TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 7, 2000

 

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 PM.

 

Ms. Gael Ouellette called the roll:

 

PRESENT:             Victor Danevich, Jeff Gowan, Paddy Culbert, Henry DeLuca, Peter McNamara, Alternate Gael Ouellette

 

ABSENT:               Bill Scanzani, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Michael Soby, Alternate Doris Cvinar

 

Gael Ouellette will vote on behalf of Mr. Scanzani.

 

BOND RELEASE

 

ML 7-220 William Hayes/Oak Hill Drive - Partial bond release

 

Mr. Messina suggested that the Board not grant the release based on the current bond escrow amount.

 

Mr. Dave Brouillet (CLD) said the amount in the bond equals the remainder of work to be done, at that time it would be appropriate to release the bond.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Casey) To not reduce the bond.

 

There was no public input.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 13-83 Fran McCarthy/Beacon Hill Road - Bond reduction

 

Mr. Messina said CLD has reviewed the remaining work to be done and at this point the bond can be reduced to $64,000.

 

Mr. Brouillet described the remaining work and said the reduced amount is sufficient and meets to his satisfaction.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Casey)  To reduce the bond to $64,000.00.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

WAIVER

 

ML 1-112 Mr. Thomas Murray Jr./Long Pond Shores - Waiver of Granite Curbing and Sidewalk

 

Mr. Messina said his recommendation would be to grant the waiver for the granite curbing and it is the Board’s decision regarding the sidewalks.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if this is within one mile of the schools.  Mr. Messina said no.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Murray was in attendance.

 

Mr. Gowan suggested wrapping the issue, since this was a waiver and there was no presentation required.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Gowan) To grant the waiver to exclude granite curbing and sidewalks.

 

There was no public input.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes.

 

                                Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Casey and Ms. Ouellette abstained.

 

                                (4 - 0 - 3) The motion carries.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Kenneth Kozyra, Wireless Facilities Inc. (“WFI”), appeared before the Board to present the proposed telecommunication tower.  He informed that Telecom operates under the brand name Suncorp.  He said they are proposing to mount their antennae within a flagpole, which would be 20’ taller than the existing 36’ extension.  He went on to say that the pole would be mounted at the rear of the addition, as to not be a focal point from the front.  He explained that the antennas would be within the fiberglass structure and the appropriate wiring running to the ground equipment will be located within a compound surrounded by a stockade fence approximated 25’x19’ from the rear of the building.  He noted they would provide appropriate landscaping.  In addition to their facilities, they will provide the area for one other carrier to locate both within the flagpole and the compound.  Mr. Kozyra then showed a coverage map, which showed the gap that will be covered when the church is approved and on-air.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were any waivers.  Mr. Kozyra said no.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the structure acts like a satellite and if the equipment would emit any noise.  Mr. Kozyra said this is a fully functional site, then explained that there is no generator, it all air-cooled so, effectively it will be silent beyond the compound area.

 

Mr. Casey asked if this structure would be different from the one located on Atwood Road.  Mr. Kozyra said the generators at Atwood Road belong to US Cellular, his company doesn’t use generators.  He noted that the equipment on the ground is identical to Pulpit Rock Road.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the additional carrier would require any additional generator backup.  Mr. Kozyra said at this time there isn’t an additional carrier, and they would have to come before the Board for approval.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the additional carrier would have to install at the time of initial installation.  Mr. Kozyra said no and informed that the basic wiring equipment is pre-installed, so the additional carrier would only have to install their antennas and run cabling to the ground.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the flagpole is fully operational.  Mr. Kozyra answered yes, but will need further discussion with the church.  Mr. Danevich clarified again with Mr. Kozyra the location and size of the flagpole.

 

Ms. Casey asked about lighting, to which Mr. Kozyra replied that the FAA has done a study and no lights are required.

 

Mr. Danevich clarified the actual height of the structure to be 56’ from the ground, taking into account the ground elevation.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if the drawing is to scale. He is concerned with the size and would like to make sure the flagpole looks like one.  Mr. Kozyra said the length is to scale, but the diameter isn’t.  He mentioned there is a flagpole structure at the Hudson Baptist Church, Kimball Hill Road and Route 111, which is 100’ tall and 18” in diameter. 

 

Mr. Culbert said there is no tower there now and there’s no building there now, all that is approved is an addition to a building, how is this not a new tower.  Mr. Messina helped clarify by saying this would be constructed after the building was in place and this is a flagpole in addition to that building.  Mr. Gowan reviewed zoning regulation, which gives relief that if it’s disguised as something non-obtrusive, than it’s accepted.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Carmine Sarno, 10 Fletcher Drive asked how large the flag will be.  Any American flag up on a post after dusk, has to be lit.  Mr. Kozyra said they would discuss the issue with the church.  Mr. Sarno wanted to know who would pay if the flag required lighting.

Mr. Kozyra said WFI would if it were a requirement.

 

Mr. Gordon Brawn, 15 Atwood Road, said he doesn’t disagree with the location and the idea behind this isn’t a bad thing, he wanted to remind the Board that Suncom ran a generator on the Atwood Road facility.  He believes for the benefit of the neighbors, the Board should receive an assurance in writing from Suncom that no service would be placed on this facility under generated power, other than normal service from the electric company.  Mr. Brawn has never seen a flagpole 18’ in diameter and believes this is a tower.  He asked about the breakpoint.  He said it’s difficult to determine without seeing the plan to scale, whether it’s an addition to the building or a tower within the building.  He also asked what color it would be painted.  In closing he feels there more questions which should be asked.

 

Mr. Kozyra said the construction drawings for the building permit would show the facility doesn’t run all the way to the ground and will be integrated in line with the roofline. He noted it would be painted white.

 

Mr. Gowan wanted to add his point of concern which was an assurance that the generator wouldn’t be running on conventional power.

 

Mr. Danevich spoke regarding the generator issue and a tower that’s still under construction, but about to come on-line.  He said that as part of their conditional approval and writing onto the plat itself, the tower couldn’t become operational until permanent power is in place.  His recollection there was a specific note that the only time the generator could be used was under emergency conditions, for short periods of time.  He added that this would probably be a conditional approval for this case as well, since it’s in a residential area.

 

Mr. Earle Fox, Ledge Road, asked if the Town needed another tower.  He would like to know what it’s going to do to the Town, for the Town and what was the Town getting out of it. 

 

Mr. Kozyra explained that Suncorp is one of six wireless telephone services in New Hampshire.  He said they currently service portions of Pelham, but in the Northeastern corner there are no existing tower facilities to locate their antennas on. 

 

Mr. Sarno asked if Suncom was owned by AT&T.  Mr. Kozyra answered to say Suncom Telecorp is the largest AT&T wireless affiliate and is partially owned by AT&T.  Mr. Sarno noted that AT&T already has a tower here.  Mr. Kozyra said that Telecorp has a tower facility (still under construction) in the Southern part of town combined with Atwood Road doesn’t provide full coverage.  Mr. Sarno asked if they could use a different tower facility.  Mr. Kozyra said they currently utilize two out of the three towers in Pelham and they don’t provide complete coverage.

 

Mr. Eric Helgamoe, Hobbs Road, wanted to know if, per siting procedure regulations, Mr. Kozyra had approached the landowners for potential use of the tower located up on the hill.  Mr. Kozyra said they had done an inventory of towers (when they appeared before the Board for Pulpit Rock Road), and believes Mr. Helgamoe is referencing a small HAM radio tower located in a residential back yard.  He informed that this tower is not structurally sufficient to hold any type of wireless antennas.  Mr. Helgamoe wanted to know if, per regulations, there is a written letter to that affect.  Mr. Kozyra said the letter is not required unless a new freestanding tower facility is proposed to be built, which is not what they are doing.

 

Ms. Casey believes that even thought the letter is not required the Board should still request it, so all the bases are covered and all facts are presented.  Mr. Danevich believes they haven’t granted any waiver of the ordinance passed by the Town.

 

Mr. Culbert isn’t convinced that this is covered in the regulations.  He doesn’t view this as an addition to the building due to the fact that the building hasn’t been built yet. He asked if legal has said they don’t need to go to ZBA.  Mr. Messina said this hasn’t been required to go to legal because the zoning ordinance is fairly clear.

 

Mr. Gowan agrees with Mr. Culbert regarding going to ZBA and has re-read the ordinance, which states issues specifically such as flagpoles.  He suggests that this be accepted for consideration with concerns noted.  He said he’d also like to dispel the flagpole issue and would like to see a photograph.  Mr. Kozyra circulated a picture for the Board to view.

 

Mr. DeLuca suggests that Mr. Kozyra bring in a Sono Tube to get a better understanding of what an 18” diameter would be.

 

Mr. Howard Augenstein, Gage Hill Road, asked if this was a business coming into a residential area.  Mr. Danevich said it could also be viewed as a public utility, such as electric, which are also businesses operating in a residential area.  Mr. Augenstein then asked how this works with the non-profit church, who are now taking in someone who will be paying them.  Mr. Danevich said that point is outside the scope of the Planning Board.

 

Mr. Brawn asked if the cell antennas were made into the pole or extended from the pole.  He would like to know why Suncom needs three facilities within a short distance from each other, when other providers in the Town don’t.  Mr. Kozyra reiterated there are six other carriers and went on to describe the types of signals Suncom have versus the other companies and the heights of towers in Town.  Mr. Gowan asked if conceptually there could be shorter towers instead of a few tall towers.  Mr. Kozyra said conceptually, yes.

 

Mr. Gowan made the motion to accept the plan for consideration.  Mr. Culbert seconded for discussion.

 

Mr. Culbert would like to see the construction plan of how it sets in and if there will be breakpoint, adhere to all flag etiquette, needs a reading whether the ZBA should review, is this really a business moving into a non-tax church. 

 

Mr. Gowan said this isn’t the first cell-tower locating on a church facility and feels that this is the type of cell-tower they should be encouraging.  Mr. Culbert said he would like to see them all like this as long as they are clean.  Mr. Danevich believes the precedent has already been set.

 

Ms. Casey would still like to see the research done that’s required for every cell tower.

 

Mr. DeLuca would like to see a cupola incorporated.

 

Mr. Danevich asked is there has been any design considerations for a steeple.  Mr. Kozyra said the church had various proposals and this is what the church chose.  He then summarized the points for direction:

                1) To scale drawing with the construction detail;

2) Request for notation in writing about the flag etiquette, ZBA reading by legal,

    business co-locating in a non-profitable residential business district. 

 

 Mr. Gowan wanted to make sure the no generator issue was included.

 

Mr. Kozyra asked what construction detail the Board is looking for.  Mr. Danevich said the break point.  Mr. Culbert said he wanted to see all the detail.

 

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

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

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

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

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

 

Mr. Dave Groff, the Attorney representing the applicants appeared before the Board to present the proposed lot merger.  He began by saying the proposal is to create two lots out of eight.  He said the lots were subdivided, but never approved as building lots.  He informed they have received a variance from ZBA for the frontage.  He further informed that the driveway would follow the now existing dirt trail.  He said the proposal is to come off of Economou due to wetland on the Theodore Avenue side.  Mr. Groff explained they would need a waiver due to the beginning of the driveway crossing the WCD.

 

Mr. Joseph Maynard, Benchmark Engineering reviewed the 50’ buffer and where the first portion of the proposed driveway would cross the WCD.

 

Mr. Messina informed that a voluntary merger of the lots per RSA 674.39A does not need to come before the Board, but they are here this evening since they need a special permit for the wetlands crossing.  He said this has been reviewed by the Fire Chief who has recommended specific conditions of approval, such as a turn-around at the end of Economou Drive and adequate fire protection (a cistern) be installed.

 

Mr. Casey confirmed that the Board is just selecting for consideration then sending off to Conservation.   Mr. Danevich answered yes.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Arthur Demers, Economou Avenue said he walked through and asked if he is allowed to dig a deep test hole in the road.  Mr. Brouillet said yes if it’s their property.  Mr. Culbert clarified the question, which was, could the deep hole be used to design the septic system and the answer was no, not if the house will be on there.  Mr. Demers said they haven’t built in the area for forty years because it is wet.  He mentioned the drainage issue and the fact that 3800 feet of road would be going through one 18” pipe.

 

Mr. Danevich said that drainage issues are very important and would also be scheduled for a site walk.  Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board’s site walk be after Conservation’s review. 

 

Mr. Demers added that if there was more drainage, he wouldn’t have a problem, but the fact remains it’s mostly wetlands.

 

Mr. Edward McGonagle, 7 Economou Avenue is concerned with his house being flooded and explained that after a heavy rain, the existing drain practically overflows.  He said that the drain the Town is currently working on has not helped to alleviate the problem.  His other concern is that the road would at some point be finished and traffic would become heavy.

 

Mr. Danevich read a portion of RSA 674.39:A, which discusses voluntary mergers.  Mr. Gowan said they would have to come back before the Board to build the road anyway.

 

Mr. McGonagle said the wetlands and drainage problem have prevented the area from being developed, once that’s solved he is concerned someone else will come in and try to develop the area.

 

The public session was continued downstairs (due to handicapped access) to hear from additional abutters.  All of the Board members were present.

 

Mr. James Cosgro, 5 Economou Avenue said a few of his concerns have already been brought up, but his main concern is more lots being added later on.  He said the Town is putting a drainage ditch in front of his house and Ms. Gullon’s house because of current water problems. He’d like to see an additional drainage ditch going across or under the proposed driveways.  He doesn’t want water in his back yard.

 

Mr. Demers added that the Board of Adjustment was overheard saying let’s prove it, but have the Planning Board take care of it.  Mr. Gowan said the ZBA ruling was regarding frontage and the Planning Board is discussing this going to Conservation.

 

Mr. Lori Gullage, 3 Economou Avenue said she has the same concerns as Mr. Cosgro.

 

The meeting re-convened upstairs.  Mr. Messina remained downstairs for the remainder of the public session for additional public input.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to accept the plans for consideration on ML 7-154,167,168.  Mr. Gowan seconded for discussion.

 

 

Mr. Danevich clarified the summary of points for the motion:

1) Board requests that this go before Conservation at their next available meeting; a site walk for   

    the Planning Board will be scheduled after that meeting occurs;

2) At the Fire Chief’s request, it’s recommended that the plans be updated for a permanent turn- 

                  around cul-de-sac, which meets to his satisfaction before the plan, comes back;

                3) Addition of a cistern, also per Fire Chief’s request;

                4) Relocation of the well within the property, so a permanent easement won’t have to be granted

    for well rights. The new Health ordinance is the 75’ protected well radius must appear on the                             entire parcel.

 

Mr. Culbert also added to the summary that the plans are site specific.

 

Mr. Gowan amended his second.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Gowan) To accept the plans for consideration on ML 7-154,167,168.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Casey-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. McNamara stepped down.

 

MOTION:              (Culbert/Gowan) To accept into consideration a waiver request to WCD.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Casey-Yes;

Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries Mr. McNamara stepped down.

 

MOTION:              (Culbert/Casey) To accept into consideration a waiver request to WCD for ML 7-166,157,153,156,155.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Casey-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. McNamara stepped down.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Casey) To accept the plans for consideration on ML7-166,157,153,156,155.

 

Ms. Casey asked that the same requirements hold for this, as with the motion for ML 7-154,167,168.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Casey-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. McNamara stepped down.

 

ML 7-14 Mr. Joseph Parrinello/21 Clark Circle - Seeking a Special Permit to allow use of Old Lawrence Road for Driveway to Lot 7-14 with Maintenance Agreement for Comment.

 

Ms. Casey informed that Mr. Parinello appeared before the BOS, who in turn remanded this case to the Planning Board for comment, not consideration; per Title 64 674:41 CI.

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

Mr. Greg Michaels, Attorney appeared before the Board on behalf of the Applicant.  He stated that originally this was 2 parcels that were consolidated into 1 lot, which was then subdivided, leaving 28 acres.  He said their plan is to build 1 house on the 28-acre lot.  He informed that Mr. Parrinello pulled a building permit a couple years ago for a house, which would use part of the right-of-way for a driveway.  Mr. Michaels explained this location wasn’t the best place for the house.  He said the desirable location would be the NE corner, 250’ - 350’ from Old Lawrence Road.  He went on to say it’s a class 5 road that connects to a gravel class 6 road which accesses the property.  He informed that the land is good, and there is no wetland encroachment in that area.   Mr. Michaels noted that Mr. Parrinello is agreeable to the statute, which requires a waiver of liability and release form for the class 6 permit.  He summarized to say they would not building a road from Clark Circle, or subdividing the lot.   He said they are asking the Board to recommend to the BOS an allowance to pull a permit for one house, on 28 acres, on Old Lawrence Road.

 

Mr. Culbert asked what has changed from the plan denied four years ago.  Mr. Michaels said back then they were requesting to open the whole road 1200’ to subdivide lots.  Mr. Culbert was curious if they would maintain the road (which is closed to gates and bars) for one building lot.  He also wanted to know if this 28-acre, one building lot would be subdivided in the future.  Mr. Michaels said they aren’t requesting that, however they could always go to the zoning board, but anything could change in the future.

 

Ms. Casey asked when the property was purchased, because it was closed to gates and bars in 1972. 

 

Mr. Joe Parinello, 624 Daniel Webster Highway, Merrimack, said 1989 or 1990.  Ms. Casey clarified that he purchased the property after the Town had closed it.  Mr. Parinello said the Town had opened it to build the elderly housing to be built.  Ms. Casey added the fact that it was only a small section opened, nothing past were he was.  Mr. Michaels commented that the road is class 6 so the gates and bars designation would not stop an individual from accessing their property. Mr. Culbert said they couldn’t access a lot from an unpaved road without road frontage.  Mr. Parinello said the lot has 220’ of paved road frontage.   Ms. Casey clarified the frontage is on Clark.  Mr. Parinello said it was a matter of where you choose to access the lot, which is a legally conforming lot. 

 

Ms. Casey recalled when Mr. Parinello previously appeared before the BOS was a problem with accessing the original house due to a large beaver pond located in the middle of the lot.  Mr. Parinello said there is wetland there, but it could be done.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the road is opened up, and they place the house in the NE corner, would there anything stopping them from also building a house in the original area.  Mr. Michaels clarified that the 28 acres is one residential lot and if they were to build, they would have to go to the ZBA.  Mr. Culbert let it be known that if this is approved, they could come in with a road and subdivide the entire piece without going to the ZBA. 

 

Mr. Gowan said he doesn’t  think a favorable decision would make it more likely, or easier to further develop, and doesn’t  believe this is an incremental step toward subdividing.

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, said Old Lawrence Road was shut down twice by vote at a Town meeting twice.  He said they voted to put gates and bars on in 1971, then later a petition to open that went before the Town meeting was voted down.  He believes since this was a Town meeting vote to put gates and bars, it should be a warrant article going before the voters of the Town to open in any way, shape or form. He then referenced the June 20, 1994 Planning Board Meeting in which ML 7-14 wasn’t approved as a building lot and explained the reasons for denial.

 

Mr. Gordon Brawn, 15 Atwood Road, said he is concerned with the Town’s liability of calling the class 5 road a driveway.  He said it’s supposed to be closed, but the gates and bars were never returned after it was improved.  He brought up the fact that there is Town forest in the area, so if in the future the Town wants to extend Old Lawrence Road to access, how would the applicant be compensated for the driveway.  He believes there are underlying liability, which need to be reviewed.

Ms. Casey said that the RSA 674 covers the Town’s liability.  Mr. Danevich has a notarized copy of the liability waiver on file.  Mr. Brawn asked if it concerns a class 6 road that is actually in use, or does it cover a road which is closed to gates and bars and not an active facility.  Ms. Casey said there aren’t a lot of requests that come like this and the Board at this point only needs to comment to the BOS who will make that decision.

 

Mr. Hennessey read a section of a court case posted on the NH State site. (Attachment #1)

 

Mr. Bob Garneau, 25 Clark Circle, said that the lot with the existing building permit would never be able to be utilized due to the beaver pond, so if he isn’t able to build a house there, he doesn’t have a buildable lot.  He urged the board to not grant permission to build a house.  He feels that if he gets permission for this one house, he’ll come back again and again since this is the third time in five years.  If he can guarantee in writing that if permission is granted there will never be another house built, then the neighbors on Clark Circle wouldn’t have a problem.

 

Mr. Carmine Sarno, 10 Fletcher Drive asked how many of the 28 acres are considered buildable.  Mr. Parinello said all of them.  Then went on to say there were 17 acres, which are, class A and from the stand point of the statutes getting a subdivision in there.  Mr. Sarno asked if the two being shown were part of the 17 acres.  Mr. Parinello answered yes.

 

Mr. Sarno then asked about access points.  Mr. Michaels said access is possible from Clark Circle or Old Lawrence Road.  Mr. Sarno asked if anyone objected to accessing through Clark Circle.  Mr. Parinello said it was a better use of the land to have the house on the other side and that’s where the prospective buyers want it too.

 

Mr. Garneau asked if the buyers would put a deed restriction stating  one house forever.  Mr. Parinello said he is selling the property too and not right to deny someone of his or her property rights.   Mr. Garneau restated that the road is closed and should be left that way.

 

Mr. Mark Nascimento, Haverhill, who signed a purchase and sales agreement for property

said the parcel on Clark Circle is buildable, but there is a large wetland, which makes the rest of the land not accessible.  He said their only intention is to build a house and leave the rest natural.  He feels building off of Old Lawrence Road and not using all of the land would be the best for the Town.

 

Mr. Messina said this is only a request to provide access to the road, not to remove gates and bars.  He added that after review he would recommend the following conditions:

                1) Improved driveway from the existing end of road to the new home;

                2) Adequate fire protection be installed(cistern on the property or fire extinguishers);

                3) Adequate turn-around area.

 

Mr. Culbert reiterated the reasons for the previous denial with the main point being the wetlands, the beaver pond in the and not wishing to speak for Town voters regarding Old Lawrence Road being closed.

 

Mr. Parinello said there is an ancient stone wall that goes across the middle and it is possible to walk across the lot.

 

Mr. Gowan recalled there were concerns regarding the danger to the wetland.  He feels the central issue is if the Town decides in the future to push the road back and access the Town forest.  He said is this is accepted as a driveway, how would that affect making a roadway.

 

Mr. Messina said the Town won’t be relinquishing any property right of way where the roadway exists, and also the driveway construction would have to meet the existing set back criteria as a normal driveway.  Mr. Gowan clarified that Old Lawrence Road wouldn’t become his driveway, but that the driveway would come off of Old Lawrence Road.  Mr. Messina reminded that Mr. Parinello isn’t asking that the road be opened from gates and bars, but to retain the right to pass and re-pass as a property owner.

 

Mr. DeLuca said this is a variation similar to Mammoth Road.  He feels if the vote was to keep the gates and bars up, the case should be presented back before the voters.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to send the BOS input to not open the class 6 road to allow a driveway based on the facts that the Town voted two times to not open.  Mr. Gowan seconded for discussion.

 

Mr. Danevich said along with the letter to BOS recommending to not approve, there should also be a list of conditions in case they decide to grant approval.  He noted the following:

                1) Improve driveway from class 6;

                2) Fire protection be installed;

                3) Turn around with the Fire Chief’s approval in accordance with cul-de-sacs;

                4) Legal review of liability memo;

                5) Site specific.

 

Mr. Culbert agreed and amended his motion to add Mr. Danevich’s suggested conditions.

 

Mr. Gowan amended his second and added that if this road is closed to gates and bars, they should be added.  Ms. Casey took note.

 

MOTION:              (Culbert/Gowan) To send the BOS input to not open the class 6 road to allow a driveway based on the facts that the Town voted two times to not open.

 

ROLLCALL:        Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

                                (6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Ms. Casey abstained.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that he would draft the memo to the BOS.

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates let it be known that his client doesn’t have a problem with the Board members remaining.  He went on to present the proposed 30-lot subdivision for consideration and informed that years ago Rivier College had asked for and received an approval to subdivide.  He said he believes that the Board is concerned with road connections, and explained how they would connect from Mammoth Road to Long View Circle.  Mr. Zohdi said that Heinz has property in the area and provided them with topography.  He said there is a 37-lot subdivision through an apple orchard to Valley Hill Road.  He went on to inform they are working with Mr. Messina, Environmental Services and CLD.  Mr. Zohdi said he has met with the abutters and did a presentation of the plan and explained they would be coming from Mammoth Road to intersect with Long View and don’t propose to go to Holstein.  He went on to say that Pennichuck would supply the water to the whole area by running the water line through Holstein and bring it back to Mammoth Road and loop it if plan is approved. 

 

Katie Suriwick, Wetland Scientist, Environmental Services appeared to present highlights of their report.  She said in general the parcel is two ridges, separated by a very poorly drained wetland.  She went on to describe the types of soil and vegetation.  She briefly described the drainage and habitat features.  Ms. Suriwick said the concern is the wetland impact of connecting Meadow View Road and Long View Circle and would need a wetland application.  She said the recommendation is a 100’ buffer, but the plan has a 50’, so in order to maximize it, leave is as an un-cut area.  She brought up the point that the septic areas already have 100’ set back. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were any lots that had a higher degree of sensitivity with the set back.  Ms. Suriwick noted that most of the lots achieve greater than 100’ buffer, there is only a small area with some concern.

 

Ms. Casey asked where the primary wetland is placed.  Ms. Suriwick explained that it is a long linear and goes the length of the plan and off-site.  Mr. Zohdi noted the blue area on the plan is the areas of wetland impact if the road goes through all the way.  Ms. Casey asked if there would be less impact on the wetland if Meadow View didn’t connect to Long View.  Mr. Zohdi said there wouldn’t be any impact on the wetland based on the supplementary plan.  Ms. Casey asked if the second plan would have less impact.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Ms. Casey and Ms. Suriwick had a brief discussion about the potential rare/endangered species in the area.  Ms. Casey then asked if the WCD should be extended further. Ms. Suriwick only pointed out one area of yellow birch where it wouldn’t go much farther than the 50’.  Mr. Zohdi said they are willing to work with the Board regarding extending buffer.

 

Mr. Paul Konieczka, CLD (Traffic Engineer for Pelham) said they have done a substantial amount of traffic counting when project began in November.  He started with plan two and described how Meadow View connects with an extension of Long View that ended with a cul-de-sac, which would eventually continue to the apple orchard.  He went on to say they have basically segmented off 10-12 blocks with access to Meadow View.  He spoke of the wetlands and the difficulties with cuts and fills. Mr. Konieczka then deferred to plan one and explained that the plan had a cul-de-sac instead of a connection, which made more sense to make a connection over to Holstein.  He said the Long View section of road is long to end in a cul-de-sac even though it’s considered temporary.  He said if it were to continue through it would be beneficial to help the distribution of traffic in all directions.  The Nashua Road demands the most attention, which will be discussed in CLD’s report. He ended by saying that he feels plan one is the better.

 

Mr. Danevich said he still needs time to completely understand the traffic impact study.  He asked if the plan would establish any new cut-throughs, short-cuts or throughways.  Mr. Konieczka said there would be a possible increase, but doesn’t believe it would be substantial.  Mr. Danevich noted that Long View may possibly remain a cul-de-sac and never connect, therefore, the amount of road would be 3600’ to the cul-de-sac.

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed that CLD hasn’t done a detailed review.  He asked what would happen if the connectivity of the road didn’t occur and what the dredge and fill impact would be if the road were elevated.  Mr. Brouillet said if the connection were made the road would be elevated 20-25’ to minimize the impact into the wetland by a 2-1 slope.

 

Ms. Casey asked if plan one was accepted has the traffic flow to Hudson and Nashua been considered.  Mr. Zohdi said the Town has collected money to improve Valley Hill.  Ms. Casey also asked if the traffic study included information regarding the traffic pattern on Long View with a 3600’ cul-de-sac.  Mr. Konieczka said the study hasn’t been completed yet, but will include that information.

 

Mr. Zohdi said they have the topography for the middle section.  He requested a general consensus from the Board and would like the Board to do a site walk.  Mr. Zohdi listed the documents submitted to the Board, which were the drainage study, environmental study and fiscal impact study.  He said they need further guidelines to complete the traffic study.

 

Mr. Danevich asked which plan Mr. Zohdi would recommend given his expertise.  Mr. Zohdi said for the interest of the Town, they could put a cul-de-sac on Holstein, leave the middle section alone with no connection to Long View.  He said that whoever does the subdivision of the Heinz property would add a connection from Valley Hill to  Long View.  He ended by saying it’s up to the Board.

 

Ms. Casey asked Mr. Zohdi to locate the entrance to Muldoon Park.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the water would be avail to Long View.  Mr. Zohdi said the water line they are running will have that capacity. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked which road would have the 25’ fill.  Mr. Zohdi showed that it was in the center section at the wetland.  He wanted it understood that they have to bring the water line from Holstein, but they would drill under the wetland so no dredge and fill would be required.

 

Ms. Casey asked that Pennichuck’s name be added to page 2 of 26.

 

Mr. Mark Jedraszek, 56 Valley Hill Road asked Mr. Zohdi if the connection at Valley Hill would be three roads coming together.  Mr. Zohdi explained about the roads not intersecting at the same point and said there would be a minimum of 125’ between the two  centerlines of the road.

 

Mr. John White, 11 Longview Circle said he is the last house on the cul-de-sac and since the last engineering was done approximately three months ago, a family of beavers has moved in and now approximately 12’ of his property is under water.  He is concerned with the other areas (Heinz andthe apple orchard) becoming available and the traffic impact. 

 

Mr. Daniel Cormier, Longview Circle is very concerned with the cul-de-sac becoming a throughway for traffic coming and going into Nashua.  He spoke of the wetlands and drainage and  feels there will be more impact than is being shown.

 

Mr. Zohdi said if there are any questions or problems with the delineation of the wetlands, then the abutter can hire a soil scientist and challenge Gove Environmental Services themselves.

 

Ms. Sue Boardman, 9 Longview Circle said the abutters privately had an informative meeting with Mr. Zohdi and she believes the plan being presented is different than the one shown to them.  Her recollection is that Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t want to break through the cul-de-sac and it would be the last thing he did.  She said the same area Mr. Zohdi doesn’t want to break through is not suitable for building, the developer cannot put land there.  Ms. Boardman believes that Mr. Zohdi is trying to buy into the conservation side that it wouldn’t be a good thing.  She saw and article in Money Magazine that said Nashua is the fastest growing city in the country for computer science related jobs.  She explained that the Town will have to re-do Jeremy Hill Road because it is not suitable for two-way traffic to be going 30-40 miles per hour, and certainly not with the addition of more vehicles.  She referenced Irene Drive then ended by saying the plan should not be considered until approval is given to cut through.

 

Mr. Culbert said that Irene drive is different than this situation.  He said it goes to a permanent, never to be finished cul-de-sac, which is the different.  He informed that in this case, the cul-de-sac has the ability to go to another road.

 

Ms. Boardman asked Mr. Konieczka if roads had traffic limitations and wanted to know the capacity limit for Jeremy Hill Road.  Mr. Konieczka said that she might be surprised to find out what the capacity is and the number will be provided once it has been researched.

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to clarify the Board’s requirement per the RSA, which is, if an applicant designs a

plan that meets all the local and Town ordinances, or if they have a waiver that is granted, the Board is obligated to approve that plan.  Ms. Boardman asked if there is a cul-de-sac ordinance.  Mr. Danevich said no.  Ms. Boardman said she was told that cul-de-sacs could only be 560’ and believed the cul-de-sac issue should be a moot point.

 

Mr. Zohdi said he hasn’t gone back on his word from the meeting with the abutters.  He explained that if his client doesn’t build on the other side of the wetland or connect to Holstein, yes he’s saved money, but there wouldn’t be money saved if he has to connect to Holstein.  Mr. Zohdi said the plan shown to the abutters is the same plan submitted to the Board.  He said he was asked to come up with an alternate plans which weren’t received very well.  His client isn’t interested in connecting to Long View or to Holstein, they can add two cul-de-sacs and give the neighbors a right-of-way. 

 

Mr. Danevich, to clarify, said not much weight is given to consideration for a developer and his cost to do something.  He said first and foremost is life safety, turning around and connectivity of roads then second is conservation.  He ended by saying the Board is here to protect the Town’s interest, so soliciting the feedback from the input of the public is extremely important.

 

Ms. Boardman had a question regarding the construction vehicles going through the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Zohdi explained that he needs to bring the water line in and can get a temporary permit to build the road.  Ms. Boardman asked what phase that would happen.  Mr. Zohdi said the Board might not go with the plan.  He said maybe the Board would rather have the two cul-de-sacs so he wouldn’t have to go through Ms. Boardman’s road.  Mr. Zohdi said his client’s first phase is to start with Mammoth Road for the first 10 lots.  He told Ms. Boardman he doesn’t think the Board will let the cul-de-sac be cut through before the connection to Mammoth Road.

 

Ms. Helen Munsen, 12 Holstein Drive informed that Holstein is her subdivision, which she still lives on.  She spoke of the traffic coming up from Nashua Road.  She said they don’t need the Board and are doing fine on their own.  She concluded by saying if the cul-de-sacs were eliminated there wouldn’t be anything nice left in Pelham.

 

Ms. Deb Casey, 8 Longview Circle said she understands the desire to connect up roads and have continuity, but as a resident, that is not her reason for living in Pelham.  She feels the 3600’ temporary cul-de-sac doesn’t provide safety to the people on Longview.  She said since the terrain is steep the traffic flow at a quick pace.  Ms. Casey concluded by saying she’d prefer to see a permanent cul-de-sac on Longview and explained to the Board they’re not supposed to be protecting the potential people in the community, but the ones that stand before them today.  She’d like her neighborhood to remain a neighborhood.

 

Ms. Cindy Marchand Fournier, 7 Longview Circle said that during the abutters meeting with Mr. Zohdi a point was brought up to keep Longview a cul-de-sac, and have a reverse cul-de-sac that connected the two with a roadway for emergency vehicle access.  She said that would help the integrity of the cul-de-sac remain.  She feels the plan creates a through way, which will equal Mammoth Road. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said his client would be willing to post a bond for two years, so if the plan doesn’t work out, the Town would have the money.  He said he wouldn’t have a problem if the Board would like a gravel road between two cul-de-sacs.

 

Mr. Mike Stewart, 10 Longview Circle said he would rather see a connection to Mammoth Road before anything is done on Longview Circle. 

 

Mr. Jack Willard, 19 Valley Hill Road believes the traffic count should be done in the summer, not November through the winter.  He feels that the new Exit 2 is much quicker and more and more people will be using the road.

 

Mr. Culbert realizes this is an emotional issue, but his job is to think about the Town, public and people safety of the people here and coming here.  He is against the cul-de-sac because he feels it would cut an access through to Jeremy Hill Road.

 

Mr. Danevich will look to traffic study and several alternatives for connectivity.

 

Mr. DeLuca spoke of when he went through NRPC where the comment was made that he would hear a lot from people about not wanting changes to their neighborhoods.  He said   the door couldn’t be closed to development as long as all the criteria is met.

 

Mr. Gowan wants the people to understand that the Board has to weigh all the concerns.  He said they try to come up with the least painful solution that still allows for the development in some form to take place.  He said since this is a large plan with a lot of impact the answers won’t be easy, but the Board has to come up with some compromise that will address all the issues.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to accept the plan for consideration as presented.  Mr. Gowan seconded for discussion.

 

Mr. Danevich said that during the site walk further input would be provided to Mr. Zohdi.

 

Mr. Gowan said he would like to still keep both options open until CLD has done a deeper analysis. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked (not as part of the motion) if sheet 1 of 26, ML 4-137, 134 could be squared off and add a gravel parking area for Muldoon Park.  Mr. Zohdi said there is liability with that, but doesn’t have a problem adding parking since there is an 800’ frontage.  He suggested that the frontage be decreased to 200’ and the rest of the land be deeded to the Town, as their liability.  Mr. Danevich said it is noted and will be reviewed during the site walk.

 

Ms. Ouellette clarified that the motion includes everything presented.

 

Mr. Zohdi noted the previous chairwoman of Conservation had asked for a trail easement from Mammoth Road to Muldoon Park, which they have added at a minimum of 10” wide.

 

MOTION:              (Culbert/Gowan) To accept the plan for consideration as presented.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes;                                                   Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(5 - 0 -0) The motion carries.  Mr. McNamara and Ms. Casey stepped down.

 

MOTION:              (Culbert/Gowan) To accept for consideration the waiver for wetland crossing.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes;

Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Casey stepped down.

 

ML 4-140 Mountain Orchards Development, LLC/Valley Hill Road - Proposed 36 Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters.

 

The subdivision plan for ML 4-140 was date specified to October 2, 2000.

 

There was a discussion regarding the remaining agenda and whether or not open the next meeting, and all subsequent meetings, with old business first, before new business. 

 

MOTION:              (Casey/Gowan) From this meeting forward old business will be first, before new business.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes

 

                             (6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Danevich abstained.                    

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

ML 10-315 PPS Realty/Route 38 - site Plan Review for proposed expansion of office building with associated parking into the adjoining lot for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates granted an extension, with the understanding the case would be heard on October 2, 2000.

 

ML 3-129 Cynthia Maiocchi/Bush Hill Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Weeks, Cuoco & Cormier Engineering appeared before the Board to present the proposed 2-lot subdivision.  He said they haven’t change the configuration and as the Board requested, they went with a silt fence along the 50’ buffer line.  He said they met with Conservation, who recommended bringing the silt fence up and around the well to have less impact to the wetlands.  He informed they have made that change.  Mr. Weeks said there might be minimal impact to drill the well.

 

Mr. Gowan asked if Mr. Messina had any input. Mr. Messina answered no.

 

Ms. Casey asked where the driveway was.  Mr. Cuoco said it is a dashed line.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:             (Culbert/Gowan) To approve the plan.

 

ROLL CALL:       Mr. Gowan-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes;

Ms. Casey-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 11-28-2 & 28-3 Donald & Joan Fauvel/Spring Street - Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Zohdi, Herbert Associates said he doesn’t believe the Board is over the time limit, but granted an extension anyway, with the understanding the case would be heard on October 2, 2000.

 

 

ML 9-63 Mary Farm Trust/Woodlawn Circle - Proposed 11-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Zohdi, Herbert Associates granted an extension, with the understanding the case would be heard on October 2, 2000.

 

MNUTES REVIEW - August 21, 2000

 

MOTION:              (Gowan/Culbert) To accept the minutes, as amended.

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the dates and agendas for the upcoming meetings.

 

SITE WALK

 

The following parcel was scheduled for a site walk on Saturday, September 23rd at 8:00am.

 

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

 

                ML 7-166,157,153,156,155 Mary Koumides/Theodore Avenue & Economou

                Avenue - Proposed Lot Merger for 1 Buildable Lot for Consideration.

 

                ML 4-140 Mountain Orchards Development, LLC/Valley Hill Road - Proposed                                       36-Lot Subdivision for Consideration.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

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

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:11am.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary