TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
January 4, 2001
The Chairman, Victor Danevich, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:
PRESENT: Victor Danevich, Bill Scanzani, Jeff Gowan, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell, Gordon Graham - Town Counsel
ABSENT: Henry DeLuca, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Michael Soby
Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Ouellette would vote for Henry DeLuca in his absence.
RESIDENTIAL GROWTH LIMITATION ORDINANCE
Mr. Gowan read aloud the proposed Residential Growth Limitation Ordinance (RSA 675:4)
Mr. Danevich asked if the person who submitted the petition was present. No one came forward.
Mr. Gowan asked to review the origin of the petition. Mr. Mitchell said he met with the person he believed submitted the document. He didn’t feel it was appropriate for him to discuss issues with the petitioner, therefore, refused to comment on specific aspects. It was his belief that the person who drafted the ordinance reviewed those from surrounding towns. Mr. Gowan didn’t feel that Pelham was growing any faster than surrounding Towns. He listed a few things the Town had already implemented. Mr. Danevich clarified that Mr. Gowan was referring to the Master Plan, CIP, impact fees and other things the Town had implemented and was continuing to implement. Mr. Scanzani agreed with Mr. Gowan. He then read the statistics from 1990 through 2000, which average 81 homes per year. He had a problem with the petition asking for growth limitation before conducting a study as required by State Statute. Mr. Danevich pointed out the addition permits during the last couple years had dramatically increased. He spoke of the increase of bedrooms and the impact they have on public services, such as schools.
Ms. Casey arrived.
Mr. Scanzani informed that the demographic multipliers had changed dramatically over the years. He then gave examples from the census. He expected that the year 2000 numbers would be approximately 1.5 children per home.
Mr. Danevich passed around a copy of the NRPC fiscal analysis, which reviewed 50 years of growth. He felt it was important to recognize what the Town had implemented for growth control. He referenced specifically RSA 674:21 which described innovative land use control limitations as follows: a) timing incentives, b) phase development, c) intensity and use incentive, d) transfer of development rights, e) plan unit development, f) open space or cluster development, g) impact zoning, h) performance standards and bonds, i) flexible and discretionary zoning, j) environmental characteristic zoning, k) inclusionary zoning, l) accessory dwelling unit standards, m) impact fees. Mr. Danevich then introduced Town Counsel and asked if the proposed ordinance was in conflict with RSA 674:21(h). He wanted clarification of exemptions for parcels, which had already paid an impact fee.
Mr. Gordon Graham, Town Counsel, felt that that the developments that had already had an impact fee assessed against them would be exempt. He felt the ordinance was written well, but noted those studies
were needed for ordinances such as this to pass. Mr. Graham then sited a Supreme Court case from the Town of Barnsted regarding growth control. He said the foundation of a growth ordinance would have to be a thorough study and a limited time frame for the growth ordinance. He said there was a question of the validity of the ordinance and felt it would be difficult to defend.
Mr. Scanzani believed the ordinance needed modifications, and felt that, if adopted, the definitions provided in the proposed document would change current zoning. Mr. Graham agreed, but felt that the concern was the question of the foundation and background of the document. He said the Town had already begun to fulfil the two statutory requirements, which are a Master Plan and CIP. He noted the need for a clear limitation on the duration of the grown plan and a clear annunciation within the plan.
Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Graham would recommend the ordinance. Mr. Graham said he urged caution and felt that a firm foundation and study were needed. He said it would be difficult to endorse at this time.
Mr. Mitchell said he generally agreed strongly with Mr. Graham. His preference was to create a Warrant Article for Town meeting that provided for strong research rather than the submission of a citizen’s petition. Mr. Graham added that he wasn’t familiar with any adopted by petition.
Mr. Danevich clarified that the Planning Department had not received back-up data. Mr. Mitchell answered no.
Mr. Gowan noted that the Master Plan would provide some of the data needed for an ordinance.
Mr. Danevich reiterated that the ordinance was submitted by petition and the Planning Board could not change the wording.
Mr. Dan Dubreuil, Bridge Street, asked if Mr. Danevich would inquire once more if the person who drafted the ordinance was present. Mr. Danevich asked if anyone was present that drafted the ordinance, or if anyone was present who could give any background information. No one came forward. Ms. Casey said she did not see the person who had presented the ordinance to the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Tim Doherty, 29 Wood Road, said he was against the ordinance and felt it would force families to move and build in other Towns.
Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue, asked if the ordinance was a proposal for the Board’s approval before the Town meeting and if it was mandatory to have a three-year study before it became a law. Mr. Danevich said the ordinance was required to go onto the Town ballot because it was a petition signed by at least twenty-five validated signatures. He said there was no requirement for a three-year study. Mr. McManus felt the ordinance would put a moratorium on building. He asked if the impact fee would be eliminated if the ordinance passed. Mr. Danevich answered no. He added that the Planning Board was not allowed to take jurisdiction, but only to either recommend or to not recommend.
Mr. Jay Lynch, representing his family, informed that he and his family were against the ordinance.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, noted that the ordinance was similar to Salem except with different numbers.
Mr. Dubreuil, asked what type of dwellings would the Town be limiting. Mr. Danevich said the ordinance only stated residential dwellings.
Mr. Doug Hirsch, 253 Mammoth Road, asked if the receipt of permits would be like a lottery. Mr. Danevich said if it were to pass, one of the first orders of business would be to adopt an administrative plan.
Mr. McManus felt that the public should be aware of the impact to the Town. Mr. Scanzani felt Mr. McManus had a valid point.
Mr. Bill Mason, representing Valley Hill Land Development confirmed that the petition signatures had been validated and that it was timely filed. Ms. Casey answered yes to both questions.
Mr. Scanzani made a motion that the Planning Board not recommend the petition and those words would be added on the Town ballot. Ms. Casey seconded.
Mr. Gowan said his understanding was that zoning was not a part of the Town deliberative session and wanted to know if the moderator would decide or the RSA had defined. Mr. Gordon said no action could be taken concerning a Warrant Article, it would be up to the moderator. Mr. Gowan suggested that a letter be drafted to the moderator to have all the zoning ordinances discussed to try and eliminate confusion. Mr. Gordon reiterated that no action could be taken. Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell draft a memo to the moderator.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) To add the words to the petition that the Planning Department did not recommend it.
VOTE: (7 - 0 -0) The motion carries.
WETLANDS CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the changes to the Wetlands Conservation District - Article VII; 307-37.
Mr. Danevich informed that the Board would not be taking any action except to either recommend or not recommend.
Mr. Doug Hirsch, 253 Mammoth Road, asked who would determine the size of the vernal pools.
Mr. Mark West, West Environmentals, informed he was a Certified Wetlands Scientist and is a Board Member of Natural Scientists. He said he assisted the Conservation Commission in drafting the document, which they referred to a State Publication as a guideline, but it did not list specific size criteria for vernal pools. He didn’t believe the intention of the ordinance was to protect small areas (such as the size of a bucket of water as discussed at the last meeting). He felt a minimum size should be set at approximately 1,000 to 2,000 square feet in size. He said that 2,000 square feet should protect the majority of areas. Mr. Danevich noted that during site walks in the past 14-months the Board had not encountered any wetlands, which had been incorrectly delineated.
Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a minimum depth of water to be concerned with. Mr. West said typically the vernal pools were approximately two-feet in depth.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman Conservation Commission, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He said the wetlands resupply the water supply into the aquifer. He felt it was the responsibility of the current generation and the Board to protect the water supply of future generations.
Mr. Phil Currier, speaking as a landowner inquired about the intent of line 131. He wanted to know if after a subdivision had been accepted by the Board, and a plan had been recorded with all the streets constructed, but no houses had been built, if the lots would require special exceptions. Mr. Graham said only if they abutted a wetland and if the construction of the home within the wetland was within the buffer zone. Mr. Currier clarified that at the time of approval they met all the requirements and the proposed construction was outside the 50’ buffer. Mr. Gordon said if the lot could be built upon, in a manner that would allow it to be completed outside the buffer zone, than at the time the building permit was pulled, the structure would have to comply, or it would require a special exception. Mr. Currier then spoke of an existing statute, which, when you meet requirements and begin substantial work on the properties and post the bonds, you are then exempt. Mr. Gordon agreed. Mr. Currier confirmed that if there were vested rights, a special exception would not be needed.
Mr. Currier asked if a map had been prepared to show all the parcels, which would be effected by the changes. He said it was calculated to approximately 500 to 1000 properties. Ms. Casey informed that Ms. Alicia Harshfield of the Conservation Commission provided numbers at the last meeting of which acres would be effected. Mr. Currier asked if persons were able to review a tax map or the map of the wetlands presented to find out if they would be effected. Mr. Scanzani answered no. Mr. Danevich said since the last meeting Mr. Currier attended, the number of people had dramatically decreased to only 1%-2% of the total acreage. Mr. Currier felt the Board had a duty to provide information to property owners if they would be effected. Mr. Mitchell said he would make the map available for persons to review. Mr. Danevich said he would obtain a copy for posting onto the website.
Mr. Tim Doherty, 29 Wood Road asked if his property would be effected. Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission answered no.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates asked about grandfathered rights and wanted vested rights explained further. Mr. Graham said if changing the land, investing in the land (not just producing a plan), then rights would be vested. He said in the absence of vesting, the lot would have to comply with the ordinance and if it couldn’t a special exception would have to be obtained. Mr. Zohdi informed that he recently purchased a lot within a subdivision. He believed that if the ordinance passed, he would not be able to put a septic system in. His recollection was that Mr. Zarnowski recommended deleting the last column of the table from line 108, page 3. Mr. Zohdi was upset that the only option available to him was to go before the Supreme Court if a special exception was denied.
Mr. Hal Lynde, Jeremy Hill Road, Selectmen’s Representative for the Conservation Commission believed that a lot of effort had been given to try and exempt existing lots. He felt that exceptions had been spelled out clearly. Mr. Graham explained the difference between special exceptions and variances.
Mr. Andy Cusmitch, 32 Wood Road asked what had been done to notify the public. He also inquired if residents of Massachusetts who own property in Town would be notified. Mr. Danevich answered to say their State would be their vote, so if the persons were qualified residential voters they could have a say. Ms. Casey asked in what respect Mr. Cusmitch felt he would be effected since she also owned property near him. He said there was a stream, which ran under his home and wanted to know how it would effect his ability to restore the home, add-on or to change the septic system. Ms. Casey said the ordinance wouldn’t affect him.
Ms. Holly Saurman, Scenic View Drive clarified if the ordinance would effect a resident or residence. Ms. Casey informed that in Mr. Cusmitch’s case, the lot was not a vacant lot of record, so he wouldn’t be effected. Ms. Saurman believed that many people in Town were unaware of the impact if the ordinance passed. She urged large parcel owners to review the map at the Planning Department. She felt that the public would vote upon the ordinance based on how it effects them. She pointed out that if water quality and preservation were the main issues of the ordinance, than special exceptions shouldn’t be granted, it
should be across the board. Ms. Saurman reviewed the December 18, 2000 meeting in which she asked Mr. Paul Zarnowski if he was requested to provide guidance in crafting the ordinance, and the answer was yes. She went on to say that Mr. Zarnowski informed her that nothing he offered was used in crafting the ordinance. She also informed that Mr. Zarnowski said that the current setbacks were more than adequate to provide safety for water quality. Ms. Saurman reviewed another question she asked at the December 18, 2000 meeting, which was if there were any known wells that had been contaminated by the current 50’ setbacks. She said Mr. Danevich had answered no. She also by said she didn’t feel that the data used to craft the ordinance would be up to the challenge of defending the sure to come lawsuits. She ended by saying she hoped that the Board didn’t add to the Warrant. The Planning Board asked Phil Currier if he would allow some discussion of zoning issues at the delibrative session.
Mr. Currier, speaking as the Town Moderator said he didn’t recall having discussions at the deliberative session, but would allow a few caveats, both pro and con to address the article. He said that non-resident experts would not be allowed. Mr. Danevich brought up the fact that the Health Inspector was not a resident and asked if he would be allowed. Mr. Currier said he would have to consider further. He reiterated that zoning articles would not be allowed to be amended, only discussed.
Mr. George Saurman, Scenic View Drive, asked if the Board had reviewed the draft wetland map in the Planning Department. Mr. Danevich said the Board had seen various versions and overlays. He said it had been prepared from GIS tax maps and asked if the map that Mr. Saurman was referring to excluded Town owned property. Mr. Saurman asked for clarification of properties in-use or otherwise suitable for development. He gave an example if he owned a 40-acre parcel, which had a house within the wetland buffer, and in the future he wanted to subdivide, the lot would now be non-conforming. He wanted to point out that there were more lots effected than a few lots in Town.
Mr. Hirsch said the map should only be used as a tool.
Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission informed that the map was a tool compiled by Nashua Regional Planning based on the best available information they had which consists on a series of overlays beginning with the tax map. She said the prime wetlands information came from studies done by UNH. Mr. Saurman asked which lots were taken into consideration, a one forty-acre lot, or a potential of thirty-lots on a forty-lot in the future. Ms. Harshfield believed that there were equal bounds between what was showing as in development and what potentially could be developed. She said the information was the most accurate form, based on the information available. Mr. Saurman had two maps, one of which showed a large gray area (more than 1%-2%) of potential building lots. Ms. Casey believed that the Town owned property was included in that area. Mr. Danevich said the data was pulled from the NRPC study and was calculated on 5,098 acres based on information in the GIS system. Mr. Saurman felt large parcels land would be directly effected by the ordinance. Mr. Danevich noted that vernal pools could appear or disappear in as little as six months, therefore the Board bases their decisions on data presented at the time of subdivisions. Mr. Saurman felt the people in the Town should be aware of the land to be effected. He didn’t feel that because he hadn’t subdivided his land already that he was out of luck was a viable answer. Mr. Casey reminded him that the Town currently had a wetland buffer. She also noted that the buffer was originally 150’, but the Board took into consideration the landowners in Town, therefore the buffer had been decreased to 100’.
Mr. J.R. Gauthier, Tenney Road, said a year ago he had raised a question and asked to revisit the issue of road salt use. He wanted to know why the setbacks were so important when the single most degrading source for water quality has not been addressed. Ms. Harshfield said it was a continued concern of Conservation and a proposal is in its final stages to be submitted to the Highway Safety Committee. Mr. Gauthier asked why road salt was not the first priority for Conservation. He wanted to know what made Pelham unique for setbacks, when the rest of the state only required a 75’ setback. Ms. Casey read from Nashua Regional Planning’s report, statement 22 (EPA high value wetlands), which stated that 588 acres,
96 of which are protected (16.4% of the total wetlands), the state average is 27%. She said Pelham was the lowest.
Mr. Tim Zelonis, Vassar Drive, wanted clarification for special exceptions. He asked if a person owned a lot and didn’t build on it until after the vote if they would be required to request a special exception. Mr. Graham said it depended on the vested right. Mr. Zelonis then asked if a person bought two lots (prior to the vote in March) which were previously approved with the 50’ buffer, but didn’t intend on building for two years would that person now have to come back for a special exception. Mr. Graham asked if it was a recent subdivision with a constructed road and a couple of houses. Mr. Zelonis answered yes. Mr. Graham informed that would be considered vested rights.
Mr. Culbert noted that line 80, the definition of a vernal pool, did not have a size designation for vernal pools. It was discussed and decided that since no changes could be made except for typographical errors, the information would be contained within the subdivision regulations.
Mr. Culbert then inquired about line 179 and 184. He said the board had decided to change the word ‘or’ to ‘and’. He noted that the sentence should read “...certified wetland scientist and certified soil scientist...”. Ms. Casey agreed. Mr. Graham said it was just a typo.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the map should be made available to the public. He felt that it was misleading. Mr. Danevich felt it should be available. Mr. Graham recommended that a disclaimer be attached to it, which notes that it’s an estimate and only a tool to be used, not a zoning map.
MOTION: (Gowan/Casey) To recommend the ordinance to the voters of Pelham.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. Scanzani voted no.
Mr. Scanzani gave the following reasons for his no vote:
1) approximately 800 homes have been built with the existing setbacks, and there have been no documentations of pollution due to the existing setbacks;
2) proposed ordinance does not grandfather or exempt building lots of record that existed prior to
it’s passage but sets up a cumbersome process for the Board of Adjustment;
3) the special exception conditions may bring undesirable results (such as sheds in front yards) or additions, which would have to be situated differently than otherwise due to the proximity of the wetlands;
4) number of non-conforming lots and the full impact on the lots is unknown;
5) wetland protection provisions could be obtained in a less obtrusive manner going forward with lots of ten or more with open space.
The Board took a fifteen minute recess from approximately 9:45pm - 10:00pm.
ML 2-127 Lois Ives/Bush Hill Road - Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision for Approval
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the 3-Lot subdivision for approval.
Mr. Danevich gave a brief history of the case and explained that there had been a request by the Board to move the septic to the front of the parcel by obtaining an Article K. He then read aloud a memo dated December 19, 2000 from Mr. Paul Zarnowski the Town Health Inspector (ATTACHMENT #1).
Mr. Danevich ended by informing that Mr. Zarnowski recommended keeping the septic in the back of the parcel.
Mr. Zohdi said he would be staying with the original plan and not changing anything. He said the lots complied with subdivision and zoning regulations and asked that final approval could be obtained.
Mr. Mitchell said he submitted concerns in November and December, which had not been addressed by the Board. He reviewed them as follows:
1) clarity of the type of bounds at the front of the parcels;
2) review of the driveway location on ML 2-127-1 due to the proximately of the property line;
3) house location relative to the ledge depth of 2.8’
4) note 6 should be deleted from the word ‘except’ to the end, and that a period be added after the word ‘zone’;
5) stone wall should be noted on the plan (and indicate that removal of the stone wall shall be at a minimum and land owners shall have no right to modify existing walls without Town
Mr. Mitchell further explained his concern of the driveway location for ML 2-127-1 and asked that a larger buffer be given between the property line and the proposed location of the driveway. Mr. Zohdi said the driveway could not be moved at the road, but the rest could be moved to at least 10’-15’ from property line and site specific could be provided. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the Road Agent would verify site distance for approval. He also confirmed that the access point would remain as is, but the rest of the driveway would curve to at least 10’ from the property line.
Mr. Zohdi said the words ‘granite bounds’ would be added to the plans.
Mr. Mitchell reviewed his concern with the house location and with test pit 8 that showed a depth of ledge at 2.8’. Mr. Dave Brouillet, CLD Engineers said the only potential concern he would have is radon.
Mr. Mitchell said the wording with note 6 should be crossed out when a plan doesn’t show a driveway crossing or a road. Mr. Zohdi didn’t object and said it would be corrected.
Mr. Mitchell ended by reiterating his concern with the notation for the stone wall. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have a problem adding the notation. He informed that the wall was located mainly on Town property. Mr. Scanzani inquired if the Town would be allowed to take the stone wall down or move it. Mr. Danevich said he believed on the application it noted minimum disturbance of the stone wall. He asked Mr. Zohdi to also add a minimum disturbance note to the plan. Mr. Zohdi said he would.
There was no public input.
MOTION: (Culbert/Casey) To approve the plan, subject to the following:
1) driveway location moved 10’ from property line (except at road access point) ;
2) page one, note 6 to be deleted from the word ‘except’ to the end and a period to be added after the word ‘zone’;
3) note which states stone wall disturbance at a minimum;
4) granite bounds should be noted.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
ML 8-22 Louise Gaudet/Old Gage Hill Road South - Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision for Approval
Mr. Scanzani had a concern with the abutter’s addresses, specifically PV Limited Trust, Mr. Todd Madden ML 8-18. Mr. Zohdi said the Town's Assessor provides the addresses. There was a brief discussion regarding the Town’s record and Mr. Mitchell left the meeting to review the Assessor’s records. Mr. Culbert said it had been decided in the past that the Board would not verify addresses due to certain liabilities. Mr. Danevich said if the Board was deficient, they were not able to take jurisdiction on the plan. Mr. Scanzani noted that four of the abutter’s certified letters were returned as ‘UAA’ (undeliverable as addressed).
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision. He began by saying that Conservation had signed an application for dredge and fill for minimum impact. He said the State and the Wetland Bureau had already approved. He informed that the half-moon cul-de-sac as previously presented was changed to be out of the WCD and centered on the road as requested. He said in order to minimize the dredge and fill, the road was designed at 1/2%. He ended by saying there was one driveway crossing which was bridged.
Mr. Danevich asked about the slope easement for ML 8-22-5 going from 10 to 30. Mr. Zohdi said the maximum was noted. He said in some areas the slope would be greater only during the time of construction. Mr. Dave Brouillet, CLD Engineering added that any easements could be defined after they occur. He had requested that the slope easements were easily defined and said that’s why the plan was noted as it was. He explained further that the water would drain into the swales. Mr. Scanzani clarified that the road would still be at 1/2%, but the easements would drain off the sides. Mr. Brouillet was satisfied with the 1/2%.
Mr. Mitchell returned to the meeting and informed that the paper copy of the Assessor’s records was correct and the computer was wrong.
Mr. Zohdi phoned Mr. Todd Madden. Once Mr. Madden was on the phone Mr. Danevich reviewed the Board’s concerns. After his conversation with Mr. Madden, Mr. Danevich noted the following: Mr. Madden still owns ML 8-18 (the golf course) and his address should be noted for the files as 74 Old Gage Hill Road (the Town consistently sends information to his previous address of 2 Gordon Avenue). Mr. Madden did not have any concerns with the plan.
Mr. Mitchell felt it was okay to proceed as long as a letter is received from Mr. Madden. He also noted that the Town’s records should be reviewed. Mr. Danevich asked if the Board had jurisdiction on the plan and was able to proceed. Mr. Mitchell answered yes.
Mr. Mitchell made his comments as follows:
1) should the plan go to the fire and police department for review;
2) location of lot setbacks should be noted on the recorded plan/mylar;
3) Conservation concerns relative to lot 6;
4) length of the cul-de-sac.
Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman Conservation Commission, said Conservation didn’t feel that installing a house on lot 6 was practical since the owner also owned the abutting property.
Mr. Brouillet said that the 1/2% would require a waiver. He recommended that a note be added for erosion control as required. Mr. Zohdi didn’t have an objection. He requested that details be submitted for the box culvert. Mr. Zohdi didn’t have an objection.
Mr. Scanzani clarified that the waiver request for the driveway crossing was only for lot 6. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.
Mr. Danevich reiterated that Mr. Brouillet found the waiver request for 1% to 5% acceptable. Mr. Brouillet answered yes.
Mr. Scanzani felt the buildability of lot 6 should be resolved. Mr. Zohdi said he wasn’t requesting a waiver except for the 1/2% road grade and the special permit for the driveway on lot 6. Mr. Danevich said it would be taken into consideration. Mr. Mitchell asked that the test pit be located within the 4,000’ area. Mr. Zohdi said he would shift it.
Mr. Scanzani asked if the debris had been removed from the WCD area and if a core sample was taken. Mr. Zohdi said the Board had asked for water quality, which would be provided after individual building permits were pulled. Mr. Zohdi informed that the barrels contained lights from a circus.
Ms. Casey asked about the house that was going to be demolished and if the Historic Commission had discussed any possibilities. Mr. Zohdi said they had not heard from anyone.
There was no public input.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Casey) To accept the road grade decrease waiver request from 1% to 1/2% for consideration.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver request for the road grade decrease from 1% to 1/2%.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
A motion was made to approve the cul-de-sac length of 900’. Ms. Casey renewed her concern of extending cul-de-sac lengths. Mr. Mitchell noted for clarification the Board was referring to RSA A1(d) section 12.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the cul-de-sac length of 900’.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. Ms. Casey voted no.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the special permit for WCD road crossing.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve to special permit for the driveway crossing on lot 6. Mr. Culbert seconded. Mr. Scanzani noted Conservation’s recommendation and concerns with lot 6. Mr. Zohdi noted the boundary of lot 6. He said he was complying with zoning and subdivision. He noted that he didn’t ask for a dredge and fill permit. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the bridge over the wetland would be privately maintained and then asked how far the septic was from the edge. Mr. Zohdi answered it would be 75’ as required. Mr. Scanzani noted the sensitive nature of the lot and asked that the septic be moved further away from the sensitive area. Mr. Culbert pointed out that the wetland was small. Mr. Zohdi said he only has to show septic and replacement area, which is 750 square feet. Mr. Scanzani noted the sizes of lots 6 and 7 and asked if there was an opportunity to shift the sizes of the lots and do something different. Ms. Casey noted that the wetland would still need to be crossed.
Mr. Danevich said that during the site walk it was concluded that the power line easement had more value than to try and put a driveway on the other side. He noted that the only requirement was to for Mr. Zohdi to obtain a special exception for the driveway crossing.
There was a brief discussion regarding changing the lot sizes for 6 and 7. Mr. Zohdi noted the high and dry areas and said he didn’t have a problem with shifting the lot lines. Mr. Scanzani said he would add to his motion.
Mr. Mitchell expressed his concern with granting the waiver for the subdivision regulations. He said that the written request should list reasons for justifying the granting of the variation. He felt that by granting the cul-de-sac waiver it was giving the applicant justification to apply for a special use permit. Mr. Danevich said there was a cul-de-sac work group led by Mr. Culbert to close some of the loopholes. Mr. Mitchell recommended that waiver requests and motions site which regulation they are referring to. There was a discussion regarding the cul-de-sac regulation, past decisions the Board had made. It was decided to discuss during a Board Work Session.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the special permit for driveway crossing on lot 6.
VOTE: (6 - 1 - 0) the motion carries. Ms. Casey voted no.
Mr. Danevich stated his reasons for his yes vote as follows: a) land-locked; b) because of easement on the other side it would be the only way to access the parcel; c) by increasing the high and dry acreage it satisfies one of the two conditions Conservation noted. Ms. Casey gave her reasons for her no vote as follows: a) Board set itself up to have to grant the permit.
MOTION: (Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan with the following conditions:
1) address change in writing for PV Limited Trust along with a letter from Mr. Madden which states he does not have a problem with the plan;
2) lot line change to increase useable land of lot 6 to a minimum of two acres;
3) building set back annotation on all copies;
4) sheet 12 making note and location as directed by Town Engineer and culvert box detail to be provided;
5) compliance with DES
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
ML 9-136-2 SDK Land Holdings, LLC/May Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Consideration
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the list of abutters. There were no abutters present that Mr. Scanzani didn’t read on his list.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the subdivision for consideration. He informed that the proposed cul-de-sac would not be extended. He informed that the Gove Environmental was the soil and wetland scientists. He felt that all the lots complied with the subdivision and zoning regulations. Mr. Zohdi said that a portion of the property was within the 100-year flood zone. He said the location of the houses could be moved. He said the road design was like May Lane, with a 1% slope. He said they were proposing 24’ pavement with a ditch line. Mr. Zohdi said the question that remained was if the cul-de-sac at the end of May Lane was to remain or not.
Ms. Casey asked about open space. Mr. Danevich said if the Board took jurisdiction this evening it would preempt it from the clause.
Mr. Gowan asked if the road could be brought back to Simpson Road, rather than extending the cul-de-sac. Mr. Zohdi said that Mr. Mendes felt the abutters would rather have a cul-de-sac. He said after the Board took jurisdiction, the Board could discuss with the abutters. Mr. Scanzani asked the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Zohdi said from the beginning of Elsworth to the end of May Lane would be 1150’. Mr. Culbert felt that four roads within 1/2 mile of each other on Simpson Road would be too much.
Mr. Gary Robidoux, 5 River Bend Lane informed that his house was located between the two proposed cul-de-sacs. He said he didn’t have a problem with the cul-de-sacs as long as some privacy was maintained. Mr. Danevich said that during a site walk the Board could review. Mr. Zohdi said that he and Mr. Mendes could work with Mr. Robidoux and possibly add a no-cut zone. Ms. Ouellette asked if the cul-de-sac could be shortened. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. Scanzani asked if a tree buffer could be added. Mr. Robidoux said he currently had pine tree saplings growing as a buffer.
Mr. Mike Bausa, an abutter noted his concern with the speeding on Simpson Road and didn’t feel another intersection would be safe. He was in favor for keeping the road as a cul-de-sac. Ms. Casey asked if he was also in favor with keeping the cul-de-sac on May Lane. Mr. Bausa felt that was an aesthetic issue, but was in favor of making it a straightaway.
Mr. Scanzani said updated data would be provided to Mr. Zohdi for the economic impact.
Mr. Mark Guilday, 14 May Lane said he lived on the cul-de-sac and was in favor of removing it.
Mr. Robidoux asked what the road elevation would be compared to his yard. Mr. Zohdi didn’t know the answer as compared to Mr. Robidoux’s yard, but he informed that it would be lower than it was currently.
Ms. Casey requested that the Board ask for the opportunity to create/preserve a public right-of-way to Beaver Brook for the Park & Recreation Department.
Mr. Mitchell asked for the test pit information. Mr. Zohdi said it would be sent tomorrow. Mr. Mitchell went on to list the following concerns:
1) waiver for length cul-de-sac referencing the reasons and the appropriate section;
2) CLD to review;
3) Fire and Police Chief to review;
4) consider the flexibility OSPD grants, and review aligning the road with Katie Lane and adding
a four-way stop at Simpson Road.
Ms. Casey reiterated her statement regarding preserving a right-of-way access to Beaver Brook.
Mr. Mitchell also asked that Mr. Zohdi review the layout of lot 46 & 47 and consider overlapping back portions into the no-disturbance area. Mr. Zohdi said he would.
Mr. Danevich noted the amount of snow and reserved the right to no conduct a site walk.
Mr. Culbert made a motion to accept the plan for consideration. Ms. Casey seconded. Mr. Gowan was in favor of Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion for OSPD. He then suggested a three-way stop at Katie Lane. Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any speed signs along Simpson Road’s straightaway. Mr. Culbert answered yes.
Mr. Danevich asked that sign-off blocks be added to all pages on the new plans, or they would not be signed.
MOTION: (Culbert/Casey) To accept the plan for consideration.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
ML 3-101 Cecile B. Gauthier Revocable Trust/Tenney Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Consideration
Mr. Scanzani read aloud the list of abutters. There were no abutters present that Mr. Scanzani didn’t read on his list.
Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision.
Mr. Danevich noted that the proposed was before the Board December 12, 2000 and was denied based on the lack of DES information on the property. He asked if Mr. Zohdi had new information on the property. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.
Mr. Zohdi said his client had met with the Planning Director. He said there was an alleged wetland crossing and his client came to an agreement with the New Hampshire Wetland Bureau. Mr. Zohdi noted that two plans were presented. He said that part of the agreement with the New Hampshire Wetland Bureau was that part of ML 3-101-10 would be deeded to the Town as well as giving a 10’ walking easement. Mr. Danevich asked if the DES could negotiate land donation to the Town on behalf of the Town. Ms. Casey said not without approval from the Town. Mr. Danevich asked what would be used as criteria. Ms. Casey said it would go before the Board of Selectmen.
Mr. Gowan felt the previous problem was unknown information.
Mr. Phil Currier, representing Cecile Gauthier Revocable Trust said the donation of property was outside the parcel presented. He informed that the settlement with DES stipulated that neither the Trust nor the Trustee had anything to do with wetland violations. He said the parcel before the Board complied with everything and the settlement with DES just needed to be signed off. Mr. Currier said the only issue was the 10’ right-of-way. Ms. Casey asked when they would appear before the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Currier said they could appear at the next available meeting.
Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Gauthier had brought in a redacted copy of his letter from DES.
Mr. J.R. Gauthier said he retained his own counsel for dealings with DES. He said he had a letter to DES which states the issues recommended from Marianne Tilton. He said the buffer had been extended as much as possible. He said the past summer he had a conversation with the then Chairman of Conservation who was receptive to the land. He said he couldn’t move further with DES until the Planning Board made a decision to accept the buffer and walking trail.
Mr. Mitchell said if a copy of the letter was given for the file, he would recommend that the plans were complete. Mr. Gauthier said his attorney recommended that the Board accept his word that they are working with the DES. He didn’t want to enter the letter into public record. Mr. Mitchell reiterated that all he was asking for was a written letter from the applicant for the file that states they are dealing with the issues. Mr. Danevich said they would accept a hand written letter. Mr. Currier said the Trust could not provide a letter and the settlement was a different entity.
Mr. Gauthier stood before the Board and stated that he had an agreement in principal with the DES which had nothing to do with the plan other than the Trust was willing to extend the no-cut zone and provide an access to a parcel of land that another entity would deed to the Town, should the Board of Selectmen accept it. Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Gauthier write what he just stated for the file.
There was no public input.
Mr. Culbert made a motion to accept the plan for consideration upon receipt of a hand-written letter from Mr. Gauthier, which states the subdivision won’t be effected except for a possible 10’ walking trail. Ms. Casey seconded. Mr. Gowan suggested amending upon accepting the letter describing situation. Mr. Culbert amended his motion. Ms. Casey amended her second.
MOTION: (Culbert/Casey) To accept the plan for consideration upon acceptance of a letter from the applicant.
VOTE: (7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.
Mr. Danevich said the Board would not schedule for a site walk, but the members were requested to drive through Tenney Road.
Ms. Casey questioned the contingency and pointed out that it should be 30%, not 10%. Mr. Dave Brouillet, CLD Engineering said in his opinion the project was started before the contingency amount change direction was given. He said his understanding was the increased contingency was for new bond amounts. Mr. Scanzani said that was incorrect. Mr. Brouillet said he had discussed it with Mr. Mitchell who provided the guidance, which they followed. Mr. Mitchell said the subdivision regulations grant a vesting of rights. Mr. Brouillet clarified by saying that CLD was only providing a recommendation.
Mr. Mitchell said he was submitting as a bond reduction for Irene Drive to the amounts Mr. Brouillet suggested. He said they had been to the site several times and made an agreement, which was faxed to Attorney Richards and Mr. Brouillet. He said they were ready to move forward, the people were very cooperative, the Town was well protected and a cash bond was being held for over $3,000. Mr. Danevich strongly recommended that it be posted and put onto the next meeting (January 16, 2001). The Board agreed. Mr. Mitchell informed he would not be able to attend that meeting.
A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.
The motion was adjourned at approximately 12:20 am.
Charity A. L. Willis