TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
December 18, 2000
The Chairman, Victor Danevich, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:
PRESENT: Victor Danevich, Bill Scanzani, Jeff Gowan, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell, Gordon Graham - Town Counsel
ABSENT: Paddy Culbert, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Michael Soby
The Board began by deciding upon alternate dates in January for their meeting due to holidays. There was a show of hands, which all were in agreement to schedule Planning Board meetings for January 4, 2001 and January 18, 2001.
Mr. Danevich said the Town had received an additional petition Warrant Article pertaining to zoning. The Board decided, in accordance with RSA 675:4 to schedule the public hearing January 4, 2001.
WETLANDS CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the proposed Wetlands Conservation District - Article VII; 307-37.
The Board modified the following typos/consistencies:
Within Table I (Line 107)- under Wetland Designation, a comma is to be added after the reference to “Long Pond”
Within Table I (Line 107) - under Wetland Designation, in the two sections that reference “poorly drained soils more than 2,000 square feet” add the words “but less than one acre” after “2000 square feet”
Line 125 - strike the words “Wetlands Conservation District” and replace with the word “buffer”
Line 133 - add a comma after the word “structure”
Line 155 - strike the words “Wetland Conservation District” and replace with the word “buffer”
* Line 177 - add the words “or Conservation Commission” after the words “Planning Board”
Line 179 - add the word “certified” before the words “soil scientist”
Line 179 - strike the word “shall” and replace with the word “may”
Line 184 - add the word “certified” before the words “soil scientist”
* When the recommendation was made to add Conservation Commission to line 177, it was discussed that
Conservation would be acting in an advisory capacity. The Board took an informal vote, in which all were in favor of the addition, with the exception of Mr. Scanzani who voted no.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman Conservation Commission, suggested an addition to the Lines 273 - 276, which would require the Planning Board to address the specific concerns of Conservation for future Planning Boards.
Mr. Chris Seibel, 5 Spring Street, referenced the buffer zones within Table I (Line 107) and spoke of his concern with “Class I & II” being beneath the minimum setback required by the State buffer book. He asked the Planning Board to consider having a larger buffer zones. He asked if a certified wetland scientist made the recommendations.
Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission, informed that Mark West worked with Conservation, but did not give any specific items or recommendations for what the buffers should be. She said they were worked out with various State agencies and then made the proposal to the Planning Board. She said that the buffers listed were not the original recommendations. Mr. Seibel then asked what the original recommendations were. Ms. Harshfield answered as follows: 150’ buffer for Class I, 100’ buffer for Class II and 50’ buffer for Class III.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board representing George Harris, Tim Zelonis, Don Nichols, and various others. He also noted that Jim Gove, Attorney Mason and Attorney Campbell were present to help with the process. He began by asking if the buffer book Mr. Seibel was referring to was accepted by DES or the Wetland Board. Mr. Mitchell’s understanding was that the book was put together in conjunction with the Audubon Society, the DES, and the Office of State Planning and UNH Cooperative Extension. Mr. Zohdi asked if DES had taken jurisdiction on it. Mr. Mitchell answered no they were not written by DES. Mr. Zohdi informed that the DES did not publish or recommend the book. Mr. Mitchell said the Office of State Planning had recommended.
Mr. Scanzani reviewed Line 177. He said his recollection was as follows: “Where it is alleged that an area has been incorrectly delineated as a wetland, intermittent stream, perennial stream, prime wetland, vernal pool or surface water body, the Planning Board may require an impartial certified wetland scientist and certified soil scientist chosen by the Planning Board may at the expense of the applicant, make a recommendation as to whether the area in question has been correctly delineated.” He didn’t feel that the Planning Board or Conservation allege the wetlands, he believed it was simply where it was alleged.
Mr. Gowan believed the second language stemmed from not wanting unfounded allegations being made.
Mr. McNamara felt the original language was more inclusive.
Mr. Danevich asked for a poll. Mr. DeLuca and Ms. Casey liked the language as is. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Scanzani preferred the proposed. Mr. Gowan and Mr. Danevich felt the proposed with the addition of the Conservation Commission was best.
Mr. Scanzani said Line 284 didn’t include Conservation. Ms. Casey disagreed, because Conservation only acted as an advisor.
Mr. Dave Hennessey, Dutton Road, said if Conservation was to review, they should be provided with the tools to evaluate.
Mr. Neil Fineman, Pelham, asked how the Town’s regulations compare to sister Town’s that don’t have water or sewage. Ms. Harshfield said that all the information had been provided to the Planning Board. Mr. Danevich said all the information was available on the website for downloading. Mr. Fineman believed the Town’s main income came from building homes and felt the Board was inhibiting that ability. He then asked if the new school would still be able to build if the ordinance was in affect. Mr. Danevich said yes.
Ms. Holly Saurman, Scenic View Drive, asked how many acres in Town were undeveloped. Mr. Danevich said 5,098 as published by NRPC in the September, 2000 document (available on the website). Ms. Saurman asked how many of the acres were identified wetlands. Ms. Harshfield said the total acres in Town are 17,160. Poorly/very poorly drained soil acres total 3,221. Beaver Brook and the four large ponds in town total 380 acres. Vacant properties total 5,124. She said if the calculations were reviewed, the remaining acreage that would be impacted by the 50’ buffers would be 89, the acreage impacted by the 75’ buffers would be 389, the acreage impacted by the 100’ buffer would be 243. Ms. Saurman wanted to know what initiated the change. Ms. Harshfield said the current ordinance was approximately 10-years old with a 50’ across-the-board setback. She said there was increasing evidence for the need of larger setbacks for protecting wells and septics. Ms. Saurman asked if there were was anything documented regarding well damage from the 50’ buffer. Ms. Harshfield said there were no specific documented cased, but there was evidence that water quality and larger buffers better preserved wildlife habitat. Ms. Saurman ended by saying if the Town was going to move forward with the ordinance, it should be done with strong evidence approved by legislature and DES.
Mr. Dan Dubriel, Bridge Street, referred to Line 125 and asked if the word change to “buffer” should actually be wetlands buffer zone. Mr. Graham responded to say the language used was already defined within the ordinance.
Mr. Seibel asked what the their system was based on. Mr. Danevich said it was based on several ordinances.
Ms. Harshfield added that UNH students recommended the table approach. Mr. Seibel asked whose recommendation it was for the three buffers. Mr. Danevich said they were the result from various work sessions. He then asked why Conservation provided for a higher buffer than the Planning Board. Mr. Gowan said after many meetings, certain compromises were made. Ms. Casey informed that landowners also attended these meetings. Mr. Seibel cautioned the Board about waiting for hard evidence and referred to the cases of the MTBE gasoline additive.
Mr. Hal Lynde, Selectmen’s Representative, Conservation Commission, said Conservation was trying to protect the Town before it was too late. He said the numbers were compromises and the documents were put together by reputable people. He said other state’s data was reviewed. He ended by saying a 100’ buffer was a 95% effective filter to the wetlands.
Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental services, he informed his clients were the same as Mr. Zohdi. He wanted to clarity that the DES didn’t endorse the buffer book. He said that during involvement with Exeter school district for their ball fields that Bob Brisinski (a DES water quality specialist) recommended a 50’ - 75’ setback to water bodies and wetlands. He said Mr. Brisinski didn’t recommend a 100’ setback because it was too restrictive. Mr. Gove said Line 58, the Bartlett Brook might not need to be considered a perennial stream due to the headwater being approximately 2,000 lineal feet before entering Dracut. He also noted that Line 59, the Musquash Brook on the USGS map showed no instance that the brook entered the Town and remained entirely in Hudson. He questioned the word designated in Line 58, and suggested there were two categories: 1) designated and 2) not designated. He noted Line 79-82 didn’t provide for size designation of vernal pools. Mr. Gove felt Line 90 and 91 should be moved to another area, other than definitions as well as adding the words “for the purpose of this ordinance.” He said that Line 91 “prior converted cropland” wasn’t recognized by the DES and suggested it be removed. He suggested, in Table I, deleting the words “areas of very poorly drained soils over 2000 square feet.” He noted the difficulty in the term “designated perennial stream” vs. “undesignated perennial stream.” He ended by suggested deleting within Table I the “Septic Component Setback Size” as well as deleting Lines 114 - 116 which he felt should be designated within Board of Health.
Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Town Health Officer and Health Agent, felt the ordinance should address the buffer specifically. He spoke of Table I and said the if the Septic Component Setback buffers were to be applied and a 3-1 slope were added, the buffer would gain an extra 25’ to the setbacks. He also noted that existing failed systems replacements were not included in the ordinance.
Mr. Bernie Campbell, Attorney, representing several people, said he supported the alternative language from Line 177-178. He asked about the 20-day comment provision within Lines 170-172 and asked that Mr. Graham review it. He also suggested Line 125 read “...fifty (50) feet from the nearest...” and have the same language used for Line 155 and 156. Mr. Graham said that timing had been discussed at previous meetings and said the ordinance should facilitate the comment period. He also felt Mr. Campbell was correct in his wording suggesting for Lines 125, 155 and said whatever language was to be used, it should remain consistent.
Mr. Danevich said the time limit had been reached, therefore a second public hearing would be held January 4, 2001
The Board reviewed the recommended wording changes.
Line 79-82 - There was a consensus to include a vernal pool size
Line 90-92 - “for the purposes of section VII” to be clarified at a later time
Line 107 - Table I, there was a consensus to leave in the determination of Class II poorly drained soils
Line 107 - Table I, there was a consensus to leave in the determination of Class III poorly drained soils
Mr. Graham suggested adding the word “wetland” to any of the areas that are defined
Line 125 - Strike the words “Wetlands Conservation District” and replace with the word buffer
Line 133 - add a comma after the word “structure”
Line 155 - Strike the words “Wetlands Conservation District” and replace with the word buffer
Line 171 - Town Council to make a recommendation based on research
Line 177-180 - To be replaced with the following: - “Where it is alleged that an area has been incorrectly delineated as a wetland, intermittent stream, perennial stream, prime wetland, vernal pool or surface water body, the Planning Board or Conservation Commission may require an impartial certified wetland scientist and certified soil scientist at the expense of the applicant, make a recommendation as to whether the area in question has been correctly delineated.”
Line 179 - The word “certified” to be added before the words “soil scientist”
Line 184 - The word “certified” to be added before the words “soil scientist”
PELHAM OPEN SPACE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the proposed Open Space Planned Development.
Ms. Casey renewed her concern regarding the age of 55 in connection with Elderly Housing because it wasn’t consistent with HUD or the Town regulations. She felt that the age should be changed to 62.
Ms. Alicia Hennessey, Dutton Road, said HUD recommends that the Elderly Housing age be 62. She said the open space document was fashioned after what was done in Hollis. She also said that she phoned the Hollis Police who informed that next year they would try to change the age from 55 to 62.
Mr. Hal Lynde, Jeremy Hill Road (spoke as a resident), said the Town zoning currently had elderly housing. He said if the intent was to leave Elderly Housing in, he suggested changing the wording to read Adult Housing. He asked if adult housing (Line 68) was defined. Mr. Gowan said no. Mr. Lynde suggested designating each separately. Mr. Scanzani said in surrounding communities adult housing started at age 45.
Mr. Lynde questioned Line 88. Mr. Scanzani said each lot had to be usable land, not wetland. Mr. Lynde asked if the adjoining lots had to join the contiguous portion. Mr. Scanzani explained that each lot had to be 15,000 square feet, he said all the lots didn’t have to be contiguous, areas of unused land could separate them.
Mr. Richard Cummings 4 Colonial Drive, had a question with Line 66, the density for Elderly Housing. He wanted to know if Elderly Housing was being developed today, would there be a 25% increase in density because it was Elderly Housing. Mr. Scanzani said there was no current delineation in the current zoning. Mr. Cummings asked if it were an incentive. Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. Cummings asked if the amount of lots would be determined from a conceptual based plan. Mr. Scanzani said the long-range issue was build-out. Mr. Cummings inquired if there was a lot on a conventional plan that was unbuildable until the state permits were applied, would it be transferred into the open space community. Mr. Scanzani said there wasn’t a difference from what was reviewed currently. Mr. Gowan added that certain language was taken out from the proposed ordinance, but would be showing up in the subdivision regulations. He went on to say that if there was a conventional lot that needed a wetland crossing, then it would go for an open space development. Mr. Cummings asked about the density in Line 81 and asked if they could be calculated out to a number of lots greater than one acre. Mr. Scanzani said a standard open space development wouldn’t have a higher density than what exists today of one home per one acre. He said there was an incentive density given to a developer. Mr. Cummings asked if the conservation land would be above and beyond the remaining after open space. Mr. Scanzani said yes.
Mr. Berni Campbell, Attorney, representing several people, pointed out that Line 25-28 appeared to be a mandatory issue. He felt the wording would set up conflicts. He went on to explain that the 200’ provided for in Line 94 & 95 would create large strips of land within every subdivision which could not adjoin each other. He also asked about Line 88 & 89 with the one dwelling per 15,000 square feet and explained that the wording didn’t provide a mandate or incentive. He felt it should be designed as an elective or all the open space language wouldn’t apply. Mr. Scanzani noted that Line 94 & 95 provided a distance of 200’ or a distance deemed necessary by the Board. Ms. Casey, to clarify asked if people had an out if they went to 20,000, so they wouldn’t have to set 40% aside. Mr. Campbell said yes, they would only have to provide 200’ from the sides.
There was a brief discussion regarding RSA 676:12, which Mr. Graham would review.
Mr. Neil Fineman, Pelham, asked what the advantage would be for a developer to do a smaller version. Mr. Gowan said most developers seem to be supportive. He said the ordinance didn’t just provide for small lots, but for smaller, upscale units with no burden on the Town.
Mr. Dave Hennessey, Dutton Road, explained that in the rest of the country people were creating smaller lots, but still had expensive homes on them. He said to preserve the scenic land and the quality of life in the Town that’s the type of building the Town would have to do.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, said he had a problem with the 15,000 square foot lots and didn’t feel they were in compliance with DES. He said for on-site septic and on-site well, a one-acre lot was needed. He said community septic and wells wouldn’t work for subdivisions less than 55 lots. Mr. Danevich asked what his recommendation was. Mr. Zohdi said per DES, one acre.
Robert Bourgeois, Island Pond Road, cautioned the Board that a bylaw by passed at Town Meeting where one-acre contiguous buildable was required for one lot. Mr. Gowan said the proposed was for a change in zoning and would be going to Town Meeting.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman Conservation Commission, didn’t feel that the Town had its fair share of lower income houses. He questioned the inclusion of Elderly Housing within the Open Space Ordinance and asked if it should be part of the Elderly Housing Ordinance.
Mr. Bill Mason, Attorney representing GM Valley Hill Land Development, was concerned that the Board felt open space was the only way to proceed in the community. He said as it’s reviewed there should be necessary amendments made for builder incentive. He felt that the lot sizing with regard to septics and wells should be reviewed to support homes on 15,000 square feet lots.
Mr. Graham said his understanding of the lot size issue was 15,000 square feet as the minimum, and in addition, the only way to reduce the size would be to comply with definitions in paragraph two. Mr. Scanzani said the committee didn’t include certain items in the ordinance, which were already included within the subdivision regulations such as septic and well radiuses. He said that some of the road costs could be attributed to community wells. Mr. Zohdi felt that if individual wells and septic systems were allowed to be put into open space, it should be included in the regulations.
Mr. Hennessey said the intent was to allow septic systems (either individual or community) into the open space, where appropriate. Mr. Scanzani said it was specifically left out of the ordinance because the committee wanted to be able to justifiably include it in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Zohdi said he had to include a copy of zoning to DES when doing a subdivision. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel there was a problem having it listed only in the subdivision regulations. Mr. Zohdi pointed out that other towns include in both, subdivision and zoning. Mr. Danevich said his belief was the Committee was seeking flexibility, but if DES required it, it would be resolved. Mr. Mitchell said the DES allows for alternate calculations, but he would research further. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that Mr. Zohdi’s opinion was to have septic and well locations in both zoning and subdivision regulations.
Mr. Danevich said a second hearing would be needed to complete discussions. The Board and Town Counsel discussed the time constraints.
Mr. Mason asked the Board to clarify if the draft ordinance would apply in the interim or would there be significant changes to not bind the draft until revisions had been made and heard at a public hearing. Mr. Scanzani felt that Section 4 - Applicability, answered the question. Ms. Casey felt that significant changes would be made and therefore, people shouldn’t be bound to adhere to the draft copy.
Mr. Danevich said an additional public hearing would tentatively be held on January 18, 2001. Board discussed the possible dates for a special work session and it was decided to schedule one for January 3, 2001.
MOTION: (Casey/Scanzani) The intention of the Planning Board is to make significant revisions, and to repost those revisions and nothing is bound to the ordinance in the mean time.
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
PETITION WARRANT ARTICLE - FIXED WINGED AIRCRAFT AND HELICOPTER ORDINANCE
Mr. Danevich informed that the Planning Board would only be approving or disapproving for the Ballot.
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the Petition Warrant Article.
Mr. Ron Birch, Gordon Drive, the gentleman who started the petition explained how the petition was started. He said that last fall one of his neighbors bought a helicopter. The surrounding neighbors had a discussion about towns in the area and the zoning ordinances. The neighbors then decided to create zoning in Town due to trees and small lots. He said since that time he’s been in contact with some of the aviators and now felt that an alternative to the ordinance be created. He also suggested, and the aviators agreed, to set up a process (such as a committee or permit) in which neighbors would be advised of the intention of a helicopter taking off and landing. Mr. Birch felt that a permit process would be more reasonable than the blanket ordinance presented. He ended by asking that the Board not approve the ordinance as submitted.
Mr. Danevich noted that December 18, 2000, a letter was submitted by a number of petitioners to have their name removed from the petition. Mr. Graham said he didn’t believe that people could withdraw their signatures after the cut-off date for submission, which was December 13, 2000. Mr. Scanzani wanted to know the implication if all of the petitioners wanted to have it withdrawn. Mr. Graham felt the same answer would apply. Mr. Danevich asked if the petition could be withdrawn during the Town deliberative session. Mr. Graham answered no. Mr. Danevich asked if it could be amended at the deliberative session. Mr. Graham answered no again.
Mr. Robert Bourgeois, Island Pond Road, read a statement which noted that he didn’t agree with the petition. He felt a compromise was needed. He ended by urging the Board to review the fundamentals need to obtain a pilots license.
Mr. Nate Boutwell, Route 38, asked if an exception could be made if the petitioners stepped forward to stop the petition. Mr. Graham said there wasn’t a legal course of action, and the safest course for the Town was to move forward.
Mr. Norm Hamm, Greely Road, asked if the Board was predisposed to either recommend or not recommend at this time. Mr. Danevich said the Board would at the end of the public session. Mr. Hamm noted that aviation represented advanced technology. He felt the Board needed to consult and review all the facts. He said the petition in the current form was not acceptable because it limited aviation in all areas, even on and off the water.
Mr. Terry Fisher, Gordon Avenue, said he was a private pilot for about four years. He agreed that a petition should be put forward, but not as written. He said there should be a requirement for the amount of space for take off and landings. He said there was interest in Town for having a helicopter to assist with the Police. His concern was for safety and for his property value, which he felt had dropped.
Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Graham for a ruling regarding grandfathered and vested rights. Mr. Graham said he would review and answer momentarily.
Mr. Bourgeois wanted the Board to know that the helicopter in question weighed less than 700 lbs. and was a small two-passenger helicopter the approximate length of a pickup truck.
Ms. Linda Carbonnou, said she had signed the petition, but now felt the wording should be changed. Her concern was with safety and felt the Town should address that since helicopters weren’t governed by the same rules as airplanes. She warned that the Town would be liable if someone were to get injured. She didn’t feel take-off and landings in driveways were safe.
Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Graham if the Planning Board could adopt something into the subdivision regulations with regard to space for helicopters since it was a permitted use in zoning. Mr. Graham felt that it could be done.
Mr. George Belica, 17 William Drive said he didn’t have a problem with the helicopter being on his street.
Mr. Boutwell said that aircraft pilots were very highly trained individuals whom were not risk takers. He provided the following safety statistics: 1) between 1985 - 1990 there were no fatalities or injuries to individuals on the ground as a result of a general aviation building and residence accident; 2) in 1985 alone, more than 7,750 pedestrians were killed by motorist on highways, more than 1,100 people lost their lives in boating accidents, more than 900 were killed riding bicycles; 3) in 1984 11,600 were killed in falls, 4,800 people were killed in fires and 1,800 by fire arms. Mr. Danevich asked for the URL and said it would be posted on the Town webpage.
Mr. Dave Picard, 46 South Shore Drive, said that an aviation heritage had been in his family during the last 35-36 years. He said collectively, his family members had approximately 32,000 safe flight hours. He was disturbed that the petition was going to be moving forward. He questioned if the wording on the petition was in accordance to RSA 675:4. Ms. Casey answered to say the Board of Selectmen were required to reference the RSA to better fit into the zoning. She said the wording would not to be changed, except to make it legal. Mr. Graham said it would end up reading essentially the same. Mr. Hamm asked if the current format was acceptable, and if not could it be tabled. Mr. Graham said it wouldn’t authorize it to be tabled. He noted that it was in a clear enough form of the petitioner’s intent at the time they submitted. Mr. Picard asked about the grandfather clause and if the petition passed, where would the aviators in Town stand. Mr. Gordon said he would research further and advise the Board and the Selectmen. Mr. Danevich said if the petition did pass, one could follow it next year.
Mr. Danevich asked how a protest position would apply to a petition warrant article. Mr. Graham said it would need a 2/3 majority vote in order to pass.
Mr. Shawn Brouder, 10 Williams Drive, said he was the owner of the helicopter and the pilot. He said he didn’t buy the machine on a whim. He said he approached all of his neighbors, and only one of whom had a concern with the size. He said when that neighbor saw the size of the machine, he no longer had a problem with the machine. Mr. Brouder informed that his next-door neighbor just sold his property. He said that prior to the sale, it was disclosed that the aircraft was next door and there were no problems with the sale.
Mr. Gowan said within the discussions, he hasn’t heard one person for the petition as submitted. He advised to get the word out to the voters and suggested creating a mailer to the Town residents. Mr. Scanzani asked if there was anyone present who was in favor of the petition going forward as written. No one stepped forward in favor of the petition as written.
Chris Brown, 3 Arlene Drive was no able to attend the meeting and submitted a statement in writing. The statement was read aloud by Ms. Casey. The submission addressed the following: 1) safety concerns; 2) the fire department was not notified that a helicopter was located in the neighborhood; 3) code implementation; 4) property value decreasing; 5) noise level increasing.
Mr. Boutwell informed that the Fire Department was notified.
Mr. Birch wanted to clarify that the Board not approve the petition. He said that the aviators had committed to create a forum in able to come up with an alternative.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) The petition as proposed, is not approved or recommended by the Planning Board.
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
BOND RETAINAGE AMOUNT INCREASE
Mr. Danevich said there was a proposal to increase the bond retainage from 10% to 30% as part of the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Dave Brouillet, CLD Engineering, asked if the retainage amount was a percentage of the total/original bond amount. Mr. Danevich said the request came from the data spreadsheet.
Mr. Brouillet said the 10% was a contingency amount. Ms. Casey said currently there was a 10% contingency and now the Board was requesting 30% due to data obtained from other engineering companies. Mr. Brouillet didn’t feel the amount needed to be changed.
Mr. Brouillet said the contingency is primarily added at the end, and if from costs CLD sees daily and that don’t generally fluctuate. He recommended that 30% was slightly high and felt that 15% was more reasonable. Ms. Casey still requested 30% based on the market today. Mr. Danevich supported the 30% increase.
Mr. Hal Lynde, Selectman, questioned when bonds were released and wanted to ensure that costs were covered by the retained amounts. Mr. Scanzani said the concern was performance not completed by original developer and not having enough money retained to complete the job.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Bush Hill Road, was in favor of the increase to 30%.
Mr. Brouillet said most of the developers thought the estimate was too high, but agreed to hold the 30% if the Board wanted.
Ms. Casey said, since the legal posting provided that the retainer could be increased, she felt the Board should make a decision. Mr. Brouillet informed that maintenance bonds in other communities generally range between $5 - $10 per foot for a road.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) To increase the subdivision retainage (Section 10. Release of Performance Guarantee Part A) from 10% to 30%.
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Mitchell informed that with regard to Countryside Drive (Mr. Tokanel ML 1-161) there is now a certification of boundary location as well as a letter from CLD. He requested that the bond be released.
MOTION: (Casey/Scanzani) To release the bond for Countryside Drive (ML 1-161)
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Mitchell informed that there was a complex issue he wanted the Board to hear regarding 17 Spring Street. Mr. Danevich reminded that the Board couldn’t take action except to schedule for a follow up. He then asked if legal should be involved. Mr. Mitchell said possibly. Mr. Danevich asked if it should be part of a non-public session. Mr. Mitchell answered no. Mr. Danevich questioned the purpose of the conversation. Mr. Mitchell said he wanted the Board to be aware of the situation. Mr. Danevich asked if it would require any voting. Mr. Mitchell answered no.
Mr. Eannarino said the 17 Spring Street development was approved without all the facts and requested that the Board review the application for a possible re-hearing. Mr. Danevich said the Board would discuss and work with Mr. Mitchell to make a decision. Mr. Eannarino asked if a time frame could be given since detriment to his property was happening.
Mr. Scanzani asked what was happening at the location. Mr. Mitchell said that one of the pieces of information given to the Board to make its decision was not necessarily true. He said he would draft and send a letter to the Board, which would summarize what Mr. Eannarino has submitted as well as including copies of what he’s submitted. Mr. Scanzani asked if the board could place a hold on the activity as part of code enforcement. Mr. Mitchell asked for the authorization to speak with Town Counsel to make that determination. Mr. Danevich said Mr. Mitchell would proceed by speaking with Town Counsel and the Code Enforcement Officer, then make a recommendation to the Chairman of the Planning Board. He said at that point it would be decided whether to add to the next public session.
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:30 pm.
Charity A. L. Willis