TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
The Clerk called the roll:
PRESENT: Jeff Gowan, Clark Harris, John CaraDonna,
Alternate Henry DeLuca, Selectmen’s Representative Greg Farris
ABSENT: Paddy Culbert, Roger Montbleau, Michael
Soby, Alternate Carl Huether, Planning Director Vincent Messina
The Chairman
announced that Mr. DeLuca would be voting for Mr. Culbert.
Mr. Gowan read
aloud a letter of resignation received from board member Roger Montbleau.
MOTION: (CaraDonna/DeLuca)
To accept the minutes of the October 4, 1999 board meeting as read.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
Mr. Harris read aloud the proposed change to the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land - Chapter 260, Section XII, Paragraph F – Drainage; Subparagraph f. – Curbing:
“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. Harris stated that the revised typical cross
section has yet to be received by Mr. Messina for incorporation into the
subdivision regulations.
MOTION: (Harris/CaraDonna)
To approve the change to the language as currently worded regarding
curbing to “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.”
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
DISCUSSION
– Cul de Sacs
Mr. Gowan feels that it is time for the board to proceed with their discussion on cul de sacs and decide which is the best direction to go with the current regulations.
Mr. Farris asked if the 840 ft. maximum takes into
consideration potential cul de sacs off of the existing cul de sac. If the board allows this, they will continue
with the “spider web” effect of cul de sacs.
If the length is extended to allow a developer his ten lots, it will
also allow for multiple cul de sacs off of the main cul de sac. Mr. Farris feels that the board needs to try
to get a development to “loop around” and allow for at least two accesses. Mr. Harris explained that the regulations
state that a developer cannot construct intersections within so many feet of
each other. Mr. Farris stressed the
need for “creativity” in the development and planning of future subdivisions. Mr. Harris stated that it is up to the board
to review the plans as they come before them.
Mr. Gowan agrees with Mr. Farris and is also not an
advocate of “cascading cul de sacs”.
Mr. CaraDonna stated that the board needs to determine whether or not
they will continue to allow “cascading cul de sacs” to occur. He suggested that the board agree on a
figure that will be reasonable – possibly something less than 840 ft. Mr. CaraDonna referred to Page 14 of the
Subdivision Regulations – Section XII – Design Standards – A. Streets 1. Location and read aloud as follows:
“d. Streets that cannot be extended and will
be permanently terminated will not have a greater centerline length than 560
feet prior to the beginning of the termination.”
He explained that this means if a cul de sac is
permanent, it cannot be greater than 560 ft.
However, if a right of way is shown, it can be greater. Mr. Farris pointed out that a waiver would
be necessary.
Mr. Gowan stated that the board must base any change
to the language on sound reasoning. He
believes that this language “flies in the face” of the Master Plan which calls
out for connecting roads whenever possible.
The board needs to find a way to balance this issue. Mr. CaraDonna stated that if the board sets
a specific limit, the developer can always request a waiver. Mr. Harris disagreed and explained that if
there is criteria for limits between a maximum and minimum, it cannot be
waived. This is similar to the
intersection grades regulation.
Mr. Farris referred to the towns of Dracut and
Tyngsboro where the 500 ft. limit is strictly enforced with no waivers. He feels that there must be a balance in
order to allow for “creative” long term development. Mr. Farris feels that Pelham’s regulations currently allow for
very long cul de sacs with no way out.
Mr. Gowan believes that the board needs to tighten
up the regulations but they must be able to base these decisions in fact. Mr. Farris stated that the Master Plan,
which is utilized as a guideline for planning, refers to the protection of the
way of life throughout the document.
He questioned how the granting of waivers would effect this
protection. Mr. Gowan stated that the
Master Plan also calls out for connecting roads and that could mean disruption
of a way of life on an existing cul de sac.
Mr. Harris stated that the board cannot deny access
to abutting parcels with permanent cul de sacs. Mr. Farris stated that the board has allowed 2,000 ft. cul de
sacs on the “potential” that a piece of land may be developed. He feels that the owners of the abutting
parcels need to be contacted prior to the development. Mr. Farris stated that the board continues
to create “over extended” cul de sacs that lead to nowhere.
Mr. CaraDonna feels that there have been a few
subdivision plans before the board that are way outside of the regulation. He referred to the extension off of Shelly
Drive and Irene Drive. Mr. CaraDonna
stated that there is a potential for a connecting road off of Irene Drive but
Buonarosa Drive is “done”.
Mr. Harris stated that he drafted language in August
that set a limit of 760 ft. and being waivered to a maximum of 800 ft. allows
you 40 ft. in length. This is more
conducive to rectangular lots. Mr.
Farris stated that the longer the road is extended, the greater the change of
having cul de sacs off of cul de sacs.
Mr. Harris explained that the limitation would apply
to permanent cul de sacs only because the board cannot deny access. Mr. Farris stated that the board does not
have to allow an applicant to develop to the end of his property. Mr. Harris explained that if the applicant
develops around the permanent cul de sac, the board has created a “reservation
strip” that denies access. Mr. Farris
stated that if a developer establishes a 50 ft. right of way off of the cul de
sac, he can return to the board to develop further. Mr. Harris explained that the developer will have to connect if
he is going to utilize the frontage.
Mr. CaraDonna stated that with today’s regulations, this would be
waived. Mr. Harris referred to
Wyndridge Estates off of Bowley Road and the cascading cul de sac situation
that has occurred there. There was no
way that the board could deny the access.
This parcel has the potential to be connected to another town road.
Mr. Farris asked how the board can encourage a
developer to loop these roads around rather than create more cul de sacs. Mr. Harris referred to Shannon Circle off of
Jericho Road. It is beneficial for the
developer to create a “P” or “Q” shape that will gain road frontage for more
lots.
Mr. Gowan stated that if the language is properly
written, the board can force creativity on the developers. He understands that the more narrow pieces
of property will be difficult to create loops on. Mr. CaraDonna referred to Evergreen Estates off of Route 38 and
pointed out that this very long roadway goes right up to the wetlands and ends
in a cul de sac. He questioned if this
is how the board wants to continue to plan the town.
Mr. Gowan suggested that the board members try to
merge specific language to the wording that Mr. Harris has presented and work
on it again at the next planning session.
Mr. Farris questioned whether the board wants to set this language up so
that there are no waivers. They could
insert a minimum and maximum figure to avoid the requests for waivers. Mr. Gowan stated that this way, a waiver
could still be granted, but only to the maximum figure established. Mr. Harris stated that it must apply only to
permanent cul de sacs because the board cannot restrict access to future development. Mr. Farris asked what the point of the
restriction is if the board is going to allow cul de sacs of a greater
distance. Mr. Harris stated that a
developer would be held at 560 ft. if a 50 ft. right of way is not provided to
the next parcel.
Mr. Gowan feels that the minimum should be left at
560 ft. with a maximum of 800 ft. Mr.
Farris stated that with a permanent cul de sac, a developer could get ten
lots.
Mr. Farris suggested that the board create language
that will not only protect the town but will also be fair and equitable to the
developer. He feels that the onus is on
the developer to be creative with the layout of the plan. Mr. Farris expressed concern for protecting
way of life in local neighborhoods.
Mr. Gowan stated that the Master Plan calls out for
connecting roads. This document will be
reviewed this year for updates. Mr.
Gowan stressed the importance of the Planning Board conducting lengthy discussions
about this issue prior to any rewrites of the Master Plan.
Mr. Farris asked if the proposed language states
that a cul de sac cannot be extended unless it interconnects, will it allow the
board any flexibility. Mr. Gowan stated
that a potential property owner must thoroughly research the lot prior to
purchase. Mr. Farris believes that the
board must have the option of controlling any connections to surrounding
towns. Mr. Gowan stated that the board
must research whether or not they can say no to a connecting road.
Mr. Gowan requested that Mr. Harris and Mr. CaraDonna
pull this language together and submit it for review and discussion at the next
work session.
Mr. Harris explained that he would submit language
that provides a minimum length of 560 ft. and a maximum length of 800 ft. for a
permanent cul de sac. There will be no
further extension beyond 800 ft. unless there is a connecting road. Mr. CaraDonna requested that cascading cul
de sacs also be addressed in the language.
Mr. Farris stated that with this parameter set, a developer would be
forced to be creative.
Mr. CaraDonna requested that side setbacks, minimum
water requirements and work within the WCD be discussed at the next work
session.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: (DeLuca/Harris) To adjourn
the meeting.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Susan
J. Tesch
Recording
Secretary