TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 9, 1999

 

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:35 pm.

 

The Acting Clerk called the roll:

 

PRESENT:       Jeff Gowan, John CaraDonna, Michael Soby, Paddy Culbert, Alternate Peter Fisher, Selectmen’s Representative Greg Farris, Planning Director Vincent Messina 

 

ABSENT:        Clark Harris, Roger Montbleau, Alternate Henry DeLuca, Alternate Carl Huether

 

The Chairman announced that Mr. Fisher would be voting for Mr. Montbleau.

 

 

MINUTES REVIEW- August 16, 1999

 

MOTION:  (Soby/Culbert)   To accept the minutes of the August 16, 1999 board meeting as amended..

VOTE:  4 – 0 – 1 with Mr. Fisher abstaining.  The motion carries.

 

(Mr. Farris arrived at 7:45 pm.) 

 

 

HEARINGS

 

ML 001-005 – Paul Santos/Marsh Road & Greeley Road – Proposed Two Lot Subdivision

 

The Acting Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared before the board to present the subdivision plan for ML 001-005.  Mr. Zohdi explained that this is a proposed two lot subdivision of a parcel located at the corner of Marsh and Greeley Roads.  There is an existing house on this parcel, along with a garage, pool and shed.  The shed does not comply with the building setback and the proposed lotline is shown going through this shed.  This shed will be removed if the plan is approved.  Mr. Zohdi explained that the mylars would not be signed until the shed is either relocated or removed. 

 

Mr. Zohdi stated that the soils were completed according to site specifics and both lots comply with zoning and subdivision requirements.  There is sufficient frontage on Marsh and Greeley Roads for both of the proposed lots.

 

Mr. Messina stated that this plan meets all of the current subdivision regulations. 

 

Mr. Farris expressed concern that the proposed house will just meet the side setback regulation of 15 feet.

 

Mr. CaraDonna expressed concern with the existing house being located so close to the proposed lotline and with the triangular shape of the lot.  Mr. Gowan explained that this can occur when subdividing a parcel with an existing house.  Mr. Zohdi explained that according to the current zoning regulations, both houses meet the requirements.  He further noted that there is ample distance, 100 ft., between the proposed and existing house. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna stated that he questioned the shape of the lot.  Mr. Zohdi believes that this is best configuration for subdividing this parcel. 

 

Mr. Farris suggested that the board discuss the 15 ft. side setback regulation at the next work session.

 

There was no public input. 

 

MOTION:  (Soby/Culbert)  To accept the plan for consideration.

 

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.

 

Mr. Gowan asked that the board consider voting on approving this plan for a simple lotline relocation tonight.  He noted that there are no requests for waivers. 

 

It was the consensus of the board to continue with a vote on approval of this plan. 

 

MOTION:  (Fisher/Soby)  To approve the plan.

 

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.

 

 

BOND RELEASE

 

 

ML 001-163 – Cay Corporation/Wyndridge Estates – Bond Release

 

Mr. Messina explained that there were conditions that had to be met prior to the final bond release on ML 1-163.  There were some minor drainage problems along Lynnwood Lane that have been addressed by the applicant.  A rip rap drainage swale has been constructed and the two sink holes have been properly packed and filled.  Signage has been procured and will be installed shortly.  Mr. Messina recommended that the board release the final bond.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if compaction tests were completed.  Mr. Messina said no, and explained that the problem was caused by not enough stone fill on the curbing edge.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:  (Fisher/Culbert)  To release the final bond amount of $1,500 subject to the installation of signage to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 

 

VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Impact Fees

 

The public hearing on Impact Fees was called to order at 7:55 pm.

 

Mr. Gowan explained that the townspeople voted at last year’s town meeting to accept the impact fee ordinance.  The CIP has recommended an impact fee based on one of the projects it has on its schedule.  It now comes before the Planning Board for acceptance.  After acceptance by the Planning Board, this impact fee schedule will go before the Board of Selectmen for a public hearing.

 

Mr. Gowan welcomed Mr. Andrew Singelakis, NRPC.  Mr. Singelakis stated that this impact fee schedule is being prepared in response to the School Board’s proposal to construct a new elementary school accommodating grades 1 through 5.  He explained that Section I – Variables lists the items that go into determining what the fee will actually be.  These figures can be modified as information becomes available over time with review by the Planning Board and acceptance by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Singelakis reviewed variables 1 through 20. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked for clarification on the 30% State aid given over the ten year period.  Mr. Robert Bean, School Board member, explained that the 30% State aid is paid back yearly based on the principle paid. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked for clarification on the projection for number of students of 815.  Mr. Singelakis explained that this is based on the school department’s projection based on the number of students in grade levels Readiness through 5.  Mr. Bean stated that currently there are just over 700 students in grades Readiness through 5.  He further explained that this figure has been projected out over a two year period because the new school would not be occupied until then. 

 

Mr. Singelakis explained that this fee can be adjusted and recalculated annually.  Mr. Gowan added that the fees must be expended within a six year period or they must be returned. 

 

Mr. Farris stated that the figure for “Average Assessed Cost per Unit, Residential Properties” of $123,289 seems to be substantially less than current economic impact studies have indicated.  Mr. Singelakis explained that this figure is just a town wide average.  Mr. Gowan reminded the board that they are attempting to be conservative in their estimations.   

 

Mr. Farris asked if there is an advantage to estimating lower so that the town is potentially collecting more fees to cover the costs.  Mr. Singelakis explained that they have erred on the side of caution and are being conservative to avoid having to return the fees.  Mr. Gowan agreed that being conservative is a wise move and noted that the CIP Committee has tried to apply this throughout the process. 

 

Mr. Singelakis referred to Section II – Credits and explained that credits are estimated in order to factor out the amount in taxes a unit subject to an impact fee is likely to pay for the portion of the project cost that is likely to be financed through impact.  This protects against “double taxation”. 

 

Mr. Fisher believes that the person who ultimately ends up paying this impact fee in the end will be the homeowner and he feels that that would be unfair.  Mr. Gowan explained that the credit portion of this ordinance makes sure that the homeowner is not paying both the taxes and the impact fees. 

 

Mr. Singelakis explained that the impact fee would be based on the size of the new home. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna asked how the credit is applied to the new homeowner.  Mr. Gowan explained that the credit is applied at the time the fee is assessed.

 

Mr. Singelakis referred to Section III – Calculation of Fee and explained that the board may adjust the calculation of credits on an annual basis if changes are made to the variables located in Section I resulting in changes to Section II.   It was determined that the fee per square foot of gross living area would be $1.06.  Mr. Messina explained that the baseline value is established times the actual square footage of the home. 

 

Mr. Farris questioned whether the credit would remain the same or change as house values change.  Mr. Singelakis explained that the board can recalculate this figure as time goes by reassessing and readjusting the figure on a yearly basis.

 

Mr. Singelakis referred to Section IV – Number of Permits to Be Issued. He explained that when the impact fee is established, a tally of the number of impact fees that have been paid shall be recorded.  The impact fee will automatically be terminated when the total number of permits issues has been reached.  Again, the board can adjust the total number of permits to be issued annually. 

 

Mr. Singelakis referred to Section V – Exemptions and explained that the impact fee will only apply to building permits that result in the creation of a new residential dwelling unit.  Non-residential permits are exempt.  Dwelling units found within Senior Housing complexes are exempt.  Accessory dwelling units, additions or expansions to existing homes are also exempt.  If no gross livable floor area is created, the conversion is exempt. 

 

Mr. Gowan explained that this impact fee would assess new homeowners their fair share fee for those additional services or space that are needed to accommodate the growth.   It allows the town to capture some of the money to counteract this growth.

 

Mr. Farris suggested that the Planning Board request at least 40 minutes to one hour of the Board of Selectmen’s meeting to discuss this ordinance.  Mr. Gowan agreed.

 

Mr. Bill Scanzani, CIP member, explained that impact fees have been discussed in Pelham since the early 1980’s.  Currently, there are approximately 17 million dollars in capital improvement projects in the Town of Pelham over the next ten years.  Mr. Scanzani explained that impact fees can only be collected for future needs, not current needs.  A new school should be built projecting needs over the next ten years not to meet just today’s needs.  It is difficult to project school population figures out beyond ten years.  The proposed school building meets both the current needs and the future needs of the town.  The impact fee is based on the identified portion of the cost of the building for future needs only.  The impact fee is collected over the length of the bond that is chosen by the school district.  It is not likely that 840 houses will be constructed over the next ten years as needed to cover all the costs.  It will pay for a portion of these costs.  Currently, the new school is the best approach to enacting an impact fee with a very, easily identified figure. 

 

Mr. Farris asked for clarification on how a fee for an addition to the high school would be handled.  Mr. Singelakis explained that a second impact fee would have to be established. 

 

Mr. Farris asked if the impact fees run parallel, would new homeowners be responsible for both fees.  Mr. Singelakis answered yes, they would.  Mr. Scanzani pointed out that the project must be easily definable as having a future and current component.  Impact fees are a source of revenue to offset some of the costs of the town’s large, more expensive projects. 

 

Mr. Gowan agreed that impact fees would work only where there is a clearly definable portion for future growth.  He stated that the board must be cautious and conservative in order to withstand a legal challenge. 

 

Mr. Culbert feels that these calculations do not take into consideration those children moving into existing homes in Pelham.  Mr. Singelakis explained that they are attempting to establish a fair, equitable way of collecting impact fees. 

 

Mr. Singelakis explained that you are not assessing number of people, you are assessing new housing units. 

 

Mr. Farris stated that the economy would effect this fee.  There is no way to “police” who purchases a new home versus an existing home.  There are many factors that go into the predictability of revenue.  Mr. Singelakis explained that the impact fee is only one source of revenue to offset the bond.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if there were any statistics regarding new homes sold versus existing homes sold.  Mr. Singelakis offered to secure those statistics for Mr. Culbert. 

 

 

MOTION: (CaraDonna/Soby)  To accept for consideration the Impact Fee Schedule.

 

VOTE:  5 - 1 – 0 with Mr. Fisher voting No.  The motion carries.

 

MOTION:  (CaraDonna/Soby)  To approve the Impact Fee Schedule.

 

VOTE:   5 – 1 – 0 with Mr. Fisher voting No.  The motion carries.

 

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

The Chairman declared a five minute recess at 8:55 pm.

 

ML 001-136-001 – Lessard/Slavin Drive – Proposed Two Lot Subdivision

 

Mr. Fisher stepped down from this hearing.

 

Attorney William Mason, representing the Lessards, appeared before the board to present the subdivision plan for ML 1-136-1.

 

Mr. Gowan read aloud from the February 11, 1999 Planning Board meeting – Page #3 as follows:

 

“Mr. Harris stated that everyone agrees that there was some filling done but there are no 700 soils shown on the plan.  He believes that the board has the right to request that the Hillsborough County Conservation District conduct a survey of the soils.  It was the consensus of the board to have the Hillsborough County Conservation District verify the soils.

 

MOTION: (Harris/McDevitt)  To accept the plan for consideration until a report from the Hillsborough County Conservation District is received.

 

Mr. Caradonna expressed concern about the water in this area and suggested that a well yield be completed prior to a building permit being issued for this lot.

 

VOTE:  5 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.”

 

Mr. Mason stated that this is a 3 ˝ acre parcel located at the intersection of Slavin Drive and Spaulding Hill Road.  The applicant proposes to subdivide this parcel into two lots – one 1.29 acre lot, which has an existing house on it, and one 2.18 acre lot.  This plan first came before the board in July 1997.  Issues raised by the board at that time were resolved via litigation.  On February 11, 1999, this plan was accepted for consideration.  There were, at that time, issues relative to wetlands and soils delineation.  Mr. Mason provided a copy of a memo from the previous Planning Director dated September 2, 1997 regarding this proposed subdivision. 

 

Mr. Mason stated that he agreed, on behalf of his client, to allow the Hillsborough County Conservation Commission to conduct a soils and wetlands analysis of this site.  The original soils were completed by Mary Gospodarek.  Due to a family illness, Ms. Gospodarek was unable to meet with the HCCC this past spring to review the soils.  Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental, was hired to conduct a site specific soil management study of this site.  This is a high intensity soil mapping that the town presently requires for the subdivision approval process.  Mr. Mason stated that the Hillsborough County Conservation Commission visited and reviewed the site in July.  Mr. Messina, Mr. Gove, Ms. Gospodarek and Mr. Mason were also present at this time.  A memo dated July 28, 1999 was sent to the board by Mr. Rosenberg of the HCCC confirming the high and dry zones, soil typing of the plan and the edge of wetland.   The memo also confirmed that the site would support the construction of the proposed home and septic system. 

 

Mr. Mason stated that he had disposed the former Planning Director in March of 1998 during the litigation.  Ms. Griffin confirmed at that time that if the wetland delineation and soil types were confirmed, there were no other deficiencies with regards to the whole plan.  Mr. Mason provided the board with a copy of Ms. Griffin's disposition statement for the file. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the applicant were seeking any waivers.  Mr. Mason said no, they were not.

 

Mr. Farris referred to the minutes of the February 11, 1999 board meeting and asked if a well water yield had been completed as requested by Mr. CaraDonna.  He noted that water supply rate in this area has been a problem in the past.  Mr. Mason stated that the applicant would not be drilling a well prior to subdivision approval.   Mr. CaraDonna suggested that a well yield be done prior to the building permit being issued. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the 35,000 square ft. contiguous area had been confirmed.  Mr. Mason said yes, according the engineer, the plan meets the 35,000 sq. ft. requirement.  He referred to Note 5, Page 2 of the plan.

 

Mr. Farris asked if WSPCC approval had been secured.  Mr. Mason said no and stated that he is requesting approval of the plan subject to the receipt of WSPCC approval.  He noted that it has been shown that the lot can support the construction of the proposed house and septic system.  Mr. Mason stated that the applicant was asked to confirm soil types and wetlands delineation, not to calculate the square footage of the lot. 

 

Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Rosenberg of the HCCC did a very thorough job of delineating the wetlands and verifying the soils as requested by the board.  Mr. Culbert stated that Mr. Rosenberg’s letter does not refer to the 35,000 contiguous sq. ft.  Mr. Mason stated that a certification has been provided by a registered land surveyor on the plan.  He noted that the board had requested that the HCCC provide confirmation of the delineation of the wetlands and soil types.  Mr. Rosenberg was not consulted regarding the 35,000 contiguous sq. ft. regulation. 

 

Mr. Farris asked if the Conservation Commission had reviewed the location of the well in WCD.  He also asked if they had any input or control over where this well was to be located.  Mr. Messina explained that the well location in the WCD is a permitted use.  Mr. Mason agreed.

 

Mr. Farris feels that the drilling of a well in the WCD would cause a considerable amount of disturbance.  Mr. Dan Dubreuill, Conservation Commission member, explained that when a plan comes before the PCC, they generally ask that the wells be located outside of the WCD area.  The engineer generally complies.  Mr. Farris asked if potential impact to the area is taken into consideration.  Mr. Dubreuill explained that the PCC has no authority to require a specific location, they can only recommend. 

 

Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission Chairman, referred to Section 307-39 of the zoning and noted that there are many different interpretations.  Mr. Farris suggested that the PCC look at the proposed location of the well.  He questioned the impact of a drilling rig on the WCD.  Mr. Gowan suggested that the applicant secure input from the PCC regarding the well location in the WCD.  Ms. Harshfield agreed and stated that it makes sense to have the PCC review this plan.  Mr. Culbert agreed and noted that there could be major or minor impact to the WCD because of the current water problems in the area.

 

Mr. Mason stated that he has no problem with the PCC viewing the site prior to the well being drilled and offered to restore the area if they are unsuccessful with the drilling.  Ms. Harshfield suggested that a note be made on the plan stipulating that any area disturbed by well drilling in the WCD be restored.

 

Mr. Soby referred to Page 2 of the plan and to Mr. Gove’s Environmental report.  He pointed out that Mr. Gove recommends no building in the area of seasonal high water table.  Mr. Soby stated that a septic system has been identified in this exact area.  He asked how the high water table would be handled.

 

Mr. Mason explained that an adjustment would be made with an elevated field.  The original leach field design was shown in the front of the house creating an elevated field.  The floor of the foundation could be adjusted to tie in with the elevation in order to avoid impact of the seasonal high water table. Mr. Culbert expressed concern that the septic is being located where Mr. Gove has suggested that it not be placed.   Mr. Mason stated that Mr. Gove was on the site when they had the discussion relative to relocating the leach field in the back.  The area was staked out in the back versus the front so Mr. Rosenberg could confirm the area as a more preferred place for the septic system. Mr. Messina explained that the house has been moved forward and the septic located in the rear of the property.  Mr. Farris stated that the septic is raised so as not to impact the seasonal high water table

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:  (Soby/CaraDonna)  To approve the plan subject to meeting the New Hampshire Water Well Board and New Hampshire Water Well Association’s recommended minimum water supply capacity for private wells according to Environmental Fact Sheet #WD-WSEB 1-11 dated 1997 prior to the building permit being issued and subject to WSPCC approval. 

 

VOTE:  4 – 1 – 0 with Mr. Culbert voting No.  The motion carries.

 

Mr. Fisher rejoined the board.  

 

 

ML 003-088 & -091 – Currier & Mendes/Mammoth Road – View Pond Estates – Proposed 19 Lot Subdivision

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared before the board to present the subdivision plan for ML 003-088 and 091.  Mr. Zohdi stated that a site walk was conducted of this parcel by the board and the Conservation Commission on August 28th, 1999.  An alternative plan for the site was provided that day where the proposed road was moved and curved in order to avoid any wetland impact.  A bridge will be constructed at the second crossing of the wetland.

 

Mr. Zohdi stated that the soils were classified by Gove Environmental.  All lots meet zoning and subdivision regulations and the plan has been reviewed by CLD.  Mr. Gove supplied the board with a copy of the Environmental Impact Study.  A traffic study and fiscal impact study have been completed and submitted to the file with the plan.   

 

Mr. Messina stated that he has completed a review of the design as presented.  He agreed that all of the lots meet zoning and subdivision requirements.  Mr. Messina requested that Mr. Zohdi extend Priscilla Way versus a temporary cul de sac.  Additionally, on Meghan Circle, rather than sheet drainage as required in the new subdivision regulations, the original design was for in street drainage.  The sensitive area on Lot #3-91-9 will be mitigated.  There were some questions on the bridge construction and Mr. Zohdi has included the appropriate information on design in the plan. 

 

Mr. David Brouillet, CLD, stated that they received this plan late last week and have not thoroughly reviewed it.  Mr. Brouillet stated that there was nothing in the drainage package that would impact the lot sizing.  He will forward a final letter to the board when CLD’s review is complete. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked if this plan had been before the Conservation Commission.  Mr. Zohdi stated that they have had one meeting with Conservation Commission and noted that they were also present at the site walk. 

 

Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission Chairman, stated that the PCC’s meeting on this plan was preliminary in nature and they have not had a chance to speak directly with Gove Environmental.  Ms. Harshfield stated that the Conservation Commission would like to meet with the applicant as a full board to discuss and review this subdivision plan. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna asked if Mr. Zohdi had given any consideration to a pedestrian way to Muldoon Park in Phase II of this plan.  Mr. Zohdi stated that his client was not receptive to a pedestrian right of way. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna feels that there are certain lots in this proposed subdivision that will require site specifics.  Mr. Zohdi stated that each lot will have site specifics and these will be submitted to CLD for review and comment. 

 

Mr. Farris asked for clarification on the number of lots in Phase I and Phase II.  Mr. Zohdi stated that Phase I will have 10 lots this year and 11 lots in Phase II next year.  Mr. Farris pointed out that this is one proposal for 21 lots, not two separate proposals.  Mr. Culbert explained that a few years ago, the board began requesting that the developers come with a plan that shows the entire build out rather than “piece meal”. 

 

Mr. Farris feels that it would make sense to connect Melissa Drive to Meghan Circle.  Mr. Zohdi explained that this was not possible due to the location of the wetlands. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna asked if there was a possibility of connecting Priscilla Way to  Nashua Road.  Mr. Zohdi explained that this was not possible due to the location of the wetlands.  Mr. Zohdi referred to the possible build out of ML 3-88.  Mr. Gowan suggested that this parcel be considered for open space development if it passes at town meeting. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT:

 

Mr. Richard Cummings, Conservation Commission member, referred to Page 42 of Environmental Impact Study and asked if the board feels that it would be beneficial to have the opinion of a hydrologist on the impact of this site on the aquifer.  Mr. Gowan stated that this was an issue that they intended to address at the site walk but did not.  He stated that it would be difficult to answer Mr. Cummings question due to the fact that the board just now received the environmental impact study. 

 

Mr. CaraDonna stated that due to the sensitive nature of this parcel, he feels it would be wise for the board to follow the recommendation of the PCC and allow a hydrologist to respond to the question.  He further suggested that the plan be tabled until a report is received. 

 

Mr. Farris asked if the cost of the hydrologist would be passed on to the developer as this is not a “normal” requirement of the plan.  Mr. Brouillet, CLD, stated that CLD has qualified engineers who are able to address this issue as part of their review process.  The cost would be part of the review process fee.  Mr. Gowan feels that because this is an environmentally sensitive parcel, it does require a closer look and the scope of CLD’s analysis may have to be widened.

 

Mr. Zohdi asked that the board limit the hydrology study by putting a scope on it.  He feels that this study will cause unnecessary delays in the construction of the road. 

 

Mr. Farris asked for clarification on the parameters of CLD’s hydrology reports – specifically depth and time frame.  Mr. Fisher stated that the scope was defined by Mr. Cummings.  Mr. Cummings stated that they would like to have an “opinion” on the impact of this subdivision on the aquifer.  Mr. Brouillet explained that this request would not involve any fieldwork.  CLD would be evaluating readily available data.  In his opinion, the impact of these proposed 21 homes would not be significant.  CLD could put together a report and submit it to the board for their review.

 

Mr. CaraDonna requested that the board secure a favorable opinion from the hydrologist prior to approving this plan.  Mr. Zohdi explained that if the board does not receive a favorable letter, the applicant would have to return to the board.  If they can get the favorable letter before their meeting with the PCC next Wednesday, they will be able to get to work.  If he must return to the board, it will not be until October.  Mr. Zohdi asked that the board not delay the applicant.  He requested that the board issue a conditional approval for this subdivision plan.  Mr. Culbert feels that the outstanding issues are minor and noted that if  CLD does not issue a favorable letter, the plan does not move forward. 

 

Mr. Farris does not want to minimize the potential impact to this parcel, but he believes that favorable letters can be obtained to meet all requirements.  He noted that nothing would move forward without CLD’s approval.  If there are any problems, the plan will come back to the board.

 

Mr. Soby stated that this plan is still awaiting an opinion from CLD, the environmental impact study has been just been received by the board tonight for review and now there is the issue of an opinion from a hydrologist.  He feels that the board is being pressured to give their stamp of approval when the “homework” has not been complete.  Mr. Soby believes that there are many minor issues that could become major issues if not properly addressed.  He suggested that the board schedule a special meeting to assist the developer because he is not comfortable with approving a plan that CLD has not completely reviewed. 

 

Mr. Zohdi understands Mr. Soby’s concerns but pointed out that the Environmental Impact Study was submitted to the board for their review on the day of the site walk, August 28th.  Extra copies were at the town hall. 

 

Mr. Gowan suggested that the board allow the applicant time for CLD’s review, appearance before the Conservation Commission and the hydrologist’s opinion.  The board could then take this plan up as their first order of business at the work session on September 20th.   Mr. Farris questioned the applicant’s and CLD’s ability to complete all of these items before that meeting.  Mr. Brouillet felt that CLD could have their report completed if Mr. Zohdi provides them with all the necessary material.  Mr. Farris cautioned against setting a precedent by putting this off to the work session.   

 

Ms. Joann Langdon, Mammoth Road, expressed concern with the stub end of Melissa Drive going into the next parcel.  Mr. Gowan stated that it had been removed. 

 

Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental Services, stated that the environmental impact study was provided to the board at the site walk.  Mr. Messina stated that members of the PCC took some of the copies at the site walk.  Mr. Gowan stated that whatever occurred, the board has not had an opportunity to properly review the study.  Mr. Gove noted that the study was completed quite some time ago and given to the board.  Mr. CaraDonna stated that he had not seen the study and would like the time to review it properly.  Mr. Gowan asked that Mr. Messina mail out all of the documentation despite the cost of postage.

 

Mr. Phillip Currier, M & P Trust, stated that it is customary for the Planning Board to grant a conditional approval when waiting for items of a minor nature.  He asked that the board consider a conditional approval due to the time of year.  Mr. Currier stated that the owners of ML 3-88 intend to try and develop, with the board’s help, relative to the open space ordinance if it is passed at town meeting.  He believes that the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board are supportive of an open space ordinance for Pelham.  Mr. Currier feels that it is a better way to develop land. 

 

 Mr. Farris feels that voting on this plan at the next work session will satisfy many of these problems without hurting the developer.

 

Mr. Gowan stated that it is not the board’s responsibility to meet a developer’s building schedule.  He has tremendous faith in CLD to guide the board in this matter.  A favorable letter will also be necessary from the Conservation Commission. 

 

MOTION:  (Culbert/Fisher)  To approve the plan subject to a favorable letter from CLD for the engineering and hydrologic study and a favorable letter from the Conservation Commission. 

 

Mr. Culbert stated that this would allow the applicant the necessary time to do a proper job on the plan.

 

Mr. CaraDonna feels that the motion is good but he believes that it does not allow the board the necessary time to review all of the information. 

 

Mr. Farris does not feel that putting the vote off to the work session will delay this project or be detrimental to the developer.  It will give the board members time to review all of the information and to have confidence in their decision.

 

VOTE:  3 – 3 – 0 with Mr. Soby, Mr. CaraDonna and Farris voting No.  The motion fails.

 

Mr. J.R. Gauthier, Tenney Road, stated that the Planning Board is abdicating their responsibility to an advisory board (Conservation Commission), giving them power that they do not have.  He understands that their opinion is valuable but the Planning Board’s vote to approve this plan subject to CLD’s approval is justified. 

 

MOTION:  (Farris/Soby)  To continue discussion of this plan to the September 20, 1999 board meeting.

 

     Mr. Farris does not want to penalize the applicant by tabling this plan.  This will allow the process to continue and let the applicant gather the necessary information for the September 20th board meeting. 

 

     Mr. Gauthier asked that if there are any other issues that they be brought forward and discussed this evening.

 

     VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.

 

Ms. Harshfield noted that the Conservation Commission now meets on the second Wednesday of the month at 7:00 pm.  This allows them to be in better sequence with the Planning Board.  Mr. Culbert will attend these meetings as a representative to the board.

 

 

 

     PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

     Route 38 Traffic Study

 

     Mr. Messina requested that the board reach a consensus to set aside the $16,500 received from the developer of ML 13-85 for a traffic study on Route 38 and Old Gage Hill Road.

 

     It was the consensus of the board to set aside the $16,500 received from the developer of ML 13-85 for a traffic study on Route 38 and Old Gage Hill Road.

 

     McDonald’s Roof Alteration

 

     Mr. Messina was instructed to forward a letter to McDonald’s ordering them to return their roof to its original color as approved by the Planning Board.

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:   (Soby/Farris)  To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:  6– 0 – 0   The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 pm.

           

                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                    Susan J. Tesch

                                                                                    Recording Secretary