APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 6, 2003   

 

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

 

The Secretary, Mr. Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Hal Lynde, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Interim Planning Director Ben Frost, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

 

ABSENT:

 

None.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 6 Lot 185 - Honey Lane - Corrective Action (No public discussion to take place)

 

Mr. Dave Jordan of TFMoran (Town Engineer) informed that a thirteen (13) point corrective action item list had been submitted to the Selectmen’s office.  The list was drafted through on-site meetings (with the Town and the developer’s engineer) and through review of the as-built plans.  Mr. Jordan said the items on the list should be completed to finalize construction of the subdivision.  He went on to review the list which was comprised of action items dealing with the road side swales, treatment swales, catch basins, culverts and loam/seeding.  Mr. Culbert confirmed that the developer, Mr. Mahoney had agreed to fund the corrective actions.  It was Mr. Jordan’s belief that Mr. Mahoney had agreed to fund the corrective actions.  Mr. Culbert asked  Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates if he agreed with the points outlined in the corrective action list as reviewed by Mr. Jordan.  Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. 

 

No public input was taken based on the fact that there had been

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the swale located at approximately station 500 was in the correct location.  Mr. Jordan indicated that items nine (9) (clean and flush existing culvert) and ten (10) (add second cross culvert on Honey Land) on the corrective action list should address the flooding concern on Mr. Tim Fraize’s property, adjacent to the roadway.

 

Mr. Culbert said when the work was completed and approved by the Planning Director, a bond release request would be submitted to the Planning Board. 

 

Mr. Lynde understood that Mr. Mahoney wanted the Planning Board to agree that the action items listed would be the final steps he would have to take to complete the project.  Mr. Culbert answered yes.   

 

Mr. Culbert said the work should be completed before winter.  Mr. Jordan believed that the developer had agreed to the timeframe. 

 

There was a consensus of the Planning Board members that they agreed with the thirteen action items listed, as long as construction was completed before winter.

 

Map 12 Lot 41 & 43 - Deloury Construction - Stonepost Village - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Scanzani said a letter (dated September 25, 2003) had been received from TFMoran (Town Engineer) that indicated the original bond amount for Stonepost Village was $509,932.50.   Based upon phase I &II TFMoran recommends a bond reduction of $116,030.75.  Mr. Scanzani noted that there was a bond still being retained for a portion of the project that was not yet compete.

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/DeLuca) To approve a bond reduction in the amount of $116,030.75.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Map 4 Lot 139 - Collin’s Way, LLC - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. McNamara stepped down.

 

Mr. Culbert said he had been informed that water had not yet been brought up to where it was supposed to be, and therefore was not in favor of a bond reduction.  Ms. Ouellette said the developer had been notified that per the plan water was supposed to be brought from the end of Jeremy Hill all the way up to Longview.  Mr. Scanzani said that the original bond calculation had been done by CLD Engineering (former Town Engineer).  He said the original bond calculation did not include the cost of bringing the water through the development. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if there were any requirements that the existing cul-de-sac on Longview be removed.  Ms. Ouellette said a point was made that the cul-de-sac would maintain to calm traffic. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To hold the bond (with no release) until the water issues were addressed. 

 

VOTE:

 

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

 

Mr. McNamara returned to the Board. 

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Map 11 Lot 93 - Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Dutton Road - Proposed Elderly Housing for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Lynde and Ms. Ouellette stepped down.

 

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing the applicants, said it was their position that under the Zoning Ordinance (307:40) that the Conservation Commission and the Health Officer should review the application.  He requested a continuance so the applicant could comply with the ordinance.  Attorney DeCarolis understood that Mr. Frost issued a report that included several recommendations (i.e. Environmental Impact Assessment), which would take time to complete and review.  He requested a sixty (60) day extension, which the Board appreciated. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reviewed some of the open items as follows: 1) EIA to be completed and reviewed; 2) Conservation Commission review (for special permits - wetland crossing); 3) follow up on Planning Director’s comments; 4) Health Officer review.  There was a memo (dated May 15, 2003) from the Fire Inspector contained in the file which discussed building access; Mr. Frost didn’t feel that the memo specifically addressed the proposed plan.  He said it was required (per Section 248:40g of the Zoning Ordinance) that the Fire Chief submit a clear statement regarding the access.  Attorney DeCarolis said he had discussed the building access with the Fire Chief, who said he needed fire lanes three sides of the building (which could be lawn, as long as it was not obstructed).  He said he would follow up with the Fire Chief to clarify his position regarding the proposed case by submitting a memo to the Planning Board.      

 

Attorney DeCarolis submitted a waiver request for the septic issue, which had previously been submitted erroneously as a variance request. 

 

Mr. Frost asked that the Board specifically address the issue of a lighting and landscaping plan.  There was a consensus from the Board that lighting and landscaping plans would be expected to be on the plan. 

 

The plan was date specified to December 1, 2003. 

 

Mr. Lynde and Ms. Ouellette returned to the Board.

 

Map 6 Lot 206 - David Mendes - Irene Drive - Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Mike Gospodarek, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said a site walk had been done since the last review of the plan.  He said the plan had been revised based upon the latest report from TFMoran (Town Engineer), but had a couple remaining items, such as drainage calculations still to be added.  He continued his review of the plan and noted that the cul-de-sac length (from Robin Drive) was currently 2,480feet.  He said that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) had been completed but no comment had been received from an outside consultant.  Mr. Culbert didn’t recall that the EIA would be sent to an outside consultant.  Mr. Gospodarek said he would be submitting a waiver for the ‘S’ curve of the roadway. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked the length of Thomas Avenue.  Mr. Gospodarek said he didn’t have the measurements.  Based upon the tangent on the ‘S’curve and the possible traffic speed of Irene Drive, Mr. Scanzani was not in favor of the waiver request for the ‘S’ curve.  Mr. Gospodarek said if the curve were taken out there would be an impact to the wetland of approximately thirty to forty feet (30’ - 40’).  Mr. Scanzani wanted to know the square footage of the impact and if it was wetland, or WCD impact.  He asked if there was an opportunity to mitigate the wetland.  Mr. Gospodarek showed an area next to the wetland were a wetland could be created as mitigation. 

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental, discussed the plan and the reason for the location of the proposed roadway (that had been previously disturbed).  He pointed out areas on the plan that had been previously disturbed and filled in with soil.  There were portions of the roadway, if moved, that would be counter productive for mitigation.  Mr. Gove showed the small area near the roadway that was filled in, which could be an alternate possibility for restoration benefits. 

 

Mr. Gospodarek confirmed with the Board that the waiver request for the drainage calculations had been received.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the waiver was in the file. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if work had been done to straighten the lot line for ML 6-206-4.  Mr. Gospodarek showed that the lot line had been altered.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. William Hayes, Pinewood Drive circulated copies of a letter (dated May 19, 2003) that he had forwarded to the Planning Department and Herbert Associates.  He said he was being landlocked (ML 6-213) by the proposed subdivision.  Mr. Hayes discussed a previous subdivision at the beginning of Irene Drive that was supposed to provide a right-of-way to the parcel owned by the Nietupski brothers (ML 6-212); unfortunately, the plan filed at the Registry of Deeds didn’t reflect the right-of-way, and the parcel is now landlocked.  He noted that the road used to access his parcel (for the past sixty years) was located at the South East corner of the subdivision (South West corner of his property).  He said that the regulations specify safe access to all abutting lots shall be provided.  He said the land was not developable, but was still valuable as recreational, conservation, or agricultural land.  Mr. Gospodarek said there would be no problem dedicating an access easement to Mr. Hayes.  Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Hayes if access were granted to him, if he would in turn grant access to the Nietupski brothers’ parcel.  Mr. Hayes said if the access was sufficient, he would grant access to the Nietupski.  Mr. Gospodarek will work with Mr. Hayes regarding access to parcel ML 6-213.  Mr. Hayes said the Thorndike plan showed the access (right-of-way) road.  Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Hayes to provide a letter indicating that he would provide sufficient access to ML 6-212.  Mr. Hayes said if he was provided with access to his parcel, he would in turn provide access to the Nietupski brothers for ML 6-212. 

 

Mr. Carlo Guerriero, 1 Thomas Avenue, had issues with moving water around in the area due to the high water table in the area.  He wanted to know what recourse residents would have if they ended up with water in their basements.  Mr. Culbert said that the Planning Board relied upon the engineers that create the plan.  He suggested that the residents record that they have a dry basement and possibly have their water tested.  Mr. Guerriero said he was concerned that the wildlife in the area would be lost.  Mr. Culbert said that the Board would review the EIA. 

 

A resident on Albert Street said that there was currently a large area of wetland (approximately four feet deep).  He questioned how the area would be in the spring and how the proposed access to the parcel would be designed.  Mr. Culbert said that the engineers would bring a proposal to the Board.  Traffic was also a concern.   

 

Ms. Patricia Kelley, 4 Thomas Avenue, was concerned about the location of the road and the possible effects to her well. 

 

Mr. Tim Tierney, 18 Thomas Avenue, was concerned with cutting through the wetland and the proposed drainage.  He was unsure how wells and septic systems would be impacted.      

 

Mr. Walter Johnson, 6 Thomas Avenue, wanted to know what recourse abutters had in the future if something happened to their property after-the-fact.  Mr. Culbert said that the Board had not yet reviewed any engineering.  Mr. Johnson discussed the amount of water that was contained on his property. 

 

Ms. Diane Andrews, 3 Albert Street, understood that the connecting road, the soils and the wildlife corridor  were reviewed, but not approved, in the year 1998 and again in the year 2000.  She wanted to know what had changed within that time for the Board to review the area again.  Mr. Scanzani suggested that Mr. D’Andrea review and provide the Board with the minutes from the Irene Drive proposal. 

 

Mr. Richard Liardo, 16 Nancy Avenue said his yard was very wet and that he currently had a brook in the back of his parcel.  He was concerned what would happen to his yard if the proposed plan was approved.  He asked if it were possible to change the placement of the road.  Mr. Culbert said the applicant had only one access point.  Mr. Liardo asked if access could be achieved through an abutting parcel.  Mr. DeLuca explained that the applicant didn’t own the abutting parcel, and therefore could not construct a road in that location. 

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road noted that when Irene Drive was proposed (July 20, 1998) there was a question regarding the connection to Thomas Avenue.  At that time, Mr. Gove said he would have a problem with the chopping up of a very nice wildlife corridor and questioned whether, or not, the state would allow it.  Ms. Hennessey said March 6, 2000 the connection to Thomas Avenue was discussed again.  She said at that time Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates said impact to the wetland would be great.  Ms. Hennessey wanted the Board to consider the fact that the drainage went into the water shed for Beaver Brook.  She questioned if the lots abutted Beaver Brook.  She said when Irene Drive was constructed there was a conservation easement retained due to special species inhabiting the area.

 

Mr. Dan Dubreuil, Bridge Street, asked if the abutters could obtain a copy of the plan to review.  It was noted that the plan was still in the preliminary stage, but once the Board accepted it for consideration, it was a public record. 

 

Ms. Susan Tierney, 18 Thomas Avenue said at certain times during the year water flowed into the street.  She said the neighbors had been polled, and signatures were obtained from people opposing the proposed plan.  She was concerned for the wildlife corridor.  Ms. Tierney provided the Board with photographs of the area.  She said she would drop off a video of the area for those interested in viewing the site.  She asked how much impact the information contained in the conservation report would have.  Mr. Culbert said the impact would depend on the information provided.   

 

Ms. Lisa Cheney, Cranberry Lane, said that there was a lot of flooding in the spring and said one year part of the road was under water.  She questioned if the width of the road onto Thomas Avenue would be adequate for vehicles.  She was concerned that there would not be a lot of room for children to ride their bikes, or pedestrians. 

 

Mr. Guerriero asked that the Board keep in mind that the residents would have a hardship if the proposed plan were developed.  He didn’t understand the trade off of allowing someone to profit from use of their property, when the residents in the area would possibly be faced with restoration costs (i.e. replacing septic systems), or have the marsh contaminated from the drainage runoff. 

 

A resident from Albert Street said that the area had no drainage and if a wetland was partially filled in, the abutters would be directly affected.  He said the wells may also become contaminated from the runoff.   

 

Ms. Andrews was concerned that the issues currently facing Honey Lane would also affect the abutters to the proposed plan.  Mr. Culbert explained that portions of Honey Lane were not built per the plan, as well as some residents filling in areas that should not have been filled. 

 

Ms. Cheney questioned why a plan had been drafted; she felt the road should be approved before anything else happened.  Ms. Ouellette explained that the Board had to see the entire plan before any one part could possibly be approved. 

 

Mr. Merrian, owner of the cranberry bog provided the Board with a brief history of the area.  He noted that his parcel (ML 6-214) was landlocked due to a past plan being approved.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the easement addressed with Mr. Hayes would solve Mr. Merrian’s problem.  Mr. Hayes answered yes. 

 

The residents asked that the Board consider the safety of the children in the neighborhood as they review the plan.  Mr. Culbert said the Board always considered safety when reviewing a plan.

 

Mr. Scanzani asked how far Irene Drive would need to extend, if it weren’t connected to Thomas Avenue.  Mr. Gospodarek said he would have to extend Irene Drive 423ft.; a lot would be lost, but he would be able to stay completely out of the wetland. 

 

Mr. Brunelle felt if there was any way to do the development without going through the wetlands, it would be beneficial to the neighborhood.

 

Ms. Ouellette had major concerns with disturbing the wetland, based on its size. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gove to review the highlights of the EIA.  Mr. Gove said that there was a major drainage which flowed toward the brook.  There was no clear evidence of flooding along the edges of the parcel, but there were areas that clearly showed flooding.  There was recent beaver activity that caused additional flooding.  Mr. Gove said the area was an active wildlife corridor.  He pointed out the areas on the plan that had previously been filled by man; mitigating some of the fill areas may reduce a portion of the flooding.  He went on to discuss the types of species that actively used the wildlife corridor.  The EIA outlined if the connection to Thomas Avenue was not made, the road should be pulled back to allow for the wildlife corridor to be as wide as possible.  Mr. Gove showed that there were areas of heavily forested areas along the roadway that were being utilized by the wildlife.  He went on to show the vernal pool locations, one of which was shown during the review of the Irene Drive development, but had been partially filled.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the EIA was detailed as this site being significant, more so than reports provided to the Board in the past.  Mr. Gove agreed that the report was detailed because there was a lot viewed at the site. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if the functional analysis of the wetland was addressed in the report.  Mr. Gove described the items outlined in the report.  Mr. Yarmo asked how the wetland would be valued.  Mr. Gove said the area was probably a prime wetland. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the flood plain would have any impact.  He questioned if Albert Street was adequate to handle the increased traffic flow.  Mr. Culbert asked that the engineers clearly show the flood plane area. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the plan would need to be reviewed by the Conservation Commission.  He felt any development of the parcel would be extremely delicate and could negatively affect many things in the Beaver Brook area (not only wildlife, but also endangered species).  He felt the parcel should be considered for open space and suggested that a letter be sent to the owner suggesting so.  Mr. Yarmo noted that there had been a case (Picard property) that the abutters helped to keep land in its natural state by purchasing the parcel as conservation land.  It was noted that the Board had previously requested site specific plans.

 

Mr. Lynde felt the plan should be denied based upon the fact that the plan, in order to meet to the regulations would need to have a through street across a significant wetland, on to a road that is not sized to handle the added traffic.  He noted that the cul-de-sac was already longer than the allowed length.  Mr. Culbert believed that more work was needed.

 

Ms. Bousa said the situation was difficult; either the road connected through to Thomas Avenue and the wetlands would have a heavy impact, or extend the cul-de-sac length of Irene Drive (but there would be no outlet).  Mr. Scanzani asked if Irene Drive could be connected through a different parcel. 

 

Mr. Scanzani left the meeting for a moment.

 

Mr. Frost noted that the submitted plan didn’t depict the wetland filled areas and an application for a special permit for a WCD crossing hasn’t been submitted.  The plan has not been reviewed by the Conservation Commission.  TFMoran (Town Engineer) and Mr. Frost have recommended that a storm water management plan be done. 

 

MOTION:

(Ouellette/DeLuca) To have the applicant do a storm water management plan per Section 12:02 of the subdivision regulations.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries.  Mr. Lynde abstained.  Mr. Scanzani had previously left the room.

 

Mr. Yarmo asked that the plans from the previous developments (Honey Lane and Irene Drive) be provided for review. 

 

Mr. Scanzani returned to the Board. 

 

It was noted that the EIA should be sent out for peer review.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To send the Environmental Impact Analysis out to The Louis Berger Group for review and comment

 

 

VOTE:

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

 

 

 

 

 

The plan was date specified to the December 1, 2003 meeting.  The applicant will submit a request for an extension of the time period.   

 

A copy of the preliminary plan was provided to the abutters for review. 

 

Map 10 Lot 352 - New American Homes, LLC - Cara Estates - Approval Modification

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the roadway (Currier Road) leading into Cara Estates and if the turning radiuses had been properly corrected.  Mr. Culbert said that a letter would be sent to DES inviting them to review the roadway with the developer and the Town.  Mr. Scanzani said that the work being done on the site was not in accordance with the signed plan.  He felt the Board should vote to not issue additional building permits, or return the bond until the situation was resolved.  There was a question if the turning radiuses would be adequate for school buses or fire trucks.

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Culbert said Mr. Gospodarek would be contacted regarding the date that DES would review the site.        

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) No additional building lots/permits shall be allowed/issued.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 7 Lot 98 - Paul Fisher - 122 Bridge Street, Unit 4 - Site Review for Change-of-Use from a Karate Studio to an Ice Cream Shop

 

Mr. DeLuca said that he was Mr. Fisher’s neighbor and would step down if the Board wanted.  Neither the  Board members nor Mr. Fisher had a problem with Mr. DeLuca remaining on the Board to hear, and act upon the case. 

 

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. Paul Fisher, 18 Garland Drive presented his plan to the Board.  He said he was proposing to change the use of the karate studio and create an ice cream shop.  He said at the time he signed his lease he was not aware that the building’s use was dry goods. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if all the state approvals/permits had been obtained.  Mr. Fisher said he would need the change-of-use before submitting his application for a building license.   

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there would be any additional parking requirements.  Mr. Fisher said that his landlord had an agreement with the owner of Chunky’s Cinema for extra parking spaces.  He said that there would be adequate lighting and parking in front and behind the building that could be utilized.  Ms. Ouellette suggested that Mr. Fisher obtain, in writing, the agreements for the additional parking spaces. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that there would be requirements for the change-of-use that the Building Inspector would need to review (i.e. washroom access, ADA accessibility).  Mr. Fisher showed a layout of the proposed shop, which would be wheelchair accessible through the back of the building.   

 

Mr. McNamara asked what the seating capacity would be as well as the hours of operation.  Mr. Fisher said there were currently eighteen (18) seats.  The hours of operation would be from approximately 12 noon to 10:00pm.  He went on to explain that ice cream, coffee and possibly cold sandwiches would be served.  There would be no cooking on site.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the service would be done in paper products.  Mr. Fisher answered yes (there would be no dishwasher). 

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

There were no waivers being requested.  Mr. Culbert noted the following conditions: 1) state and Town licenses and approvals would be needed; 2) written permission for parking; 3) hours of operation shall be 10:00am to 11:00pm.  Mr. Frost suggested if any of the permits require an inclusion of washing machines that the plans come back to the Board for further review of the septic capacity.  There was a brief discussion regarding the hours of operation; if Mr. Fisher desires the hours of operation to change, he would need to submit a letter to the Board for consideration. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the plan subject to the following conditions: 1) state and Town licenses and approvals be obtained; 2) written permission for additional parking; 3) hours of operation shall be 10:00am to 11:00pm; 4) if any of the permits require an inclusion of washing machines the plan shall come back to the Board for further review of the septic capacity. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Map 4 Lot 185 - Geoffrey Detellis - Benoit Avenue - Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing 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. Mike Gospodarek, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He noted that the original subdivision contained a right-of-way and they were now proposing to add an additional 300ft - 400ft to the cul-de-sac so an additional two lots could be built.  If approved, the cul-de-sac length would be increased to 750ft.  Mr. Gospodarek said the driveways for the two lots were placed as close together as possible to minimize the wetland impact.  He said the drainage would be a curb and gutter system which would tie into the Beniot Avenue catch basins, which would then lead to treatment swales.  He said there would be a waiver request to the tangent, due to a typographical error in the Town’s regulations.  Mr. Gospodarek understood that the Board sometimes considered road width reductions from the required 26ft.  He felt this plan would be the perfect opportunity to minimize the impervious areas and asphalt. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there were any other way to access the back lots.  Mr. Gospodarek answered no. 

 

Mr. Scanzani did not want to accept the request to waive the regulations simply because the applicant wanted road frontage for additional lots. 

 

Mr. Culbert said he went to the site and saw construction occurring and wanted to know what was happening.  Mr. Gospodarek said that there was construction happening from Beniot Avenue; the stockpiles were  access materials.  Mr. Geoffrey Detellis, 24 Roosevelt Avenue, Hudson (owner/applicant) said he spoke with Building Inspector Roland Soucy regarding the right-of-way parcel and the only work that had been done was the removal of material.  He said there hadn’t been any grading done to ML4-185.  Mr. Culbert asked if the retaining wall had been built.  Mr. Gospodarek said the retaining wall had been built as part of the original development.  The owner had worked out what to do with the retaining wall in connection with the proposed plan.  Mr. Gospodarek said the new profile of the roadway alleviated the need for the retaining wall.  He said the plan had been improved by creating a different design. 

 

Ms. Ouellette said she had a serious problem with the proposed plan, if work was already being done without Board approval. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked what the length of the driveways were for the two proposed lots.  Ms. Bousa wanted to know what the maximum grade was for the two lots.  Mr. Gospodarek said the driveways had not yet been scaled. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Tom Dominico, 18 Benoit Avenue, said that significantly more than 150ft of work had been done from Benoit Avenue into the site.  He discussed the slope of the hill and noted that between 250ft - 350ft was over 18% grade of the natural slope; between 280ft-340ft was a 16.7% grade.  Mr. Dominico was concerned with fire equipment access based upon the current capacity of the Fire Department (which he confirmed with the Fire Chief).  He said he didn’t have a problem with the front two lots.  He said he resided at the bottom of the hill and noted that wetlands were contained at the back of his property.  His concern was how the clearing of the hill and slopes would affect his property and the prime wetland at Benoit Avenue.  He said that Two M Construction  had brought ML4-180-17 (10-acre parcel) before the Board and had been denied.  He believed there were a lot of issues that could affect the residents and the surrounding land. 

 

Mr. JR Gauthier, father of Mr. Detellis, said that the driveways were no steeper than other driveways in Town.  He said the subdivision regulations could be met without the waiver for the reverse curve.  He noted that only three houses would travel the reverse curve.  He said if the Board was going to deny the plan, they would rather continue the plan and come back with an alternate road design (with a longer road that would possibly be in the WCD and wetland).  Mr. Gauthier didn’t feel that fire safety was a concern since the lower two lots would be serviced with fire cisterns, as would the two proposed upper lots. 

 

Mr. Dominico said if fire safety wasn’t an issue, he requested that the Fire Chief submit a letter to the Board stating such.

 

Ms. Lori Collins, 19 Benoit Avenue, questioned if the Board agreed to crossing the wetlands for this case, if it would set a precedent for the denied lot owned by Two M Construction.  Mr. Culbert said the issue with the Two M Construction lot had issues other than the wetlands. 

 

Mr. Gospodarek noted that the proposed driveways would be approximately 950ft and 1400ft long.  He said the intention was to have the grading reduced to 10% - 12%.  He noted that the driveways were separate, but located next to each other to decrease the impact to the wetlands. 

 

Mr. Culbert said once the Board accepted the plan for consideration, he would like Code Enforcement Officer Roland Soucy review the site with Mr. D’Andrea.  There was a brief conversation regarding the work that should have been done at the site in connection with a previous subdivision, and what was actually occurring at the site.  Mr. Culbert said the Board had to review what was on-site and ensure that it was properly reflected on the signed plan.  He reiterated that the engineering firm and the Code Enforcement Officer would review the site. 

 

Ms. Ouellette questioned why the Board would have to accept the plan for consideration if there were major questions on the previously approved plan that accessed the property being reviewed.  Mr. Culbert said that the Board had to find out why the first 150ft. was not done per the plan; second, the plan should be accepted and reviewed by the engineering company.  Mr. D’Andrea noted that the Board had thirty (30) days (from the time an applicant submitted a plan) to take action on whether or not the application is considered complete.  Ms. Ouellette asked if the completeness of the access to the proposed parcel had any bearing on whether or not the application could be considered as complete.  In Mr. D’Andrea’s opinion the question of access would be one to answer at the next hearing.  Mr. Frost informed that the application appeared to be sufficiently complete for the Board to assert jurisdiction.  He said that he fully understood the issues with the access when he made the recommendation.   

 

Ms. Bousa wanted to know if the applicant would need to re-engineer their plans if they didn’t match the current site.  Mr. D’Andrea said if the current condition of the site had to change, then the plans would also need to reflect the approved design.   

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said there was a waiver request contained in the file regarding the tangent.  He said the request could stay in the file, or it could be denied.  Mr. Culbert said that the Board would not act on the waiver request until Mr. Rene LaBranch, Defresne-Henry (newly hired Town Engineering company) reviewed the road and provided a recommendation to the Board. 

 

The plan was date specified to the November 3, 2003 meeting.

 

Map 6 Lot 179 - 128 Realty Corporation - Mammoth Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Submission

 

Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  It was noted that one abutter from Dracut, Massachusetts had been notified twice, but had not claimed their notification. 

 

Mr. Mike Gospodarek, Herbert Associates, presented the plan to the Board.  He said since the original presentation of the plan, the roadway had been relocated so there would be one wetland crossing (with a culvert).  The proposed roadway would be approximately 1400ft. with a temporary cul-de-sac, including a 50ft right-of-way going to the end of the property.  He said there was a major wetland crossing containing a flood plan associated with Beaver Brook that was shown on the plan.  Mr. Gospodarek informed that they had not yet responded to TFMoran’s (Town Engineer) comments.  He understood that there were delicate issues regarding the flood plane/storage of Beaver Brook and that there were two distinct brooks running into the wetlands.  Currently the drainage would be sheet flow into the ditching, pipe culverts and further into the wetland. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the established ‘logging road’ would be a better place to access the parcel.  Mr. Gospodarek said the point of access shown on the plan was the only area of open frontage.  Ms. Ouellette asked what the size of the wetland crossing was.  Mr. Gospodarek said the wetland crossing was approximately 350ft. 

 

Mr. Dave Jordan, TFMoran, said most of TFMoran’s questions centered on the culvert, flood zone and the water movement. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if an Environmental Impact Assessment should be done.  Mr. Culbert answered yes.  Mr. Scanzani asked for further clarification of the parcel access.  Mr. Gospodarek explained that there was a small triangle area that the applicant didn’t own, and to gain access from the ‘logging road’ would require the roadway to be placed in the flood plane, which he didn’t believe the Town allowed.  Mr. Frost noted that the ‘4K’ area of the house was contained in the flood plain area.  He asked the Board to investigate the possibility of taking the road south and placing where it appeared to already exist.  It was noted that the cul-de-sac length would then be too long. 

 

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services, discussed his initial concerns of the road crossing three streams and noted that his direction to the engineer was to install one culvert, rather than three.  He said an environmental assessment had not yet been done, and maybe when it was done a better crossing point might be recommended. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the amount of traffic currently at the site. 

 

Mr. Frost questioned how the frontage was calculated for ML 6-97-1 and wanted to know if the zoning was being properly interpreted.  Mr. McNamara said that the Board of Adjustment wanted to schedule a meeting to discuss frontage calculations.  Mr. Culbert asked Mr. McNamara to set up a meeting. 

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

There were no waivers proposed at this time.  It was noted that the EIA would be reviewed by an outside consultant once it was submitted. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To request that an Environmental Impact Assessment be done and submitted. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The plan was date specified to the December 1, 2003 meeting.

 

Map 1 Lot 46 - Carl Melanson & Cheri Driscoll - 59 Mammoth Road - Proposed Site Plan Review to reopen pre-existing variety store

 

Date specified to the November 3, 2003 meeting.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Map 1 Lot 116 - Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Sherburne Road - Proposed 13-Lot Subdivision for Preliminary Discussion

 

Date specified to the November 3, 2003 meeting.

 

MINUTES

 

September 4, 2003 - Deferred to next scheduled meeting.

September 15, 2003 - Deferred to next scheduled meeting.

 

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

 

November 3, 2003:

Map 4 Lot 185 - Geoffrey Detellis - Benoit Avenue - Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Submission

 

Map 1 Lot 46 - Carl Melanson & Cheri Driscoll - 59 Mammoth Road - Proposed Site Plan Review to reopen pre-existing variety store

 

Map 1 Lot 116 - Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Sherburne Road - Proposed 13-Lot Subdivision for Preliminary Discussion

 

December 1, 2003:

Map 6 Lot 206 - David Mendes - Irene Drive - Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Map 11 Lot 93 - Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC - Dutton Road - Proposed Elderly Housing for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Continued Consideration

 

Map 6 Lot 179 - 128 Realty Corporation - Mammoth Road - Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Submission

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Mr. Lynde stepped away for a moment.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(6 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Lynde had stepped away for a moment.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:45pm.

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary