TOWN OF PELHAM

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