PLANNING BOARD MEETING
December 4, 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 2-127 Lois Ives - Bush
Hill Road - Proposed 3-lot Subdivision for Consideration
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates appeared before
the Board to present the subdivision for consideration. He informed that the three lots had a
completed site-specific soil map and were in compliance with zoning and
subdivision requirements. He noted that
the Health Agent reviewed to ensure the existing house would be able to dig an
additional septic system in the future. He noted that the existing brook behind the property would not be
affected.
Mr. Danevich asked why the leach field was placed so
close to the wetland. Mr. Zohdi said at
that location, they were able to have a sufficient test pit per the Board of
Health requirements of 4’ to ledge. Mr.
Danevich asked if relaxed to 2’, would it be acceptable at the front portion of
test. Mr. Zohdi answered yes, and said
there would be 6.4’ to the ledge in the front.
Ms. Casey asked what the distance to was to the
WCD. Mr. Zohdi estimated 85’ - 90’.
Mr. Danevich asked if the plan had been before the
Conservation Commission. Mr. Zohdi
answered no, due to there being no impact on the WCD.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Carolyn Law, Atwood Road, asked why the list of
abutters was not read. Mr. Danevich
informed that the abutter’s list was read at the last meeting and then gave a
brief explanation. Ms. Casey added that
late at the last meeting list of abutters was read, the plan was not opened
further than that.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission,
asked if the lots abut Gumpas Pond. Mr.
Zohdi pointed Gumpas Pond out on the map presented and he also pointed out the
existing brook. Mr. Yarmo said if there
were any concerns with environmentally sensitive issues that Conservation
Commission’s next meeting would be held December 13, 2000.
MOTION: (Gowan/Casey) To accept the plan for consideration.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Danevich noted that the Board would schedule a
site walk for Saturday, December 9, 2000.
Mr. Mitchell had the following questions/comments
regarding the plan:
1)
Clarity of the type of bounds at the front;
2)
State approval spaces to be provided on the plan;
3) Review of the driveway location for 2-127-1 (due to the closeness of the property line);
4)
Was the house location proposal due to test pit eight showing a ledge depth of
2.8’;
5)
Wording for note 6 on the first plan, beginning with the word “except”;
6) Stone wall located in the Town right-of-way, so the Road Agent should be aware for minimal disturbance;
Mr. Zohdi informed he would meet with Mr. Mitchell
and correct the plan accordingly.
ML 8-22 Louise Gaudet/Old
Gage Hill Road South - Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision for Consideration
Ms. Carolyn Law, Atwood Road, asked if the abutter’s
list would be read. Mr. Danevich
informed the list was read at the previous meeting. Ms. Law said she believed that Ms. Eleanor Burns, an abutter, was
not notified. Mr. Danevich said that a
certified letter was sent and investigated through the Post Office, and receipt
of which was in the file. There was a
brief discussion regarding the requirements of abutter notification.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before
the Board to present the subdivision for consideration. He began by informing that the abutters had
received two notifications: 1) regarding the proposed subdivision; 2) dredge
& fill permit.
Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental, added that the
Wetland Bureau notification was only for land that directly abuts or is
attached to the wetland.
Mr. Zohdi pointed out on the presented plan the
location of the existing house as well as the proposed. He noted that there were approximately
20acres of non-buildable land. He
informed that all the lots were in compliance with all zoning and subdivision
requirements. He said a sufficient test
pit was dug. He pointed out the
existing wetland and informed that Conservation had done two site walks. He informed that Conservation had approved
the dredge and fill at their last meeting.
Mr. Zohdi said he was proposing a bridge for lot 6, in order to access
the buildable area at the back of the lot.
He said the road was designed with a 1/2% - 4% slope with no proposed
curbing and a 24’ paved area. He ended
by explaining the drainage.
Ms. Casey asked the location of the well and septic
for the existing houses on ML 8-22 and ML 8-27. Mr. Zohdi said they would be located and show on the plan. Ms. Casey then asked what the problem was
with lot 6. Mr. Zohdi said that to
access the buildable area, they would need to bridge, which Conservation was
not in favor of. Ms. Casey asked if the
area floods. Mr. Zohdi said there was
no flood plane. Ms. Casey confirmed
with Mr. Zohdi that ML 8-22-9 was not up for approval. Mr. Zohdi said it was not buildable at this
time and informed that the owner would be keeping the property. Ms. Casey asked the length of the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Zohdi said it was
1,025’, for which he would request a waiver.
Mr. Mitchell noted the following:
1) The plan was unclear if drainage or slope easements were needed and
should be added if needed;
2) He informed that RSA
6B:17 says if water is encountered in any of the test pits, there is to be a
test of the water;
3) Building setbacks to be
added to the plans;
4) ‘P’ shaped cul-de-sac
should be lollipop shaped;
5) The lot shape for ML
8-22-5;
6) Access to other portion
of lot (Mr. Zohdi previously discussed);
7) Special permit needed for
road construction in the wetland conservation district.
Ms. Casey asked if Mr. Mitchell was suggesting that
the cul-de-sac be redesigned. Mr.
Mitchell felt if the lot complied with the regulation, it wouldn’t impact the
WCD. There was a brief discussion
regarding the shape of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Zohdi said he would redesign for the next meeting. Mr. Danevich suggested that it be reviewed
during the site walk.
Mr. Scanzani asked if this plan would return in the
event open space development passed in March.
Mr. Zohdi said it would depend if open spaced went through.
Ms. Ouellette said she would like CLD to review.
Ms. Casey suggested an area environmental impact
study be reviewed during the site walk.
Mr. Zohdi informed that there were approximately four or five empty
50-gallon drums found, which were inspected by the Building Inspector and
noted, by Conservation, to have them removed.
He said to do so, a few trees would need to be cut. He then asked for permission to cut the
trees in able to remove the barrels.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission,
said there appeared to be an accumulation of items. He said Conservation approved the applicant to clean with minimal
tree removal.
An abutter from the audience said there was a
junkyard in existence on that lot for two years.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Carolyn Law, Atwood Road, said she was a direct
abutter and wanted to know what would be happening to the brook. She didn’t want it changed in any way to
back up onto her property. Mr. Zohdi pointed
out the existing cross-culvert and explained he was proposing a 3’x3’ box
culvert so any drainage would still flow in the direction it was. Mr. Law then asked if the drainage off the
lots would be going into the culverts.
Mr. Zohdi explained that they would be sheet draining. Ms. Law asked if the old General Atwood
house would be destroyed or raised. She
explained that General Atwood was the only General Pelham has had and let it be
known that the Historical Society would like it to remain. Mr. Zohdi said his client would be willing
to discuss the issue with the Historical Society. Ms. Law’s last concern was the placement of the septic in
relation to the brook. Mr. Zohdi said
the larger culvert would ensure no drainage and assured her there would be no
impact on her property.
Richard, 41 Old Gage Hill Road, said he had a commercial
site on the other side of the proposed subdivision. He said he was concerned
with drainage and wondered if the culvert would be able to handle inclement
weather. He also spoke about the
junkyard previously on the lot. He said
there were various things dumped on the ground and wanted to know if
contaminants would start welling up once the soil was stirred. He ended by suggesting the road for the
future site be brought in now to minimize wetland disturbance. First, Mr. Zohdi described the existing
culvert and explained that they were not seeking approval for the remaining
property.
Mr. Scanzani asked the size of the abutting
property. Mr. Zohdi said approximately
18-19 acres. The area of the power
lines was discussed with regard to connecting future parcels. Ms. Casey noted that the power line area was
a main corridor for wildlife.
Ms. Deborah Van Patten, 54 Gage Hill Road South,
said her concerns were the impact on the dredge and fill, impact on wells. Her belief was that most of the land is
rocky/ledge. Traffic was also a concern
for her. She wasn’t sure how adding
another road would impact the area.
Mr. Yarmo spoke in reference to lot 6 and explained
Conservation’s concern was the lot was 80% wetlands and not environmentally
compatible with the area. He pointed
out that lot 6 may be accessed with a future development. He said that uplands were also an important
factor for protecting wetlands. Ms.
Ouellette asked if his recommendation was to not approve for
consideration. Mr. Yarmo answered
yes. He said Conservation was not in
favor of the driveway crossing and felt that lot 6 was not buildable without
having a detrimental impact to the wetlands.
Mr. Zohdi informed that the area of high/dry land is 37,962 square feet
which meets the intent of zoning.
Mr. Danevich asked that the high/dry calculation be
added to the plan. Mr. Zohdi said he
would certify the area for each lot.
Mr. Culbert confirmed that when high/dry is referenced it means
contiguous high/dry. Mr. Zohdi answered
yes.
Mr. Danevich asked that every page contain a
sign-off block. Mr. Zohdi said he would
add.
Mr. Yarmo said Conservation’s objection to the lot
also includes the possibility that a new homeowner would clear the lot into the
WCD. Personally he didn’t feel the developer would have substantial
detriment by disallowing the lot.
Mr. Danevich noted the following issues to be
resolved:
1)
Well and septic designation for ML 8-22 & ML 8-27 to be added to the plan;
2)
Cul-de-sac waiver request in writing still needed;
3)
Confirmation that the dredge & fill permit has been made;
4)
Sign blocks to be added to all pages of the plan;
5)
Road construction, WCD crossing road permit;
6)
Cul-de-sac design (direction to be provided after site walk);
7)
Environmental impact study;
8)
Three street names to be submitted;
9)
Historic value of the existing house;
10)
Access to 8-20;
11) Easement onto the un-accessed parcel;
12) ML 8-23 through ML 8-26 information to be passed on to CLD regarding shallow wells and any impacts;
13)
Road impact on Atwood regarding signage;
14)
Useable land notes to be added to plan;
15)
Review of ML 8-22-6 as a non-buildable lot;
16)
Possible request for site specific lots;
17)
Dump lot number.
Ms. Casey added the following issues to Mr.
Danevich’s list:
1)
Missing slope easements;
2)
Water found in three test pits;
3)
Possible traffic study on Old Gage Hill Road;
4)
Lot-6 denial as requested by Conservation.
Mr. Scanzani outlined the motions he would be
making. 1) to accept the plan for
consideration; 2) to accept the two waiver requests; 3) to allow the removal of
trees so the 50-gallon drums could be taken off the property.
Mr. Culbert clarified that a dredge & fill would
be done. Mr. Yarmo reiterated his concern
of the bridged wetland crossing for lot 6.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To accept the plan for
consideration.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To accept for consideration, the
waiver request for the length of the cul-de-sac
to exceed the maximum requirement in the regulations.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. Ms. Casey voted no.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To request for consideration a
special permit for crossing of
the WCD for one road.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To request for consideration a
special permit for crossing of
the WCD for one driveway.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Scanzani made a motion to give direction to the
applicant for removal of the 50-gallon drums and to also request a test pit for
contamination determination. Mr.
Culbert seconded.
Mr. Zohdi was concerned that some of the debris
might be in the wetland. Mr. Yarmo said
there were two 50-gallon drums (one of, which was labeled hydraulic oil). He didn’t feel the wetland would be
affected, due to the debris being mainly in the WCD.
Mr. Danevich suggested the motion also include
wording to minimize the cutting of
trees.
There was a discussion regarding how and where test
pits should be dug as to not be too evasive on the environment. It was suggested to collect a core sample
for testing rather than a test pit.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To give the applicant direction
for removal of oil tanks and other debris
on the property, with minimal tree cutting, and request that the applicant dig
a
test pit to determine any soil and water
contamination under the debris.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
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 noted that during the last meeting it was suggested for him to 1)
meet with Conservation, and 2) resolve adjacency issues with Dr.
Richardson. He said Mr. Jim Gove had
met with Dr. Richardson who had no issues regarding adjacency, but Mr. Zohdi
has not yet received a letter stating this.
He said there was also an issue with lot lines, which have been
corrected (per meeting with Planning Director). He also informed that CLD had written a letter stating they don’t
have problems with the plan. Mr. Zohdi
said the last item was a meeting with Conservation. He went on to explain that Conservation had approved the
subdivision as follows: with a road crossing through WWPD, and a driveway
crossing for lot 14 (with lot 15 being denied for a driveway crossing). Mr. Zohdi explained that they have since
changed the driveway easement and no longer have a need to cross WCD, therefore
there was no longer an impact.
Mr. Danevich read aloud a letter dated November 17,
2000 from Conservation regarding the parcel, which stated certain conditions
(ATTACHMENT #1).
Mr. Danevich then read aloud a letter dated December
4, 2000 from Conservation, which stated actions and concerns regarding the
proposed subdivision (ATTACHMENT #2).
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission,
said the plan being presented was consistent with the
suggestions/recommendations from Conservation.
He said Conservation was concerned with the lack of open space.
Ms. Casey asked if the elongated driveway was more
beneficial than crossing the wetlands.
Mr. Yarmo said there were only 75’-100’ added to the original
length. Ms. Casey clarified that there
were no wetland or WCD crossings. Mr.
Zohdi answered no. Mr. Danevich
clarified the position of Conservation as being solely concerned with matters
dealing with conservation, not fire safety or other such issues. Mr. Yarmo agreed. Mr. Scanzani spoke of his concern regarding emergency equipment
accessing the property. He then asked
about the driveway drainage and suggested that the driveway is curbed and a
catch basin and cistern be added. Mr.
Zohdi said it could be added. Mr.
Scanzani suggested that if steepness was an issue, there could be plantings to
hold the soil in place. Mr. Zohdi said
he would meet with Mr. Yarmo, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Gove to design, if the Board
asked him to. Mr. Culbert added that he
didn’t have a problem with the driveway.
Ms. Casey asked if Mr. Zohdi recalled from the last
meeting the conversation regarding two lots for recreation purposes. Mr. Zohdi pointed out the two areas of
10,000 square feet each. Mr. Michell
informed that Legal had not provided an answer. He said the issue was the space being owned by the Town, but used
solely by the subdivision versus community use. There was a discussion regarding the amount of land the Board was
allowed to ask for. Mr. Danevich read a
section from RSA 674:36, which didn’t provide guidance for calculating.
Mr. Culbert asked if this subdivision would go back
before the Board if open space was passed in March. Mr. Zohdi said there were a couple lots that wouldn’t, but the
majority of the subdivision would. Mr.
Zohdi had also done calculations for Conservation regarding the impact of the
subdivision on the Town, which totaled approximately $180,000 between an impact
and road improvement fee. He then
pointed out the two lots for the proposed recreational areas, ML 4-140-20 &
30, each being 10,000 square feet. Mr.
Danevich asked if it were possible to have one contiguous space area. Mr. Zohdi answered yes and noted that a 20,000
square foot area could be set aside on ML 4-140-30.
Mr. Mitchell asked about the grading and slope
easement for ML 4-140-1. Mr. Zohdi said
his belief was the easement was greater than shown on the plan. Mr. Mitchell then asked if the Town would
maintain the drainage facilities. Mr.
Zohdi said they would be added to the plan.
Mr. Gowan revisited the subject of the recreation
land area and said his belief was the Board of Selectmen should have the
deciding vote of whether to accept the 20,000 square foot area or not.
Mr. Michaels, the attorney representing the client,
said it was his belief for accepting property was that it would be open to the
entire Town. He said at the point of
accepting the land, it should be taken off the Town’s tax rolls and made Town
property. He then spoke of the benefit
of open space with regard to the proposed recreational area. He said the offer had been made to either
have the property owned by the Town or owned by the residents of the
subdivision. He said they would handle
it however the Board decided. Ms. Casey
offered to take the proposal before the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Gowan asked about the possibility of a walking
path, and it’s ability to be connected to the two other subdivisions in the
area. Mr. Zohdi said the walking path
wouldn’t connect to the other parcels.
Ms. Casey asked why note #3 on the plans still
provide that individual lots have septic and wells and not Pennichuck
water. Mr. Zohdi explained the process
for Pennichuck water to be provided to the subdivision. He ended by saying the plan would be
changed. Mr. Culbert confirmed that if
Pennichuck water was not supplied, then Mr. Zohdi would go back to the Planning
Director for procedure. Mr. Zohdi
answered yes.
Mr. Danevich noted his opinion that there should be
a WCD crossing instead of an elongated driveway. He also would like to provide a recommendation for curving the
driveway. Mr. Culbert asked how steep
the proposed driveway would be if it crossed the wetlands. Mr. Zohdi said on the average of 10%.
Mr. McNamara said he preferred to have the driveway
as drawn on the plan. Ms. Ouellette
asked if it were possible to have a similar crossing of the wetland as the
parcel beside it to help minimize disturbance.
Mr. Zohdi said there would be a similar impact in both areas of
crossing. With that, Ms. Ouellette said
she preferred to have a WCD crossing.
Mr. Gowan said he agreed with Conservation, as long as the road was wide
enough for emergency access. He
suggested the Fire Chief review. Mr.
Scanzani preferred to have the WCD crossing.
He then asked the length of the driveway. Mr. Zohdi said approximately 520’. Mr. Culbert said he agreed with Conservation. Ms. Casey also supported Conservation’s
decision. Mr. Danevich said the Board was in favor of the plan as drawn with
the driveway being 14’.
Mr. Danevich said for ML 4-140-30 he preferred a
single parcel of 20,000 square feet.
Mr. Zohdi said his client agreed and they would provide that the lot
would comply with zoning and have 200’
frontage. The Board was all in
agreement with the offer and confirmed that Ms. Casey would bring before the
Board of Selectmen for acceptance.
Mr. Danevich said he would like to see the walking
trails around the edge of the parcel as well as connectivity to other
parcels. The Board was in
agreement.
Ms. Casey also asked that the calculations for high
and dry be provided for in the plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Jim Plumley, 25 Valley Hill Road, asked that
consideration be given to the abutters of the subdivision with regard to the
walking trail. He said his house is
located on the back of his lot (ML 4-139-30), and if the walking trails were
allowed, they would be 50’ from his house.
Mr. Michaels let it be known that the trails would be specifically and
only for walking purposes.
Mr. Paul Steck, Jeremy Hill Road, urged the Board to
pursue open space use to the maximum, so if the Town voted against it, this
subdivision would still provide for a reasonable amount of open space. Mr. Danevich explained open space and the
element of the 20,000 square feet for recreational purposes. Mr. Steck asked if the plans were site
specific. Ms. Casey said the septics
were. Mr. Scanzani commented that if
open space were passed, a minimum of 40% of the parcel would have to stay open.
Mr. Culbert asked that Board not lose site of the
Valley Hill road improvement. Mr. Zohdi
said per the agreement, they would pay their share.
Ms. Casey reviewed the notes previously discussed in
order to help form a motion:
1) Change notes to reflect Pennichuck Water, not separate wells (if wells are required it should come back before the Board);
2)
Driveway crossing of lot 14 (Mr. Gowan added to have it be signed off by
Safety);
3)
Each lot to note contiguous high and dry;
4) Issue of 20,000 square feet to be possessed by the Town or a Homeowners Association;
5)
Connectivity of trails (done as a permanent easement);
6)
Three names to Board of Selectmen and Planning Board;
7)
Valley Hill Improvement fee.
Mr. Danevich added his notes:
1)
Signature blocks added to all pages;
2)
Drainage easement details to be added to the plan.
Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the subdivision
as follows: 1) Driveway on ML 4-140-15
to be approved by the Fire Chief; 2) Plan to note that Pennichuck would supply
water; 3) Plan to note contiguous high and dry per lot; 4) Add ML 4-140-30
20,000 square feet; 5) Walking trails to be a no-cut zone and are located
around the perimeter of the property; 6) Three road names be submitted; 7)
Developer donates fair share to Valley Hill improvement fund; 8) Signature
blocks added to all pages; 9) Drainage easement and slope easement to be added
to plan. Ms. Casey seconded. She then asked that #4 be more
specific. Mr. Culbert amended his
motion to add to #4 the words designated as open space either to the Town or
for a to be developed/created Homeowner’s Association at the discretion of the
Board of Selectmen. Ms. Casey amended
her second. Mr. Gowan suggested that in
#1, the Fire Chief provide a letter
rather than approval. Mr. Culbert
further amended his motion, and Ms. Casey further amended her second.
Mr. Bob Yarmo inquired if the December 4, 2000 terms
and conditions would be included. There
was a brief discussion regarding the addition into the motion of Conservation’s
list of recommendations. Mr. Culbert
amended his further amended motion so that Conservation’s detail notes be added
to the plan. Ms. Casey also amended her
further amended second.
MOTION: (Culbert/Casey) To approve the subdivision as follows:
1) Driveway on ML 4-140-15 to have a
favorable letter from the Fire Chief;
2) Plan to note that Pennichuck would supply
water;
3) Plan to note contiguous high and dry per
lot;
4) Add ML
4-140-30 20,000 square feet to be designated as open space either to the
Town or for a to be developed/created
Homeowner’s Association at the discretion of the Board of Selectmen;
5) Walking trails to be a no-cut zone and are
located around the perimeter of the
property;
6) Three road names be submitted;
7) Developer donates fair share to Valley
Hill improvement fund;
8) Signature blocks added to
all pages;
9) Drainage easement and
slope easement to be added to plan;
10) Conservation’s detail
notes to be added to the plan.
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.
Mr. Scanzani abstained.
Mr. Culbert made a motion regarding the length of
the cul-de-sac on Jonathan Road. Mr.
Gowan seconded. Ms. Casey voiced her
concern with the length. Mr. Culbert
felt it was good road planning.
MOTION: (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the waiver of the
temporary cul-de-sac length in excess of 560’
on Jonathan Road.
VOTE: (5 - 1 - 1) The motion carries.
Ms. Casey voted no. Mr. Scanzani
abstained.
MOTION: (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the waiver of the
temporary cul-de-sac length of 1350’ on Romee
Road.
VOTE: (5 - 1 - 1) The motion carries.
Ms. Casey voted no. Mr. Scanzani
abstained.
MOTION: (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the waiver of the
temporary cul-de-sac length of 1375’ on Empire
Road.
VOTE: (5 - 1 - 1) The motion carries.
Ms. Casey voted no. Mr. Scanzani
abstained.
NEW BUSINESS
ML 3 -101 Cecile B. Gauthier
Revocable Trust/Tenney Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Consideration
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before
the Board to present the proposed subdivision for consideration. He said there were six buildable lots and
one 5.30 acre lot they were not seeking approval for at this time. He informed that the six lots comply with
zoning and planning. He said that Gove
Environmental had flagged the wetland area and is shown on the plan. The road drainage, per topography showed a
gentle slope and the grade didn’t exceed 4% and would be contained in the
grassy ditch line. He said the test
pits were done years ago, but they have checked them.
Mr. Danevich asked what would happen with the
residual 5 acres. Mr. Zohdi said the
family was keeping it possibly add to other lots, but would rather not comment
due to Ms. Gauthier recently passing away.
Mr. Danevich asked if there was a reason for not squaring lots 14 &
15. He was concerned with a potential
land-locked situation.
Ms. Casey recalled a previous subdivision and
inquired if this was a larger subdivision being done piecemeal. Mr. Zohdi answered no. There was a 2-lot subdivision across the
street a couple of years ago, but there hasn’t been any other subdivision in
the past five years.
Mr. Danevich reiterated his concern for the possible
land-lock situation for lots 14, 15 & 16 and said he would rather have elongated lot lines. The Board provided a favorable review for
elongating the lot lines.
PULBIC INPUT
Mr. Paul Ciampa, 3 Colonial Drive, said the entire
ML 3-101 parcel was an in tact beaver
pond with whole wildlife access a year ago.
Since then, machinery broke the contiguous damn of beaver pond and
drained it. He believed that using
heavy machinery was illegal. He said it
was brought up before the Conservation Commission last year and the State had
investigated. Mr. Ciampa wanted to know
how it would be mitigated. He also
wanted to know if there were any State permits on file before December, 2000
because the abutters were not informed.
He said the water levels, if not broken, would negate approximately 90%
of the lot and would contain one buildable lot. Mr. Ciampa said he has had a direct impact due to his children
not being able to see the wildlife in their backyard as well as the wildlife no
longer being able to feed on his property.
He asked if there was a dredge and fill permit.
Mr. Zohdi said he and Mr. Gove were aware of some
violation. He informed that there was
activity in the area, at which point Mr. Roland Soucy (Town Code Enforcement)
got involved, then Mr. Gove (Gove Environmental) got involved, and then Herbert
Associates got involved after the area had been flagged. He said the information was then sent to
DES. He then informed that the
subdivision did not require a dredge and fill permit.
Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental, informed that when
the wetland was flagged, they were marking where the beaver damn had originally
been and it would have been developable with, or without the beaver damn.
Mr. Gary Ross, 24 Tenney Road, said the frontage to
the parcel (ML 3-101) not being discussed this evening is substantially larger
than it was years ago. He said the
reason was due to the blasting and burying of rubble from the parcel across the
street. They were never notified by the
State as they should have been. He
didn’t feel that the lot would be buildable.
Mr. Danevich pointed out that it is still deemed an unbuildable
lot.
Tom, former member of Conservation, Colonial Drive,
said he was privy to the documents being sent to DES and the owner when the
dispute was happening. He recalled that
there was a request for land in return of the violation for mitigation. Mr. Zohdi said the only thing he was aware
of was an increase of the 50’ buffer zone to 75’ and 100’. He wasn’t aware of being copied on
correspondence. Mr. Gove said he was asked to identify the area of
violation, and at that point Mr. Currier took over. Mr. Danevich said resolutions would need to be made.
Mr. Gowan felt that with so many questions to be
resolved, he couldn’t vote in the affirmative.
There was a brief discussion regarding the requirements for accepting
for consideration. Mr. Mitchell stepped
in and pointed out that the submission requirement states that if State or
Federal permits need to be resolved, the Board has the authority to hold off
until documentation is provided. He
suggested that the Board receive in writing rather than in oral testimony.
Mr. Yarmo spoke of his concern for resolution of the
issues. Mr. Zohdi said if the Board
didn’t want to take jurisdiction he asked for guidance. Mr. Gowan spoke of the need for
resolution. Mr. Zohdi suggested tabling
the plan for either 30-days or until the next meeting so he would have a chance
to meet with the Planning Director. Mr.
Danevich said the first step was to determine if the plan was complete, then
the Board would need to decide on what action to take. Mr. McNamara said it was not incumbent on
the Board to determine what happened on the parcel.
Ms. Nancy Webster, Colonial Drive, noted that the
water table was very high and would flood her back yard, but since the
‘occurrence’, she didn’t have the problem.
Her recollection was fifteen years ago the same lot was denied due to
the water table being too high.
Ms. Casey didn’t consider information hearsay when a
member of the former Conservation Commission, and an environmental expert spoke
of their recollections. She felt that
the Board shouldn’t be the one to resolve.
She felt the abutters should be re-notified at Mr. Zohdi’s cost if the
Board would table.
Mr. Mitchell said the State statute requires the
Board to act upon a filed plan within 30-days.
He noted that the statute also permits an extension of all
deadlines. He felt that two formal
votes should be taken; 1) to determine if a plan is complete, and 2) if a plan
is approved or denied. The Board
discussed the next steps to take regarding the proposed plan.
Mr. Culbert made a motion to accept the plan for
consideration with the condition that the Board does not review again until all
legalities have been resolved. Mr.
Scanzani seconded. There was a
discussion regarding the wording of the motion, at which point, Mr. Culbert
amended his motion to read only for acceptance for consideration. Mr. Scanzani amended his second.
MOTION: (Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the plan for
consideration.
VOTE: (3 - 4 - 0) The motion was denied due to clarification of information
676:4. Mr. McNamara, Ms. Ouellette, Mr.
Gowan, Ms. Casey voted no.
BOND RELEASE
ML 1-161 Paul & David
Tokanel - Request for Bond Release
Mr. Mitchell said the information had not been
received from CLD. He withdrew administratively
without prejudice.
MINUTES REVIEW
None.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT
Mr. Mitchell said there would be a few changes to
the Planning office. He explained that
in the notes he provided the Board were amendments to the zoning
ordinance. He said he would also post a
regulation change regarding the retainage percentage of CLD to be heard
December 18, 2000.
COMMITTEE UPDATES
Ms. Casey said the WCD plan was complete with one
change to be made. She would e-mail to
the Board tomorrow. She informed that
the Board of Selectmen would not have a meeting on December 26, 2000 and the
Chair would decide if there was to be a meeting January 2, 2001.
The Board discussed the pending issues for the
December 18, 2000 meeting. It was
decided that the order for that meeting would be 1) WCD, Open Space, and end
with the Helicopter/Fixed Wing.
There was a discussion regarding the acceptance date
and deadlines for Warrant Articles. It
was decided to seek Town Counsel’s opinion.
SITE WALKS for December 9,
2000
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.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was
made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was adjourned at 11:20 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Charity
A. L. Willis
Recording
Secretary