APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 2, 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, Henry DeLuca, Selectmanís Representative Deb Casey, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Planning Director Vince Messina

 

ABSENT:†††††††††††††† Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Doris Cvinar, Alternate Michael Soby

 

Mr. Jeff Gowan, Chairman, Capital Improvements Plan gave a brief presentation of CIPís functions and submitted a plan for approval from the Board.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/Casey)††† To accept the CIP plan as written.

 

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

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

ML 7-154, 167, 168 Paul & David Tokanel/Theodore Avenue & Economou Avenue - Proposed Lot Merger for 1 Buildable Lot for Approval

 

Mr. Danevich informed that this would be a combined hearing with the following:

 

ML 7-153, 155,156,157,166 Mary Koumides/Theodore Avenue & Economou Avenue - Proposed Lot Merger for 1 Buildable Lot for Approval

 

Mr. McNamara stepped down from both cases due to a conflict of interest.

 

Mr. Danevich informed, for this case only,Ms. Ouellette would vote in place of Mr. McNamara.

 

Mr. Dave Groff, the Attorney representing the applicants appeared before the Board to review the proposed lot merger.He began by handing out revised plans and explained that the only differences were a proposed fire engine turn-around, a drain system in that area, a cistern and a pond has been referenced.He said the reason they were appearing was the need for a WCD special permit.Mr. Groff pointed out the drainage easement for Mr. Danevich.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that drainage was a concern and noted that it was coming from a different subdivision off the property.††† He would be appreciative if the applicant would work with the Board regarding an easement.

 

Mr. Paul McLaughlin, Pelham Conservation Commission, said they agree that the only practical access to the area is through the WCD, however they do not recommend approval due to the unknown impact on the wetlands.Ms. Casey asked how the landowner could get that type of information.Mr. McLaughlin said it would be up to the landowner.Ms. Casey asked if he recommends too, an environmental impact study, even though it is one buildable lot.†† Mr. McLaughlin said Conservation would need to know the wetland impact information before deciding.

 

Mr. Danevich said that clearly the water is from the adjacent parcel.He said the driveway is 16í for a minimal impact.Ms. Casey noted that the reason the wetland has had time to develop is because of the time span from the last building.†† Mr. Danevich said yes.

 

Mr. Messina checked the handicap access area for any abutter input.There was none.

 

Mr. Scanzani said there is no listing for the square feet of contiguous of dry land.

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard, Benchmark Engineering stepped forward to inform there is at least 35,000 square feet of contiguous dry land.He proceeded to point out the dry areas on the displayed plan.

 

Mr. Gowan asked, if approved, that a stipulation be added to ensure proper annotation of the usable land.

 

There was no public input regarding ML 7-154,167,168.

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to grant a crossing through the WCD.Mr. Culbert seconded.

 

Ms. Casey asked for discussion and reminded the Board that an affirmative hasnít been received by Conservation and said that the Board could request that an environmental impact study be done, even though itís only two buildable lots.Mr. Scanzani didnít feel that a complete environmental impact study was needed to place one house on the lot.Ms. Casey then suggested that information be provided to the applicant of the impact to help preserve the wetland.Mr. Culbert said CLD had reviewed the drainage years ago and said that one lot could support it.Mr. Scanzani said that one house, and one owner would better protect the crossing than five houses.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the WCD crossing permit.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.Ms. Ouellette voted in place of Mr. McNamara, who had stepped down.

 

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the three lots into one tax map, provided, the new set of plans show the amount of useable contiguous land.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.Ms. Ouellette voted in place of Mr. McNamara, who had stepped down.

 

There was no public input regarding ML 7-153,155,156,157,166.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the WCD crossing permit.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.Ms. Ouellette voted in place of Mr. McNamara, who had stepped down.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the five lots into one tax map, provided, the new set of plans show the amount of useable contiguous land.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.Ms. Ouellette voted in place of Mr. McNamara, who had stepped down.

 

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

 

Ms. Kathleen Sullivan, Attorney for TeleCorp, appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed, before she started, the representative from WFI introduced himself.

 

Mr. Stephen Russell, WFI advised the Board that the plan has been revised to scale.He noted the breakpoint would be at the base of the flagpole structure and would have a 20í fall zone toward the back of the building.

 

Ms. Sullivan provided larger pictures, to scale, of existing flagpoles for the Board to review.

 

Mr. Culbert questioned the flag size and if flag etiquette had been reviewed.Ms. Ouellette informedthat per the U.S. Flag Code (Title 1, Chapter 4), itís recommended that the flag width minimum be one half the length of the extension above the building.

 

Mr. Danevich asked what size the flagpole base would be.Mr. Russell answered be saying 18Ē.Mr. Culbert asked if the flagpole was tapered.Mr. Russell answered no.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the pictures reflected the size of the proposed flagpole.

 

Ms. Sullivan let it be known that the Pentecostal Church has reiterated their desire of a flagpole, versus a steeple or a cupola.She asked if the Town attorney had given an answer regarding placement of a tower on an existing building.

 

Mr. Messina said it falls under the Creative Use in the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, with the Boardís permission it is a permitted use in a residential zone.

 

Mr. Culbert questioned the fact the building isnít existing.Mr. Messina said it is presumed that the building would be constructed prior to the tower going up.

 

Ms. Sullivan discussed the question of a non-profit entity having for-profit use.She said it isnít a land use question, itís a taxation issue.

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated that the power could not come on-line until permanent power was in place and no generator would be used.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the flag would be staying up or have a halyard.Mr. Russell said it would be whatever the Board preferred.Ms. Sullivan said it would have to have the capability of flying at half-mast for certain occasions.Mr. Danevich would prefer to have the flagpole be operational so as to not have additional lighting in the residential area.

 

Ms. Casey asked to see the information submitted regarding the existing cell towers.Mr. Danevich noted an Internet site, which has a listing of structures in the area.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the number of towers in the area and if the data provided was accurate.Mr. Culbert noted that the FCC has a listing of all towers in the area, which appeared to be more extensive than the submitted.He said he would go back and confirm the information he received.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Jerry Bedard, Gage Hill Road, spoke for his father.He said according to BOCA Building Code 1996, which he believed the Town was still using, notes any building/house with telecommunication equipment is a B usage, which makes it commercial property.He also asked for clarification of what constitutes and Ďexistingí building.He was concerned with applicants coming forward to alter existing structures to a certain dollar value, and coming back two and three times as to not exceed the ADA limit of $100,000 for improvements on a structure.Mr. Bedard said this residential area has fought against becoming commercially zoned for years.He said the church now falls under an A4 usage within a residential area and the proposed daycare will put it under an E usage, with the telecommunications puts it in a B usage.He feels this sets a precedent for applicants to be able to change their structures from an R usage to a B usage.He noted that BOCA 1996 states a church under an A4 usage cannot exceed 20í in height for type 5 construction (a wooden building), a business can reach 30í and education can reach 20í.His understanding is the antennae is 20í tall and the roof is approximately 45í tall and wanted to know how this passes the BOCA code.He also asked if the Board had a detailed drawing of the structure as required BOCA and if a code analysis has been done.

 

Mr. Messina said the ZBA approved the expansion of a non-conforming use into a residential zone which established the ability of the church to build a facility and it is being designed to school standards per BOCA 1999, not 1996.He said the building is compliant with the codes as an educational facility, and the design has been approved and stamped by a certified engineer.He said the structure is not wood framed, it is metal and brick, so it falls under a different classification.He informed that once the building is in place and existing, then the addition can be added, per the Zoning Code 307-58, 1,B.

 

Mr. Gowan noted that the ZBA has approved the daycare, but the Planning Board has not.

 

Mr. Scanzani said there are special exceptions allowed in residential zones, which generally are unobtrusive, such as a daycare or a single office.He said the primary use has to be reviewed and in this case itís a church.Mr. Messina said per Zoning Ordinances things such as schools, churches and daycare facilities are encouraged to be in residential districts.

 

Ms. Casey said she was concerned with rushing approval since a building is not complete and believes that the plan should wait until the building is constructed.Mr. Russell said he believed it was important to be involved at this stage to work with the engineers, so that there is very little impact on the new building.

 

Mr. Bedard asked the Board what constitutes and Ďexistingí building and wanted to know if it is when a certificate of occupancy is issued.He feels the Board is opening itself up to people getting around the ADA.

 

Mr. Scanzani said the new building and proposed addition is well outside the limits and will have to be ADA compliant.Mr. Gowan added that he understands they should be vigilant about certain issues, but in this case, they are not discussing an addition, but a utility pole.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if there was any way to redesign and make a steeple on the existing building since there wasnít much of a height difference.Mr. Russell informed that the church was not interested in having a steeple, they specifically wanted a flagpole.Mr. Messina added his belief, that structurally the building wouldnít be able to support any additional tower.

 

Mr. Gowan said that he is one of the people behind development of a new tougher telecommunications ordinance, and the proposal of hiding the antennas is exactly what they wanted to have happen.Mr. Culbert agrees, but commented that this tower can only have one other company co-locate, while other towers have the capability of co-locating with five different companies.Mr. Gowan would rather have more towers, like the proposed, that are disguised and able to co-locate, than a few larger unsightly towers.

 

Ms. Casey reiterated that there is not an existing building.She didnít understand why the applicants couldnít come back when the building is there.Mr. Gowan doesnít believe having the building there would make a difference.He feels it would be a good example to future requests.Mr. Scanzani feels that incorporating the proposed at this time, before construction, is optimal.Ms. Ouellette stated that the right order of things should be followed.Mr. Scanzani said the Board could stipulate in the motion that the flagpole canít be installed before the building is complete.Mr. Russell said they have no intention of installing before the building is complete.

 

Mr. Culbert stated again that the regulations call for an existing building.Mr. Gowan said that it is up to the Board to interpret the language.Mr. Scanzani said there is an existing building on the site that will have an addition (a new portion of the existing building) and he feels that it is irrelevant that the proposed is for the new portion of the building.Mr. Gowan suggested moving the discussion in another direction.

 

Mr. Gowan began to make a motion, then decided to withdraw.

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve, with contingencies: flagpole is to be operational; plan is to indicate that no generator will be used; cannot install prior to construction of building and the flag size must comply with flag etiquette.†† Mr. Gowan seconded the motion for discussion.

 

Mr. Danevich clarified that the tower cannot become fully operational until permanent power is installed to ensure there would not be generated power.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if this has been presented to legal.Mr. Messina answered yes with the two conditioned discussed earlier.

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (3 - 4 - 0)†† Mr. DeLuca-No, Mr. McNamara-No, Mr. Gowan-Yes, Mr. Scanzani-Yes,

Ms. Casey-No, Mr. Culbert-No, Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

Ms. Sullivan said that legally they have to file an appeal of the decision to preserve their rights.She suggested that the vote be reconsidered and tabled until a later date as to not incur additional fees.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the outcome of the vote, and what options the Board has regarding their decision.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to reconsider the vote.Mr. McNamara seconded for discussion.

 

Another discussion occurred regarding the original motion and what steps need to be followed at this point.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/McNamara) To reconsider the vote.

 

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

 

Ms. Sullivan granted an extension.

 

Mr. Gowan clarified that because the Board had taken no action, the plan has been officially tabled.Mr. Danevich confirmed.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich informed, for this case only,Ms. Ouellette would vote in place of Mr. McNamara.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision.He began by informing that Herbert Associates has been hired to do the engineering of the middle section (Heinz property) between the Valley Hill and Mountain Orchard developments.†† He said the reason they were appearing was for direction from the Board regarding the road connections.Hisclients are open to any changes the Board would like.Mr. Zohdi then gave examples of the options for road connections.

 

Mr. Paul McLaughlin, Pelham Conservation Commission, said that after reviewing, Conservation recommended plan B that would not connect a road to Mammoth, but would have a road connecting through to Holstein.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be less of an impact, on plan A, if the roads were connected with a bridge over the WCD.Mr. Zohdi answered yes, they could bridge the crossing, but the bridge on the side slopeswould have to be 200í wide.Mr. Scanzani asked if the side slopes could be stabilized.Mr. Zohdi said the requirement is 3-1 slope.

 

Mr. Scanzani then asked Mr. Dave Brouilett of CLD about the alternative of walling the slopes instead of grading.Mr. Brouilett said the retaining wall would have to be 20í tall and would be a maintenance issue for the Town in years to come.He said CLD typically recommends a 2-1 slope, which could still be vegetated and stabilized.He said there are some engineering techniques for a 1-1 slope.Mr. Scanzani said there could be a very nice design for the bridges, and with the new quality of construction, they would probably last fifty years.Mr. Brouilett said the applicant could be asked for alternative designs and a maintenance schedule.Mr. Scanzani said he is referring to a wall that would last forever and believes that the interconnectivity of the roads is important in the long run.Mr. Culbert suggested that the same concept be done on Holstein instead of crossing the wetland.Mr. Scanzani believes that all the areas marked in red on the plan should be done.Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Scanzani if he supported both the Holstein connection and the Mammoth Road connection.Mr. Scanzani answered yes.

 

Mr. Zohdi said the applicant doesnít have an objection to designing a retaining wall for CLDís approval.He then asked if the Board would have a problem with granting a waiver for 2-1 slope.Mr. Scanzani said a retaining wall would obviously require a waiver.Mr. Zohdi said he has to ask for temporary crossings due to dredge and fill.

 

Mr. Paul Konieczka, CLD Traffic Engineer, appeared before the Board to review the recommendations of the Board.He handed out copies of the traffic report to the Board.He discussed the entrances and exits to the three phases of development and the way the traffic would be diverted through each.He said the critical accessway is the connection to Valley Hill Road.Mr. Konieczka said the recommendation is to have the connection to Holstein.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked about the traffic impact going to and from Hudson.Mr. Konieczka said they havenít addressed the other connection issues.Mr. Zohdi explained a possible future connection to Hudson.

Mr. Scanzani would like all the information taken into consideration when the road designs are being reviewed.

 

Mr. Konieczka went on to explain the speed safety issues.He pointed out area where Ďround-aboutsí could be added to help control speed patterns.He informed that there were two points that came out in the traffic study: 1) The intersection at Nashua Road.He believes that left turn warrants are needed as well as widening and separation of right and left turns; 2) The intersection at Valley Hill.He believes it should be redesigned to fix the left and right turning lanes.

 

Mr. Danevich clarified that on a previous development across from Muldoon Park there was a conclusion to add a dedicated left turn lane and it is currently under discussion with DOT.He asked if the traffic report included all three phases.Mr. Konieczka answered yes.

 

Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Konieczka what the conclusion was from a traffic perspective.Mr. Konieczka said itís recommended that Meadow View Road be constructed to a cul de sac, with a connection to Holstein.Then have the extension of Long View to a cul de sac.He explained that when phase three is constructed, a connection through to Valley Hill Road can be added, as well as an interconnection between phase two and three, at which point Long View will be extended.

 

Mr. Danevich asked about Holstein.Mr. Konieczka expects very little traffic in that area and a design could be worked out to preserve the center island.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there was a better way to slow down traffic, she suggested meandering the road.

Mr. Konieczka didnít feel that would be the best approach.Mr. Zohdi stepped up and discussed additional areas to put possible cul de sacs.He said there are existing cul de sacs in Londonderry heís done.

 

Mr. Scanzani recommended that when the slow-down cul de sacs are added that underground electrical is also added.Mr. Danevich asked if there would be signage or reflectors in the cul de sac.Mr. Konieczka said there would be some street lighting and signs to direct people around it.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Peter McNamara, 12 Jeremy Hill Road, spoke as a resident, and said that until he saw the plans, he wasnít appreciative of how vast it was.He noted that it is a huge amount of development in a short period of time and believes that special consideration needs to be given, due to the traffic and environmental impacts.Mr. McNamara then read a prepared statement.ATTACHMENT #1.In conclusion he said that if the road isnít bridged and Long View is kept as one long (3300í) road, it would put an unfair burden on Long View, not only for health and safety, but also environmental.He said the more connections that are made, the more traffic would be diverted.†† He also noted that the traffic study numbers donít add up, and used as an example, if eighteen additional homes are added, the study showed there would only be eighteen additional trips.

 

Mr. Danevich said all the points in the prepared statement are being considered, except #6 the resurfacing of Longview, which was a new question.Mr. Zohdi believed it was done approximately in 1986.Mr. Scanzani said that a few of the developments approved in the 1980ís are probably getting to the point of needing resurfacing.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the status of #4 on the prepared statement, the completion of the Pennichuck waterline down Longview.Mr. Zohdi said he would like input from the Board and informed there would be approximately 1400í of waterline.He asked if the abutters would grant a waterline easement versus going under the pavement.Mr. Danevich asked the abutters in attendance if the intention is to have the water available to them.

 

Ms. Deb Casey, 8 Longview Circle, spoke as a resident and said the purpose for having the water available was due to the pesticides to the North of them.She expects that the Board would request that their wells are tested, and should they be damaged from erosion due to the pesticides, they want an option at their disposal.

 

Mr. Scanzani said in the past, the Board has viewed road improvements as part of normal development.He believes that approximately $70,000 is minimal, for a betterment improvement if shared between the three developments to put a water easement and resurface the road.Mr. Zohdi asked if the neighborhood wants the water, why canít they grant a 10í waterline easement so the hot top isnít touched.Mr. Scanzani noted the additional houses and traffic and believes that Longview would have to be improved.Mr. Danevich concluded the discussion and said that it would be taken under consideration.

 

Mr. Gowan inquired of the exaction for Valley Hill Road.Mr. Culbert asked why the $70,000 could not be divided between the 30 lots, just as with Valley Hill.Mr. Zohdi said he didnít have a problem with that.

 

Ms. Casey said the neighborís have had discussions with Mr. Zohdi, theyíve tried to provide creative solutions to the wetlands, and the major concern is to have the connection made to Meadow View.She said noted that without various connections in the neighborhood, Jeremy Hill will carry the majority of the traffic.She said she did not see a traffic counter on her street, and didnít know where the number came from of only eighteen additional trips would occur with the addition of eighteen homes.She pointed out that erosion would probably be significant and should be reviewed.Ms. Casey ended by requesting that their road is not used as the construction road.

 

Mr. Scanzani agrees that the wetlands need protecting and believes that the two roads should be bridged based on the total vastness of the proposal and the tax value.Ms. Casey said that projects like this will be coming more often and she believes the Board should be more creative due to the impacts of not only now, but also in four and five years.Mr. Scanzani brought up the point of a future connection into Hudson.

 

Ms. Helen Munsen, 12 Holstein Drive, said she wasnít aware of the loophole Mr. Zohdi put in at the end of her subdivision.She asked if there was another easement for water.She said Holstein Drive is safe now but if subdivision is opened up there is no guarantee people wonít come down Holstein.

 

Mr. Robert Fletcher, Jeremy Hill Road, said, for Ms. Casey, that there were traffic counters on Jeremy Hill and Baldwin Lane last week.Ms. Casey said they were aware of those, but what she was addressing, was there no counter located on Longview.

 

Mr. Zohdi said a right-of-way was required at the time of the subdivision.He also informed that the only way to get the water pressure all the way through to Mountain Orchard is to add the water line on Holstein.

 

Ms. Casey reminded the Board of the 100í buffer of the parcel.Ms. Katie Surowick, Wetland Scientist, Environmental Services spoke regarding the environmental impact statement she prepared.She said that the Town has a 50í buffer and the recommended buffer by the Municipal Association is 100í for water quality and that objective has been met.She went on to say that from a wildlife standpoint there canít be a specific buffer due to the various habitat needs.Her suggestion is to leave the 50í buffer as a no-cut zone.

Mr. Zohdi said that the Health Ordinance requires a 100í from septic system and they are all in compliance except for the area that the road would be put in.He said at that point there would be a presentation on how to stabilize those areas.

 

Ms. Sue Boardman, 9 Longview Circle, proposed that when the connection is made from Meadow View into Longview Circle, and instead, keep it Meadow View and curve the road and add a stop sign as was done in Bedford.She believes this would lessen the impact on Jeremy Hill Road.Mr. Konieczka said that comment had merit.Mr. Zohdi said that if the traffic engineer doesnít have a problem with that idea, then they would design it.

 

 

 

Mr. Daniel Cormier, 7 Longview Circle, stepped up and drew the intended intersection suggested by Ms. Boardman.Mr. Danevich clarified by saying is was a preferred Y, which branches of to the right and left.

Ms. Boardman said her belief is that this ĎYí would alleviate #9 of the prepared statement read by Mr. McNamara.Mr. Culbert inquired if this would stop the sharing of traffic and force it on one direction.Ms. Boardman answered no, traffic would still flow.

 

Mr. Jim Plummer, 25 Valley Hill Road, said he is concerned with the traffic coming down Valley Hill Road.

 

Mr. Konieczka said their recommendation was predicated on Meadowview not connecting to Longview.He said that by going to Longview, they may be encouraging traffic to use Holstein.††† Ms. Munsen agreed.

 

Mr. Scanzani listed his recommendations:

††††††††††††††† 1) Installation of speed cul de sacs on Longview along the flat land approximately 1200í-1500í ††††††††† †††††††††††††† ††††apart with the recommended vinyl gazeboes;

††††††††††††††† 2) The speed cul de sacs should be lit and have underground electrical provided;

††††††††††††††† 3) Both connections made, Holstein and Meadowview;

††††††††††††††† 4) A design for a connecting bridge with a supporting retaining wall and what it would require;

††††††††††††††† 5) Extend the Pennichuck waterline down the existing 1400í of Longview and resurface as it ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† ††††connects to the new portion.

 

Mr. Danevich added three recommendation points:

††††††††††††††† 1) Conceptual ofthe retaining wall, a picture is sufficient;

††††††††††††††† 2) Leaving cul de sacs in tact;

††††††††††††††† 3) Overall wildlife corridor study which shows impacts and displacement.

 

Mr. Zohdi said a preliminary could be provided, but the lots and leach beds are not mapped out yet for phase three.Mr. Danevich asked that the preliminary be done with the possibility of a more comprehensive later.

 

A brief discussion occurred regarding the exactions for the phases.Mr. Messina informed that it would be addressed by legal.

 

Mr. Danevich added two recommendation points:

††††††††††††††† 4) Three street names need to be submitted;

††††††††††††††† 5) Plan the Pennichuck water line to be extended.

 

Mr. DeLuca showed concern with the traffic study viewing only the present, and believes that the people in residence are better judges as to the traffic flow.He also pointed out that when plowing, most of the snow would gather at the vinyl gazeboes and is unsure how they would hold up.

 

CONSENSUS VOTE: ††††††† In favor of all the connections.

†††††††††††††††

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† (6 - 0 - 0)†† Ms. Ouellette voted in place of Mr. McNamara, who had stepped ††††††††† down.Ms. Casey had stepped down as well.

 

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 discuss the proposed subdivision.He began by saying that the wildlife has yet to be completed for the three phases.He said the engineers havenít completed their report either, but they would comply with their requirements.

 

Mr. Danevich said the issues were reviewed during the site walk.He said the proposed road follows the tractor/farm path, and hisconcern is the headlights.He said based on what was observed, the preliminary conclusion was the road design is probably the best and least impact to the residence, but it abutted and crossed the WCD district.Ms. Casey asked about the site distances, which were one of the abutterís question.Mr. Danevich said they looked sufficient.

 

Ms. Casey asked about the open space in the middle of the cul de sacs and it they would have continuity with the other ones in the area.Mr. Zohdi said they would work with the traffic engineer and provide if needed.Mr. Culbert spoke of the cul de sacs being wide open.Mr. Gowan commented that he would rather not see them as wide open.Mr. Scanzani said that they can be made with greenery so the residence can plant.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if something could be done with the 4 or 5 lots, which werenít squared.Mr. Zohdi said the lot lines could be adjusted to accommodate.

 

Mr. Gowan asked hypothetically, if an open space ordinance passed would this subdivision be a candidate.Mr. Zohdi said the owner of the subdivision is waiting until the March vote has been made due to the proposed zoning issues.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Paul Steck, 146 Jeremy Hill Road, said he walked the site for three hours and asked about the wetland crossing at the beginning of Jonathan Road.Mr. Zohdi said the driveway would be moved and bridges will be added so that no dredge and fill would be required.Mr. Steck noticed a large amount of ledge and asked if the septic designs have all been approved, or would pass.Mr. Zohdi explained that sufficient test beds will be done for the septic designs.Mr. Steck inquired about the possible connection to Hudson from Jeremy Hill, and wanted to know if the Town was prepared to re-open roads that were closed to gates and bars and take land to do so.Ms. Casey said the BOS have always been hesitant regarding what the voters have decided.Mr. Steck asked who would be the party involved with taking the land.Mr. Danevich said that as part of any conceptual of a large parcel the Board asks that all connectivity roads are shown.Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Zohdi was under contract to develop the piece of land Mr. Steck was concerned with, Mr. Zohdi answered no.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Conservation had any comment.Mr. Paul McLaughlin answered no.

 

Mr. Zohdi asked the Boardís permission to give direction to CLD for extensive review of the plans.

 

Mr. Culbert said the a number would be needed for Valley Hill when Mr. Zohdi returned to the Board.Mr. Zohdi didnít have a problem with that.

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed that the final wildlife corridor study would include this parcel.Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that CLD would continue from this point.

 

Mr. Culbert asked about the lot across from Muldoon Park and graveled parking.Mr. Danevich said it was determined that the park entrance is too far of a distance.

 

ML 12-231 Kimberly Kerepka/Ledge Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Messina informed that a variance has been granted by the ZBA.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision.He began by informing that the Kerepkaís own approximately 18 acres and would like to subdivide and build a single family home on one portion of the lot.He said to do so, they would have to cross a wetland area.

He said a concrete precast bridge could be added, so they donít have to go through the wetland.He informed the rest of the driveway is pre-existing and they would add a proper easement.He asked if the plan could be approved.

 

Mr. Paul McLaughlin, Pelham Conservation Commission, asked if a reference to a dredge and fill was made.Mr. Zohdi said that when they appear before the Conservation Commission they would not be asking for a dredge and fill permit, because they will be proposing a bridge.Mr. McLaughlin declined to comment until after the plan had been brought before Conservation.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Culbert made the motion to accept the plan for consideration.It was discussed amongst the Board, then Mr. Culbert rescinded his motion and replaced with the following:

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/McNamara) To accept for consideration a special permit.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Mr. Culbert said that historically 2-lot plans have a special permit approved, subject to conservation.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the plan subject to favorable review by Conservation.

 

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

 

PLANNING DIRECTORíS REPORT

 

Mr. Messina noted there was a last minute request for a bond reduction of the Elston Estates.He recommended approval from the Board, subject to final review by CLD.He said the reduction would be from $169,500 to $51,900.

 

Mr. Dave Brouilett, CLD, informed that the reduction request came in a couple weeks ago and last week they hadnít completed the permanent detention ponds so CLD didnít recommend at that time.He said that now, the paving is scheduled for tomorrow.Mr. Danevich suggested holding off until the next scheduled meeting.Mr. Scanzani didnít feel the bond reduction request should be granted at this time.†† Mr. Brouilett noted that, if accepted, it would be subject to CLD final asphalt acceptance tomorrow.Mr. Scanzani asked if they would be accepting the same day as it is paved.Mr. Brouilett said typically the base course sits for one winter before final acceptance.Mr. Scanzani asked if the reduced amount would cover new binding and a finish coat if the developer happened to get bad set up asphalt and it didnít hold up over the winter.Mr. Brouilett answered yes and that they would be there full time to make sure they wouldnít receive bad materials.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to reduce the bond amount conditional upon CLDís approval of the base coat.Mr. Gowan seconded for discussion.†† Mr. Danevich said he preferred to wait until there is pavement.He said it could be added to the next meeting.

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/Gowan) To reduce the bond amount to $51,900, subject to CLDís approval of †††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† the base coat being laid.

 

VOTE:†† ††††††††††††††† (3 - 4 - 0) The motion was denied.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

August 7, 2000

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Scanzani/Casey)To accept the minutes of the August 7, 2000 Board meeting as ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† amended.

 

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

 

September 7, 2000

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Gowan/Casey) To accept the minutes of the September 7, 2000 Board meeting as ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† amended.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.Mr. Scanzani abstained.

 

September 18, 2000

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the minutes of the September 18, 2000 Board meeting as ††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† amended.

 

VOTE:†††††††††††††††††† (6 - 0 - 1)The motion carries.Mr. Gowan abstained.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS:

 

Mr. Culbert informed that an open space meeting will be scheduled now that legal input has been received.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Thursday, October 12, 2000 would be the next Board meeting.

 

Mr. DeLuca informed that Tom Sommers, CLD will attend the next Building Committee meeting for direction.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the last work session for October would include a discussion with

Mr. Brouilett to help better understand the points that go into a plan.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:†††††††††††† (Culbert/Casey) To adjourn the meeting.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned at11:15 pm.

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Charity A. L. Willis

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Recording Secretary