APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

April 1, 2002   

 

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

 

Ms. Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

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

 

ABSENT:

 

Henry DeLuca

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Culbert and Mr. DeLuca had been re-appointed to the Board.

 

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

 

A motion was made and seconded to re-elect Mr. Danevich as Chair.  By unanimous vote, Mr. Danevich was re-elected Chair.

 

A motion was made and seconded to re-elect Mr. Culbert as Vice Chair.  By unanimous vote, Mr. Culbert was re-elected Vice Chair.

 

A motion was made and seconded to re-elect Mr. Scanzani as Secretary.  By unanimous vote, Mr. Scanzani was re-elected Secretary.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Discussion of Meadowview Pump Station

 

Mr. Don Weare, Pennichuck Water presented the plan to the Board.  He said that the pumping station had been approved as part of the Meadowview project.  He said that Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates had created the plan for Pennichuck.  He said that because the size of the generator (in terms of the ventilation load), it generally would be located outside.  Mr. Weare said he was informed by Mr. Mitchell that the generator was to be located inside, and if Pennichuck wanted the generator outside, they would need to present a plan to the Board.  He presented a revised plan that contained landscaping to mitigate the look of the generator.  He said the size of the generator was approximately 3’6” tall, 30” wide and 6’ long.  Mr. Weare was seeking approval.

 

Mr. Danevich said the Board took a firm stand regarding any type of commercial generator being self-contained in a residential district, specifically to help contain noise.  Mr. Weare said the generator had a hospital grade muffler.  He said an alternative would be to put an addition on the side of the building. 

 

Mr. Scanzani felt that it was critical for the generator to be located inside.  The Board agreed with Mr. Scanzani.  Mr. Weare discussed how the plan could be altered to enclose the generator. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked that the generator would be maintained by Pennichuck.  Mr. Weare answered yes. 

 

There was no public input.   

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To re-affirm the Board’s initial position to self contain the generator.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To add a small (reasonable amount of space) out building for the generator.  The applicant is to work with the Planning Director for a building addition.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Weare said he would re-submit a set of plans and work with Mr. Mitchell for a building addition to house the generator. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 118 - R & B Superette - 59 Bridge Street - Site Plan review for relocation of failed septic system for submission

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said the site had an existing convenience and dry good store and that their septic system had failed.  He said they would like to move the system closer to Pulpit Rock Road and had requested a waiver from the state.  He discussed the location of the proposed system and said they were requesting that the slopes be 2-1 (and not the required 3-1).  He said there was no other location to put the septic system.  Mr. Zohdi provided a copy of the waiver request sent to the state.  Mr. Mitchell had previously reviewed and did not have a problem with the state waiver request. 

 

Mr. Mitchell believed that the plan was complete, and recommended acceptance for consideration. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the plan for consideration

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted the waivers needed for the plan. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, a waiver request for ENV. WS1008.04 minimum distances for leach bed/property line: Exception from 10’ reducing it to 3’. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, a waiver request for ENV.WS1014.05 distance above SHWT bed bottom to be 3’ above the seasonal high water table instead of 5’.  Note to be corrected on the plan. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, a waiver request for ENV.WS1021.04 extension of fill finish grade of system, 5’ around natural system 3-1 slope to a natural grade, reduced to a 2-1 slope to a natural grade. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Mitchell noted the urgency for accepting the plan and recommended approving the plan.  Mr. Danevich noted that the notes on the plan needed to be amended. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if an Article K waiver was needed.  Mr. Mitchell said that Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Health Officer would review. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle felt the Board should approve the plan. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the new location of the leach bed would be farther away from poorly drained soils the previous system.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the three waiver requests (as stated above).  The notes on the plan are to be updated. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan, subject to proper review and approval by Mr. Paul Zarnowski.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Map 2 Lot 128 Keith & Linda Tibbits - Bush Hill Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for submission

 

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

 

Mr. Mitchell recommended the plan for acceptance for consideration.  He said there were a couple minor issues with the plan, but the applicant had received a variance for the frontage.

 

Mr. Greg Geoffrey, Meisner/Bremm met with the Board to present the plan.  He provided a copy of a waiver request for fees.  Mr. Scanzani read the request aloud. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for reduction of application fee from $1000 to $250. 

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 1)  The motion carries.  Mr. Scanzani abstained.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the plan would be date specified to May 6, 2002.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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 since the plan was before the Board in February, there had not been a lot of work on the plan.  He said the there were two issues, 1) input from Wetland Board regarding a wetland crossing, 2) input from abutters and Conservation Commission and agreement for reserving a portion of the land (approximately 23 acres) for Town Conservation land.  Mr. Simplenski said that he had a verbal agreement from abutters, but there were a few remaining issues to be worked out regarding the conservation land.  He asked that the Board continue the plan until a written agreement was in place, and if an agreement could not be reached, he would come back with the original plan. 

 

Mr. Lynde said there were significant outstanding issues and wanted to know if they would be addressed if the plans came.  He wanted to know if Mr. Simplenski was aware of all the issues.  Mr. Simplenski said that he had met with Dr. Richardson, who said the wetland crossing was not an issue of the Wetlands Board.  He said the Wetland Board had a problem with the discharging of water into the larger of the wetland and suggested a way to discharge the water into the smaller wetlands. 

 

Mr. Culbert was not in favor of continuing the plan.  He believed the applicant should take the plan away and come back later with a different plan.  Mr. Simplenski said the only reason they weren’t ready was due to ongoing conversations with abutters. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said he appreciated the developer working with the Town.  He said the developer had been working with the abutters and didn’t want to see him penalized because the plans were not complete due to the conversations. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the original plan and said that it was not acceptable to have any road drainage go into the wetlands or vernal pools.  He spoke of protecting the area due to its sensitivity.  He didn’t know how the drainage could be achieved unless the developer gave up lots for drainage containment.  Mr. Scanzani said the Board had received and reviewed correspondence from various people including Mr. Mark West, Environmental Scientist, CLD (Town Engineer) which discussed issues such as drainage, driveway crossings, cul-de-sac design, site protection.  Mr. Simplenski said that the engineering had not been done because of pending discussions with abutters regarding the conservation land.  He said he would have been prepared if he knew the Board was going to deny the plan. 

 

Mr. McNamara felt the developer was making a good faith effort to comply.  He was in favor of granting a 30-day continuance if the deal with the abutters could be made within that timeframe. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt that the developer was assuming that the Board was going to grant several waivers to the subdivision regulations, such as for cul-de-sac length.  He said there were several outstanding issues and wanted to make sure the developer was aware, and understood the issues before he resubmitted a plan.  Mr. Scanzani said that the area had been identified as a prime area for wildlife, wetlands and drainage into a major wetlands. 

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the concerns as follows: 1) ten abutters that had provided long lists of concerns (i.e. sensitivity of land, drainage, wildlife corridor, conflicting environmental information); 2) if road built, and homeowners expanded lots, most of vegetation that would absorb water would be lost, which would exasperate the drainage issues; 3) regional impact into Little Island Pond from the amount of water runoff and flow; 4) 60’ drop in elevation from Dutton Road to Island Pond; 5) wildlife corridor as addressed by studies done in the area (documented letter from Fish and Game); 6) Mark West, professional wildlife and soil scientist provided comments regarding wildlife and water quality protection problems; 7) significant concerns from CLD; 8) Conservation Commission had submitted concerns regarding sensitivity of parcel; 9) increased amount of road onto Dutton Road; 10) open space issues; 11) cul-de-sac length; 12) Dr. Richardson comments regarding the sensitivity and the fact that he would not support a dredge and fill or any other type of permit. 

 

Mr. Simplenski discussed his conversation with Dr. Richardson.  He said that the drainage would be re-routed through the smaller wetland and was informed that they would be issued the dredge and fill permit.  Mr. Yarmo didn’t feel that Dr. Richardson had concerns with the dredge and fill, as long as the recommendations for the drainage issues were addressed.  Mr. Danevich read a portion of Dr. Richardon’s correspondence, which noted the sensitivity of the area.  Mr. Yarmo discussed the comments made by Dr. Richardson drainage and said that there was an area that acted almost as a natural detention/retention area. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked, under the revised plan, what the length of cul-de-sac would be and how many homes would access it.  Mr. Simplenski said it would be under 1000’ and six homes would use it for access. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Attorney Michael Donovan representing certain neighbors and abutters discussed the proposed application with the Board.  He believed it was clear that the abutters wanted to work with the applicant and landowner.  He said that it was clear one of the main reasons the developer was willing to work with the abutters was because the plan didn’t meet the regulations.  He said if the application were denied, the neighbors would continue to work with the applicant to try and make a smaller, better project.  He also noted that the requirements of the zoning ordinance had not been met regarding the issuance of the special permit.  He said the drainage swales were a violation.  He said the extension of the cul-de-sac would not happen because the applicant didn’t have the permission of the people that control Smith Road.  He also noted that the lot shapes and buildable areas didn’t meet the regulations.  Attorney Donovan felt the current application should end and let the applicant continue to work with Conservation and the abutters to create a better plan. 

He said that if the plan was denied, the reasons should be clearly stated for the applicant. 

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle waned to ensure the Board received the correspondence from Mr. Mark West.  He agreed with Attorney Donovan and felt the plan should be denied. 

 

Mr. Jeff Costura, Dutton Road said Attorney Donovan did not represent him.  He believed the applicant was working in good faith and didn’t feel the applicant should be penalized for taking time to work with the abutters.  Mr. Danevich noted that the Board did not require, or request that the applicant work with the abutters. 

 

Ms. Julia Steed Mawson, South Shore Drive agreed with Attorney Donovan’s assessment of the situation.  She did however appreciate the work and effort of Mr. Simplenski and his team. 

 

Mr. E. Fucarile, Dutton Road wanted to know if the new six home plans would contain the dredge and fill abutting his parcel and how the drainage would occur.  Mr. Simplenski said the road would be elevated.  Mr. Danevich said that he appreciated Mr. Simplenski working with the Board. 

 

Mr. Scanzani was in the process of forming a motion to deny the plan when Mr. Simplenski asked that if the Board had intentions of denying the plan, he would like the opportunity to withdraw without prejudice.  There was a brief discussion regarding how the Board would proceed and what the ramifications were.  Mr. Lynde said that if a new plan were submitted, he asked that a checklist be included.  Attorney Donovan suggested that if the plan were withdrawn, the Board may end up reviewing the same application in the future.  He said if the plan was withdrawn, he would like the Board to make a motion noting that the Board did not have a favorable review of the plans and would have denied them if they were not withdrawn.  Mr. Mitchell preferred to note the problems with the plans, versus making a motion. 

 

Mr. Simplenski asked to withdraw the application.  There was a brief discussion regarding if the plan should be withdrawn with or without prejudice.  Mr. Culbert noted his concerns were listed in the correspondence of the following: 1) Attorney Donovan (dated March 25, 2002); 2) Conservation Commission (dated March 28, 2002); 3) Mr. Mark West (dated March 4, 2002); 4) CLD Engineering (dated February 20, 2002); 5) Mr. Clay Mitchell (dated April 1, 2002); 6) Conservation Commission’s letter (dated December 20, 2001).  He said he was not in favor of the 14, 13 or 9-lot subdivision presented.  Attorney Donovan suggested that the 14-lot subdivision be withdrawn, with prejudice. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion that referenced the correspondence Mr. Culbert noted.  He believed that a plan that went from 14 lots to 6 lots should be resubmitted because of sensitivity.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that Mr. Scanzani’s motion was to accept the withdrawal, with prejudice, for the 14-lot plan.  Mr. Lynde suggested adding that all the subsequent plans presented should also be included in the motion.  Mr. Scanzani amended his motion, Mr. Culbert amended his second.   

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To allow the applicant to withdraw, with prejudice, the proposed 14-lot subdivision plan (and all subsequent plans previously presented to the Board), noting the concerns listed in the correspondence of the following: 1) Attorney Donovan (dated March 25, 2002); 2) Conservation Commission (dated March 28, 2002); 3) Mr. Mark West (dated March 4, 2002); 4) CLD Engineering (dated February 20, 2002); 5) Mr. Clay Mitchell (dated April 1, 2002); 6) Conservation Commission’s letter (dated December 20, 2001).

 

VOTE:

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

 

Mr. Simplenski said he had requested that the plan be withdrawn without prejudice.  There was a bit of confusion regarding how the plan was withdrawn.  Mr. Scanzani said that the applicant withdrew his plan with prejudice.  He said that even though the plan would not be recorded, there was a file that contained all the plans, minutes and issues.  He said the applicant was free to bring back any and all plans as long as they are not what the Board had just reviewed.  Mr. Simplenski said he intended to continue work with the Conservation Commission and abutters.  Mr. Mitchell cautioned that the Board limited the applicant’s rights and believed the Board may have rendered an appealable decision.  Mr. Lynde felt the plans, and subsequent plans were not approvable.  He suggested making a motion to deny the plan, without prejudice, based upon the same information sited in the last motion.  Mr. Mitchell said that under the Roberts rule, the Board could reconsider the motion.  Mr. Scanzani made a motion to reconsider the motion with the understanding that Mr. Lynde would make a motion to deny the plan.  Mr. Culbert reconsidered his second. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To reconsider the original motion to withdraw the plan.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To rescind the original motion to withdraw the plan, based upon new information by Attorneys.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 

 

MOTION:

(Lynde/Ouellette) To deny the plan for ML 11-254 based upon the substantial body of evidence provided that the proposed subdivision had severe impact on the environment and that several issues cannot be resolved with the present plan before the Board.  Also noted are the concerns listed in the following correspondence: 1) Attorney Donovan (dated March 25, 2002); 2) Conservation Commission (dated March 28, 2002); 3) Mr. Mark West (dated March 4, 2002); 4) CLD Engineering (dated February 20, 2002); 5) Mr. Clay Mitchell (dated April 1, 2002); 6) Conservation Commission’s letter (dated December 20, 2001).

 

VOTE:

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

 

Mr. Jeff Costura, Dutton Road, was upset at how the proceeding was deliberated. 

 

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 Associated presented the plan to the Board.  He began by discussing the well radius, and the Board’s prior comment to have it removed from the gas easement.  He said Mr. Mitchell noted that one of the lots didn’t have a width of 75’, but it had since been corrected and the lot now complied with the regulations.  Mr. Zohdi said there was a question if the cul-de-sac could be connected to Mayflower.  He said there was an existing house that prevented the connection.  He also discussed the issue of connecting to Nashua Road, which would be on a steep slope and would require a wetland and WCD crossing.  He believed the Fire Chief did not object to the Nashua Road connection. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the Safety Committee would rather have the road connect through to Nashua Road. 

 

Fire Chief Fisher said the Safety Committee discussed the extension of the cul-de-sac and decided, in this instance, granting an additional 400’ would not make much of a difference, even though the decision was contrary to what would normally by acceptable.  He said that consideration would be made for cisterns as well as the shape and curves in the road (for speed).  Mr. Culbert said that the Cul-de-sac Committee would be tightening up the requirements for cul-de-sacs.  He said that the committee had asked for input from the Safety Committee members. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked if the Safety Committee had reviewed lot 23 for the proposed cut-through onto Nashua Road.  He said there was concern with the elevation dropping 50’ in a short area.  Chief Fisher said the Planning Board should be making the decisions regarding road placement.  He made his judgement regarding the 400’ extension solely based on what the engineer presented for access to the property.  He confirmed that he did not have an issue with extending the cul-de-sac an additional 400’. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt that CLD should review to see if a connection was feasible without crossing wetlands.  He didn’t feel that the Board had enough data to make a decision.  Mr. Zohdi said that the entire road had been reviewed and explained where the road would need to cross the WCD. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said the current regulations allowed for 1000’ cul-de-sac with twenty homes.  He asked how many homes total would use the egress.  Mr. Zohdi said there were sixteen driveways facing Pricsilla Way.  Meagan Drive would have four lots and Melissa Drive would have four lots.  Mr. Zohdi noted that one of the lots would be deeded to the Town (upon approval), so the applicant was seeking a five-lot subdivision. 

 

Mr. Mitchell reiterated that the Safety Committee would like to see the road connected through.  He said the plan could not be acted upon until the test pit logs were received.  Mr. Zohdi said he would send it to Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Mitchell felt that the Board had misinterpreted the word in the zoning ordinance regarding frontage.  He said the ordinance states that the length of the lot bordering on the public right-of-way and serves as the access to the lot.  He said Town Counsel informed that access and frontage had to be in the same place.  His other concern was adding homes to the cul-de-sac. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the regulations pertaining to cul-de-sacs and believed the requirements should be limited to the number of trips, not the length.  He said that twenty-four homes using the egress from Nashua road would exceeded both the temporary and permanent cul-de-sac lengths in the regulations.  He understood the Safety Committee’s concern with accessing the subdivision with emergency vehicles, but questioned the road design for safety.  The cul-de-sac radius was questioned.  Mr. Zohdi said the radius was currently 62 1/2, but could be revised.  Mr. Scanzani said the only way he would support the extension of the cul-de-sac is if there were only twenty homes using it. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Philip Currier, a member of M&P Trust, discussed the history of the subdivision.  He said that a large part of the discussion for the extension was due to the preference of the Planning Board when the original subdivision began.  He explained that previously the Board did not want two wetland crossings, but preferred two cul-de-sacs.  He said M&P Trust simply wanted to finish the subdivision that spanned over four years.  Mr. Currier said he discussed the road with his engineer, and the feasibility of access through Nashua Road.  His engineer informed him that there was a bad curve, a steep slope and a wetland.  He said extending the road 400’ would allow for completion of the subdivision.  Mr. Currier noted that there were corner parcels in Town with frontage on two streets that had the access on the portion with less than 200’.  It was his belief that the ordinance provided reasonable leeway for placement of access areas.  Mr. Currier asked for approval of the waiver and the plan. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission was glad to see that the wetlands were so important.  He did not have issues with the plan. 

 

Mr. Currier noted that the plans deliberately contained a non-buildable lot (ML 3-88-22, approximately 4.8 acres), which would be deeded to the Town upon the plans being approved and the Selectmen accepting the parcel. 

 

The Board discussed the possible road connectivity, there were concerns with wetlands impacts.  Mr. Danevich noted that there were five Board members that supported the type of connection proposed, but believed there was not sufficient information at this time to support the connection.  He formally requested that the engineering be done to conclusively determine if the connection could be done.  Mr. Culbert asked that the Safety Committee re-review the plan.  Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell have the Safety Committee specifically review the site distance, the steep slope.  He also noted that review of the potential wetland impact should be reviewed.  Mr. Mitchell confirmed that the Board wanted the Safety Committee to comment on whether the road would be safe, or not, if its connected through.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Mitchell believed that the Safety Committee had already answered the Board’s question, when the Committee informed, that based on the plan they were presented, the cul-de-sac was not safe.  He said they provided further comment that, per the proposed plan, the road would be acceptable if it were connected through.  He said the Committee’s sole job is to inform if a road is safe, or not.  To further clarify, Mr. Danevich confirmed with Mr. Mitchell that the Safety Committee did not support the extension of the cul-de-sac as written.  Mr. Mitchell said the Safety Committee’s comment was that the cul-de-sac was not safe because there was no connection. 

 

Mr. Currier asked if the public could attend the Safety Committee’s meetings, if they were posted, and if minutes were kept.  Mr. Mitchell did not believe that the meetings needed to be posted because the attendees were staff members.  He said that minutes were not kept, but written comments were filed after the meetings.  Mr. Currier believed if meetings were being held, applicants should be able to attend and provide input.  There was a brief discussion about the role of the Safety Committee and how their input should be considered.  Mr. Lynde said he would discuss the Safety Committee with the Town Administrator. 

 

Mr. Currier said his engineer had reviewed the connectivity to Nashua Road and wanted to know what else they could do, since he had spoken with two members of the Safety Committee and received conflicting information.  Mr. Mitchell gave the following examples of what was needed, including, but not limited to, review of the criteria applied to make the determination, location onto Nashua Road and site distance to access the road.  Mr. Danevich said that five of the Board members would like to see more engineering support documenting the feasibility of the connection.  Mr. Zohdi said he would present additional information at the next meeting.  Mr. Danevich asked, if the connection did not work out, that the cul-de-sac radius be expanded from 62 1/2’ to 74’.  He said the frontage issue would also be eliminated if the connection went through.  He ended by saying if the road connectivity did not go through, the plan would need to go back before the Safety Committee and the Board would be faced with a waiver request and a frontage issue. 

 

Mr. Danevich date specified the application to the May 6, 2002 meeting. 

 

Administrative Break....

 

There was a brief discussion regarding continuing the plans to the next meeting.  The following plans were continued until the May 6, 2002 meeting: 

 

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

 

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

 

Map 2 Lot 12 Mary Ann Stys Glance - Burns Road/Marsh Road - Proposed 11-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 13 Lot 167-9 - Houston White - Plower Road - Seeking a Special Permit for wetland crossing to access a parcel for Single Family 4-Bedroom Dwelling for continued Consideration

 

Map 10 Lot 264 - Diane Wolven - 31 Jericho Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Acquisition of Land by Pelham Conservation Commission 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 began by asking that the Board hear the report composed by Gove Environmental Services. 

 

Ms. Heather Stolozy-Ward, Gove Environmental reviewed the Environmental Study she prepared and submitted to the Board.  She reviewed the property boundaries and discussed the topography.  Ms. Ward discussed the following: 1) drainage; 2) potential wildlife corridor; 3) surrounding developments; 4) forested areas; 5) soils; 6) slopes; 7) intermittent stream; 8) well head protection area; 9) hazardous waste site; 10)

above ground storage area; 11) auto salvage site north of area.  Ms. Ward said that the areas mentioned didn’t appear to cause any detriment to the project because they were located outside of the water shed.  She said there were no known endangered species on or around the property.  She then handed out and reviewed a summary that identified the key habitat features and impact from the development. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if Ms. Ward felt that the Town’s 50’ wetland buffer was not sufficient.  Ms. Ward said a larger buffer would protect a greater number of species.  Mr. McNamara asked if she were to recommended a 100’ buffer to the developer if it would provide better protection to the wildlife species and water.  Ms. Ward answered yes. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked how significant the state forest was to wildlife travel.  Ms. Ward said there was increased significance because the Jeremy Hill State Forest abutted the parcel.  Mr. Lynde asked what impact the cul-de-sac would have.  Ms. Ward said that most of the species would be pushed out due to the clearing because the forest canopy would be lost.  Mr. Lynde asked if the cul-de-sac length was over 1000’.  Mr. Zohdi said he could alter the length.  Mr. Lynde felt that an independent impact assessment would be helpful, due to the sensitivity of the parcel.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if Hudson had a protection area the Town should be sensitive to.  Mr. Danevich said a memo could be drafted to Hudson asking if there are sensitive areas. 

 

Mr. Danevich provided direction to Mr. Zohdi that the cul-de-sac should be pulled back to 1000’ with a 50’ easement to the state parcel.  Mr. Scanzani disagreed and Mr. Culbert abstained. 

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services wanted it noted that the wetland crossing was required for the connectivity.  Mr. Danevich said that the connectivity had been requested and the WCD crossing would be reviewed for consideration. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said that if the steps taken for designs were reviewed it would make the Conservation’s job easier so they could see how plans progressed.   

 

Mr. Danevich reiterated the Board’s desire for the road connectivity.  He also noted that the cul-de-sac should be pulled back, an easement should be provided and final engineering should be re-submitted to CLD and the Planning Department.   

 

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

 

Mr. Bill Perkins, Mr. Tobin Farwell of Couco & Cormier asked that Gove Environmental present

 

Ms. Heather Stolozy-Ward, Gove Environmental Services discussed the environmental issues of the parcel with the Board.  She discussed the following: 1) wildlife food source; 2) forested area; 3) rocky outcrops; 4) old quarry site adjacent to parcel; 5) no wetlands within phase II, but located adjacent to Spring Street Conservation wetland area; 6) vernal pool (located in phase II); 7) 45’ connection (that tapers) from the lower Spring Street Conservation area to a vernal pool; 8) proximately to upland area that contain vernal pools; 9) no rare, threatened, or endangered species on the property; 10) habitat impact will be fragmentation due to forest clearing.

 

Mr. Danevich asked if there were wetlands on the property.  Ms. Ward said that a small section (approximately 25’) of the northern connection between the Spring Street Conservation area and the vernal pool.  She said it was not an intermittent stream.  Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services said he had been to the site numerous times and informed that there were specific criteria for intermittent streams and wetlands.  He explained that two of the criteria for an intermittent stream were a scoured channel and a dominance of wetland vegetation, neither of which were sited at the connection between the Spring Street Conservation area and the vernal pool.  He said there was water flow at this time of year, but it didn’t require a dredge and fill permit. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding road connectivity to abutting subdivisions.  Mr. Danevich noted the following issues: 1) understanding the Master Plan area for the entire area; 2) area wide traffic impact study; 3) road connectivity; 4) wildlife corridor (which was recently addressed); 5) driveway placement on lot 7. 

 

Ms. Ouellette questioned why the well protection radiuses on lots 7 & 8 were contained in the conservation area.  Mr. Farwell said that the land could not be used and the plans were based on the old regulations.  Mr. Perkins said that the land had not been donated yet and they could alter the lot line. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that CLD and Mr. Mitchell still needed to review the plan.  He then date specified the application to the May 5, 2002 meeting, to be first on the agenda. 

 

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

 

May 6, 2002

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

Map 2 Lot 128 Keith & Linda Tibbits - Bush Hill Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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

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

Map 12 Lot 44 Phase II - Hart, Jordan & White - Shephard Road/Mulberry Land - Proposed 28-Lot Subdivision

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

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

Map 13 Lot 167-9 - Houston White - Plower Road - Seeking a Special Permit for wetland crossing to access a parcel for Single Family 4-Bedroom Dwelling

Map 10 Lot 264 - Diane Wolven - 31 Jericho Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Acquisition of Land by Pelham Conservation Commission

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

March 18, 2002

 

MOTION:

To accept the minutes of the March 18, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

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

 

March 4, 2002

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

 

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, Ms. Ouellette-Yes, Ms. Bousa-Yes, Mr. Lynde-abstained and stepped down.

 

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 11:00 pm.  Also present was Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell and Alternate Ms. Robin  Bousa.

 

The Board returned to public session.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Lynde previously stepped down.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:20 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary