APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 6, 2000

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:             Victor Danevich, Jeff Gowan, Bill Scanzani, Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:               Henry DeLuca, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Michael Soby

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Ouellette would vote for Henry DeLuca in his absence.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

ML 13-84 TeleCorp - 327 Gage Hill Road - Pelham Pentecostal Church - Site Plan Review for Proposed Telecommunication Tower

 

Mr. Stephen Russell, WFI, appeared before the Board to present the proposed telecommunication tower.

He began by saying from the last presentation there was a remaining question of whether the addition to the church was an existing building.  He believed that Town Counsel had provided the Board with their decision.  He ended by saying their proposal hasn’t changed, and they now seek approval.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Town Counsel’s memo was confidential, but in summary, approval should be contingent upon construction of the addition.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked what the final decision was regarding the tower being an operational flagpole.  Mr. Danevich answered to say it would be operational, but not lit.

 

Ms. Casey informed that the Police Chief appeared before the Board of Selectmen with his budget request, which stated his need for use of the tower for communications.  Mr. Russell said the Police Chief hasn’t approached WFI with that request. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve as stated during the Board’s meeting of October 2, 2000. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Russell would be able to accommodate the Police Chief’s request.  Mr. Russell let it be known that the tower would hold internal antennae and not have the capability of attaching anything to the top or sides, due to the functionality of the flagpole.  Ms. Casey said the Police Chief said his need was for PCS.  Mr. Russell said WFI would be happy to accommodate the Town.  Mr. Culbert noted that the flagpole has the ability to hold an additional carrier and asked if it would be PCS.  Mr. Russell said it could be PCS or cellular.  Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Russell if the Police Chief’s technology were to fit inside the flagpole, would WFI allow the Police Chief to be the additional carrier.  Mr. Russell answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked, for clarification, if the Police Chief would be allowed to share the tower at no charge.  Mr. Russell answered yes, as long as the technology worked as an internal antenna.  Mr. Culbert to further clarify asked Mr. Russell if the Police Chief’s technology fits inside the flagpole, WFI would allow them to do so at no charge.  Mr. Russell answered yes.

 

Mr. Gowan seconded Mr. Scanzani’s motion. 

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/Gowan) To approve the plan subject to the following contingencies:

 

                                1) The flagpole must be operational and not illuminated at night;

                                2) The plan must indicate that a generator will not be used;

                                3) The flagpole cannot be installed prior to construction of the building;

                                4) The flag size must comply with the flag etiquette rule.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 4-137-5 Valley Hill Land Development, LLC - Mammoth Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Ms. Casey informed that she had spoken with a member of the Conservation Committee, and was told that the proposed plan has not yet been reviewed by Conservation, with the exception of the road.  Mr. Danevich said he spoke with the same person Ms. Casey spoke to, and they informed him that they were mistaken and the plan had indeed been reviewed by Conservation.

 

Ms. Casey and Mr. McNamara stepped down due to a conflict of interest.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision for approval.  He said his understanding from the last meeting was the Board wanted all the road connections made, the waterline extended to the end of Longview, and that cul-de-sacs include gazeboes.  He said they have complied with all the suggestions and supplied CLD with the information.  He said the traffic study had also been done.  He asked for final approval.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if a conceptual of the bridge had been done and added that a photograph would be acceptable.  Mr. Zohdi said the bridge would be the same type as they had done in the past.  He informed they redesigned the plan with 2-1 and included retention walls.  He noted there were no driveways in the area.  Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Zohdi had brought a conceptual with him.  Mr. Zohdi answered no. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the Safety Committee recently met and discussed the addition of gazeboes.  They informed that they did not want gazebos or anything that would obstruct view in a pass-through traffic-calming cul-de-sac.  He said it was unclear if that included plantings.

 

Mr. Danevich asked why the traffic calming at Longview and Meadowview had not been updated.  He said the intent was Meadowview would be a continuation into the current cul-de-sac and Longview would gradually turn and terminate at a stop sign.  Mr. Zohdi said that section of the plan could be revised and went on to discuss that the curve would have to be radial.   Mr. Danevich said the intent was to prevent a long cul-de-sac and divert traffic from travelling down Longview.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the possibility of a traffic circle (one-way rotary).  Mr. Zohdi said that could also be done. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the implementation of a rotary and the safety concerns involved. 

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the water main and clarified that it’s extension to the end of Longview and Jeremy Hill was voluntary.  Mr. Zohdi said yes and drew (on the plan displayed) where the water main would run.  Mr. Danevich asked where the line would be located.  Mr. Zohdi said the lines would be located on the shoulder, but informed that the road would have to be cut in two or three areas to connect to all the properties.  He then said those portions would be resurfaced.  Mr. Danevich asked which side of the road the lines would run.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t have the plan in front of him.

 

Mr. Danevich then asked about the squaring of ML 7-137-15 and 16.  Mr. Zohdi said that the location of the houses and the distance between them is at least 15’ to 20’.  Mr. Danevich said the intent was to have square lots.  Mr. Zohdi said the lot is basically square and would like to leave it alone.

 

Mr. Danevich then asked if the preliminary wildlife corridor study had been done.  Mr. Zohdi handed out the study and asked Ms. Surowiec to give the Board a breakdown.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the chances of the proposed plan going back before the Board if open space passed in March.  Mr. Zohdi said that parcel 1 & 2 would come back, but parcel 3 would be unlikely.

 

Ms. Katie Surowiec, Wetland Scientist, Turtle Pond Enterprises, summarized the potential wildlife assessment she prepared.  Ms. Surowiec said the assessment noted the different forest types, the orchard, and an old field regenerating (in the third parcel not reviewed yet ML 4-139).  She also noted the areas left for potential contiguous habitat.  She spoke about the buffered area around the wetlands and informed that the oak/pine forest with steeper topography in her opinion would be difficult to develop.  She informed that the greatest impact would be fragmentation and any barriers between the wetlands.  She explained that there would be other wildlife, which would utilize the area, and said the assessment discussed which species would be opportunistic and/or displaced.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if anything could be done with the existing plan to improve the wildlife corridors.  Ms. Surowiec said a lot could be done with the topography, specifically if larger chunks of land were left, as well as allowances for good buffers to the wetlands. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were any buffer changes, or recommendations, on a per parcel basis, which would help give a better understanding of the wildlife corridor.  Ms. Surowiec said she was not fully comfortable with the Meadowview wetland crossing because there were several fragments, but said she believed, for the most part a nice corridor had been created.    She noted that ML 4-139 had two nice ridges and recommended keeping as much buffer as possible for a travel corridor.  Ms. Surowiec said the orchard was fragmented by the plan, but had good edges (which are important, and should be saved).  She said that area would be the best one for open space.  She said the most important thing to save edges were good to save Mr. Zohdi said his client would reconsider phase two, three and four for open space. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Deb Casey, 8 Longview Circle, who spoke as a resident, thanked the Board for their creative planning.

She then asked the Board the following:

                1) Provide the residents with an opportunity to speak with the Safety Committee;

2) Request that re-surfacing be done on Longview after the project is completed so it would appear to be a continuation;

                3) Request that Longview not be the construction road;

                4) Request that the development be done in doses due to the impact on vegetation.

 

Mr. Zohdi said his client didn’t have any objections to adding a gazebo to the cul-de-sac (within a specified time of two months or 60 days).    He said that Longview would need to be re-surfaced at the end of construction.  He said that there wouldn’t be any more than 2000 square feet disturbed at a time until the area was stabilized.  Mr. Zohdi discussed the construction sequences and said that Longview wouldn’t have construction vehicles until the very end, at which point it would take approximately one week.  He also noted that the developer would only construct ten lots per year, so the process would take approximately three years.

 

Ms. Casey asked the Board if they had any problem with the residence approaching the Safety Committee.  Mr. Danevich said he encouraged it, and would include in the motion with a time limit.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the residents their opinion regarding the rotary versus the proposal.

 

Mr. Daniel Fornier, 7 Longview Circle, said the residents preferred the rotary.

 

Ms. Sue Boardman, 9 Longview Circle, spoke up to say that the residents would prefer a stop sign, but would accept the rotary as a second choice.  Mr. Danevich clarified that the plan, which included the stop sign, was for the end of Meadowview and Longview would continue without a stop sign.  Ms. Boardman then discussed her recollection, which was to have Longview curve into Meadowview at a stop sign.  She said the residence would like a rotary, instead of traffic “T”.

 

Mr. Peter McNamara, 12 Jeremy Hill Road, spoke as a resident, and noted that pedestrians would be able to cross the road better with a stop sign rather than try to cross a rotary with constantly moving traffic. 

Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have any objections to adding three stop signs at the intersection rather than a rotary.  He added that he wouldn’t have a problem with having a rotary with three stop signs.  Ms. Casey and Ms. Boardman spoke to say they would prefer the rotary with three stop signs.  Mr. Culbert encouraged that CLD review. 

 

Ms. Helen Munsen, 12 Holstein Drive, said that in the discussion regarding safety, Holstein hadn’t been mentioned.  She didn’t believe the Board gave much thought to the safety on Holstein Drive and was upset at the fact that a projected traffic number hadn’t been provided. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the need for inter-connectivity of roads and the accesses for emergency equipment. 

 

Mr. Culbert said he had a general concern regarding gazeboes and the Town’s responsibility of maintenance.  Mr. Danevich said that the gazebo was not an acceptable structure and didn’t expect the Safety Committee to change their mind.

 

Mr. Culbert wanted to clarify that Longview would be resurfaced completely.  Mr. Zohdi said yes, the length of Longview would put a 1” finish on the existing portion of Longview to blend with the other roads.

 

Mr. Culbert then asked if CLD was aware of the 2-1 slope.  Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t believe that there was and problem and 2 - 1 was recommended to the Board.

 

Mr. Culbert asked about the intersection at Meadowview and Longview and suggested that Mr. Zohdi speak with CLD to design the road.   Mr. Zohdi didn’t believe there would be a problem implementing a rotary.

 

Mr. Gowan believed that rather than creating the Town’s first rotary, a better way to handle would be to have stop signs with cross walks.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the existing cul-de-sac would remain when the cut-through was done.  Mr. Zohdi said his understanding was the cul-de-sac would remain and also the cul-de-sac on Holstein would be left alone. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if three street names had been submitted.  Mr. Zohdi said they had been submitted to the Board of Selectmen.

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that Conservation and CLD still needed to review.   Mr. Danevich noted the issues still pending: 1) CLD’s final review; 2) Conservation’s review; and 3) Traffic.  Mr. Scanzani said he would still like to see a conceptual.  Mr. Zohdi said they were all on the plan and asked for approval subject to the three issues Mr. Danevich noted.  Mr. Culbert also noted that he would like to see conditional approval from CLD and a letter of recommendation from Conservation.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if underground utilities would be provided.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked about granite curbing.   It was noted that Mr. Mitchell should be provided with an updated set of regulations, the granite curbing regulation was recently amended, and is no longer required.  Mr. Mitchell asked if sidewalks were required.  Mr. Danevich answered no.  Mr. Mitchell then sited RSA 12:B-5 regarding steep slopes.  Mr. Danevich said CLD would review.  Mr. Zohdi said that these lots comply because they are being provided with Town water. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the plans noted that the lots would be serviced by Pennichuck water.  Mr. Zohdi said that note number three would be updated on the plans.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if trees would be planted per RSA 12:A-8.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Zohdi said that would be bonded through the Planning Director and CLD.  Mr. Gowan said that has been left to the discretion of the Planning Director. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if a waiver had been granted per RSA 12:A-4:B for a grade %.  Mr. Zohdi said a waiver had been requested as part of the application.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if open space or parks had been considered per RSA 12:E.  Mr. Gowan answered no. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if special permits had been granted for ML 4-137-4 due to the configuration forcing a WCD crossing for the driveway.  Mr. Danevich said due to the frontage, they couldn’t.  Mr. Mitchell was concerned with the design forcing the impact.  He suggested that the ordinance be reviewed and possibly re-worded. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said there was a waiver request for ML 4-140, but not for the subdivision in question.  Mr. Zohdi said he would put it in writing.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve with the following conditions: 1) CLD’s review and approval; 2) Conservation’s favorable letter of recommendation; 3) Pennichuck’s ability to supply water to all the areas.  Mr. Gowan seconded for discussion.   He said he wouldn’t vote on the affirmative on this plan until the Board knows exactly where the road would be.   Mr. Danevich believed the final resolution was three stop signs with a rotary.

 

Mr. Scanzani said there were still concerns regarding the slow down cul-de-sacs.  There was a brief discussion regarding the gazebos.

 

Mr. Culbert amended his motion to include three-way stop signs and crosswalks.  Mr. Gowan amended his second.

 

Mr. Mitchell said the statute which authorizes conditional approvals (RSA 676:4-I) is very narrow.  He said if a plan is approved by the Board and he later receives something from CLD which is a discretionary judgement of the Board, he would send it back to the Board. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the elements still needing review.  Mr. Danevich suggested adding a time constraint for the Safety Committee feedback and also felt note 3 should be amended as well.  Mr. Culbert further amended his motion to include these two items.  Mr. Gowan further amended his second and suggested the Board wait one more meeting before they approve so that CLD and Conservation could review and comment.  Mr. Danevich agreed with Mr. Gowan.   Mr. Culbert suggested possibly calling a special meeting.  Mr. Gowan added that he didn’t feel any major elements would change.  It was pointed out that the Board needed to vote on the waiver.

 

 

 

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/Culbert) To accept for consideration a waiver to exceed the grade to 12% from station 1500 to station 2125 on Meadowview Road.

 

There was no public input.

 

VOTE:                   (5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. McNamara and Ms. Casey had stepped down.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the waiver.

 

There was no public input.

 

VOTE:                   (3 - 1 - 1) The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette voted no.  Mr. Scanzani abstained. 

                                                  Mr. McNamara and Ms. Casey had stepped down.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the plan conditioned upon:

                                                                1) CLD’s review and approval;

                                                                2) Conservation’s favorable letter of recommendation;

                                                                3) Pennichuck’s ability to supply water to all the areas;

                                                                4) Three-way stop signs and crosswalks;

                                                                5) Feedback from the Safety Committee within 60 days;

                                                                6) Note 3 on the plans to be amended.

 

VOTE:                   (3 - 1 - 1) The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette voted no.  Mr. Scanzani abstained.                                                                       Mr. McNamara and Ms. Casey had stepped down.

 

Mr. Danevich let it be known that Mr. Tokanel requested an extension and date specification to the next meeting.  Mr. Gowan suggested that Mr. Tokanel speak with the interim Planning Director.  Mr. Tokanel said he would.

 

ML 4-140 - Mountain Orchards Development, LLC/Valley Hill Road - Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision.  He began by saying the Board had walked the site and all the lots comply with the regulations.  He said Conservation had also done a site walk and had suggestions for going through WCD.  He said they are not asking for a dredge and fill permit.  His understanding is there are still improvements to be done to Valley Hill Road as agreed previously.  He noted there is a letter the Conservation Commission to Dr. Richardson regarding the adjacency to prime wetland.  Mr. Zohdi said his client might consider coming back before the Board next year for open space.  He said there are a couple of wetland crossings, which they will bridge.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the wildlife corridor study has now been completed.  His belief is the abutter’s issues have been somewhat resolved.  He said there has been no comment from Conservation Commission yet. 

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud a letter from Bob Yarmo of the Conservation Commission to Dr. Frank Richardson dated October 10, 2000. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said the prime wetland is across the street, as he pointed out during the site walk.  He pointed out the page, which showed they were upgrading the drainage.  His belief is they have taken all the precautions to do the development right.   He said they are also treating all the water inside the subdivision and have added an additional detention pond.

 

Ms. Casey prefers to wait until a response is received from Dr. Richardson regarding the adjacency to the prime wetland.  She pointed out that Mr. Zohdi would also have to appear before Conservation on November 15th.   Mr. Danevich said Conservation’s only request was to determine adjacency, issue two was the wildlife corridor and the third issue was the impact on drainage.  Ms. Casey said she would like to wait until after Conservation’s meeting on November 15th to discuss this plan so the Board could have more information.  Mr. Zohdi said the Board could approve the plan subject to a 30-day response from Dr. Richardson.  Ms. Casey reminded there are two other issues, one of which is the wildlife impact.  Mr. Gowan suggested also waiting until Conservation reviews and re-scheduling to the first meeting in December.

 

Ms. Ouellette questioned the shape of ML 140-26 and 140-9 and felt something could be done to correct and square off.  Mr. Zohdi said the lots are oversized and could be adjusted.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the parcels would be served by Pennichuck and said well and septic would need notations.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes and would amend plan.

 

Ms. Casey asked if the proposed fell under the parameters of requesting a lot being set-aside for residential/recreational or open space.  Mr. Mitchell said the regulations give the authority to provide service to the interior subdivision.  Mr. Scanzani said in the future it could be a prime location.  Ms. Casey said she’d like to address the possibility up front and ask the builder if he’s set aside space for the future, rather than waiting until March.

 

Mr. Gowan asked the location of the detention pond.  Mr. Zohdi noted it was across the street.

 

Ms. Casey revisited the issue of possibly setting aside space.  Mr. Gowan said his concern was setting aside space on only one of the three developments due to the subdivisions sharing improvement fees.  He said one way of removing the element of unfairness was to have the applicant consider giving one lot up.  Mr. Scanzani added to that by discussing the possibility of reviewing the other subdivisions and finding two abutting lots, which would give enough acreage. 

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud a section from the case of Dolan versus the City of Taggard.

 

Mr. Mitchell said the Dolan case referred to public access and said he would draft a letter to Town Counsel regarding dedicating lots for residents only.  Mr. Culbert asked how it would effect, if at all, the money already taken for the Valley Hill road improvements.  Mr. Mitchell said if it’s just for the road, it’s different, he said impact fees don’t interfere with RSA 674:36.  Ms. Casey asked if there was a section of development that could be used.  Mr. Zohdi pointed out an area of 10,000 to 12,000 square feet.  Mr. Danevich asked whom it would be deeded to.  Mr. Zohdi said he would have to deed it to the Town.  It was decided to seek Town Counsel’s advice on the issue.  Mr. Zohdi then pointed out that the other subdivision had a walking trail.  There was a discussion regarding the exaction money collected and what it could and could not be used for.  Mr. Gowan suggested keeping an area as natural open space. 

 

Mr. Danevich said there were two issues: 1) public access and 2) if deeded to the Town, how would resident use only be enforced.  Ms. Ouellette brought up the point of Park & Recreation possible use.

 

Mr. Danevich noted the remaining issues as follows:

                1) Adjacency to prime wetland;

                2) CLD’s final report;

                3) Conservation;

                4) Legal;

                5) Approval of waivers.

 

 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, asked which would be more feasible, walking trails along the periphery of the subdivision or one lot in the center.  Mr. Zohdi said in other Towns there have been some dedicated walking trails along the perimeter of the subdivision.  He noted there was a good trail system in the area, his client doesn’t have any objections. 

 

Mr. Paul Steck, 146 Jeremy Hill Road, said he liked the idea of saving space and would like to see as much saved for the wildlife corridor.  He wanted it known that Steck Farm (on the West Side of the development) is registered with the State and the FAA.  He said there would be some low flying aircraft coming in and out of the area.

 

Mr. Don Ronning, 9 Holstein Drive, said that establishing walking trails could have unforeseen consequences.  He questioned how to control the area and ensure reasonable access in the case of emergencies.  Mr. Danevich said the Board is also aware of snowmobiles and dirt bikes and would take it all into consideration. 

 

Mr. David Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, said that certain areas in Boxford have both riding and walking trails with specific restrictions, which have added to the value of the homes.

 

Ms. Casey spoke of the perimeter of the property having the most value for the wildlife.  Ms. Katie Surowiec, Wetland Scientist, Turtle Pond Enterprises, clarified that it’s not the perimeter, but the edges between natural community types, such as areas between the forest and orchard.

 

Mr. Danevich noted the remaining issues.  Ms. Casey reiterated she would like to wait for all the info before approving.  Mr. Scanzani said he would like to handle the waivers and made a motion to approve the grade up to 12%.  Mr. Culbert seconded.   Mr. Zohdi said his waiver was 9%, and the highest grade on the road is 10%.  Mr. Danevich said the waiver request should be withdrawn.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Paul Steck, 146 Jeremy Hill Drive, said he understands the slope from 12% to 10% and then asked about the buffer zone to the wetlands.  Mr. Danevich informed that the wetlands crossing is outside the scope of this waiver request.

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/Casey)  To withdraw the waiver request.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Scanzani then made a motion for the cul-de-sac waiver.  Mr. Culbert seconded.  Ms. Casey asked what the length of the cul-de-sac was.  Mr. Zohdi said they were all temporaries, but the length of Jonathan is 2200’, Rone Road is 1300’ and Empire Road is 1400’.  Ms. Casey renewed her concern regarding cul-de-sac lengths.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver for the length of the cul-de-sac.

 

VOTE:                   (5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette and Ms. Casey voted no.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Danevich noted the remaining issues as follows:

                1) Adjacency to prime wetland comments by Dr. Richardson by December 4, 2000;

                2) CLD’s final report;

                3) Conservation Commission;

                4) Legal review.

 

Mr. Zohdi granted an extension to December 4, 2000.  This plan was date specified for December 4, 2000.

 

ML 7-14-13 & ML 7-14-14 - Robert R. & Lauri Garneau - Scott & Cheryl Grande/Clark Circle - Proposed Lot Line Relocation for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. John Yule, Maine & Paquette, appeared before the Board to present the proposed lot line relocation.  He said they would like the lot line adjusted for a possible future garage.  Mr. Danevich asked if the abutters agree to it.  Mr. Yule said yes.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Gowan made a motion to accept for consideration.  Ms. Casey seconded.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the lot line relocation would affect the well and/or septic setbacks for ML 7-14-13.  Mr. Yule answered no and pointed out the locations on the plan.

 

MOTION:             (Gowan/Casey) To accept the plan for consideration.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich opened back to the public before approval.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:             (Gowan/Casey) To approve, subject to documentation being provided, to the satisfaction                                  of the Planning Director, of the septic and well locations.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 7-14 - Joseph Parinello, Jr. /Clark Circle - Seeking a Special Permit for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Joseph Parinello, 624 Daniel Webster Highway, appeared before the Board to seek a special permit for consideration.  He informed that he previously had a building permit, which expired January, 2000.  He said the only change made is the septic has been changed from a four bedroom to a three bedroom.  He said the Health Officer informed that they needed a special exception because the land that the existing right-of-way and driveway are on, is class 2 soil located 50’ from a wet area. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the driveway easeway was within the WCD.  Ms. Casey asked if he had a driveway permit for that location in the past.  Mr. Parinello answered yes.  Ms. Casey inquired if he is trying to re-establish the permit because it had expired.  Mr. Parinello answered yes, except he has changed the septic from a four to a three bedroom.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Bonnie Warden, Clark Circle, said she was concerned with run off as well as erosion.  She said there are storm drains and said she was concerned with her property flooding. 

 

Mr. Parinello said that was far below the property by approximately 40’.  He said the house would be 300’ from the area Ms. Warden discussed.  He informed that the driveway is already in existence.

 

Ms. Warden said she was concerned with stabilization and if it would be able to handle the run-off.

 

Mr. Scanzani said the width is 158’-160’with more than 2’ steepness of drop-off and doesn’t feel there would be a drainage issue.

 

Mr. David Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, pointed out in the ten years since the lot was approved, the land has changed due to beavers.  He said he didn’t oppose, but suggested it go to Conservation.

 

Mr. Danevich clarified that the driveway now exists.  Mr. Parinello answered yes.  He then said the area Mr. Hennessey discussed is 1000’ away.

 

Mr. Robert Garno, Clark Circle, said the beaver pond is closer than 1000’ he said it is closer to 100’-150’ away.  He suggested the Board check it first.

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road asked when the plans were drawn.  Mr. Parinello said they were drawn October 27, 2000 and stamped a week ago.

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to clarify that the Planning Board had previously approved the lot and it had a valid building permit, which has now expired. 

 

Ms. Casey asked if the plan had previously gone before Conservation.   Mr. Parinello said no, because the right-of-way was ten years old and the permit was granted and the septic had gone before the State.

 

Ms. Bonnie Warden, Clark Circle, stepped forward again to request that this go before Conservation.  She also wanted to have on record that the proposed would be a driveway only, and not access for any future development of a larger parcel.  Mr. Parinello said it would only be a driveway.

 

Mr. Gowan clarified that currently it’s a dirt driveway, and would remain an impervious surface.  Mr. Parinello answered yes, but would like to add gravel.

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to accept for consideration the special permit.  Mr. McNamara seconded.

 

Ms. Casey asked if Mr. Scanzani wanted it to go before Conservation.  Mr. Scanzani said no.  Mr. Culbert and Mr. Gowan believed that it should go to Conservation for favorable recommendation.  Mr. Mitchell inquired as to what date the wetland conservation district ordinance passed and said it this was a lot of record, the ordinance may not apply.  Mr. Scanzani believed that this shouldn’t be before the Board, it should be a renewal.  There was a brief discussion regarding permits and when they expire.  Mr. Mitchell believed there was a strong argument regarding conformance and compliance.  He felt the only question was whether it needed to go to Conservation per RSA 307:40-B1.

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the special permit for consideration.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Gowan made a motion to approve the special permit.  Mr. Scanzani seconded.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. David Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, said the assumption is the lot has remained dry for ten years and consideration should be given to what it would become in ten years.  He suggested the Board do a site walk now.  Mr. Mitchell said the Board didn’t have the legal authority to recognize the changes in nature.  Mr. Scanzani said at some point, the length of approval should be reviewed.

 

MOTION:             (Gowan/Scanzani) To approve the special permit.

 

VOTE:                   (5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. Culbert and Mr. McNamara voted no.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that ML 2-127 and ML 8-22 would be date specified to the next meeting on December 4, 2000.  Ms. Casey said she was told that in connection with  ML 8-22, Eleanor Burns, an abutter, informed that she was not notified.  (The list of abutters were read later in the meeting)

 

ML 3-102-3 Joseph & Suzanne Gauthier/Tenney Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision.  He said his clients would like to cut a lot from the middle of their parcel.  He said Gove Environmental Services has flagged the wetland and have done site specific soil mapping.  He informed they wouldn’t be requesting a WCD crossing.  He also said that both lots comply with zoning.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if each lot would have contiguous 200’ frontage on Tenney.  Mr. Zohdi calculated and said yes.  He also said each lot would have one acre of contiguous dry land.  He said the existing driveway crosses WCD.

 

Mr. Mitchell questioned the consistency of the lot numbers on the plan and the locus plan.  Mr. Zohdi said the he would update the locus plan to read 3-102-38.  Mr. Mitchell then asked  if the Board allows for State’s approval once the Board approves.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the boundary markers would be granite.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell then pointed out that the regulations contain a miss siting regarding lot sizing.  Mr. Zohdi said the Board members changed the regulations to one acre high and dry with 35,000 square feet, contiguous.  Mr. Scanzani said the Board realized the regulations need re-clarification. 

 

Ms. Casey asked if other Towns require State subdivision approval first.  Mr. Mitchell believed it was better to have the Planning Board approve first, because generally they are more specific. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the soil study complied with the site specific.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked about a notation regarding flood zones be added.  Mr. Zohdi said he would add a not that the parcel is not in the 100-year flood zone.  Mr. Mitchell asked if there would be an easement granted for a driveway.  Mr. Zohdi said the driveway would be moved.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Ian Donaghey, 65 Tenney Road, stepped forward to review the location of his parcel in connection with the proposed.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the plan for approval.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 2-127 Lois Ives/Bush Hill Road - Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision for Consideration.

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.  Mr. Danevich informed that this would be date specified for December 4, 2000.

 

ML 8-22 Louise Gaudet/Old Gage Hill Road South - Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision for Consideration.

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters (which included Eleanor Burns).  Ms. Casey reminded the Board that Eleanor Burns informed that she was not notified.

 

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the file and found that it contained a copy of the registered mail receipt, but no green card.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that this would be date specified for December 4, 2000.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

ML 1-161 Exaction Discussion

 

There was a brief discussion if this matter should be a non-public session, in which Mr. Mitchell sited RSA 91A:2I and 91A:3 and recommended that after adjournment it be discussed. 

 

DATE SPECIFICATION for December 4, 2000

 

ML 4-140 Mountain Orchards Development, LLC/Valley Hill Road - Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision for Approval.

 

ML 5-76-5 & ML 5-76-6 - David & Paul Tokanel/Countryside Drive - Conceptual Subdivision Plan.

 

ML 2-127 Lois Ives/Bush Hill Road - Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision for Consideration.

 

ML 8-22 Louise Gaudet/Old Gage Hill Road South - Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision for Consideration.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

October 2, 2000

 

MOTION:             (Gowan/Scanzani) To approve the minutes as amended.

 

VOTE:                   (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

October 16, 2000

 

MOTION:             (Scanzani/Casey) To approve the minutes as submitted.

 

VOTE:                   (4 - 0 - 3) The motion carries. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Gowan and Mr. Culbert abstained.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at 11:23 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary