APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 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, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Gael Ouellette,  Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde (arrived at approximately 8:20 pm), Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

Jeff Gowan, Alternate Richard Foote

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Ms. Ouellette would vote for Mr. Gowan in his absence.

 

OLD BUSINESS 

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the plan for approval.  He said at the last meeting the Board had asked for some clarification with the driveway.  He said the entire driveway had been profiled, and they now have calming and drainage.  He said there were no issues with the site distance. 

 

Mr. Mitchell reviewed his comments as follows: 1) anything discovered by the Board during the site walk should be discussed, which as he recalled, was the site distance and Mr. Zohdi had already discussed; 2) sheet drainage from the driveway during and after construction do not negatively impact the existing house or the abutting lot to the east; 3) given that the file had received a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the intent is that the Regulations conform to the Zoning, the variance should be recognized and a waiver should be granted to Section 12b:1a for frontage; and 4) Fire Department has no concerns.  He ended by saying, that pending the issues he gave, the application was sufficient. 

 

Mr. Culbert had a concern that the dug well would be protected from construction by using something, such as hay bails or silt fences.  Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have a problem adding hay bailing or silt fencing during construction of the driveway. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver request for frontage (Section 12b:1a), based on the variance granted.

 

VOTE:  

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan with the condition that silt fencing be added and that drainage will not have a negative impact.

 

VOTE:  

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

                 

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the plan for approval.  He gave a brief history of the plan.  He said there were concerns with a wet area, which had since been determined to be hydric A & B soils.  He said he visited the site today and there was no water.  He informed that the wetland was not part of (or counted) as the lot sizing.  He said there was also concern with plowing the hammer head design.  He informed that if the plan were approved, his clients would go before the Selectmen to inform that the Town would not be liable.  He said if they weren’t satisfied, then he would combine lot 42 with the larger (10-acre) lot.  He also informed that the house on top of the knoll (ML 3-102-1) had been moved, based on an abutter’s concern. 

 

Mr. Mitchell was concerned that there was nothing, which legally restricted the placement of the house off the knoll.  He urged the Board to have substantial justification for requesting a building envelope other than simply within the boundaries of the setback.  The Board discussed the possible use of site specific for the placement of the house.  Mr. Mitchell didn’t feel that site specific would be enough for limitation.  He wanted to know if the applicant was agreeing to a limitation of house location.  Mr. Danevich was fine with giving latitude to the developer for placement of the house.  Mr. Mitchell felt if the Board was to move forward with dictating the location of a house they should seek Legal Counsel’s opinion.  The Board members didn’t feel that requesting site specific was necessary.  To clarify, Mr. Mitchell said the plan showed the house locale, but a buyer could actually place the house wherever they wanted, even on the knoll.  Mr. Danevich answered yes and noted that the septic system had to remain as noted on the plan.  Mr. Mitchell wanted to ensure that the abutter (with the concern of the house on the knoll) understood that the Board was not approving the lot showing that the house would not be placed on the knoll.  The abutter was not present. 

 

Mr. Mitchell read through his list of concerns as follows: 1) placement of the house on ML 3-102-1 in which the Board had not dictated the locale of the house; 2) end of Partridgeberry Road and if it would continue being a hammer head or cul-de-sac half (the Safety Committee preferred cul-de-sac); 3) resolution of frontage for the back lot (ML 3-102); and 4) roadside drainage and reconfiguration of the lots alongside Tenney Road.  Mr. Danevich said there was concern regarding the hammerhead.  He said that Ms. Sandy Pelletier, an abutter, had a concern with plowing and suggested rounding the corner so her driveway would not be blocked.  Mr. Zohdi wanted to clarify the Board’s intent.  Mr. Danevich drew out on the plan the proposed intent.  Mr. Zohdi did not have a problem with the suggestion. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to ensure there was no intent to go into the WCD.  Mr. Zohdi answered no. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked for Ms. Pelletier’s comments.  Ms. Sandy Pelletier, 10 Partridgeberry Lane asked if they would be curving around to Tall Oaks. Mr. Danevich said there would be no disturbance to her frontage. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the frontage for the back lot and proposed giving up ML 3-102-42.  Mr. Zohdi said he would combine the two lots to alleviate the hammerhead.  Mr. Phil Currier clarified which lot was being discussed.  Mr. Zohdi sketched on the presented plan the deletion of one of the lots.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that the subdivision would still be six lots, and there would only be six houses, not seven.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Danevich noted that the change satisfied the frontage issue and wanted to confirm that the change was voluntary.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes and said that the plan would be updated. 

 

Mr. Zohdi discussed the roadside drainage and said it would be reviewed with CLD and the Road Agent.  

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud the concerns submitted by the Conservation Commission as follows:  1) road erosion control protection at the edge of wetland; 2) ML 3-102-18 & 39 be site specific; 3) WCD signage be installed along wetland buffer.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t have an objection to moving the silt fencing from the edge of wetland to the edge of WCD.  He asked the Board not to request site specific so he would have latitude on the house locations.  Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said site specific was requested so the use of the buffer would not be improperly used.  Mr. Culbert felt a no-cut zone would protect the wetland. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there was standing water.  Mr. Zohdi said the soil was hydric A & B and when inspected earlier in the day, there was no water. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the distances for the WCD signage.  It was decided to request signage every 100’ between ML 3-102-18 & 39. 

 

Mr. Lynde arrived.

 

There was no public input. 

 

The Board once again discussed the issue of requesting site specific and decided they would not request it of the applicant.  The Board then discussed WCD areas, owner’s rights and no-cut zones.  The question was asked if WCD and no-cut zones were recorded on the deed.  The understanding was that the deed did not note WCD areas and no-cut zones, but the actual subdivision plans did (and were recorded at the registry of deeds).  Mr. Scanzani explained the process of which plans were signed off on and recorded. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the concerns with the plan as follows: 1) condition of lot 3-102 would be eliminated or combined with abutting lot; 2) construction detail for CLD to review for drainage, specifically with Tenney Road with respect to driveway and culvert placement; 3) accept recommendation of Conservation to place WCD signage every 100’ along ML 3-102-18 & 39; and 4) round out Partridgeberry. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the plan with the following conditions:

1) Lot 3-102 would be eliminated or combined with abutting lot;

2) construction detail for CLD to review for drainage, specifically with Tenney Road with respect to driveway and culvert placement;

3) accept recommendation of Conservation to place WCD signage every 100’ along ML 3-102-18 & 39;

4) round out Partridgeberry.

 

VOTE:  

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich noted the concerns, which arose during the site walk, such as  a stump dump, sinkholes and palates.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the plan for approval.  He gave a brief history of the plan and informed that his company had not been the original one hired.  He said the previous company has posted a bond, started construction, but had not finished the work.  He said his client would clean the area (as well as the abutter’s property) as a condition of approval.  Mr. Zohdi said there had been a concern regarding the treatment suel.  He said there was no longer a treatment suel in the area and the plan had been revised and submitted to Mr. Mitchell.  He said  the treatment suel at the end of the cul-de-sac was also a problem, but had since been moved from the prime wetland area.  He also noted that no portion of the cul-de-sac would be in the WCD.  He said the grade had been changed from 8% to 7% going into the cul-de-sac, which was a 150’ area and the remaining area would be between 4%-5%.  Mr. Zohdi said the remaining issue was the adjacency to prime wetland.  He informed that the plan

 

 

 

 

had been forwarded to Dr. Richardson at the New Hampshire Wetland Bureau who would walk the site May 18, 2001.  Mr. Zohdi ended by informing that 18.029 acres would be deeded to the Town for conservation land and the plan had been submitted to Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Danevich and the Board graciously appreciated and were very pleased with the voluntary donation of land.  He asked that Mr. Lynde bring to the Selectmen for review. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said there had also been discussion regarding the driveway design, which CLD had requested a 20-scale plan.  He explained the driveway scaling. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the Fire Chief had concerns with the width of the driveway as well fire apparatus and possibly providing alternate fire protection.  Mr. Zohdi said he would comply with the Fire Chief’s requests as per NFP1 and would change the width from 10’ to 18’ upon approval. 

 

Mr. Mitchell first wanted to clarify that he did not require that the applicant donate land.  He then noted his concerns as follows:  1) felt the plan was a healthy mitigation plan; 2) he asked that CLD note their concerns if any; 3) asked that the width of driveway be carefully reviewed as to not have a detrimental impact on the wetland; 4) Fire Department had provided a proposed location for a cistern, which he would discuss with Mr. Zohdi; 5) there would need to be a special permit granted for the crossing for the last lot. 

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental discussed the plan.  He discussed the fact that the prime wetland line shown on the plan did not go along the boundary because of the way the line was represented on the tax map.  Mr. Danevich noted the difference between the ‘paper’ edge of wet and what may actually be contained on a lot due to wilderness changes.  He said the legal boundary was not drawn by actual observation, but was drawn by what was filed with the state at the time the wetland was delineated.   Mr. Gove answered yes.  He said that Dr. Richardson wanted him to specifically note was that adjacency at the Wetlands Bureau is not determined by a certain distance back from the prime wetland, which is why Dr. Richardson wanted to review personally.  Mr. Gove explained the way Dr. Richardson would review, which would be based on what was viewed (and topography), not by a specific number.  Mr. Gove ended by saying when the area was originally flagged there had been a stone culvert that separated the two areas, but the culvert had been crushed so there was nothing separating the areas and there now is a flowing stream. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were any recommendations regarding the driveway crossing.  Mr. Gove didn’t have a preference for crossing.  His concern was making certain there wouldn’t be any detrimental run-off effects due to construction. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the driveway would have runoff.  Mr. Gove said the driveway could be constructed with water bars to stop significant run-off. 

 

Mr. Danevich felt there were too many issues still unresolved and suggested date specifying the plan to the next Board meeting June 4, 2001.  He also requested that CLD provide their report before the next hearing of the plan.

 

Mr. Dave Brouillett, CLD, said that he had been provided with revised plans as well as revised drainage calculations which both needed to be reviewed.  He said some of CLD’s issues included the treatment swale at the end of the cul-de-sac and realigning the outlet to it and the stump dump which would be tested by doing test pits.  He said he would prepare a final report for the Board to review. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Danevich read the following list of concerns:

 

1) awaiting input from Dr. Richardson;

2) written correspondence/input from the abutter regarding the stump dump removal and procedure (Mr. Brouillet suggested that the document include agreement for encroachment and restoration of the abutter’s land) ;

3) final comment from Conservation;

4) compliance with the Fire Chief’s comments;

5) removal of buried materials;

6) sufficient controls for the runoff;

7) Town engineering report;

8) stump dump test pits;

9) bond review.

 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be date specified to June 4, 2001 Planning Board meeting.

 

Mr. Zohdi invited the Board to join him during the site walk with Dr. Richardson on May 18, 2001. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the lot with the 400’ driveway could be re-configured in a way so that a shortened driveway could be put in.  Mr. Zohdi said he could relocate the house and pump the sewer line up.  He said he would work with the Board and Conservation.  He said the driveway could be shortened to 200’ if he were granted a temporary WCD crossing to put a system in. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

The plan was date specified to the Board’s June 4, 2001 meeting. 

 

NEW BUSINESS      

 

ML 10-323/Elizabeth Leonard-Lakeside Development c/o Shelly German - 90 Bridge Street - Proposed Daycare for Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich noted that there had been an administrative error in notifying abutters, therefore, all previous materials would need to be reviewed.

 

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

 

Mr. Tony Marcott, Design Consultants appeared before the Board representing Lakeside Development Corp. to present the plan for consideration.    He reviewed the changes previously requested by the Board as follows: 1) a painted line had been added at the entrance and exit of the site; 2) the trailer on the lot would be removed prior to completion; 3)  the wetlands had been verified after the snow melt and the plans had been revised; 4) the sheep fence would be removed as requested; 5) DOT has approved the additional driveway entrance along Route 38; 6) they have received approval from Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Health Officer; 7) proposed drilled well has been located and the radius is now shown on the plan (well design will be coordinated by Second Wind Environmental); 8) septic issues are being discussed with DES and will be placed 100’ from wetland.  Mr. Marcott felt that the end result would be better than the existing building. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Marcott had a rendering of the sign that would be added.  Mr. Marcott said it would be the same size as the one currently existing.  Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Gowan’s concerns were 1) rendering of the building and 2) the sign. 

 

Mr. Marcott said they had been asked to locate the neighbor’s well, which they had, and it was at least 100’ from the proposed septic. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the current sign was in compliance with the regulations.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Ms. Shelly German provided a depiction of the proposed sign, which would be on the same post as currently in place. 

 

Mr. Mitchell’s concerns were as follows: 1) asked for clarification from Conservation regarding any issues relative with the proposed play area; 2) striping along entrance way had been addressed; 3) abutting well had been located and concerns relative to the issue had been addressed; 4) his intent was that a note be added to the plan that the trailer would be removed and suggested that if it was not going to be removed prior to approval, the approval should be conditioned to the removal of the trailer at a specific stage (i.e. at the time a building permit or certificate of occupancy issued); 5) signage (with respect to safety issues); and 6) Fire Code issues dealt with at the building permit stage.  Mr. Danevich asked that the footprint to the sign be added to the plan.  Mr. DeLuca confirmed the size of the sign with Mr. Marcott.

 

Mr. Culbert asked what the vehicle cue space would be.  Mr. Marcott said they had made the access one-way able to handle four to six cars dropping off and picking up with room for cars to pass, and if needed, the access would be able to hold ten cars.  Mr. Culbert said if there was a cueing problem, it would be their responsibility to correct it.  Mr. Marcott said they spoken with DOT and provided separate plans with profiles of the driveways.  Mr. Mitchell asked how the state proposed to change the road.  Mr. Scanzani said that the road would remain in front of this property. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission understood that the playarea was within the WCD and said Conservation felt that by allowing a commercial business to put a portion of their operation in the WCD would be a poor precedent.  He said there was room for the play area to be located to the left of the addition.  He felt that the WCD area should be preserved.  Mr. Danevich asked if the use was considered passive versus constructive.  He was concerned with having the playarea close to Route 38 and personally preferred the area to be in the back.  Mr. Yarmo didn’t feel that commercial use was passive. 

 

Mr. Dave Brouillet, CLD felt that the traffic circulation issue had been addressed.  He informed that a traffic study had not been requested or performed. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Paul Leonard, who was representing the original owners informed that the trailer contained valuable farm machinery and would be removed prior to completion.

 

Ms. Shelly German, Lakeside Development felt the playarea was a passive use because of the hours of operation being five days per week between the hours of 7am-6pm.  She said that safety was considered in the placement of the playarea as well as access to the restrooms. 

 

Mr. Marcott said that Conservation had suggested moving the playarea so there would be minimal cutting.  He pointed out the existing tree area and said that over 75% of the area would be grass.  He said they moved the play area over so there would not be any grading and the only cutting would be scrub brush. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there was standing water.  Mr. Marcott said the soil was hydric.  He said there were some poorly drained soils toward the back which were shown as wetland. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the playarea would be enclosed.  Mr. Marcott said it would be fenced.

 

Ms. Joan O’Connell, an abutter (who was from Pelham Kindergarten next door) also felt that the playarea should be located in the back.  She said there was a stream behind the proposed daycare that also flowed behind her Kindergarten, but it would probably be dried up soon.  She was concerned with the traffic on the road due to her business being the exactly the same type as the proposed.  She discussed the traffic flow and noted that traffic currently backed up on Route 38 during her busy hours.  She felt that there was possible concern with the addition of the same type of business being approximately 100’ away from her location.  Ms. O’Connell discussed the dangers with having a two-lane access for drop-off and pick-up.

 

Mr. Lynde agreed with Mr. Yarmo’s concerns about the proposed well in the wetland.  Mr. Danevich said it was a legitimate and common use.  Mr. Lynde was also concerned with how the grass would be maintained and the use of pesticides.  Ms. Ouellette informed that the designated play area could not be 100% grass per the state.  Mr. Marcott said the remaining area would be bark mulch. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:  

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich said the site plan needed to be updated to show the footprint of the sign.  Mr. DeLuca reviewed the calculation and believed that the sign was in compliance with 50 square-feet. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve the plan subject to the site plan showing the footprint of the proposed sign.  Mr. Culbert seconded.  Mr. Mitchell asked if the Board was interpreting the Zoning Ordinance (Section 307-39) for park or recreational use consistent with purpose and intent relative to the playarea, and therefore was a permitted use within the WCD.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell asked once again to add a condition to remove the trailer.  Mr. Danevich reviewed the conditions for approval as follows: 1) trailer removal prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; 2) Mr. Mitchell’s note regarding consistency with Zoning (Section 307-39); and 3) site plan updated with the footprint of the sign.  Mr. Scanzani was unclear regarding Mr. Mitchell’s wording and felt that a playarea was a recreational use. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if there needed to be verbiage added so that a building or shed could not be added.  Mr. Scanzani said a storage area could be added in the recreational area that was not in the wetland. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked about the building color.  Ms. German explained that the building would be beige with a warm pink tinge.  She said it wouldn’t be as pink as depicted on the drawing. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the Safety Committee should review now that the Board has been made aware of the traffic issues.  Mr. Culbert said if there were a traffic problem they would have to correct it and prevent the cueing on the road.  Mr. Mitchell said the Board could stipulate a performance condition under the site plan review.  Ms. Ouellette felt that something more should be done since there was currently a problem.  Mr. Scanzani said it was an enforcement issue.  Mr. Mitchell said it would help with enforcement if the Board took notice of the issue and suggested adding the following wording ‘if in the opinion of the Safety Committee or other designated Town Officials there is a discernable safety hazard, steps would be taken to mitigate.’ 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the possible traffic cue problem on Route 38.  Mr. Danevich reiterated the concerns as follows: 1) trailer removal prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; 2) park or recreational use consistent with purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 307-39) relative to the playarea; and 3) site plan to be updated to show the footprint of the sign.  Mr. Scanzani disagreed with condition number 2 and didn’t feel there was a reason to stipulate in the motion.  Mr. Mitchell said the wording did not have to be a stipulation for approval, but wanted the Board’s interpretation of Zoning to be on record in the event of future questions. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted the two conditions for approval as being: 1) site plan to be updated to show the footprint of the sign; and 2) trailer removal prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy.  Mr. Scanzani amended his motion to include the two conditions.  Mr. Culbert amended his second. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked when the Board handled safety issues.  Mr. Danevich said safety issues were reviewed by CLD (Town Engineer) as well as the Safety Committee.  Mr. Lynde asked if they should have reviewed this plan.  Mr. Danevich said the Board had not received a response, therefore assumes they didn’t have comments.  Mr. Lynde asked if they could come back after approval with concerns.  Mr. Danevich answered no, but commented that traffic would be handled locally because it was outside the Board’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Mitchell felt it was the authority and obligation of the Board to deal with health and safety issues.  The Board briefly discussed the traffic safety issues and if the Safety Committee should review and comment. 

 

Mr. Scanzani withdrew his previous motion and Mr. Culbert withdrew his second.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the new approval conditions as follows: 1) trailer removal prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 2) site plan to be updated to show the footprint of the sign; and 3) Safety Committee to review and comment. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) trailer removal prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy; 2) site plan to be updated to show the footprint of the sign; 3) park or recreational use consistent with purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 307-39) relative to the playarea; and 4) review and comment if deemed by Safety Committee there is a substantial risk to health and safety.

 

VOTE:

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

 

ML 3-130, 3-130-1, 3-130-2/Miocchi - Mammoth Road - Conceptual Discussion

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the plan.  He said that the plan had previously been before the Board and rejected due to a steep grade onto Mammoth Road.  He also said that his clients couldn’t do any shoulder work because they didn’t have ownership of the abutting parcel.  Mr. Zohdi pointed out that since that time, the abutting parcel of land had been purchased and they had an agreement with the neighbor for the other side.  He then discussed the grading and said that the first 150’ would be 2% then it would be raised to 4%, 7% and 10% in certain sections, then at the intersection of the road the grading would again be at 2% to comply with requirements.  He said the total length of the road from the beginning of the cul-de-sac would be 1375’, which he realized would need a waiver.  Mr. Zohdi asked the Board for any general concerns.   

 

Mr. Danevich said the previous issues were grading, because the road exited onto Mammoth Road, the straightness of the road, the plan didn’t meet the subdivision specifications and needed a waiver, and the topology.  He asked what had changed.  Mr. Zohdi said the grade had changed and they could still make the grade less if the Board wanted. 

 

Mr. Scanzani questioned how the lots would be one acre due to the slope.  He then discussed the road profile and marked the plan for Mr. Zohdi so the road was in an ‘S’ shape. 

 

Mr. McNamara said the road previously presented was too steep and straight and felt that the presented was still too steep and straight.  Mr. Danevich liked the ‘S’ design proposed by Mr. Scanzani.  Mr. Zohdi said he would redesign the road.  Mr. Mitchell reminded the Board that the discussion should be non-binding. 

 

Mr. Culbert said he would like to see the lots squared off.  Mr. Lynde said there should be a provision for open space.  Mr. Danevich said the Board could ask, but it would need to be voluntary.  Mr. Mitchell said that the RSA provided that the Board could request appropriate, adequate open space. 

 

Mr. DeLuca was concerned with a retaining wall.  Mr. Zohdi said it could be graded.  Mr. Mitchell warned once again that the discussion could not be technical. 

 

ML 10-352/Neil Fineman - Currier Road - Conceptual Discussion

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the Board to present the plan.  He began be saying the subdivision would be 28 lots off Currier Road.  He explained the road connections.  He said the drainage would be ditch and surface.  He reviewed the road profile and said the drainage study would be given to CLD for review. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the Safety Committee may have concerns regarding the road names and said that three names should be submitted.  Mr. Culbert was concerned with the shape of lots 17 & 18.   

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed intersection at Little Island Pond Road and suggested that it be reviewed.  He was concerned with the road design in the entire area as well as future subdivisions with additional roads.  He said the Fire Chief would like to see something done in that area of Town to create a possible sub-Fire Station and Mr. Scanzani felt this section would be a prime location.   

 

Mr. Danevich asked that the Board members drive by the site and provide feedback to Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that the cul-de-sac to create frontage should be allowed.  He also felt that recreational land should be provided in this area of Town.  Mr. Lynde asked if there was a plan to continue the temporary cul-de-sacs.  Mr. Danevich answered no.  Mr. Zohdi said a plan had recently been submitted for the land on the other side.

 

Mr. Danevich was concerned with site distance with the intersection at Currier Road.

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road wanted to know if the lots would all be one acre.  Mr. Zohdi said they would be between one and one and a half acres.  Ms. Hennessey said that she had asked that when Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental walked the site if he would review the possibility of maintaining a wildlife trail or corridor.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

The Board discussed how to handle the remaining issues noted on the agenda.  Mr. Mitchell suggested scheduling an additional Board meeting due to the time clock of the submitted applications.  He then discussed the benefits of having preliminary conceptual discussions.  The Board discussed the possibility of having additional meetings each month. 

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud the following files and opened them for continuance on May 21, 2001.  Mr. Mitchell will re-post the agenda. 

 

ML 12-41 & 12-43/Hearthstone Realty - Spring Street Conceptual Discussion

ML 8-20 & 8-22/Gaudet - Old Gage Hill Road South - Conceptual Discussion

ML 10-281/Zegouras - 32 Bridge Street - Site Plan Review

ML 7-117/Lee Milts Petroleum Corp. - 135 Bridge Street - Site Plan Review

ML 13-39/Schaver Environmental Consultants - Youngs Crossing Road - Special Permit

ML 10-361/Gagnon/V&G Development Corp. - Dutton Road -  1-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

ML 3-137/Raytheon - 50 Bush Hill Road - Site Plan for Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich noted that there would be a special Planning Board session May 24, 2001 at 9am at the Town Hall for the second graders.  He also noted that the FAQ document had been updated and would like input.  He ended by informing that the League of Women Voters would be holding a meeting May 14, 2001 at 7pm at the Senior Center regarding the Community Profile. 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:40 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary