APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 1, 2001†††

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Jeff Gowan, Bill Scanzani (arrived at approximately 8:40pm), Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Selectmenís Representative Hal Lynde (arrived at approximately 7:50pm), Alternate Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell (arrived at approximately 8:40pm)

 

ABSENT:

 

None.

 

ANNOUNCEMENT

 

Mr. DeLuca thanked the people that participated in Sing For America.He said $4,170 was raised and all of which was donated to the Red Cross.

 

Mr. Gowan arrived.

 

Mr. Danevich announced that Ms. Bousa would be voting for Mr. Scanzani until he arrived.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

ML 1-57 - Jones Farm Road - Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Mr. Mitchell had recommended that the bond be reduced.He then read a memo submitted by CLD (Town Engineer) which also recommended a reduction to $44,000 for completion of road construction.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/Gowan) To reduce the bond amount to $44,000.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 9-63 - Woodlawn Circle - Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Mitchell recommended a reduction in the bond amount.He then read a memo submitted by CLD, which recommended a bond reduction to $43,000 for the completion of construction.

 

Mr. Danevich said he was concerned with the ledge work and asked that it be corrected before the remainder of the bond was released.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/Gowan) To reduce the bond amount to $43,000.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

 

 

RESCHEDULED

 

ML 10-110-361 - V & G Development - Dutton Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision for Submission

 

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud.There were no persons present who did not have their name read.Mr. Danevich noted that all abutters had been notified.

 

Mr. Kurt Meisner, Meisner/Bremm Corporation representing V & G Development, presented the plan to the Board.He said the plan was on two separate parcels of land, with approximately 50-acres.He said the project detailed 4,400 feet of new roadway with the main road being a connection through to Dutton Road via Garland Drive as well as a connecting loop to Dutton Road via a proposed road.He said all lots would be serviced by on-site septic and water supplies.Mr. Meisner described the soil and what tests had been done.He said the DES subdivision application was currently pending.He went on to describe the slopes and noted that there would be four detention basins with treatment swales.He then pointed out the existing wetlands, which had been flagged by Gove Environmental.He said the site had a small wetland crossing of approximately 832 square feet.He said an application for filling the wetland was also with DES.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

Mr. Lynde arrived.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there would only be one WCD crossing.Mr. Meisner answered yes.He said that some of the detention basins were located within the 50í WCD and would require a special permit for those.Ms. Ouellette asked if having the detention swales close to the wetlands would cause any future problems.Mr. Meisner felt the locations would be fine.Ms. Ouellette then asked if the plan had been before Conservation.Mr. Meisner said they had been before Conservation once.

 

Mr. Danevich asked how the plan had changed since the conceptual stage.Mr. Meisner said the plan generally matched the conventional plan viewed by the Board last March.He said that the lots were slightly larger now to meet DESís regulations.

 

Mr. Gowan noted that previously there was preservation of a lot of the trees in the area and asked if there was still preservation.Mr. Meisner said that the lots would still contain apple trees.He pointed out the other wooded areas.Mr. Gowan asked if there were any site distance issues.Mr. Meisner answered no.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the wetland contained on lot 21 would be crossed and wanted to know about the location of the house and the septic.Mr. Meisner answered no and said that the house location had been moved forward.Mr. DeLuca asked if the houses had been staggered since the last meeting to not be directly behind the houses on abutting properties.Mr. Meisner said the proposed houses had been staggered.He said the plan was site general, not site specific.Mr. DeLuca said there was concern from the abutters and asked that consideration be given to the existing homes.He then asked if a site-distance study had been done from Garland Drive entering into the proposed subdivision.Mr. Meisner said a study had been done, but did not have an answer at this point.He believed however, that it would be at least 250í.Mr. DeLuca asked if Garland Drive would be changed if there were a problem with site distance.Mr. Meisner said if needed, they had a couple options.Mr. DeLuca believed that the corner of Birch Lane and Garland Drive would be an issue.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed his list of issues as follows:1) DES review; 2) Conservation review; 3) apple orchard issues and an investigation of arsenic as a pesticide; 4) CLD (Town Engineer) to review; 5) concern with open space and wildlife corridor - working with adjacent parcel regarding wildlife corridor; 6) drainage; 7) traffic study; 8) economic study; 9) lot size calculations; 10) site walk to be scheduled;

11) snow mobile trails and possible long-standing public access issues; 12) site distance; 13) resident petition regarding a buffer for East/West wildlife corridor; 14) building envelopes designation on plan; 15) dredge and fill permits.

 

Mr. Culbert asked that the wetlands be designated in a different color.Mr. Meisner said they would amend the plan.Mr. Culbert then noted that some of the driveways were across from each other and asked that they be changed.He asked if there had been a wetland violation that was being fixed.

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services, said that a site walk had been done on July 16, 2001 with Ms. Margaret Foss.He said they had been instructed in their dredge and fill application to 1) include the new area of dredge and fill, and 2) address the old impacts.He said they had been before Conservation at a time when there wasnít a quorum and asked if it would be acceptable for Mr. Bob Yarmo (Chairman of Conservation) to provide comments if there wasnít a quorum at the next Conservation meeting.Mr. Danevich answered yes.Mr. Culbert asked if an additional environmentalist should review the site due to the sensitive nature.Mr. Danevich said it was a possibility.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the dredge and fill application had been submitted to the Board. He also noted that the environmental impact study had also been submitted to the Board.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Conservation had enough members for a quorum.Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said they would have enough members if the Selectmenís Representative were allowed to vote.He didnít feel that Conservation needed to review the plan again.Mr. Yarmo said his major issue was the dredge and fill, which indicated that 27,587 square feet of WCD impact would occur.He believed that having the infrastructure of the plan in the WCD was unnecessary.He noted that no recommendations were given in the environmental report, which he felt there should be.He ended by saying that he believed there had been an omission in the dredge and fill permit and asked that there be a clarification of the wetlands.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the high water table issue would be reviewed.Mr. Meisner said they had been addressed and noted on the plan.Mr. Danevich said CLD would review.Mr. Lynde asked what the elevation was from one end of the development to the other.Mr. Matt Hamery Engineer, Meisner Bremm, said the elevation was 154í.Mr. Lynde noted that traffic should be reviewed since the subdivision would be used as an access route to the center of town.

 

Mr. Culbert said that the intersection at Garland Drive was a safety issue and should be reviewed carefully.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the wildlife corridor had been reviewed.He explained where the natural corridor was and said that he believed the snowmobiles were using the area as well.Mr. Meisner said they could provide corridor areas.

 

Mr. Danevich asked that CLD review the potential cut-through and the impact on the area.

 

Ms. Bousa asked that CLD review the access to lot 3.She said there was a narrow corridor on the lot.She also noted that the driveway was directly on the property line.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Tim Kennedy, 15 Garland Drive was concerned with the impact/strain this subdivision and the link to the other subdivisions had on the aquifer.He wanted to know if they would all be linked to the same aquifer.

 

Mr. James Wheatley, 34 Birch Lane wanted his motherís (Sandra Wheatley) property line checked.He said she had a plot plan, which noted that she owned 93í from her house to the edge of the property.

Mr. Danevich suggested that Mr. Wheatley contact the Planning Office or Mr. Mitchell.Mr. Meisner said he could provide book and page numbers for reference.

 

Mr. Ken St. John, 12 Island Pond Road said he would like to see a snow mobile trail and wild life corridor overlay on the plan.Mr. Meisner said he would provide one for the next meeting.

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Trail Administrator, Snowmobile Club said there were approximately 200 family members in Town which have accessed the trail in the winter for thirty years.He also noted that the corridor was used heavily by wildlife.He wanted to know how the 200 families would be accommodated.Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Lamoureux work with Mr. Meisner.Mr. Meisner pointed out that there might be issues with trespassing on private property.

 

Mr. Scott Albis, 32 Birch Lane said he had spoken with Mr. Jerry Gagnon of V & G Development at the Planning Department on December 14, 2000.He asked Mr. Gagnon if consideration would be given to an East/West wildlife corridor on the South side of the development, to run directly behind the homes on Birch Lane.Mr. Gagnon said he would provide a buffer zone.Mr. Meisner said he had spoken with Mr. Gagnon and would provide a 40í buffer.Mr. Albis pointed out that the East/West wildlife corridor contained within the proposed subdivision was the only remaining East/West wildlife corridor in Town.He said this corridor connected with the North/South wildlife corridor.He felt if the East/West corridor was not maintained that there would never be an opportunity to connect this section of Town.Mr. Danevich said the East/West corridor had been identified by NRPC and had asked them for a statement about it.

 

Ms. Leslie Kennedy, 15 Garland Drive was concerned with water problems.She said the area in which she lived had never had proper water pressure.She wanted to know why the subdivision had to connect to Garland Drive and felt that the road would essentially be a highway with the added traffic.

 

Ms. Maggy Driscoll, 17 Birch Lane had the same traffic concerns as Ms. Kennedy.

 

Ms. Maryalice Cookinham, 14 Appaloosa also noted her concerns regarding the traffic.She discussed the current problems in the area, especially during the winter months and noted the danger if it were not engineered properly.Ms. Cookinham then discussed the water problems (in basements) and noted her concern with her neighborhood as well as her concern for the new development.She said the land had not changed and the water flowing off the hill was significant.She asked the Board to ensure that the development was done properly so new consumers would not have the same problems that the existing neighborhood had.

 

Mr. Dave Landry, 20 Birch Lane also had concerns with the water problems and wanted to know who would be responsible if the wells in the existing neighborhood started having water level problems.Mr. Danevich said the Town was not in a position to guarantee anything, but would rely on CLD and their calculations as well as any recommendations they may have.Mr. Culbert said if there was a water issue, the Board could require the developer to sink wells and supply an adequate water supply before the lots were sold.He said if the abutters were concerned with running out of water they could have their well capacity and pressure tested so they would have a base line.He said it was, however, a civil issue.Mr. Landry asked that the engineers point out the fill violation by the previous owner.Mr. Gove believed there was a portion of an old snowmobile trail and a fill was put in during fall 2000.

 

Ms. Cookinham asked what the Townís responsibility was to the residents in the existing area if the proposed development took away from their ability to get water.Mr. Gowan said the Boardís responsibility was to do due-diligence and evaluate the plan and balance the landowners right to develop their property against the rights of the other citizens in Town.He said wells were a strange issue and it was difficult to make any guarantees, which was why the Board asked for CLDís opinions and abutter input.He agreed with Mr. Culbert that the abutters should have their wells tested.Ms. Cookinham wanted to know what the Board and the Selectmen reviewed when looking at plans.She wanted to know what was different now with the neighborhood from the past thirty years, since the same problems still exist.Mr. Lynde said that zoning had since added certain enforcements.He asked if there was a way to calculate the drainage and how many wells could be supported.

 

Mr. Mitchell arrived.

 

Mr. Scanzani arrived.

 

Mr. William Chesney, CLD (Townís engineering company) said that the retention of the existing wetlands was virtually the only change in the past thirty years.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the Selectmen did not have jurisdiction to the plan, only the Planning Board did.He said the Selectmenís Representative worked as a liaison with the Selectmen.

 

Ms. Pam Mailloux, 54 Dutton Road said she was concerned with water runoff.She said in the Spring and the Fall there were currently problems and wanted to know what would be done to prevent additional runoff due to the added pavement.She then asked if anything would be done to prevent chemicals from going into the wetlands.She said she was also very concerned about the wildlife and named some of the species she had seen in the area.Mr. Lynde said it would be helpful if Ms. Mailloux could document the types of species she had witnessed and submit them to the Planning Department.

 

Ms. Driscoll asked if a bond would be required in case there were any problems with wells.Mr. Danevich said it would be investigated and answered.

 

Mr. Albis suggested changing the road to run East and West, connecting the Fineman subdivision to try and preserve the wildlife corridor.

 

Ms. Lois Landry, 19 Garland Drive said that the new plan differed from the conceptual plan, which denoted an additional road connecting to Finemanís Field as well as a cul-de-sac.She wanted to know if the new plans set aside that land for an easement or future road.Mr. Danevich answered no.

 

Mr. John James, 30 Birch Lane said initially he was concerned with his view being blocked, but after listening to the other abutters was now very concerned with the water and traffic issues.He believed that there would be major traffic problems in the winter.Ms. Louise Casseras, Traffic Engineer, CLD, stepped forward and said that the types of things CLD reviewed were the numbers and the existing roadway network and traffic patterns.

 

Mr. Mitchell stopped the conversation and gave an explanation of how the hearing should flow.He said each person should stand up and let their concerns be known so that the Board and the engineer could make notes and discuss the issues at the next meeting.Mr. James said that there would be serious accidents and injuries during major snowstorms.

 

Mr. Wheatley discussed the problems with the current road and said cars currently went out of control and ended up in his motherís property.He wanted to know if anything could be done to stop vehicles from driving onto the property.Mr. Danevich asked that he join the Board during the site walk to point out the problems.

 

Mr. Danevich said he would provide Mr. Meisner with the list of issues, first of which would be to send the plan to CLD for review.He then scheduled a site walk for October 13, 2001.

 

Mr. DeLuca said that it had been previously suggested to come down Birch Lane instead of down Garland Drive and wanted to know if it was still being considered.Mr. Danevich said they would review at the site walk.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to the first meeting in November (November 5, 2001).

 

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED

 

ML 4-140 - Valley Hill Road - Design Change for Consideration

 

Mr. McNamara stepped down.Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would be voting for Mr. McNamara.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert & Associates presented the plan to the Board.He informed that he had been on a site walk with CLD (Town engineer), Mr. Danevich, Mr. Culbert, and Ms. Ouellette.He said the continuation of Longview would eventually connect to Valley Hill Road.He said they were previously going to build a portion of a road, which would later connect to other subdivision outlets.Mr. Zohdi was now asking if it were possible to build the subdivision to end in a cul-de-sac since there would be other connecting roads.He reviewed the plan with Fire Chief Fisher, who said the response time would be the same either way.

 

Mr. Danevich said during the site walk Mr. Zohdi proposed a culvert.Mr. Zohdi said in one proposal, there was still a culvert and in the other proposal there was a cross-culvert, which would require a dredge and fill permit.

 

Mr. Danevich said there were very strong concerns with this subdivision, one of which was traffic.He said the reason for the connectivity was to help offset the traffic down Overlook and Valley Hill.He felt the road should still go through.

 

Mr. Lynde said when this plan had previously been reviewed he was the Selectmenís Representative for Conservation.He said Conservation opposed the connection because it would have gone through a significant portion of wetland.He added that the road would come out very close to the outlet from Muldoon Park and felt it would be better to have traffic come down Valley Hill.Mr. Danevich was concerned with plowing and the queuing of traffic in the A.M.He also mentioned the landing zone onto Mammoth Road and felt there would be a concern in the winter.

 

Mr. Scanzani felt the connection would divert traffic from Mammoth Road.He spoke of large parcels still to be developed and said he supported the connection.

 

Ms. Amy Alexander, CLD (Townís engineer) said she understood the residentís concerns, but the bridge would impact a huge wetland.She didnít see the value of the bridge over the sacrifice of the wildlife.Mr. Danevich said CLD had recommended the bridge to the Board.He still felt that road connectivity offset the wetland impact.He asked if lowering the intersection to decrease the grade below 10% was still an option.Mr. Zohdi said they had not reviewed yet and wanted to know the direction of the Board.

 

Mr. Culbert said he would like to see the connection and a culvert.He felt that the slope easement should be reviewed.Mr. Scanzani felt a wall should still be reviewed as well.Mr. Lynde was not in agreement and went on to discuss the traffic flow coming out to Muldoon Park.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked how the traffic count would differ with and without the road.Mr. Danevich said the CLD traffic study included the numbers.Mr. Scanzani felt the different ways traffic could flow toward Mammoth Road would lessen the impact, but the connectivity of Meadowview would increase the traffic flow toward Hudson and felt it would work in the Townís favor.

 

Mr. Culbert said he was in favor of the connection because of the intersection of Valley Hill and Mammoth Road, which was a dangerous intersection.Ms. Ouellette was in favor of the connectivity.Mr. DeLuca said he was concerned with the comments made by Ms. Alexander who felt that the slopes, retaining walls and the impact to the wetland far exceeded the benefit of having the connection.Ms. Alexander was concerned with the future maintenance.Mr. DeLuca was in favor of connectivity, but because of the safety issues with the grading, he was more inclined to be on CLDís side.Mr. Gowan also agreed with CLDís concerns.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Peter McNamara, 12 Jeremy Hill Road said the connectivity design had been created in part because of the concerns of the abutters.He spoke in favor of the connectivity.Mr. McNamara urged the Board to rehear the case and notify the abutters if the Board were to move forward with the changed plans being presented.Mr. Zohdi said the plans were being reviewed for discussion only, and the abutters would be notified if the roads were not going to connect because lot lines would change.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission, felt that the safety issues of the road grade at 12% should be weighed against the environmental issues.He didnít feel that Conservation would approve a dredge and fill permit.He felt if the plans were to be reviewed again, that everything should be looked at, such as open space.He went on to discuss the issues explained at the Conservation meeting.He ended by saying that from a conservation standpoint, the cul-de-sac would be the best option.

 

Mr. Danevich scheduled the parcel for a site walk on October 13, 2001.

 

Mr. Lynde felt that the Highway Department should review.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the following should done: 1) file to be pulled and have CLD review copy of the report they submitted; 2) provide Mr. Lynde with a copy of the CLD report and the environmental impact; 3) pull minutes from the Conservation meeting to review the bridge discussion.

 

Mr. DeLuca wanted to know what the grade would be if the roads were to be connected.Mr. Zohdi said he would provide.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to the first meeting in November (November 5, 2001).(Later in the meeting Mr. Danevich changed the date specification date to October 22, 2001).

 

Mr. Mitchell said there were two issues to be reviewed: 1) if the bridge would be available for state aide;

2) notifying the abutters regarding Longview being used as a construction road for two weeks, which he felt, would be a longer period.

 

Ms. Alexander said the whole area had been secured and reseeded for the winter until construction matters were settled.

 

Mr. McNamara returned to the Board.

 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

 

ML 10-352 - Neil Fineman - Currier Road & Island Pond Road - Proposed 16-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration††† and††† ML 10-352 Phase II - Neil Fineman - Currier Road & Island Pond Road - Proposed 13-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.He informed that since the last meeting, they had designed a four-way intersection and had CLD (Town engineer) review.He wanted to know if there were any other questions.

 

Mr. Mitchell, in detail, reviewed the traffic study for the Board.He felt that the Board should receive additional information about traffic calming measures.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the street names still needed to be updated.Mr. Zohdi said he had spoken with the Fire Chief/Safety Committee who was not satisfied with the three names submitted.He said they would choose a name.Mr. Zohdi said he also discussed a cistern system with the Fire Chief who said that when the plan was approved the location and type of system would be chosen.

 

Mr. Zohdi reviewed the planned intersection of Island Pond Road and Currier Road.He then described the drainage system that he created and reviewed with CLD.

 

Mr. Danevich recapped the issues from the previous meeting as follows: 1) site distance at the intersection of Currier Road/Island Pond Road; 2) three/four-way intersection (four-way intersection was the preferred choice); 3) by straightening the road at the Currier intersection, traffic will be re-routed; 4) culvert from Mr. St. Johnís property.Mr. Zohdi said it could be removed.

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to clarify that the drainage would now be contained on Mr. Finemanís property, which would then feed to the existing culverts on Island Pond Road, and would feed further to a dry swale that got rain only in the event of a fifty-year rainstorm.Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed with Mr. Joe Norkiewicz and Mr. Ken St. John, who were present, that they were satisfied with the changed that had been made to the plan.He then confirmed with Mr. William Chesney, CLD that the drainage was acceptable.Mr. Chesney felt the solution presented was a simple approach.Mr. Zohdi explained what area would be paved.

 

Mr. Lynde said the culvert was draining into a wetland area and wanted to know if diverting it would be appropriate.He also wanted to know if draining toward Dutton Road would be acceptable.Mr. Chesney said it had not been evaluated.Mr. Zohdi said the drainage study was done and submitted to CLD.Mr. Scanzani said the wetland only existed in the Spring and didnít feed lower wetlands.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said he didnít see any wetlands during the site walk and believed it would be dangerous to divert the water without studying the impact.He said that Mr. Zohdiís previous plan showed a wetland, which he researched by going back to the site.He said there was no wetland at the location and felt the reason the residents had a water problem was because the wetlands had been filled which was a violation.He felt the area should be reviewed again, and study all the impacts as well as possibly replace the wetlands.Mr. Danevich said that the Board had learned from Gove Environmental that wetlands could come and go in a period of three months.There was a brief discussion regarding the area and if it had ever been a wetland, which would be reviewed at a later time.

 

Mr. Lynde clarified that the recommendation given to CLD was the four-way stop and not a three-way stop.Ms. Louise Casseres, CLD Traffic Engineer, explained why CLD gave the recommendation they did.She said that CLD still stood by having two, three-way intersections because of the wetland impacts.Mr. Scanzani said the four-way stop was important to this subdivision as well as future subdivisions that would possibly occur across the street.Ms. Bousa wanted to know if a four-way stop warrant had been done and if the criteria had been met for having a four-way stop intersection.She said the Town might have liability issues if the criteria were not met for proper traffic control.Ms. Casseres said it had not been reviewed.Mr. Danevich noted the concern.

 

Mr. Mitchell said he had an issue with blocking the culvert and believed it would require a waiver because the pre- and post-construction drainage amounts would be the same.He then asked for direction as to whether future applicants needed to meet criteria.He agreed with Mr. Yarmo regarding the wetlands issue.Mr. Danevich asked if the problem would be solved if Mr. St. Johnís property was re-delineated for wetland issues.Mr. Mitchell answered no because of the pre- and post-construction drainage issue.He then discussed the problem that could occur if criteria were not met.The Board discussed the current criteria and how the Road Agent handles drainage issues.Mr. Yarmo felt the wetlands (WCD) indicated on the plans should be restored.He suggested discussing the issue with the experts to find out what was initially in the area, and if it was a wetland area that handled the drainage off the field, he believed it should be restored.

 

Mr. Mitchell said his concerns with Phase II were 1) the connection to the V & G Development; 2) Diamond Hill issue (drainage and connection); 3) reconfiguration of a couple of lot lines.

 

Mr. Danevich said that there were no oppositions from Board members at the site walk regarding the connection of Diamond Hill Road.Mr. Zohdi said he had met with the Fire Chief, who was in support of the Diamond Hill connection.Mr. Danevich said there was also an issue with the cul-de-sac.He said that indications were to make it permanent and asked if it could be a round circle, rather than pancake.Mr. Zohdi said he would configure in a circle with vegetation.

 

Mr. Mitchell requested that the lot line for lot 26, 27 and 28 be shifted.Mr. Zohdi said he would alter the lot line to run along the stone wall.Mr. Mitchell said there was also a concern with open space.He said the statutes authorize requests for open space.Mr. Scanzani asked if it were possible for the developers to meet with V & G Development to discuss open land, a wildlife corridor, and possible green space areas.Mr. Danevich was concerned with ball fields in the area due to the addition of fences and lights.He felt that because the area contained a prominent wildlife space that the area should remain in itís natural state.Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Lynde agreed that lights should not be used in a residential area such as this.Mr. Danevich was concerned about the area staying in itís natural vegetative state and wanted to know what restrictions could be placed on the plan so that there were no future problems (such as lights) in the recreation areas.

 

Mr. Lynde spoke of the need for additional fields in Town.Mr. Culbert suggested taking the money that would be given and leave the land in the development in a tax producing state.He said the money received could be used to develop an area in Peabody Forest, which was not producing any taxes.He didnít feel that money or land should be taken from the tax rolls.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if a conservation easement could be granted along the back of the orchard.Mr. Zohdi said they could certainly grant a 50í corridor and said if the abutter did the same, the Town would then have a 100í corridor.

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental said that in literature, it states that a viable wildlife corridor is between 300í - 500í wide.He said that the reason they didnít make a recommendation was because they didnít see anything in the subdivision regulations that would provide for the maintenance of a corridor that wide or of any significance.He said the reason zoning didnít provide for the corridor was because the Town didnít have provisions for open space or cluster, or to have a requirement that significant numbers of lots be removed from a subdivision to maintain a wildlife corridor.Mr. Lynde felt the Town had the right to protect an existing wildlife corridor.Mr. Mitchell read a segment from the Zoning Ordinance and felt the Board should be able to go beyond the zoning ordinance and regulations as long as the reasons could be articulated.There was a brief discussion regarding the regulations and the benefits of open space.†† Mr. Gowan asked that Mr. Zohdi meet with Mr. Mitchell to discuss the possibility of creating a larger wildlife corridor.Mr. Mitchell suggested granting an approval that would allow for open space during the second phase of the development rather than requiring the removal of lots.Mr. DeLuca gave an alternate solution for a wildlife corridor, which would provide for approximately 300í.An abutter further explained how a corridor could be provided for.

 

At this point in the meeting, Mr. Danevich took an administrative break to review the remaining agenda items and reschedule several hearings to a later date due to time constraints. A additional meeting was scheduled for Monday, October 22, 2001.

 

Mr. Danevich changed the date specification for ML 4-140 to October 22, 2001.He reviewed the agenda and date specified the remaining items.

 

Mr. Mitchell said he didnít have any problems with phase one, and that all the concerns had been addressed except for the plugging of the culvert.He went on to discuss phase two and the wildlife corridor.He felt that an ordinance could be written so that the Board didnít have to take away lots.

 

Mr. Lynde objected, from the Townís point of view, to the cul-de-sac contained on the plan for phase one.Mr. Zohdi said he has spoken with the Fire Chief and CLD about the cul-de-sac.Mr. Danevich said the Board had previously made a collective decision to keep the cul-de-sac.Mr. Zohdi said he would grant a 30-day extension for phase two to work with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Gove and Mr. Bob Lamoureux of the Snowmobile Club.He wanted to be clear that he was not withdrawing the application for phase two.

 

Mr. Danevich asked the Board for an opinion regarding the culvert.Mr. Mitchell said if CLD was comfortable with plan than he would be in agreement.There was a consensus from the Board to remove the culvert.Mr. Lynde asked if there were any waivers.Mr. Mitchell said there was a special use permit to cross a wetland for the entrance road as well as a waiver for a driveway crossing.Mr. Lynde wanted to note that the lots had frontage on the opposite side of the wetlands.He said instead of crossing the wetlands, the lots could have been created differently if the road design had been modified.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Ken St. John, 12 Island Pond Road wanted to see a topographical view of the wildlife corridor for this plan, as well as the surrounding properties before the Board approved the plan.He felt that the four-way stop was a good idea, but would rather not have the right-turn lane so the intersection remain small so people would slow down.He appreciated the pipe due to the runoff from Island Pond Road.Mr. St. John said he would like to see his driveway at a 90-degree angle from the road because of traffic flow.Mr. Zohdi said he didnít want to alter private property.He said he would, however, pave the disturbed area at the driveway entrance.

 

Mr. Danevich asked Ms. Casseras (CLD) the reason for having the right-turn lane.Ms. Casseras said they suggested the lane to facilitate major traffic movements.Mr. Danevich would rather calm the traffic flow.Mr. Zohdi said that in the future, if needed, the Board could request a turning lane.There was a consensus from the Board to have a four-way stop.Mr. Lynde and Ms. Bousa were concerned with the four-way stop warrant issue.Ms. Bousa said that stop signs were not traffic calmers and said that there were other ways.She suggested that the Board have a discussion.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said Conservation had an issue with dredge and fills for driveway crossings.He felt there was a road configuration available so the wetlands wouldnít need to be crossed.He brought up the Simpson Mill Road subdivision, which contained an alternative.

 

Mr. Scanzani said that the same issues arose with all plans that contained more than ten lots.He felt that such plans should all be reviewed in the same manner instead of each being reviewed as a new plan.He then explained the importance for Town mapping.He felt that there should be zoning changes.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the Phase One plan subject to: 1) four-way stop being justified by CLD; 2) removal of the drainage pipe and the disturbed area of Mr. St. Johnís property to be filled in.Mr. Danevich reviewed the motion and clarified that the cul-de-sac would remain as drawn, and the four-way-stop would not have turn lanes.†† Mr. DeLuca seconded.He didnít think a four-way stop was needed on Currier from Jericho if there was a stop sign coming out of Cara and a stop on Currier from town.Mr. Gowan discussed the wording

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the Phase One plan with the following conditions: 1) the four-way stop is to meet the criteria, and will not have turn lanes; 2) removal of the drainage pipe and fill in the disturbed area on Mr. St. Johnís property; 3) the cul-de-sac is to remain as drawn.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries.Mr. Lynde voted no.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for Phase Two of the project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

ML 10-10-2 - Ronald & Laureen Smith, Richard & Kathleen Romeo - Dutton Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to October 22, 2001.

 

ML 9-9 - The Louis Fineman Family Trust, Myrtis & Neil Fineman, Pamela M. - Simpson Mill Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to October 22, 2001.

 

ML 12-41 & 43 - Stonepost Village LLC - Spring Street Extension - Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to October 22, 2001.

 

ML 10-310 - Arthur Cerullo - RT. 38 (East side, North of Coburn Rd.) - Site Plan Review for proposed retail store

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

ML 11-96, 97-1 & 92-2 - Fehmel & Dellaire - Campbell Road - Proposed 1-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

ML 8-10 & 15 - Walter & Patricia Kosik - Kosik Terrace/Webster Avenue - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to October 22, 2001.

 

ML 8-136 - MAHELP Housing Limited Partnership c/o Housing Initiatives of NE Corp. - 25 Windham Road - Pelham Terrace - Site Plan Review for proposed addition of 24 units

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

ML 6-185 Robin Road LLC - Honey Lane/Noella Avenue - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

ML 3-137 - Raytheon Company - 50 Bush Hill Road - Site Plan Review for proposed 900 sq. ft. addition to existing building for Submission

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

ML 8-20 & 22-9 Louise Gaudet - Old Gage Hill Road South - Phase II - Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision & Special Permit application for wetland crossing for Submission

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the next pubic hearing for this project would be date specified to November 5, 2001.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The Board reviewed the agenda for the upcoming meetings.It was discussed to have a Board meeting with the Selectmen, Board of Adjustment, School Board and Budget Committee in attendance on Thursday, November 29, 2001, so that CIP could make a presentation.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

Minutes review for August 6, 2001, August 20, 2001, September 6, 2001 and September 17, 2001 were deferred to the October 15, 2001.

 

SITE WALK

 

ML 10-110-361 - V & G Development - Dutton Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision

 

ML 4-140 - Valley Hill Road - Design Change

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

October 22, 2001

 

ML 4-140 - Valley Hill Road - Design Change for Consideration

 

ML 10-10-2 - Ronald & Laureen Smith, Richard & Kathleen Romeo - Dutton Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

ML 9-9 - The Louis Fineman Family Trust, Myrtis & Neil Fineman, Pamela M. - Simpson Mill Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

ML 12-41 & 43 - Stonepost Village LLC - Spring Street Extension - Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

ML 8-10 & 15 - Walter & Patricia Kosik - Kosik Terrace/Webster Avenue - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment

 

 

 

 

 

November 5, 2001

 

ML 10-110-361 - V & G Development - Dutton Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision for Submission

 

ML 10-352 Phase II - Neil Fineman - Currier Road & Island Pond Road - Proposed 13-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

ML 10-310 - Arthur Cerullo - RT. 38 (East side, North of Coburn Rd.) - Site Plan Review for proposed retail store

 

ML 11-96, 97-1 & 97-2 - Fehmel & Dellaire - Campbell Road - Proposed 1-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

ML 8-136 - MAHELP Housing Limited Partnership c/o Housing Initiatives of NE Corp. - 25 Windham Road - Pelham Terrace - Site Plan Review for proposed addition of 24 units

 

ML 6-185 Robin Road LLC - Honey Lane/Noella Avenue - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

ML 3-137 - Raytheon Company - 50 Bush Hill Road - Site Plan Review for proposed 900 sq. ft. addition to existing building for Submission

 

ML 8-20 & 22-9 Louise Gaudet - Old Gage Hill Road South - Phase II - Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision & Special Permit application for wetland crossing for Submission

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:30pm.

 

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

 

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

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