APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

December 2, 2002†††

 

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Planning Director Amy Alexander

 

ABSENT:

 

Bill Scanzani, Selectmenís Representative Hal Lynde

 

Mr. Danevich appointed Ms. Ouellette as acting Secretary in Mr. Scanzaniís absence; he then noted that Ms. Bousa would be voting in Mr. Scanzaniís place.

 

Mr. Danevich said that tentatively the Board would not hold a meeting December 16, 2002, unless a petition warrant article was submitted, which would require a public hearing.

 

Mr. Danevich said that a continuation request had been received and granted for ML 6-180/Carol O. Reeser - 18 Mammoth Road - proposed 2-lot subdivision.The case would be placed on the January 6, 2003 agenda.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 10 Lot 110 & 361 - Appletree Estates - Woodview Development - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. DeLuca stepped down.Mr. Brunelle would vote in place of Mr. DeLuca

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the original bond amount was $606,140.62.The Planning Department and CLD concurred with the reduction amount of $424,298.43, which would retain a total of $181,842.19.

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the site distance had been met.Ms. Alexander said the site distance had been met for a posted speed limit of 30mph, and a design speed of 40mph.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Henry DeLuca, Garland Drive, speaking as a resident in the neighborhood, said that the specifications had been met for work done in front of the houses.He said a stop sign still needed to be added at the corner of Birch Lane and Garland Drive.Ms. Alexander said that the sign had been placed once.She said that the new road was closed to through traffic.Mr. Danevich said that a condition for approval would be to have the stop sign re-installed.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Appletree Estates to $181,842.19 conditioned upon the stop sign being re-installed.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. DeLuca returned to the Board.

 

Map 10 Lot 352 - Cara Estates - New American Homes - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the original bond amount for phase I was $284,000.The Planning Department and CLD concurred with the reduction amount of $198,800., which would retain a total of $85,200.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the road at the intersection was not yet complete.Ms. Alexander said that work was not currently being done, because the utility poles had been removed too late for the work to be performed safely.She said that the intersection realignment was part of phase III of the project.She said that the bond was solely for phase I.

 

Mr. Brunelle asked if additional jersey barriers could be added.Ms. Alexander said a request had been made in writing to add additional jersey barriers.Mr. Murray (developer) informed that there was a separate bond ($100,000) for phase III, the realignment of the road.

 

Ms. Alexander noted on the bond reduction request that it was phase I.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Culbert inquired when the safety issues would be addressed.Mr. Murray said that he could add additional jersey barriers by December 13, 2002.He will inform Mr. Alexander when they are in place so she could verify.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Cara Estates to $85,200 conditioned upon jersey barriers being added by December 13, 2002.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the bond would not be reduced until the jersey barriers were place, and if they were not added by December 13, 2002 that the conditional approval would be void.Mr. Murray would need to come back before the Board with another request.

 

Map 3 Lot 88 - Gettysburg Estates - M&P Trust - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the original bond amount was $156,000.The Planning Department and CLD concurred with the reduction amount of $109,200., which would retain a total of $46,800.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Gettysburg Estates to $46,800.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 5 Lot 166 & 169 - Dogwood Circle - Dominique Buonarosa - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the original bond amount was $499,500, with $197,800 currently being held.The Planning Department and CLD concurred with the reduction amount of $47,950, which would retain a total of $149,850.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Dogwood Circle to $149,850.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Map 9 Lot 63 - Woodlawn Drive & Sycamore Street - Cormier & Saurman - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the original bond amount was $221,000, with $43,000 currently being held.The Planning Department and CLD concurred with the reduction amount of $20,900, which would retain a total of $22,100 (a 10% bond to be held for one year).

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the stone (ledge outcropping) within the 50ft. right-of-way had been removed.Mr. Saurman said that a bigger machine had been brought in over a year ago and took care of the ledge.Ms. Alexander agreed that the stone had been taken care of.

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To reduce the bond for Cara Estates to $22,100.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

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 that since the last meeting, the Fire Department had submitted a letter.He said there was basically a consensus that the variance was no longer in force.He said the applicant would like an approval of the 2-lot subdivision, so the land could be given to his daughter.He requested feedback from the Board so the applicant could determine if it were worth seeking another variance.†††

 

Mr. Danevich said that the Board could not legally take action without a variance from the Board of Adjustment.He said the Board would review the Fire Chiefís concerns and look for compliance.He said the Board would also review the issues outlined by the engineering firm (TF Moran).Mr. Haight believed that TF Moranís issues were simple housekeeping points.He noted that his client (St. Onge family) stated publicly that they were committed to taking care of the Fire Chiefís issues.

 

Mr. Culbert said that the Board previously discussed bringing the 1400ft. driveway up to road specs.Mr. DeLuca asked if there was a way to have the driveway owned by the daughter receiving the land.Mr. Haight said there was currently a 50ft. right-of-way access on the property.Mr. DeLuca recalled that the applicant said he would not further subdivide and questioned why single lots were being brought forward.Mr. Haight said that the property presented was the last piece of land, which would be given to Mr. St. Ongeís daughter.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the concerns 1) TF Moran comments, 2) compliance with Fire Chief, 3) shared driveway, which would be discussed if the Board of Adjustment granted a variance.Mr. Culbert asked if abutting land owners could use the property as frontage if a variance were granted.Mr. Haight said the intent would be to have a private drive.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. St. Onge said that the road was a private way and the Town was not responsible for maintenance.He said he didnít have any remaining land and wanted to give the property to his daughter, since his other two daughters owned abutting properties.He wanted some indication if the Board would pass the plan if additional money were spent on the plan.Mr. Danevich said the Board could not provide any guidance on whether or not the applicant should invest more money or not.He said the next step to be taken would be to meet with the Board of Adjustment.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the case would be date specified to February 3, 2003.†††††††

 

Map 6 Lot 180 - REESER, Carol O. /18 Mammoth Road - Proposed 2-lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Danevich informed that a request had been recieved and granted to continue the case to the January 6, 2003 meeting.

 

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

 

Mr. Steve Haight, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board which outlined the surrounding properties to the proposed subdivision.Ms. Alexander noted that two engineering firms had reviewed the plan and the data was conflicting.Mr. Danevich assured the applicant, they would only be charged once.Mr. Haight reviewed the plan and discussed the fact that Swains Road had been reconfigured.He said a question was previously raised how the roads would connect back to Ledge Road from the development, so the presented plan reflected the proposed road connection through the subdivision.He said the last connection would be through the Harris subdivision a continuation of Samuel Road, through to Spring Street.Mr. Haight said that the plan had been forwarded to the Safety Committee, but had not received comments.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the comments from the previous meeting.He said the measurement was needed from the point of egress at Shepard Road to the end of the cul-de-sac.Mr. Haight said the total footage was approximately 4200ft.(2600ft. from Ledge Road plus the 1600ft. cul-de-sac).He said that the second point of egress would be through the Harris subdivision to Spring Street.He said that the plan had been reviewed by the previous Planning Director, who gave recommendations.He said as soon as comments were recieved back from the Safety Committee it would be submitted for Planning Board review.Ms. Alexander said that she had been unable to find a copy of the plans and asked that they be resubmitted.Mr. Haight said that six or seven copies had already been submitted for department review, and he was awaiting comments before the Harris subdivision was submitted.

 

Mr. Danevich discussed his concern with the lot shapes.Mr. Haight said that the lots complied with the ordinance.Ms. Alexander asked where access for the lots near the end of the cul-de-sac would be.Mr. Haight said the lots would be accessed off the new road.Mr. Danevich said that the original plan showed a different lot configuration and felt that the new plans should be re-reviewed by an engineering firm.Mr. Haight did not have a problem with submitting the plans to an engineering firm for review.Ms. Alexander asked for a schedule of the road connections.She did not want a 4200ft. road approved with a contingency for a connection that didnít happen.Mr. Culbert recalled that Mr. Harris made an agreement to put the road in before the subdivision was done.Mr. Danevich had the same recollection.He reviewed the road connections with Ms. Alexander.Mr. Haight noted that revised plans would be submitted.He was hopeful that comments would be recieved back regarding the Harris subdivision so it could possibly be reviewed in January.Mr. Danevich said it was clear that the 4200ft. road distance did not meet the current spec and the road connection/second egress would be needed before the Board could move forward.Ms. Alexander, Chairman of the Technical Review Committee requested that the plan be reviewed and accepted before the Safety Committee started review.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Haight had an opportunity to review CLD and TF Moranís comments, which were quite extensive.Mr. Haight said that he had briefly reviewed the comments.Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Lynde had requested a legal opinion regarding premature development.He informed that the Bedard family submitted a letter noting their concerns.He said a construction sequencing report was the last item of concern.†††

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Monica Bedard informed that there was a dispute with the property lines.She said that areas of her property would be opened up due to the development and believed that a fence (minimum 10ft high) would need to be erected.She said that the area was a historical site and had been a quarry for over one hundred years.Ms. Bedardís concern was with liabilities in the event someone was injured.Mr. Danevich said the engineering company would review the site.

 

Mr. Chris Bedard asked about the easement rights to lots 90 & 91.He was concerned with easement rights being given to property owners in the new development.He said that the tax map being presented was incorrect and may cause problems with the deeds for the proposed lots.Mr. Danevich said that the Board had not yet followed through with the concern.Ms. Alexander will review.

 

Ms. Monica Bedard asked that the tax map be corrected before the subdivision began.She discussed her difficulty in finding a surveyor to survey her property because of the tax map being incorrect.Mr. Haight explained easement rights and said that lot lines were resolved through survey maps.Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. Bedard wanted the easement removed.Mr. Bedard said that the owners of the two parcels on Mulberry Road were informed by the developer that their easement rights would be taken away and transferred to the lots within the new development.Mr. Danevich said that information was inaccurate.He suggested that Ms. Bedard retain an attorney or a surveying firm to resolve her issues with the tax map.Ms. Bedard reiterated her belief that the subdivision should not be done until the property lines were confirmed.Mr. Danevich said that the Board was obligated to go with what was surveyed and if Ms. Bedard did not agree, she should retain legal counsel.

 

Mr. Danevich informed Mr. Haight that the plan should be reviewed by engineering.Mr. Haight provided seven sets of plans for review.Mr. Culbert noted that he didnít mind an odd shaped lot if it were kept out of wetlands.†††

 

Mr. Danevich date specified the plan to January 6, 2002.†††

 

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

 

Mr. Steve Haight, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.He said that he did not have a chance to review the comments provided by TF Moran (engineering firm).Mr. Danevich reviewed the comments discussed at the last meeting.1) Conservation review - Mr. Yarmo said that the Conservation Commission had reviewed the plan and comments had been forwarded to Ms. Alexander.2) waiver requests to be recieved in writing - Mr. Haight said they had been written up, but would check the status.3) cul-de-sac termination meeting regulations, which is currently exceeded without the Harris property.Mr. Haight said that the distance to from Ledge Road to Samuel Roadwas approximately 3400ft. and an additional 800ft. for the cul-de-sac and from Samuel to Spring Street was a total of 2480ft. (which included the Town property).4) building envelopes not designated on current set of plans - Mr. Haight provided revised plans to the Board.Mr. Danevich noted that the revised plans did not include the building envelopes.He also wanted to confirm that a portion of land would be deeded to an adjacent parcel ( ML 12-62).He said that typically the Board requested notarization of the party receiving the parcel.Mr. Haight said it would be part of the file.

 

Ms. Alexander said that the written waiver requests were not contained in the file.Mr. Haight said he would resubmit the requests.He said he would like to address all the Boardís comments as well as the comments of the engineering company.Mr. Danevich believed the comments from the two engineering companies should be compared because there was a difference in opinion and direction.There was a brief discussion regarding the comments provided by the engineering company.Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Haight should follow TF Moranís comments, minus the comments with known errors regarding the subdivision regulations.Ms. Alexander will revise the engineering company comments and provide a list to Mr. Haight.

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the idea of a retaining wall and would like to explore options to eliminate the wall.Ms. Alexander said that the Safety Committee would be meeting Wednesday and would discuss options.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked about the access from ML 12-61 and ML 12-62.Mr. Haight believed there was a right to pass and repass.Mr. Pultar (owner) discussed the history of the parcel and how the 7ft. strip came about by taking a piece off a coffee lot in the event the parcel was developed.He said at the time he couldnít deed the portion to his brother because he didnít know what would be happening with the land.Mr. Danevich asked if the whole portion of ML 12-63-4 would be deeded to the Town as a non-buildable lot.Mr. Haight answered yes.Mr. Yarmo said the Town could use the land to connect the coffee lots to other Town lots, if provisions could be made to pass through ML 12-63-3 to ML 12-63-4.Mr. Pultar said that the plan had been brought to the Planning Board and approved.Mr. Haight didnít think there would be a problem making a connection as described by Mr. Yarmo.There was a concurrence of the Board to add an easement along the back portion of the parcel to connect ML 12-42 to 12-63-4 which would provide for a Town conservation easement.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Monica Bedard asked if it was legal to take 7ft. from coffee lots owned by the Town.Mr. Danevich said there was no change happening on the lot from the Board.Mr. Pultar said the change to the coffee lots occurred in the 1950ís.Mr. Danevich noted that there was no zoning in the 1950ís.

 

Ms. Alexander asked if the Safety Committee should review the plans before or after the retaining walls were eliminated.Mr. Haight said he would rather have the Board provide comments now.Mr. Culbert didnít feel that the plans should be changed for any committee except for the Planning Board.Ms. Alexander believed that the Safety Committee should review the plans after the retaining wall had been eliminated.Mr. Haight confirmed that the comments provided by CLD and TF Moran would be consolidated and forwarded to him.Mr. Danevich said that Ms. Alexander would try to forward the comments to him by Friday.

 

Mr. Culbert asked when the Harris subdivision plan would be submitted.Mr. Haight said it could be submitted right away.Mr. Danevich said that the current two plans did not meet the regulations without the Harris plan in place.Mr. Haight understood.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be date specified to the January 6, 2003.†††

 

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

 

Mr. Jack Simplenski, Benchmark Engineering reviewed the plan for the Board.He said the proposal was to subdivide the 36-acre property into six residential lots and deed the remaining back portion (21.5 acres) to the Conservation Commission as permanent conservation space.He said there was an additional 1.5 acres behind the proposed lots to also be deeded as conservation land.He said the proposed road would be approximately 850ft.He noted that the six houses would be supported by individual septic system and well.Mr. Simplenski said the well easement for lot 6 had been moved to not encroach on the abutting lot line.He said that a 25ft. no-cut zone had been added to lot 1 as a buffer to an existing lot.Additionally he said that site specific had been requested for lots 5 and 6.He said that there were two waiver requests that had been submitted, 1) minimum cover of pipes, and 2) one test pit, rather than the two required.

 

Mr. Simplenski said that the plans had been reviewed by TF Moran.He went on to review their comments: 1) necessary stamps on the plans - Mr. Simplenski provided copies of the plans with the necessary plans.

2) well radii over property line of lot 2 - he said it had been corrected, Mr. Danevich agreed.3) building envelopes - the limit to building envelope were noted.Mr. Danevich informed that the setbacks were different than the building envelope.Mr. Simplenski said that the building envelopes met the standard 100ftx100ft rectangle.4) proposed gradings - Mr. Simplenski said that the information was contained on sheet 6 and 7.5) additional spot shots on cul-de-sac - Mr. Simplenski said they had been asked to remove the island for plowing reasons, but did not have the opportunity to include the spot shots onto the plans.

 

There was a discussion regarding the concern with the landscaped island in the center of the cul-de-sac being removed per comments made by the Technical Review Committee, which the Planning Board was unaware of.Ms. Alexander said the Technical Review Committee had concern with the fact that the Town took control of the cul-de-sacs once the road was accepted, which included maintenance.She said that she realized the issue should be addressed further.Mr. Culbert and Mr. Danevich didnít feel that the issue needed to be addressed further.Mr. McNamara appreciated the concern with maintenance and plowing, and noted that there were other issues that factored into the decisions made by the Cul-de-sac Committee.Mr. Danevich said that he reviewed the plowing of the roads after the last snow storm and documented through photographs the amount of passes needed for certain types of roads.The Board asked that the center island of the cul-de-sac be put back in.Mr. Simplenski said he would change the plan to show the green space in the center of the cul-de-sac.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the other concerns with the plan: Discrepancy with the pipe data between the plan view and the profile view.Mr. Simplenski said it had been corrected in the profile view and would be corrected on other plans.Mr. Danevich said that the underground utilities were required.Mr. Simplenski said that the underground utilities had been submitted to the electric company for comment.Mr. Danevich asked about the construction detail (page 12), which Mr. Simplenski had corrected.

 

Mr. Culbert asked for explanation of the waiver request regarding the test pits.Mr. Simplenski said that Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Health Officer had witnessed the test pits and did not feel they were of any issue.Ms. Alexander said that she had also spoken with Mr. Zarnowski, who had no problem supporting a waiver at the site because of the consistency of the soils.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle was concerned with the waiver of the two test pits since his property abutted the septic systems for three of the proposed lots.Mr. Yarmo discussed the soils and noted that Mr. Lamoureuxís property would be protected by the 4K area. Mr. Danevich said that he was satisfied with the findings of the Health Agent.Mr. Simplenski noted that one of the adjacent lots to Mr. Lamoureuxís property contained two test pits.Mr. Lamoureux asked what the waiting period was once the plan was approved.Mr. Danevich said there was a 20-day waiting period.

 

Mr. Danevich said one concern of the Board was if the transfer of land did not happen.He said if that were the case, the plan would need to come back before the Board for disposition of the 21-acres.He said the other condition of the plan was that the 21-acres would be viewed strictly as a conservation-type easement.

 

Ms. Shirley Wakefield, South Shore Drive asked if there was a time period for the money to be given to Mr. Simplenski.She asked if it were possible to give the money by the end of February because grant money was not due to be recieved until mid February.Mr. Simplenski said he could discuss the issue with the concerned parties.

 

Mr. Lamoureux asked for confirmation of what would happen if the land were not deeded.Mr. Danevich discussed the options Mr. Simplenski would have if the land deal did not go through.

 

Ms. Deb Waters informed that there was a binding purchase and sales agreement in place.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the issues with the plan: 1) center island in the cul-de-sac, 2) 21.5 acres to be a conservation easement.Mr. Danevich believed the Board of Selectmen would need to accept the 21.5 conservation acreage once the Board approved the plan.Ms. Waters informed that the Board of Selectmen had already held a public hearing regarding the 21.5 conservation easement and accepted the land.Mr. Danevich said that the Chair of the Board of Selectmen would need to determine if the public hearing that was held met the stateís criteria.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the waiver request and reduce the minimum cover over pipes from 4ft. to 2ft.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.††

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the waiver request of the number of test pits, based upon the Town Health Officerís findings with the test pits already dug and formal recommendation

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.††

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan conditioned upon: 1) 21.5 acres conservation land, and 2) center island to return in the cul-de-sac on the final set of plans.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.††

 

Mr. DeLuca asked that final plans be reviewed by the Board before approval is granted, to eliminate interpretations.Mr. Danevich believed that there should be further discussion regarding the issue and suggested discussing at an upcoming work session.

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

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

 

November 4, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara ) To accept the minutes of the November 2, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.††

 

DISCUSSION

 

Ms. Alexander discussed a situation she was dealing with in the Planning Department.She said that there had been a plan conditionally approved as one subdivision containing thirty-seven lots.She said that the developer had been bringing the subdivision into the Planning Department as phases, which Ms. Alexander did not understand why.She noted that one of the profiles for a street within phase two had been changed without Planning Board approval.Mr. Culbert said that when changes were made on site by the engineer and the Planning Director it was considered an as-built.Ms. Alexander said the problem with the profile change was that it was brought into the Planning Department after the road was built.She said that a pre-construction meeting had not been held, and from what she can find, there were no signed plans or review by CLD.She noted that KLN Construction was in violation of the subdivision agreement (dated July 7, 2001) because phase II was due to be completed by June 30, 2002, and phase III, which had not yet been recorded, was due to be completed by March, 2002.In tracing the bond agreement, Ms. Alexander noted that an escrow had not been placed, and the developer refused to place one.She said that the developer also refused her request for an as-built on the gravel for Rome Avenue.She believed the plan should come back before the Planning Board for review.She said that no addtional permits had been issued.She noted that the developer had refused to construct the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Rome Avenue, which was of concern to the Fire Chief for emergency equipment turn-around.

 

There was a brief discussion regarding plans being brought forward in phases.It was agreed that a bond and escrows should be in place before work begins on a site.There was a consensus of the Board to not issue any building permits to KLN Construction.If KLN Construction has a problem with the ruling they can seek an appeal of an administrative decision through the Board of Adjustment, or through a court.All other regulations should continue to be enforced, including bonds and escrows.The Board discussed what was considered an as-built.Ms. Alexander will review as-builts and make a determination what should be brought back to the Planning Board, following the full process including abutter notification.Ms. Alexander confirmed that her first step should be to have TF Moran review the plan.She said that one problem she was having was that the final set of plans, containing the 36-lots had not been submitted to the Planning Department.Mr. Danevich informed that he knew of three copies of the approved plan that could be forwarded to Ms. Alexander.Ms. Ouellette said if the developer did not provide a copy of the approved plan, the copies Mr. Danevich knew of should be used.

 

Ms. Alexander reviewed the action she would take: 1) have TF Moran review the realignment of Rome Avenue, and if it is beyond a tolerable design intent (and if there was a material effect on the plan), it should be reviewed for site specific and brought back before the Planning Board.2) She said that because there was no escrow and the developer refused to have one, she needed to know how the review would be paid for.The escrow account was discussed and it was decided to have Ms. Alexander write the developer and insist that an escrow account be opened within 30-days.It was also discussed and determined that the plan would fall under the old regulations.3) A letter will be written to Herbert & Associates requiring that a full set of approved plans be forwarded to the Planning Department.There was a brief discussion regarding how to proceed with granting the 10 lots per year.After a brief discussion, it was determined that the developer currently had twelve lots, and next year could only request a maximum of eight lots.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Danevich informed that people had contended that there was a drainage issue occurring because Holstein Road was not built correctly.Ms. Alexander noted that the drainage swale was constructed before the lot had been constructed.She said that she would be reviewing the as-built from Herbert Associates.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Danevich asked for an update regarding the sidewalks off Burns Road.He said that he recieved the minutes, but still needed additional information.Ms. Alexander will follow up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Danevich said that a resident had sent information regarding a business being run on Carriage Way and asked that it be forwarded to the Code Enforcement Officer.He provided Ms. Alexander with information that he had collected.Ms. Alexander believed that the Code Enforcement Officer (Mr. Roland Soucy) had dealt with the situation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Town Administrator Tom Gaydos arrived.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the Planning Board had previously requesteda non-public session to be scheduled with the Selectmen regarding legal, but had not been notified when they would meet.The Planning Board would continue to work through Selectmenís Representative, Hal Lynde.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Mr. Danevich said that there was a consensus from the Planning Board to put out to bid the engineering firm.Mr. Culbert provided information of the process taken when CLD (previous Town engineering firm) was hired.He then reviewed RSA 673:16 which states that a land use board can contract for engineering services, etc. required.He said that Ms. Alexander did a good job finding an interim company, but that it was the Planning Boardís job to select the consultants that would be used to support them.Ms. Alexander disagreed and said that she received direction from the Town Administrator and the Selectmen.Mr. Danevich said that he had obtained several opinions and believed that the Planning Board should have the opportunity to bid out and make a selection.Ms. Alexander said if the Planning Board had any further questions, they should speak with the Town Administrator and the Selectmen.There was a brief discussion regarding how the companies would be interviewed and the importance that Ms. Alexander establish a rapport with the company and the Planning Board.Ms. Alexander asked where she would be if the Planning Board chose a company she was not comfortable with.The Planning Board assured Ms. Alexander that her opinion would be weighed heavily.

 

Mr. DeLuca discussed the process used when choosing the engineering firm to overlook the Municipal Building and spoke of the importance of interviewing several candidates and ultimately reaching a consensus for which firm would be hired.

 

Mr. Yarmo was interested in reviewing the depth of services, what would be contracted out and what would be sent out.He felt it was important that the engineering company should have the Ďhorsepowerí needed.

 

Ms. Ouellette said because of the sensitive issues, the Planning Board needed to be comfortable with the person presenting information, as well as confident in the fact that the person was qualified.Mr. Danevich noted that CLD provided information strictly regarding engineering, and lacked with providing conservation information.

 

Mr. McNamara said that in the past there was a perception that the Town did things from the Ďinsideí, or behind closed doors.He felt that RSA 673:16 was clear that the Planning Board had the authority to hire an engineering company.He did not see a down side to companies coming before the Planning Board and presenting their credentials.He believed if the Planning Board did not perform due diligence and interview companies people could have critical review of the Planning Board for not following the RSAs.

 

Mr. Brunelle was concerned with a company being complacent and felt that exploring the various companies would be worth while.

 

Mr. Danevich conveyed thatMr. Scanzani would also like the opportunity to interview companies.He reiterated that the Planning Board wanted to move forward with the consensus and select a firm.Ms. Alexander said that she had placed a lot of hours interviewing companies and reviewing subdivisions they had done.Mr. McNamara said that the Planning Board would like the opportunity to review the types of things Ms. Alexander had viewed.He said that Ms. Alexanderís opinion would be valued.Ms. Alexander wanted to know what would happen if the Planning Board chose a company that she had no comfort level with.Mr. Danevich said a similar instance had happened in the past.Ms. Ouellette said that she didnít feel the Planning Board would dismiss Ms. Alexanderís concerns.

 

Town Administrator, Mr. Tom Gaydos said that the path used was to give authority and back the people that work for the Town.He understood Ms. Alexanderís frustration, and noted that she had done what the Selectmen had told her to do.Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Gaydos if he felt that the Town had violated state law in how the decision process was made, despite best intentions.Mr. Gaydos said he did not feel that state law had been violated.

 

Mr. Culbert believed that Ms. Alexander did a good job during Ďcrisis modeí choosing a company.He reiterated that the Planning Board was who had the authority to choose a company.Mr. Gaydos agreed.Ms. Alexander said that she had several other capacities to her job and did not have the time to review companies again.She said that since she had put in enough hours researching engineering companies, she was not willing to help the Board in that manner.Mr. Danevich said that the Planning Board had a consensus to move forward and acknowledged that Ms. Alexander did not want to be a part of the hiring process.Mr. Gaydos said he would like the opportunity to review with the Planning Board the process that was taken to hire the current engineering company.He recommended that the Planning Board not use a bidding process, but rather a qualifying process to fit into an overall operation plan.He would like to work together with the Planning Board to come up with a plan.Mr. Danevich said that the Planning Board had been trying to have a non-public session with the Selectmen since May.Mr. Culbert discussed other items the Planning Board wanted to discuss with the Selectmen, such as funding additional help for the Planning Department through fees.††

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ms. Alexander said that Ms. Charlene Takesian had installed and set up a program through Peachtree software to help track bonds.She needed a vote of the Board to withdraw $1000 as payment for the work.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To authorize $1000 to be taken from the Planning Boardís General Fund to pay for Ms. Charlene Takesianís time as well as the software installed in the Planning Departmentís computer to track bonds.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)The motion carries.††

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Ms. Alexander informed that there had been an issue with a quarter cul-de-sac at the end of Partridgeberry Lane that had been approved in a subdivision.She said that an abutter had asked when the cul-de-sac would be added.Ms. Alexander said that she reviewed the site and noted that there were extensive electrical, telephone, and cable TV pole boxes and pedestals within the easement that would cost approximately $15,000 to $20,000 to move them.Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Don Foss had requested the stub to ease the problem with plowing.He said that residents were being blocked in.Ms. Alexander discussed the situation further and said that she asked Mr. Foss and the person plowing regarding the area.Mr. Danevich said that the Planning Board did not have the authority to change the plan, since it had been already been recorded at the Registry of Deeds.He said the plan would have to come back before the Board if changes were going to be made.Ms. Alexander said that she would write a letter to Mr. Phil Currier.†††

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

The following case was date specified to the January 6, 2003 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 case was date specified to the February 3, 2003 meeting:

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:15pm.

 

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

 

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

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