APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 17, 2002   

 

The Vice Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde (arrived after the meeting had been called to order), Community Development Director Dave Brouillet, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Victor Danevich

 

Ms. Bousa voted in Mr. Danevich’s absence.

 

REQUEST FOR BOND REDUCTION/RELEASE

 

Map 9 Lot 9 Frasier Realty Trust - Golden Brook Estates

 

Mr. Brouillet said that a letter had been received requesting a bond reduction, but after a meeting with the developer, they decided to complete some more tasks before meeting with the Planning Board.

 

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

 

Mr. Brunelle stepped down. 

 

Mr. Tobin Farwell, Cuoco & Cormier presented the revised plan to the Board and also provided a list of the revised waiver requests for review.  He said that there had been considerable discussion at the last meeting regarding the perennial stream that ended at X1 and had wetlands or scoured channel below it.  He said the other issues were as follows: 1) site specific had been requested for lot 3 and 4; 2) site distance (240’ - 260’) be reviewed and 3) provide an 8% slope (for 100’) in front of Sunset Rock Road.  Mr. Mitchell had worked with the developer to adjust the lots and create a larger buffer area to X1.  He said in order to shift the lots they had to apply for a waiver for the reduced lot size due to the slopes (noted in the waiver request).  Mr. Farwell said that CLD (Town Engineer) had provided a letter, which seemed to be in favor of the alternative plan being presented.  He said that CLD had also reviewed the 8% slope and the site distance in the southerly direction. 

 

Mr. Scanzani didn’t recall the Board requesting the conservation area.  He also didn’t recall the Board waivering a lot size based on the sloping of a lot.  He was not in favor of granting the waiver for the lot size or the protective well radius’ and preferred the original design. 

 

Mr. Yarmo felt the revised plan was better because it preserved the stream area discussed at the past meetings.  He felt the proposed plan was better for the Town because it allowed the area to remain natural. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the well radiuses and Mr. Farwell’s need for them to overlap based upon the new design of the plan.  Mr. DeLuca suggested shifting the lot lines so that the well radiuses were contained on their own lots.  Mr. Farwell said he could shift the lot lines, but he would still require a waiver for the lot size. 

 

Mr. Mitchell supported the revised plan and realized that it would require waivers.  He said that the waivers for the specific design criteria created a better overall design based on the open space being provided.  He noted that the well radiuses would remain within the building setback.  He said the benefit to the Town with the proposed plan was the interconnectivity of open space areas to abutting parcels and there would be one less drainage facility that the Town would be responsible for.  In general, Mr. Mitchell felt the justification for granting the waiver was no net increase in units, and a net increase in conservation land. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked how much of the area for lots 4 and 6 were over 15% grade.  Mr. Farwell noted that lot 4 contained 18,300SF (42% of land in excess of 15% slopes), lot 6 had 37% in excess of 15% slopes.  He said that lot 5 met the requirements.  Mr. Farwell said that the steep slopes were on the back side of the lot.  Mr. Culbert wanted to know how much of lot 4 would not be considered a steep slope.  Mr. Farwell said approximately 25,000SF.  Mr. Culbert wanted to know how the house, well and septic would fit on the lot.  Mr. Farwell said the septic could be located on the edge of the slope. 

 

Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel the small conservation land was as valuable to other areas in the location.  He said he would rather have lot 4 deleted to have all the lots conform.  He understood that site specific designs were requested for lots 3 and 4 because of the past decision to not eliminate the lot.  He believed that lots 3,4,5 and 6 should be site specific based upon the new plan. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked if waivers would be needed if the original plan were to be the preferred.  Mr. Farwell said that he would require a waiver for the 8% slope and also for the well head (radius) on lot 1.  She noted that a well radius waiver would be needed for either plan.  Ms. Bousa asked if any improvements had been requested by CLD for the site distance.  Mr. Tom Sommers, CLD (Town Engineer) believed that traffic calming would occur with the curve and steepness of the road.  He said that the 260’ would be the intersection site distance.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the side slopes would be 3 to 1.  Mr. Sommers said the side slopes would be 2 1/2 to 1 with guardrails. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if Sunset Rock Road met site distance.  Mr. Farwell said it would with the proposed site distance easement across lot 11.  He said if the new plan were preferred by the Board, he would finalize the plans for review. 

 

Mr. Brouillet clarified that the plan being presented was a layout and if the Board gave direction to move forward with the proposed, a new more detailed plan would be submitted for review. 

 

Mr. DeLuca felt that the conservation land should be preserved, if possible. 

 

Mr. McNamara was concerned with the excessive slopes, but believed the Board had choices with regard to the design of the plan.  There was a brief discussion regarding the conservation land being provided and its importance.  Mr. Mitchell reviewed the environmental value of the land and how it linked with other large Town-owned conservation areas.  He said that the 160’ connecting piece was an important link to two wetland areas.  

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Ray Brunelle, 3 Matthew Drive, speaking as an abutter congratulated the developer for understanding the area.  He noted that lot 4 had been pulled back from the natural drainage channel.  He said that Mr. Mark West noted that the connecting 160’ strip of conservation land was a viable connection strip.  Mr. Eric Orff, State Biologist concurred with Mr. West’s findings.  Mr. Brunelle believed that the revised plan made sense from all aspects. 

 

Mr. Sommers said that the developer would have been able to meet some of the requirements if the conservation land had not been donated.

 

Mr. Brouillet was concerned with the driveways and the possible grading requirements for lots 4 and 5.  Mr. Farwell wanted to know what the requirements were for site specific.  Mr. Culbert said the Board would provide direction. 

 

Mr. Scanzani understood that the curve would act as traffic calming, but would also like a sign to note the sharp curve. 

 

There was a discussion amongst the Board members regarding which plan they preferred.  Mr. Brouillet cautioned the Board to make decisions regarding the road based upon engineering concerns.  Mr.  Mitchell reviewed the plan and pointed out that the 50’ section of conservation land could be eliminated so that the lot lines could be shifted and the well radius overlap concerns could be eliminated.  There was a consensus of the Board members to remove the 50’ conservation land so the lots could be adjusted. 

 

Mr. Farwell noted the following concerns of the Board: 1) lots 4, 5 and 6 to be site specific; 2) adjust lot lines to keep lot 5 well radius on the lot; 3) include slope waiver for 3 - 1; 4) remove 50’ conservation land to adjust lots 4, 5 and 6; 5) note on plan no-cut for conservation land; 6) cul-de-sac end to be solid paved with a 62’ radius; 7) construct road to Town standards with a pavement width of 22’; 8) road should be crowned with gravel shoulder and no curbing.

 

Mr. Lynde arrived.

 

Mr. Farwell noted that the catch basins would be eliminated.  Mr. Sommers said that the extra width could be used to develop a swale and drain to an inlet.  Mr. Culbert asked that Mr. Farwell discuss the drainage concern with Mr. Brouillet.  He said that whatever engineering practices dictate, is what should be done.  Mr. Brouillet, in order to confirm the direction of the Board, asked if the first 50’ of the road should be curbed.  Mr. Culbert said that the wildlife should be taken into consideration, but not at the expense of safety.  Mr. Scanzani noted that a wide Cape Cod burm could be used rather than a normal burm.  Mr. Farwell understood the direction of the Board. 

 

Mr. Culbert noted that the plan would be date specified for July 1, 2002. 

 

Mr. Brunelle returned to the Board.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Mr. DeLuca discussed the voting that took place regarding the waivers for the elderly housing.  He said he voted no for the waiver of the school impact fee.  He confirmed that the people building the project were a not-for-profit organization and noted that the impact was not to the elderly residents, but to the people building the project.  He wanted to know how much money had been given up from the school by waiving the impact fee.  Mr. Scanzani said it was $1.46 per SF.  Mr. DeLuca wanted to know if the next elderly housing project would also be waived.  Mr. Mitchell said if the Board voted upon something once and said the decision was wrong, it could be considered a mistake, but if the Board voted upon something four times there may be an issue of a precedent.  Mr. DeLuca believed that the end of the meeting was rushed and would like to slow down discussions in the future. 

 

Mr. Mitchell said the Board should ask where would the money come from (i.e. rent, cost per unit, operating expenses, would it jeopardize funding).  He said that most of the communities he worked with always waived school impact fees for elderly housing provided there was a deed restriction in perpetuity. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

June 3, 2002

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the minutes of the June 3, 2002 Board meeting as amended.

 

VOTE:

(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.

 

DATE SPECIFICATION - July 1, 2002

 

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

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The motion was adjourned at approximately 8:40 pm.

 

                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary