APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 18, 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, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Paddy Culbert

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa would vote for Mr. Culbert, in his absence.

 

Mr. Danevich said that the agenda for the evening was a continuation from the March 4, 2002 meeting; no new business would be heard.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that Mr. Ron D’Arcangelo had been appointed as member of the CIP Committee.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Basic Minimum Electrical Requirements update to be adopted

 

Mr. Mitchell said that as of July 1, 2002 the new electrical code would go into effect and the Electrical Inspector had provided information (frequently asked questions) that he would like adopted into the regulations.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any notes directing residents to pull a permit for oil burning units.  Mr. Mitchell said a direction could be added to the frequently asked questions section. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the documented would be backdated to January 1, 2002.  Mr. Mitchell said that the inspectors had already been enforcing the new guidelines and were receiving a great deal of cooperation. 

Mr. Scanzani asked that a minor word change be made to section A.  Mr. Mitchell made the change. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To adopt the regulation amendments as proposed by Mr. Tim Zelonis, Electrical Inspector.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

Mr. Michelle Heshkel, Heshkel Consulting presented the plan to the Board.  He said the Board’s concern regarding the well protection easement had now been rectified.  He informed that the well was fully on the parcel, but Mr. and Mrs. Croteau granted an easement onto their property. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked what the maximum width of the lot was at the stone wall.  Mr. Heshkel said it was approximately 150’.  Mr. Scanzani asked if a soil mapping had been done.  Mr. Heshkel said that the map would be provided to Mr. Mitchell this week.   

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the Health Officer had provided comment.  Mr. Mitchell was not able to speak with the Health Officer, but did speak with DES.  He said DES informed that a well easement overlap be onto an abutting parcel, rather than an overlap into the street was easier to enforce. 

 

Mr. Scanzani had reservations regarding the shape of the lot.  He believed that the soil mapping was needed to accurately calculate the square footage and percentage.  Mr. Heshkel said that the map was overdue and expected it this week.  Mr. Scanzani also noted that the building envelopes were needed.  Mr. Danevich shared Mr. Scanzani’s concerns regarding the soil mapping.  There was a brief discussion regarding the need for the soil mapping and the fact that the applicant could not change the shape of the lot.  Mr. Danevich said that an approval could be given with conditions regarding the soil map being acceptable and delivered to the Planning Director within thirty days. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know what would happen if the well couldn’t go in.  Mr. Mitchell said the applicant would need to come back before the Board. 

 

The applicant provided a DES waiver to the Board.  Mr. Mitchell said the Town would also need a waiver.  He provided guidance, and Mr. Heshkel submitted a written waiver.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To accept the wetland waiver request for consideration.  

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/DeLuca ) To approve the wetland waiver.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

 Mr. Danevich said the two approval conditions were: 1) the delivery and acceptance of the soils map to the Planning Director; 2) soils map to be delivered thirty days from today’s date. 

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Lynde) To approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) the soil map is delivered to, and accepted by the Planning Director, and 2) the soil map is delivered within 30-days from today’s date.

 

VOTE:

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

 

Administrative Break.....

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that the Board had asked him to reassert the regulations requirement of summitting information seven days prior to a hearing, therefore allowing the Board the opportunity to review materials prior to a meeting.     

 

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

 

Mr. Steve Height, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He gave a brief description of the parcel and informed that there were no proposed wetlands impacts and that the lots met the current regulations. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked what the length of cul-de-sac was.  Mr. Height said the cul-de-sac was approximately 860’ from the centerline of Burns Road to the end of pavement.  It was noted that the parcel was within one mile from a school.  Mr. Danevich asked if sidewalks had been placed on the map.  Mr. Height said that sidewalks had not been placed on the proposed cul-de-sac.  He said that four sidewalks had been set aside as part of the ‘Glance’ project and would be completed as an overall project. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the street name was a person’s first name.  Mr. Lynde said that the street name still needed to be reviewed for acceptance by the Selectmen. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was potential road connectivity in the future.  Mr. Height said that there were wetlands, and the possibility of connecting in the future, but it would be up to the Board.  It was noted that a traffic study had not been received because the applicant was proposing only nine building lots.  Mr. Height noted that the plan clearly showed the possibility of connecting the road, which was why the plan showed a ‘pancake’, versus a turn-around. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering was unsure if the wetland should be crossed for future connection of the road.  He discussed open space.  He also asked about lot 10, which had 200’ frontage, but had access through a driveway easement.  Mr. Height said that lot 10 had been removed, but the driveway easement would remain because it was deeded to two existing lots.  Mr. Sommers said that soils and topography still needed to be delineated.  Mr. Height asked the Board if the entire parcel needed to be delineated since they were not intending to use the entire area.  Mr. Danevich asked that a note be added to the plan that informed that the residual lot was not suitable for building.  Mr. Scanzani asked that consideration be given to providing access to ML2-17 and 2-30 so the parcels would not become land locked. 

 

Mr. Lynde was concerned with approving the plan based on the assumption that a wetland crossing was going to be granted.  He suggested pulling the cul-de-sac back.  There was a discussion regarding the option of the land.  Mr. Sommers didn’t feel that the land would be extended based on the amount of wetlands. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said that Conservation had not reviewed.  He said there were significant wetlands and went on to discuss how the plan could be altered.  He asked the Board for the opportunity that Conservation review the plan. 

 

There was a discussion regarding how the drainage would flow and where the treatment swale would be placed.  Mr. Height pointed out where the tree line would be. 

 

Mr. Mitchell strongly supported reducing the width of the pavement.  He said that the Safety Committee reviewed the plan and did not express any concerns. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if an environmental report had been done.  Mr. Danevich said a report would not be required because there were less than ten lots being proposed.  He reiterated that the remaining 35 acres would remain as not buildable at this time. 

 

Mr. DeLuca wanted to know if the applicant was trying to avoid studies by bringing in less than 10 lots.  He was concerned that additional lots would be presented later.  Mr. Height said the plan was based on what the applicant felt they could do (financially) at the present time. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Duncan Mullins, 34 Jennifer Drive, had no objections to the subdivision.  He was however concerned that the cul-de-sac would be temporary and possibly connected in the future.  He also was concerned with the possible build out of the remaining parcel.  Mr. Height said that the wetland was an issue for the possible build out.  He said that at the direction of the Board, they had left the access to the rest of the parcel.  He didn’t feel that there was future potential for development.  Mr. Danevich said the remaining parcel would be designated as non-buildable.  He informed that the applicant would need to re-apply, and the abutters would be notified, if the back parcel was to be further subdivided. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if an easement was left for sidewalks during the last subdivision in the 1990’s.  Mr. Height said he would have to review.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the Town set money aside for the sidewalks.  Mr. Mitchell will research. 

 

Mr. Danevich scheduled a site walk for March 23, 2002.  The Conservation Commission was asked to attend the site walk.  He asked the applicant to work with CLD regarding the cul-de-sac design and the road width.  He then asked that a 50’ easement be provided into the back parcel.  There was a general consensus from the Board to have the cul-de-sac be permanent with a green space in the middle and also pulled back from the WCD.  The road width was discussed and Mr. Height will provide the Board, for review, a plan with the road width being 24’. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the building envelopes and how they should be delineated.  It was determined that the plan was submitted under the old regulations and could remain as presented. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the plans would be date specified to April 1, 2002. 

 

Map 3 Lot 166-23 Alan & Susan Cady - Overlook Drive - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Tobin Farwell of Taupin, Fornier Associates presented the plan to the Board.  Mr. Farwell said the parcel was an existing lot that the applicant wanted to subdivide.  He explained the existing conditions (of the driveway and well) and what the applicant was proposing.  He said the wetlands were located and flagged.  There was a discussion regarding the existing well and the protective radius being contained on the abutting lot.  A suggestion was made to change the lot lines to protect the well radius or to make the lot a candidate for the Pennichuck water line. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Lynde was concerned with the well being located near the wetland.  Mr. Farwell said the plan had been presented to Conservation. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering had no comment.

 

Mr. Mitchell said that a granite bound needed to be added at the front corner of the lot. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked that the usable area be added to the plan. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission wanted to know if the well could be moved from the WCD.  Mr. Danevich said consideration had been given to move the well further into the WCD for well radius protection.  Mr. Yarmo believed moving the well wouldn’t be an issue if it were done carefully.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To approve the 2-lot subdivision with the following conditions: 1) granite bound to be placed at the edge of the front lot line; 2) easement for the well radiuses as well as a recording in the deed of the protective radius for ML 23 and 23-1; 3) release of liability letter to the Town regarding the well radiuses overlapping the lot lines.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

Mr. Lynde confirmed that the plans would need to be resubmitted with the notations before recording.

 

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

 

Mr. Tony Basso, Gainor/Swanson presented the plan to the Board.  He began by giving a brief summary of what they were proposing.  He informed they had applied for a wetlands permit and met with Conservation.  It was his belief that the drainage had been reviewed and was now complete.  Mr. Basso said that there were some lots with common driveways, but if the Board wanted, he could change them.  He said that after review, it was determined, and CLD concurred, that access was not feasible to the McFarlane property.  Mr. Basso proposed that the old section of the road be widened to 20’.  He said that the entrance to Lawrence Corner Road could be changed to be closer to 90 degrees.  Mr. Basso provided on the plan, as asked by the Board, an easement down the old Lawrence Corner Road as well as adding a 100’ no-cut buffer on ML 104-4.  He said he had not heard from Town Counsel regarding the status of Lawrence Corner Road.  Mr. Mitchell will follow up with Town Counsel.  There was a brief discussion regarding the Old Lawrence Road and if it was subject to gates and bars. 

 

Mr. Basso noted that there was a debris pile from an abutting property that encroached the proposed subdivision.  He said the owner had been sent a certified letter asking that the pile be removed.  He said the owner asked that the lot line be delineated, so Mr. Basso’s crew staked the area, and once again asked the owner to remove the pile.  To Mr. Basso’s knowledge, the pile had not been removed. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if consideration had been given to adding an easement to the Lynch family parcel.  Mr. Basso said it was possible to add an easement, but did not want to lose a lot for a property that had 1000’ onto Lawrence Corner Road.  He said they could provide an easement for access and to provide language that it could become a right-of-way for a road, but would rather not dedicate it at this time. 

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if Lawrence Corner Road was widened how the traffic flow would be affected.  Mr. Basso said that the road could currently handle four hundred trips, and if the shoulders were graded it could handle more traffic in the future. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineers recommended the 20’ width of the road with provisions for large vehicle turn around.  He said that the ‘T’ intersection needed to be straightened out for site distance onto Castle Hill.  He said there was an issue with the site distance onto Mammoth Road (a state road) and believed there needed to be work done on the crown of the road.  He said there may be funding for the road because of the safety issues.  Mr. Sommers said the Tennessee Gas line went through Lawrence Corner Road.  He also felt that there should be some type of emergency access to the lots.  He discussed the road cuts/grading and concurred with the need for something like an easement.  Mr. Sommers also commented about the driveways and recommended single driveways only. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the discussed issues reviewed.  He didn’t feel that the Board would approve shared driveways.  Mr. Basso said the plan could be changed to show individual driveways. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said Conservation reviewed and came up with an option to add two cul-de-sacs in place of crossing the wetlands.  He discussed the comments provided by DES.  He said the environmental report didn’t specify the value of the wetland.  He said that correspondence had been sent regarding signage and Conservation’s recommendations.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked if there was an estimate of cost to build the road.  Mr. Basso said that they had done a lot of test pits, but felt it would be hard to predict the cost.  He didn’t feel that there would be many complaints since there was only one direct abutter.  There was a discussion regarding the road width.  Mr. Danevich noted that the reason for allowing the 20’ width was that space could be maximized without impacting surrounding parcels.  He said that according to CLD’s documentation there wouldn’t be safety issues. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked how long the 20’ section would be.  Mr. Basso said the 20’ wide section of road would be approximately 1000’ long.  Mr. Mitchell said the Safety Committee had not commented.  Ms. Bousa asked if the Castle Hill Road intersection would be redesigned and wanted to know if cleared radii would be provided for safety equipment.  Mr. Basso said it hadn’t been designed, but they would work with CLD.  Ms. Bousa asked the total length of Lawrence Corner Road.  Mr. Basso said the loop was approximately 2,500’ and the road back to the intersection would be approximately 1000’. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked Ms. Bousa to comment regarding the Mammoth Road intersection.  Ms. Bousa felt that 400’ all season sites would be acceptable.  It was Ms. Bousa’s personal opinion that fixing Mammoth Road intersection was not the applicant’s responsibility.  Mr. Basso said his traffic engineer felt the same.  He said they would not mind donating and amount per lot toward altering the intersection. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that the Safety Committee designated the location of three cisterns.  He said that they also requested three names for each street.  Mr. Lynde didn’t believe there would be a problem if the name remained Lawrence Corner Road.  Mr. Mitchell discussed the law regarding pre-existing conditions of roads.  He believed that even though there may be a pre-existing condition, if a subdivision would add to the problem, something should be done to rectify the situation (such as the applicant suggested).   Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the proposed loop was considered a cul-de-sac.  He also felt that the history of Lawrence Corner Road was also an issue.  Mr. Danevich said that Town Counsel was reviewing. 

 

Mr. Lynde discussed the added traffic to the area.  He noted that the plan did not provide open space provisions as provided for in the regulations.  He asked if it were possible to realign the road.  Mr. Mitchell said the process was the same as any other road, if the Board approved it and the Town accepted it, it could be a road.  Mr. Danevich said that the Board needed Town Counsel’s opinion.  He believed the Board was in concurrence that a road right-of-way to the Lynch property should be added.  He ended by saying that he agreed with Mr. Mitchell regarding collecting a road exaction for the Mammoth Road intersection.  Mr. Sommers said the state had a program for 2/3 funding. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road believed that the Board had a right to turn down the subdivision if the road was class 6 (road closed by gates and bars).  He said if it was closed, it would have to go to the municipal authority.  He questioned who was the municipal authority, either the Selectmen or the Town meeting.  Mr. Hennessey believed the road to be class 6, and therefore, didn’t feel the subdivision was viable.  He felt that Town Counsel should determine who the municipality was.  After extensive research, Mr. Hennessey was unable to find proof that the road was accepted by Town meeting and believed that it was still subject to gates and bars. 

 

Attorney Jim Tamposi representing the Lynch family said the major concern was the intersection of Lawrence Corner Road and Mammoth Road.  He discussed the difficulty and unsafe condition of turning onto Mammoth Road from Lawrence Corner Road.  He discussed collecting money from the subdivision to fix Mammoth Road and didn’t feel that it would solve the problem.  Attorney Tamposi discussed the length of the road, which he felt was essentially a long cul-de-sac and therefore should have the same restrictions as a cul-de-sac.  He felt that the proposed subdivision was a scattered and premature.  Attorney Tamposi said the Lynch family appreciated the right-of-way.  He ended by reiterating that improvements were needed at the intersection of Mammoth Road and Lawrence Corner Road. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if there was any evidence that the debris pile blocked the stream.  Mr. Basso didn’t believe that there was a stream on the parcel.  He said that the area was a wooded wetland.

 

Mr. Danevich noted the following issues that needed resolution before the Board could vote: 1) Town Counsel resolution regarding the status of Lawrence Corner Road (Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Lynde to follow up); 2) add notation to plan of the road’s right-of-way to Lynch property; 3) work with the applicant regarding the exaction for off-site improvement (Mr. Mitchell asked for the Board’s decision....see Mr. Scanzani’s motion below); 4) by CLD’s recommendation, the ‘T’ intersection is to be corrected; 5) provide an exact road distance measurement starting from Mammoth Road.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Lynde) The Board stated that the intersection of Lawrence Corner Road and Castle Hill Road was a safety concern that needed to be addressed by the applicant.

 

CONSENSUS VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich date specified the plan to the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

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

 

Mr. Kurt Meisner, Meisner/Bremm Corporation presented the plan to the Board.  He discussed the changes made to the plan since the last meeting.  He said that the speed limit was revised to 35mph and the reconstruction of the top of Garland Drive was submitted to CLD Engineering, who sent a positive response.  He said the engineering issues had also been resolved with CLD.  Mr. Meisner said the only pending issue was the no-cut zone on the South end of the property, which was still a 50’ buffer. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering, addressed the 35mph-design speed.  He said that more of the hill would be removed from Garland Drive to provide for the 390’ site distance.  He recommended approval subject to receiving the shoulder design (final cross-sections).  Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the work done on Garland Drive could be done within the right-of-way.  Mr. Sommers believed it could be done, but said he needed to see the final cross-section.  Mr. Meisner said the alteration could be done in the right-of-way. 

 

Mr. DeLuca wanted to know how far onto Garland Drive the work would occur.  Mr. Sommers said approximately 400’.  Mr. DeLuca was not a direct abutter to the subdivision during the past meetings, but now that the roadwork was moving closer to his parcel, he questioned if he should step down.  The applicant did not raise concern with Mr. DeLuca being on the Board.  Mr. DeLuca felt he should step down in the best interest of the Town.  Mr. Lynde noted that doing a road cut did not make Mr. DeLuca a legal abutter. 

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services addressed the Board and gave a brief synopsis of his review of the various wildlife habitat issues.  He said that the area had a predominance of fruit bearing trees and shrubs and was a segment of a potential wildlife travel corridor identified on the regional planning community map.  He said the impacts of development would be the removal of the fruit bearing trees, potential increase of tolerant wildlife, fragmentation from the clearing of the forested areas, therefore having the tolerant species move into the surrounding undeveloped lands.  He reference the Fish and Game letter dated October 21, 2001 which discussed maintaining a wildlife corridor along the Southern boundary which could connect the East/West wildlife corridor.  Mr. Gove then referenced a letter provided by Gove Environmental dated January 31, 2002, which further investigated the wildlife habitat and tracking the animals.  He said they found a concentrated population that traveled North/South on the East side of the property and a smaller population on the West side.  He didn’t see that the Southern portion of the parcel was a preferred wildlife corridor.  He said that the tracking they found was passive human recreation.  Mr. Gove said the draw of fruit bearing trees would be eliminated by the development.  He said that the surrounding subdivisions would also block the wildlife.  He said that there was movement East/West, but didn’t believe it was the preferred route of the wildlife.  Mr. Gove didn’t feel there was evidence to support an East/West corridor along the Southern boundary of the parcel, or that there would be a continued use of the area once the fruit bearing trees were removed.  Mr. Lynde asked if wildlife crossed Dutton Road.  Mr. Gove said that large mammals did. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked what type of no-cut zone was provided for in the Fineman subdivision.  Mr. Meisner said that the Fineman subdivision provided for a 100’ no-cut zone.  Mr. Mitchell said that the plans received from the Fineman subdivision contained two buffers, 100’ and 150’, which is how it was approved.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed with Mr. Gove that the Western boundary was more significant than the Southern boundary. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Andrew Landry, 19 Garland Drive believed that Mr. Gove’s wildlife determination was incorrect, because he saw deer in his yard all the time.  He was concerned that lowering and widening Garland Drive would affect his well, which is located in front of his home.  He didn’t feel that the subdivision should be approved. 

 

Mr. Henry DeLuca, 16 Garland Drive said there was significant wildlife in the area and believed that the problem with eliminating the wildlife corridor was that the Town could never get it back again.  He said that there were moose, deer and fox tracks all over the area.  He said that the open space needed to be maintained in the area because of the significance to the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission suggested including the WCD in the deed restriction.  He also felt that there should be a third party assessment of the wildlife on the parcel. 

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road asked if the barbed wire at the wetland area be removed.  She asked if the houses near the WCD could be moved closer to the road.  Mr. Meisner said the house locations shown on the plan were only intended to be the possible locations.  He said they would either remove the barbed wire, or allow the Conservation Commission to remove it. 

 

Mr. Scanzani suggested not developing the two lots on the Southwest corner, but leaving them as open space.  He said he would make a motion to that affect with the added condition that the barbed wire is removed, and the road cross-section at Garland be verified by CLD.  Mr. Meisner suggested instead of deleting the two lots, he could add a 15’ buffer to the abutting parcel on the South side and also said he could add a 20’ buffer to the West side.  He was agreeable to the removal of the barbed wire and to providing the cross-section to CLD for review. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that there was no provision for open space within the subdivision and land, which by its nature, could not be used.  He discussed the two wildlife corridors and how the only connection of the two corridors would be eliminated if the subdivision were approved as presented.  Mr. Gove said that a food source was being confused for a wildlife corridor.  Mr. Danevich suggested relocating some of the apple trees to the two lots on the Southwest corner to maintain a food source for the wildlife.  Mr. Scanzani reiterated that the lot was environmentally sensitive.  He felt if the two lots remained they would leave the continuity of the wetland and the WCD intact. 

 

Attorney Gregory Smith said that there was no basis in fact of a wildlife corridor along the Southern portion of the development.  He said the wildlife activity was to the East and South and the access from the West would not be significant due to an abutting subdivision.  He said the insensitive wildlife would relocate and didn’t feel that there was justification for taking valuable lots from the development.  Attorney Smith said the Town’s ordinance didn’t provide standards for wildlife corridors and therefore could not impose wildlife corridors on developments.  He discussed the open space provisions and didn’t feel they could be applied arbitrarily.  It was his belief that the 30% of undeveloped area in the development were adequate for open space.  Mr. Danevich said that Town Counsel provided a different opinion. 

 

Mr. Mitchell reminded the Board of all the information it had been submitted.  He said the Board was obligated to make a decision based on a common sense approach to the issues.  He said the Town’s Master Plan discussed setting aside an infrastructure to allow for the continued travelling of wildlife.  He said if the area was not used now, it set aside could be used in the future.  He said the Board had Town Counsel’s opinion and it was up to the Board to deny or conditionally approve the plan.  He felt the Board had the authority to protect the wildlife. 

 

Attorney Smith said the statutes were clear and Towns needed to adopt environmental characteristic zoning.  He felt in the absence of an ordinance, the Board had been provided with sufficient evidence in favor of the applicant. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that the Master Plan provided for open space provisions.  He believed the Board had the obligation to provide and protect the essential habitat area for wildlife both on the South and the West side of the property as previously requested of the applicant. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said the Board was aware of the sensitivity of the parcel based on surrounding parcels about to be developed.  He said the Board had always tried to balance landowner rights with the best interests of the Town.  He said there was conflicting information on the site.  Mr. Scanzani made the following motion in the interest to try and protect the applicant’s right to develop, as well as the best interest of the Town and Master Plan: To approve the plan subject to: 1)  the two lots on the South/West corner being left as open space, (the applicant has 30-days to provide a revised plan that met the criteria); 2) the cross-section (as set forth in the subdivision regulations for a 35 mph design) being provided to the Planning Director and CLD for review.  He said if not forthcoming in 30-days, the plan would not be approved.  Mr. Mitchell further clarified that the special permit required for the driveway crossing on lot 2 be denied because the Board laid out that the lot was a critical aspect to the wildlife corridor.  Mr. Scanzani amended his motion.  Ms. Ouellette seconded. 

 

Mr. Meisner suggested that if the two lots were eliminated, that the connection to Garland Drive not happen.  Mr. Danevich said that there would then be an extended cul-de-sac, which the Police and Fire Chiefs were not amiable to.  Mr. Meisner said that the plan had no-cut zones, which when added up, provided for open space.  He pointed out the areas that they set aside.  Mr. Scanzani said that the WCD could not be cut and his motion stood. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To approve the plan subject to: 1) the two lots on the South/West corner being left as open space, (the applicant has 30-days to provide a revised plan); 2) the cross-section (as set forth in the subdivision regulations for a 35 mph design) being provided to the Planning Director and CLD for review.  The special permit for the driveway crossing on lot 2 is denied.

 

VOTE:

(5 - 1 - 1)  The motion carries. Mr. Lynde voted no.  Mr. DeLuca stepped down.

 

Mr. Lynde voted no because he wanted the connection of both wildlife corridors.

 

Mr. DeLuca returned to the Board.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Culbert would be reconvening the Cul-de-sac Work Group.  There was a brief discussion regarding the definition of a cul-de-sac. 

 

Mr. Lynde informed that the Selectmen would be interviewing a full-time Fire/Code Inspector at the next meeting. 

 

Mr. Danevich requested that the a few Planning Board members attend an upcoming Conservation meeting. 

He asked that the Board review the EIA and provide comment. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that the second graders requested a special meeting with the Planning Board.  He said that he would inform the Board with a date. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that Board would discuss the new subdivisions at the next work session.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD will be providing input.  The proposed document is to be given to Mr. Mitchell April 4, 2002 for public posting. 

 

Mr. Mitchell set up a policy change, so that he would review all building permits.  Mr. Danevich said the policy had been changed based on a review of some of the previously approved subdivisions. 

 

Mr. Lynde discussed road names and when they should be approved. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked to review the activity at Raymond Park per RSA 674:54.  He said the concern was the lack of a site plan.  Mr. Lynde said the plans had been approved five years ago.  He said a DES permit had been obtained to create wetlands (but it was not built).  He went on to discuss what was being done.  Mr. Lynde believed that CLD and Gove Environmental had been involved.  He said that he would research and provide information to the Board and the public.  Mr. Sommers discussed his understanding of the site.

 

PLANNING DIRECTOR’S REPORT

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that Raytheon would be meeting with the Board to complete the site plan review and had obtained the necessary variances.  He said they would contact Mr. Mitchell when the Board could review.  Mr. Danevich added Raytheon to the site walk list of March 23, 2002.

 

SITE WALK - March 23, 2002

 

Map 2 Lot 12 Mary Ann Stys Glance - Burns Road/Marsh Road - Proposed 11-Lot Subdivision

 

Raytheon - Mr. Mitchell to confirm the date. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

The Board reviewed the minutes from the March 4, 2002 Board meeting and made amendments.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:45 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary