APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING    

April 2, 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, Henry DeLuca (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Alternate Gael Ouellette,  Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternate Richard Foote

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Ouellette would be voting in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

 

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

 

The motion was made and seconded to re-elect Victor Danevich as Chairman.

 

The vote was unanimous (6 - 0 - 0), Victor Danevich will be Chairman.

 

The motion was made and seconded to elect Paddy Culbert as Vice Chairman.  Mr. Danevich informed that he spoke with Mr. Culbert who was receptive to being elected Vice Chairman.

 

The vote was unanimous (6 - 0 - 0), Paddy Culbert will be Vice Chairman.

 

Mr. DeLuca arrived.

 

The motion was made and seconded to re-elect Bill Scanzani as Secretary.

 

The vote was unanimous (6 - 0 - 0), Bill Scanzani will be Secretary.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the following three applications would be a rehearing from the March 7, 2001 meeting which was a postponement of an earlier meeting due to inclement weather.  He said there had been an error in the posting, therefore the entire proceeding would be re-heard.

 

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 plan for approval.  He informed that the plan had been slightly modified and updated to show the Board’s concerns from the March 7, 2001 meeting.  He noted the main concern was extending a ditch line and adding a level spreader.  Mr. Zohdi said the Planning Director had not forwarded any other concerns and the plans complied with all the other comments made at the previous meeting. 

 

Mr. Mitchell reviewed his previous comments.  He said he had crafted conditions for approval to alleviate potential risks of on-site drainage and which would clarify responsibility relative the construction of driveways.  He also noted that a detention basin and easement had been added between lots 47 and 48.  He also noted that the vegetative buffer had been noted at the end of the cul-de-sac. 

 

 

Mr. Danevich clarified what the WCD buffers were.  Mr. Zohdi said they were presenting the original plan, which provided for a 50’ setback except for the area at Beaver Brook, which would be a setback of more than a 50’. 

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the test pits on lots 45 and 47 were now noted in the 4K area.  He said that the date of wetlands soil delineation, note one on sheet 3 of 7, had been added.  He also said that drainage and slope easements, building setbacks and DES subdivision approval had all been added to the plans.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the applicant had met all issues.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Gowan) 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:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Gary Robidoux, 5 River Bend Lane asked if something had been done to maintain privacy for his home since there would be a cul-de-sac in front and behind his house.  Mr. Zohdi said that a no-cut zone had been added as well as agreement to add planting in accordance with recommendations from CLD and the Planning Director.  Mr. Robidoux asked if the abutter behind his property would have a no-cut zone as well.  Mr. Zohdi pointed the no-cut zone out on the plan.  Mr. Robidoux then asked if a cistern would be added.  Mr. Zohdi said per NFPA1, any required water prevention would be under the jurisdiction of the Fire Chief.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the cul-de-sac could be pulled forward, or if there were any other options.  Mr. Zohdi said he would work with the Planning Board, but the plan was drawn up to gain frontage for other lots.   Mr. Lynde discussed the cul-de-sac and how it would be paved.  Mr. Zohdi said the radius would be 62 1/2’ with the hot top being 50’.  Mr. Scanzani said the preference (also of the Fire Chief) was to add a green space in the middle of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that 62 1/2’ was the minimum amount needed for turn around of a fully-loaded pumper.  He also confirmed that the Board preferred to have the green space in the middle of the cul-de-sac. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the waiver request to extend the length of the cul-de-sac from 560’ to 1200’.

 

VOTE:

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

                               

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the plan would come back before the Board if the plan were to be changed from individual wells and for placement of fire hydrants.  Mr. Zohdi said if the plan used a water system it would be placed under the road, which would be deeded to the Town.  He said if the plan went to community water he would send a letter to the Planning Director to be placed on the agenda and present the plan to the Board.  Mr. Danevich said the intention of the Board was to move to Town water wherever available. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the steps to be followed if the plan were to be changed to incorporate community water. 

 

 

 

 

MOTION:

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

1) Cul-de-sac to be a turn-around with a green space in the middle;

2) natural drainage flows will not negatively impact other parcels;

3) subject to Fire Department review for placement of cisterns;

4) driveway installations (for correct slope and drainage) to be reviewed and approved by CLD and the Town Road Agent;

5) site drainage and infield changes to be reviewed and changed by CLD and Planning Director if possible, and if not, the individual lots are to be reviewed by the Planning Board;

6) 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.

7) Mr. Mitchell’s comments, as per ATTACHMENT #1

 

VOTE:

(7 - 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 said the only change was that the road pavement would be 20’ with a green space center island.  He said that DES had now approved the plan.  He noted that the comments from Mr. Mitchell had also been addressed. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the no-cut zone had been expanded, the easement for drainage had been added to the plan, and lot 3-101 now noted that it was not for approval at this time.  He said that by virtue of granting the approval, even though the lot was not buildable, the Board was in essence approving the shape of the lot.  He said the approval did not give the lot support for the owner of the lot to ask for a waiver or variance because they chose not to submit the information now. 

 

Mr. Danevich said Conservation had provided input as follows: 1) reduce road width to 20’; 2) hammerhead design (which the Planning Board and Fire Chief were not in favor of); 3) if not hammerhead design, they asked if the cul-de-sac could be doughnut shaped. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Paul Ciampa, 3 Colonial Drive, wanted to know why the WCD on the plan showed a right angle, since the topography did not show a decrease in elevation for lots 101-15 and 16.  He also noted that the shape of lot  3-101-10 made it land-locked.  He ended by saying the 5.3 acres were wetland and asked the Board to halt any final decision.  He said the owner brought forth the subdivision after the integrity of a beaver damn had been illegally broken.  He said the DES had not made a final ruling and asked the Board to halt until a decision was made because it was a possible mitigation issue.  He then noted that the proposed catch basin at the end of the cul-de-sac was a source of contamination to primary wetland via drainage. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said that per the Town regulations there had to be 50’ from the edge of wetlands and some required 75’ or 100’.  He said the minimum buffer was 50’ and if more of a buffer was provided, it was a bonus.  Mr. Danevich said the Town was grateful for the offer of a larger buffer. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said there had been a negotiated settlement made between the applicant and the DES.  He said there was also a letter received by the Board from the DES regarding the mitigation of the wetlands, which met the requirements of the subdivision.  He said the Board felt comfortable that the issue had been resolved.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that the Board of Selectmen accepted the lot pending the subdivision approval. 

 

Mr. J.R. Gauthier, Tenney Road noted that the subdivision was not creating a piece of land-locked land, that it was currently land-locked.  He asked that Mr. Ciampa’s allegations be removed from record.  He informed that there was no evidence, whatsoever, that he removed a beaver damn.  He said he also didn’t appreciate an abutter trespassing on his land. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to clarify that the parcel was a separate entity and had no bearing on the Board’s acceptance of the plan.  Mr. Mitchell believed that when statements were stricken from record that they are relative to the rules of evidence.  He felt that people could make allegations and statements and didn’t feel that the Planning Board had the legal authority to strike what people say from the record.  Mr. McNamara, being an attorney, agreed.  Mr. Phil Currier of Tallant Road, also an attorney, felt that allegations of any nature, should not have bearing upon the approval of plans. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked the intent of 3-101, which created a lot with frontage that was not buildable.  Mr. Zohdi said they had separated the lot and were not sure where they would go with the lot.  He said they had no plans for the lot, but at the time that they wanted to utilize it, they would have to come back before the Board. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Lynde asked that a response be given to the concern of the drainage at the end of the cul-de-sac going into the wetlands.  Mr. Danevich believed that CLD didn’t anticipate runoff.  Mr. Zohdi said they were creating a detention pond, not an easement.  He said most of the site was sand and gravel.  Mr. Lynde confirmed that they were creating a mitigation process to slow the flow of water into the wetland. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Gowan) To approve the plan with the following conditions:

1) The on-site construction change could be made at 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 concern for wetland and surface;

2) Mr. Mitchell’s comments, as per ATTACHMENT #1;

3) natural drainage flows will not negatively impact other parcels;

4) subject to Fire Department review for placement of cisterns;

5) driveway installation is to be done according to the plan;

6) site drainage and infield changes to be reviewed and changed by CLD and Planning Director if possible, and if not, the individual lots are to be reviewed by the Planning Board;

7) any changes in water service would need to come back before the Board for review.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

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

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There were no abutters present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan for consideration.  He said at the last meeting, it was discussed and decided to add a hammerhead because the owner planned to give a section of the parcel to her daughter.  He said the plan has been revised in accordance with the previous discussion.  Mr. Zohdi noted that all the lots complied with the zoning and subdivision regulations.  He informed that Gove Environmental reviewed the soil.  He said the plan had been submitted to DES and they have yet to receive the subdivision approval from them. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said his only issue was with the creating of the hammerhead.  He preferred to not see the lot approved, and come back before the Board at the time they wish to subdivide.  Mr. Zohdi explained that his client wanted to give the ten-acres to their daughter, so they created the hammerhead so they wouldn’t have to go before the Board of Adjustment.  He explained that they did not want to subdivide the ten acres now.  He said in the future if they decided to subdivide, they would have to come back before the Planning Board. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked what the length of the driveway was.  Mr. Zohdi said it was approximately 450’-500’. 

Mr. Danevich noted the Fire Chief’s concern regarding the length of the driveway and proper turn-around for fire apparatus.  Mr. Zohdi said per NFPA1 was specific and at the point his client applied for their occupancy permit, they had to have the Fire Chief review. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said with the creation of the hammerhead, the stub would become Town owned land and the next issue would be responsibility for maintenance.  Mr. Zohdi said based on consultation with his client, he would put in writing that the Town would not be responsible for plowing or upgrading, it would be the sole responsibility of his client. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked what the extent of the hammerhead would be.  Mr. Zohdi said the width would be approximately 50’and the depth (from the right-of-way) would be approximately 62’.  He said they were proposing 24’ to be paved and they would comply with whatever the Fire Chief’s recommendations were. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt the Town would either own the land along with the responsibility or the Town didn’t own.  He asked what the frontage would be without the stub.  Mr. Zohdi said the hammerhead gave some frontage, but they would still be short approximately 100’.  He asked if it would be sufficient if his client went before the Board of Selectmen and put in writing that they would be responsible.  Mr. Danevich said it could be researched. 

 

Mr. Gowan felt if the plan were created as is, it would probably have less of an impact on the land.  Mr. Danevich said if lot 39 was eliminated, the parcel in question would have more area of frontage.  Mr. Scanzani read a portion of Section A, which noted that all lots should have 200’ continuous frontage on a publicly approved street.  He said the requirements could not be met by private easements or right-of-ways.  Mr. Scanzani recommended not approving lot 1 and take lot 39 lot out to help gain frontage. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said page 2 of 7 was created in accordance with the Board’s recommendations.  He said they would be dedicating an area to the Town, which would be part of the right-of-way system.  He reiterated that his clients would be responsible for maintenance.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. J.R. Gauthier, Tenney Road said the alternative to creating the driveway would be to build a road.  He recommended to his family to have the plan approved with the road and a cul-de-sac so the lots would be available in perpetuity.  He said in the foreseeable future the land would remain as is.  He didn’t feel that taking the lot away was a viable option.  He said they were trying to avoid going before the Board of Adjustment for approval of the stub.  Mr. Gauthier felt the alternative would be to create a 400’ - 500’ cul-de-sac.  He felt it was a shame that a 10-acre piece wasn’t allowed to have 50’ of frontage.  Mr. Danevich said if the Planning Board suggested seeking a variance it would eliminate the stub.  Mr. Scanzani felt that a lot with less than 200’ frontage, in this case, made more sense than the Town taking responsibility for the right-of-way.  Mr. Gauthier asked what would happen if they weren’t able to get the variance.  Mr. Scanzani said they would have to go back to Planning Board. 

 

Mr. DeLuca discussed a previous case in which the main road was used as their 200’ frontage and the driveway (class 6 road) was used for access to all the parcels.  Mr. Danevich said the difference was the plan presented was a class 5 road.  Mr. DeLuca asked if they would have to build a road.  Mr. Danevich answered yes. 

 

Mr. Ian Donaghey, 65 Tenney Road was concerned with the line of sight with the proposed house situated on a hill.  Mr. Zohdi showed the location where the house was approved.  He said as part of an approval condition, they could move the house over 20’. 

 

Mr. Philip Currier, Tallant Road representing Cecile Gauthier Trust, Cel-Rich Realty and Rolling Ridge Development said it was the Planning Board that suggested the stub.  He didn’t feel the Planning Board should be encouraging the creation of lots by a variance.  He also agreed with Mr. Lynde and the fact that if the stub were a Town road, the Town would be responsible for it.  He ended by saying that with six lots there would be money generated for the Town in taxes. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the frontage and size of the lot.  He didn’t feel this case was a bad precedent in meeting the intent of the zoning, based on the size of the lot. 

 

Mr. Mitchell was concerned with the wetland delineation and didn’t see indication on the plan that they were delineated using the criteria of Section 307-6-24.  He said if they had been done, he wanted to have it noted on the plan, as usually noted.  Mr. Zohdi said he would add the notation.  Mr. Mitchell confirmed that the delineation had been done in accordance with the Town’s ordinance. 

 

Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental said the wetlands and soil mapping had been delineated using the Town’s ordinance. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said after reviewing the parcel earlier in the day, the entire area within the 192 topography for ML 3-102-40 was under approximately 1 1/2’ - 2’ of water.  He was concerned with increased drainage with creating individual lots and the potential problems with abutters and drainage onto Tenney Road.  He said once things are built, the Town would have no control.  He suggested that the Board do a site walk. 

 

Mr. Gove said there were some areas of poorly drained soil.  He said the area had been specifically reviewed and numerous holes had been dug and no evidence of hydric soils were found in the area.  He said at certain times during the year there would be soil saturation and ponding on the surface, which may be a drainage issue, but was not there long enough to create a wetland situation. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said there were some problems with a driveway coming off of a hammerheads, such as plowing.  Mr. Zohdi said he would change the locale of the driveway to not come off the hammerhead.  Mr. Danevich said moving the driveway would create an awkward driveway. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said L16 on page 3 of 7 said there would need to be an additional bound set.  Mr. Zohdi said he would correct it.  Mr. Mitchell said he had concerns regarding the hammerhead coming off of Tenney Road.  He asked if the applicant would review 674:40 and the possibility of a paper street with a driveway following the lines of the paper street.  He had a problem with the Board approving plans as presented and questioned what the criteria would be for denial, and if it could ever be denied. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if Mr. Mitchell had a problem with the proposed lot line and 50’ WCD buffer for ML 3-102-18.  He asked if there was anything to be done within ML 3-102-18 to round out the lot.  There was a brief discussion and it was decided to obtain Public Works comments. 

 

Mr. Mitchell brought up the drainage issue again and asked if something could be done.  Mr. Zohdi said he would work with CLD and Mr. Mitchell to correct.  Mr. Zohdi then asked if the Board would accept the hammerhead and grant final approval.  He felt they had complied with the subdivision regulations. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

There was a discussion regarding the time frame of the plan.  Mr. Mitchell said the Board could request an extension from the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. Zohdi said if the Board needed, he would grant an extension.  Mr. Danevich said that CLD still needed to do the engineering.  He asked that Mr. Mitchell review the hammerhead off Partridgeberry and if the corner could be rounded off.  Mr. Zohdi asked if the hammerhead should be removed from the plan before they come back.  Mr. Danevich said he wasn’t convinced either way.  He said the Board still needed to do some research. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the 65-day window.  It was Mr. Mitchell’s belief that the 65-day clock began this evening.

 

ML 10-10 Dutton Road Realty Trust - Dutton Road - Proposed 24-Lot Subdivision for Preliminary Conceptual Review

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There were no abutters present whom did not have their name read.  Mr. James Lane notified the Board that his brother (Richard Lane of ML 10-12 / Brandy Lane) who was called as an abutter had passed away.  He said that the Assessor would be notified. 

 

Mr. George Chadwick, Eric Mitchell & Associates presented the plan for preliminary conceptual review.  He began by saying they were proposing twenty-four lots and he was interested in feedback regarding the plan and the connections to Brandy Lane and the lots in general.  He said he had a building envelope for each lot, which met the setback requirements of the Town.  He pointed out that lot 10 had a fairly good buildable area, but the shape was triangular.  He said the large very poorly drained area in the back of the parcel was contiguous to a large wetland, which they would stay away from.  He said there was one cul-de-sac, which met the 560’ requirement.  Mr. Chadwick asked the Board for guidance regarding configuration of the lots, proximity to the wetlands, the amount of wetlands.  He said they would need seven wetland crossings. 

Mr. Danevich asked if the water was standing or running.  Mr. Chadwick said there was standing water and pointed out the areas of poorly drained soils.  He added that all the crossings could be handled with simple culverts. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the road connections were good.  He then noted the following regarding the plan and said the Board would need more detail:

 

1) where the easement in lot 19 and 20 went;

2) the amount of wetland area would require a conversation with Conservation for review and comment;

3) more information would be needed regarding the turn-around site on the cul-de-sac;

4) drainage and the possible increase toward Dutton Road.

5) lot 10 configuration and possible changes.

 

 

Mr. Chadwick noted there was a piece of property that was not yet developed and there were no plans to develop.  He said there was frontage onto Dutton road, which he would want to discuss further. 

 

Mr. Scanzani added that the plans would probably have to be site specific due to the amount of wetlands. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the line between lot 17 and 18 could be straightened out or eased. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt the wetland crossings would be problematic.  He noted that there weren’t open space areas being given to the Town.  He suggested an alternative of entering from Brandy Lane and providing two cul-de-sacs.  He also felt that consideration should be given to connectivity of roads not being toward wetlands.

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. George Hall, Manager Real Estate Division for Brox Industries showed copies of pages 36 and 37 from the Town tax map.  He said pointed out certain parcels, which in his belief appeared to be landlocked.  He asked that the Board review the accesses to parcels and asked if a connection could be made such as the one to Brandy Lane.  He also noted the location of parcels owned by the Town and asked if either the Board or the applicant could assist in road connections due to the fact that Brox Industries’ parcel was land locked. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted the need to review Town owned properties for possible school locations and Fire Department substations.  Mr. Danevich said the Board could review Town owned parcels and have CLD also review and provide recommendations. 

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road said she was aware of the Town land behind the parcel and felt the poorly drained soil would be a connection to keep the Town land as open space.  Mr. Danevich asked that she put her comments in writing and forward to the Board.  She also suggested keeping the houses up by the cul-de-sac and donating the rest to the Town. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the full 1400’ of the road was almost entirely in WCD.  He said the driveways would require an additional six WCD impacts.  He felt some of the lots were too constrained.  Mr. Danevich said the plan did not meet current zoning without granting the waivers for WCD crossings.  Mr. Mitchell said the state required mitigation.  Mr. Scanzani questioned where the road drainage would go. 

 

Mr. Chadwick said they would review access areas to the Brox properties and felt there would be ways to come up with ways to mitigate.

 

ML 10-323 Lakeside Development c/o Shelly German - 90 Bridge Street - Site Plan Review for Proposed Daycare

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There were no abutters present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Tony Marcott, Bedford Design Consultants representing Lakeside Development presented the plan for consideration.  He said zoning for the parcel was in the business district and the site was 76,500 square feet.  He said they were proposing an addition of approximately 1160 square feet.  He said the use of the site would be a child care facility for approximately 75 students.  Mr. Marcott said there was an existing wetland area behind the site as well as on the South side of the site.  He said they were proposing to add paving so that a loop driveway could be added for dropping students off.  He also noted they would add an additional strip of pavement to add an additional eight parking spaces.  He said the plan had been submitted to DOT for driveway modification, and the driveway permit was currently pending.  He said test pits would be done tomorrow for the location of the leach field.  He said the site would be serviced by a private well and would be a public non-community well, which would require a protection radius of 100’. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the daycare up the road had a failed septic and the owner went through a lot to get a replacement piece.  He said any effort made to keep out of the wetland and the other parcels would save them trouble.  Mr. Marcott said a separate consultant had been hired for the design of the drinking water well.  He noted that the septic would be a new system, which would not utilize any existing system. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were plans to remove the trailer shown on the plan.  Ms. Shelly German of Lakeside Development said the trailer and the debris belonged to the current owner and would be removed.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the septic and perk needed to be done.  Mr. Marcott said the perk test would be done tomorrow and the test pit would be organized with the Health Inspector.  He said the design would meet the Town and state standards.  Mr. Danevich asked if CLD had reviewed.  Mr. Mitchell answered no.  Mr. Danevich said he wanted to ensure that the Fire Chief review the plan for comment.  Mr. Marcott said the Fire Chief had a copy of the plan.  Ms. German said the Fire Chief had walked the site with her and provided her with a list, which would be resubmitted back to him.  She said by Friday she should have a pre-approval. 

 

Mr. Lynde noted that when the plan went before Conservation the concerns were the play area being within 50’ of the wetlands.  He said Conservation had requested plantings (shrubbery) between the wetlands and the playarea, to mitigate the WCD area. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the wire fence would be removed.  Mr. Marcott answered yes. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked if there would be work done to the outside of the structure.  Mr. Marcott said the intent would be to put an addition in the same style as the current house.  Mr. Danevich suggested that they create a drawing of what the conceptual of the building would look like.  He said the Board reviews each parcel to try an improve Route 38. 

 

Mr. Scanzani informed that the state has negotiated with owner's islands on Route 38.  He said they would need state approval, which Mr. Marcott said had been submitted.  Mr. Scanzani said the area in between the two entrances would probably be granite.  He said that he would like to see the parcel conform to what the state was adding for landscaping (i.e. bark mulch).  He said the new septic system would need to comply with the regulations. 

 

Mr. Mitchell commented he would like to see the plan reflect the following:  1) note detailing the disposition of the trailer; 2) striping in the entrance ways (he was concerned with the 24’ area) and if they couldn’t stripe, he requested a copy of the letter from the state saying they couldn’t; 3) existing and proposed lighting (he requested low profile down lighting); 4) landscaping per Section 248-35; 5) CLD to review drainage study. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if there were any traffic concerns or a traffic study.  Mr. Mitchell said the state would have the authority.  Mr. Marcott said the state didn’t list anything as a concern of traffic.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the section of road had a wide enough shoulder on the South side for traffic to get by.  He suggested asking the state for signage noting the daycare entrance.   

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Gowan) To accept the plan for consideration.

 

VOTE:  

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich said CLD would be doing a detailed review to be presented at the May 7, 2001 meeting.

 

ML 1-117 John Clement - Sherburne Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There were no abutters present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan for consideration.  He said there was an exiting house with a barn/garage.  He also noted there were two dug wells, and pointed out the approximate area for the existing system.  He then noted there were two existing driveways and showed that one would not be used.  He noted that one lot had 200’ frontage, and the other had 40’ frontage (which zoning granted a variance for the shortage of frontage / case #2185).  Mr. Zohdi pointed out the proposed house location.  He said they had applied for a highway access permit through the Highway Department because Sherburne Road was a highway.  He said they had also done a driveway profile for the Highway Department in connection with the proposed driveway.  He said they were concerned that none of the drainage from the driveway or road would drain to the highway.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the drainage from Sherburne Road would drain directly into the proposed house.  Mr. Zohdi said a 1/2% slope to deter the drainage uphill.  Mr. Scanzani felt if the driveway was built so the water would run off the sides as it drained down.  He was concerned with the width of the driveway for emergency vehicle passage.  Mr. Danevich reiterated the drainage concerns.  Mr. Zohdi said the full driveway would be designed when they appeared back in front of the Board.  Mr. Lynde said he was concerned with the water running past the house into the neighboring property.  Mr. Danevich said the drainage study would answer that type of question. 

 

Mr. Mitchell had the following comments:  1) drainage; 2) timing for the removal of the swimming pool;

3) waiver from subdivision regulation for length of drive Section 12b:1; 4) confirm receipt of variance from zoning.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked what the distance was from the existing dug well and the pervious surface.  Mr. Zohdi said it was approximately 50’. 

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed receipt of the waiver request for frontage per subdivision regulations Section 12b:1a, which he read aloud. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding what criteria for the variance granted by the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. McNamara (also a Board of Adjustment board member) informed there had been a lot of discussion which ended in a 3 - 2 vote. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if there were any problems with lines of sight.  He also suggested that the Board schedule a site walk. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept the plan for consideration.

 

VOTE:  

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the waiver request to allow a lot with 40’ of frontage along Sherburne Road in accordance with the Board of Adjustment’s vote and variance approval per case #2185.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich said the plan would be date specified to the next meeting May 7, 2001.  The Board discussed scheduling a site walk. 

 

ML 4-180-14 Rolling Stone Development - Benoit Avenue - Proposed 8-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There were no abutters present whom did not have their name read.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan for consideration.  He began by giving a brief history of the parcel.  He said that in the past a previous developer had posted a bond for approximately $40,000, which he believed was still valid and in the Town’s account.  He said they would be completing the parcel, which was approximately 50 acres.  He said they would be adding an additional 900’ of road, which would be a dead end cul-de-sac.  He said they reviewed the USGS and noted the possibility of looping the road back to Mammoth Road.  He ended by noting each lot contained a minimum of one-acre of high and dry, and each lot slope would be less than 25% of the lot to be reviewed by CLD.  He said three treatment swales would be created.

 

Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental noted an issue had arisen regarding a crossing at the end of the cul-de-sac which contained an old stone culvert that water was draining underneath.  He said an excavator had driven across the stone culvert and crushed it so that the water now ran over the top which has now created a wetland.  He said the developer was now proposing a bridge for the flowing water.  Mr. Gove said the delineation at the entrance was an old gravel pit.  He ended by describing the type of soils throughout the proposed subdivision. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a lot of ledge.  Mr. Gove said there weren’t a lot of exposed ledge.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the old stone culvert would be viable if rebuilt.  Mr. Gove answered no.  He said they would have to bridge the area or create a new culvert.  Ms. Ouellette confirmed that a new culvert could be done with minimal disturbance.  Mr. Gove answered yes. 

 

Mr. Zohdi informed that the gas company was in the process of changing a line.  He said they contacted the gas company and showed them the two dug gas line locations so they were able to get the actual gas line elevations.  He said the gas company agreed to lower one of the lines, which they had in writing. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the cul-de-sac could be pulled out of the WCD.  Mr. Zohdi said he would review.  Mr. Danevich asked if the boundary for lots 17 and 18 could follow the gas line easement.  Mr. Zohdi said he would make the change. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked the length of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Zohdi said he would be adding approximately 770’ to the end of the cul-de-sac.  He noted the beginning length of the cul-de-sac was 670’.  Mr. Danevich noted the total length would be approximately 1400’. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the shift in the proposed plan for the cul-de-sac was done within the right-of-way.  He wanted to know if lot 6 needed to be modified.  Mr. Zohdi said currently there was an easement, which would be relinquished when taken out.  He said the neither the lot line or the shape of the lot would have to be modified. 

 

Mr. Mitchell felt he should meet with Mr. Zohdi later to review and discuss the plan.  He also said he was concerned with the replacement of the 20” gasline pipe.  Mr. Zohdi said the gas company would be granted a temporary easement for the work. 

 

Mr. Gowan said he was concerned with the cul-de-sac location.  Mr. Zohdi said he would pull the cul-de-sac out of the WCD.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Pat Genest, Valley Hill Road (ML 4-174) said during the past four years the wetlands had changed and wanted to know if there would be any additional impact.  Mr. Danevich said CLD would review and the Board would conduct a site walk. 

 

Mr. Martin McGuire, 13 Benoit Avenue wanted to know if the area would be loomed and seeded once the temporary cul-de-sac was removed.  Mr. Zohdi said they would work with CLD and the Planning Director.  He said they would also meet with the abutter.  Mr. McGuire was concerned with blasting and asked if it would continue.  Mr. Zohdi said there would be blasting.  Mr. Danevich informed the abutter to make himself known to the Planning Director so that he could be included on the pre-site checklist.  He told the abutter to document his property through pictures as well as water tests prior to blasting.  Mr. McGuire also noted that there were drainage problems and currently there was water bubbling up, out of the ground that had a foul smell.  Mr. Zohdi said they were proposing treatment swales. 

 

Ms. Genest asked where the location of the houses would be and wanted to know if they would be on the wetland.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t believe that the proposed houses would be within the line of site from her property.  He said he would stake the houses for the abutters.  He reiterated that he would pull the cul-de-sac back out of the WCD. 

 

Mr. Gowan asked that the cul-de-sac had a center green space.  Mr. Zohdi said the plan would be revised to show the green area. 

 

Mr. Lynde had a problem with the cul-de-sac being at an 8% slope into the wetlands.  He didn’t see any benefit to the Town by granting a waiver.  He was concerned with the wetland crossing on lot 17 and suggested that the lot be dropped.  He ended by suggesting that the minutes from the prior approval be reviewed. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept the waiver request for consideration for the length of cul-de-sac with the understanding that the proposed extension would be less, based on the proposed to pull the cul-de-sac out of the WCD.

 

VOTE:  

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries.  Mr. Lynde and Mr. Gowan voted no.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:  

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

SITE WALK(S)

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the following would be scheduled for a site walk Saturday, April 7, 2001 at 8:00am.

He also suggested that Mr. Gove attend the site walk for Benoit Avenue.

 

ML 1-117 John Clement - Sherburne Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

 

ML 4-180-14 Rolling Stone Development - Benoit Avenue - Proposed 8-Lot Subdivision

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:30 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary