APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 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, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

None.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the Board would hold a public meeting March 18, 2002.

Mr. Danevich informed that Mr. Steven Caruso had been appointed a member of the CIP Committee.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 13 Lot 167-9 Houston White - Plower Road - Seeking a Special Permit to access a Proposed Single Family 4-Bedroom Dwelling for Planning Director’s Report on Completeness

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that the application was complete.  It was his understanding that the Conservation Commission had reviewed the plan and would provide comments.  He believed that Conservation was in favor of the plan. 

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell recommended that the plan was acceptable for consideration.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Mitchell to scheduled the plan for review at the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

Map 10 Lot 264 Diane Wolven - 31 Jericho Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Acquisition of Land by Pelham Conservation Commission for Planning Director’s Report on Completeness

 

Mr. Mitchell believed there would be no change in the existing impact the way the proposed subdivision was noted..  He said that based on the submitted waiver, the plan was complete. 

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell felt that because a comprehensive waiver was submitted, the plan could be accepted for consideration.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Mitchell to scheduled the plan for review at the April 1, 2002 meeting.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Map 12 Lot 44 Phase II - Hart, Jordan & White - Shephard Road/Mulberry Lane - Proposed 28-Lot Subdivision for continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates requested that the plan be continued until the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be continued until the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich said that the applicant requested that the plan be continued to the next meeting.  He read aloud a letter that stated the following reasons for the continuance: 1) still working to receive approval from the NH Wetlands Board; 2) still reviewing existing drainage system for improvements. 

 

Mr. Mitchell felt that the application should be completed by the date, or resubmitted.  He felt that if abutters were present, their testimony should be heard.  Mr. Danevich agreed and limited comments to abutter testimony.  Mr. Scanzani clarified that the Board would hear testimony from abutters and would hold off on any discussion until the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Attorney Michael Donovan, representing most of the neighbors and abutters who were in objection to the proposed, held comments because the applicant was not present.  He said that his clients retained Mr. Mark West, Wetlands Scientist and would hold his comments until the April 1, 2002 meeting.  Attorney Donovan did inform that the application contained major problems and didn’t feel that the DES permit could be obtained for several months.  He didn’t feel the Board could take any action on the plan until the wetland issues were resolved.  He said he would like to have the plan denied without prejudice at any time. 

 

Mr. Mark West, West Environmental, Certified Wetland Scientist for the State of New Hampshire who also had a background in wildlife biology said he would be addressing wetland and wildlife issues.  He said the focus of his review was if the environmental resources had been evaluated properly.  Mr. West’s main concern was the wetland delineation.  He discussed the need and importance of having a functional analysis of the wetlands.  Mr. West then discussed water quality protection issues.  He said that water quantity had been discussed, but felt that water quality should also be addressed.  He asked that an unbiased review of the plan be done.  Mr. West said that a big issue on the plan was that wetlands were being used as detention basins.  He noted that if there were areas that were actually vernal pools more research should be done.  He then discussed the wildlife habitat.  He said a regional wildlife analysis had been done and suggested that a site-specific analysis be performed so impacts could clearly be determined.  He said that vernal pools and wildlife corridors had been found and asked that more in depth studies be performed.  Mr. West believed that he would be following up with a letter to the board addressing the specific concerns. 

 

Attorney Donovan decided to discuss a few issues.  He said that he had previously recommended that the plan be denied based on the following: 1) plan does not meet special permit requirements in the zoning for wetland encroachments; 2) no favorable comment from Conservation; 3) new zoning for Conservation would apply since application was submitted after posting of new zoning; 4) temporary cul-de-sac does not meet requirements of new subdivision requirements, the connection does not show possibility of linking to a dedicated street (Smith Road is private). 

 

Attorney Donovan asked if the revised drainage study would be reviewed by professionals.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineers (Town engineer), said that the study had been reviewed and commented on.  He said that the comments had been submitted.  Attorney Donovan discussed the drainage report and felt that future impacts of drainage and maintenance of the swales should be reviewed.  He believed that the Board would ultimately have to deny the plan.

 

Mr. Paul Gagnon, an abutter said that the abutters had discussions with the planner and the Conservation Commission regarding a reasonable compromise for the builder and the Town.  He said it had been suggested to end the cul-de-sac at 1000’ and have a portion of the land purchased by the Conservation Commission.  He said the abutters would contribute half of the money and Conservation would contribute the other half of the money to purchase the land.  Mr. Gagnon went on to discuss how the plan would be changed and felt that conservation land would be beneficial to all. 

 

Mr. Ed Fucarile, Dutton Road provided a map for the Board that showed pictures of Dutton Road during each of the seasons.  He had pictures of different wildlife that were in the area.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the 1000’ cul-de-sac would still significantly effect the wildlife.  He discussed the runoff from the road and believed it would damage the wildlife area near his home. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell handle the following: 1) summarize and discuss Attorney Donovan’s points with the applicant; 2)  share Mr. West’s report with the applicant; 3) brief client regarding the conservation easement; 4) convey to the applicant the Planning Board’s desire for resolution of the plan to an end on April 1, 2002.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a way to do the road drainage so that the area would not be negatively effected.  Mr. West said that any development would have an impact.  He felt that CLD could design the plan better than having the water run into the wetland.  He felt it could be done with more treatment and detention before entering the resource area.  Mr. Scanzani asked if it were possible to create an additional wetland area that wasn’t sensitive to hold the road drainage.  Mr. West said that a storm water wetland detention basin could be built. 

 

Attorney Donovan asked what the cutoff date was for the applicant to submit additional information.  Mr. Danevich said any information would need to be received ten days before the scheduled meeting.   

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said the plan contained five buildable lots and one non-buildable lot.  He said the proposed was an extension of a previously approved plan for Priscilla Way.  Mr. Zohdi said they would like to extend the existing cul-de-sac approximately 379’ .  He said the lots met with both zoning and subdivision regulations.  He said that CLD (Town Engineer) had reviewed and requested an additional manhole be added, which has been done. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the new configuration addressed most of his concerns. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if well easement on ML 3-89 could be moved from the gas easement.  Mr. Zohdi said the plans would be updated. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to know how much further the road distance would be on the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Zohdi said the existing cul-de-sac length was 1600’ and they were proposing to extend the cul-de-sac to be approximately 1978.48’ from Mammoth Road. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked how many homes would be on the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Zohdi said there would be 15 or 16 homes. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that the majority of his concerns were notes to be added to the plan.  He had concern with how the Board would interpret the frontage (and access) with ML 3-88-23.  He said there was a 200’ frontage requirement in the zoning ordinance.  Mr. Zohdi said that they had sufficient frontage on Nashua Road, but the driveway was placed off Priscilla to not effect the wetland.  Mr. Scanzani felt that in this case, because of the frontage on both roads, that the Safety Committee should review the driveway being placed on Priscilla.  There was a brief discussion regarding frontage requirements and driveway access and how the zoning ordinance could be interpreted.  It was Mr. Danevich’s opinion that a Variance was not needed.  Mr. Scanzani made a motion to not redefine the Board’s interpretation of the zoning, as done in the past, regarding frontage and accept as is, therefore not requiring a variance.  Mr. Lynde believed that Town Counsel should review the ordinance and provide an interpretation.  Mr. Scanzani disagreed.  He felt that it was the Board’s responsibility, when proposing zoning, to understand the intent.  He said the Board’s intent was that every lot would contain 200’ of frontage on a Town owned road.  Mr. Lynde said the words did not reflect the intent spoken by Mr. Scanzani.  He reiterated his belief that the Board should seek Town Counsel opinion.  Mr. Danevich said the Board believed that the ordinance was being upholded, but would seek Town Counsel’s advice if Mr. Lynde desired.  Mr. Lynde answered yes. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reiterated his motion and amended to say that the Board would seek Town Counsel’s opinion.  Mr. Culbert seconded.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that the Board’s interpretation of the word ‘frontage’ was that provided a lot had 200’ somewhere on a public right-of-way, as long as it had access from another portion of frontage, regardless of the size, that lot would meet the requirement of the minimum frontage.  Mr. Danevich said that as long as there was 200’ of frontage onto a public road. 

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, Dutton Road did not believe the Planning Board had the ability to assume the right to interpret the zoning law.  Mr. Danevich said that zoning was interpreted as it applied to the application.  He said the Board did not grant variances.  Mr. Hennessey said the Board could give a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment.  Mr. Mitchell said if someone appealed the decision, the Board of Adjustment could overrule the Planning Board.  He said that the Planning Board, under the statutes for subdivision approval, was able to make a preliminary interpretation. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if Mr. Mitchell would be more comfortable with the plan going before the Board of Adjustment for ruling on the frontage.  Mr. Mitchell said somebody impacted by the development would be the one to appeal to the Board of Adjustment. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To not redefine the Board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance for 200’ of frontage, but to continue as done in the past.  The Board will seek Town Counsel’s opinion.

 

VOTE:

(4 - 2 - 1)  The motion carries.  Mr. McNamara and Mr. Lynde voted no.  Ms. Ouellette abstained.

 

Mr. Zohdi said his client reserved the right to meet with the Board of Adjustment. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said his only other issue was how the Board would address the length of the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Danevich asked if the extension (less than 500’) of the existing cul-de-sac required a waiver since that was the plan being presented, or if the entire length should be considered.  Mr. Danevich said the plan still needed to be reviewed by the Safety Committee and CLD (Town Engineer).  He asked that Conservation also provide comment. 

 

Mr. Mitchell read aloud the portion of the subdivision regulations pertaining to cul-de-sacs.  There was a discussion regarding the intent and interpretation of the regulation and how the cul-de-sac subcommittee determined and drafted the regulation language.  Mr. Lynde brought up an alternative as pointed out by Ms. Bousa.  He said an alternative would be to bring the road out to Nashua Road through lots 23 and 24.  Mr. Zohdi said he submitted a waiver January 7, 2002 for cul-de-sac length and asked the status.  He discussed the possibility of adding the road out to Nashua Road, which would be an additional 800’ of road.  Mr. Danevich felt the road connection would be beneficial for safety reasons.  Mr. Zohdi said he would like to show the plan to the Fire Chief for his recommendation.  He asked the Board to take jurisdiction on the waiver.  Mr. Scanzani read the waiver aloud.  Mr. Zohdi said he would work with CLD, Mr. Mitchell and the Fire Chief regarding the cul-de-sac length. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the waiver (for cul-de-sac) dated January 7, 2002 for consideration. 

 

VOTE:

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

 

Mr. Mitchell said the plan would need a waiver for the lot shape requirement due to the portion of the lot that fronts on Priscilla Way is less than 75’ of width.  Mr. Danevich said the road design would determine if a waiver was needed.  Mr. Zohdi said he could rearrange his lots so a waiver would not be necessary. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD said the only concern was the cul-de-sac requirements and the inside and outside radius.  Mr. Zohdi said the radius was 62.5.  Mr. Zohdi asked that the Board sign a copy of the subdivision and provide to the public.  Mr. Sommers discussed his understanding of the radius.  Mr. Danevich said the radius section had been written by CLD and could be discussed at an upcoming work session.  Mr. Mitchell said that the new regulations had been available to the public for nine months.  Mr. Zohdi said he would work with the Fire Chief for the cul-de-sac radius. 

 

There was no public input. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the application would be continued to the April 1, 2002 meeting. 

 

Administrative Break....

 

There was a brief discussion regarding continuing the plans to the next meeting.  The following plans were continued until the March 18, 2002 meeting: 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

OLD BUSINESS CON’T......

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said the original intent, when the topography was reviewed, would be to have Long View Circle connect to Valley Hill Road.  He discussed an alternate road connection and the possible future connections.  Mr. Zohdi said he met with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering and asked that they provide their opinion. 

 

Mr. Mitchell provided the following comments:  1) no open space has been provided as required in section 11:14; 2) given the proposed steep slopes and road grade along the portion of Long View Circle from Valley Hill Road he recommended removal of the shown roadway for the following reasons - open space could be considered in its place, significant impact to the grade of land and natural drainage flows, proposed slopes are safety hazard and expensive maintenance, additional cut onto Valley Hill increase hazard onto substandard roadway.  He ended by saying he supported the removal of the road as described by Mr. Zohdi. 

 

Mr. Scanzani felt the Board should seriously review the road connectivity design and consider how it would be in comply under the regulations.  Mr. Zohdi clarified what section he was proposing to not connect.  He believed that both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Sommers agreed with not connecting the roads.  There was a discussion regarding the roads that were previously approved and the length of cul-de-sacs that would possibly be required until the roads were connected and complete.  Mr. Culbert said the cul-de-sac committee would re-address the issue. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the existing house would be able to be accessed.  Mr. Zohdi explained where the frontage would be. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to agree with CLD and the Planning Director’s report and to request that the road not be part of the application and give the applicant direction to redesign the plan for CLD’s review and to include an open space area. Mr. Culbert seconded the motion. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering agreed with Mr. Mitchell’s prior comments.  He addressed the issues noted in his January 29, 2002 letter to the Board.  Mr. Zohdi said if they moved along with the Board, the first priority would be the extension of Long View. 

 

There was no public input.

 

There was a discussion regarding placing an easement to the state owned land.  Mr. Zohdi said he would meet with Mr. Mitchell and make a formal written request.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) Per CLD and the Planning Director’s report, the Board requests that the connection road of ML 4-139-9 & 4-139-8 within parent parcel 4-139 not being a part of the application.  The Board directs the applicant to redesign the plan to include an open space area for CLD’s review

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be date specified to April 1, 2002. 

 

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

 

Mr. Bill Perkins, Hearthstone Realty; Tobin Farwell, Civil Engineer and Heather Stalazey-Ward presented the plan to the Board.  Mr. Farwell began by saying that phase I had previously been before the Board and they were now working on phase II, a 12-lot subdivision.  He said the main road would be an extension of Mulberry Road and the subdivision would also contain a 550’ cul-de-sac.  He said because the plan was submitted in November, 2001 it was based on the old regulations.  He said as discussed with the Conservation Commission, they would be donating portions of land.  Mr. Farwell said that the WCD would not be impacted.  He said that they placed two cisterns for fire protection. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the Board granted approval of phase I dependent upon decisions and directions of phase II.  He discussed his understanding of the conservation easement and asked if the applicant had met with the Selectmen regarding the issues with the dam.  Mr. Farwell said that Dam Safety had inspected and provided recommendations for improvements.  He said they were now in the process of obtaining a wetlands permit.  Mr. Perkins discussed the recommendations made by Dam Safety.  He said he met at the site with Mr. Bill McDevitt, Selectmen, Dam Safety and a contractor to work out changes.  He said steps would be taken so that the dam would not look like Hoover Dam. 

 

Mr. Perkins discussed the connections between the proposed subdivision and the surrounding areas.  Mr. Scanzani asked how long the cul-de-sac would be.  Mr. Farwell said their cul-de-sac would be a total of 1200’.  He did not know the length of the abutting parcel’s cul-de-sac.  Mr. Danevich noted his appreciation for the applicant working with the abutting parcel’s engineer regarding road connectivity. 

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know what the developer would do if the Fire Chief was unhappy with the cul-de-sac length.  Mr. Perkins said that the decision would be up to the Town.  Mr. Danevich noted that the developer would be able to connect the road if needed.  There was a discussion regarding the intent of the regulation regarding cul-de-sacs, and in this case, if the Board would rather grant a waiver for the additional feet (that would provide open space), or have the Town take on the expense of maintaining additional roadway.  Mr. Danevich said that the plan needed to be reviewed by CLD.  Mr. Scanzani felt that the road should connect for possible future development as well as access to the Town owned land.  Mr. Culbert noted that there should already be a road connection to the Town parcel.  Mr. Perkins pointed out on the plan where the road connection to the Town parcel would be.  He said he was working with Mr. Zohdi for the design. 

 

Mr. Perkins said that the plan had been submitted to CLD for review.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering said that the plan was in the process of being reviewed.  He said that the traffic impact study was being reviewed and the Fire Chief asked that the connectivity be made for safety reasons. 

 

Ms. Louise Casseras, CLD, said that CLD had a meeting with the Fire and Police Chief on February 21, 2002.  They both wanted the road connection.  Mr. Mitchell will follow up with the Safety Committee for written comment.  Mr. Danevich asked that Conservation provide comment.  He said that CLD needed to continue drainage review.  Mr. Danevich wanted to provide direction regarding the road connectivity.

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to advise the applicant based on information presented and earlier comments to connect the road as opposed to the road terminating in a cul-de-sac.  Mr. DeLuca seconded.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To advise the applicant to connect the roads, based on the information provided by the Safety Committee and the Board’s discussion

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich scheduled a site walk for March 9, 2002.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Ray Brunelle, 3 Matthew Drive, discussed the road connection in conjunction with the Town owned land.  He pointed out that the land set aside for conservation was a state designated wildlife corridor that extended to the powerlines.  He then discussed the Spring Street Conservation area and noted that lot 4 was in the center of the wildlife corridor as well as being in an intermittent stream.  Mr. Brunelle believed that if lots 6,7 and 8 were reconfigured and lot 4 was moved, the developer would still be able to have the same number of lots but with less of an impact on the wildlife corridor.  Mr. Brunelle noted that there was a 45’ no-cut buffer that would be altered if lot 4 were to be built.  Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Brunelle’s concerns would be reviewed at the site walk. 

 

Ms. Debra Waters, 6 Harley Road asked how the lots would change if the cul-de-sac was extended through.  Mr. Perkins said the right-of-way would come out of the conservation land.  He said any reconfiguration would require waivers. 

 

Mr. Mike Scanlon, Shephard Road, discussed the proposed road to the Town owned road and wanted to know what the alternative would be if the proposed access could not be obtained.  Mr. Lynde discussed what had been presented.  He believed that the plans that come before the Board should conform to the master plan.  The was a brief discussion regarding road connectivity and how the Town would benefit. 

 

Mr. Chris Seibel, 5 Spring Street, asked if there would be an additional road connecting to Spring Street.  Mr. Perkins said there would be a connection up to Ledge Road, to split the traffic. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be date specified to April 1, 2002.

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates said the plan had been done by someone else (who was out of town), but with the consent of the applicant would present to the Board.  He said the parcel was being proposed to be subdivided into three lots for family members.  He said one of the lots contained an existing house.

 

Mr. Mitchell’s concern was the well radius being in the right-of-way.  Mr. Zohdi said the leach bed could be moved so that the well radius could be altered.  He said when the plans were submitted for signature, the well radiuses would not go over the centerline of the road.  Mr. Scanzani recommended that the well radiuses be contained on each individual lots.  Mr. Danevich discussed the concerns of keeping the 75’ protective well radius within each lot.  He recommended to the Board that the Health Officer provide comment. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Scanzani was concerned with approving the plan based on the shape of the lot.  He agreed that the Health Officer should provide comment.

 

Mr. Mitchell preferred to continue the plan until March 18, 2002, so that the Health Officer could provide comment.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the Health Officer not only comment on the well radius, but also if there was any contamination in the area. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the plan would be heard on March 18, 2002 provided that the Health Officer provide comment regarding the well radius being contained in the road right-of-say versus on the adjacent parcel with an easement.  He asked that comment also be provided if there were any known issues.  Mr. Scanzani said there would need to be a waiver request if the well radius were to extend over the centerline of the road. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be continued to March 18, 2002 and would be the first agenda item.

 

SITE WALK - March 9, 2002

 

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

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

February 4, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept the minutes of the February 4, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.  Ms. Ouellette abstained.  Ms. Bousa voted.

 

February 21, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept the minutes of the February 21, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

(5 - 0 - 2)  The motion carries.  Mr. McNamara and Mr. DeLuca abstained. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. Lynde informed that the draft of the codebook had been received, but did not contain the new subdivision regulations.  He provided Mr. Danevich with a copy to circulate and provide comments. 

 

Mr. Lynde also informed that an offer had been made for the Fire/Code Enforcement Officer.  He will follow up on the status. 

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,c and e (legal matters).

 

ROLL CALL:

(6 - 0 - 1) Mr. Danevich-Yes, Mr. Culbert-Yes, Mr. Scanzani-Yes, Mr. McNamara-Yes, Mr. DeLuca-Yes, Ms. Ouellette-Yes, Mr. Lynde-abstained.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting.  The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 11:15 pm.  Also present was Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell and Alternate Ms. Robin  Bousa.

 

The Board returned to public session.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(     )

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately       pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary