APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD WORK SESSION

July 16, 2001   

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at approximately 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 7:55pm), Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell. 

 

ABSENT:

 

Jeff Gowan, Alternate Richard Foote

 

Also present were Board of Adjustment members Edmond Gleason and Alternate Dave Hennessey.  Conservation Commission members Brenda Jenson, Ron Bourque and Bob Yarmo (who arrived at approximately 7:45pm also attended the meeting.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Alternate Richard Foote had handed in his resignation, which would be forwarded to Mr. Hal Lynde to present to the Board of Selectmen

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Presentation by NRPC - Non-Point Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO)

 

Ms. Angela Rap, Intern with NRPC, gave a presentation of NEMO and managing growth and sustaining water quality.  She said that the DES would like to pinpoint and address the following non-point source pollution: 1) urban runoff, 2) hydrolic & habitat modifications, 3) subsurface/septic systems, 4) junk/salvage yards, 5) construction.  She said that NEMO had identified the six main pollutants that were in polluted runoff: 1) nutrients, 2) pathogens, 3) sediment, 4) toxic contaminants, 5) debris and 6) thermal stress.  She then gave examples of each.  Ms. Rap then discussed a buildout process, which would utilize computer mapping (Geographic Information Systems “GIS”) to analyze the development potential of areas.  She noted that there were 4,777 acres left in Town which were still buildable based on current 2001 zoning.  She said there was a potential for 4,088 house lots and 456 potential commercial lots.  Ms. Rap said there were three local actions which could be taken by the community to improve water quality: 1) comprehensive planning to reduce impervious surfaces in Town (i.e. open space), 2) review site design, 3) best management practices.  She ended by saying that water quality would require Town-wide cooperation between all the Boards and the public. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to know what their perspective was regarding open space.  Ms. Rap said that open space to her was recognizing areas as a whole and conserving space to integrate with nature instead of only viewing single lots.  Betsy (also of NRPC) felt that conservation lands should be identified and then review the best possible site for building.  She suggested that the remaining buildable areas be reviewed for possible conservation uses.  She felt that natural resource inventory should be combined with the Master Plan. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the exclusion areas and how the slopes were calculated.  He asked if Town owned land or land in friendly hands (i.e. Girl Scout camps) had been excluded.  Mr. Rap didn’t believe those areas were excluded.  Mr. Scanzani then discussed impervious surfaces and the road drainage on Route 38.  Betsy said that road widths, overflow parking areas, low technology swales could be reviewed as alternatives for water management. 

 

Mr. Hennessey asked how to avoid adverse draining once a development was complete.  Ms. Rap suggested educating the community.  Betsy agreed with educating the community and also pointed out that certain lack of action (i.e. not cleaning swales) on commercial properties were code violations.  She said that NRPC had been trying to contact and educate businesses and residential areas in regions near lakes and ponds.  She said NRPC could supply information to the Town and Boards for the community. 

 

Mr. DeLuca recalled that at a prior meeting with NRPC, there was a discussion to hold a meeting with owners so that information pamphlets were to be distributed.  He wanted to know the status.  Mr. Danevich said he would follow up and put together a meeting. 

 

Mr. Yarmo wanted to know if there were resources to evaluate and enforce ‘best management practices’.  Betsy said that the information could be found in several different locations, one of which was the National Resource Conservation Service had such information.  She said that she would provide a sediment and erosion plan. 

 

Ms. Deborah Waters asked what suggestions could be given to homeowners for lawn maintenance.  She also asked if there was any material used as a replacement for tar.  Ms. Rap said an alternative to tar was a pervious mat that could be filled with crushed stone.  Betsy suggested creative site design for homeowners and as for an alternative for lawn maintenance, she suggested letting certain areas grow wild. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked how road salt contributed to pollution.  Ms. Rap believed road salt contributed a large percent of pollution because it could easily wash into waterways.  Betsy noted that NRPC had just completed a study.  Mr. Culbert asked about phosphorus capturing drain systems.  Betsy said it was relatively new and expensive technology and would forward information for review. 

 

Mr. Bourque wanted to know what the consequences were for using chem lawn and what effect salt had if it drained into a waterway.  Betsy discussed chem lawn and noted that one of the consequences of using chem lawn was mis-application.  She then discussed the hydro-seeding companies and said she had a problem with them filling their tanks using bodies of water.  She said the main concern with salt use was the toxicity level in water due to run-off. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if there was any impact assessment on ground water supplies or the aquifer due to the use of road salt and products similar to chem lawn.  Ms. Rap said a recent aquifer study had been done in the Nashua region, which included information on road salt.  Betsy said that the American Ground Water Trust and  DES had information, which she would review.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

ML 002-033 - Jennifer Drive - Bond Discussion

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that the development agreement dated April, 1998 had expired and the road was not complete.  He said that the Road Agent had also found problems with the road.  He informed that there was a $34,000 cash bond still remaining and asked that the Board grant him permission to pull the money so that the process of completing the road could begin. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the bond money would be enough to complete the road.  Mr. Mitchell said once the Planning Board made a decision he would have CLD (Town Engineer) review.  He said that from the beginning the bond amount had always been $34,000. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the road issues as follows: 1) second hot top coat, 2) elevated man hole covers, 3) significant water run off and drainage, 4) general construction clean-up, 5) two lots still have hay bails in place, 6) paving/grading problems and 7) missing stop sign. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to revoke the bond and forward to CLD to start the completion process.  Mr. Scanzani seconded and reiterated his concern that the bond money may not be enough to complete the project. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked how many bonds were at risk for under funding.  Mr. Mitchell said he would have to research.  He noted that most of the bonds had been reviewed by CLD, but in this case it was unclear if CLD had reviewed. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if there was a possibility that the buyers of the land had a bond with the Town.  Mr. Mitchell said it was unlikely. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there were any undeveloped lots.  Mr. Danevich noted that lot 7 was not complete.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the undeveloped lot had been sold and suggested putting a lien on the lot if were not sold.  Mr. Culbert said he would make an additional motion. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To revoke the bond and forward to CLD to start the completion process.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Culbert made a motion to research who the current developers were to the property and if lot 7 were not sold it shall be immediately attached for any costs to complete the project.  Mr. DeLuca seconded, and wanted to make sure that nothing was wrong with the lot.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to add that research should be done to investigate any unsold lots in the subdivision, as approved by the Planning Board and such lots shall also be attached until such time that improvement/completion costs have been determined and the project has been completed.  Mr. Culbert amended his motion and Mr. DeLuca amended his second. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To research who the current developers were to the property and to investigate any unsold lots within the subdivision (as approved by the Planning Board).  Such lots shall be immediately attached until such time that improvement/completion costs over $34,000 have been determined and the project has been completed.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani requested that CLD evaluate bond amounts for any other projects in the Planning Department’s files that were actively being developed and didn’t have accurate bond amounts for completion.  Mr. Culbert volunteered to review the current bonds. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Subdivision Regulations - For Discussion Only - NOT FOR ADOPTION

 

Mr. Mitchell began by reviewing Mr. Danevich’s changes that had now been implemented in the new subdivision regulations.  He said that he would review to ensure consistency for definitions. 

 

Mr. Danevich provided a list of concerns compiled over the past 15 months, which Mr. Mitchell would review and include in the new set of subdivision regulations.  Mr. Danevich also created a comparison of the old versus the new regulation sections and informed that they had all been covered.  He asked that the Board members review and provide any additional comments. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that he would incorporate the book entitled Storm Water Management and Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook for Urban and Development Areas in New Hampshire to make project review easier. 

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know the process if developers weren’t following the required practices of CLD.  Mr. Mitchell said that CLD would require that any problems be corrected by the next inspection.  He said he would be working closely with CLD to ensure that problems would be corrected. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there had been any resolution with the Fish & Game Club.  Mr. Mitchell said that a letter had been sent to the design engineer with copies to the developer and the bond company.  He said the letter provided for a 15-day response time. 

 

PLANNING DIRECTOR REPORT/COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Mr. Mitchell said the Planning Department was working diligently to install and implement the new computer system.  He discussed how the new system would work.  He said he would discuss with Mr. Pitts the additional space needed for the Department.

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that CIP met and all forms had been received and were being reviewed.  He said that the department heads would be meeting with the committee to discuss their needs. 

 

Mr. Danevich gave an update of the Master Plan Committee and said that they had completed the Natural Resource section and would provide a draft by the end of next month.  He said the community survey would be sent out at the beginning of September and explained it would be sent with business reply mail to encourage response. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that the public hearing for the Benoit Avenue land donation was held and the Board of Selectmen voted and accepted the parcel.  He noted that the code book was in the process of being completed and a draft would be available in September.  He said the hiring process of the code enforcement officer position was still in the works.  There was a brief discussion regarding Campbell Road and if it was a Town accepted road.  Mr. Lynde would research further. 

 

OPEN FORUM

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed side slopes and noted that there were developments in Town, which did not meet the 3-1 slope requirements for erosion control.  He used the stone cottage and Yarde Metals as examples.  He also noted that Shannon Circle had problems with slopes.  Mr. Mitchell would review.

 

Mr. Danevich said that Mr. DeLuca had pointed out that the last house on the cul-de-sac on Irene Drive (off Robin Way) was in very close proximately to an adjacent parcel (within 50 feet).  He felt the Board should review the parcel.  He suggested the Board take a more pro-active look at possible placement of lots and houses.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding recreational space in Town and the 7-year plan submitted by the Park and Recreation Department.  Mr. Danevich asked for a practical conveyance of required space in certain areas of Town be provided.  Mr. Mitchell suggested that the Master Plan include the Park and Recreation plan.  There was a further discussion of utilizing the current Park and Recreation facilities to the fullest extent.  Mr. Culbert also brought up implementing sub-fire stations. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

July 2, 2001

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To approve the minutes from the July 2, 2001 meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Lynde abstained.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary