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

 

ABSENT:        Michael Soby, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote

 

The Chairman announced that Ms. Cvinar would be voting for Mr. Soby.

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

 

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