APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 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, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Jeff Gowan, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Gael Ouellette, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Alternate Richard Foote

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

ML 4-139 Normandy R.E. Holding Co. LLC - 45 Valley Hill Road - Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision for Approval

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board for approval.  He discussed the previous approvals for Longview and Meadow Orchards and the possibility of connectivity between the three subdivisions.  He said they were asking for a three-lot subdivision so that if a connection road needed to be added they would be able to.  He said they removed the lot line, which eliminated the need for the driveway easement.  Mr. Zohdi said they would not be going through WCD or wetlands. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that only concern he had was the relocation of the lot line, which had now been addressed.  He said that CLD had not reviewed the plans yet because there was no need for a drainage report. Mr. Mitchell said the only concern relative to drainage would be the driveway installation. 

 

Mr. Zohdi informed that the back lot would be deeded to the abutter. 

 

Mr. Danevich believed that the subdivision should fall under the same exaction calculation category as with the Valley Hill subdivision.  Mr. Zohdi said his client would pay the same amount of money as set for other lots on Valley Hill Road.  Mr. Mitchell wanted to make clear that any monies received under the exaction would be administered in accordance with the impact fee ordinance.  Mr. Gowan asked if the existing account would also be administered in the same fashion.  Mr. Mitchell felt to avoid any legal challenge the account, the monies should be administered in accordance with the impact fee ordinance.  Mr. Gowan noted that the Board of Selectmen imposed the fee and set the amount.  He asked if the Selectmen should be made aware and finalize the fact that this would fall under the impact fee ordinance.  Mr. Mitchell said he would send a letter to the Selectmen. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve the subdivision subject to any further review that the Planning Director felt was necessary and also that the exaction for the two lots be done in accordance with the current impact fee ordinance.  Mr. Danevich made a friendly amendment that the Planning Director’s review be administrative in nature.  Mr. Gowan seconded the motion.  He asked if any waivers were needed.  Mr. Scanzani answered no. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Gowan) To approve the subdivision subject to: 1)  any further review (that is administrative in nature) the Planning Director feels is necessary; and 2) the exaction for the two lots is to be done in accordance with the current impact fee ordinance.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

ML 11-96, 97-1 & 97-2 Fehmel & Dallaire - Campbell Road - Proposed 1-Lot Subdivision  for Approval

 

There were no persons in attendance to present the case.  Mr. Danevich noted that the case would be tabled until the end of the meeting and if the applicant didn’t arrive, the case would be continued until the next scheduled meeting. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Gowan) To table the case until the applicant either shows up later in the evening or continue the case to the next scheduled regular meeting.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

See ‘COMMENTS’ for further discussion. 

 

NEW BUSINESS 

 

ML 3-130, 130-1 & 130-2 A & A Realty Trust, Andrew Graham Trustee - Mammoth Road - Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board for consideration.  He noted that when the plan had previously been presented to the Board, there were safety concerns so he redesigned the subdivision.  He reviewed the grading plan, which showed that the maximum slope he was asking for was 10%.  He said that the applicant had purchased two additional parcels and joined them together so that the driveways for the two parcels would not be accessed through Mammoth Road, but would instead be accessed onto the proposed road.  Mr. Zohdi said he would provide Mr. Mitchell with the lot sizing percentages.  He discussed the drainage and how the proposed new slopes would alleviate drainage concerns.  He also felt that the new slopes would help alleviate the safety concerns.  Mr. Zohdi informed that the Jeremy Hill subdivision had retained a 50’ right of way for possible future access to Mammoth Road.  He then reviewed the topography and showed where they were going with the grade and across the grade. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the topography was flown.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the cul-de-sac would be temporary.  Mr. Zohdi said both the cul-de-sacs would be temporary.  Mr. Danevich discussed the cul-de-sac lengths.  Mr. Zohdi said the ‘stub’ would be 750’ and the other cul-de-sac would be approximately 1300’ to the end. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the minutes from the Planning Board’s meeting of August 7, 2000 in which the proposed subdivision was denied based on the following: 1) Landing area was inadequate, (1000’ of road with at a 10% slope, the  impact of vehicles driving up and down the hill with inadequate landing onto a classified driveway); 2) drainage and side slope easements; 3)  easements of a 2-1 slope; 4)  no conceptual plan; 5)  temporary cul de sac had not been identified;  6)  board interpreted CLD’s report to have grave concerns with safety.  Mr. Zohdi discussed the areas of concern and how the landing area slope had been redesigned.  He said they would now begin with a negative slope.  He agreed that a traffic study would need to be done, based on the number of lots being sought after.  He didn’t believe there was a drainage problem.  He said he would work with the Board and CLD to comply with the subdivision requirements.

 

Mr. Culbert wanted to specify that the traffic study performed should be broadened to include a safety study.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t object. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the Board’s concerns as follows: 1) traffic/safety study; 2) environmental impact due to the wildlife corridor site; 3) drainage. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked where the slope would begin from Mammoth Road.  Mr. Zohdi said the first 100’ would be at 2% and after 300’ the slope would be at 6%.  Mr. Scanzani asked what the distance of the 10% slope would be.  Mr. Zohdi said 500’ then he would go back to 6% and would end at 8%. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the drainage calculation had been done.  Mr. Zohdi said the drainage calculations had been submitted to CLD and fees had been paid to the Planning Director.  He went on to explain where treatment suels would be placed so the abutters properties would not be affected.  Mr. Scanzani asked if drainage would go across Mammoth Road.  Mr. Zohdi answered no and said that pre and post development would not change.  Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a way to stop some of the wetness from going across Mammoth Road.  Mr. Zohdi said he could enlarge the treatment suels and/or add a detention pond.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to note on the plan that the existing driveways with access onto Mammoth Road would be taken out.  Mr. Danevich noted that the lot numbers for the parcels, which needed the driveway accesses moved, were ML 3-130-1 and 3-130-2.  Mr. Zohdi said they would make a note on the plan, which specified that when the proposed road was done to the pavement of Mammoth Road that the existing driveways would be removed. 

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud a letter submitted by Mr. Bill Coleman of 233 Mammoth Road (ML 3-133), which noted the following concerns: 1) proper lot sizing calculations; 2) a sufficient, safe landing area onto Mammoth Road; 3) road grades; 4) economic impact study; 5) environmental impact study; 6) NHDES septic approval; 7) NH State Highway entrance permit; 8) site specific driveway profiles and septic designs; 9) HISS soils report; 10) right of way to his property, as shown, is impractical due to the topography and the location of his well. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said that he was comply with site specific soil mapping which was more precise than HISS and asked the Board if they would like him to add HISS to the plan.  He said he would meet with Mr. Coleman to resolve the future right-of-way.  He then reviewed the other concerns listed and said: 1) he would provide the proper lot sizing; 2) & 3) he provided a plan and would wait for CLD’s comments; 4) he always does a study for subdivision of more than 9 lots; 5) Gove Environmental would do an environmental and wildlife study; 6) he didn’t feel that NHDES approval was fair to his client, and he would be glad to get WSPCC subdivision approval; 7) he would be going to the Highway Department for the highway entrance permit; 8) he said he would voluntarily submit a site specific driveway profiles and septic designs.  He noted that he did not have a problem with the other items on the list. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the Board preferred site specific to HISS soil mapping and would rather have WSPCC approval instead of approval from NHDES.  Mr. Danevich addressed the concern of lot sizing and said that Article K would apply. 

 

There was a consensus of the Board to accept the site specific soil mapping.  The Board also said they would like the driveway profile to be site specific.  Mr. Danevich noted that the economic impact study form used would include the new updated census data and that the numbers were acceptable by the Planning Director. 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bill Coleman, 233 Mammoth Road said because the grade change was at his property line he would like to discuss further with Mr. Zohdi. 

 

Mr. Larry Hall, 225 Mammoth Road (ML 3-131) said he was concerned with the large pond between his parcel and Officer Roark’s parcel that had no outlet.  He didn’t want additional water draining in the area.  He said at times the water has needed to be pumped out.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the pond would not be able to hold any additional drainage.  Mr. Hall asked what the acreage was for the subdivision and wanted to know if there was enough room for 17 parcels.  Mr. Zohdi said there was approximately 20 acres.  Mr. Scanzani noted that with site specific the lots would be slightly larger than one acre.  Mr. Zohdi said he would provide lot sizing and grading.  He said he would color code the lot sizing.  Mr. Scanzani believed that the proposed road would pick up the drainage.  Mr. Danevich said that CLD would review. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to accept the plan for consideration to allow the professional review staff to perform the necessary studies discussed.  Mr. Gowan seconded the motion and suggested that a fresh site walk be done with CLD and the traffic engineer present.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Gowan) To accept for consideration, the waiver request for the length of cul-de-sac.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the Board’s direction as follows: 1) economic impact is to be done and the new census information should be used; 2) environmental and wildlife impact studies are to be done; 3) traffic study which also focuses on safety should be done; 4) Town Safety Committee should review the plans; 5) drainage calculations and completion comment from CLD; 6) updated memo from CLD should be submitted; 7) Mr. Coleman’s well (ML 3-133) should be located and noted on plan; 8) CLD to address pond issue between ML 3-130-2 and 3-130-3. 

 

Mr. Zohdi asked that the Board direct the Planning Director to send the plan for review and traffic study.  Mr. Danevich said the Board had provided that direction. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked that the removal of the two driveways be noted on the plan.  Mr. Zohdi said he would make a note.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the environmental impact study would include the wildlife impact study.  Mr. Gowan asked that the environmental and traffic impact studies be received well in advance of the next hearing so that the Board would have ample time to review. 

 

Mr. Mitchell discussed the section in the regulations pertaining to lot sizing.  He believed the section to state that when 30% of a lot exceeded a grade of 15%  it would not only have to have 1.5 acres, but it would also have to have 52,000 square feet of high and dry.  The Board discussed how they had been interpreting the lot sizing regulation.  Mr. Zohdi said he had previously discussed with the past Planning Boards and come to a mutual decision that if a portion of one acre was more than 15% slope, then 50% would be added to that portion only.  Mr. Danevich read a portion of Article K that also addressed slopes.  He suggested discussing with CLD and past Board member Clark Harris for further discussion.  Mr. Mitchell felt it was more of an attorney’s decision because it was a question of statutory interpretation.  Mr. McNamara and Mr. Gowan agreed with Mr. Mitchell’s reading of the regulation.  Mr. Danevich understood there was a question with the language and reiterated that he wanted further discussion on the matter.  Mr. Zohdi informed that there were no C or D slopes and lot 17 could obtain a small portion of an abutting lot to make up for the lot calculation.  Mr. Danevich asked that the data provided. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

ML 8-10 & 15 Walter Kosik, Jr. - Kosik Terrace - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment for Discussion

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board for comment.  He said the proposed was a lot line change.  He said the Kosik family owned two parcels of land, a 25-acre parcel and a 5-acre parcel.  He said they would like to take a 5-acre portion of the 25-acres and give it to their son and take the remaining acreage and deed it to the existing 5-acre parcel. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if there was a reason for the shape of the parcel.  Mr. Zohdi explained the ownership of the remaining parcels, which may in the future be deeded to an additional family member. 

 

Mr. Danevich felt that the Board should review what the proposed change would create in the future.  Mr. Scanzani said if, in the future,  the Board were to accept the land swap he wanted to make sure it would not encumber the Board to approve a parcel as to not create undue hardship.  Mr. Zohdi said he would take the proposed back to Mr. Kosik to possibly reconfigure the plan.  He then discussed the driveway access configuration. 

 

The Board briefly discussed the lot shapes.  Mr. Zohdi then said he would change the shape of the lot.  Mr. Danevich asked about the access into ML 8-10 and said that easier access would be reviewed by the Board more favorably. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Sam Gabour, Webster Avenue was concerned with the water flow from lots ML 8-8 & 8-10 possibly flooding his property.  Mr. Zohdi said that the Kosik’s were only changing the lot line and there were no proposals for building.  He went on to explain that the area Mr. Gabour was concerned with was within the flood zone. 

 

Mr. John Burns, 290 Gage Hill Road, informed that ML 8-10 had an existing house.  Mr. Zohdi pointed to the existing house noted on the plan for Mr. Burns.  He said that more detail (floodzone etc.) would be provided.

 

Mr. Eric Helgamoe, Gage Hill Road, wanted to know what the acreage was when the existing house was built.  Mr. Zohdi said the lot size was 25-acres.  Mr. Helgamoe felt that the proposed was a subdivision, not a lot-line change.  He then asked about the abutter notification and wanted to know on what premise the Board was basing the discussion.  Mr. Mitchell informed that the Board was conducting a preliminary discussion and abutters would be notified when the applicant submitted the plan with an application. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

April 16, 2001

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To approve the minutes from the April 16, 2001 meeting as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

May 21, 2001

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept the previously approved minutes from the May 21, 2001 meeting as further amended.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries.  Mr. Gowan and Mr. DeLuca abstained.  Ms. Ouellette voted for Mr. Gowan. 

 

June 4, 2001

 

In accordance with a discussion regarding ML 11-96, 97-1 & 97-2 Fehmel and Dallaire/Campbell Road/1-lot subdivision, Mr. Scanzani wanted to clarify that Campbell Road was placed on 1996 Town ballot to become a Town accepted road,  and defeated.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the minutes from the June 4, 2001 meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

June 18, 2001

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the minutes from the June 18, 2001 meeting as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

COMMENTS

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the status of Corey Drive.  Mr. Mitchell said he had not received comment from the developer or from Town Counsel. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to note that Mr. DeLuca had suggested during a Municipal Building Committee meeting that the barn located on Arlene Drive be relocated instead of destroyed.  Mr. DeLuca said the building was 30’x36’ and in good condition.  He said that Mr. Bill McDevitt, Selectmen was going to speak with Park and Recreation to see if they would be interested in the structure. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if the bond for Jennifer Drive had been pulled.  Mr. Danevich answered no.  Mr. Mitchell asked that a discussion be added to an upcoming agenda. 

 

ML 11-96, 97-1 & 97-2 Fehmel & Dallaire - Campbell Road - Proposed 1-Lot Subdivision  for Approval

 

Mr. Scanzani felt that discussion should be tabled until high intensity soil information has been received.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Gowan) To continue the case until the first planning meeting in August.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Culbert suggested sending the applicant a letter stating what the Board needed for review.  Mr. Mitchell said he would forward a letter to the applicant. 

 

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 9:50 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary