NOT APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 7, 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, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Alternate Gael Ouellette,  Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey (arrived at approximately 7:40pm)

 

ABSENT:

Jeff Gowan, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Michael Soby, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the meeting had been originally scheduled for March 5, 2001, but had been shifted due to inclement weather.   Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Ouellette would be voting in Mr. Gowan’s absence.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

ML 9-136-2 SDK Land Holdings, LLC/May Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the proposed subdivision for approval.  He said the plan had previously been before the board, in which they were requested to meet with the Conservation Commission.  He informed that they had yet to receive Conservation’s input.  Mr. Zohdi believed that all the lots comply with the subdivision and zoning regulations.  He informed that ML 9-136-45, 46,47,48 were site specific.  He asked if he could have latitude for the buildable area if the houses were to be slightly adjusted.  He also noted that all the setbacks had been added to the plan as requested previously by Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Zohdi informed that they had also provided the setbacks if the ‘new’ zoning were to pass which showed that they would be in compliance.  Mr. Zohdi pointed out the lot that had the shifted lot line and pointed out that it had been noted on the presented plan.   He also noted CLD’s concern, which was the addition of a drainage easement for the end of the cul-de-sac, which he said they would be glad to add to the plan.  Mr. Zohdi said he received a copy of the e-mail sent by Mr. Clay Mitchell, which outlined his concerns.  He felt that all the issues Mr. Mitchell noted had been addressed on the plan presented. 

 

Ms. Casey wanted to know why his client was not willing to provide the extra protection of the wetland buffers now, rather than only if the ‘new’ zoning were to pass.  Mr. Zohdi said his client was not willing to do so, they would only if they had to.  Ms. Casey noted that if builders/developers were willing to provide extra protection of their own volition, there would not be a need for additional ordinances.  She noted that her comments were not personal to Mr. Zohdi.

 

Mr. Scanzani pointed out that the issue was how the house, septic and well were situated when they start, not later.  He said it was how the lot was up front which would determine its buildablility in the future.  Mr. Zohdi agreed with Mr. Scanzani, but pointed out that once a lot was made site specific, it couldn’t be done.  He reiterated his earlier request for latitude regarding the site-specific lots.  Mr. Scanzani said he would make a motion to grant latitude. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Casey) To allow applicant to have leeway of the situation of the house, septic systems and wells, on the site specific lots, based on the zoning and proposed zoning changes that occur and that jurisdiction to allow the changes as part of the Planning Director and CLD’s review to ensure that all requirement are met.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich explained that the request for lot 48 was to simply connect a small piece to create an easy boundary.  Mr. Zohdi said the presented plan showed the boundary change. 

 

Mr. Danevich read through Mr. Mitchell’s concerns.  ATTACHMENT #1.  There was a discussion regarding the purpose of not accepting

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To grant the applicant an exception to the requirements of the OSPD based on substantial abutter input relative to the continuation of the same housing types as existed on May Lane previously as well as the fact that those lots before the continuation of the cul-de-sac were done on a conventional design.

 

VOTE:  

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich continued reviewing Mr. Mitchell’s concerns.  Mr. Zohdi informed that on February 27, 2001 a test pit was done on the 4k area and the plan had been revised. 

 

Mr. William McChesney, CLD said that Mr. Dave Brouillet also of CLD had met with Mr. Zohdi and felt that overall the plan met the spirit of the Town’s regulations.  Mr. Danevich read aloud a memo submitted by Mr. Brouillet.  ATTACHMENT #2.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked (in accordance with CLD’s comments) if Mr. Zohdi would have a problem extending the cul-de-sac an additional 100’ and end with a level spreader.  Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t have a problem extending.  Mr. Scanzani asked about species and quantity of vegetation. Mr. Zohdi said he would leave it up to the Board’s discretion.  Mr. Danevich said there would be wording added to the motion. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked what the length of the driveway was for lot 48.  Mr. Zohdi said approximately 250’.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked (per Mr. Mitchell’s concerns) if Mr. Zohdi had a problem maintaining the natural drainage.  Mr. Zohdi answered no. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked (per Mr. Mitchell’s concerns) that utility easements be noted on plans, specifically individual wells and septics to ensure if future changes were made, the plan would be further reviewed by the Board.

 

Mr. Scanzani read a request from Herbert Associates that the permanent cul-de-sac be approved at 1200’. 

 

Ms. Casey renewed her concerns regarding cul-de-sacs lengths being greater than 560’.

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver of cul-de-sac length to be 1200’.

 

VOTE:  

 

(4 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Ms. Casey and Mr. McNamara voted no.

 

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan subject to the following conditions:

1)The plan is to note that the roadside swale is to continue an additional 100’ and end with a     

    level spreader;

2) note should be added for date and type of topography surveyed;

3) screening vegetation to be of the type and quantity as needed for the intent of the   

     Planning Board and as agreed to by the Planning Director.

 

VOTE:  

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ML 3-101 Cecile b. Gauthier Revocable Trust - Tenney Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan for approval.  He informed that the plan complied with the subdivision regulations.  He explained that extra buffers had been added to the plan and said if the ‘new’ zoning were to pass they would still be in compliance.  He said (per CLD’s concerns) if the plan were approved, the topography would be certified and noted on the plan.  He also noted that they had met with CLD and didn’t believe there was a problem with the first 100’ of the road being 3% instead of 2%. 

 

Mr. Danevich read through Conservation’s request as follows: 1) a road width reduction to 20%; 2) end of cul-de-sac to be a hammerhead design; and 3) if cul-de-sac not hammerhead, make it a doughnut.  Mr. Zohdi explained that Windham didn’t have a problem with a 62’ cul-de-sac.  Mr. Culbert asked Mr. J.R. Gauthier of Dutton Road if a pancake cul-de-sac was easier to plow versus a cul-de-sac with a greenspace in the middle.  Mr. Gauthier said his preference was to have the green space, but noted that Fire Chief Fisher preferred to have a pancake.  Mr. Danevich noted that the driveway locations were accessible to emergency vehicles.  Mr. Scanzani said until the cul-de-sac committee had a meeting to discuss alternatives, he would be hesitant to go against the Fire Chief.  Mr. Gauthier said he would be happy to consider the cul-de-sac a construction change.  Mr. Danevich said the preference would be to have a green space in the middle of the cul-de-sac, and would provide guidance in the motion. 

 

Mr. Phil Currier said he was troubled by Conservation’s comments due to the fact that they had not heard their comments until this evening.  He said they would be agreeable to any of their comments. 

 

Mr. Danevich read from Mr. Clay Mitchell’s comments.  ATTACHMENT #1.  Ms. Casey asked if Town access to the property had been duly noted.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Greg Pelletier, Partridgeberry Lane felt the 24’ road should not be reduced.  Mr. Danevich explained that the Cul-de-sac Committee would be reviewing such issues and working with the input from OSP and NRPC.  Mr. Pelletier also felt a 24’ road would open the line of sight for traffic entering Tenney Road. 

 

Mr. McChesney, CLD cautioned the Board about shrinking the road and explained that large trucks tend to drive on the edge, which causes the pavement to deteriorate and crumble.  Additional comments on ATTACHMENT #3.

 

Ms. Ouellette questioned the well radius on ML 3 -101-17.  Mr. Zohdi informed that the radius could extend to the centerline of the road.

 

Mr. Danevich read from Mr. Mitchell’s concerns (Attachment #1) and noted the following: “This approval is conditioned upon the representations of the applicant that lot 3-101 is not currently submitted for approval.  The creation of this lot, therefore, does not imbibe the lot with any approvals or future expectations regarding the buildablity of the lot.  This approval may very likely result in the creation of a non-buildable lot and the applicant has willingly taken such a risk upon itself by submitting curtailed information.  The applicant should not expect that a variance, waiver or future approval will be granted from the Town of Pelham since the resulting parcel and any hardship or difficulty has been taken on through the applicant’s own action and is, therefore, self-inflicted.” 

 

Mr. Zohdi discussed the parcel with his client and wanted to reserve the right to make the lot buildable, until the plan was approved by the Board and accepted by the Board of Selectmen. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Casey) To grant a waiver (per Conservation’s recommendation) to the Subdivision Regulations for width of pavement on the road from 24’ to 20’.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the 50’ easement would be maintained, but the paving would be reduced to 20’.

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Casey) To approve the plan with the following condition:

An on-site construction change may be made to the end of the cul-de-sac to  include a green space in the middle, based on input from the Safety  Committee, along with a letter from the Planning Director of the Board’s concerns for the wetlands and the surface, and that the Board would rather, in this case, see green in the middle.  If the two concur, based on the needs to protect the wetland, the cul-de-sac would be allowed to be constructed.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the Board’s intent was to have a green space in the middle of the cul-de-sac, but would be subject to a field change if there were a strong opposition from the Safety Committee. 

 

Mr. McNamara wanted to ensure that Mr. Mitchell’s concern regarding lot 3-101 was noted.  Mr. Danevich explained that the concern was read into the record in case of any future concern. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

ML 3-102, 102-1, 102-18 Cynthia J. Currier 2000 Revocable Trust - Tenney Road, Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan for consideration.  He explained that his client owned three buildable lots, which they would be combining as one, then subdividing into six lots.  He said Jim Gove of Gove Environmental had done the soil.  He informed that all the lots had proper frontage and lot sizing.  He also informed that the center lot was approximately 12 acres, which in the future they may want to subdivide, but currently there were no plans to.  Mr. Zohdi said that the setbacks were done according to the regulations and if the ‘new’ regulation were voted in, they would still comply. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if a voluntary lot merger had been done.  Mr. Zohdi said it hadn’t been done yet, but would be upon approval of the plan. 

 

Ms. Casey asked if the sixth lot (the 12-acre lot) could be further subdivided.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Ms. Casey inquired further of the intent for the sixth lot, and wanted to know if it would be subdivided into over ten lots in the future.  Her concern was if the intent for the sixth parcel were to subdivided it into more than ten lots in the future, it would fall under different parameters at this time.   Mr. Zohdi said the family’s intention was to give the remaining land to their daughter.  He said if they wanted to create a seventh lot they would have to appear before the Board and create a hammerhead because they would not have 400’ frontage.  Mr. Culbert asked how much frontage was left.  Mr. Zohdi said they would be short approximately 60’-70’ which could be gained by creating the hammerhead. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the land were to be developed if there would be an easement considered for Partridgeberry Lane.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t think it was possible but suggested if subdivided in the future, there could be access through Tenney Road.  Mr. Danevich felt that a second level of egress outward would also provide alternate access for Hickory Hill. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if ML 3-102-39 was part of the subdivision proposal, and wanted to know the possibility of future cul-de-sac off Tenney Road.  He then pointed out on the plan what he was speaking of and suggested the Board withhold lot 39. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the subdivision and the further requirements if OSPD were to pass.

 

Mr. Gauthier asked if the Board would be satisfied if the hammerhead were added between now and the next meeting along with a stipulation that there would be no further development.  Ms. Casey and Mr. Scanzani felt that would be workable.  Mr. Scanzani asked for further explaination of the roll of the hammerhead.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that the hammerhead would be to road specification.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes. 

 

Ms. Casey asked if there were any WCD crossings.  Mr. Zohdi answered no and also informed that he would not place the hammerhead in a WCD area. 

 

Mr. Currier asked if the hammerhead would require a waiver.  Mr. Zohdi said in the past, the Board had the jurisdiction to grant a waiver.  Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel a waiver needed. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Greg Pelletier, Partridgeberry Lane said he didn’t have a problem with the plan presented but still had questions regarding the hammerhead.  Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan with Mr. Pelletier and further explained the hammerhead. 

 

There was no further public input.

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the Board was in the process of refining the procedure of how plans were reviewed by Conservation, Safety and any other holder of interest.  He said there would be a policy set that all plans were to be reviewed by Conservation for review and comment.  He said it would be at Mr. Zohdi’s discretion if he chose to attend the meeting, but would be in his best interest if there were WCD crossings, or dredge and fill permits, etc. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

February 8, 2001

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert)  To approve the minutes as amended

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Ms. Casey abstained.

 

February 22, 2001

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert)   To approve the minutes as amended.

 

VOTE:  

 

(4 - 0 - 2) The motion carries. Mr. Danevich and Ms. Casey abstained.

 

Ms. Casey informed that the Board of Selectmen updated the Health Ordinance on the wells and included in the update was the radioneuclids including the gross scan alpha and uranium, which went into effect approximately a week ago.

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated a note in the Town Report, which encouraged residents to have their wells tested. 

 

Mr. Danevich also noted that as a part of the 2nd grade pen program, the Board would hold a special meeting (on a weekday meeting) or include the 2nd graders for the opening portion of a work session.  The date is still to be determined. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 9:30 pm.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

 

 

Charity A. L. Willis

Recording Secretary