APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 7, 2002   

 

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Community Development Director Dave Brouillet

 

ABSENT:

 

Alternate Robin Bousa

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, e (legal)

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  (Mr. Danevich and Mr. Lynde arrived after the non-public session had begun). 

 

The Board entered into non-public session with the Vice Chairman, Paddy Culbert, calling the meeting to order at approximately 7:00pm.  Mr. Danevich and Mr. Lynde arrived shortly after the non-public session had begun.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/Scanzani) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the non-public session at approximately 7:30pm. 

 

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

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll.  All were present with the exception of Ms. Bousa.

 

Mr. Danevich announced that the Planning Board would not hold a meeting October 21, 2002 and the next scheduled meeting would be November 4, 2002. 

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Map 7 Lot 238 - Town of Pelham - 59 Marsh Road - Site Plan Review for Municipal Complex in accordance with RSA 674:54

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the Planning Board was the facilitator of the public hearing for the any type of governmental land use, per RSA 674:54.  He said a non-binding memo would be issued for conformance noting any issues expressed during the hearing, and submitted to the Selectmen.

 

Ms. Jan Becker, Project Architect of Breadloaf Corporation presented the project to the Board.  She reviewed the general layout, parking, circulation, landscaping (protection of the memorial trees) and site lighting of the Municipal Complex.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the lighting would be directed down.  Ms. Becker said the lighting would be directed down.  She said there were some building mounted lights that she did not believe would affect the abutters. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked what the back distance was from the parking lot edge to the property line.  Ms. Becker said that the complex was well within the deed restrictions and a few hundred feet from the property line.  She noted that Breadloaf hadn’t received the full survey of the property.

 

Mr. Danevich asked that consideration be given to each exit having both a left and right turning lane.  He asked where the dumpster location was being proposed.  Ms. Becker showed where a possible location for the dumpsters of the Municipal Complex, and noted that they had not yet chosen a location for the Library dumpsters. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked what the height of the building would be once it was completed.  Ms. Becker said she did not have the elevation calculations, but that they were noted on the plans at the Library.  She said that there had been some minor changes to the windows, porch and front elevation of the Library, which were not substantial.  Selectmen Bill McDevitt informed that the drawing were currently at the Town Hall Annex. 

 

Ms. Becker went on to further discuss the lighting of the site and the reason the fixtures were chosen.  Mr. Scanzani asked how close the light poles were to each other on the green area.  Ms. Becker said they were less than 75ft. to each other. 

 

Ms. Becker explained the proposed drainage plan as prepared by Kimball-Chase, which was in accordance with the state regulations.  She said that Breadloaf was comfortable with the drainage solution, but was still reviewing costs and obtaining final approvals.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the hydrants and asked if consideration had been given to locating a hydrant at the back of the school.  Ms. Becker said that there was an existing hydrant at the rear of the building.  She noted that Breadloaf had worked with the Fire Chief to plan the fire lanes, access, location of the hydrants and setting the water and utilities up for future expansion.  Mr. Scanzani asked about the gravel drive located between the Police station and the Library.  Ms. Becker said the gravel drive was primarily so that the fire apparatus could either turn around, or access the Municipal Complex road without a problem.  She said that there had been a lot of discussion and it was preferred to keep the road gravel and not paved so the Municipal Complex road would remain separate. 

 

Mr. Danevich said there was a concern with the possibility of gating the back for the Police station, which would separate parking spaces from the meeting hall space.  Ms. Becker said that they weren’t gating the back, it had only been discussed.  She pointed out the handicap spaces and the access to the Municipal Building.  She pointed out that there were possible alternate entrances to the meeting hall through the future expansion space.  Mr. Danevich felt if there was no provision for having a larger group of people able to access the meeting space, there would be a cueing problem and parking along Marsh Road.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the parking area on the north side of the building could be extended, taking out the light green area shown on the plan (which was not currently green).  Ms. Becker said it was not generally a good idea to pave up to the face of a building.  She said there was concern with access to the sally port at the Police station.  It was suggested to change the circulation pattern of the police cruiser access to the sally port so that the light green area could be removed.  Ms. Becker said that the change would be reviewed. 

 

Mr. Scanzani suggested that the auditorium be painted and that a few tiles on the floor also be changed to give the room a different look.  Ms. Becker said the doors would be changed and the auditorium was currently scheduled to be painted.  Mr. Scanzani asked why the walk-in-freezer was possibly going to be removed.  Selectmen Bill McDevitt said that the walk-in-freezer was old and he didn’t believe the Town would use it for anything. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the server computer room should not be overlooked when the air conditioner vents were being installed.  Ms. Becker said that the cooling and ventilation for the server room was currently being discussed. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the walk-in-cooler would be eliminated or taken out.  Selectmen Bill McDevitt believed the plan was to take it out and make the space a meeting room.  Mr. Culbert noted that a walk-in-cooler was better that individual cooling units. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know what was trying to be achieved with the lighting plan.  Ms. Becker said that Breadloaf was trying to strike a balance between safety and not being overlit.  She believed that the lighting level might seem a little bright until the canopy of the trees grew in.  She said that Breadloaf dealt with similar issues on school campuses and noted that the lights could be on sensors so that they automatically went on and off. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked where the location of the septic system was and wanted to know if there was a replacement area.  Ms. Becker showed the area where the septic system was located.  She said one of the leach fields, which was not really usable, would be abandoned. 

 

Ms. Becker discussed the type of curbing to be used, which was mainly for directing water. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the windows would be Energy E glass or Low-E glass.  Ms. Becker said that any of the new items would meet the energy code.  She showed the area that would have new windows and noted that there would be further research regarding replacement of other windows. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked that consideration be given to the view from the roadway to the library on the cemetery side of the common green.  He did not want the beautiful site to be lost. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Mary-Jo Palermo, 2a Sawmill Road asked if there would be a 30ft. tree buffer beside the common green on the cemetery side.  Ms. Becker said that there currently was a 300ft. buffer that she didn’t believe could be altered.  Selectmen Bill McDevitt gave a brief history of the deed requirement.  He said white pines had been planted in the field and removed by a person leasing the space to sell pumpkins.  He noted that the Selectmen would be more than happy to replant the pine trees (from the state nursery) on the lot.  Ms. Palermo asked if the parking for the Library had been moved.  Ms. Becker discussed the initial plan and noted that there was a deed restriction for the property which forced the parking to be moved to the side of the building.  Ms. Palermo asked if trees to the left of the Library would be removed.  Ms. Becker said that they had walked the site with the Forester who advised which trees would be cut.  She said the Forester made the suggestion that once the trees were cut, they should remain on the ground with the stump so that the forest could reclaim itself. 

 

Mr. Mark Duquette, 33 Marsh Road noted that the drainage easement for the entire property went through his yard and wanted to know if the piping would need to be dug up to accommodate additional drainage.  Mr. Kirk Rosenheim, Kimball-Chase said that the site had been approved through the NHDES as a site specific permit.  He said that the existing pipe had the capacity to handle additional drainage and that Mr. Duquette’s yard within the easement space would not be dug up.  Mr. Duquette asked if there would be additional lighting on Marsh Road.  Ms. Becker said that currently the lighting along Marsh Road was not being changed.  She said that there was a light at the entrance and there would possibly be a light added to the exit at the corner. 

 

Mr. Brian Gillispie, 35 Marsh Road, asked if there was a plan to change the cross-walks.  Ms. Becker said the cross walks had not been discussed.  Selectmen Bill McDevitt said that he was taking notes for discussion items.  Mr. Gillispie wanted to know what the construction hours would be.  Ms. Becker said that typically job site hours were 7am-4pm.  She said that typically there were no Saturday hours, but that situations sometimes arose.  She said that the job supervisor could be informed to contact Mr. Gillispie in the event that there were going to be Saturday hours.  Mr. Gillispie asked if the idle time would be before 7am.  Ms. Becker said that noise on the site would start at 7am, and not earlier.  Mr. Danevich said that there would be a request for a voluntary compliance of hours, as done in the past with commercial properties.  He said that the Board would provide construction hour restrictions within the recommendation to the Selectmen. 

 

Mr. Duquette asked if the traffic pattern for Gibson Drive would be changed.  Selectmen McDevitt said that it had not yet been discussed. 

 

Ms. Jennifer Gillespie, 35 Marsh Road, asked if speed enforcement had been discussed specifically if a blinking yellow light would be placed on Marsh Road.  She did not want a traffic light placed in front of their bay window.  Mr. Danevich said that traffic control was determined by the Selectmen.  Mr. Scanzani believed that an extension of the school zone traffic may help to ease traffic around the Municipal Building.  Selectmen Greg Farris said that he would rather have a detailed officer at the site if there was an event happening.  He didn’t see the need for blinking lights to be added. 

 

Ms. Palermo asked what the project  completion date was.  Ms. Becker said the project was due to be completed in June, 2003.  She said that construction had begun, the site was beginning to be cleared.  She noted that the Selectmen would post monthly times for residents to walk through and tour the site. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the points discussed during the hearing as follows: 1) roadway turning lanes upon exit that provide both left and right turning; 2) pull out green space near school to adjust the public parking for meeting space; 3) reverse sally port circulation direction; 4) air conditioning vents for inside the computer room; 5) clear understanding of the building setbacks and the distance to the abutters (suggested receipt of an overall topo plan); 6) green space view to cemetery - blending of trees to smooth the transition between parcels; 7) consideration of crosswalks; 8) hour restrictions; 9) Gibson Road traffic flow; 10) traffic control measures.  Mr. Scanzani added that the Board did not want a vegetative swale in the front of the green space.  Mr. Culbert wanted to note the abutter’s concern regarding the drainage easement onto his property.  Mr. Danevich added a note to the list of concerns that there would be no impact to the easement on the abutter’s property. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that a recommendation memo would be submitted to the Selectmen within the next few days.   

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 9 Lot 9 - First Street Realty Trust - Golden Brook Estates - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet noted the location of the project and informed that CLD (Town Engineer) had recommended a reduction in the bond and to leave $19,500 remaining.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if Mr. Don Foss, Highway Agent had reviewed the site.  Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Foss was not part of the bond reduction process.  He said that Mr. Foss did however provide a written recommendation during the last process when the road is reviewed for Town Warrant.  Mr. Brouillet said that Mr. Foss issued the driveway permits and would note any issues when in the Planning Office. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked what the length of the Golden Brook Estates road.  Mr. Brouillet said the road was approximately 500ft.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to ensure that the retained amount would be enough to cover the remaining work.  Mr. Brouillet said that both he and CLD were recommending the reduction and it was the Board’s decision to make an approval.  Mr. DeLuca asked who would be responsible for additional funds if the work exceeded the retained amount.  Mr. Brouillet said the developer could be sued. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know if the road presented to the Board was the road put in.  Mr. Brouillet said if there were any significant changes, the applicant would have to come back to the Board.  Mr. Lynde wanted to know what actions could be taken if CLD missed something.  Mr. Brouillet said that CLD held professional liability insurance, but negligence would have to be proven first.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond to $19,500.  

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 3 Lot 101 - Cecile B. Gauthier Trust - Gauthier Road - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet said that per the August 21, 2002 correspondence from CLD (Town Engineer), it was not recommended that the bond be reduced.  He said that since receipt of the August 21, 2002 letter, the incomplete items (fire sisterns and road sign) had been completed.  He recommended that the bond be reduced to $20,100.   

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To reduce the bond to $20,100.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 1 Lot 57 - V & G Development - Jones Farm Road - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet noted that the reduction fell under the old regulations, therefore it was not a percentage reduction.  He said the project was almost complete and the amount being requested was the maintenance bond plus an additional $2000 for loaming and seeding.  He said the recommendation was to reduce the bond to $16,600. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know the location of the road.  Mr. Brouillet said that Jones Farm Road was located near Veterans Park. 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/McNamara) To reduce the bond to $16,600.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 4 Lot 180-14 - Two M Construction - Benoit Avenue - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet said that CLD (Town Engineer) recommended that the bond be reduced $174,200.  He noted that the reduction was the first phase partial reduction.  He said there were questions regarding the stump dump removal.

 

Mr. Mike McCarthy the person doing the site work said that there had been debris when the road was dug out which was removed.  He noted that there was a portion of a stump dump left on an abutting property that should be capped over. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that three conditions had previously been placed on the plan: 1) 300’ red rust line and sink holes found by Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental, which open up to a stump dump.  Mr. McCarthy said that sink holes found were actually debris.  2) improvement of safety, there had been a cliff left.  3) removal and correction of the cul-de-sac upon paving before issuance of any building permit or certificate of occupancy.  He said the condition had not yet been complied with, based upon a decision by Mr. Brouillet.  Mr. Danevich said that if the cul-de-sac were removed a school bus would not be able to turn around and children would congregate at the corner of Beniot and Mammoth Road.  He said that the cul-de-sac would remain until a school bus could turn around safely.  Mr. Danevich understood that the bond reduction request took into account the completion and removal of the cul-de-sac. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if the stump dump was still leaking down the roadway.  Mr. Brouillet said that the redness could be iron bacteria, which was naturally occurring.  Mr. Danevich had the opportunity to see the roadway being put in and said that it had been cleared.  He discussed the old regulations which allowed a stump dump at the furthest point on a property.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond to $174,200.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 4 Lot 140 - KLN Construction - Jonathon Road - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet said that CLD (Town Engineer) had recommended that the bond be reduced to $75,900.  He said that the project looked good and that vegetation was well established. 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To reduce the bond to $75,900.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 1 Lot 161 - Merrimack Valley Homes - Greenmeadow Drive - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Brouillet informed that he and  CLD (Town Engineer) did not recommend a reduction in the bond until the drainage and utilities were completed. 

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/McNamara) To deny the requested bond reduction.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  The request was denied.  The bond will not be reduced at this time.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Map 9 Lot 40 & 40-3 - St.Onge, Rita - Hobbs Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Steve Haight, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said the applicant was requesting a two-lot subdivision and explained that at the last Board meeting it was suggested to review certain health and safety issues.  He said the proposal was a continuation of the subdivision of ML 9-40.  He showed the location of the lot and informed that a variance had been granted by the Board of Adjustment for a lot containing less than 200ft. of frontage.  He pointed out the location of the wetlands and said currently there was not a potential for further subdivision. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked for review of the Safety Committee’s comments.  Mr. Brouillet said the Fire Chief had concern because when ML 9-40-2 was subdivided, a sistern was to be installed, and to date had not been.  Mr. Haight said that at the previous meeting Mr. St.Onge said he had no problem installing a sistern.  Mr. Brouillet said that road access was also a concern.  He said that two emergency vehicles would need to be able to pass one another.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked where the driveway would be located.  Mr. Haight showed the location on the plan, which was along the existing driveway easement, shared with other parcels. 

 

Mr. Haight told Mr. St.Onge that the Board was concerned with the installation of the sistern.  Mr. Leo

St. Onge went on record to say he would install the sistern recommended by the Fire Chief.  Mr. Danevich said that any approval could be conditioned upon installation of a sistern prior to any building permit being issued. 

 

Mr. Culbert was concerned with granting an approval to a parcel with no frontage.  Mr. Haight noted that the lot had been granted a variance.  Mr. Brouillet asked if anything had been started from the time the variance was granted.  Mr. Haight answered no.  Mr. Brouillet pointed out that per the Zoning Ordinance, the variance would have expired six months after issue.  Mr. Haight said that Mr. St. Onge was in the process of creating the subdivision after the variance was granted.  Mr. Danevich reviewed the application and pointed out that ML 9-40 was separate from ML9-40-3.  He then reviewed the minutes from the August 14, 2000 Board of Adjustment meeting when the variance was granted.  It was his belief that if the back portion of ML 9-40 was subdivided off, the variance would not apply. 

 

Mr. Leo St. Onge, representing the applicant, discussed the frontage issue with the Board.  He said that the Board of Adjustment had discussed the road accessing ML 9-40-1 and were trying to determine if it was class 5, or class 6.  He informed that the road was a dirt road, not a Town road which used as passage to the back parcels.  He noted that the determination by the Board of Adjustment for ML 9-40-1was that the 50ft. easement onto Hobbs Road was the frontage.  Mr. St. Onge said when the second lot was subdivided he was granted a variance based on the 50ft. easement being the frontage for Hobbs Road.  He said the same discussion took place when he went before the Board of Adjustment for ML 9-40-3, and the same determination was made, that the 50ft. easement onto Hobbs Road was considered the frontage for the lot and a variance was granted. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. St. Onge had been back before the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. St. Onge believed that he had met since the August 14, 2000 meeting.  Mr. Danevich said that the Board of Adjustment case noted on the plan was case #2180, which he did not believe addressed ML 9-40-3.  Mr. Scanzani reviewed the file and did not find any reference to an additional Board of Adjustment case since August 14, 2000.  Mr. Brouillet referenced the subdivision regulations, section 1105 (lot shape), item 2, in connection with the application and said he didn’t believe the application met the requirements.  Mr. Scanzani said an option would be to put a road in to support the land.  He said the proposed application would create a shared driveway, which the Board was not in favor of. 

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the case and noted there was history connected with the parcel.  Mr. St. Onge said that ML 9-40-3 was the last parcel he would subdivide.  He said the previous lots had been subdivided for his daughters. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked Mr. McNamara to the best of his recollection, which lot the August 14, 2000 variance was for.  Mr. McNamara said it was difficult to read and pointed out that there was a lot of discussion regarding ML 9-40-3.  He said the Board of Adjustment had concern with the further development with lot 3.  Ms. Ouellette said that Mr. St. Onge was questioned at the Board of Adjustment meeting if he would come before them again, to which Mr. St. Onge answered no.  She noted that the minutes discussed the easement, which went up to ML 9-40-3.  Mr. McNamara believed Mr. Brouillet’s comment was well taken if the Board of Adjustment case #2180 referred to the parcel currently being discussed.  He said the applicant may need to go back to the Board of Adjustment to have the variance renewed. 

 

Mr. Danevich read a portion of the Zoning Ordinance, 307-88, section D which reviews the expiration of variances.  Based upon the zoning, Mr. Danevich didn’t feel the Board had jurisdiction to accept the Board of Adjustment case #2180 variance.  Mr. Scanzani reviewed the minutes from Board’s last approval (December 6, 1999) which he believed didn’t prevent further subdivision, but in order to do so, the applicant would have to put road frontage onto a classified road.  Mr. Danevich believed a road would address all the concerns expressed to date. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Haight requested that the Board table the plan for a couple months for further review and research.  There was a brief discussion and a consensus from the Board to continue the application for 60-days. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the application was date specified to the December 2, 2002 meeting.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 180 - Carol O. Reeser - 18 Mammoth Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Submission

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Mr. Dave O’Hara, a licensed land surveyor met with the Board to present the proposed plan.  He said the applicant would like to subdivide her current parcel into two lots.  ML 6-180 (northerly lot) would contain 2.04 acres (53,534 SF of contiguous land) and ML 6-180-1 (southerly lot) would contain 1.98 acres 57,094 SF of contiguous land).  He explained that the existing septic system and well radius partially overlapped the proposed southerly lot.  He said they would add a new septic and well to ML 6-180, but hoped it would not need to be constructed until the time of construction on the southerly lot.  Mr. O’Hara informed that Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Town Health Officer witnessed four test pits, which met or exceeded the DES requirements.  He said there were extensive wetlands on both lots as well as a flood line (determined by using a USGS benchmark south of Greeley Road).  He believed the flood line to be subjective due to the contour of the land, but felt fairly certain of the line. 

 

Mr. Brouillet said that the original plan had been revised and asked that Mr. O’Hara discuss what had changed.  Mr. O’Hara said that the flood line had been recalculated.  He said they originally used a benchmark at Sherburne Road, which had a 2ft. difference in elevation, therefore they decided to use the benchmark just south of Greeley Road.  Ms. Reeser discussed the sales contract in connection with the parcel. 

 

Mr. Brouillet believed there was sufficient information to accept the plan for consideration. 

 

MOTION:

 

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. O’Hara said that per note #16, there would be a waiver request for the 100ft.x150ft. building envelope as shown on sheet one of the plan.  Mr. Danevich said that the Board would need a formal written waiver request.  He discussed the reasons for the building envelope requirement.  Mr. Scanzani did not believe the Board could take any further action on the plan until the Board of Adjustment had an opportunity to review since there was a requirement for 35,000SF of contiguous land in a non-flood plane area.  Mr. O’Hara said that he understood the requirement, but wanted to obtain the Board’s input.  He said that they had spoken to an attorney and would be placed on an upcoming Board of Adjustment agenda. 

 

Mr. Danevich understood, in good faith, that a written waiver request would be submitted.  However, he accepted the waiver as note #16 on the plan.  He read the request aloud that referenced Article 1104 c (building envelope). 

 

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/DeLuca) To accept the waiver request for consideration regarding the building envelope.

 

VOTE:

 

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

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reiterated that he wanted to continue the plan until the Board of Adjustment had an opportunity to review.  He questioned if additional waivers would be needed based upon the amount of wetland on the property.  Mr. O’Hara did not see any wetland impact for what was being proposed. 

 

In order to give the applicant time to meet with the Board of Adjustment, Mr. Danevich informed that the application was date specified to the December 2, 2002 meeting.

 

Map 7 Lot 54-9 - Gloria Cote - 20 Stevens Road - Proposed Special Permit for wetland crossing

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Mr. Brouillet informed that the application was ready for acceptance for consideration.   

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept the application for consideration.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Ms. Gloria Cote, the applicant, met with the Board to review the wetland crossing permit.  Mr. Brouillet said the way the application came about was that he received a building application for a renewal, and after research found that a special permit was never issued by the Board for the WCD crossing.  He said the plan had gone before the Conservation Commission as well as received a state dredge and fill permit. 

 

Ms. Cote said that Gove Environmental and Herbert Associates had represented her before the Conservation Commission and for the dredge and fill permit.  She said she also had a septic design approval and her building permit had been renewed. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Debbie Auger, 25 Stevens Road was concerned with the wetlands crossing and water coming onto her property.  Ms. Cote said she was only seeking a permit for a driveway crossing.  Ms. Auger asked if the crossing would require a bridge.  Mr. Brouillet answered no.  Mr. Danevich welcomed Ms. Auger to review the plan.   

 

Mr. Yarmo asked that the wetland flags were still in place.  He said the flags were important and should be in place before work began.   Ms. Cote said the flags were still hanging. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To approve the special permit for the wetland crossing. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Map 13 Lot 63 - David & Rachel Conrad - Gage Hill Road - Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision for Submission and Special Permit for wetlands crossing

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Mr. David Jordan, TF Moran presented the plan to the Board.  He said the applicant was seeking a three lot subdivision.  He showed where the wetlands were located.  He noted that Gage Hill Road, Route 38 was a state highway and that the DOT had issued a driveway permit in the 1970’s and since no driveways were constructed at that time, the permit had been renewed.  He told the Board that the DOT would not allow more than two driveway cuts onto Route 38, which was the reason the plan showed a common drive for two of the lots.  Mr. Jordan said that the driveways would also necessitate a wetland crossing.  He said an application had been submitted to the Conservation Commission and would be forwarded to the state. 

 

Mr. Brouillet informed that the application was complete. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani recommended that the Board not accept waivers until they were received in writing.  There was a concurrence from the Board to hold off on accepting waiver requests until received in writing.  Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Jordan if there were any other known waiver requests.  Mr. Jordan answered no. 

 

Mr. Jordan said that all the mapping had been done, as well as test pits/perk tests.  He said each lot had its own septic and well and the only shared component was the driveway.  He believed that the lots complied with zoning. 

 

Mr. Lynde pointed out that the plan did not appear to only be a subdivision.  He said there were also land conveyances that he would like further explained.  Mr. Jordan reviewed the plan and showed the portions of the parcel that would be conveyed to abutting properties.  He said the conveyances were done at the request of the abutters.  He said that ML 17-13-61, 62 & 64 would be receiving additional parcels. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if both driveways would be crossing wetlands.  Mr. Jordan answered yes and pointed out that a culvert would be added under the driveways to maintain the flow of water through the area. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked why there were only two driveway cuts being allowed.  Mr. Jordan explained that DOT based cuts on frontage area.  Mr. DeLuca did not like the shared driveway, let alone the way it crossed the abutting parcel for access.  Mr. Danevich discussed shared driveways and the problems that occur.  He was not in favor of the shared driveway. 

 

Mr. Yarmo said that Conservation had reviewed the plan and did not have a lot of issue.  He said that he had not yet had the opportunity to review the dredge and fill permit. 

 

Mr. DeLuca suggested having a separation between the two driveways.  Mr. Danevich discussed another area in Town where there was a split driveway that was joined for the last ten feet so that only one curb cut was needed.  Mr. Jordan heard the Boards concerns and would note when further reviewing the plan. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Old Gage Hill Road was a class 6 road.  Mr. Jim Bergeron, Old Gage Hill Road  informed that Old Gage Hill Road was class 6, closed to gates and bars per Town vote in 1972.  He said he had backup documents if the Board wanted copies.  Mr. Danevich said that further research would be needed and legal opinion obtained. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Joseph Zold, 113 Old Gage Hill Road discussed the problem he was having with drainage on the west side of his property, due to the state project currently going on.  He said that because drainage pipes were not replaced, his land became a wetland.  He showed a plot plan that was stamped which was certified and dated from 1972.  He pointed out on the map where his parcel was located and wanted to know if the flow of water was tampered with or blocked, how his parcel would be affected.  Mr. Jordan showed on the presented plan where the pipe was located and said that the water flow would be kept open and not blocked.  Mr. Danevich said that CLD (Town Engineer) could review the area. 

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the items which needed further review: 1) locus map is missing some roads which makes it difficult for orientation - he asked for consistency with labeling; 2) written waiver requests should be submitted; 3) three separate legal correspondences accepting the parcels to be conveyed from ML 17-13-61, 62 & 64); 4) increasing the lot size of ML 17-13-61 and if there was a potential for further subdivision; 5) review and comments (minutes) from the Conservation Commission; 6) CLD to review the drainage pipe in connection with the state project and if there would be any negative impact on Mr. Zold’s property.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the application was date specified to the December 2, 2002 meeting. 

 

Map 12 Lot 192 & 203-16 - Richard Kirsch Investment Trust - Off Mulberry Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Submission

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Mr. Steve Haight, Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the plan to the Board.  He said they were seeking a cul-de-sac road (1500ft - 1600ft) off of Mulberry Road, which would have a WCD impact. 

 

Mr. Brouillet said he recommended the plan for acceptance for consideration. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Haight said there were no waiver requests at this time. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Bedard Avenue connected to ML 12-192-3.  Mr. Haight said that Bedard Avenue came through ML 12-194 with access to ML 12-192-3, ML 193-1 & ML 197.  He said that Bedard Avenue would not be tied into the subdivision.  Mr. Danevich asked if consideration was given to connecting Bedard Avenue with the proposed new road (Swain Road).  Mr. Haight said they had not given consideration to tying into Bedard Avenue.  A member of the public informed the Board that both Bedard Avenue and Bedard Road were private roads. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to know the proposed distance from the point of egress (Ledge  & Shephard Road) to the end of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Haight said he would have to calculate the distance.  Mr. Danevich said that the distance could not exceed 2400ft., he said it also could not exceed 36 homes or 360 trip counts. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked where the right-of-way was located withing 12-91.  Mr. Ron Carrick, 44 Mulberry Lane (owner of ML 203-14) said that the right-of-way was located between ML 203-13 & 14.  Since road connectivity was an issue, Mr. Scanzani questioned if there was a way to connect the roads. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked where the wetland was located on Mulberry Lane.  Mr. Haight showed Ms. Ouellette where the wetland was located. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked for further explanation of the plan and the lots that had a ‘Z’ on the boundaries.  Mr. Haight explained how the plan was drawn.  He said that certain lots were being combined (the ‘Z’ meant a lot line would disappear so the lots would become one) which would then be subdivided into twelve lots.  Mr. Haight said that he could alter the plans to make clearer. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted the items needing further review as follows: 1) the odd lot light space; 2) road connectivity; 3) egress issues with the cul-de-sac not meeting any of the three requirements.

 

Mr. Lynde questioned if the subdivision should be declared a pre-mature development.  Mr. Danevich could not give Mr. Lynde an answer until he re-reviewed Town Counsel’s memos previously provided to the Board. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Peter Loosigian, 8 Foreman Lane, was unsure if his problem was related to the proposed subdivision, or the previous subdivision on Mulberry Drive.  He said that he had lived in his home for ten years and the past spring had an incredible change with its levels of minerals.  He said that he had spoken with well specialist and water testing people that told him the problem was related to the development on Mulberry Drive.  Mr. Loosigian said that he had spoken with the developer and several other people who informed him he would not get anywhere with his inquiries.  He wanted the Board to know that the development had adversely affected his lifestyle and his well.  He said he was having his well treated and did not feel that the responsibility should fall upon him since, in his belief, the problem was brought about because of the development.  Mr. Loosigian spoke with former Planning Director, Clay Mitchell, who told him that the developer would be held responsible if a well test was done before and after the development.  He said he was also told by the blaster, and the developer that the development could in no way affect his well, which he thought was odd since a pre-blast well test had been performed.  He questioned why a well water test was done if nothing the developer or blaster were doing was supposed to affect him.  Mr. Loosigian asked if a condition of future development or bond could be placed on the existing Mulberry Drive subdivision. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the size of Mr. Loosigian’s lot.  Mr. Loosigian said his lot was approximately 5 3/4 acres. 

 

Mr. Ron Carrick, 44 Mulberry Lane was concerned with the cul-de-sac having access to ML 12-191.  He said that when he purchased lot 14, he had a good faith agreement with the developer that access would be put through to the cul-de-sac eliminating the easement through his property.  Mr. Danevich was skeptical of the claim, but would research.  Mr. Carrick  said there was a note on the deed regarding the access.  He said that he also had a problem with his well not meeting the Town’s well ordinance and that he was in the process of rectifying the situation.  Mr. Danevich said the well ordinance was under the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. Lynde noted that per the well ordinance, a test had to be done before a certificate of occupancy could be issued.  He said that the Town did not enforce the state regulations on limits and that it was the homeowner’s responsibility.  Mr. Carrick said the problem with his well was the yield.  Mr. Danevich deferred the question to the Board of Health. 

 

Mr. Steve Dionne, 7 Bedard Avenue wanted to know how a subdivision could be put in if a developer did not know where the property bounds and markers were.  He said that Mr. Kirsch asked Mr. Dionne’s mother if she wanted to purchase 13ft. of her own property back.  Mr. Danevich noted that the Town’s tax maps were not used for determining lot lines.  Mr. Haight said that the plan had been surveyed by a licensed surveyor who performed research and certified that what was being shown on the plan were the boundaries based on the information available.   

 

Ms. Monica Bedard, Bedard Avenue informed that Board that her father-in-law had lived on the property since 1906 and said that there was a discrepancy with the Town map as well as the title names.  She continued to give a brief history of the surrounding property.  She showed the Board a map of ML 12-191, which came from a title from Mr. Joseph Kittrage to Mr. Webster of a 160 acres dated in 1856.  The map showed a difference in the shape of the lot being presented.  She said the land was all quarry land.  Ms. Bedard said that a lot of the land in the area had been sold as ‘unknown’ (i.e. ML 12-203).  She continued to explain that the plan being presented to the Board showed incorrect boundary lines of the lots. 

 

Ms. Ruth Beggsley, Ledge Road, discussed the easement onto her property and noted that it had been written specifically for the Kirsch family.  She asked that the easement onto her property be abolished, but she wanted her easement to remain in place so that she could access her property.  She was concerned with liability issues due to the fact that her property contained part of an old quarry.  She wanted to know if some sort of fencing could be added between her property and the proposed development. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked that the members of the public compose a written letter stating all of their concerns so that the Board could address the items. 

 

Ms. Bedard said that one of the problems was that the Town sold lots with out having deeds in place. 

 

Mr. Roderick Bedard, Bedard Avenue had concern with the existing road and the fire hazard due to emergency vehicle access.  Mr. Danevich noted that three traffic studies had been done and the one that was done a part of the Stonepost phase 1 & 2 subdivision took into account all the primary intersections. 

 

Mr. Mike Scanlon, 6 Shephard Road, spoke on behalf of the residents on Shephard Road.  He said that he had discussed the access issue with the Board in the past and wanted to remind the Board that there was only one entrance to the proposed subdivision.  He felt that consideration should be given to the egress and believed that there should be an additional access point.   

 

Mr. Danevich said that the plan needed to be reviewed by CLD (Town Engineer) as well as the Conservation Commission. 

 

Ms. Bedard noted that the area was mainly ledge and said there was currently a drainage problem.  She said that currently the drainage came down Ledge Road and washed Bedard Avenue completely out.  She did not feel that it was right to allow the drainage to damage the roadway. 

 

Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that the plan should move forward if the egress calculation didn’t meet the regulations.  Mr. Danevich said that the applicant should be given the opportunity to review and correct the issues. 

 

Mr. Brunelle asked if the concerns of the Fire Department had been given any consideration, such as a fire substation.  Mr. Lynde said the issue was being handled by the Fire Chief. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Haight understood the concerns being expressed.  Mr. Haight said he did. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the application was date specified to the November 4, 2002 meeting.

 

Map 12 Lot 63-1 Life Estate of Pultar - End of Shephard Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Submission

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Mr. Steve Haight, Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the plan to the Board.  He said the proposed was a seven lot subdivision with an extension of Shephard Road.  He said there would be a proposed cul-de-sac that required fill areas along the end as well as a wetlands crossing.  He said that the plan would go to the Conservation Commission for the wetlands crossing (stream channel), two driveways and the road. 

 

Mr. Brouillet said that the application was complete.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

 Mr. Haight said that the waiver requests had not yet been submitted and would be at the next meeting.  He reviewed the plan for the Board.  He discussed he slopes and said that there would not be an additional impact on the wetlands, but also meeting the rules and regulations. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked how high the proposed retaining walls would be.  Mr. Haight said the retaining wall be between 6ft-10ft. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked what the frontage would be for ML 12-63-4.  Mr. Haight said the lot was being proposed for conservation, with the frontage on the cul-de-sac.  Mr. DeLuca asked how steep the driveways would be.  Mr. Haight said the driveways would meet the Town’s profile. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the building envelopes were not on the plan and he was curious how they would fit on the proposed lots.  He also did not feel that the cul-de-sac met the regulations.  Mr. McNamara suggested that the Board walk the site.  Mr. Culbert suggested waiting until after the road connectivity was done. 

 

Mr. Fredrick Pultar said his lot would be land-locked if the provisions worked out with the developer were not upheld.  He showed the Board a plan that included an access stub to a private road (Little Island Park) so that his property would not be land-locked. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the issues discussed as follows: 1) cul-de-sac termination piece (36 homes, 360 trip count); 2) adding the building envelopes to the plan; 3) retaining wall.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bob Gleason, 7 Little Island Park suggested having the Conservation Commission easement in writing.  Mr. Danevich discussed the conservation land and informed that a public hearing would need to be held by the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. Gleason also suggested that there be a letter of notarization for the land to be deeded to Mr. Pultar.  He asked how the drainage would be handled for the roadway and where it would end up.  Mr. Haight said that there would be a treatment swale at the end of the cul-de-sac and there would be a detention pond at the beginning of the proposed roadway. 

 

Mr. Mike Scanlon, 6 Shephard Road said he had the same concerns as the previous application, which was the road connection and single access to the proposed developments. 

 

Ms. Roswitha Norton, 15 Little Island Park asked if the Town was deeded land for conservation if it could be used for another purpose later.  Mr. Danevich said in the past deed restrictions were placed to leave the land in its natural vegetative state.  Mr. Lynde said if land were deeded to the Town the decision of what would happen to the land would be up to the Town people through a vote at Town meeting.  Mr. Danevich discussed the type of deed restrictions placed on certain properties and in what instance the land could be used for an alternate purpose. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the issues discussed as follows: 1) cul-de-sac length and requirements (2400ft., 36 homes or 360 trip count); 2) building envelopes need to be designated on the plan; 3) retaining walls; 4) adding a lot to ML 12-62 along with receiving notarization; 5) drainage with respect to the CLD study that will be performed. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the application was date specified to the November 4, 2002 meeting.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

November 5, 2001 - To be reviewed at the next meeting. 

 

September 5, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Culbert) To accept the minutes of the September 5, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

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

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Brouillet said that the Town Administrator had reviewed the hawker/peddler/itinerant license requirements and had deemed that Christmas tree vendors no longer fell under the requirements.  He said that the Town Administrator felt that Christmas tree vendors should actually be submitted to the Planning Board as a site plan review.  Mr. Danevich said that further research would be needed.  He said that the site plan, as written, did not cover that type of vendor. 

 

Mr.  Danevich said that the Town Administrator provided copies of the legal fee breakdown to the Board.  Mr. Brouillet said that the Town Administrator wanted to ensure that the Board was aware of what was being charged. 

 

Mr. Yarmo said that the Conservation Commission was going to try and adopt the Natural Resources Inventory at the next meeting and appreciated any input the Board may have. 

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

The following cases were date specified to the November 4, 2002 meeting:

Map 12 Lot 192 & 203-16 - Richard Kirsch Investment Trust - Off Mulberry Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision

Map 12 Lot 63-1 Life Estate of Pultar - End of Shephard Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision

 

The following cases were date specified to the December 2, 2002 meeting:

Map 9 Lot 40 & 40-3 - St.Onge, Rita - Hobbs Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Map 6 Lot 180 - Carol O. Reeser - 18 Mammoth Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:45 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary