TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
August 7, 2000
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:40
p.m.
The Secretary called the roll:
PRESENT: Victor Danevich, Jeff Gowan, Bill Scanzani, Paddy Culbert, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Doris Cvinar, Alternate Peter McNamara, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey, Planning Director Vince Messina
The Chairman announced that Ms. Cvinar would be
voting for Mr. Soby.
ML 10-315
PPS Realty Trust/Route 38 Storage Facility – Site Plan Review for proposed
expansion of office building with associated parking into the adjoining lot.
The Secretary read aloud the list of abutters.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared
before the Board to present the site plan for ML 10-315. Mr. Zohdi explained that this is an
expansion of a previously approved plan from the January 3, 2000 Board meeting.
He stated that his clients were planning on purchasing the adjoining lot ML
10-314 and would like to join the two together. He advised ML 10-314 currently
has a single-family house on it and the only change to the site plan is the
addition of 7,415 square feet of
office/storage space along with a parking lot in the front. Mr. Zohdi further explained that the only
other change was the site plan previously showed the septic system in the back
of ML 10-315, and they would now be moving it to the front of the lot. He
reported that he sent the new plans to Paul Zarnowski, Health Agent for Pelham,
for review. Mr. Zarnowski went to the
site with Steven Haight, Herbert and Associates, to review the location of the
leach bed and both were satisfied. Mr.
Zohdi feels that his clients are complying with all of the Town’s requirements,
except for the number of parking spaces.
He advised that the site regulations call for 123 parking spaces and
they are proposing 59. He said everything else on the site plan would remain
the same.
Mr. Gowan asked if the office space would have the
same use as the previously approved office building. Mr. Zohdi said yes and
explained that the Board previously waived the parking requirement and is
requesting that the Board do the same for this new plan.
Mr. Danevich stated that it is consistent with this
kind of storage facility.
Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be room for an
additional storage unit if they moved the septic system to the front of the
property. Mr. Zohdi answered no.
Mr. Scanzani expressed his concern regarding the
incline off Route 38 to the site. He added if you look at Route 38 on that side
of the road and the abutting parcels (up Route 38 to the North side) drainage
has to occur. He said he would like
that area to look decent.
Mr. Zohdi stated he is open to the Board suggestions. He noted that when the first phase was done,
they proposed a retention pond. He said the drainage coming from the abutting
lots would go into that retention pond then to an underground drainage system,
which would go to the existing catch basin. He expressed his wish to keep the
area as natural as possible.
Mr. Scanzani agrees that the drainage in the
retention pond might pick up from the water in the back, but the water found at
the Provencal property goes out to Route 38, then travels down. Mr. Scanzani voiced his concern, about the
retention pond being large enough to catch all the water in a wet season. Mr. Zohdi said that when a member from the
Board of Selectman went to the site, he (Mr. Zohdi) proposed a cross-culvert as
well as an additional catch basin from the second driveway for drainage coming
from Route 38.
Ms. Casey questioned the large ledge, and asked if
it would require blasting. Mr.
Zohdi answered and said they might have
to blast an area of 10’x24’. Ms. Casey
also requested an architectural rendering.
Mr. Zohdi will provide an old key.
Ms. Casey then asked if there is an environmental
impact with the retention pond. Mr.
Zohdi said no.
Mr. Gowan said before he could vote, he needs to see
what the building would look like and what the height is. Mr. Zohdi informed
him that Mr. Messina has a rendering of the area, which includes the new
building.
Mr. Scanzani added his concern of the aesthetics
regarding the bumper along Route 38.
Mr. Zohdi told him he would be happy to walk the
site, and hear any suggestions. He then discussed his client’s difficulty due
to Board meetings being held only once a month. Mr. Danevich took this under advisement.
Mr. Scanzani wanted to note that although the plan
was previously approved, the Board is now viewing a new plan due to the
additional parcel area and drainage.
However, he wants to make sure the landscaping is done as originally
approved for the first plan.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Arthur Provencal, 72 Bridge Street, he said he
lives alongside the stone cottage and has for 25 years and is very pleased to
see the changes happen.
Mr. John Lyon, 77 Bridge Street, said his parents
owned the stone cottage for many years and other than the drainage issue (which
he is sure will be taken care of) he is all for the changes.
Mr. Robert Yarmo, 21 Bush Hill Road, said he has a
concern about the storage and if there will be outside storage. Mr. Zohdi told him outside storage is not
allowed.
Mr. Alrick Hammer, 71 Bridge Street, spoke in favor
of the plan and believes it will be an asset to the community.
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To accept
the plan for consideration. Along with
this motion a request was received by conservation for erosion control.
ROLL CALL: Ms. Casey-Yes; Mr.
Culbert-Yes; Ms. Cvinar-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes; Mr.
DeLuca-Yes; Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Scanzani-Yes.
(7
- 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Zohdi asked for a waiver request for the number
of parking spaces from 123 to 59.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) To accept the waiver request
for the change of parking spaces.
ROLL CALL: Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr.
Gowan-Yes; Mr. Scanzani-Yes; Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Cvinar -Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes.
(7
- 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Zohdi asked permission to start construction of
the leach field. Mr. Scanzani believes
he already has approval for the existing site.
Mr. Scanzani confirmed with Mr. Zohdi that the septic is approved for
the new location. Mr. Scanzani went on
to say that until other things are done for the rest of the site, the septic
system could be considered for the existing building, which had already been
approved for a new location. Mr.
Culbert added that he didn’t want any misunderstanding of approvals. Mr. Gowan also wanted to clarify what the
Board has approved with regard to adding the septic system.
CONSENSUS VOTE
(show of hands): All in favor for proceeding
with septic system.
(7 - 0 - 0) Mr. Messina stated that a
voluntary merger would be executed. Mr.
Zohdi agreed.
ML 3-129
Cynthia Maiocchi/Bush Hill Road – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Consideration.
The Secretary real aloud the list of abutters.
Mr. Peter Weeks, Cuoco & Cormier Company,
appeared before the Board to present the proposed 2-lot subdivision. He informed they would split a 1.39 acre lot
out of the original 2.5 acres. He then
noted two pockets of wetlands and informed that the entire lot sizing has been
done. He then noted that 47,380 square
feet of the existing 1.13 acre lot is contiguously dry, and 51,672 square feet
of the 1.39 acre lot is also contiguously dry.
Mr. Weeks pointed out that the South end of property might be the fill
area for the existing septic system. He
said they aren’t sure what’s under it, so to find out about pipes they would
speak to the abutter regarding a septic coming in. Mr. Weeks just submitted to the state, so they haven’t heard back
yet.
Ms. Casey asked about the size of the proposed
dwelling site. Mr. Weeks said it was
approximately a 38’ x 42’ house.
Mr. Gowan asked if there were any site distance
issues. No one spoke of any.
Mr. Danevich requested that a 22’ decrease in the
slope with respect to the septic be looked into.
Mr. DeLuca asked if the septic system on the edge of
the fill area was the old one.
Mr. Weeks believes that when the abutting piece of
lot 128 was designed, the fill flowed into the open property.
Mr. Culbert added that it looks like the house is
above the 50’ buffer.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Bob Yarmo, 21 Bush Hill Road, stated that he
didn’t have any particular objections to the subdivision. He feels that someone should view the
unsightly property next door.
Mr. Danevich appreciated the input, but advised that
it was not relevant to this meeting.
Mr. Weeks would like it noted that the change of the
application fee waiver went from $1,000 to $250.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert)
To accept for plan for consideration.
VOTE: (7 – 0 –
0) The motion carries.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Gowan) To accept the waiver
request to reduce the $1000 Planning Board application fee to $250 which the
Board must receive in writing.
VOTE: (7 – 0 –
0) The motion carries.
Mr. Danevich stated that a site walk would be
scheduled. He said with respect to the
well radius, and the house structure, they would be looking for erosion control
on the plan itself. Mr. Danevich also
requested that the site specific be provided.
Lastly he wanted clarification of the wetlands designation and the 50’
buffer.
ML
11-28-2 & 28-3 Donald & Joan
Fauvel/Spring Street – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision for Consideration.
The Secretary read aloud the list of abutters.
Ms. Casey stepped down due to a conflict of
interest.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared
before the Board to present the subdivision plan for ML 11-28-2 &
28-3. He explained this was previously
part of a 7-lot subdivision. He said
his client has an existing house on the lot.
He further explained that they would like to split this into a 3-lot
subdivision as follows: lot one 3.52 acres,
lot two 2.67 acres, lot three12.75 acres. Mr. Zohdi said the all the lots have proper frontage. He proposed that ML 11-28-2 and 11-28-3 have
a common driveway.
Mr. Zohdi then drew (on the display board) the
boundaries of the three lots and discussed the proposed plan.
Mr. Scanzani asked if the large wet lot had enough
contiguous dry land to meet all the radiuses.
Ms. Cvinar asked for explanation of the previous lot
line. Mr. Zohdi told her years ago
there were two lots.
Mr. DeLuca asked about square lots. Ms. Cvinar and
Mr. Culbert agree that square lots make a difference. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have a problem with approval being
subject to lot lines being parallel.
Mr. DeLuca then asked about the driveway dimensions. Mr. Zohdi said they are proposing 10’.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Jeff Eannarino, 17 Spring Street, said he is new
to the property at ML 11-28-4. His
concern is sharing a driveway (put in by default) that abuts most of his
property line. He said this area is wooded and wanted to know the process so
that it doesn’t adversely effect their property.
Mr. Zohdi said they are not proposing a driveway on
Mr. Eannarino’s property. He stated they would not have a common driveway with
ML 11-28-4. He said lots 11-28-2 and
11-28-3 would share a driveway.
Mr. Eannarino said currently there is a dual driveway.
Mr. Scanzani wanted to know where the driveway was being shared because the
existing house also had a driveway. Mr.
Eannarino said that he believed at some point the new driveway would vector
off, but wasn’t sure exactly where. Mr.
Culbert asked if Mr. Eannarino’s driveway was on the property line. Mr. Eannarino said yes. Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Eannarino if he minded
the Fauvel’s driveway being on the property line too or sharing it. At which point, Mr. Eannarino voiced his
concerns about having a shared driveway between three homes. Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Eannarino’s
driveway is on the Fauvel’s land. Mr.
Eannarino said he didn’t know, because there’s a question of the demarcation,
which isn’t on record with the town.
Mr. Zohdi said a gravel driveway was certified. He then drew on the board to show where the
two driveways are and noted they are attached.
Mr. Zohdi went on to say that he wanted approval on the existing
driveway and reiterated that Mr. Eannarino will have a shared driveway.
Mr. Danevich clarified that Mr. Zohdi was there for
a first consideration. He then said
during the site walk they would mark the center roads, as well as have
additional markings. Mr. Danevich encouraged Mr. Eannarino to join them.
Mr. DeLuca asked Mr. Eannarino if he’s currently
sharing a driveway with the Fauvels.
Mr. Eannarino said he was advised that half of what he thought was their
driveway (at the time of purchase) is on the Fauvels property. Mr. Eannarino would like a letter of
recommendation from D.E.S. to be done for the town’s records prior to
approval. Lastly, Mr. Eannarino would
like better use of the driveway instead of creating a miniature street along
the boundary of his property. Mr. Zohdi
spoke of the approvals to be obtained before the driveway is put in and went on
to inform the Fauvels only want to put a driveway on their own property.
Ms. Joan Fauvel, 19 Spring Street, spoke of the
existing cleared lot and noted that there would have to be some way of getting
there. She informed there is a brick,
which separates the lots, and stated that they are not trying to make a new
path.
Mr. Scanzani asked the length of the proposed
driveway. Mr. Zohdi said the first
house’s driveway is approximately 600’, and the second house’s driveway is
approximately 800’. Mr. Scanzani then
asked about the possibility of underground utilities. He feels it should be due to the length of the driveway.
Mr. Zohdi didn’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Eannarino spoke up and said his records show 650’
for the first driveway and an additional 200’ for the second. He asked about blasting due to the amount of
ledge. Mr. Zohdi doesn’t believe that
the driveway he designed will be within 5’ of ledge because it’s canton soil.
MOTION: (Gowan/Culbert) To accept the plan for
consideration.
VOTE: (6 - 0 - 1) Ms. Casey abstained. The motion
carries.
OLD
BUSINESS
ML 10-1
Hilbert/Leblanc Road – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for Approval.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared
before the Board to present the subdivision plan for ML 10-1. He informed this was previously being
handled by another engineering firm who brought it before the Board. Then he said they are proposing a
subdivision of 10-1 into 10-1-4 to include an additional house. Mr. Zohdi stated that they needed to meet
with the Conservation Commission due to the proposed driveway crossing a small
wetland. He then said they needed to
make sure the flow of the drainage doesn’t change.
Mr. Danevich clarified that the proposed hasn’t appeared
before the Conservation Commission or
filed any of the State permits.
Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental Services stated
that the driveway falls under the criteria for minimum impact expedited. He informed they have submitted the
application to the Conservation Commission about three weeks ago. He said once they meet with the
Conservation Commission, they can file with the Town Clerk before obtaining
State approval.
Ms. Casey would like this to go before the
Conservation Commission then come back before the Board. Mr. Scanzani wanted to note the Board’s
tight schedule. Mr. Danevich reiterated
that this is a simple subdivision driveway crossing.
Mr. Danevich asked if this is the most minimal
impact that can be provided. Mr. Gove
said that it is, compared to where they originally were looking.
Ms. Cvinar asked if a shared driveway is an
option. Mr. Zohdi said the owner wasn’t
receptive to having a shared driveway.
There was no public input.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To
approve plan, subject to obtaining all State permits as well as a favorable
letter of recommendation from Conservation Commission regarding wetland.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0)
The motion carries. Ms. Casey voted No.
ML 9-63
Mary Farm Trust/Woodlawn Circle – Proposed 11 Lot Subdivision for Approval.
Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and
Associates, made a request Saturday that the only business discussed would be
regarding the completed wetland impact study.
Mr. Zohdi appeared before the Board to ask that the
presentation of the subdivision plan for ML 9-63 is rescheduled until the next
Board meeting.
Ms. Casey brought up the fact that there were
concerns from Conservation and more studies to be done due to the proximity of
the wetlands and the 100 year flood plan.
She would like all the information available to the Board before they
present the environmental impact study.
Mr. Zohdi didn’t have a problem with waiting, but asked to be
rescheduled on the next available agenda.
Mr. Zohdi handed out copies of the study to the Board.
Mr. Danevich read a list of concerns derived from
the site walk:
1)
Safety concern from CLD; boulder approximately 50’-80’ high (should be
blasted).
2)
Drainage concern (ATV/snowmobile trails).
3)
Turnaround for temporary construction vehicles.
4)
Clarification of plat numbers on the plan.
5) WCD acreage (not sure if it was prevalent on the plan) regarding the calculation of the high and dry.
6)
Rock ledge clarified as soil type 224H.
7)
Update of 100-year flood plan. (Mr.
Zohdi gave a brief update of plan)
8) Boundary issue of town boarder to be resolved (Mr. Zohdi said
he will be meeting with Mr. Messina).
Ms. Casey wanted to ensure (per the Selectman’s
request) that the property abutting the town was done by an independent
company. Mr. Zohdi said that his client
have already had it done and wouldn’t pay anyone else to check boundaries. Ms. Casey said she would go back to the
Forestry Committee for comments.
Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if an abutter questions
after a surveyor places stamped approved, typically wouldn’t it be up to the
abutter to certify. Mr. Gowan views CLD
as an independent reviewer. Ms. Casey
noted there has been a (significant) discrepancy between the applicant’s
boundaries and the tax maps.
Mr. Danevich wanted to note (for an absent abutter)
that the 75’ well radius is protected.
Mr. Zohdi said that he spoke with the abutter and believes that she will
be satisfied with the plans.
Mr. Danevich then asked about Mr. Zohdi’s efforts to
locate the tires. Mr. Zohdi said they
dug approximately 16 holes with no findings. Ms. Casey informed she spoke to
one of the abutters who stated she believed the tires were on her property and
have since been removed.
The subdivision plan for ML 9-63 was date specified
to September 7, 2000.
ML 3-130
William Coleman/Mammoth Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Approval.
Mr. Tim Wining, TWJ Surveying appeared before the
Board to present the subdivision plan for ML 3-130. He said that they have done revisions based on CLD’s review and
have also obtained State subdivision approval.
Mr. Wining noted that drainage was the major concern. He said they eliminated the infiltration
trenches on the Moore side and moved the right of way parallel to road. Mr. Wining said they’ve had to add
additional areas due to the excess run off and have also redesigned the side
slope to minimize the amount of spread and impact on abutting lots. He added that site distance lines were
added.
Mr. Danevich has a concern regarding the filled in
area and angle of incline onto Mammoth
Road. Mr. Danevich asked Dave Brouillet
(CLD) his opinion. Mr. Brouillet
reminded the Board that this is a residential area. He discussed the 10% slope and other concerns and added that they
require more than a yes or no answer.
Mr. Danevich then asked if Mr. Brouillet felt everything was undesirable
(Mr. Brouillet shook his head yes).
Mr. Gowan inquired where the flat area is at the end
of the incline. He also wanted to know
what other avenues of access have been reviewed. Mr. Wining discussed the other accesses and explained there isn’t
a better place for it. Mr. Gowan asked
about the abutter’s issues. Mr. Wining
said there are a few things to be worked out still.
Mr. Messina said that he spoke with Mr. Brizicky,
who is in agreement with the plan in principle.
Ms. Cvinar pointed out that during the site walk
there was mention that the easement would be designed to have access in the
future. She asked why access wouldn’t
be made now. Mr. Wining said the access
would only be into the next parcel. Mr.
Culbert added that Mr. Coleman owns the abutting parcel and wanted to know if
Mr. Wining was considering further development to access the road being built. Mr. Wining said it is a possibility then
noted that the number of lots would be limited. Mr. Messina spoke to say that there is only one other parcel that
could have access.
There was no public input.
Ms. Casey asked Mr. Brouillet (CLD) if they
recommended 3-1 on lower part of road. Mr. Brouillet said yes. Ms. Casey also asked where the drainage
would go when it reaches the bottom.
Mr. Wining pointed out the catch basins to an overflow, then to gravel
trenches that will help dissipate flow in-ground. Ms. Casey wanted clarification that no water would be going
across the street into wetlands. Mr.
Wining answered no.
Mr. DeLuca asked to see an architectural rendering
of landscaping.
Mr. Gowan informed Mr. Wining that he needs to make
the cul-de-sac either temporary with an easement or a permanent cul-de-sac.
Mr. Scanzani said he has a problem with what he
considers an unsafe road.
Mr. Scanzani made the motion to deny the plan based on safety concerns and an unsafe road design. Mr. Culbert seconded for discussion.
Mr. Scanzani went on to discuss the length of road,
the slope, future development and no GIS.
He would like the applicant to bring back a better design.
Mr. Culbert agrees with Mr. Scanzani’s comments, and
brought up that the Board normally has given the developer the chance to
withdraw the plan without prejudice.
Mr. Brouillet (CLD) agrees that this is compromised safety.
Mr. Gowan added that whether the plan is withdrawn
or not, if/when it comes back before the Board, he would like to see all the
impact studies, more information on road placement and an answer to the
cul-de-sac question.
Mr. Danevich said he likes the conceptual
design. However, he would like
resolution from the abutter. He also
stated that the phase impact studies are required. Last, he asked about a possible landscape schedule.
Mr. Wining inquired what areas the Board wouldn’t
compromise on. Mr. Culbert stated he
would not compromise on safety, then went on to list his reasons for denial.
Mr. DeLuca asked if the Safety Committee should
review. He also asked who owned the
property. Mr. Wining gave a brief
explanation.
Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Wining if he wanted to redraw
the plan or withdraw without prejudice.
Mr. Wining said he would like the Board to vote now.
Mr. Messina noted for the record that the applicant
was aware that they were supposed to present the proposed expansion plan this
evening.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To deny
the plan based on safety concerns and an unsafe road design. Specifically:
1) Landing area is inadequate, (1000’ of road with a 10% slope,
the impact of vehicles driving up and down the hill with inadequate landing
onto a classified driveway);
2) Drainage and side slope easements;
3) Easements of a 2-1 slope;
4) No conceptual plan;
5) Temporary cul-de-sac has not been identified;
6) The Board interprets CLD’s report to have grave
concerns with safety.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0)
The motion carries to deny the plan.
ML 3-138
Nationwide Construction/Bush Hill Road - Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for
Approval.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert and Associates, appeared
before the Board to present the proposed subdivision for ML 3-138. He said there are four buildable lots and
one to be deeded to the town or the Conservation Commission. He reminded the Board that at the last
meeting it was requested that each lot have it’s own septic system. He said the individual site plans are
included in material handed out. Mr.
Zohdi finished by saying in general they agree with all of the conditions.
Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Board of Health Agent for
Pelham, reviewed the plans with the Board and stated in his opinion, all lots
have passed septic design criteria.
Ms. Casey pointed out that during the site walk, the
agreed upon wetland conservation district was 100’, not the 60’ shown on the
plan being reviewed. She went on to say
that the alternate plans for some of the septics are clearly within the agreed
distance and asked if Mr. Zarnowski was aware of that. Mr. Zarnowski answered no.
The letter of May 14, 2000 from the Conservation
Commission was read (Attachment 1).
Mr. Zohdi clarified that they still provide 100’ for
all the leach fields.
Mr. Gowan referenced the May 14th letter and said
the Board would have to make clear what they are advising/requiring, and what
the Conservation Commission is requiring, as well as what the simple requests
are.
Mr. Zohdi said he has confirmed with his clients and
they want to voluntarily give the Town certain land. He said they need to work with the Board regarding odd shaped
lots.
Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the applicants are in
agreement with the Conservation Commission’s requirements. Mr. Zohdi agrees with the requirements.
Mr. DeLuca asked about the bridge/driveway. Mr. Zohdi said they would be raising the
driveway a little and they wouldn’t be putting in a bridge. Mr. Zohdi further discussed the Town’s roads
with regard to curbing.
Ms. Casey had Mr. Zohdi point out the missing well
on the site specific for 3-138-2. She
then asked about the 75’ and 65’ well radiuses noted on the site specific. Mr. Zohdi explained what the State allows
for, which in this case ends up being 7’ over the lot line.
Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Zohdi had a brief discussion
regarding the water flow down the driveway.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Bob Yarmo, 21 Bush Hill Road (Conservation
Commission member) explained the discussions had by the Commission regarding
the driveway. He asked if the septic
system plan the Commission saw, is the one being reviewed this evening. Mr. Zohdi showed that the only difference is
the septic system location for lot 3, which was previously designed in an
angle, and now one end has been moved approximately 6’-8’.
Mr. Paul Steck, Jeremy Hill Road, asked about the
driveways coming down to Bush Hill Road and the distances. Mr. Zohdi stated the driveway feet
requirements. Mr. Danevich discussed
clear-cutting the brush. Mr. Steck then
asked if this would be included in the deed.
Mr. Danevich said it wouldn’t be part of the deed, but it would be part
of the condition to approve construction on the site specific plan. Mr. Brouillet (CLD) feels it is important to
review the site easement as well as maintaining it so there aren’t problems in
the future. Mr. Steck asked what is
being done about the public right of way, which he believes exists there. Mr. Zohdi informed they have done extensive
investigation and there is no right of way on this parcel. He then explained how the deeds read
regarding Jeremy Hill Road.
Mr. Paul DeCarolis, 148 Bush Hill Road, spoke
regarding whom has the burden to prove ownership of the land and who has the
rights to the area where the driveway is.
Mr. Bill Mason appeared on behalf of the
applicant. He explained his research
regarding the access issue. He said the
deed for 3-152 (the parcel which fronts on Jeremy Hill Road) contains language
for the public right to pass and re-pass, however the deeds for 3-138 and 3-168
make no reference to this language. Mr.
Mason then showed a plan that the Board considered on September 15, 1986 that
subdivided 3-152 into three lots. He
further noted that this plan does not include a public passageway and there is
nothing connecting 3-138 and 3-152.
Mr. Steck reiterated that he didn’t hear anything in
the deeds that mentioned Jeremy Hill Road or the right-of-way. He has spoken with various people who have
resided in Pelham their whole life, and they said they’ve always used that
route.
Mr. DeCarolis spoke up and gave a history to the
property. He said the entire track of
land was owned by the Town until 1937, then deeded to Coleman wherein is states
the Town reserved to itself a reserving to the public use of the highways
leading through said premises. He went
on to say that the referenced wording was carried on in all subsequent deeds
until 1954 and dropped in 1960. Mr.
DeCarolis thought it was interesting that the deed from 1999 was a quitclaim
deed. He also noted, in his research
there was nothing found in which the Town relinquished it’s rights to the roads
that ran through the property.
Mr. Scanzani asked about title insurance and what
the effect would be to the subdivision if they tried to maintain egresses. Mr. Zohdi said there is no bearing.
Mr. Culbert asked if there is any wording on the
deeds that specifically lays this location as the highway. Mr. DeCarolis explained the deed doesn’t
plot out the location, but they have testimony as well as physical evidence of
the remainder of the road.
Mr. Wes Aspinwall, Herbert Associates reviewed the
plan, and based on no stone wall, no evidence on old maps, and the amount of
water that has come through, it looks to him that it is nothing more than a
farm road or a convenient cut-across.
Mr. Cvinar pointed out a stone wall that appeared to be along the road
in question. Mr. Zohdi looked at the plan
and said if the road is there, the land is deeded to the Town.
Mr. DeCarolis provided the USGS map for the Board’s
file.
Mr. Dick Anderson, 110 Bush Hill Road read a letter
aloud. (Attachment #2)
Mr. DeCarolis is concerned that the wetlands are being understated. He passed out arial photographs of the lots to the Board. He then spoke of the 125’ septic system requirements. It is his opinion, that this plan should be denied because it doesn’t satisfy the waste disposal regulations, or at least table it until there is a ruling from the Health Officer and then the DES.
Mr. Mason can appreciate the benefits that
residences have enjoyed with this parcel and
thinks it’s fortunate that the Town will be receiving part of that land
so these activities may continue. He said the applicants have spent a great
deal of money hiring qualified professionals for determinations to ensure
compliance with ordinances.
Mr. Jim Gove said in essence there is 20’-30’ of
poorly drained soil. His opinion is
they are not dealing with a pond or stream, but a wetlands. From his perspective is, they could have a
rim of poorly drained soil along the edge which could go into a marsh system
since the open water is some distance away.
Ms. Casey wanted clarification that this is not a pond. Mr. Gove said that the area they are talking
about is critical to the septic system design.
Ms. Casey then asked if there were a septic system failure, and it goes
into the marsh, wouldn’t it go into the pond.
Mr. Gove said the septic is cone shaped to go into the ground, if it
fails, that is the reason for having set backs.
Ms. Martha Anderson, 110 Bush Hill Road stated that
there is a year round stream that runs adjacent to the island. She said there are three channels to the
brook on her property that run under Bush Hill Road and described their
locations. She then said there is year
round running water down the hill and into Gumpas Pond.
Mr. DeCarolis agrees that there are some areas of
transition between the dry land and the pond.
He pointed out that on the left side of the plan there is an abrupt drop
from the dry land of the island to the pond.
Ms. Connie Evans, 21 Hinds Lane said she would like
to plea for an impact study. She then
spoke of her concerns, since she lives on the pond. Her recollection of the site walk was a 100’ buffer. She also recalled at the conservation
hearing they wanted the 100’ and Mr. Zohdi said his client didn’t want to give
it because of the way they are subdividing the land. She said people still use the road casually. Ms. Evans then commented on the pond and
other ponds in the area, and handed out copies of studies to the Board. She went on to read aloud a letter she composed
which noted various concerns and requests certain impact studies be completed. Ms. Evans briefly read segments from a study
performed by New Hampshire National Heritage Inventory.
Mr. Scanzani said the Board doesn’t question the
issue of the wetlands being sensitive.
He went on to say that when you get to site specific, a soil scientist
would be called in so that the individual lot is reviewed. He feels that conservation has tried to
address all the sensitive issues to ensure no construction or disturbance will
happen within the territory.
Mr. Gowan said he isn’t comfortable dismissing the
information received. He feels that it
would have been more useful at the conservation meeting. Mr. Scanzani spoke up to say that all this
information is already utilized by conservation. He said the issue is the Board doesn’t usually require a study
(except for 10 lots or more) but this is 5 lots.
Mr. Scanzani made the motion to approve the plan with conditions. Mr. Culbert seconded for discussion.
Ms. Casey asked if there are specific requirements
concerning blasting. Mr. Brouillet
(CLD) said there are no specific requirements in the subdivision
regulations. He went on to say
what blaster insurance carriers
require. Ms. Casey then asked about the
stream or marsh being shown on the plan.
Mr. Gowan said with regard to the letter from
conservation, he would like to be clear that the deeding of the land to the
Town is not one of the requirements.
Mr. Zohdi went on record again to say that on behalf of his client, they
are willing to deed the land to the Town.
Mr. DeLuca asked if he is the only one concerned
with the shared driveway ‘spot’ which was wet.
He wanted to know what they would do in the Spring. Mr. Scanzani read the request of the conservation
letter concerning that area.
Ms. Casey said she believes the Town failed to
provide protection to the property.
There was a brief discussion between Mr. Scanzani
and Ms. Casey regarding the value of the wetland to the Town.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan
subject to:
1) Plans clearly show on 3-138-2 the well location;
2)
All state approvals are received;
3)
Conditions set forth in the conservation letter are met;
4)
The issue with salt signs is worked out with Mr. Messina;
5)
200’ site distance to be documented by CLD for driveway access;
6) Clear position to be stated on the plan regarding a
public egress, so
that the easement
is shown and documented on the plan as to whether it exists or
doesn’t exist.
ROLL CALL: Mr.
DeLuca-Yes; Mr. Gowan-No; Ms. Casey-No; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Ms. Cvinar-No; Mr.
Scanzani-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes.
(4 - 3 - 0)
ML 1-57
Barbara Whittaker/9 Mammoth Road - Special Permit for Wetland Crossing and
Proposed 6-lot Subdivision for Approval.
Mr. Curt Miesner, Miesner Brenon Corporation
appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision. Mr. Miesner informed that they have met with
the Selectman regarding the roadway and obtained the permit from the Department
of Transportation. He said the plan was
submitted to CLD (who had minor issues), they are fine with satisfying those
issues.
Mr. Brouillet (CLD) briefly discussed some of the
issues discussed. He said there weren’t
any significant changes.
Mr. DeLuca asked about the brook. Mr. Brouillet said they are proposing a head
wall in that area.
Ms. Casey inquired about the well radius on lot
1-57-2 and keeping it within the lot since it’s a requirement of the Town. Mr. Miesner said it goes over a conservation
area and they won’t be doing any construction there. He said the width of the lot requires they put it in that
location. Ms. Casey asked about the new
health ordinance’s requirement of a 75’ well radius remaining on the
property. Mr. Miesner explained they
have already made changes and in the event that there is a health ordinance,
they would look at moving the well to another location, but it would overlap
into a conservation area which they didn’t want to disturb.
Mr. Gowan asked if the well radius in question is on
any part of land they granted to the
Town. Mr. Miesner said no, and went on
to explain the easement ensures that no construction would occur in that
conservation area. Mr. Gowan then asked if the entire well radius is within
their parcel. Mr. Miesner said yes.
Ms. Cvinar asked if the perpetual easement needed to
be included on the deed. Mr. Miesner
said yes.
Mr. Culbert spoke of his concern and asked if they
could move the roadway. Mr. Miesner
said no, they would have to tear down the house.
There was no public input.
Mr. Gowan made a motion to approve the plan for
consideration, Mr. Scanzani seconded.
Mr. Danevich noted that there was a waiver request
regarding the cul-de-sac length.
Mr. Gowan then withdrew his previous motion.
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To approve the waiver for
the length of the cul-de-sac.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To issue a special permit
for the wetland crossing.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion
carries.
Mr. Gowan made the motion to approve the plan. Mr. Scanzani seconded for discussion.
Mr. Scanzani spoke of his serious concerns with the
safety of the road design. He brought
up the fact that the road entrance abuts the Veterans Memorial Park, and also
has a 9% slope coming into Mammoth Road.
Mr. Scanzani also pointed out that various boards have concerns with the
two entrances at this location. He
believes there should be a left turning lane on Mammoth Road and he also has
concern with crossing issues.
Mr. Gowan agrees with Mr. Scanzani, but cannot vote
against a plan where the developer has made such attempts. He said he would like to see the plan
approved. Further, he would like the
Board to forward a letter to the State requesting discontinued access into
Veterans Memorial Park.
Mr. DeLuca asked if the state has approved the
driveway. Mr. Miesner said yes, the
Department of Transportation issued an approval.
Ms. Casey reiterated the Selectman’s position per
article 31, in which 70% of voters wanted no change in design to the road. Mr. Gowan has spoken to many people who
aren’t aware of what the article is about, and in legal’s opinion, that it
carries no wait.
There was a brief discussion regarding the entrance
Veterans Memorial Park.
Ms. Barbara Whittaker, 9 Mammoth Road said she has
watched the traffic in front of her house and wanted to emphasize that the
traffic is only for 6 weeks in a year, and lasts for twenty minutes per
day. She would like the Board to think
about the usage of the road before a decision is made.
Mr. Culbert said his concern is the safety issue. He pointed out that there is also traffic in
the morning. He went on to say that it
doesn’t matter that it’s only six weeks a year, there are hundreds of children.
Ms. Cvinar asked why the parents had to pick up the
children at the park, why not have the pick-up area at a school. Ms. Casey noted that park and recreation is
currently considering various options to alleviate the traffic concerns.
Mr. Scanzani reiterated the various safety issues at
the location.
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To approve the plan.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) The motion
carries. (Mr. Scanzani voted no)
ML 1-161
Estate of Charles Jack/Greenmeadow Estates/Greenmeadow Drive - Proposed 9-Lot
Subdivision for Approval.
Mr. Mike Grainger, Grainger Engineering appeared
before the Board to present the proposed 9-lot subdivision. Mr. Danevich requested that Mr. Grainger
tell the Board what changes there are from the last plan. He then asked if Mr. Grainger if he is still
waiting for a dredge & fill permit and a permit from conservation. Mr. Grainger said yes.
Mr. Grainger proceeded to describe the changes
they’ve made to the plan. He said the
soil statement is about to be stamped.
He said there have been sheets added which show the proposed driveways
for the individual lots. He also spoke
of the stabilization of vegetation and the stone wall management. Mr. Grainger said that per their meeting
with conservation, they have increased the conservation area.
Mr. Casey asked about the public access and
subdivision of the easement. Mr.
Grainger said the right of way could move plus or minus.
Mr. Scanzani said conservation previously had a
problem with Area A, and wanted to know the resolution. Mr. Grainger said they approved then
denied. Mr. Messina added there should
be a letter from after conservation reviewed.
Mr. Grainger pointed out Area A and described the issue of concern,
which was the dredge and fill areas.
Mr. Scanzani then mentioned that the Board’s previous comments were the
connectivity of the roads.
Ms. Casey asked if there was going to be an exaction
based on the number homes and impact
based on the one entrance. She
recalled they had discussed an additional road (Old County Road).
Mr. Messina said it is a betterment, not an
exaction. He briefly described the difficulties
due to it being a long-range projection.
Mr. Gowan spoke of the option of having CLD do a
study and present a plan similar to one done on Route 38.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Ms. Linda Coler, 12 Misty Lane said she has lived
there for three years and feels that if these lots are approved it would be 33
new house lots in three years. She said
there is one road going in and out with water flowing underneath. Ms. Coler went on to say at some point they
need to be connected to another road in case of a problem occurring with the
one road.
Mr. Danevich informed that the Board has reviewed
the satellite imagery to help connect the parcel. He spoke of the issues connected with (possible) cul-de-sacs and
described what the Board is doing to revise that type of ordinance.
Ms. Coler asked if there was potential for other
phases to be added without another connection.
She also asked how many feet from the road a cul-de-sac is allowed. She has a concern with emergency vehicles.
Mr. Scanzani said the absolute regulation is 560’
for cul-de-sacs. He went on to say, one
of the problems with this site are the hills and they are relying on the
developers to help conceptually put together multiple accesses in and out. He said there are a few relative issues to
be reviewed.
Mr. Danevich recapped the issues:
1)
CLD’s final approval;
2)
Dredge & fill completion;
3) Legal file memo on the
easement wording (subdivision of land
and public access).
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To approve based on:
1)
CLD’s final and favorable review;
2)
Exaction to fund a study by CLD to help alleviate the traffic situation,
not to exceed
$10,000;
3)
Conveyance of conservation land to Town; 4) Obtaining dredge & fill permit.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. (Ms. Cvinar voted no)
SITE WALK
The following parcel was scheduled for a site walk
on Saturday, August 19th at 8:00am.
ML 11-28-2 and 28-3 Donald & Joan Fauvel - Spring Street -
Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: (Gowan/Scanzani) To adjourn the meeting.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion
carries.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 am.
Respectfully
submitted,
Charity
A. L. Willis
Recording
Secretary