APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 20, 2002   

 

The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:45 pm.

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Alternate Robin Bousa

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 13 Lot 83 - Beacon Hill Road - Evergreen Estates - Bond Release

 

Mr. Mitchell said the release had previously been presented to the Board.  He said the Board had concern with a wetland status issue.  He noted that DES did not have an open file and both he and CLD (Town Engineer) agreed that everything seemed to be in place.  He said that the drainage at the end of the cul-de-sac appeared to be doing its job.  Mr. Mitchell said that CLD recommended that the bond be reduced to the maintenance amount of $30,200.  He said the only outstanding issue was having the course wear through for one complete year and the Town accepting the road, then the bond could be released. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To reduce the bond amount to $30,200.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

Subdivision Regulation Revisions

 

Mr. Danevich said the Board was proposing five separate changes to the Subdivision Regulations.  He reviewed the changes as follows:

 

1) References to ‘Safety Committee’ - the Board of Selectmen have requested that the ‘Safety Committee’ be referred to as ‘the staff’ (comprised of: Conservation Commission, Building Inspector, Health Officer, Road Agent, Fire Department, Police Department, and any other department or board for review).

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To approve the changes with regard to the Safety Committee.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  

 

2) Inspection bond release schedule - the language standardizes the procedure for how bonds are reduced.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Philip Currier, resident, asked for a copy of the proposed subdivision regulations changes.  The Board provided Mr. Currier with a copy of the proposed changes to the subdivision regulations. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To formally adopt a bond reduction schedule that correlates with the amount of work being done, that safely protects the Town with a remainder, so that the Town is adequately protected, and holds to specific results having to be accomplished in order to get the bond released. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  

 

Mr. Lynde wanted to know where the designation for the new language would be.  Mr. Danevich said it would be added to the Appendix with other forms.

 

3) Checklist for application review (as prepared by CLD - Town engineer).  Mr. Danevich said the change proposed a checkbox process to review applications for compliance and acceptance for consideration.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD noted that he was in the process of composing a similar document for review once the application process was completed and accepted for consideration.     

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve/adopt the checklist prepared by CLD.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  

 

4) Environmental Impact Analysis (“EIA”) - Mr. Danevich said the document was posted for potential adoption and may require some reworking and would then require an additional formal public hearing.  He said at times the Board requested an EIA, which didn’t always contain enough information.  He said the state did not provide a lot of guidance for what should be included in an EIA.  Mr. Danevich informed that Bobby-Jean Wilder (an associate of Mark West - West Environmental) worked with Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission and created a guideline for EIAs. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said when he reviewed a subdivision he would like to view the entire area.  He asked if the EIA should require an arial of proposed parcels as well as adjacent parcels.  Ms. Wilder said it was good to review whole areas and believed a that if an arial photograph were to be taken it should be done in the spring or winter, before the leaves came out.  Mr. Danevich asked if the USGS photos were acceptable and available for free down to one meter.  Ms. Wilder was unsure since the information was not always up to date.  She said if the Board wanted a similar type of photography, areas would need to be flown to be current. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the proposed document and noted the instances when an EIA would be necessary.  Ms. Wilder said that she used the same language as the state for prime wetlands.  She said that the words ‘in’ and ‘near’ were specifically not defined so that the Town could use familiar language such as buffer distances.  Mr. Danevich continued review of the proposed document and discussed with the Board the sentences when the word ‘shall’ or ‘may’ would be used.  Mr. Scanzani said there were some points that work was previously required on plans (i.e. soils mapping) and suggested referencing in the EIA instead of repeating work.  Ms. Wilder said she had made a similar recommendation in her document, therefore eliminating redundancies.  Mr. Danevich said that the Subdivision Regulations were self-amending to the latest version and asked that the proposed document include such language. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if a Wetland Scientist needed to be included in the mapping reports section.  Ms. Wilder said a Soil Scientist was sufficient, even for wetlands. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said the Board normally received a narration but wanted to know if vegetation should be reviewed as a percentage of sites.  Ms. Wilder believed the EIA should include percentages or some sort of quantification.  Mr. Danevich made a notation on the document to include percentages. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if water testing should be done on surface water to check for contamination.  Ms. Wilder said that an all inclusive water test normally wasn’t done.  She said for accuracy, tests would need to be done over a period of time, during different seasons and different times of day. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked that Ms. Wilder explain the wildlife habitat assessment field data form.  Ms. Wilder said the form’s purpose was to be taken to a site for evaluation purposes.  She said it would help with uniformity for information received and included a checklist at the end for specific categories.  Mr. Danevich asked if the form was intended to be required.  Ms. Wilder recommended that the form should be required. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked that section three (buffer setbacks) be removed because the voters of Pelham had continuously denied setbacks.  He felt that the buffer in the context as written was a zoning requirement and could only be approved by voters and could not be adopted as part of subdivision regulations. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked how likely it was to spot and recognize endangered species in an EIA.  Ms. Wilder said it was unlikely.  She said that they contacted the Natural Heritage to see if they had any hits.  She said to find endangered species an extensive search.  Mr. Culbert asked if there were generalists in the Wildlife Biologist field.  Ms. Wilder said that generally before a person became a specialist, they studied as a generalist.   

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission felt it was important to study not just specific parcels, but the region and include off-site locations, such as wildlife corridors.  Mr. Danevich said that the Board could not ask developers to go off the property.  Mr. Yarmo was hoping to gain general information, such as if a wildlife corridor was in the region of a proposed subdivision.  Mr. Culbert was under the impression that Conservation was supposed to provide an overview of Pelham.  Mr. Yarmo said Conservation was awaiting maps from NRPC, for review at next month’s Conservation meeting.  Mr. Danevich noted that the Planning Board could not take the position to instruct an applicant to trespass on private property to gather information.  Mr.Yarmo asked that the applicant include the information of studies from other resources, such as information previously gathered from abutting subdivisions. 

 

Mr. Paul Gagnon, 103 Dutton Road, supported adding the checklist to the EIA requirement. 

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, said that arial photographs would be nice, but believed that site walks remained to be a very important part of information gathering.  She noted that the Windham Planning Board had recently requested that an adjacent parcel to subdivision be reviewed.  Mr. Danevich said that if the Board requested review of an adjacent parcel, it would have to be through mutual consent of the abutter. 

 

Ms. Julia Steed Mawson, 17 South Shore Drive also reinforced the concept of the ecosystem approach.  She believed there were ways that specialists could review existing documents. 

 

Mr. Danevich said the intent of the discussion was to direct Mr. Mitchell to format the information for the next meeting so that the changes could be adopted.

 

4) Cul-de-sac regulations - Mr. Culbert, Chairperson, Cul-de-sac Subcommittee said that the committee realized that the previous wording was flawed and so the committee agreed to re-review.  He said that once the committee reviewed, they came up with substantial changes.  He said that the committee specifically reviewed road connectivity and future road design (utilizing AASHTO guidelines).  He said they wanted to come up with a regulation that was based on the rule, not the exception.  He discussed the types of designs that the committee reviewed.  Mr. Culbert said the second subcommittee was more active with their direction. 

 

Mr. McNamara said that the committee tried to balance the Master Plan’s need for connectivity and the fact that people liked to live on cul-de-sacs.  He felt that the proposed regulation would accomplish both factors.

 

Ms. Ouellette said that the committee put as many protective measures in place from street design to future planning.  She also believed that a balance had been struck between the traffic safety, engineering and everything. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD (Town engineering firm) said that the AASHTO book did not specifically address cul-de-sacs, but was inclusive of cul-de-sacs and roads that had less than an average of 400 daily trips.  He said based on the information contained in AASHTO, the committee created a guideline of 360 trips as a reasonable maximum for permanent cul-de-sacs.  He said taking into account the Town’s 200’ frontage requirement, the committee arrived at the 2400’ length.

 

Mr. Danevich said that Ms. Bousa, during a past Board meeting, said she felt that the issue should not be distances, but instead based on 400 trip counts.  He said upon further research of surrounding towns, most have eliminated distance limitations and focused on trip counts.  He reiterated that the standard published guide says that 400 trips should be the maximum, and the proposed regulations state 360. 

 

Mr. Culbert discussed the proposed 2400’ road length.  He said that there could be cascading cul-de-sacs from the main intersection, but none of them could be longer than 2400’.  He said the 2400’ was not the aggregate length, but was the length for the longest portion road.  Mr. Culbert said the Board might still receive waiver requests.  He said that people could ask for a waiver request, but it did not mean the Board needed to approve them.  Mr. Culbert drew a diagram for the Board of what he meant by cascading cul-de-sacs and reiterated that the 2400’ road length was not the aggregate of cul-de-sacs in a development, but the longest length of each road from the main intersection as long as there were no more than thirty-six homes and no more than 360 trip counts. 

 

Mr. Culbert went on to discuss the changes made to the regulation and noted that the major changes were the length and the trip count.  After review, there was no standard found for the 1000’ road length as previously included in the regulation.  He said that the Police and Fire Chiefs liked the 1000’ road length, but the Chiefs also said there was no standard for the length.

 

Mr. Danevich noted his belief that even when towns used a shorter cul-de-sac length, and had less of a frontage requirement, they still used the 400-trip count as noted in the AASHTO guidelines.  Mr. Sommers agreed with Mr. Danevich.  Mr. Danevich noted that when the Town granted waivers when the cul-de-sac length was at 560’ and found that 1000’ to 1500’ was the average length.  Mr. Sommers said he would support the 360 road trip counts. 

 

Mr. Scanzani felt that there should be no length requirement, and instead have the regulations be written using a trip count.  He said the reason he wanted the length taken out was because he felt a waiver would eventually be granted.  He was a firm believer in connectivity if abutting land was not developed, but cul-de-sacs were the preferred if there was no way to connect to another road.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the only difference between a temporary and permanent cul-de-sac was the land in the center of the cul-de-sac being either paved (for temporary) or grassy (for permanent).  He wanted to ensure that there would be 200’ measured to the straight part of the cul-de-sac so that zoning requirements would be complied with for frontage.  Mr. Culbert drew a diagram of how the lot line would be after the reversion.  Mr. Zohdi explained further that at the time of the subdivision, the area around the cul-de-sac would equal 200’ frontage and when the cul-de-sac was extended, the lot would continue to have the required 200’ frontage.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the lot line would be within the easement when the cul-de-sac was in place and then when the cul-de-sac was taken out, the lot line would be the required 200’ frontage.  Mr. Culbert answered yes. 

 

Mr. Culbert said that when he spoke to the Police and Fire Chiefs they noted that they were discussing the cul-de-sac issue from their frame of reference.  He said the Chiefs understood road connectivity and future planning, but would like to have the cul-de-sac length be 1000’.  He said if the cul-de-sac length was to be 2400’, the Chiefs would like the opportunity to make a decision regarding a secondary access.  Mr. Culbert reiterated that the Chiefs were giving their suggestions from their scope of responsibility.   The Chiefs understood that the Board had to make decisions based on future road connectivity and the infrastructure.  The Chiefs also understood that the Board had to design based on the rule, not the exception and that people living on a cul-de-sac understood, when they purchase a home, that there is one way in, and one way out.  The Chiefs would like to review each plan and have the flexibility to have input regarding an emergency entrance.  Mr. Culbert said that the Chiefs were feeling a bit frustrated with changing the length and wanted to know what would stop residents from requesting an even greater length.  Mr. Culbert said that the Board did not intend to waiver anything more than 2400’ and that the trip count was the key aspect to the new regulations. 

 

Mr. Culbert believed the 1000’ length was in place before cisterns were involved and enforced.  Mr. Danevich believed that MPA1 began in the year 2000 and the Board was more recently enforcing it.  Mr. Culbert said that he explained to the Chiefs that the reason the sub-committee was re-formed was because the 1000’ requirement was flawed.  He said that the temporary cul-de-sacs would be approached on a case, by case basis and that common sense would prevail.  He said that Mr. Don Foss (Road Agent) stated strongly that he would like to have paved cul-de-sacs only. 

 

Mr. Lynde discussed the AASHTO book used when deciding upon the 400 road trip count, he believed that when using a lower number, the accidents would also be fewer.  Mr. Sommers said that the felt that AASHTO published the book after quite a bit of research and felt the criteria was reasonable.  He went on to discuss some of the points the book made.  Mr. Lynde asked if the book discussed curving roads.  Mr. Sommers said the book addressed curving, but allowed for more flexibility such as with road and pavement widths. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked what flaw the 1000’ road length had.  Mr. Culbert said that there was no basis for the length.  Ms. Ouellette said an additional flaw was that the reasonable access for people to develop their property was more than 1000’.  Mr. Lynde felt that the Board had a right to make limitations based upon valid factors (such as safety).  Mr. Culbert said he had received a memo sent by Mr. Lynde, which questioned lengthening cul-de-sacs and discussed other issues, such as limiting development and preserving open space.  The memo went on to question what benefit the Town would have by lengthening cul-de-sacs.  Mr. Culbert said that cul-de-sac length and population could not be used to limit growth, and that cul-de-sacs could not be utilized to preserve open space.  Mr. Lynde agreed.  Mr. Danevich noted that the Town voted against growth limitations and open space.  Mr. Lynde noted that the Master Plan surveys showed that residents were in favor of limiting growth.  Mr. Danevich said the surveys were received from approximately 949 residents and were non-binding.  Mr. Lynde felt the vote against open space was for other considerations.  Mr. Danevich said the Board had to base its decision upon the Town vote. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt if there was a reasonable basis to establish a limit, the regulations should hold to it.  He agreed with Mr. Culbert that the Board waived many cul-de-sac lengths when the requirement was 560’ and believed the reason the Board went to 1000’ was to try to avoid waivers.  Mr. Culbert said the reason the cul-de-sac length was raised from 560’ to 1000’ was because the Police and Fire Chiefs both said they wanted 1000’. 

 

Mr. Lynde handed out a packet of information, which was reviewed by the Board members.  He urged the Board to retain the current cul-de-sac length of 1000’ because it was in the best interest of the Town on a cost, safety, and land use point of view.  He said the 1000’ length was consistent with the Master Plan and the wishes citizens of the Town and because it was consistent with requirements in other towns, state guidelines and recommendations from the American Planning Association.  Attached to the packet was a letter from the Police Chief, which noted the collective concerns on behalf of himself, the Fire Chief, and Highway Road Agent.  The letter urged the Board to retain the 1000’ cul-de-sac length for concerns such as safety and costs.  The letter informed that the three departments had to deal with the results of Planning Board decisions on a daily basis.  A concern noted in the letter was a large number of residents being blocked as a result of an unexpected disaster or crime incident.  An additional concern was speed and traffic control.  Mr. Lynde went on to discuss the other documents contained in the packet he provided to the Board.  He felt that based on the information he provided, the Board had justification and the legal basis to retain the 1000’ cul-de-sac length.  Mr. Lynde ended his discussion by reading the conclusion of the Police Chief’s letter, which pointed out the benefits of retaining the current cul-de-sac length as follows: 1) present cul-de-sacs of less than a 1000’ are roughly 10-20 houselots; 2) allows residents of a small development to bond as a group; 3) promotes friendship and neighborhood awareness with crime prevention; 4)  limits the flow of vehicles into a development increasing the safety for residents; 5) reduces the mileage of Police patrol vehicles in and out of the cul-de-sacs thereby reducing expenses; 6) reduces the ability of vehicles to speed by maintaining limited road length; 7) reduces the possibility of large number of residents being blocked off from emergency services as a result of unexpected disaster or crime incident. 

 

Mr. Culbert felt that a number of the benefits also applied to developments with thirty-six homes.  He reiterated that the Board should review the rule, not the exception.  Mr. Danevich said that the issue that kept coming back was trip counts.  He believed that documentation could be obtained for whatever road length the Board wanted.  He went on to read a portion of a letter submitted by Ms. Bousa, who was unable to attend the meeting.  In the letter, Ms. Bousa strongly supported the proposed maximum cul-de-sac length at 2400’ based on the additional stipulation contained in the regulations. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, said that the experiences from across the country were not necessarily translatable to New England because of the average frontage requirement of 50’.  He said when the trip counts were translated to parcels with frontage of 200’, half-mile roads would be created.  Mr. Hennessey said that his primary safety concern was the traffic load being put out onto the existing roads in Town.  He believed that the roads should be interconnected, so that traffic from cul-de-sacs could have alternate routes to exit.   

 

Mr. Paul Gagnon, 103 Dutton Road, believed that the surveys filled out by the residents showed clear direction of wanting development slowed and the rural feel maintained.  He noted that both the Police and Fire Chiefs had safety issues that should be taken into consideration.  He felt that the Town would not be protected, and every lot would be developed.  Mr. Gagnon believed that the Board came up with a number that was in the extreme, and that the number went against the wishes of the residents. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said that one of the Board’s responsibilities was to connect roads and that cul-de-sacs were put in places where connectivity was impossible.  He said that planning boards had a difficult situation because the courts have ruled that towns cannot do growth management and collect impact fees at the same time.  He said that zoning could not be placed in subdivision regulations.  He said when the Board had a choice for controlling growth or collecting impact fees, the Board would collect impact fees.  Mr. Gagnon didn’t feel that the growth impact fees covered the cost to the taxpayers.  Mr. Danevich said that the Master Plan survey final results had just been completed.  He said because the Master Plan was a non-binding document, he could not impose restrictions on a developer because of something contained in it.  Mr. Lynde felt that limiting the cul-de-sac length for valid reasons, would to some extent, limit growth and development.  He believed that the Board had valid reasons for limiting the cul-de-sac lengths to 1000’ 

 

Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle, agreed with Mr. Hennessey regarding road trips and traffic loads burdening existing roads.  He said that he had spoken with Attorney Mike Donovan who informed him that most towns within the state had cul-de-sac lengths of 1000’ or less.  He discussed the following concerns he had: 1) maintenance costs; 2) safety issues; 3) access for fire apparatus.  He felt there were conflicts with the people that provided information and would like to hear their personal opinion.  Mr. Lamoureux ended by saying he believed the Board should keep the cul-de-sac length at 1000’. 

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, spoke with the Planning Director in Hudson, where there was a cul-de-sac limit of 1000’ in length.  She said that there had been a Superior Court case where 1000’ was upheld because of a 400’ site distance.  Ms. Hennessey felt if cul-de-sacs were 2400’ there would be a need for multiple WCD crossings, which would eventually back the wetlands onto other properties that weren’t located on cul-de-sacs. 

 

Mr. Chris Murphy, Blueberry Circle, said that everyone in attendance of the meeting was against increasing the cul-de-sac length from 1000’.  He felt that the Board, being representatives of the citizens of the Town, should act in the best interest and do what the citizens wanted, which was to retain the 1000’ cul-de-sac length.   

 

Mr. Lamoureux said that Attorney Donovan had noted his belief that the 1000’ would stand and hold up in court.  He said that Attorney Donovan would love to represent the Town if a court case was brought forward.

 

Mr. Gagnon noted that Dracut, MA had a 1000’ cul-de-sac length that was not waived.  Mr. Danevich added that the lot sizes were quarter-acre and the limit was thirty-six homes. 

 

Ms. Julia Steed Mawson, 17 South Shore Drive understood that the Cul-de-sac Committee had done a lot of research.  She had concerns with safety and planning issues and the possibility of larger growth in Town.  She said she also had environmental concerns that she felt could be addressed easier with smaller developments.  Ms. Mawson was not sure how the Board could ensure that no waivers would be allowed, since Board membership changes. 

 

Mr. Stephen Morin,  36 South Shore Drive, believed that the 2400’ cul-de-sac seemed to only benefit landowners and/or developers.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission felt that the 2400’ cul-de-sac would be a potential disaster due to the number of wetland and WCD crossings that would be needed.  He felt the Board needed to listen to the citizens of the community when making a determination.  He suggested the frontage issue should be adjusted.  Mr. Danevich reiterated that frontage issues were under Zoning and would have to go before Town vote.  He said that the Town in the past had overwhelmingly voted down WCD ordinances. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that the book Mr. Sommers was referring to was a compilation of information gathered from around the country and would need to be reviewed in the context of the way it was done.  He felt the 1000’ length should be further reviewed.  Mr. Culbert said the 1000’ was subjective and towns that have 1000’ continually waive it.  He said the 2400’ came about because some folks did not want any length.  He said that professionals that handle roads informed the Committee that the 2400’ was a good number.

 

Mr. Brunelle felt that cul-de-sac lengths would be a good byproduct tool for the Town to use for development.

 

Ms. Shirley Wakefield, South Shore Drive asked if the 2400’ length would be firm or have the ability to be waived.  Mr. Danevich said it could be waived.

 

Mr. Murphy said that the Town currently had 1000’ length for cul-de-sacs, which was supported by law and had the ability to be waivered.  He felt the 1000’ length worked and should be retained as the citizens have stated. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked Mr. Mitchell which Town had a 1000’ length restriction and if a developer wanted to extend the length, a road needed to be put in.  Mr. Mitchell said the town was Stratham.  Mr. Lynde felt that decisions were being made without the backup data.  Mr. Danevich felt that any length could be researched and backed up with data.  He said that the Board had a lot of pressure to stop waivers and that could be accomplished by increasing the cul-de-sac length.  Mr. Lynde felt that the 1000’ length was supportable, and believed that development would increase by raising the cul-de-sac length to 2400’. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the AASHTO book and the fact that it was the reference guide that the Cul-de-sac Committee used in determining the revised length and number of trips.  Mr. DeLuca asked Mr. Sommers if the Board should be more comfortable without a length, and only use trip counts.  Mr. Sommers said that he was comfortable either way because the number was set based on the Town’s zoning.  He said the key was the trip number. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if there were other documents, or groups that would make similar statements.  Mr. Sommers said that other groups would probably look to AASHTO for restrictions.  Mr. Lynde discussed accidents and asked if road length was a factor.  Mr. Sommers said traffic speed was not controlled by length, but by curving and other calming measures. 

 

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to adopt the 2400’ cul-de-sac regulation with the following provisions: 1) every reference to the word ‘street’ shall be changed to the word ‘road’; 2) page 3, top  - ‘temporary cul-de-sac street regardless of design’ - #4 emergency access may be provided at the direction of the Planning Board; 3) #6 ‘for the future continuation of the street’ - add - ‘to all abutting property that isn’t developed’; 4) C 2 - fix the ‘2000’ to read ‘2400’; 5) #4 delete the word ‘must’ and replace with - ‘emergency access roads may be required, and may be required to be gated in a manner acceptable to the Fire and Police Chiefs’; 6) no definitions shall conflict with the current subdivision or zoning regulations.  Mr. Mitchell added that page two the word ‘irregardless’ should be changed to the word ‘regardless’.  He also noted that the width on the diagrams should reflect the road width as 26’.  Mr. Culbert seconded the motion.

 

Mr. DeLuca asked how Mr. Mitchell felt about the road length.  Mr. Mitchell said that he had worked with different towns that had different lengths and believed that such decisions were political.  

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To adopt the 2400’ cul-de-sac regulation with the following provisions: 1) every reference to the word ‘street’ shall be changed to the word ‘road’; 2) page three, top  - ‘temporary cul-de-sac street regardless of design’ - #4 emergency access may be provided at the direction of the Planning Board; 3) #6 ‘for the future continuation of the street’ - add - ‘to all abutting property that isn’t developed’; 4) C 2 - fix the ‘2000’ to read ‘2400’; 5) #4 delete the word ‘must’ and replace with - ‘emergency access roads may be required, and may be required to be gated in a manner acceptable to the Fire and Police Chiefs’; 6) no definitions shall conflict with the current subdivision or zoning regulations; 7) page two the word ‘irregardless’ should be changed to the word ‘regardless’; and 8) diagrams should reflect the road width as 26’.

 

VOTE:

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

 

Mr. Lynde asked when the regulation would become effective.  Mr. Mitchell said they would become effective, when they were recorded with the Town Clerk.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE BREAK

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the remaining agenda items and date specified the following cases to the June 3, 2002 meeting:

 

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

Map 9 Lot 9-2 - East View Corporation - Off Simpson Mill Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette said that during the review meeting, the Board was told that the cul-de-sac would eventually be extended and eventually connect.  She said during the site walk, in December, it was realized that the area was very wet and would be quite difficult to make a connection.  Mr. Scanzani suggested having the entire parcel mapped and request that the road design be changed. 

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He began by reviewing the plans, page by page.  He noted that a right-of-way was granted so that the public could access the pond.  He said a USGS map and arial topography had been included, so the Board could view the possibility of future subdivision.  He felt the data provided was sufficient to show future possibilities.  He said his client reviewed the possibility of donating land to the Town, but were still having discussions with their accountant.  He said that the eleventh lot was taken out of the subdivision. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the list of concerns as noted by the Board at a previous meeting: 1) temporary cul-de-sac - it was reviewed during the site walk; 2) test pits - have since been corrected; 3) EIA - Board has not provided direction, but was coming to a conclusion to request it; 4) statement from owner regarding other 134 acres - Mr. Scanzani believed, in his opinion, that Mr. Zohdi sufficiently showed that the wetland crossing was not something he would want; 5) sidewalk with previous phase - not yet completed; 6) tree buffer at edge of wet.  Mr. Danevich noted that the Conservation Commission had submitted a memo dated May 3, 2002, which discussed the trail system on the abutting property.

 

Mr. Danevich said he was still in support of requesting an EIA.  He said the remaining issues were as follows: 1) buffer space along the edge of wet; 2) trail system as pointed out by the Conservation Commission.  Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission informed that there was a trail system behind the high school as well as on Gumpas Road.  He said that the area may not have to be a trail system, but could be used as passive recreation.  Mr. Zohdi said his client did not want the liability of a trail system on their property.  Mr. Mitchell said that a public trail system should be supported with a lot of work because of classic physical invasion of property rights.  He said the regulations provide for passive recreation, but warned against an approval contingent on the donation of land for a public trail system.  He said if the trail system was privately accessible by the residents of  the subdivision, he would not have a problem. 

 

Mr. Mitchell felt that the EIA should be limited to the impact to the wetlands.  He felt the potential impact would happen during the construction process.  Mr. Danevich asked if there should be an additional buffer request.  Mr. Mitchell said if the Board was concerned about the impact to the wetlands, then the Board should request a targeted impact statement. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that he had reviewed the memos of Mr. Sommers and Amy of CLD and it appeared that all the concerns had been addressed. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that there was no indication at that the time the plan was presented that the edge of wet was really the edge of a pond.  Mr. Zohdi apologized and said that he reviewed the minutes of the meeting and the intention was to leave an access to the pond for possible future use. 

 

Mr. Zohdi went on to present the plan.  He informed that the lots complied with both the subdivision and zoning regulations.  He said that he had done everything requested by the Board and by CLD.  Mr. Sommers discussed the drainage easement on the parcel.  Mr. Zohdi said he did not have a problem adding a 20’ drainage easement for lots 11 and 14.  He said that the ditchline could be changed to 6”.  Mr. Sommers noted that driveways could be put in without culverts. 

 

Ms. Ouellette noted her concern with the site distance with the corner of Burns Road and Marsh Road.  Mr. Danevich said it would be hard to show if the problem would be exasperated with the subdivision. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the sidewalk issue had been addressed, as noted in Ms. Bousa’s memo.  Mr. Zohdi said his client needed the subdivision for financial reasons.  He said he would work with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Sommers regarding any improvements needed at Marsh and Burns Road. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said that the biggest impact to a wetland was usually during the construction process and suggested that prior to the issuance of a building permit, that he and Mr. Zohdi flag lots 12 and 13 for a limit to clearing for the construction process.  He said that the silt fence and hay bales should also be in place prior to the opening of the site.  Mr. Zohdi did not have a problem with Mr. Mitchell’s suggestion.  Mr. Mitchell said that there had been a prior condition that sidewalks be added to Burns Road.  He believed that sidewalks on Burns Road would be better than on Glance Road.  Mr. Zohdi said he would work with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Don Foss (Road Agent) to come up with a plan.  Mr. Mitchell said that sidewalks were required for both subdivisions and was unsure if sidewalks should be waived.  There was a brief discussion regarding the importance of sidewalks, which Mr. Danevich concluded by requesting that sidewalks be placed on both roads, on the side of the road nearest to the high school.   

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Don Savard, 3 Burns Road, asked if the sidewalks would be placed on their road.  Mr. Mitchell said that the sidewalk would be put in on the south side of the road.  Mr. Savard asked if the EIA would include any impacts on the stream behind Marsh Road.  Mr. Zohdi said they would not be impacting the area and it had already been subdivided. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the remaining conditions being requested by the Board as follows: 1) 20’ drainage easement to be added for lots 11 and 14; 2)  ditchline can be changed to 6”; 3) lots 12 and 13 will be flagged as discussed by Mr. Mitchell; 4) sidewalk stipulation on Burns Road - no bond reduction will be entertained until the sidewalks are complete - the sidewalk for the new subdivision shall be on the side toward the school.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the subdivision subject to the following conditions: 1) 20’ drainage easement to be added for lots 11 and 14; 2)  ditchline can be changed to 6”; 3) lots 12 and 13 will be flagged as discussed by Mr. Mitchell; 4) sidewalk stipulation on Burns Road - no bond reduction will be entertained until the sidewalks are complete - the sidewalk for the new subdivision shall be on the side toward the school.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE BREAK

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the following cases would be date specified to the June 3, 2002 meeting:

 

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

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

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

April 1, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Lynde) To accept the minutes of the April 1, 2002 Board meeting as amended (a memo submitted by an abutter to be attached). 

 

VOTE:

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

 

April 15, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept the minutes of the April 15, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

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

 

May 6, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To accept the minutes of the May 6, 2002 Board meeting as amended. 

 

VOTE:

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

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

The following cases were date specified to the June 3, 2002 meeting:

 

Map 5 Lot 104, 113, 115 Sousa Realty & Development - Lawrence Corner road - Proposed 20-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 9 Lot 9-2 - East View Corporation - Off Simpson Mill Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

 

NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

REQUEST FOR TWO NON-PUBLIC SESSIONS

 

MOTION:

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

 

ROLL CALL:

(7 - 0 - 0) Mr. Danevich-Yes, Mr. Culbert-Yes, Mr. Scanzani-Yes, Mr. McNamara-Yes, Mr. DeLuca-Yes, Ms. Ouellette-Yes, Mr. Lynde-Yes.

 

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 Mr. Raymond Brunelle.  Ms. Charity Willis was present for the first non-public session, but was dismissed for the second non-public session. 

 

The Board returned to public session.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:35 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary