APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 3, 2003   

 

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

 

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

 

PRESENT:

Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Planning Director Amy Alexander

 

ABSENT:

 

Alternate Raymond Brunelle

 

Mr. Danevich informed that impact fees from new housing had been collected, and a check was presented to the School District in the amount of  $119,973 for a reduction of the Pelham Elementary School bond. 

 

Mr. Danevich wanted to address a concern of the Technical Review Committee (fka Safety Committee) regarding closing the road entrance to Cara Estates when the road alignment is to be constructed.  The developer should inform the Fire Department 15-days prior to any changes.  Ms. Alexander said the developer had already been told to contact the Fire Department prior to any construction. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that Mr. Bob Haverty had been appointed to the Capital Improvement Plan Committee.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 5 Lot 104, 113, 115 Sousa Realty & Development - No public discussion, to respond to three court ordered clarification requests.

 

Mr. Danevich said that that the Planning Board decision was currently in court litigation.  He said the Board had been asked to clarify three requests.  He said that he would draft a memo outlining the Planning Board’s discussion to clarify the concerns. 

 

Item 1 - (per Planning Board minutes of June 3, 2002 ) A problem with the right-of-way going to the Lynch property because it is unclear if it goes anywhere that could be extended.  Mr. Danevich’s main concern was the steepness of the land/topology and if it would be a practical location for an easement based upon the road pitch/grade.  Ms. Ouellette believed that Mr. Lynch had informed at the meeting that the proposed location was very steep (straight uphill) and would be a poor location for the right-of-way.  Mr. McNamara said he hadn’t had the opportunity to review the minutes, but had the same recollection as Ms. Ouellette.  Mr. Yarmo recalled there were two easements discussed, both of which were very steep.  Mr. DeLuca noted there were also wetlands that would need to be crossed for one of the easement locations.  Mr. Scanzani recalled there would have been no room to widen the road at the location due to the steepness.  Ms. Bousa and Mr. Culbert had no additional comments.  Mr. Danevich said he would note in the response memo that the Board’s comment referred to the steepness and proximately of the topology, which made for an impractical location, and that the location would probably not be a feasible road connection to the land-locked parcel.  He noted that the road width was also a consideration.   

 

Item 2 - (per Planning Board minutes of June 3, 2002) Reviewing from a safety standpoint, the knowledge of the site.  Mr. DeLuca recalled that the road width was a safety concern due to the trees and the wall.  Mr. Scanzani said that the road would need 2ft. shoulders on each side of the road and there would be a problem with snow removal.  He noted that the connecting roads would be up to Town standards and the sudden change to a narrow road (not to Town standard) would create a safety hazard.  He recalled that moving the stone walls would be impractical. 

 

Mr. Lynde arrived.

 

Mr. Danevich said another safety concern was the site distance for the intersection of Windham Road and Castle Hill Road where the road crested.  Mr. Scanzani said the traffic coming from Mammoth Road was also a concern because of the speed, which would not allow for the proper site distance and timing to enter the intersection.  He said the location of the road with the addition of traffic would create a safety hazard.  Mr. Culbert also recalled that the varying road widths would create a severe safety issue.  Ms. Bousa recalled that the road would be 20ft. paved with 2ft. shoulders on each side.  She said there was an additional concern regarding pedestrians and children crossing the road.  She said that two separate reports from the Town Traffic Engineer at that time (CLD Engineering) had been received (February 25, 2002 and May 15, 2002), each of which noting that the site distance was inadequate at Mammoth Road.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the street, as proposed, would not conform to the current Master Plan for street design.  He also believed that the cul-de-sac regulations would not be met due to the length (and the fact that the road would be substandard). 

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the Board’s comments 1) trees and wall creating safety concern; 2) road width (with 2ft. shoulders) which made snow removal difficult; 3) intersection of Mammoth Road and Castle Hill Road was a concern during site walk and drive through the area; 4) crest of the road width on Mammoth Road observed during site walk; 5) two widths of road; 6) pedestrian and children concern; 7) two reports from CLD Engineering regarding inadequate site distance; 8) road did not conform to Master Plan; 9) length of cul-de-sac. 

 

Item 3 - (per Planning Board minutes of June 3, 2002 ) premature development based on a road hazard existing in the area (not the fact that the Town could not provide services to the area).  Mr. McNamara said that the Zukis v. Town of Fitzwilliam case had been referenced in terms of when a development became pre-mature.  He felt the site distance issue (Mammoth Road and Castle Hill Road) as noted by CLD and personal observation was inadequate given the speed and volume of traffic on Mammoth Road.  He felt if the Board reviewed the existing traffic at the intersection, any additional development and traffic could trigger the test (within the Zukis v. Town of Fitzwilliam case) for pre-mature development.  He reviewed the problem with the crest of the road, and the site distance to the intersection.  In summary, Mr. McNamara felt consideration had been given to the site distance (per the Town’s regulations) and the pre-mature development article when making a decision.  Ms. Bousa noted that included in one of the CLD reports (dated March 12, 2002) the traffic gaps had been measured from Castle Hill Road to Mammoth Road.  She said that the requirement was to have 7.1 seconds, but when measured, the intersection gaps were between 5 - 6 seconds.  Mr. Danevich will add the CLD letters (dated February 25, 2002, March 12, 2002 and May 15, 2002) and a copy of the Zukis v. Town of Fitzwilliam court case to the certified file.  Mr. Culbert said what impressed him with the pre-mature development matter were the specific safety issues with the road and how it related to pre-mature development. 

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the Board’s comments 1) Zukis v. Town of Fitzwilliam court case; 2) CLD letters and report dated February 25, 2002, March 12, 2002 and May 15, 2002; 3) testimony by adding additional homes triggered a similar situation to case cited, to call the development pre-mature; 4) concern with volume speed; 5) personal observation; 6) crest of road; 7) site distance; 8) traffic gap measurements (5 - 6 seconds).  Mr. McNamara suggested including Technical Review Committee comment, if contained in the file, and if no comment was received, he suggested they review the site. 

 

Mr. Danevich said he would draft the memo March 4, 2003, for submission to the Judge for the March 5, 2003 deadline. 

 

Continued NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 126 & 127 P.J. Keating Materials Company - off Bridge Street (Route 38) - Proposed Asphalt Batching Facility for Site Plan Review (Continued from canceled February 17, 2003 meeting)

 

Mr. Danevich said that at the last meeting, the Board failed to accept the plan for consideration. 

 

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.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Matt Hamor, Meisner Brem Corporation, representing P.J. Keating Materials Company, presented the plan to the Board for a proposed asphalt batching facility and described the location.  He said the proposal was to create a new batching facility, and disassemble and remove the existing facility located along the roadway (Route 38/Bridge Street).  He showed how trucks would access the facility and silos.  He noted that the integral items of the facility were labeled on the plan.  Mr. Hamor said that there was a burm area along Bridge Street that would help protect the visibility of the proposed facility. 

 

Mr. Danevich clarified that the proposed plan was not the same plan (or affiliated with) the plan presented to the Board approximately one year ago for a shingle recycling facility.  Mr. John Keating, President of P.J. Keating Company said the plan was not the same plan as presented one year ago.  Mr. Danevich confirmed that the equipment (including the inspection trailer) along Bridge Street would be moved into the proposed pit area.  Mr. Keating further explained the proposed plan, which would improve the aesthetics of the facility. 

 

Mr. Danevich discussed the traffic and truck cueing, which would now be able to be moved off Bridge Street with the new facility.  Mr. Keating agreed with the statement.  Mr. Danevich then discussed the dust and recalled a statement had been made during the site walk that there would be a reduction of dust generated with the new facility.  Mr. Keating said that dust was difficult to control.  He said currently the facility had a water truck water down the area.  He believed the new facility would help eliminate some of the accumulating dust along Bridge Street by having the pit located back from the street.  Mr. Danevich discussed the removal of the existing facility and wanted to ensure that there would be aesthetic landscaping and that no foundations would be left behind.  Mr. Keating said the landscaping plan had not been determined, but was open to feedback.  He said the plan was to have the new plant operational by the year 2004, at which point, the existing facility would be dismantled and moved off site. 

 

Mr. Danevich said that the Board would want written correspondence/dialogue with the Fire Chief.  Mr. Hamor said that he met with Fire Chief David Fisher, reviewed his issues and believed they could be complied with.  He anticipated written correspondence from the Fire Chief sometime this week.  Ms. Alexander said she spoke with the Fire Chief who believed the project could move forward.  Mr. Danevich said that in lieu of written comment from the Technical Review Committee at this time, a verbal confirmation would be accepted. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be additional paving on the site and wanted to know if the access would be both an entrance and an exit.  Mr. Hamor said that the plan detailed traffic arrows to show staging area and traffic flow.  Mr. Keating showed a roadway (40ft-50ft) that was paved last year and what portion was intended to be paved to access the proposed facility.  He said that the pavement would help eliminate the generation of dust.  Mr. Scanzani said that aesthetics would be important.  Mr. Keating said that the Dracut, MA crushed stone facility would remain.  He said they were sensitive to the aesthetics of the facility and would do their best to shield the proposed facility, using landscaping. 

 

Mr. McNamara discussed the timeframe in which the existing facility would be dismantled.  Mr. Keating noted that the existing silos could not be removed until the proposed facility was running (scheduled for April 1, 2004).  Mr. McNamara asked if the existing facility would be taken down promptly after the new facility was running.  Mr. Keating said the plan was to remove the exiting facility at the point the proposed was running. 

 

Mr. DeLuca asked if there would be a problem with fully loaded trucks entering Bridge Street.  Mr. Keating said that fully loaded trucks currently entered Bridge Street and didn’t feel there would be a problem. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if the chain link fence shown going through the burm was existing.  Mr. Keating answered yes.  Mr. Yarmo asked if the facility would be lit at night.  Mr. Keating said during night manufacturing the facility would be lit, but didn’t feel it would be any difference from the current situation.  Mr. Danevich noted that the pit would be steep and didn’t feel that lighting would be an issue.  Mr. Yarmo asked if there was a need for a drainage/salt containment.  Mr. Hamor said the drainage flowed down the paved area, over land and into the quarry area.  He said that a drainage report had been submitted. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked if there was proposed signage identifying the facility.  Mr. Keating said signage hadn’t been determined, but may be a part of the landscaping design.  He said he would add any signage the Police Department, or Public Works Department felt were necessary.  Ms. Bousa wanted to ensure that signage would not impede the truck site distance entering Bridge Street traffic. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked what the difference was between the existing facility and the proposed.  He also wanted to know if there would be an increase in capacity.  Mr. Keating said the proposed facility was better technology.  He said they were not seeking to increase the capacity of the site.  He said the facility was being upgraded to make it energy efficient.  Mr. Lynde asked if there would be any change/increase in emissions.  Mr. Keating answered no.  Mr. Lynde asked what the timeframe would be for removal of the existing facility once the proposed was operational.  He wanted to ensure that both facilities would not be operational at the same time.  Mr. Keating said both facilities would not be operational at the same time. 

 

The Board discussed the timeframe in which to have the existing facility removed.  There was an understanding that a stipulation could be placed on the plan to have the facility removed within two years from plan approval. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked how the new plant differed from the existing.  Mr. Keating said that both facilities were virtually the same and the materials were also the same. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if the proposed called for two loading hoppers.  Mr. Keating answered yes, and noted that the existing had two hoppers.  Mr. Culbert confirmed that there would be no additional traffic.  Mr. Keating said there would be no additional traffic.  Mr. Culbert asked if the Technical Review Committee had reviewed the plan.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.  Mr. Culbert believed that a landscaping plan, and a disassembling plan for the existing facility should be required.  Mr. Hamor asked if the landscaping plan would extend into Dracut, MA.  Mr. Danevich said the Board was concerned with the Pelham, NH portion. 

 

There was no public input.   

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the Board’s issues as follows:  1) submission of a landscaping plan for Pelham, NH, up to the state property line; 2) Fire Chief’s written comment shall be complied with, or the plan will have to come back before the Board; 3) plant discontinued/dismantled within two-years from approval; 4) truck entering and turning signs should be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee to see if any additional signage is needed. 

 

There was discussion between the Board, Mr. Hamor and Mr. Keating regarding when the existing plant should be removed.  Through the discussion, it was agreed through consensus of the Board and by Mr. Keating to discontinue use of the existing facility when the new facility began operation and also, to dismantle/remove the existing facility within three years from plan approval.   

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To approve the plan subject to the following conditions: 1) landscaping plan to be submitted to Planning Department for Pelham, NH, up to the state property line; 2) Fire Chief’s written comment shall be complied with, or the plan will have to come back before the Board; 3) plant discontinued/dismantled within three-years from plan approval; 4) truck entering and turning signs should be reviewed by the Technical Review Committee (fka Safety Committee) to see if any additional signage is needed. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Map 12 Lot 42-1 Samuel Road LLC - Spring Street - Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, presented the plan to the Board.  Mr. Danevich informed Mr. Zohdi that he could present the Life Estate of Pultar and the Richard Kirsch Investment Trust at the same time, since they were in the same area. 

 

Mr. Zohdi said he met with Ms. Alexander who asked that a driveway and treatment swale be added to the plan.  He said he added the items as requested. 

 

Ms. Alexander reviewed the Technical Review (fka Safety Committee) comments as follows: 1) not in favor of the 12% grade on the road, as designed; 2) confirmation that the culvert crossing on Spring Street adequately sized - Ms. Alexander has confirmed with Town Engineer; 3) Highway Road Agent Don Foss expressed concern with maintaining the road as designed with a 12% grade into a corner situation with a ‘T’ intersection; 4) concern with the Town’s equipment ability to go back up Samuel Drive from Spring Street once they got down; 5) Mr. Foss requested gravel access to treatment swale for future maintenance - Mr. Zohdi has placed on the plan; 6) for safety, the school bus company should be requested to not block intersection in the event that a vehicle could not stop; 7) guardrail recommendations. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Technical Review Committee had discussed additional signage (i.e. steep slope).  Ms. Alexander said the committee reviewed the signage issued and decided additional signs would be whatever the Board wanted. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that he spoke with Police Chief Even Haglund regarding the access to Spring Street and said that the comment was made that even though there was a desire for access to Spring Street, they didn’t want to trade off the access with the way the road was designed.  The feeling was the 12% grade was more harmful than having the access and the road should be redesigned to be below 10%.  There was a discussion regarding the number of roads in Town that were over 12%

r. Zohdi discussed the plan and noted that Mr. Harris purchased land to make the connection to Spring Street.  He said if the Board did not want the connection to Spring Street, he would request a waiver to place a cul-de-sac at the end of Samuel Road.  There was further discussion regarding the connection.  Ms. Alexander informed that the Technical Review Committee’s comment was that they were not in favor of a 12% grade anywhere in Town.  She said the committee’s issue was going back up the road, which could be alleviated by going back through Massachusetts.  She said that the connection shortened the response time.  She said the committee didn’t want to trade the 3 days that the road may be an issue for the 362 that the road would not be an issue.  Mr. Scanzani felt more consideration should be given to the steeper roads.  He believed that there may be roads in the future that would have to be steeper than 12%.    Ms. Alexander believed that the committee wanted to go on records as saying they were not in favor of 12% roads, but given the circumstances, the design was the best alternative.  Mr. Scanzani reiterated his belief for the need of additional signage.  Mr. Lynde was concerned that there was a potential for roads to be steeper to 12%.  Mr. McNamara also had concern with the slope, but was in favor of the connection.  He felt future plans with steep slopes should be strictly reviewed.  Ms. Bousa suggested a reduction of speed. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Paula Socha, Matthew Drive, asked if stop signs could be placed at each of the intersections, primarily on Shephard Road and Harley Drive since it was currently a hazard.  Ms. Bousa said the criteria would not be met for multi-way stops.  Ms. Socha questioned the quality of Ledge Road to handle the traffic. 

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the outstanding issues as follows: 1) bonding of the Town portion of the road; 2) construction sequence; 3) guardrails on the topography station 20+00 - 23+00; 4) additional signage (i.e. steep slope, slow, stop ahead, reduced speed area); 5) gravel access to treatment swale area; 6) memo to bus company on behalf of the Planning Board; 7) Technical Review Committee to re-review 3-way stop at the intersection of Harley and Shephard. 

 

The tangent curves were discussed.  Mr. Zohdi believed that there was a typo in the regulations which required 1000ft, rather than 100ft as required during the past twenty years.  He said that the typo required him to submit a waiver for the tangent curve. 

 

Mr. Culbert asked if there would be a recreation area.  Mr. Zohdi said that in the abutting parcels, there was a parcel approximately 1.5 acres and another parcel that was approximately .6 acre.  Mr. Danevich asked that discussion regarding the recreation areas be held until the next application. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if Mr. Foss’ concerns had been addressed.  Ms. Alexander said that the guardrails would be installed. 

 

Mr. Danevich confirmed that the bonding of the Town portion of land would be posted, and the roads would be constructed through a combination of all the lots in the area.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  He said the bond would be posted through the subdivision to the Spring Street connection. 

 

The creation of the recreation area was discussed.  Mr. Zohdi said his client would voluntarily contribute $750 per lot (at the time of building permits) toward recreation in the area.  The Board appreciated the contribution. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted that construction sequencing was an issue.  Mr. Zohdi said there was a voluntary agreement to connect Shephard Road through to Spring Street prior to occupancy permits being issued.  Ms. Alexander noted that before any combustible materials were brought on site, National Fire Protection Agency regulates that the site shall be accessible, and maintained for fire equipment and apparatus as well as signed off on by the Fire Chief. 

 

Mr. Lynde said that the road name for Samuel Road may need to change.  Mr. Zohdi said he would submit three more names. 

 

Mr. Danevich read a portion of 676:12 IV, which states ‘No building permit shall be denied on the grounds of uncompleted streets or utilities when the construction of such streets or utilities has been secured to the municipality by a bond or other security approved by the planning board pursuant to RSA 674:36, III or RSA 674:44, IV...’ 

 

The Board reviewed the waiver requests, and made the following motions:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to the Subdivision Regulations 11.11(B) 2,  for ML 12-42-5 for the well radius to be 2.2ft within the Town right-of-way. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver request to the Subdivision Regulations Appendix I, B.B., 5 - Street Construction Standards - maximum grade of 10% to be 12% as presented.

 

VOTE:

 

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

 

Mr. DeLuca noted that the Board normally would not grant a waiver to the grade, but approved the waiver in this case, due to the importance of the connectivity.  Mr. Danevich also noted that the grade was due to the constraints on the topology.   

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the waiver request to the Subdivision Regulations Appendix I, B.B., 12 - Street Construction Standards - Minimum tangent length between horizontal curves -  1000ft. with the developer requesting 0ft. as presented.  (It is believed that the 1000ft. in the Subdivision Regulations was a typo). 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the waiver request to the Subdivision Regulations Section 11.04 (C) 1, building envelope area of 100ft. by 150ft (waiver request was only for the building envelope area, the building envelope contained approximately 17,625SF). 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the conditions for approval as follows: 1) bonding of the Town portion of the road (50ft x 300ft) will be included as the portion of the road/subdivision; 2) developer has voluntarily agreed to the construction sequence of a connection between Shephard Road (using Samuel Road) and Spring Street; 3) developer has agreed to guardrails between topology station 20+00 and 23+00; 4) applicant has agreed to gravel access to the treatment swale; 5) developer has agreed to a voluntary contribution of $750 per lot toward recreational facility in the area. 

 

Mr. Danevich noted the following administrative actions that would need to take place: A) Technical Review Committee re-review for signage to include steep slope, stop ahead and slow; B) re-review of stop sign at the intersection of Harley Road and Shephard Road; C) possible reduction of speed on the downhill (South) side. 

 

Mr. Lynde abstained from the vote based on conflicting information received from the Technical Review Committee.  He asked that more detail be provided with their comment. 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) bonding of the Town portion of the road (50ft x 300ft) will be included as the portion of the road/subdivision; 2) developer has voluntarily agreed to the construction sequence of a connection between Shephard Road (using Samuel Road) and Spring Street; 3) developer has agreed to guardrails between topology station 20+00 and 23+00; 4) applicant has agreed to gravel access to the treatment swale; 5) developer has agreed to a voluntary contribution of $750 per lot toward recreational facility in the area. 

 

The following administrative actions shall also occur: A) Technical Review Committee re-review for signage to include steep slope, stop ahead and slow; B) re-review of stop sign at the intersection of Harley Road and Shephard Road; C) possible reduction of speed on the downhill (South) side. 

 

VOTE:

 

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

 

Map 12 Lot 63-1 Life Estate of Pultar - End of Shephard Road - Proposed 7Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, presented the plan to the Board.  He began by noting that the developer would deed a parcel approximately 2.274 acres (ML 12-63-4) to the Town. 

 

Ms. Alexander reviewed the Technical Review Committee’s comments.  She said the super elevating of the road was agreed upon, and that guard rails should be installed in any areas of the road where the 3-1 slope could not be met.  Mr. Zohdi said he would comply with both issues. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if there were any waiver for the property.  Mr. Zohdi answered no.  Ms. Ouellette reviewed the well radius for ML 12-63-1.  Mr. Zohdi said that the well radius would be corrected before the plan was signed. 

 

Mr. Lynde asked if the WCD would be crossed to put buildings in.  Mr. Danevich said that the WCD issue had been discussed at past meetings.  Mr. Lynde confirmed that the ownership of the parcel would be transferred to the Town.  Mr. Zohdi confirmed that the land would be deeded to the Town. 

 

Mr. Zohdi will correct the lot numbers for ML 12-63-3 and 12-63-4 on the plan. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if the seasonal brook would be relocated.  Mr. Zohdi answered no.  He described how the brook would be piped, but would run in the same place that it currently ran.  He said that he applied for a dredge and fill permit. 

 

There was no public input.

 

Mr. Danevich summarized the issues as follows: 1) guard rails being added as noted and agreed to by the applicant; 2) super elevation of the road; 3) well radius for ML 12-63-1 to be corrected; 4) fix lot numbers for ML 12-63-3 and ML 12-63-4 throughout the plan; 5) developer to install conservation signage; 6) developer will voluntarily contribute $750 per lot toward a recreation area at the time of building permit.

 

Mr. Scanzani requested that a standard set of notes be created for every plan that notes who is responsible for what actions (i.e. conservation signs).   

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the plan subject to the following conditions: 1) guard rails being added as noted and agreed to by the applicant; 2) super elevation of the road; 3) well radius for ML 12-63-1 to be corrected; 4) fix lot numbers for ML 12-63-3 and ML 12-63-4 throughout the plan; 5) developer to install conservation signage; 6) developer will voluntarily contribute $750 per lot toward a recreation area at the time of building permit.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Danevich noted that this plan fell within the same construction sequencing master plan as the other plans for the entire area. 

 

Map 12 Lot 192 & 203--16 Richard Kirsch Investment Trust - off Mulberry Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Continued Consideration

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said per the previous meeting, he had moved the right-of-way for future development to the end of the cul-de-sac.  He noted that the right-of-way was wider than required so the Town would have the flexibility of road placement in the future. 

 

Ms. Alexander reviewed the Technical Review Committee’s concerns.  She said the committee had serious reservations regarding the recreation area, due to the proximity of the existing quarry.  The recommendation was to choose an area as far away from the quarry, if that was not possible the committee strongly recommended that restrictive fencing be placed around the recreation area.  After a brief discussion, there was a consensus of the Board which did not favor the (.634 acre) recreation area.  Mr. Zohdi said that the .634 acre parcel would be added to ML 12-192-2 and in return, the developer would voluntarily contribute $750 per lot toward recreation space in the area at the issue of building permits. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said a waiver request had been submitted and the following motion was made:

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To accept for consideration the waiver request for an individual traffic study requirement, as one was previously submitted during the White subdivision that encompassed the Pultar,  Harris and Kirsch subdivisions. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Monica Bedard, Ledge Road, asked for clarification of the recreation area (.634 acre parcel) and where access would be to the lot.  Mr. Zohdi explained that the .634 acre parcel would be added to ML 12-192-2, with access being from the proposed road.  Ms. Bedard asked if the road accessing the .634 parcel could be blocked off.  Mr. Zohdi said that he would not be using the road, closure was not in his jurisdiction.  Mr. Danevich informed that the owner of the parcel would be responsible for closing the road. 

 

Mr. Chris Bedard, Bedard Road, asked that the plan show his driveway access through the .634 acre parcel.  Mr. Danevich said the plan showed the driveway access. 

 

Ms. Bedard asked that fencing be placed around the property abutting the quarry (ML 12-188).  She said access was being provided to the quarry through the proposed subdivision, which would worsen an existing problem.  She went on to discuss the difficulty she was having with her property boundaries due to the Town tax map being incorrect.  She said she was losing land because of the proposed planned subdivision.  She said that she had been fighting the boundary dispute for twenty years.  Ms. Bedard said she did not want the land developed until the boundaries were resolved.  Mr. Danevich informed that the Planning Board was obligated to recognize a plan if it was stamped by a state certified licensed surveyor.  He said a resolution would need to occur outside from the Planning Board. 

 

Ms. Paula Socha, Matthew Drive, asked if the proposed right-of-way would grant access to an individual property.  Mr. Danevich said that the proposed right-of-way was simply a provision, which may not be used.  Ms. Socha said that fencing had been requested at a previous meeting for around the parcel abutting the quarry.  Mr. Zohdi said that he would act in accordance with the recommendation of the Board.  Mr. Bedard discussed the current problem with youngsters in the area and believed if the parcel abutting the quarry was not fenced that a law enforcement situation would be created due to youngsters accessing the quarry through private property.  It was noted that there was a safety hazard with the quarry (ML 12-188) and concern that someone may drown, since the quarry was basically a reservoir.  Ms. Bedard noted that there was a trail system and certain right-of-ways (contained on deeds) that also accessed the quarry.  She reiterated her belief that the subdivision should not be approved until the boundaries were corrected.  Mr. DeLuca asked what action Ms. Bedard wanted the Board to take.  Ms. Bedard felt the Town should correct their map before the subdivision was done.  Mr. McNamara explained that if the Board told the developer they could not move forward, the Board may end up in court.  He said the Board had to use a plan, certified by a land surveyor that the information was correct.  He noted if the surveyor didn’t survey the land, and used incorrect information, their license could be pulled.  He believed if the information was incorrect, Ms. Bedard would have a remedy in civil court.  Mr. Lynde noted that the Town tax map was not the criteria for use with subdivisions. 

 

Ms. Socha had concern with conservation areas and the water tables due to blasting since most of the area was ledge.  She asked if her water should be tested.  Mr. Danevich suggested having her water tested before development started.  Mr. Zohdi said that the blasting company would do pre-blasting tests.  Mr. Scanzani suggested taking pictures of the house foundation.  Ms. Bedard said that certain damage may occur with the ledge shifting, which would be impossible to capture in a photograph. 

 

Ms. Socha asked if a conservation study had been done in the area.  Mr. Danevich said that two area-wide studies had been done.  Mr. Yarmo said that the results were limited to what the subdivision regulations would allow.  He felt that significant progress had been made in securing conservation areas around the development.  Ms. Socha asked the effects of the eco-system.  Mr. Danevich said that a study had been done. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the construction sequencing would be consistent with the master plan developed for the area.  He said that no occupancy permits would be issued for the area until the connection to Spring Street existed.  He also noted that a voluntary contribution of $750 would be received for each parcel for passive recreation.   

 

Mr. Lynde asked if there was any question regarding irregular-shaped lots.  Mr. Scanzani said a waiver request had been received for ML 192-2 and ML 192-3.  Mr. Danevich noted that the conservation area (.634 acre) would be added to ML 192-2.  Mr. Bedard asked the Board’s position regarding fencing in the lot abutting the quarry.  Mr. Danevich said that there was a consensus from the Board that the owner of the parcel containing the quarry would be responsible for fencing it in. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the waiver requests in the file and the following motions were made:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the waiver request for an individual traffic study requirement, as one was previously submitted during the White subdivision that encompassed the Pultar,  Harris and Kirsch subdivisions.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert)  To approve the waiver request to Subdivision Regulation section 11.04 (B) 4 - lot shape - in connection with ML 192-2 and ML 192-3 at the end of the cul-de-sac. 

 

VOTE:

 

(3 - 4 - 0) The motion was defeated.  Mr. Lynde, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. McNamara, Ms. Ouellette voted no. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the subdivision regulations in connection with parcels ML 192-2 and ML 192-3.  Mr. Culbert said that the regulation was drafted with cul-de-sacs in mind.  Mr. Zohdi didn’t feel that the Board could adopt a three-acre requirement, since the zoning in Town called for one-acre high and dry.  He said he would not be able to request a variance, since the Zoning Board of Adjustment would inquire what section of zoning the variance was being requested.  He said the only place he could request relief, was from the Planning Board.  There was further discussion regarding the regulations.  The Board decided to reconsider the vote.

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To reconsider the vote regarding the waiver request regarding lot shape, per Subdivision Regulation section 11.04(B) 4. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Ms. Alexander said that she ensures that the boundaries and pins are in place at all points of direction change before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To approve the waiver request to Subdivision Regulation section 11.04 (B) 4 - lot shape - in connection with ML 192-2 and ML 192-3 at the end of the cul-de-sac.   

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Lynde voted no. 

 

There was a discussion regarding the lot shape and the fact that Mr. Zohdi was requesting a waiver due to him making the right-of-way for future development wider than 50ft., which provided leeway for road placement.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To approve the waiver request to Subdivision Regulation section 11.04 (B) 4 - lot shape - in connection with ML 192-4 and ML 192-5.

 

VOTE:

 

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

 

Mr. Danevich reviewed the issues of the Board as follows: 1) construction sequencing in connection with the master plan for the area; 2) developer agreed to voluntary contribution of $750 per lot toward recreation area; 3) ML 12-192-2 will be combined with the .634 acre parcel (previously reserved for recreation space)

 

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) construction sequencing in connection with the master plan for the area; 2) developer agreed to voluntary contribution of $750 per lot toward recreation area; 3) ML 12-192-2 will be combined with the .634 acre parcel (previously reserved for recreation space).

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Lynde voted no. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 4 Lot 180-17 Two M Construction Co. - off Benoit Avenue Extension - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Submission (Continued from February 6, 2003 meeting)

 

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.

 

Ms. Alexander informed that the plan was ready to be accepted for consideration. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Matt Hamor, Meisner Brem Corporation informed that an application had been submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a reduced frontage lot.  Mr. Danevich asked for a brief overview of what was being proposed.  He said that when the project came in the parcel was discussed at length.  He said there had been issues with the prime wetlands and an adjacency issue and wanted to know what had changed since the last review of the Board.  Mr. Hamor said his understanding was when the lot line had originally been removed from the two-lot configuration, the available land was not placed in the conservation tract and that there was no restrictive covenant to the use of the land.  Mr. Danevich said that the applicant at the time had agreed to adjoin the parcels to eliminate an adjacency issue identified by Dr. Richardson of the New Hampshire Wetlands Bureau. 

 

Mr. Yarmo said that he attended the meeting with Dr. Richardson of the NH Wetlands Bureau, Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates and Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental in which the decision and agreement was made to eliminate the lot to avoid the adjacency issue.  He said that Dr. Richardson noted that the lot was too close to the wetlands, and that the prime wetlands could not withstand the construction, or human activity.  He said the agreement made with the Wetlands Bureau, Conservation Commission, Planning Board and the Town, was that the lot would be withdrawn.  He was surprised to see the lot back for review. 

 

Mr. Danevich didn’t feel that the Board could proceed without written comment from Dr. Richardson reviewing the proposed plan. 

 

Mr. Hamor noted that an additional 5.8 acres would be given to the conservation tract, which would create an additional 100ft. buffer.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if Mr. Hamor was aware that an original culvert had been crushed, which created a dam situation that fed from one end of the wetland to the prime wetland.  She said that Dr. Richardson did not want that area being used as the driveway crossing since it may affect the natural flow of water.  Mr. Hamor said he was proposing a clear-span bridge across the wetland, so it would not be affected.  Mr. Culbert said he would like the plan to be reviewed by Conservation Commission.  Mr. Yarmo asked what the difference was with the plan.  Mr. Hamor said that the clear-span bridge and acreage was different.  Mr. Yarmo said he was uncomfortable with reviewing the plan since the lot had been previously been withdrawn due to adjacency issues, so that other lots could be approved.  He reiterated that a deal had been made that the lot was not going to be subdivided.  He didn’t have a problem bringing the proposed plan back to Dr. Richardson for review. 

 

Mr. Scanzani said that information was included in the file regarding the Board of Adjustment’s decision to continue the variance request (Case #2246) for 60-days in connection with the frontage requirement (to be reduced to 75ft.), to allow Planning Board comments.  He said the Board of Adjustment had issue with: 1) wetlands; 2) home being site specific; 3) as-built plan; 4) class 5 road.  Mr. McNamara said that the Board of Adjustment was unclear why the proposed lot was not included in the original subdivision.  He said that comment could be returned to the Board of Adjustment informing why the approval was not granted during the original subdivision.  Mr. Danevich said he would forward a letter.     

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Darren Martin, 21 Benoit Avenue handed out a list of concerns to the Board which included items such as: 1) felt the concerns with the lot from the original subdivision still existed; 2) felt and end-around situation was occurring - since during the original subdivision lots were approved contingent upon the removal of the proposed lot; 3) traffic increase on Benoit Avenue; 4) position of lot and the surrounding wetlands; 5) construction equipment impact; 6) oils and fuels from construction equipment entering directly into the buffer zones and/or wetlands; 7) house location which would negatively impact the wetlands area; 8) bridge runoff potentially going into the wetlands: 9) bridge promoting flooding and/or drainage of the wetlands in the area; 10) wetland animal population; 11) effects to the last remaining wildlife corridor area; 12) devaluation of properties. In summary, Mr. Martin didn’t feel that exception should be made to the laws. 

 

Mr. Hamor reviewed the plan for the Board and outlined the Town conservation tract. 

 

The Board continued discussion regarding what action would be taken.  It was decided to draft a letter to the Board of Adjustment along with a copy of the Planning Board’s minutes that granted approval of the subdivision; notation outlining concern with the wetlands, and the fact that Dr. Richardson’s comments have been requested in connection with the proposed. 

 

Mr. Lynde felt that consideration should be given to the possibility of acquiring the land using conservation funds. 

 

Mr. Danevich informed that the plan would be continued to the April 7, 2003 meeting. 

 

Map 3 Lot 80 & 81-1 Edmond & Nina Bisson - 57 Nashua Road - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment 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.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said that a section of ML 3-81-1 (leaving 2.6 acres) would be deeded to ML 3-80 (to make it 2 acres) so that a duplex could be built on ML 3-80. 

 

Ms. Ouellette noted that an irregular shaped lot would be created.  Ms. Alexander said her concern was that the original lot line was on the stone wall. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked where the well was located on ML 3-81-1.  After discussion it was realized that currently there was no well on the site, but that it was serviced by Town water.

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Steve Amero, 6 Independence Drive, asked if the garage and house would be raised to place the new structure in the same location.  Mr. Zohdi showed the location that a house would be built.

 

Mr. Chuck Toupin, asked if the area was zoned for duplexes.  Mr. Danevich said that there was no specific zone for duplexes, but there was a requirement for a minimum lot size of high and dry land area.  Mr. Toupin asked if it was acceptable to create an odd shaped lot to provide adequate lot size.  Mr. Danevich said the Board would make the determination. 

 

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the sharpening garage would be removed.  Mr. Zohdi answered yes.  Mr. Scanzani asked if consideration could be made to reposition the stone wall to the proposed boundary line.  Mr. Zohdi did not have a problem repositioning the stone wall to the proposed boundary line.  Mr. DeLuca made a suggestion for the location of the lot line.  The Board discussed the difference between Mr. DeLuca’s suggestion for the lot line versus the lot line shown on the proposed plan.

 

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the intention was to build a duplex, and not to come before the Board of Adjustment with two lots containing reduced frontages.  Mr. Zohdi said the intention was to build a duplex.  He said he could include a note on the plan specifying a duplex was the intention. 

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan subject to the following conditions: 1) relocating stone wall to the lot line (also adding note to plan); 2) note on plan specifying duplex type house; 3) removal of the existing garage.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Amero discussed a problem his lot had due to blasting in the area and wanted to know what recourse he would have if there were further problems.  He asked that the Board consider requesting bonds from blasting companies.  Mr. Danevich said the state had a website that could provide information regarding safeguarding wells. 

 

Map 1 Lot 112-8 & 112-9 Colleen & Ken Kaiser and Gerry & Donna Field - Autumn Street - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment 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.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

 

Ms. Ouellette, Mr. McNamara and Mr. Lynde knew the applicants, but felt they could remain impartial when reviewing the application.  Neither the Board, nor the applicant had a problem with Ms. Ouellette, Mr. McNamara, or Mr. Lynde hearing the case. 

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Ken Kaiser presented the plan to the Board.  He said that a lot line adjustment was needed so that his neighbors could build a two-car garage.  He described the configuration of the lots and noted that both lots would be in compliance with frontage and acreage requirements.  He noted that the well for ML 112-8 had not yet been drilled, but would be within the 75ft. radius. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the well radius for ML 112-9 was not currently within the lot line and wanted to know if it would be with the adjustment.  Mr. Kaiser said that ML 112-9 would be seeking a variance from the Board of Adjustment for an accessory dwelling at the March 10, 2003 meeting. 

 

Mr. Danevich asked the location of the driveway for lot 9.  Mr. Kaiser said the driveway would be located approximately 5ft. from the lot line.  Mr. Danevich asked if the driveway would cross into the abutting lot.  Mr. Kaiser answered no.  He also noted there would be no wetland crossings. 

 

There was no public input.    

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

MINUTES

 

January 6, 2003, January 20, 2003 and February 6, 2003 meeting minutes were deferred to the next scheduled meeting.

 

DATE SPECIFICATION

 

The following case was date specified to the April 7, 2003 meeting:

 

Map 4 Lot 180-17 Two M Construction Co. - off Benoit Avenue Extension - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

 

NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, (b) & (c) (hiring of a public employee; matters which, if discussed publicly, would affect adversely the reputation of any person)

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

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 Planning Board Alternates Robin Bousa and Bob Yarmo, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde and Planning Director Amy Alexander.

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately 11:50pm.

 

MOTION:

 

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

 

VOTE:

 

(     ) The motion carries.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:50 pm.

 

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary