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

03-03-2011 PLBD Minutes

April 27th, 2011

Carroll Planning Board
Meeting Minutes
March 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: Philip Beaulieu, Scott Canto, Charlie Gamache, Joan Karpf (filming), Linda Dowling, Ed Martin, Gardner Kellogg, Harold Garneau, Greg Hogan, Scott Sonia, Joyce and Leo Charrette, Heidi Boedecker and Chris Snitko, Willy Stone

Minutes taken by Rena Vecchio, Secretary

Pledge of Allegiance

Vice-Chair Evan Karpf declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. First on the agenda was to review correspondence:

• An email from Larua Spector was read regarding the Site Plan Review for Mark Catalano/Snowmobile Rentals. (Attached).
• The UNH Cooperative Extension was offering a course “Municipal Turf and Grounds Conference” on March 23, 2011 at The Oaks, in Somersworth, NH. (attached)
• North Country Council, Inc. sent a letter to the PLBD informing them of the upcoming program “On-Line Tools for Land Use Board Volunteers” on March 16, at the Littleton Senior Center. (attached)
• A letter from the NHDES was received to acknowledge they were in receipt of a report from the Carroll Conservation Committee on the bridge replacement at Map 210, Lot 008, CNL Income Bretton Woods LLC. (attached)
• A letter from the NH Division of Historical Resources on the Mount Washington Hotel Entrance Road Bridge Replacement. (attached)

Vice-Chair Evan Karpf asked the board if they had a chance to review the minutes of:
• February 3, 2011, and if so did they have any corrections or deletions. Bonnie Moroney made a motion to: accept the minutes of February 3, 2011 as written. Erik Bergum seconded and the motion passed unanimously.
• December 16, 2010 Evan asked if the letters to the two abutters for the Minor Subdivision for BW Land Company LLC that had been returned, had been resent. The secretary told him that Andy Nadeau had never brought back different addresses. She

March 3, 2011 PLBD

was asked to notify him. The abutter is also the owner of the land that went for the Minor
Subdivision.

Evan said he had a few corrections. On page 2, third paragraph, first line, “Evan Karpf
said he wants the board to be appraised of any permitting for environmental or human
safety issues”, to read, “Evan Karpf said he wants the board to know they are responsible
for environmental and public safety issues.” Same paragraph, second line, strike
completely. To add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph, “The applicant
was advised that is was very important to get all the State and Federal permitting that is
required as DES and Shoreline Protection. He also wanted to add that the applicant
acknowledges that this land is on the flood plain.

Frank Maturo made a motion to: accept the minutes of December 16, 2010 with the corrections. Donna Foster seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Mike Brunetti was next on the agenda with the updated 2011 Concept Plan which is a requirement of the agreement with the town. He started by saying that things were slow and there really is not much difference from last year with the Concept Plan:

• Dartmouth Brook – Dartmouth Brook has been platted, we pay taxes on it and all permits are up to date. But it is still on hold.
• Hotel - Development has been on hold since 2009 with the exception of the completion of the renovation of the hotel. They have completed the renovation of the 110 hotel rooms, the internal corridors and Stickney’s Restaurant. Mr. Brunetti said they had not added the replacement of the bridge but he could. Evan Karpf said to please include it.
• Mount Pleasant Golf Area – They will potentially go thru Master Planning working with the local, state and federal officials. So the next phase of permitting for Mount Pleasant, The Village or any other area will be looked at under one comprehensive Master Plan.
• Presidential View Condominium’s – These are existing condos that they had acquired in 2006. There are 4 remaining foundations that are in the ground. The good news here is they are seeing activity. There are 3 prospects interested in those units. There should be one that is sold by the end of next week. This will be the first developing in that area in two and a half years.
• Village Common’s – This is on hold. Next year hopefully you will see transportation studies, renovation of the Rosebrook Center (Sports Center), the Alpine Club Site Plan and the Story Center, which is still part of the overall area plan.
• Stone Hill/Heights – On hold.
• Stone Hill Condominiums – On hold. Still have 2 more pads, 4 more units or 2 duplexes to be developed
So, all in all it has been a pretty slow year. The only difference from last year is the new replacement bridge, which is approximately a $600,000.00 bridge. He told Edith Tucker though; he is not privy to the actual cost.


March 3, 2011 PLBD

Vice-Chair Karpf asked Mr. Brunetti to watch environmentally on the Dartmouth Brook area because the development is on hold. Make sure to keep up on the fencing and inspections are watched, as it is a very beautiful area. Mr. Brunetti said that the DES was in and inspected the area last fall and signed off on it. They have the right to come back again in the spring to check for winter damage.

Bonnie Moroney made a motion to: accept the 2011 Concept Plan as presented by Bretton Woods with the new bridge to be added on the plans. Donna Foster seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Next is the Hunt 2/Dave Scalley Family Residential Development, Major Subdivision, Map 207, Lot 036, Route 3 South #0675, Twin Mountain, N.H (formerly known as Shakespeare’s). They are taking a 21.27 acre lot and looking to put in 10 residential lots containing 2-family residences and have one remaining commercial lot containing Shakespeare’s Motel and Restaurant. Vice-Chair Karpf asked the secretary if all fees have been paid and she confirmed. Abutters have been notified and notices have been put in the papers. The application is complete and signed.

Donna Foster made a motion to: accept the application for a Major Subdivision for Hunt 2 Family Residential Development, Map 207, Lot 036. Frank Maturo seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Vice – Chair Karpf said this is a Major Subdivision that is over an aquifer. We can go into pubic session tonight or wait until next month also. He asked if the board felt they had enough time to go over the application. If they had reviewed it and the board wanted to go into Public Hearing tonight, someone would have to make a motion.

Frank Maturo made a motion to: go into Public Hearing. Bonnie Moroney seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Philip Beaulieu, an engineer from Headwaters Hydrology, PLLC in Littleton, NH and Gardner Kellogg, Kellogg Surveyor & Mapping, Inc. in Littleton, NH were representing Dave Scalley and his partner Joe Gillis that couldn’t be present tonight. The parcel that we are talking about tonight is the former Shakespeare’s’ Restaurant and Motel. He handed out the Location Plan to the board and went on to briefly explain:
• Sheet 1 Cover Sheet
• Sheet 2 Existing Conditions
• Sheet 3 Overall Site Plan
• Sheet 4 Grading, Drainage, Utilities Site Plan & Road Profile
• Sheet 5 Grading, Drainage, Utilities Site Plan & Road Profile
• Sheet 6 Standard Water System Details &Notes
• Sheet 7 Miscellaneous Details Sheets
• Sheet 8 Erosion Control Notes, Details, & Construction Sequence


March 3, 2011 PLBD

Mr. Beaulieu went on to say the project parcel is approximately 22 acres in size. The front portion of the property where the restaurant and motel are, is approximately 7 acres and is zoned Residential- Business. The southern end where the home sites will be is approximately 14 acres and will be divided into 10, 1.30 acres lots and is zoned Residential 1. The access to the proposed lots is off of Paquette Drive. It is about the only place where the 14 acres touch Paquette Drive and is on the southern end of the property. The road going in had a couple of curves in it for 2 reasons. The first reason was for the calming effect or keeping the traffic slow and the second reason was that it is more visually appealing then a straight road. The proposed terminal end is 100 foot diameter right of way with a 90 foot paved turnaround or cul-de-sac with a 30 foot diameter island. They are also proposing that the subdivision be serviced with water from the municipal water supply. There is an 8 inch water main on the western side of Paquette Drive that they are proposing connecting to with another 8 inch pipe and have it go down the entire length of the drive. They are also proposing 3 fire hydrants to service the property. The roadway will be 20 feet in paved width, with 4 foot shoulders in accordance with town requirements. The maximum grade or slope of the road will be 4%.

They have had preliminary meetings with Scott Sonia, Water Dept., Greg Hogan, Highway Dept. and Jeff Duncan, Fire Chief. The plans that you see tonight take into account their comments and concerns.

Because the subdivision will be connecting to the water main they will need permits from NH DES Drinking Water and Ground Water Bureau. They will review the site plan and specifications of the water line design to make sure it meets all the requirements they have. They will also need to get a permit from NH DES Subsurface Systems Bureau for State Subdivision Approval because the lots are less than 5 acres in size. In order to construct the project they will be disturbing approximately 2.4 acres and once you go over 1 acre you will need from the EPA the Construction General Permit. That requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan be prepared and they are in the process of doing that right now. Those are the 3 major permits that are needed.

They have conducted a drainage analysis of the site and done test pitting and perc testing for each one of the lots. This is primarily for an overall soils mapping and to make sure that there is adequate area for the septic system on each lot.

Evan Karpf asked if there were any wetlands that were going to be disturbed. They had done delineation on that property last fall and there are no wetlands there. Evan said he would want them to talk to Sgt. Smalley on the name of the road because of the 911 numbers. Also Evan said he would want Jeff Duncan to sign off on the turn around and fire hydrants. And to know if the road agent is satisfied with the design and construction of the road and that the water agent is satisfied with the water design. The usual procedure of the Planning Board is to have the town engineers review major subdivisions for us and it is done at the applicant’s expense. Evan said we do this because they have the capability to look at plans and give back to the board suggestions or concerns. It does look like a good job has been done here.

March 3, 2011 PLBD

The Vice-Chair asked if all the utilities would be added to each lot. Mr. Beaulieu said they would and they are actually shown on the Site Plan Sheet # 3. Those utilities are telephone, electric, cable and water. Then he asked how many beds would be in each unit and the answer was 3 beds per lot. Vice-Chair Karpf asked if Mr. Beaulieu was familiar with the town regulations and he answered yes. Evan asked if there was anything being proposed that went against our regulations? Mr. Beaulieu said they would be asking the board for a waiver on the length of the road. The town standards require road lengths of less than 1000 feet and the proposed road we have is 1450 feet. Mr. Beaulieu went on to say that they felt this was similar to most projects in town and the 1000 foot regulation was based on, in his opinion, a limited amount of water supply for fire protection and no looped access road or secondary access. He said we are offering 3 fire hydrants within the development. We feel confident that the intent of the Planning Board has been met.

Evan Karpf said he would recommend carrying the Public Hearing over to the next meeting. That way if the board votes to have our engineers look over the plans we can have them look at the waiver also. He asked if the board had any questions. There were none at the time.

The Vice-Chair said he believes there are 3 conditions for a waiver and the board should familiarize themselves with them. He asked Philip Beaulieu if he wanted to address them now and he said he would try:
1. Granting of a waiver will not be detrimental to public safety, health or welfare or injurious to properties nearby.
Mr. Beaulieu said he did not believe that the waiver would be as the road was an internal road and would not have any impact to other properties. He said we have increased the size of the cul de sac and have offered to have 3 fire hydrants. Also the Fire Chief was okay with it.
2. The conditions upon which the request for a waiver are unique to the property and makes it unlike other properties.
Mr. Beaulieu said to look at Sheet #2 and the only access point onto Paquette Drive into the parcel is where the tennis courts are now. There was a thin strip of land that was reserved by the previous owner and it runs along the entire length of Paquette Road. Therefore it offers no other opportunity for an access. They feel that makes the property very unique and unlike other properties.
Evan asked what the width of the access will be. Mr. Beaulieu said it is going to be 20 feet with a 30 foot flared radius on either side.
3. What is unique about the physical property that makes a hardship?
Mr. Beaulieu asked to have everyone turn to Sheet #3 and note there is no non secondary access road. He said if they were to have a 1000 foot road, it would eliminate 4 of the lots. At this point that would make the project unfeasible.
4. The provisions of the Zoning Ordinance will not vary.
Everything will still be met for the frontage and setbacks.
Evan said he feels safe to say that they have addressed these waivers. Heidi Boedecker, an abutter, said they had never been approached to purchase that strip of land. She said she feels

March 3, 2011 PLBD

they are asking for the waiver and have not exhausted all possibilities. Evan Karfp said that is where the engineers come in. They can help the board with things like that. Heidi Boedecker asked if there was a basis for granting the waiver or does the board just grant one? Evan said no, there are the conditions. But making someone purchase a piece of property could make this a hardship.

Dave Scalley said they are not asking for anymore road length then others have had on other subdivision roads. The Vice-Chair said that every subdivision has to be looked at individually. He then asked everyone if they understood. He said the town regulations say if a road is more than 1000 feet, there has to be 2 accesses.

Edith Tucker, reporter, asked how many square feet for each house? Phil said there is approximately 1500 square feet per unit. They are going to be duplexes so per lot there will be six bedrooms, three per lot unit. Evan asked if all the units are occupied, will there be too many cars for 1 road with 1 access. The board will need to look at that. Gardner Kellogg, surveyor, said there is a formula that goes by the unit and not by the number of cars. He said per unit there will be about 8 trips per day per unit. So if all units are occupied that would be about 160 trips per day on that road. Phil said there are categories with that formula and that puts you in a certain category for road size. Paquette Drive is a 20 foot road and the proposed road is 20 feet.

Heidi asked if connecting to the water line at the beginning of Paquette Drive will affect people at the further end of Paquette Drive, where there is only a 2 inch line. Scott Sonia, Water Department, said there is plenty of water and there will be no impact on those homes.

Evan asked if there were any other questions from the board or the public. Donna Foster said it looked like they had done a very good job and Evan agreed. Erik Bergum made a motion to: have the town’s engineers review the subdivision at the applicant’s expense. The Public Hearing will be continued until the next meeting, April 7, 2011. The secretary is to contact Provan & Lorbor and ask to have the review done no later than March 31st. There must be a surety bond, the engineers will tell us the amount and they can consider the waiver at the same time. Also, Sgt. Smalley is to approve the name of the road. Donna Foster seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Next on the agenda is Mark Catalano for a 30 minute talk to the board. He said he was here because he assumes that he is done with the Site Plan Review for the board. Erik said that asking Mark to do another Review for the snowmobile rental at the Irving Station in Bretton Woods was not to “get him or cause any problems” The set of conditions on the first approval were sensitive and were valid. His intent on making the motion for another Site Plan was simply to consolidate what was said in both of the minutes. He said he took the liberty of writing down what he was looking to “clean up” the conditions and wording. Not to change the intent. He has the list with him and handed it to Mark.



March 3, 2011 PLBD

Vice-Chair Karpf said Mark does not have to meet any other conditions then the ones given to him for the last Site Plan approval in December 2009. Now it is up to Stan Borkowski the Code Enforcer to make sure all the conditions are met. Town Counsel said Mark is done and it is up to Stan to do the enforcing of the conditions. Mark said he knows he does not have to do anything else, but he feels Erik’s list of “conditions”, are reasonable. Evan said he does not have to agree to anything else. Mark said he is aware of that. What he does want however is for each board member to say they agree with Evan and Counsel that he is all set with his Site Plan.

Erik Bergum said he would like to know how the questions were asked to Counsel. He said he thinks it is the way a question is asked sometimes as to how it will be answered. However, after reviewing the minutes of 2009, there is a substantial amount of discontinuity between the approvals of these 2 Site Plans. Both minutes are loose and leave a lot of room for interpretation. There are quite a bit of difference between the 2 sets of minutes. Erik said he has no problem with the rentals going on at the property. He feels Mark is trustworthy but if someone else moves onto that property and rents he does not know if the conditions would convey to them what the board had wanted. He said that is his qualified, thought out answer.

Evan asked the board if anyone disagreed with Counsel and if anyone had called them. Evan said he has no problem with Counsels decision. Donna Foster said she just found the minutes confusing and just wanted to have a conversation. Bonnie Moroney said to Mark that you weren’t there when Kelly Chase, (owner of Out Back Kayaks, the previous 2 years snowmobile renter), gave her pitch. She went into great detail of what she wanted to do and she knew exactly what the board was looking for. The minutes of that meeting did not reflect what we had talked about because she had it all down as far as what the board wanted. So that is where the confusion is coming from. The lawyers said the Site Plan is done and that is fine with her.

Mark said he has perused the list of conditions that was handed to him by Erik and there are actually more things to add to the list. Erik said he did not add any conditions, just put together the previous board’s intentions.

Mark then read a letter he brought and wanted it in the minutes. It is attached here.

















March 3, 2011 PLBD


Mark wanted to know if there was a form in the office for someone to fill out a complaint about what was going on at my Bretton Woods Station. The secretary said she could answer that question. I had not received a complaint and I had told Evan that. Someone over that weekend had contacted me and said that another trailer was being moved in and wanted to know if that was ok. I told them I did not know. I had spoken to Mark in December about the snowmobile rental and he said he had not heard from Kelly Chase from OBK’s. But I said I would check with the Code Enforcer and the board. That following Monday Evan emailed me or talked to me and said he had received 2 phone calls about snowmobile rentals at the Omni Hotel. I then told him about the inquiry I had received. I did not fill out a complaint form (there is another name for the form also but could not think of it). But it was by no means a complaint. It was a question, which is what I had told Evan. I want the board and you to know that Evan never made out a complaint form on the rentals being done at the hotel either. That just never occurred to me. They were questions for Stan and the PLBD in my mind. I sent the board and Stan emails on both issues.

I did call the Local Government Center (LGC) and I had the okay from Stan. All the board members have a copy of that email. I spoke to Paul Sanderson and explained that people felt confused over this. I have never been told to email LGC as it took a long time to get an answer. I read him the minutes of February and December 2009. I read him the letter from Irving giving a time limit on the December letter and I read the letter from Pierce Atwood, the lawyers for the Hotel at that time. He said that the approval had no criteria attached to it as it ended when the trailer was removed. The letter from Irving stating their approval from December 15, 2009 to April 15, 2010 validated that. And there were other issues that needed to be addressed also like the letter from the Hotel and how other people felt about it. Mark asked the secretary if she had it in writing from LGC. She said no, but that both Evan and Mark had called LGC and they had nothing in writing either.

Evan said you knew to give the information to Stan. She said she knew and she did. Evan said in his opinion that was as far as it should have gone. Unless he said Stan advised the board and the secretary otherwise. The secretary had an email from Stan stating to call the LGC. The secretary said she wanted Mark to know that the previous Tuesday, before the meeting, Stan stood in front of her desk, in front of Maryclare, and said he felt another Site Plan was needed. You feel I have overstepped my bounds by calling LGC. I have the email for that from Stan. You can ask Maryclare, if you choose to do so, about Stan saying the need for a new Site Plan. You feel that the “perception” is that I am trying to give you a hard time or cause problems for you. There was also a “perception” that maybe you and Evan were not being forthright. That maybe you should have come directly to the board because Evan had recused himself from those meetings in 2009. He had dealings with Kelly Chase also and snowmobile rentals and still does. She said she does

March 3, 2011 PLBD

not care one way or the other if the board wants him to come back or not. But there is a process that everyone needs to go thru. All of the board members have every bit of information. My job is to know what is going on at the meetings and gather as much information for the board as possible. He said that he watched the video and thought the board had no information in front of them and that they should be informed. The secretary said that she brought no information to the board that night. When she sent out the agenda for the meeting she told the board that no one had been in touch with her about what was going on with the agenda. That was also sent to the board in an email. Mark said he would beseech the PLBD that before the poor citizens are brought into the loop, do your homework. You are scaring people. Stop this inquisition and let’s move on. Mark said he thinks it looks as if the PLBD is making decisions on things they know nothing about. Evan said to the board and secretary, any information you get, get in writing. And she said that Evan had never given her anything in writing before or on this issue. Evan said the LGC will only give you info on the law. LGC said in writing that the PLBD cannot make someone come back if the decision has been made. Evan said that is his decision too based on his education and past experience.

Evan asked if the board would like to make a motion to withdraw last month’s motion to have Mark Catalano come back for another Site Plan Review. Erik said he wanted to say something first. He said there was no ill will intended on his part and no intention to mistreat you. Donna Foster said she agrees with Erik. There just seemed to be so much confusion on the whole thing. Evan said this really has nothing to do with a motion. Erik Bergum made a motion to: withdraw the motion made for Mark Catalano to come before the Planning Board for another Site Plan Review regarding the snowmobile rental as stated at the February 3, 2011 meeting. Bonnie Moroney seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Vice-Chair Evan asked if there was anything else to come before the board. The secretary said she had one. Mike Duffy, from Horizons, emailed about the replacement bridge at the hotel entrance. She had sent the email out, John Birknes sent his opinion back and then Donna Foster sent an email to the board with her feelings about it. Since then I have heard nothing from the board or been told what they want me to do. Donna said she felt it was just a replacement not a new development. Evan said that a Site Plan was thought to be needed because of the environment and safety issues. Edith Tucker asked why they would need a Site Plan Review if they already had all their permitting thru the State. Evan said that John Birknes felt that one would be needed and if the board didn’t think so, fine. Erik said he has heard that it is wider and they will have pedestrian paths, possibly on both sides. The board knows that there is a time issue but to plan on a Site Plan Review for the next meeting April 7, 2011.

Erik Bergum made a motion to: request CNL Properties to fill out an application for a Site Plan Review for the Replacement of the Hotel Entrance Bridge. Frank Maturo seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

Evan adjourned the meeting at 9:16.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024