APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

February 4, 2002   

 

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

 

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

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Robin Bousa, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Gael Ouellette

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would vote in Ms. Ouellette’s absence.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the following cases would be continued, at the request of the applicant, to the March 4, 2002 meeting: ML 12 Lot 44 Phase II Hart, Jordan & White - Shephard Road/Mulberry Lane - Proposed 28-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 3 Lot 166-23 Alan & Susan Cady - Overlook Drive - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Planning Director’s Report on Completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell said he reviewed the plans in accordance with the regulations and felt they were complete and should be scheduled for formal consideration.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the hearing would be scheduled for March 4, 2002.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Spring Street Hydrant Bond Release

 

Mr. Danevich noted that a memo had been received by CLD (Town Engineer) that stated the hydrant tests had been completed and had exceeded the expectations of the Fire Department.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To release the bond as recommended by CLD per the testing that has been accomplished.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates discussed the proposed subdivision.  He said the Board had given him the direction to have the water line continued and stop at each lot.  He said he needed permission to put individual wells on the lots until the water line could be brought in.  Mr. Danevich recalled that the plans were to be updated.  Mr. Zohdi said updated plans would be sent to Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Mr. Mitchell believed that there was an understanding with the Fire Department regarding hydrants.  Mr. Zohdi said he would speak with the Fire Chief and work with Mr. Mitchell if a hydrant system was needed. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted the following issues: 1) updated set of plans that note hydrant (or cistern) locations based on the Fire Chief’s comments; 2) individual well location to be noted on the plan; 3) piping for utility easement.  Mr. Zohdi said once he spoke with the Fire Chief, he would send the plans to Mr. Mitchell. 

 

Mr. Scanzani recommended that the Board vote to modify, since the plans were previously approved and the Board was reviewing modifications of an existing plan.  Mr. Culbert took Mr. Scanzani’s recommendation and made it a motion, which Mr. Scanzani seconded.  Mr. Danevich said he would like the public utility water to be noted on the plan. 

 

Mr. Don Nichols, owner, said that Pennichuck Water had been paid and would be creating the design.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To approve the modifications made to the plan once the following conditions are met: 1) plans to be updated (based on conversation Mr. Zohdi will have with Fire Chief) showing hydrant or cistern location; 2) individual well location to be noted on the plan; 3) piping for utility easement to be installed.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that an updated set of plans should be brought in as soon as possible.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS

 

Fire Department Impact Fee Fund

 

Mr. Scanzani said that the CIP had put together and approved a new impact fee schedule based upon a letter received from the Fire Department.  He said that the new schedule had been approved by Town Legal subject to the Planning Board adopting it at a public hearing.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the new impact fee schedule would be placed on the Board’s next meeting agenda (February 21, 2002).

 

Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell post a legal notice and place the hearing on the agenda for the next Board meeting.  He also asked that Mr. Mitchell notify the Selectmen of the hearing to give them an opportunity to schedule a public hearing once the Board voted. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

 

 

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plans to the Board.  He said that after the last meeting there had been a meeting with CLD (Town Engineer).  Mr. Mitchell said that he had met with Mr. Tom Sommers (CLD) and Mr. Mahoney.  He said that his resolution was that since the drainage from Robin Road would eventually drain onto the property, the drainage should be properly considered.  He said the plan could be acted upon, but suggested that there be a condition that the Robin Road drainage solution be solved.

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering said he had reviewed the site.  He recommended that a swale be installed at Honey Lane with a catch basin and pipe across the discussed property to a treatment swale.  He gave an example of an alternative that would run a pipe along the road and pipe the drainage to a treatment swale.

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the additional requirements were that building envelopes were to be noted as well as site specific and soil type calculations.  Mr. Danevich added that DES approval was also required.  Mr. Zohdi said that everything was in the building file.  He noted that two site-specific septic designs were submitted to the building file. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Tim Fraize, Noella Avenue said that the design had been agreed upon in the past, but having the job done was the issue. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the swale would take all of the water off Mr. Fraize’s land.  He wanted to confirm that the development would not impact Mr. Fraize’s land.  Mr. Zohdi said it would not impact Mr. Fraize’s land. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the bond that had been pulled which lead into a brief discussion regarding how the easement would be installed.  Mr. Scanzani felt that the owner of the abutting property should give their permission, in writing, for the easement.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the soil types be noted on the plan.  Mr. Zohdi said he would add them to the plan. 

 

Mr. Danevich didn’t feel that the Board could take action on the plan without the easement solution resolved.  Mr. Mitchell said he would support the applicant in negotiating the easement with the current landowner.  He felt it was reasonable to conclude that the drainage calculation would not work without the easement.  Mr. Danevich said that the plan could either be denied, or continued.  Mr. Zohdi said he did not have the authority from his client to grant an extension.  Mr. Zohdi suggested that there be a conversation with Mr. Fraize to grant an easement rather than the Board denying the plan.  Mr. Scanzani said that the drainage issue was too important than to approve the plan with the condition of an easement.  He suggested contacting the applicant to request an extension. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked where the current drainage was diverted to.  Mr. Scanzani said it was diverted via a culvert to the conservation area in the back of the property.  Mr. Zohdi explained how the water could be directed. 

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to continue the discussion until the end of the evening. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To continue discussion until later in the evening.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the plan would either be denied, or continued by the end of the evening.

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell said that the only concern Mr. Roland Soucy (Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer) had was that he would have a problem if a new building lot was being created, which Mr. Mitchell told him that was not the intent of the application.  He said that Mr. Soucy was fine, with the caveat that Town Counsel approve. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the other questions were: 1)  site distance verification; 2) if a variance would be required for the 50’ easement; 3) lot size calculations; 4) building/garage removal in the right-of-way; 5) minimum zoning required; 6) topo to support the lot size calculations.

 

There were no persons to represent, or present the plan.

 

Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel that two lots would have the minimum frontage requirements.  He suggested denying the plan with the understanding that it could not meet current zoning and a decision from the Board of Adjustment was necessary for the Board to further consider the plan.  Mr. Lynde questioned if the Board was requiring the applicant go before the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Scanzani answered no, that the Board simply would not have any additional consideration since the plan did not meet the Town’s current frontage zoning.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To deny the plan because it does not meet the Town’s regulation for frontage.  The plan is to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment for action prior to any additional consideration by the Planning Board.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

The applicant will be receiving a letter from the Planning Department notifying of the denial.

 

Map 10 Lot 110, 361 V & G Development - Dutton Road - Proposed 30-Lot Subdivision for continued consideration

 

Mr. Kurt Meisner of Meisner/Bremm Corp. presented the plan for V & G Development.  He introduced Mr. Matt Heren of Meisner/Bremm Corp., Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services, Mr. Greg Smith, Project Attorney.  He said that the plan had minor revisions.  He said that they had received a letter from CLD (Town Engineer).  He also said that a copy of the letter from Attorney Smith had been given to the Board for review.  Mr. Meisner said that CLD had reviewed and provided a letter regarding the traffic and safety on Southern end of Garland Drive.  He said that CLD had also reviewed and provided positive comment on the technical engineering issues.  Mr. Meisner said the no-cut buffer had been previously discussed and said the plan now provided for a 100’ no-cut buffer on the West end and the Southern end no-cut buffer would be 50’ that would widen to approximately 130’ on the East end.  He said the trail easements had been removed so that the no-cut zones would remain.  Mr. Meisner said that as part of the Wetlands Board review, the areas of old fills would be restored as wetlands. 

 

Ms. Louise Casseras, Traffic Engineer, CLD Engineering said that a traffic study had been performed.  She said that after reviewing the surrounding, CLD didn’t find that there were any capacity issues.  She went on to discuss the safety related issues.  She said that the level of service speeds were acceptable.  Ms. Casseras said that left-turn analysis had been performed and not met any requirements for by pass turn lanes.  She said that the applicant had provided CLD with plans regarding the vertical crest (curve) concern at Garland Drive and Birch Lane that would improve the vertical geometry and site distance to 335’.  She said they would like the speed posted at 25 mph at the intersection, which would provide a design speed of 30 mph.  She felt that if vegetation were slightly cleared on the east and south side of Dutton Road site distance would be enhanced.  Ms. Casseras said CLD would like stop signs placed at the Birch Lane, Dutton Road and Apple Leaf intersections.  She went on to discuss additional deficiencies that she said were not necessarily related to the subdivision.  She suggested that vegetation be cleared at the Jericho Road and Hillcrest intersection as well as at the Westview Terrace and Hillcrest intersection.  Ms. Casseras suggested that certain areas have intersection warning signs.

 

Mr. Danevich asked about the cut-through and how the traffic impact would be on Dutton Road.  Ms. Casseras discussed the current route and compared the proposed route.  She felt that even though the distance was shorter, the travel time may not be, due to the road grade changes that occur.  She didn’t feel that there would be a lot of cut through traffic. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked what the speed would be in the development if the 25mph were not posted.  Ms. Casseras believed that the current speed was between 30-35mph.  Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that posting a 25mph zone was a solution for slowing traffic down.  Mr. Meisner felt that with the improvement on Garland Drive the posting would help the traffic concerns.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD asked if there were places to add stop signs. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked what the site distance would be with the vertical alignment in the road.  Ms. Casseras said in the vertical direction, the site distance would be 335’ and the horizontal issue still needed to be addressed. 

 

Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the improvements on Garland Drive would meet the requirements for a design speed of 35mph.  There was a brief discussion, which ended by both Mr. Sommers and Ms. Casseras agreeing that the area was being posted at 25mph because the requirements for 35mph could not be met.  Mr. Sommers said that to meet the 35mph the crest would need further alteration as well as trimming a spruce tree that hindered site distance.  It was unclear if the spruce was within the public right-of-way. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the safety issues and felt that the new road being designed should be able to handle 35mph no matter what it was posted.  Mr. Sommers said that more work would need to be done on the crest at Garland Drive. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked if the work needing to be done would fit completely in the right of way.  Ms. Casseras said she had only seen the vertical profile. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if there were any proposals other than just posting.  Ms. Casseras said that a portion of the crest would be removed.  Mr. Meisner discussed that the portion of the crest within the Town’s right-of-way would be removed.  Mr. Heren explained how the grading would occur so there would be no walls. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked that the Board receive any future legal correspondence in advance so that Town Counsel would have an opportunity to review.  Attorney Smith said that they had previously discussed the legal concerns during a past meeting.  He said the analysis faxed earlier in the day reaffirmed what the applicant had described as the limits on the Planning Board’s authority to require any special features (i.e. wildlife corridor).  He said if the Board wanted to continue being interested in the wildlife corridor he was prepared to have a discussion.  Mr. Danevich said the Board’s position had not changed, but still needed to discuss the wildlife.  He wanted Town Counsel to review the correspondence since it was contrary to legal opinion that the Board had previously received. 

 

Mr. Scanzani read aloud the legal correspondence sent from Attorney Smith, dated February 4, 2002 into the record (see ATTACHMENT A).  He then read aloud a letter received from Gove Environmental Services dated January 31, 2002 (see ATTACHMENT B).

 

Mr. Scanzani said that if the correspondence ended up being true, the Board would be powerless due to the lack of a Town open space ordinance.  He noted the importance of having an innovative land use. 

 

Mr. Meisner reviewed plan.  He said when a 300’ buffer was added to the plan they would lose eight lots.  He said they increased the 40’ buffer to 50’ along the west side.  He said they removed the trail and made it a no-cut zone.  He said the area along the south had a 15’ strip of un-cut trees that would flare out slightly on the north/south area toward the powerline.  He said the preference of the wildlife was to travel along north to south at the powerlines that connected to a larger track of land that went east and west. 

 

Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental Services said they found and noted in their original assessment that the area was a draw because it was an orchard and a food source.  He said that they saw three routes commonly used by deer, fox, coyote.  He pointed out on the plan what the movement of the wildlife was. 

 

Mr. Culbert noted that there was no buffer in the area where the most of the tracks were.  Mr. Gove said the reason for the tracking was that the wildlife was moving into the area for the food source and then moving back out.  He believed that the wildlife would not keep moving into the area if the food source were removed by the people purchasing the proposed lots. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt that the development would significantly impact the wildlife moving in the area.  Mr. Gove reiterated that when a food source (like an orchard) the wildlife would be effected.  He believed that any conversion would effect the wildlife pattern. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the letters read into the record regarding open space in no way reflected upon Meisner/Bremm Corporation.  He said from the standpoint of development they had done and excellent job.  He noted that if the open space ordinance had passed that Meisner/Bremm would have provided an open space plan, which would have solved a lot of the problems with the parcel.  Mr. Meisner showed a copy of the open space plan they had presented a year ago, which provided for significant open space areas. 

 

Mr. Gove said that the Wetlands Bureau wanted the intent stated clearly that the Board wanted the proposed road connected to Garland Drive, that it had to connect to Garland Drive.  Mr. Danevich answered said yes, the Board wanted the road connected. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Jeff Costura, Dutton Road wanted to know the impact of traffic onto Dutton Road.  Ms. Casseras said that the traffic impact onto Dutton Road would be minimal, based upon their study during the am and pm time.  She said in the morning peak hour they expected thirty trips generated.  Mr. Costura wanted to know if the Dutton Road intersection would be the main entrance/exit.  Ms. Casseras said it was. 

 

Mr. Ray Brunelle pointed out that this subdivision alone would have a minimum impact, but when all the other projects in the area were reviewed in whole, the impact would be substantial. 

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, Dutton Road asked if, as a courtesy, Dracut would be informed since they have two entrances onto Dutton Road.  He also noted that Methuen was reviewing a traffic study for a two hundred-lot subdivision on Tyler Road.  Mr. Hennessey suggested copying Dracut and Methuen to get their input regarding the traffic study. 

 

Ms. Leslie Kennedy, Garland Drive said that the road could be posted at 25mph, but in the winter a car would not be able to make the crest of the road at that speed.  She also didn’t feel that a stop sign would calm the traffic.  She wanted to know how the crest of the hill would be altered.  Mr. Scanzani said the engineering would need to be done before the question could be answered. 

 

Mr. Scott Albis, 32 Birch Lane wanted to know why the proposed houses on the south side would not be staggered.  Mr. Danevich said that the house on the proposed plan was an approximation.  Mr. Mitchell said that the Board didn’t have the authority to regulate the placement of the houses.  He said the only thing they could do was to exclude particular areas. 

 

Mr. Paul McLaughlin, Birch Lane believed the residents of the area would be intrigued of Town Counsel’s opinion of the allegations of the status of New Hampshire’s regarding controlling our own community. 

 

Mr. Costura was sensitive to land taking, but noted that the cases sited by Attorney Smith were from the seventies.  He wanted to know if there were any recent cases.  Attorney Smith said that he couldn’t say exactly when the New Hampshire Supreme Court had addressed the issues.  He said that the United States Supreme Court decision starting in 1994 somewhat limited government’s power to restrict private use of land.  Mr. Costura felt if there was a relative case post 1977 that Attorney Smith would have submitted it.  Attorney Smith said he could not recite, from memory, the exact cases after 1977.  Mr. Danevich said that Town Counsel would be reviewing. 

 

Mr. John James, 30 Birch Lane said he recently put a new well in and wanted to know who would be responsible if, after the proposed subdivision was in place, he had water problems.  Mr. Mitchell said that the water law in the state was the doctrine of reasonable use.  He said the Board cannot limit the applicant’s reasonable use or right to reasonable use.  Mr. James also wanted to know if any observation had been done after a snowstorm.  He was concerned with the public safety issue with additional traffic.  He noted that the momentum needed to get to the top of the hill, when there was snow, would be faster than 25mph.  Ms. Casseras said an observation had not been done after a snowstorm.  Mr. Meisner said that the Police Department provided a letter that said there was no record of accidents at the Garland Drive/Birch Lane intersection since he had been in Town.  Mr. DeLuca said that the street maintenance was excellent, but because of the poor design of the hill, during a storm it is difficult to drive to the top of the hill. 

 

Mr. Scanzani felt the applicant and engineers had done a good job.  He said the Board would like to have Town Counsel review the legal correspondence received by the Board.  There was a brief discussion and it was decided to send the correspondence to Town Counsel for review and continue discussions until February 21, 2002 or March 4, 2002.  Mr. Danevich said the applicant should meet with CLD and Mr. Mitchell to resolve the road design issues.  Mr. Danevich tentatively scheduled the next hearing to be February 21, 2002.

 

Mr. DeLuca recalled a previous discussion where the applicant spoke of redesigning the plan to lose two lots.  He wanted to know why the applicant would be losing eight lots.  Mr. Meisner said that when the hard calculations and measurements were complete, the redesign could not be done as it had been thought. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to continue the plan to the meeting of February 21, 2002, subject to the applicant allowing an extension to that point, with the understanding that the road issue with the hill be resolved and the Board will have time to have Town Counsel review the legal correspondence.  Mr. McNamara seconded. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to note that there was a motion at the previous meeting to deny the plan that was withdrawn, with the understanding that the applicant would come back before the Board with a wildlife corridor, which the applicant did not do.  He pointed out that the subdivision would disrupt the existing wildlife path as noted by Fish and Wildlife and the NRPC.  He said that the subdivision had made no provisions on the open space needs of the Town. 

 

 

 

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To continue the plan until the Board’s meeting of February 21, 2002, subject to the applicant allowing an extension to that point, with the understanding that the road issue with the Garland Drive hill be resolved.  The Board shall also have time to allow Town Counsel review and comment regarding the legal correspondence.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to have the Board take all of the subdivisions in the area into consideration when reviewing the traffic studies.

 

Administrative break

 

There was a brief discussion regarding continuing the plans to the next meeting.  The following plans were continued until the March 4, 2002 meeting. 

 

Map 3 Lot 88-2 & 89 M&P Realty Trust - Priscilla Way and Nashua Road - Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Map 4 Lot 139 Normandy R.E. Holding Co. LLC - Valley Hill Road - Proposed 25-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Map 12 Lot 41 & 43 Stonepost Village LLC - Spring Street - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Map 12 Lot 225 Romeo & Jane Croteau - 39 Ledge Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Map 2 Lot 12 May Ann Glance - Burns Road/Marsh Road - Proposed 11-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

OLD BUSINESS CONT.....

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates asked the Board for a formal continuation of the hearing.  The Board accepted the request and continued to the plan to the March 4, 2002 meeting. 

 

Map 11 Lot 254 Maurice Picard - Dutton Road - Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Jack Simplenski, Benchmark Engineering presented the plan to the Board.  He said that the difference from the last meeting was that three lots had been deleted, the cul-de-sac was cut back to 1900’ and would now provide a right-of-way to Smith Road.  He said that the house locations, septic, well, proposed driveway locations were added to the plan.  He submitted a wildlife study to the Board.  Mr. Simplenski said there had been discussions regarding the drainage and since the last meeting had updated their drainage report to include how Blueberry Circle drainage would impact the subdivision.  Mr. Simplenski discussed the 25’ strip along the boundary.  He said he was proposing an additional 25’ along the boundaries.  He then provided the Board with an economic study.  He informed that the traffic study was still pending.  Mr. Simplenski said that he had discussed the plan with the Fire Department, who discussed cistern placement. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that the Board didn’t have the discretion to apply both the old regulations and the new regulations.  He said that Counsel suggested a blended approach.  He said that the plan could be considered under the new regulations, with the Board’s additional authority to consider the waiver requests. 

 

Mr. Scanzani felt that because the completed application was submitted October 3, 2001 that it was the Board’s fault that the application took so long to hear.  He felt that the applicant could submit a waiver request to hear the plan under the old regulations.  He said it was the Board’s fault that the application took so long to hear it.  Mr. Mitchell said that the applicant could meet most of the new regulations and grant a waiver if requested. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if there were any vernal pools.  Mr. Simplenski said that there was one area suspected to be a vernal pool.  He said the parcel was detailed in the soil study. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked for a motion to have the plan fall under the new subdivision regulations and that the Board would accept any waiver and take into consideration the Board’s inability to act in the appropriate amount of time as part of any waiver request brought forward. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To have the plan fall under the new subdivision regulations and that the Board would accept any waiver and take into consideration the Board’s inability to act in the appropriate amount of time as part of any waiver request brought forward.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 1 - 0)  The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani voted no. 

 

Mr. Simplenski felt that the plans may have a few design standards to meet the regulations.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission reviewed a letter he submitted to the Board.  He said the impact with the use of the existing wetlands for retention/detention still needed to be addressed.  He said that Conservation didn’t support both dredge and fill areas.  Mr. Danevich asked if Dr. Richardson had responded to a letter sent to him.  Mr. Yarmo answered no.  Mr. Simplenski said the Wetlands Board would be conducting their own site walk. 

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if Conservation questioned both dredge and fill permits.  Mr. Yarmo felt a reduced scope would be beneficial to the environment.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the 14-lot plan had been reviewed.  He felt that the constraint issue had been addressed on the new plan.  He also noted that the subdivision regulations state that the contiguous dry building area requirement is a 30,000 SF building envelope, which the applicant has demonstrated well drained soils in the area as well as significant dry areas in the new plan.  He felt that Conservation should review the updated plan.  Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a way to design the drainage on the site so it did not go into the wetland.  Mr. Simplenski said that any of the water that entered the wetland was treated in the swale.  He said only the lower portion of the wetland would be used as the detention area.  He said that they had received site specific permits from the state. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD (Town Engineer) discussed the drainage and how the water would be treated in the swales before it eventually went into the wetland.  Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the wet areas would become larger due to using them as retention/detention areas.  Mr. Simplenski said that the water would slowly drain.  Mr. Scanzani asked if plantings would help absorb some of the water along the road.  Mr. Simplenski said plantings would help.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the applicant would do such plantings.  Mr. Simplenski would find out.  He reviewed the soil scientist’s letter and reiterated that there was only one vernal pool contained on the site. 

 

 

 

Mr. Culbert wanted site specific approved septic systems so he would know where they would be placed. 

Mr. Simplenski said that until he received the Wetland permit he couldn’t have the paperwork issued for site specific. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that most of the outstanding issues had been addressed.  He said that the traffic impact study was still needed.  Ms. Louise Casseras, CLD said that the study could be ready for the next meeting.  Mr. Danevich said that the application would be continued.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Ruth Gravel, South Shore Drive said that she had spoken with Dr. Richardson who said he would perform a field analysis.  She said Dr. Richardson would be reviewing the site. 

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle said that Mr. Mark West (engaged by the Pond Association) would be performing an environmental impact study of the area and didn’t feel the Board could make a decision until his study was reviewed.  Mr. Lamoureux said he would like a buffer between his parcel and the proposed subdivision.  He said that GPS had the vernal pools logged in.  He discussed the comments made by Fish and Game to reserve a buffer for wildlife so they could access the powerlines.  He reiterated that he would like a buffer, or a no-cut zone along the edge of the proposed subdivision and his and his mother’s property.  Mr. Lamoureux felt that the traffic impact study should include the impact on Dracut, Ma.  He then discussed when the time clock began. 

 

Ms. Shirley Wakefield, 38 South Shore Drive wanted to know what rights she had as an abutter to protect her property.  She said the water flowed through her property into the pond.  She noted that even though it had been a dry season, her brook was still flowing.  Ms. Wakefield suggested to Mr. Simplenski that at the paper road a culvert be installed to detract some of the water.  She said there would be a slight disruption on Mr. Picard’s property, but it would alleviate a lot of the pressure from her parcel.  Mr. Simplenski agreed that Ms. Wakefield had a tremendous amount of water.  He discussed the other ways the water could be diverted, which would make the drainage directly into the pond.  Mr. Scanzani told Ms. Wakefield that there could not be any additional water on her land once the subdivision was built.  Mr. Simplenski said he would be willing to dig a knoll that would hold approximately a half million-gallon storage to help improve the situation.  Mr. Danevich said he would take it under advisement. 

 

Mr. Paul Gagnon, a resident on the pond had previously had a discussion with Mr. Simplenski and Mr. Picard regarding a solution.  He suggested that the cul-de-sac be reduced to 1000’, that the second wetland crossing not be allowed and the number of homes be reduced to seven.  He said the abutters could then contribute to the Conservation Commission, who would in turn match the contributed amount, dollar for dollar.  Mr. Gagnon said the land could then be purchased for conservation land and would not be touched.  He said that he had discussed the scenario with the abutters who would be willing to put the money in it.  He said that they were composing a proposal to bring before the Selectmen. 

 

Mr. Sommers said he would like to review Dr. Richardson’s comments before CLD made their final decision.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the plan would be continued to the March 4, 2002 meeting.  He said that the following was still pending: 1) Dr. Richardson’s report; 2) Conservation review; 3) CLD traffic study;

4) possible re-calculation of the drainage study impact.

 

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

 

Mr. Zohdi was unable to contact the developer.  Mr. Mitchell added the following reasons as basis for the denial: 1) subdivision within the subdivision prior to acceptance to the road which lead to documented problems with the applicant; 2) haven’t received money for plowing the roads; 3) the applicant has failed to address drainage issues within the Irene Drive Subdivision (100 Acre Woods) that may impact the subject property with the construction of additional drainage facilities to restore natural surface water flows. Failure to address this situation neglects specific information needed to assess the developability of the lot; 4) the applicant has failed to address the issue of frontage on a Town roadway. Since the roadway has not been accepted by the Town, additional subdivisions along the roadway are premature; 5) the applicant failed to agree to a request from the Planning Board for an extension of time to permit the Town and the applicant to address the above issues so that the application could be further considered for action. The Planning Board was concerned about compliance with respect to statutory time limitations as found in RSA 676:4.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To deny the plan based on the following: 1) lack of drainage easement; 2) subdivision within the subdivision prior to acceptance to the road which lead to documented problems with the applicant; 3) haven’t received money for plowing the roads; 4) the applicant has failed to address drainage issues within the Irene Drive Subdivision (100 Acre Woods) that may impact the subject property with the construction of additional drainage facilities to restore natural surface water flows. Failure to address this situation neglects specific information needed to assess the developability of the lot; 5) the applicant has failed to address the issue of frontage on a Town roadway. Since the roadway has not been accepted by the Town, additional subdivisions along the roadway are premature; 6) the applicant failed to agree to a request from the Planning Board for an extension of time to permit the Town and the applicant to address the above issues so that the application could be further considered for action.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

January 14, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept the minutes of the January 14, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

(5 - 0 - 2)  The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Lynde abstained. 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:00pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary