each lot As far as utilities go, each lot has the availability of electricity and phone. Well and septic have been approved for each of the lots (one lot will have the well and septic that is available already on the 3.6 acre lot).
Frank Maturo asked if there were any problems with the abutters. Mr. Boulanger said no. Donna Foster said it might be good idea that in the sale of the lots it is mentioned in the winter the roads are only maintained to the gate. Evan said even that the emergency vehicles may have a problem. Donna Foster said it would just be a notice or disclosure for the buyers.
Evan opened the discussion for the public. There was no discussion.

Evan said he would ask for a motion to: approve the Swanson Subdivision. Erik Bergum said motion to approve. Bonnie Moroney seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

The secretary asked Evan Karpf for a copy of the letter stating that the Old Cherry Mountain Road was a Class III road. He said he would get it to her.

Bonnie Moroney made a motion to: adjourn. Donna Foster seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting ended at 7:56.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024