TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
The Acting Clerk called the roll:
PRESENT: Jeff Gowan, Paddy Culbert, John CaraDonna, Clark Harris, Alternate Henry DeLuca, Selectmen’s Representative Greg Farris, Planning Director Vincent Messina
ABSENT: Roger Montbleau, Michael Soby, Alternate Carl Huether
The Chairman announced that Mr. DeLuca would be voting for Mr. Soby.
ML 003-088 – M & P Trust/Mammoth Road – Proposed 17 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, requested that this subdivision plan be postponed to the board’s next meeting.
The board date specified the proposed subdivision plan for ML 003-088 to November 1, 1999. Mr. Zohdi offered to pay for the re-notification of abutters.
MOTION: (DeLuca/Culbert) To accept the minutes of the September 20, 1999 board meeting as read.
VOTE: 4 – 0 – 1 with Mr. CaraDonna abstaining. The motion carries.
Granite Curbing – Public Hearing
“Curbing is required along both sides of the street and cul de sacs. Slope granite curb shall be used along the street with a finished reveal of six (6) inches. Curbing along the street within an area of a curve with a radius of seventy five (75) feet or less shall be vertical granite type VA-4 with a finished reveal of seven (7) inches.”
“Curbing is required lining for both sides of all streets where grades are in excess of four percent (4%), and the roadway is to conform to the town’s typical cross section with curb.”
Mr. Culbert explained that this proposed change would return the regulations to the original language relative to granite curbing.
There was no public input.
Correction: September 9, 1999 Board Meeting Minutes
Mr. Messina referred to the minutes of the September 9, 1999 board meeting that were accepted as amended at the September 20, 1999 meeting. He explained that the dollar figure of $1,500 for the bond release on ML 001-163 (Page #2) was incorrectly stated. The correct figure should be $5,000.
Mr. Culbert withdrew his second on the original motion in Mr. Fisher’s absence.
MOTION: (Culbert/CaraDonna) To reconsider the motion on Page 2 relative to the bond release on ML 001-163.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
MOTION: (Culbert/Farris) To release the final bond amount of $5,000.00 subject to the installation of signage to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
Capital Improvements Plan
Mr. Gowan stated that the CIP committee has been meeting frequently over the past few months. He explained that the Capital Improvements Plan is a seven year plan for capital spending in the Town of Pelham. With assistance from the NRPC, the committee interviewed all town department heads and prepared the document. The underlying purpose of this document is to plan out capital expenditures in excess of $10,000 with a predicted life of at least three years. The primary purpose of this document is to advise the Board of Selectmen, the Budget Committee and the voters of Pelham as they look at the different upcoming warrant articles. The CIP provides them with a “longer view” of these expenditures. Mr. Gowan requested that the Planning Board accept the CIP document tonight and allow it to become the official advisory document for this seven year period of time. He noted that this document is revised each year.
Mr. Farris referred to Page 5 – Project List – VII. Schools and noted that there is nothing shown under the priority recommendation portion of the table. Mr. Gowan explained that this must be a typo and that the actual ratings are shown on actual schedule (spread sheet) further into the document.
Mr. Culbert suggested that Anticipated Impact Fees be added somewhere on the schedule. He commended the CIP committee on the outstanding job they did on this document.
Mr. Gowan explained that the new elementary school was not ranked as “Urgent” because it is not an issue of health and safety – despite the crowded situation. He explained that the incinerator was ranked as “Urgent” even thought it is not being brought forth as a specific warrant article.
MOTION: (Culbert/CaraDonna) To approve the Pelham Capital Improvements Plan 2000-2006.
Mr. DeLuca expressed concern that the board members have not had adequate time to review this document for a vote. Mr. Culbert stated that he is confident with the CIP document and noted that hundreds of man hours are put into it prior to it coming before the board. The items found tonight have been typographical in nature and should not prevent the document from moving forward.
(Mr. Harris arrived at 8:05 pm)
Mr. Culbert explained that the CIP is a sub-committee of the Planning Board. Historically, the document is brought to the board for review and approval in the same night. Mr. Harris stated that the first year, there was extensive discussion as the board attempted to bring the “boiler plate” to the table.
Mr. Farris stated that the Board of Selectmen have submitted their budget to the Budget Committee and will not be discussing warrant articles again until November. He feels that it is important that this document gets to the Budget Committee.
Mr. Farris asked if the CIP took into consideration the monies given to each town by the new State school funding tax. Mr. Messina explained that all revenue streams are looked at – property taxes, impact fees, State and federal input to education, highway improvement programs, etc. Mr. Farris asked where this amount is shown in the CIP report as it will most definitely effect the school portion of the CIP. Mr. Gowan explained that because these funds will offset the taxes to the town, it is not reflected here. It does reduce the town tax significantly in the year it is shown. Mr. Farris suggested that a footnote be made regarding these anticipated revenues from the State. Mr. Gowan agreed.
Mr. DeLuca asked when the establishment of a water commission as described in the appendix would be addressed. Mr. Gowan explained that this portion of the appendix was taken from the Master Plan, which is scheduled to be redone next year.
MOTION: 5 – 0 – 1 with Mr. DeLuca abstaining. The motion carries.
ML 004-140 – Mountain Orchard Development, LLC/Valley Hill Road – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared before the board to present the subdivision plan for ML 004-140. Mr. Zohdi explained that this is a plan for a proposed three lot subdivision of ML 4-140 located off of Valley Hill Road. He referred to Page 2 of the plan and stated that the existing garage shown will be removed. The plan also indicates a proposed road for future access to the rear portion of the lot. The remaining parcel will have 66 acres. All lots comply with town subdivision and zoning regulations. Gove Environmental completed the site specific soil mapping, which is shown on Page 4 of the plan. The surveyor on the project was Wesley Aspinwall. No drainage or road design is proposed at this time.
Mr. Harris asked for clarification on the note “”Residue – Non buildable lot at this time.” Mr. Zohdi explained that this parcel would be unbuildable until the applicant returns with a subdivision plan in the future. There is not sufficient frontage to allow building on this parcel. Mr. Harris stated that the applicant would be asking the board to create a non conforming lot. Mr. Zohdi stated that he is asking the board to create a “non-buildable” lot due to lack of frontage. Mr. Harris stated that historically, the second phase of a project holds one lot in the first phase with sufficient frontage to the remaining parcel. Mr. Zohdi stated that Mr. Harris is correct unless he puts a note stating the lot is non-buildable at this time.
Mr. Harris suggested that Mr. Zohdi combine ML 4-140-1 with the residue piece and utilize that for the frontage requirement. Mr. Zohdi understands Mr. Harris’ concern and offered to combine ML 4-140-1 with the remaining rear parcel (ML 4-140).
Mr. John Suprenant, Valley Hill Road, asked for clarification on the “proposed road” to the remaining parcel. Mr. Gowan stated that no road is proposed for this subdivision. Mr. Zohdi stated that the proposed road is being withdrawn and ML 4-140 is being combined with ML 4-140-1 to provide sufficient frontage.
Mr. Ed Stanley, 73 Valley Hill Road, asked if the abutters would be re-notified of any future development of the rear parcel. Mr. Gowan explained that if the applicant comes back with a plan for the rear parcel, all abutters would be notified again.
Mr. CaraDonna asked for clarification on sufficient frontage for ML 4-140-2. Mr. Zohdi explained that it is based on either the tangent of the curve or the curve. Either way will yield sufficient frontage.
Mr. Paul Steck, Jeremy Hill Road, referred back to a few years ago when Pellex Corporation came before the board with a much smaller development. At that time, there was discussion of a fee for improvements to Valley Hill Road. Mr. Gowan does not feel that the exaction fee would be relevant for these two lots but would consider it for the development of the rear parcel. Mr. Harris stated that these two lots would be subject to the $3,000 per lot exaction for improvements to Valley Hill Road. Mr. Zohdi’s client understands that this exaction will have to be paid for each lot developed.
Mr. DeLuca asked about connecting roads to abutting parcels. Mr. Zohdi presented a conceptual plan of possible road connections from Valley Hill Road to Longview, Holstein, Bush Hill Road and Mammoth Roads. He explained that this conceptual plan was based on USGS mapping. A full topography of the area has not been completed.
Mr. Harris asked for clarification on the site distance for the driveways on ML 4-140-2 and ML 4-140-3. Mr. Zohdi explained that there is sufficient site distance for both lots. Site specifics will be provided for both lots.
Mr. CaraDonna expressed concern for the shape of ML 4-140-2. He asked if there were any other alternative to the proposed road shown. Mr. Zohdi explained that according to ground topography, this extra area is necessary to allow for appropriate grade for the intersection at Valley Hill Road. It will also provide extra area for shoulder work that will be necessary for the road. Mr. Zohdi referred to Page 3 of the plan for further clarification.
Mr. Farris asked if the proposed homes would be in keeping with the existing homes in this area. Mr. Frank Flanagan, applicant, explained that the price of the lots will dictate the size of the houses. He believes that the general direction is to construct homes that are comparable to the ones already there.
Mr. CaraDonna expressed concern with the slope of ML 4-140-2 and ML 4-140-3. Mr. Zohdi explained that the majority of this area is classified as “B” which is less than 8% slope. Some of the area is classified as “C” which is less than 15% slope.
MOTION: (Harris/Culbert) To accept the plan for consideration.
VOTE: 6 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
This plan was date specified for November 1, 1999.
A site walk will be conducted on Saturday, October 16th at 8:00 am.
PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Mr. Messina reported that he had received a letter from the attorney representing Greene/Quintiliani (ML 13-83) regarding the name of the subdivision located off of Route 38. The original name was Evergreen Estates. They have been asked by the State Attorney General to change this name. It has been resolved that the new name will be Evergreen Estates of Pelham. Mr. Messina explained that the mylars would have to be revised and re-signed by the Secretary and the Chairman. He will forward a letter to their attorney regarding this matter.
Mr. Harris asked for an update on the proposed change relative to the length of cul de sacs. Mr. Gowan stated that this issue would be placed on the next work session agenda for discussion.
Mr. Farris asked for clarification on the status of the architectural review guidelines. Mr. Gowan explained that the board would need to conduct three meetings in order to approve them. He stated that this document could be accepted as a guideline or recommendation. The board can then break it out by pieces to better fit into the subdivision regulations or zoning ordinance. Mr. Gowan asked each board member to review the guidelines and make recommendations on their placement.
Mr. Culbert asked if the board was going to look at an extension of the commercial zone on Route 38. Mr. Gowan did not believe that this issue would be dealt with on the upcoming ballot.
Mr. CaraDonna requested that the following three items be added to the next working session agenda – 1) minimum water requirements; 2) side setbacks; and 3) wells within the WCD and expanding within the WCD.
Mr. Messina suggested that the discussion on the WCD be postponed until the UNH prime wetlands study is completed.
Mr. Culbert requested that a copy of the PCC agenda be sent to his attention as the Planning Board representative.
MOTION: (Farris/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.
VOTE: 6– 0 – 0 The motion carries.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 pm.
Susan J. Tesch