APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 6, 2002   

 

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

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

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

 

ABSENT:

 

None.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

East View Corporation - Off Simpson Mill Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision for Planning Director’s report on completeness (no testimony will be taken at this time)

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters or any abutter notification returned from the post office. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the application was complete under the new regulations, except for a few minor design issues he would review with the applicant.  He noted that the street name had already been approved.  Mr. Mitchell recommended the application as complete. 

   

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To accept the plans for consideration

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.  

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the plan was date specified to Monday, June 3, 2002. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

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

 

Mr. Brunelle stepped down.

 

Mr. Bill Perkins, Hearthstone Realty and Mr. Tobin Farwell, Cuoco & Cormier presented the plan to the Board.  Mr. Farwell began by addressing the issues noted by CLD (Town Engineer) which had been noted on the phase II plans.  He said they would be requesting a waiver of the road grade requirement for a portion of Mulberry Road, which was 10%.  He said detail had been provided in the plan to show that the proposed drainage could work.  He said that lot 1 was pie shaped so that they could maintain the additional green space.  He discussed the erosion control plan/detail, which was contained in their plan.  Mr. Farwell said that the building footprints may be small, but the lots met the 35,000sf requirement.  He said that the well radiuses crossed the lot lines for lots 1,2,3,6,7,8, and since the plans were being reviewed under the old regulations, there were no specific requirements.  He said that the lot size calculations for lot 4 had been added because it contained a wetland.  He said that benchmarks of land, 50’ cross-sections and test pit locations had been added to the state plans.  Mr. Farwell said that the soil map was the same as phase one and he would have the map signed prior to it being recorded.  He said that the economic sheet and environmental impact had been submitted and the traffic impact study  had been done by CLD.  He said that they revised the plan to show that 6” of crushed gravel would be added in certain section.  Mr. Farwell noted that the riprap sizing for the swale was contained in the drainage calculations.  He said there had been a question of where to take the 20% of the detention basin, which he would work with the Conservation Commission and CLD for the best way to reduce the basin.  He said a guard rail notation had been added to the plan.  He said that catch basin and manhole details would reflect DOT standards.  Mr. Farwell said the remaining details could be worked out with CLD. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that the original conceptual plan for phase I & II showed a crossing just below the pond and another conceptual showed a crossing of the Town parcel.  He said that neither crossing was noted and now that the engineering was complete, there was a connection to an adjacent parcel.  Mr. Culbert wanted to know what the status was with cutting across Town land.  Mr. Lynde said the Selectmen were in tune with a conceptual idea of a connection, but have yet to receive any further information.   Mr. Scanzani asked about crossing the Town parcel and wanted to know if it was still scheduled.  Mr. Perkins said they were awaiting a final letter from the Dam Safety Bureau, which was expected to be received in the next month.  Mr. Scanzani felt the road connectivity issue was the key to good planning.  He asked that the Selectmen review the crossing.  Mr. Farwell said that the Selectmen had already approved a conceptual crossing.  Mr. Culbert was concerned with not having a second access if the Selectmen did not approve. 

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates said that he had met with Mr. Mitchell and showed him the road design for review.  He said that the owner of the Harris parcel had already agreed to having the road connection.  He said he could provide the Board with a letter stating such.  Mr. Danevich said he had spoken with the Fire Chief who had concern with a second egress in regard to safety issues.  Mr. Zohdi said he was prepared to build a road, but would need direction from the Board later in the evening when he showed his plan for the Hart, Jordan & White property.  He went on to show the Board where the existing road was and what was being proposed.  Mr. Perkins showed where the road would be placed if the proposed connection did not happen. 

 

Mr. Danevich said he had spoken with the Fire Chief prior the meeting.  He said the Fire Chief said that a tentative (non-binding) location he’d like to see a Fire Substation would be on the corner of Ledge and Shephard. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if there were any plans to extend the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Perkins said no.  Mr. DeLuca discussed the possibility of pulling the cul-de-sac back.  Mr. Farwell didn’t feel it could be pulled due to frontage requirements.  Mr. Perkins said that it could be pulled back a little, but the connection to the conservation land (walking trail) would be lost. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the well radiuses could be contained on the lots.  Mr. Farwell said that lot 1 & 2 would have overlapping well radiuses, and lot 3 would overlap, but would be within the building setback.  Mr. Perkins did not find that there was a stipulation in the old regulations for the well radiuses. 

 

Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD Engineering said that several of the issues had been addressed.  He discussed the road grade at the intersection and hoped that there could be a decrease in the slope and grade.  Mr. Farwell said decreasing the grade would create the need for more fill.  Mr. Sommers would like to discuss with the developer to have the grade decreased to 7% or 8%.  Ms. Ouellette was also concerned with the road grade and would like to see it decreased to at least 8% grade. 

 

Mr. Sommers was concerned with the location of the house on lot 4 due to the flow of the intermittent stream.  He suggested possibly having three, instead of four lots.  He said the remaining issues were minor.  Mr. Danevich summarized Mr. Sommers major concerns as follows: 1) reducing the road grade to the intersection to 8%; 2) lot 4 building construction - lots 3 & 4 site specific and show under draining.  Ms. Bousa asked that the site distance of the curve be reviewed for adequacy.  Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that lot 4 should be approved due to the problem with water flow into the pond.

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services said that he reviewed the site with Mr. Mark West.  He said that they were in agreement that the area of jurisdiction for the NH Wetlands Bureau ends where the last flag was tied.  He said there was an intermittent stream that came from a vernal pool and disappeared, thereby not meeting the criteria for an intermittent stream.  He said the drainage that went through the parcel below the flagged areas did not require waivers.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the water flow and wanted to know if channeling the water could create an intermittent stream.  Mr. Gove felt an intermittent stream could be created, but believed it would require as much engineering to create a channel as it would to get rid of the water.  The Board briefly discussed the water flow and the conservation land being gained from the developer. 

 

Mr. Mark West discussed the parcel.  He said that water moved all the way through lot five.  He said that a wetland fed the stream (flags R1 - R6) which flowed into a pool area and began being absorbed.  He said currently the stream went in the wetland and would require a permit, but said the developer may move it.  He said there was some scouring of the land before it went into the ground, but was not jurisdictional.  He was concerned with the possible impact to the wetland with underdraining and other work on the parcel.  Mr. West said if the goal was to link open space to a valuable wetland and wanted a wildlife corridor, he recommended a minimum of 150’ for wildlife movement.  He felt the linkages made sense in the area based on master planning.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if rock outcroppings affected the water.  Mr. West said he had not done an analysis to the issue.  Mr. Lynde noted that the water flowed toward the pond.  Mr. West said if the intention was to have the house stay in the location, the water would need to be moved around it.  Mr. Scanzani was in favor of moving the water out of the road drainage. 

 

Mr. Perkins noted that the purpose of the connection was not for a wildlife corridor, but was there to maintain continuity. 

 

Mr. Danevich read aloud correspondence received by Mr. Mike Orff, Wildlife Biologist from NH Fish and Game which noted concern with the impacts of lots 4 & 5 and the intermittent stream functioning as a connection to the two wetlands.  Mr. Orff suggested creating a plan for protecting the aspects of the site.  Mr. Danevich said that the Board did not know Mr. Orff and had only received one other correspondence from him.  He was unsure where the basis for a 200’ wildlife corridor came from.  Mr. Lynde recalled that Mr. Gove previously suggested that a wildlife corridor be 300’-500’.  Mr. Gove confirmed that a wildlife corridor should be 300’-500’.  He said that the proposed subdivision did not contain a trail or evidence of movement up the hill.  He said they did see movement around the pond and vernal pool area, but not moving back and forth.  He said the pond area and the vernal pool areas were different systems. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if an eco-system would be created if the water were channeled between the vernal pool and the pond.  Mr. Gove was unsure based on the slope grade.  Mr. West said that if the water were channeled there was a potential for a wildlife corridor.  Mr. Danevich pointed out that two state-certified scientists did not identify a formal wildlife corridor on the parcel.  Mr. Lynde said that Mr. Orff was a Wildlife Biologist.  Mr. West noted that Mr. Orff had a different specialty. 

 

Mr. DeLuca noted that once the potential for a wildlife corridor was gone, it could never be regained. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Raymond Brunelle, resident and speaking as an abutter said that the area was not a wildlife corridor.  He recognized that lot four was important to the developer, but did not feel that the natural flow of the water 

should be disturbed.  He felt it would be beneficial to the area if lot 4 were not built and the cul-de-sac was pulled back.  Mr. Danevich did not feel it was reasonable to take any additional lots, since four lots had already been removed from phase I.  He commended the developer for working with the Dam Bureau, for donating land, and also for the intention and creation of a walking trail.  Mr. Brunelle discussed his concern with constructing a house with drainage flowing directly into the foundation.  He stressed that the amount of greenspace was beneficial to the area.  Mr. Brunelle wanted to know why the drainage swale would be draining toward his property instead of onto the applicant’s parcel.  Mr. Farwell discussed that the intent of the drainage system was to minimize the size of their detention basin.  Mr. Brunelle suggested that the drainage flow underground so that his lot was not adversely affected.  Mr. Perkins said he could discuss the issue with Mr. Brunelle. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission believed that lot 4 was environmentally valuable.  He noted that there was work being done within the conservation areas proposed to be donated to the Town.  He said there was an additional area of disturbance in a conservation area (approximately 2.7 acres) with a retention area with 90’ high banking (from where the water starts to the final drain at the top of the hill).  He suggested having the water dispersed throughout the property instead of having such a large detention area.  Mr. Perkins said it would be reduced by 20%. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the proposed subdivision and what further direction should be given to the applicant.  Mr. Danevich noted the following concerns to be addressed by the applicant: 1) road grading; 2) site specific for lots 3 & 4; 3) site distance of intersection of Mulberry and Sunset; 4) letter provided by Mr. Zohdi’s client regarding the road connectivity; 5) written waiver request (from the subdivision regulations) for the well protection radius overlap.  Mr. Scanzani noted that Mr. Danevich would discuss road improvement fees for Gage Hill Road and Route 38 with Mr. Mitchell, the Board’s representative to NRPC. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that if the Town connection did not go through, the applicant’s plan was to connect just below the pond and therefore, the parcel, intended to be donated, would not be released until the finalization of the proposed connection to Spring Street.  He said that the plans would be date specified to June 3, 2002. 

 

Mr. Brunelle rejoined the Board.

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Stoddard of Bedford Design presented the plan to the Board and noted that the lot was an existing lot of record approved by the Town June, 1987.  He said they would like to upgrade an existing logging road and use it as a driveway.  He said a portion went through the WCD buffer.  He had a previous meeting with the Conservation Commission and received a favorable review. 

Mr. Scanzani asked what the length and width of the driveway would be.  Mr. Stoddard said it was approximately 800’ long and 12’ wide.  Mr. Danevich said that the Fire Chief noted concern with the width and length.  The Fire Chief requested that a turnaround area be added, as well as widening a section of the driveway so that emergency vehicles could pass one another. 

 

Mr. Stoddard said that the applicant also owned the abutting parcel, therefore they were proposing that an easement be deeded to the proposed parcel.  Mr. Culbert asked why the lot line wasn’t being adjusted.  Mr. Stoddard said it would be an added expense to the applicant.  There was a brief discussion regarding the easement and current problems in Town with lots sharing such things. 

 

Mr. Danevich was reluctant to move forward with the proposed based upon the history in Town with similar issues.  He noted his concerns as follows: 1) need for cistern placement or fire suppression control; 2) area for emergency vehicles to pass along driveway; 3) turnaround at end of driveway for emergency vehicles; 4) lot line adjustment.  Mr. Scanzani noted if the lot line were adjusted, both lots would need to conform with zoning.  The Board discussed what issues they could address.  Mr. Culbert asked that the plan be site specific.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Huston White, Pelham Road was unclear why he had to come before the Board since the lot had been approved before the zoning changes were made.  He said that he had hardship from suffering a personal loss recently, as well as the hardship from the escalating cost of the proposed.  Mr. Danevich noted that he was meeting with the Board for a WCD crossing permit.  He said that the Fire Chief’s concerns should also be met.  Mr. Mitchell said that the Board could only review was the location of the driveway onto the other parcel, unless there was an impact to the wetland conservation district.

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission preferred that the driveway not move due to the significant wetlands on both sides.  He felt that the Fire Departments concerns could be met without further impact. 

 

The Board discussed what action would be taken.  Mr. Scanzani asked the applicant if he were amiable to the conservation easement being granted, with the stipulation that the parcel lot line be adjusted so that the driveway be contained completely on the existing lot.  Mr. White contemplated the proposed and agreed.

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To grant the special permit, subject to the lot line adjustment that shows the driveway contained completely within the lot, that the existing lot meets the regulation sized lot (calculation shown on plan), and that the Fire Chief will perform normal review as necessary for the length of the driveway relative to: 1) cistern/fire suppression; 2) driveway passing/increased width; 3) turnaround at end of driveway for emergency apparatus. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The Board would need to review the final plan with the lot line adjustment. 

 

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

 

Ms. Deb Waters and Ms. Diane Wolven met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan.  Mr. Mitchell presented the plan.  He said the goal was to subdivide the property, preserve an existing lot (approximately 5 acres) and create a secondary, non-buildable lot (approximately 22.814 acres) to be placed in perpetual conservation.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the five-acre lot could be subdivided.  Mr. Mitchell said potentially, but would be difficult due to the gas pipeline.  Ms. Wolven said her intention was to not further subdivide the five-acre parcel.  She said she would add a note to the deed restricting further subdivision for lot 10-264-1. 

 

The Board commended Ms. Wolven for her dedication to the Town and thanked her for the donation of conservation land.  Ms. Waters was also recognized for her continued work during the process.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To approve the two-lot subdivision, subject to adding a note to the plan that the five-acre lot will not be further subdivided. 

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

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

 

Mr. Matt Hammar, Meisner/Brem discussed the plan with the Board.  He gave a brief summary of the information previously presented. He noted that the Board of Adjustment had granted a Variance for reduced frontage for lot 2.  He believed that the remaining issue had been addressed, now that the ease and soil slope calculations had been added to the plan. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To grant the waiver request to reduce the application fees from $1000 to $250.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the applicant granted the Town a 50’ right-of-way along Bush Hill Road.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the site distance for the driveway was acceptable.  Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Don Foss, Highway Road Agent would review. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the two-lot subdivision.

 

VOTE:

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Administrative Break....

 

There was a brief discussion regarding continuing the plans to the next meeting.  The following plans were continued until the May 20, 2002 meeting: 

 

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

 

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

 

OLD BUSINESS CONT.......

 

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

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates reviewed the plan with the Board.  He explained that there would be an eventual road connection from Spring Street through Mr. Don Fauvel’s property, continuing through the Harris parcel up to the proposed subdivision.  He said that Mr. Harris did not mind if a road was built on his property.  Mr. Zohdi said that a small dredge and fill would be needed.  He said that all lots met the subdivision and zoning requirements. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that there had been sixteen items of concern noted by the Board at the last hearing on December 3, 2001 he reviewed  a few of the items as follows: 1) open space- Mr. Zohdi said that 2 acres had been dedicated to the Town and there was an additional 1 acre noted on the plan as a non-buildable area ; 2) irregular shaped lots - ML44-15 & 44-16 - Mr. Zohdi said that out of 26 lots only two were not square, he said he could work on the shape if desired; 3) road designs - appear to be straightened out; 4) driveway problems - Mr. Danevich did not have a specific note.  Mr. Danevich said that the remaining concerns had basically been resolved.  He noted that the plan had been submitted under the old regulations,  but Mr. Zohdi was willing to comply with the new regulations and have the road names submitted to the Safety Committee. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt that the road design created a need for wetlands crossing that did not need to happen.  There was a brief discussion regarding the road design.  Mr. Danevich believed if the four-way stop were removed it would cause a public safety issue.  Mr. Scanzani discussed the problems with staggering the roads.  Mr. Danevich wanted to maintain consistency with plans, and pointed out that safety issues had previously set a precedent.  Mr. Lynde simply wanted to explore all options. 

 

Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission said that Conservation had not been informed that there would be any land donated to the Town.  He asked that information be supplied. 

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed with Mr. Mitchell that the EIA had been submitted.  He said that the traffic study had been done by CLD.  Mr. Danevich said the Board provided guidance to contact the Selectmen regarding the road connectivity issue to Spring Street.  Mr. Danevich said they were seeking a 50’ easement through the Town parcel with the rest of the parcel remaining in its natural state.  Mr. Danevich confirmed with Mr. Zohdi that Mr. Harris had verbally agreed to allow the building of the road to connect to Spring Street.  He also confirmed that if the Selectmen were to deny the connection, the option would be to connect through the WCD crossing in front of the pond (as part of the ML 12-41&43 Stonepost Village subdivision).  He said either way the connection to Spring Street would be made and the only issue was if the roadway would be straight.  He ended by confirming with Mr. Zohdi that the safest route, from an engineering standpoint, would be to pass through in a straight fashion perpendicular at the best place for site distance onto Spring Street.  Mr. Scanzani said a letter was needed from the Selectmen authorizing the placement of a road through the Town own land, subject to the Planning Board’s approval of the road design.  Mr. Danevich noted that the construction of the segment would be paid for by the applicant.   

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if the 10% road grade should be discussed.  Mr. Danevich said the grade could be discussed.

 

Mr. Zohdi asked that Mr. Lynde bring the plan to the Selectmen and set a date for a presentation.  Mr. Lynde asked that CLD review the plan before meeting with the Selectmen.  Mr. Zohdi said he had already submitted to Mr. Mitchell and to CLD. 

 

Mr. Danevich provided direction to Mr. Zohdi and the engineers of ML 12-41&43 (Stonepost Village) to attend a meeting with the Selectmen.  He said that either he or Mr. Mitchell would also attend the Selectmen’s meeting.  Mr. Lynde said he would discuss the issue with the Selectmen.  He said that the Selectmen were very interested in street connectivity and safety. 

 

Mr. Zohdi provided the Board with a plan showing the ground topography of the Harris property, Poplar Hill Road.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the concerns with the plan as follows: 1) written letter from Harris regarding road access; 2) three road names to be submitted to replace Samuel; 3) CLD review; 4) plans prepared and reviewed by CLD for Selectmen meeting in one week. 

 

Mr. Zohdi noted that he would go back and meet with the Conservation Commission to discuss the land to be dedicated to the Town. 

 

Mr. Danevich date specified the application to June 3, 2002. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Map 10 Lot 110, 361 V & G Development - Dutton Road - 30-Lot Subdivision for possible reconsideration of previously approved application

 

Mr. Lynde said that when the plans had been before the Board approximately three/four months ago, there had been a unanimous direction to the developer to redesign and add a 300’ wildlife corridor along the South side of the property.  He said there had also been discussion to have some land on the West in conjunction with abutting land be a corridor.  He said that at the meeting when the plan was approved, the Board did not hold the position, but only gave for the wildlife corridor along the West side.  He also said that during the meeting there had been testimony provided by the developers representative that stated they had spoken with Mr. Orff, Wildlife Biologist (of NH Fish & Game), and in the developer’s view there was no evidence of, or need for a wildlife corridor.  He said the developer stated that Mr. Orff had not walked the property.  Mr. Lynde said he had spoken with Mr. Orff who informed that the representative firm had phoned, but he did not speak with the representative.  Mr. Orff informed Mr. Lynde that he had walked the property and noted that the area was a valuable connection.  Mr. Lynde felt that the Board was told something that was not true.  He assumed that the Board changed its position based on the information, therefore per RSA 676:4 Ib the Board had a right to seek to revoke the approval of the plans based upon faulty information.  He asked that the Board take the next step.  He noted that Mr. Orff could be available for the first meeting in June to discuss the issue with the Board. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the information that the Board reviews and believed that based upon situations, and personal opinions there would be disagreements.  Mr. DeLuca agreed that people would have differences of opinion.  He believed that if a person didn’t agree with an opinion, they should not give an incorrect account. 

 

Mr. McNamara confirmed with Mr. Lynde that his intention was to hold a hearing regarding the plan, with a view to revoke it pursuant to the RSAs.  He wanted to know per the RSAs, and assuming a false statement was given, if it would be sufficient information to revoke the plan.  Mr. Lynde had to assume that the Board took a position and reversed its decision based upon inaccurate information.  He said that he discussed the situation with Town Council, who felt that the basis presented was valid and would be sufficient per the RSA.  Mr. Mitchell believed the first question the Board should ask is if the testimony given changed their opinion regarding the plan. 

 

Mr. DeLuca believed that the Board was in agreement to a wildlife corridor based upon the information given by Fish and Game.  He said when the developer’s representative gave his report, the Board changed its mind when he said that Fish and Game had not walked the property. 

 

Mr. Culbert believed that there was an issue, but did not feel that revocation was the answer.  He asked if the Board voted for a 300’ wildlife corridor.  Mr. Lynde said the Board took a vote to provide direction.  Mr. DeLuca said the developers were upset regarding the direction and did not provide for the corridor when they came back before the Board. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said his opinion was that the Board realized that the powerlines were a major wildlife corridor and tried to keep them in tact extending from this development all the way to the Gaudet subdivision next to the golf course.  He felt that when the food source was removed, it would lessen the wildlife. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the testimony given and how the Board came to make its decision.  Mr. Mitchell reiterated that the Board members needed to decide for themselves if the testimony given changed their opinion regarding the plans.     

 

Mr. Danevich said that he had remained neutral throughout the hearing and Mr. Orff’s testimony did not change his opinion or position.  He pointed out that Mr. Orff’s arial map was more than 10 years old and was obtained from the USGS satellite image.  He said the map did not show the development of all the area.  He did not feel that Mr. Orff’s impact or statement held credibility to what he said.  Mr. Danevich noted that revocation was serious and the Board needed to decide how to proceed.

 

Mr. Scanzani said that the Board weighed its decision based on information, some of it accurate, and some of it not accurate, based on opinions, but that it does not mean that an individual lied.  He said the Board needed to base its determinations based upon all the information provided, which may not always be accurate.  Mr. Lynde felt the issue was that the statement was incorrect and the Board changed its direction after testimony was given regarding the wildlife corridor. 

 

Ms. Ouellette was not present at the initial meeting and therefore, Ms. Bousa would vote, as she did that evening, in Ms. Ouellette’s place. 

 

MOTION:

(Lynde/DeLuca) To proceed forward to schedule a hearing to see if there is a basis for going forth with a revocation, based upon testimony that altered the course that the Board had given to the developer.

 

VOTE:

(3 - 4 - 0) The motion was denied.  Mr. Danevich, Mr. Culbert, Mr. Scanzani, Ms. Bousa voted no. 

 

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

 

May 20, 2002

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 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

 

June 3, 2002

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

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

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

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

Deferred to next meeting.

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/DeLuca) 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 11:40 pm.  Also present were Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell, Alternate Ms. Robin  Bousa and Alternate Mr. Raymond Brunelle.

 

The Board returned to public session.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:55 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary