APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 4, 2002   

 

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert (left the meeting at approximately 9:20pm), Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Planning Director Amy Alexander

 

ABSENT:

 

Alternate Bob Yarmo

 

Mr. Danevich announced that the Planning Board would not hold a meeting November 18, 2002 and the next scheduled meeting would be December 2, 2002. 

 

Administrative

 

Map 3 Lot 130 - ANGA Realty - Oak Hill Estates - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Danevich circulated photographs he had taken of the parcel.  He commended the developer on a job well done. 

 

Ms. Alexander informed that CLD (Town Engineer) had reviewed the project and calculated the bond release at $108,000 for work completed, with the bond being reduced to $78,539.

 

MOTION:

 

(Culbert/DeLuca) To reduce the bond for the Oak Hill Estates to $78,539.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Lynde arrived.

 

Map 4 Lot 140 - KLN Construction Corporation - Old Orchard Estates - Regarding Issuance of Building Permits in accordance with the Rules and Regulations Governing the Subdivision of Land Chapter 260, Section XVII

 

It was brought to Ms. Alexander’s attention that Mr. Nichols was applying for an additional building permit for Old Orchard Estates.  She said that he had already received twelve building permits this calendar year.  After reviewing the file, Ms. Alexander found a letter dated August 6, 2002 from the previous Planning Director (Mr. Dave Brouillet) stating that the subdivision had already exceeded the number of permits per Subdivision Regulations Section 260, Section 17, subsection e.  She said that she reiterated what had previously been stated through a letter to Mr. Nichols dated October 23, 2002.  Mr. Danevich discussed how the Board had worked in the past, which was to allow ten building permits within a year for multi-phase subdivisions.  He said that he had researched and found vagueness with the regulation for issuing permits and therefore placed the item on the agenda for the Board to discuss. 

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates recalled that he had requested an extension for the subdivision in the year 2000, and made it clear at that time that he did not want to lose ten lots during that time period.  He said it was his understanding that developers were awarded ten lots per year, per parcel of land.  He asked if a developer would lose lots if all ten weren’t used within the year.  Mr. Zohdi said that he had spoken with the previous Planning Director regarding the August 6th letter and informed that the previous Planning Director said after the letter had been sent, it was realized that a mistake had been made and a building permit had been issued.  He asked for clarification from the Board regarding the regulation and wanted to know if an application was not submitted for ten lots if they would be forfeited.  Mr. Danevich believed the Board would need to discuss and submit the query to legal counsel for opinion.  He used as an example the following - if a subdivision was approved in the year 2000 and no development occurred until 2003, it would not be the spirit and intent to allow thirty building permits at that time. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the Board’s history with accepting a waiver for the number of permits if a plan was approved late in a year.  Mr. Culbert did not recall waiver requests for such instances, but said he believed if there was a small number of lots with extenuating circumstances (i.e. paving times, couldn’t get foundation in) there was never a problem with carrying lots over to the next year.  He discussed past dealings with the Board and the reason the regulation was created. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the revision made to add a ‘rolling’ calendar year in the regulation would help alleviate any problems.  Mr. Danevich said that he had a recommended sentence prepared to help clarify the regulation. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked what the approval dates were.  Ms. Alexander said that the plan was first heard September 7, 2000, the plan was conditionally approved December 4, 2000 with the bond being first placed on July 11, 2001 and finally, the plans were recorded August 8, 2001.  Mr. Zohdi believed that the doctrine had been set from the date approved, not from the date recorded.  He felt an option would be for the Board to choose to give the developer the choice of placing foundations in, but still secure the ten permits per year.

 

Mr. McNamara agreed that the language needed to be reviewed by legal counsel and suggested the possibility of adding a hardship exception.  He said currently there was no provision for ‘stock-piling’ permits, which should be revised.  Ms. Alexander said that she was trying to move forward in a consistent manner, and was not ‘picking’ on the developer.  She went on to read aloud a letter received by legal counsel regarding premature developments in which RSA 674:36 IIa was cited.  Part of RSA 674:36 IIa speaks of water protection, which Ms. Alexander felt was not in place, even though a tanker truck was parked on site.  She was concerned with issuing building permits when fire protection was not in place and the water line was not coming through.  She would like to maintain consistency throughout the Town.  Mr. Zohdi said that fire issues were determined by the Fire Chief, and were not the purview of the Board.  He said his client was seeking a building permit, not an occupancy permit.  He informed that there were no waivers being requested for fire suppression and if a sistern needed to be installed, it would be. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know at which point the plan was considered to be approved, either at the point the conditions were set, or satisfied.  Mr. Zohdi believed approval took place at the time conditions were met. 

 

Mr. Scanzani was unclear why the issue was before the Board.  He said there were other requirements that needed to be met before any construction could begin and permits were issued.  He felt that there may be other revisions that should be made to the regulations, specifically in the premature development section. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding at which point a plan became final (a portion of RSA 676:4, part 1, section e, paragraph i was read aloud) and at what point a developer would be eligible for building permits.  Mr. Danevich clarified how many building permits the developer was requesting.  In the year 2001, no permits were pulled, from January 2002 to present twelve permits had been pulled and seven more were being requested.  Ten permits would be requested in the year 2003, and seven permits would be requested in the year 2004.  Ms. Alexander noted that the binder on the road was placed on the road June 28, 2002. 

 

Mr. Danevich highlighted the points to be sent to legal counsel: 1) when was the road built; 2) past practice of issuing under the current condition; 3) seeking 5 - 7 permits, with a total of 19 permits for 2002, with a maximum of 10 in 2003 and in 2004, 7 permits would be requested; 4) date for which compliance; 5) timeframe for determination. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reiterated his position that the decision to be made should be an administrative decision, which should go before the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Zohdi felt that when bonds were posted, a developer was entitled to a building permit.  Once again, Ms. Alexander discussed fire suppression and noted that the Fire Chief did not want wood on a building site until proper fire suppression was in place and the site could be accessed by proper apparatus.  Mr. Scanzani felt that all the lots had been released since the plan had been approved and the conditions had been met.  Mr. Zohdi asked that the Board grant approval for the remaining seven building permits.  Mr. Scanzani said the Board could not make a motion to issue building permits.  Mr. Zohdi said he wanted the Board to interpret the regulations. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the regulations require that a binder coat was down before a building permit could be issued.  Mr. Zohdi said that the history in Town was that when a bond was posted, a building permit could be received. 

 

Mr. Danevich recommended that the Board request an expedited opinion from legal counsel. 

 

Attorney William Mason, representing Mr. Nichols, said that part of the delay in applying for the permits was from the opinion of past Planning Directors.  He said that some of the developers in Town either chose to build, or bond their developments, but historically, in either case, building permits weren’t forfeited.  He noted that the Town Building Inspector was willing to issue the permit, but signoff was needed from the Planning Department. 

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated that an expedited opinion would be requested from town counsel and once received, if necessary the Board would hold a meeting November 18, 2002. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

Mr. David Jordan, TF Moran presented the revised plan to the Board on behalf of Mr. David Conrad.  He discussed how the parcel would be subdivided and the fact that a portion would be transferred to three abutters.  He provided copies of the three purchase and sales agreements to the Board for the file.  Mr. Jordan said once the portion of the parcel was transferred to the abutters there would remain two 2 1/2 acre lots and one 11 1/2 acre lot.  He said that the septic had been updated and was noted on sheet 5 of the plan.  He said he had a DOT permit for two driveways onto Route 38.  He said that one of the requirements of the DOT was 400ft. site distance.  He said per discussion at the last meeting, it would be impossible for the driveway location to be moved, because they would not be able to achieve the required 400ft. site distance. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the waiver requests per Subdivision Regulation 11.04.C. I (building envelope) and 11.05A. I. D (common driveway) which he felt should be considered as a special circumstance for this application.  Ms. Alexander informed that Mr. Yarmo had been in contact with her and said he was strongly in favor of the shared driveway in this case to minimize the wetland impact.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that there would be a separation between the two driveways.  Mr. Danevich discussed the reasons that the Board did not prefer shared driveways (i.e. maintenance, blocking access).  Mr. Lynde noted if the driveway were not shared, the lot would not have access.  Mr. Culbert said that there would be a single access for a dual driveway.  Mr. Danevich said the alternative to the shared driveway would be to implement a cul-de-sac, which the Town would end up maintaining.  He questioned how the Town would be better served.  Ms. Alexander noted that there was 99,600SF of non-wetland soil. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the culvert to be placed at the driveway entrance.  Mr. Jordan explained that the culvert would go beneath the driveway for ML 13-63 and 13-63-1.  Ms. Alexander noted for the Board that one culvert was preferable.  Mr. Scanzani was concerned with the width of the easement being 88ft. wide.  Mr. Jordan explained that the reason for the easement width was for the pipeline plus the apron.  The Board went on to discuss the building envelope square footage, which exceeded the subdivision regulations, but didn’t meet the dimensional specifications.  It was felt that the proposed building envelope served the purpose of a usable area.

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept for consideration the waiver requests for 11.04.C.1 (building envelope) and 11.05.A.1.D (common driveway), as submitted by the applicant.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the concerns stated at the previous meeting.  Ms. Alexander said that the Safety Committee would review the plan on Wednesday.  She said that the Fire Chief did not have issue with the site or the length of the driveway.  She said that Highway Road Agent, Mr. Don Foss also did not have issue with the driveway, as long as it did not become a Town road.  She said that Conservation Chairman, Mr. Bob Yarmo was greatly in favor of the two curb cuts onto Route 38, to minimize the wetland impacts.  She noted that the Conservation Commission had reviewed the plan.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the Road Agent and Fire Chief comments be submitted in writing for the file. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the requested conditions: 1) final Fire Chief opinion/review; 2) written comments from DOT/Safety Committee/Road Agent. 

 

Mr. DeLuca was concerned with the possibility of an additional parcel be added through a variance being granted through the Board of Adjustment.  Ms. Alexander felt that the location of the house, leach field and well radius eliminated the possibility of further subdivision, with the Board’s approval of the plan being presented. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. David Conrad, the applicant, commented about the Board being submitted smaller sized plans.  He asked that the Board consider requiring smaller sized plans in the future, to save costs for the applicants.  Mr. Danevich said the Board would take the suggestion under advisement. 

 

Mr. James Bergeron, abutter, was in favor of the subdivision.  He felt the plan was done very well and appreciated the lot line adjustments.

 

Mr. Tom Mosson, 354 Gage Hill Road said he lived directly across from the proposed driveways and did not have a problem with the proposed plans.  He was in favor of the subdivision.  

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To grant the waiver requests for 11.05.A.1.D for the shared driveway to gain access to the second lot, as requested by the applicant.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde voted no.

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To grant the waiver requests for 11.04.C.1 (building envelope) as submitted by the applicant.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the subdivision, subject to 1) final Fire Chief opinion/review; 2) written comments/review from DOT/Safety Committee/Road Agent.  

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette voted no.

 

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

 

A continuation was requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Board to the December 2, 2002 meeting.

 

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

 

A continuation was requested by the applicant and granted by the Planning Board to the December 2, 2002 meeting. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 31 - Martone, Lawrence & Elaine - Marsh Road & Willow Street - 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. Dan Dubrielle representing Elaine & Lawrence Martone Inc. presented the plan to the Board.  He provided an overview of the plan to the Board and informed that the state had approved the subsurface disposal systems.  He said there was no wetland work to be done except for adding hay bales and silt fences, which would be installed.  He went on to discuss how the frontage was calculated.  Ms. Alexander said that she was comfortable with the frontage. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if any wetland waivers were needed.  Mr. Dubrielle said no wetland waivers were needed.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the NHDES subdivision approval numbers had been received.  Mr. Dubrielle showed Mr. Scanzani the approvals.  Ms. Alexander made a copy for the file. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the well radius overlapped the septic area and said it should be located outside of the septic area.  Mr. Dubrielle said he did not have a problem relocating so there would be no overlapping. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that the frontage was not obvious and asked that an overall dimension be added that described the overall distance between the two set points.  He also asked that the plan be updated to show the well radius outside the septic area.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

 

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the subdivision, subject to the distance of measurement point distance L7 being clearly delineated as to the distance on Marsh Road and subject to the well radius of the first lot being outside of the 4000SF septic area. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Dubrielle requested that the administrative fee be reduced from the normal $1000 to $250.  There was a brief discussion regarding the Board’s decisions in the past, which lead to the following motion. 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To grant a reduction in the administrative fee from $1000 to $250.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Due to a personal commitment, Mr. Culbert stepped down and left the meeting.  Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence for the remainder of the meeting. 

 

Map 11 Lot 254 - Picard, Maurice - Off Dutton Road - Proposed 6-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. Jack Simplenski representing Stonemark Homes and Maurice Picard presented the plan to the Board.  He provided a brief history of the parcel and explained that originally the plan called for a 14-lot subdivision, which had been denied April 1, 2002.  He said since the denial, he had worked with the Conservation Commission and the abutters to create a 6-lot subdivision with a sale of the remaining land to be sold to the Conservation Commission as permanent conservation land (21.5 acres).  He discussed the changes made to the plan.  He said the cul-de-sac was proposed to be 850ft from Dutton Road.  Mr. Simplenski informed that the lots would be served by individual wells and septics.  He said in order to construct the road, two dredge and fills would be needed.  He noted that the road grades were very gentle (1 1/2 - 2%).  He noted that in addition the 21.5 acres for conservation land, there was an additional 1.5 acres that would be deeded to lots 4, 5 and 6, which would be a conservation easement.  Mr. Simplenski explained how the drainage would work through treatment swales, and then into the wetlands.  He said at the Dutton Road entrance they proposed to add an eight foot burm and sheet drain to the westerly side. 

 

Mr. Simplenski said that he would be requesting waivers for the minimum cover of pipes (between 2ft, to 2 1/2ft), as well as a waiver to 11.C (sewage).  Ms. Alexander did not have a problem with the cover of pipes, as long as there was a specification of class 5 pipes.  Mr. Danevich asked if the test pits had been performed.  Mr. Simplenski answered yes. 

 

Ms. Alexander said she reviewed the plan and the waiver requests and believed they were acceptable for consideration by the Board. 

 

MOTION:

 

(McNamara/Scanzani) To accept the waivers for consideration:  1) 2ft. cover over drainage pipe (using class 5 pipe), and 2) receiving area for test pit data.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

 

MOTION:

 

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration based on the Planning Director’s review in accordance to the regulations.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked that the well radius for ML 254-6 be contained within the lot.  Mr. Simplenski didn’t feel it would be a problem. 

 

Mr. Scanzani questioned if site specific should be requested due to the substantial wetlands on the parcel.  Mr. Simplenski didn’t feel that lots 1-4 had a problem with wetlands and did not mind if lots 5 and 6 were to be site specific.  The Board discussed the lots and concurred that lots 5 and 6 should be site specific. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle had a concern with the placement of the house on lot 3.  He asked that consideration be given to the proposed location since his house was in close proximately.  There was a discussion regarding the proposed 21.5 acres of conservation land, which Mr. Paul Gagnon informed that once the plan was approved, the land would be deeded 30-days later. 

 

Mr. Lawrence Major, Dutton Road asked about the status of the 1 1/2 acres of conservation land behind lots

4, 5 & 6.  Mr. Simplenski said that the land would be owned by the individual lots, but would become a conservation easement.  Mr. Major confirmed that the land could not be altered, or be open to the public since it was conservation land.  Mr. Simplenski answered yes. 

 

Mr. Paul Gagnon, Dutton Road asked if there could be a waiver provided so the 1 1/2 acres could be included within the 21.5 acres of conservation land.  Mr. Danevich said in that instance, the Planning Board could not waive a zoning requirement and it would need to go before the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Gagnon asked if the road width could be reduced.  Mr. Danevich said that Conservation and the Fire Chief would have to review and make a recommendation.  He noted that the easement would remain 50ft. wide, but the paved area may be able to be reduced.  Mr. Gagnon ended by thanking Mr. Simplenski for his work with the plan and the compromise reached.  Mr. Danevich asked if the residents in the area preferred the previous plan, or the most recent.  Mr. Gagnon said that the resident preferred the present plan and were actively raising the funds for the purchase of the conservation land. 

 

Mr. Jeff Costura, Dutton Road said that his neighbor (Mr. Fucarille) had previously brought up a concern regarding the drainage and wanted to know if there would be any additional water onto their property.  He also wanted to know if there would be a buffer between the proposed subdivision and his lot.  Mr. Simplenski said there would not be any additional water onto the abutting properties.  He said that he would be placing stones and doing plantings between the Fucarille’s property and the road. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the concerns as follows: 1) site specific for lots 5 & 6; 2) ML 254-6 well radius should be moved onto its own property; 3) Board will take the road width under consideration through the Road Agent, Conservation and the Fire Chief.  He asked that Ms. Alexander circulate the plan through the proper channels.

 

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

 

OLD BUSINESS continued to December 2, 2002 Planning Board Meeting - No discussion will occur for either of these two applications on November 4, 2002

 

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

 

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

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

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

 

October 7, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara ) To accept the minutes of the October 7, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 1)  The motion carries.  Ms. Bousa abstained.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Danevich said he was asked by Selectman Bill McDevitt if anyone on the Board was interested in attending a series of meetings regarding the water district questions circulating.  There was a brief discussion and Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Scanzani to think about possibly attending the meetings. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that the Town had officially received a termination of services from CLD Engineers, the Town engineering firm, effective November 8, 2002. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that conversation was continuing within the budget cycle regarding the Board’s request for legal counsel.  He said that he had requested a non-public session with the Selectmen for a date to be determined.  Mr. Lynde said the Selectmen would not be meeting this week and did not know if an agenda item had been added for the next scheduled meeting. 

 

Mr. Danevich said he received an e-mail from a resident on Burns Road who was unhappy with the sidewalks installed.  Mr. Scanzani gave a brief history of when the sidewalks were a condition of a subdivision.  Mr. Danevich said that further research would need to occur to find out if the sidewalks were installed per the approved plan.  There was a discussion regarding the area subdivisions and the requirements contained on the approvals.  Ms. Alexander said she would research the area subdivisions and report the findings back to the Board.       

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

The following case was date specified to the December 2, 2002 meeting:

Map 11 Lot 254 - Picard, Maurice - Off Dutton Road - Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision

 

The following cases were continued to the December 2, 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

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 10:23 pm.

 

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary