APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 7, 2002†††

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The Secretary, Mr. Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Selectmenís Representative Hal Lynde

 

Mr. Danevich congratulated Ms. Ouellette for being newly appointed a full Board member.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the following cases would be continued to the February 4, 2002 meeting:

ML 10 Lot 110, 361 V & G Development - Dutton Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision

ML 11 Lot 254 Maurice Picard - Dutton Road - Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mountain Orchard Estates - Discussion with regard to municipal water and minor changes to the subdivision

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates discussed the proposed subdivision.He said how the water was proposed to be brought in.He said the middle subdivision had not yet been approved and asked if the back 12 lots could be serviced by individual wells until the water was able to be brought in.

 

The Board discussed actions taken in the past to ensure water capacity.Mr. Zohdi said they would comply with the state levels of water quality and quantity.He said they would follow the same steps taken at Simpson Mill Road, in which the levels were submitted to the Planning Director before building permits were issued.

 

Mr. Scanzani suggested adding the water pipe now rather than at the time the water line was continued into the development.

 

Mr. McNamara asked if pesticide contamination concerns were the reason for having municipal water.Mr. Zohdi answered no.He explained the reasons for the individual wells.Mr. McNamara wanted to ensure that water would be tested and that there would be an assurance that the water line would continue through the subdivisions.

 

Mr. DeLuca was concerned with bacteria growing in the water pipes as they sat unused.It was discussed that the water and pipes would be tested for residuals per the state prior to use of water lines.

 

Mr. Danevich said the two conditions were: 1) well tests to be done prior to building permits being issued and, 2) ensure that the water pipes are installed and capped in accordance with the completion of the plans, until a later point in time.

 

There was no public input.

 

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To request that Mr. Zohdi present to the Board, a set of plans for the back twelve lots showing individuals wells and their radiuses.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich noted the next hearing would be February 4, 2002.

 

HEARINGS

 

Planning Board Proposed Ordinance - Residential Growth Ordinance

 

Mr. Mitchell said a memo had been received regarding the issue of having an impact fees.He said a Superior Court ruled that any lot which collects impact fees would not be covered by a growth management ordinance because they were both tools for growth management and a Town could not have both.The court had taken an appeal and the outcome is not yet known.Town Counsel is presuming that the Town cannot have impact fees in conjunction with a residential growth ordinance.

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the reasons that the Town implemented impact fees.He then discussed how a growth-limiting ordinance would affect the Town.He felt the impact fees should continue to be collected.

 

Mr. Culbert didnít feel that an impact fee was a growth management tool.Mr. Mitchell said that the impact fees and growth management should offset each other.Mr. Culbert felt that the impact fee was the cost to live in Pelham, and the growth management was a numerical control.Mr. Mitchell explained the court case which stated that both the impact and the growth management could not both be implemented.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the Ordinance would be further discussed during the January 14, 2002 Board work session.He felt that the impact fee program was crucial to Pelhamís welfare and long term growth.Mr. Scanzani said that once the court discussed further and resolved the issue the Board would be able further review.

 

Mr. McNamara said he would be in favor of a growth management ordinance.He felt the Board should wait until the court resolved the case so it could be determined if the Town could have both the impact fees and the growth ordinance.

 

Ms. Bousa said Attorney Hayes suggested that a growth ordinance could not be enacted without an economic study being performed.Mr. Mitchell said that a comprehensive study needed to be done, the document didnít specify what kind of study.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked how the percentage of growth compared to the percentage points.Mr. Danevich felt the points were misleading.He didnít see any substance in the comparison of the percentage points.Mr. Scanzani said there were more subdivisions being approved now versus in the 1980ís.Mr. Danevich said in a recent count there were 43 separate applications that represented 600 lots that could theoretically be developed.He said that there would be further discussion at the next work session to be held January 14, 2002.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 185 Robin Road LLC - Honey Lane/Noella Avenue - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plans to the Board.He began by reviewing the plan and pointing out the conservation land.He said the two lots complied with both the zoning and the subdivision requirements.

 

Mr. Mitchell highlighted two concerns.The first issue was being the communication problem with the developer.The second issue was the drainage and the impact of drainage on ML6-193.He felt the plan was designed correctly, but not built correctly.He recommended that the subdivision not be approved due to the existing subdivision not being in compliance with what was granted.Mr. Danevich noted that CLD (Town Engineer) also recommended not approving the plans.Mr. Mitchell said the plan could be denied without prejudice.

 

Mr. McNamara wanted to know what would happen to the drainage issues if the plan was approved.Mr. Mitchell said the proposed two lots would be directly affected by drainage issues if the plan was approved.

 

Mr. Zohdi said there was a problem with the road and if it were not resolved by the next meeting, they would forfeit the bond.He didnít know what the road had to do with the two-lot subdivision.

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the drainage and the wet areas.He felt that the Board could deny the plan until the wet area on Mr. Fraizeís property was corrected, and a properly constructed cross-culvert was installed.Once the work was done and the lots continued to show they had the correct dry area, he said the Board could then reconsider the plan.††

 

Mr. Zohdi asked that the plan be extended to the next meeting.He said he would like the opportunity to meet with CLD and Mr. Mitchell to resolve the outstanding issues.He said most of the problems had been corrected.Mr. Zohdi wanted it known that CLD found nothing wrong with his drainage design or calculation.

 

Mr. Scanzani reiterated his concern was that Mr. Zohdi would still be able to show the proper calculations when more water was added to the area.Mr. Zohdi noted the flow of drainage and didnít feel that the wetland calculations would change.He asked to have the plan extended to the February meeting.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the abutters would need to be noticed.Mr. Mitchell answered no.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Tim Fraize, Noella Avenue said that he would like the problem solved before the end of February, because that was when the water problems would most likely begin.Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Zohdi would work with Mr. Mitchell for resolution.

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessy, Dutton Road discussed the WCD area and would like to see some protection of the area because of itís importance to the environment.Mr. Zohdi said the plan showed access to the conservation land on the Northeast.

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to extend the plans.He wanted the plans to include building envelope calculations and the percentage of each soil types of the lots.Mr. Zohdi said that had already been provided, but would provide again at the next hearing.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To allow Mr. Zohdi to come back before the Board on February 4, 2002 and to work with CLD, Planning Director, Mr. Mahoney, Mr. Fraize and other interested parties.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich noted the extension request should be in writing.Mr. Zohdi said he would provide a letter.

 

Mr. Danevich said the bond discussion was a separate issue and the deadline dates would remain.

 

The case was continued to February 4, 2002.

 

Map 10 Lot 364, 365, 366 John Mansur - 76 Dutton Road - Proposed Lot-line Adjustment

 

There were no persons to represent, or present the plan.The plan was continued to the next meeting.

 

Map 1 Lot 52 Charles Banister - Corner of Sherburne & Mammoth Roads - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for further Consideration

 

Mr. Mike Grainger, Grainger Engineering, Hudson, NH, presented the plan to the Board.He said there had been one remaining issue of having CLD (Town Engineer) review, which had since been done.He said CLD had provided comments and they had since addressed the issues and made corrections and revised the plans.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there had been an issue with a catch basin at the end of Mammoth Road.Mr. Grainger answered no.

 

Mr. Mitchell didnít have comments.Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD did not have any comments.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Administrative breakÖ

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To have the Planning Director be the acting agent to request extensions and deadlines from the Board of Selectmen.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Map 8 Lot 20 & 22-9 Louise Gaudet - Old Gage Hill Road South - Phase II - Proposed 18-Lot Subdivision & Special Permit application for wetland crossing for continued Consideration

 

The Board reviewed the Traffic Study.

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD (Town Engineer) said that Ms. Gaudetís issue was an off-site left turn.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.He said that one of the concerns was a treatment swale in the WCD.He said one was taken totally out and the other had been reviewed by Conservation.He said during the site walk, the Board discussed the proximity to the power line.He has added 25í-50íno-cut zones to each lot on the plan abutting the power lines.He said that CLD had a couple of minor engineering concerns, which would be corrected before the plans were signed.He didnít agree with CLD that the well radius needed to be contained on the lot.Mr. Danevich agreed with CLD, that the well radius needed to be contained on the lot.Mr. Zohdi said he would comply with the stateís requirements.He suggested adding a special easement and if there was still a problem, he would extend the lot line.There was a brief discussion, and Mr. Zohdi said he would alter the lot lines to contain the well radiuses.Mr. Danevich noted that the lot lines for 8 & 9 should also be changed.

 

Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Lynde submitted a comment via e-mail.Mr. Lynde wanted clarification regarding the placement of the temporary cul-de-sac.Mr. Zohdi showed on the plan how the road could continue through the golf course without impacting a major wetland.Mr. Scanzani pointed out the land on top of the hill that had not been developed and believed if there were further developments, there would still be allowances for accessing other areas of Town.

 

Mr. McNamara felt that there were concerns with site distance and added traffic and would like additional time to review.Ms. Bousa would also like additional time to review.

 

Mr. Zohdi asked to continue discussion to the next meeting.He said he would change the lot lines.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, Dutton Road asked if the buffer zone at the power lines could be expanded for wildlife.Mr. Danevich said the Board would take the comments under advisement.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said recommendations had been forwarded.He said that the concerns were the surface drainage, the treatment swales in the WCD, the buffer along the powerlines.He said there was also a concern with creating an easement to the Town owned parcel.Mr. Zohdi said an easement had been added and the buffers had been expanded.He believed that the plans had been acceptable to Conservation.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the powerline area was considered a wildlife corridor.He said that Fish and Game said a wildlife corridor was 300í minimum and wanted to ensure the plans provided for a sufficient area and connectivity.Mr. Zohdi said the wildlife corridor was 400í.

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, Dutton Road didnít feel that the golf course or the area under the powerlines could be called a wildlife corridor.He said there was only small brush and one tree contained in the area.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding continuing the plans to the next meeting.The motion was made as follows:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To continue the plans until the January 14, 2002 meeting.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Map 5 Lot 104, 113, 115 Sousa Realty & Development - Lawrence Corner Road - Proposed 20-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich handed out pictures of the parcel to the Board that were taken during the site walk.

 

Mr. Tony Basso, Hinger/Swanson, Nashua, NH presented the plan to the Board.He submitted a letter to Mr. Mitchell on September 20, 2001 addressing the issues stated by the Board at the last meeting.He reviewed the changes made to the plan.He also discussed recreational land and said that the developer would be willing to make a contribution, on a per lot basis, toward recreational use or purchase of recreational equipment.Mr. Basso said they had met with Conservation.He said they had asked that 2/3 of treatment swales had been moved out of the WCD.He said Conservation asked that they consider requesting a waiver for the cul-de-sac length and create two cul-de-sacs, rather than providing a loop road system.He showed presented a two-cul-de-sac plan.Mr. Basso said they would lose a lot, but the majority of the lots would remain the same, the drainage would be the same.He ended by saying the plan was workable if the Board wanted to move forward.Mr. Basso wanted to know if the plan would be reviewed under the old regulations.

 

Mr. Mitchell said a memo was received by a surveyor and felt that Town Counsel should review it due to issues with the Old Lawrence Road.

 

Mr. Danevich read a portion of a Warrant Article from 1988, which addressed Old Lawrence Road.Mr. Culbert said that part of the road was no longer discontinued, and part of it was.It was determined to have Town Counsel review for compliance.

 

Mr. Danevich liked the loop system on the first plan and would like to see the plan move forward as such.The Board discussed their preference and was in agreement that they preferred the first plan with the road loop.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said that they abided by the NH code of Administrative Rule WT302.03 which asks the question if a plan could be developed without a wetlands crossing.He felt the proposed plan could theoretically be done without a WCD crossing.He discussed the other issues Conservation had.

 

Mr. Mitchell discussed the Conservation Commission role and said that they shouldnít be concerned with developability issues. He said they should be concerned with environmental issues.Mr. Scanzani said he would like to have Conservation provide information on the types of wetlands contained on parcels.

 

Mr. Yarmo went on to discuss the WCD signage, which Conservation would like to be installed before building permits were issued.Mr. Danevich said that the Building Inspectorís comments had been added to the newest version of the Subdivision Regulations.

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the signage and wanted to know if the design could include a line that says ĎDo not removeí.Mr. Danevich informed that the sign design would be discussed on January 14, 2002.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Jay Lynch, Lawrence Corner Road wanted to know if Town Counsel or CLD (Town Engineer) had provided comment regarding the ownership of the Road.Mr. Danevich said Town Counsel would review it.Mr. Lynch discussed the slopes and the possibility of adding a right-of-way to his property.

 

Mr. Joe DeCarolis, Londonderry, NH said that Mr. & Mrs. McFarlane own an abutting parcel and have requested that a right-of-way be added so their property would not be land locked.

 

Mr. Basso began to explain that the areas in question were extremely steep.Mr. Danevich recommended that Mr. Basso discuss the issue with Mr. Mitchell and CLD.

 

Mr. Edward Lynch, said there had been a question regarding the widening of the road and wanted to know if it would still be addressed.Mr. Danevich said that off-site improvement to increase the road to road standard, from the intersection all the way into the subdivision would most likely be a condition of approval.

 

Ms. Bousa wanted to know if the area had been surveyed.Mr. Basso answered yes.

 

Mr. David Lynch, felt the right-of-way should be considered for long term planning in the event an open space development were to be done.He wanted to know if the Conservation signs were added, if a new property owner would be able to remove.Mr. Danevich said such issues would be discussed January 14, 2002.

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the issues pointed out during the site walk as follows: 1) maintaining a vegetational buffer on back lots for sound; 2) size of the construction debris hill and noise from the construction sifter.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if there was any deed for the wood road.Mr. Basso said their boundary search found that there were no deeded rights to the wood road.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if there was a wetlands bill on the property as a result of the construction pile.Mr. Basso was unsure.He said they had done wetlands mapping up to it.Mr. Mitchell said if there were a wetlands violation, it should be noted on the plan.He didnít feel the Board should approve the plan unless the wetland boundary issues were clear.Mr. Basso felt that his client would be willing to write a letter to the owner and copy the Board stating that he would be willing to restore the area to the condition prior to the pile being on site.Ms. Ouellette felt there would be a condition placed on the approval.

 

Mr. Scanzani felt a letter should be sent to Conservation and the Code Enforcement Officer to review the site.He believed that the pile would need to be removed from the property and reconfigured so it would be safe.Mr. Culbert did not want to approve a plan until the full mapping was done.

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the items needing to be addressed as follows: 1) Town Counsel comment on the continuation of the class 6 road; 2) meet with Mr. Mitchell and CLD to research the feasibility of an easement to the Lynch property as well as an easement to the land-locked property; 3) increase noise buffer/easement at back portion; 4) continue the development with the plans for the loop configuration; 5) Mr. Mitchell to compose a letter to the interested parties regarding an investigation into possible wetlands violation, as well as additional mapping.Mr. Scanzani would like the Boardís file to contain a copy of the letter sent regarding the construction pile.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plans would be heard at the February 4, 2002 meeting.

 

Mr. Basso wanted to know if the plans would be reviewed under the old or new regulations.It was Mr. Mitchellís understanding that the plans would be reviewed under the old regulations.Mr. Basso said that some of the comments he received from CLD were based upon the new regulations.Mr. Danevich said that CLD would revise their comments based on the old regulations.

 

Map 12 Lot 44 Phase II Hart, Jordan & White - Shephard Road/Mulberry Lane - Proposed 28-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates requested that the hearing be continued.Mr. Danevich informed that the hearing would be continued to the February 4, 2002 meeting.

 

Map 2 Lot 131 Irene Steckiewicz - Bush Hill Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Culbert stepped down due to a conflict of interest.Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would vote in Mr. Culbertís place for this application.

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.He said that years ago a portion of the lot was subdivided and the owners would like to further subdivide for a family member.He said the landremaining would be approximately 12.75 acres.

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if a duplex would be built.Mr. Zohdi answered no.He said the house would be up to four bedrooms, not six.Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if there was a reason for not extending the lot to the ponds edge.Mr. Zohdi said his client wanted to own a contiguous portion along the ponds edge.Mr. Scanzani wanted to ensure the applicant was aware that any subdivision done now would not ensure future subdivision approvals for lots in-between.

 

Mr. McNamara believed the concern was that the proposed lot shape and placement would possibly make any future subdivisions have lot shapes that werenít acceptable.Mr. Zohdi explained how the entire parcel could be subdivided into a total of five lots.Mr. McNamara was concerned with frontage issues going before the Board of Adjustment.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the new owners would have water rights.Mr. Zohdi answered no.

 

Ms. Bousa asked if the scale was correct.Mr. Zohdi said it would be corrected.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Paddy Culbert, Simpson Road informed that the applicant was not interested in owning waterfront property.He said that the frontage was not water, it was mud.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, abutter asked if the junkyard was contained on the property.Mr. Zohdi was not aware of a junkyard on the parcel.Mr. Yarmo asked if the parcel complied with the shoreline protection act.Mr. Zohdi said the parcel was not connected with the shoreline.Mr. Mitchell suggested that Mr. Zohdi reference that the parcel was contained within the 250í shoreline protection act line.Mr. Zohdi said he would work with Mr. Mitchell for the proper wording to be contained on the plan.Mr. Scanzani asked what the distance was from the parcel to the shoreline.Mr. Zohdi said approximately 160í.Mr. Scanzani read a portion of the shoreline protection act.He felt that there should be something on the lot that noted the protection areas.Mr. Zohdi said the state was reviewing the subdivision.He pointed out that the proposed house was approximately 500í from the reference line.Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental explained that the reference line started at the water and the first 50í could not have a structure that was not water resilient.He further explained the protection act and what uses were allowed.Mr. Scanzani wanted the not cut zone area noted on the property.Mr. Zohdi said he didnít have a problem adding a note to the plan that said 150í from the edge of water would be a no-cut zone.

 

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the shoreline protection act would be applicable if the original lot was not in compliance.Mr. Scanzani was only concerned with the proposed subdivision before the Board.

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated the Boardís concerns as follows: 1)correct the scale note on the plan; 2) number of bedrooms to be corrected; 3) shoreline protection act note on the plan; and 4) to add a note for a no-cut zone at 150í from the edge of the water.Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve the plan subject to the corrections being made to the plan.Mr. McNamara seconded.He didnít feel comfortable voting on the plan.He had questions regarding the shoreline protection act.Mr. DeLuca didnít like the lot-line configuration.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the plan subject to the following corrections being applied to the plan. 1)correct the scale note on the plan; 2) number of bedrooms to be corrected; 3) shoreline protection act note on the plan; and 4) to add a note for a no-cut zone at 150í from the edge of the water.

 

VOTE:

(4 - 2 - 0)The motion carries.Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Ouellette voted no.Mr. McNamara voted yes, with reservation.Mr. Culbert stepped down.Ms. Bousa voted in Mr. Culbertís place.

 

Mr. Culbert rejoined the Board.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 3 Lot 88-2 & 89 M&P Realty Trust - Priscilla Way and Nashua Road - Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Planning Directorís report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons earlier, or at the present time, who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Mitchell said he could review his concerns with the applicant so they may be corrected by the time the plan was formally accepted.He recommended that the plan be accepted for Consideration.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the plan would be reviewed under the new regulations because they had been submitted after the posting date.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that plan was date specified for February 4, 2002.

 

Map 4 Lot 139 Normandy R.E. Holding Co. LLC - Valley Hill Road - Proposed 25-Lot Subdivision for Planning Directorís report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons earlier, or at the present time, who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Mitchell said he could review his concerns with the applicant so they may be corrected by the time the plan was formally accepted.He recommended that the plan be accepted for Consideration.

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept the plan for Consideration.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the plan would be reviewed under the new regulations because they had been submitted after the posting date.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that plan was date specified for February 4, 2002.

 

Map 12 Lot 41 & 43 Stonepost Village LLC - Spring Street - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Planning Directorís report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud for both Pelham, NH and Dracut, MA. There were no persons earlier, or at the present time, who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Mitchell said the plans were complete.He recommended that the plan be accepted for Consideration.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To accept the plan for Consideration.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the plan would be reviewed under the new regulations because they had been submitted after the posting date.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that plan was date specified for February 4, 2002.

 

Map 12 Lot 225 Romeo & Jane Croteau - 39 Ledge Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Planning Directorís report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons earlier, or at the present time, who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Mitchell said he could review his concerns with the applicant so they may be corrected by the time the plan was formally accepted.He recommended that the plan be accepted for Consideration.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To accept the plan for Consideration.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the plan would be reviewed under the new regulations because they had been submitted after the posting date.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that plan was date specified for February 4, 2002.

 

Map 2 Lot 12 May Ann Glance - Burns Road/Marsh Road - Proposed 11-Lot Subdivision forPlanning Directorís report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons earlier, or at the present time, who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Mitchell said he could review his concerns with the applicant so they may be corrected by the time the plan was formally accepted.He noted that there was a compliance issue regarding the proposal of a lot with no frontage.He recommended that the plan be accepted for Consideration.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept the plan for Consideration.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the plan would be reviewed under the new regulations because they had been submitted after the posting date.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that plan was date specified for February 4, 2002.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

The minutes of December 13, 2001 were deferred to the next meeting.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:10pm.

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Charity A. L. Willis

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Recording Secretary