APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 4, 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 Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

None.

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 13 Lot 37 - George Harris III & John Harris - Kopers Lane - Request for Bond Release

Map 13 Lot 37 - George Harris III & John Harris - Dodge Road - Request for Bond Release

Map 13 Lot 37 - 15 - George Harris III & John Harris - Herrick Circle - Request for Bond Release

 

Mr. Mitchell noted that the subdivision was substantially complete, with only minor issues remaining on each.  He said per a telephone call with Mr. Jim Herrick it was confirmed that $10,000 remaining in each bond should be adequate to complete the necessary work.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the swales, once cleaned out, would be able to handle the drainage.  Mr. Mitchell said there would be conversations directly with the developer to find out if there was a need to increase the length of the swales.  He said along Kopers some of the landowners had filled in the swales not knowing that doing so would flood their lots.  He said the developer was going to clean the swales out and send the land owners a letter informing them not to fill in the swales.  Mr. Scanzani asked what recourse could be taken if the swales were filled in again.  Mr. Mitchell discussed the design of the swales and explained that since they were located on Town property, the Town would be responsible for their upkeep.  Mr. Lynde asked if there was a requirement to clearly mark the Town owned property.  Mr. Mitchell said that the property was clearly delineated.  Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Mitchell if $10,000 for each street would be adequate to complete necessary work.  Mr. Mitchell said there was not a lot of work remaining and $10,000 would be adequate for each street.  

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To reduce each bond (Map 13-37 Kopers Lane, Map 13-37 Dodge Road, Map 13-37-15 Herrick Circle) to $10,000 per the Planning Director’s recommendation.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Map 8 Lot 22 - Fireside Homesteads, LLC - Gaudet Road - Request for Bond Release

 

Mr. Mitchell said after inspection of the site (by TFMoran and Highway Road Agent Don Foss ) it was viewed that everything was in place.  He recommended that the bond be fully released and the road be recommended for placement on the 2003 ballot for acceptance.   

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To release the entire bond and recommend that Gaudet Road be placed on the 2003 ballot for acceptance.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

DISCUSSION

 

Map 8 Lot 20 & 22-9 - Fireside Homesteads, LLC - Heather Lee Lane - Road Design Change & Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Michael Gospoderek, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said the plan had been altered to reduce the grade of the road, improve the site distance and make the lots more buildable.  He said the roadway had been ‘flattened’ to improve site distance.  He said CLD (former Town engineer) and the former Planning Director had approved the plan being presented. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the only change was to the slope.  Mr. Gospoderek answered yes.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the reversed tangent had changed.  Mr. Gospoderek answered no. 

 

There was a brief discussion regarding the slopes pertaining to the individual lots.  Mr. Yarmo asked if the ‘toe’ of the slope had been changed.  Mr. Gospoderek said the ‘toe’ had been reduced.   

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) The Planning Board agrees with, and approves, the applicant’s resubmission of the as-built plan to record the new slopes as shown on presented plan.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Mitchell asked that the bond request be posted for discussion at the next meeting.  The Board agreed.  

 

Map 10 Lot 352 - New American Homes, LLC - Cara Estates - Planning Director’s Report on In-Field Changes

 

Mr. Mitchell believed the intersection may not have had thorough review at the initial approval stage, and thus was drawn, and approved, in accordance with the plans submitted to the Planning Department.  He said the construction was substantially in conformance with the plans, but unfortunately the intersection does not work well.       

 

Mr. David Jordan, TFMoran (Town engineer) discussed the intersection at the corner of Currier Road and Island Pond Road.  He said the intersection was deficient in that it did not allow large vehicles to turn the corners without running off the pavement.  He said a TFMoran field inspectors met on site with Highway Road Agent Don Foss and Mr. Mitchell to review and determine recommendations.  He said the recommendation was to increase the pavement on two of the roundings.  He said a letter of recommendation would be forwarded to the developer, copying the Town.  Mr. Culbert asked if the changes would be sufficient for a fire truck and a school bus.  Mr. Mitchell said there may be a problem with a fire truck turning from Island Pond Road onto Currier Road.  Ms. Ouellette asked if the conditions would be okay during the winter months.  Mr. Jordan said the conditions should be okay if the snow were pushed off the edge of pavement. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked why the problem was not caught when the plan was sent out for engineering review.  He discussed the angle of the turns for the intersection.  He pointed out that the criteria outlined in the subdivision regulations were not met.  Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates said that the existing bad condition on Currier Road and Island Pond Road was improved with the changes.  Mr. Mitchell reviewed the notes of the meeting when the intersection was discussed and noted that the original documentation review of the former Town engineering firm was not contained in the subdivision file.  He noted that the developer had agreed to fix the intersection per the meeting on site with TFMoran, Mr. Foss and himself.  Board members discussed their recollections from the initial discussion of the intersection.

 

Ms. Bousa asked if the current radii were adequate for a school bus to complete a turn without encroaching the opposing traffic flow.  Mr. Jordan said with the current conditions, for a school bus to complete a turn it would have to encroach, possibly half a lane. 

 

The Board and Mr. Jordan discussed what changes were being proposed per the in-field meeting with the developer, TFMoran, Mr. Foss and the Planning Director.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the road stripe could be favored on one side of Currier Road, as the road curves along Currier Road, to ease the intersection. 

 

The developer discussed the meeting held earlier and said that he agreed to widen the radius of the road, even though the road was built per the plan.  He noted that the intersection had been intentionally built to slow the traffic at the intersection.  Mr. Mitchell said there were a number of issues, but felt that the increased radius, the signage and the striping would help ease the situation.  He pointed out that the Fire Chief was satisfied with the proposed turning radii. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Mr. Joe Norkiewicz, Island Pond Road, said his main concern was the traffic and the speed of traffic.  He said his belief was that the intersection would be ninety degrees, specifically to slow traffic.  He discussed his observation of the current condition of the intersection and believed that widening the radius would confuse traffic and raise the speed of vehicles.  Mr. Culbert said part of the improvements were for life and safety issues, specifically for emergency vehicles and school buses.        

 

Mr. Charles Mooskian, Currier Road pointed out that there was adequate burm on both sides of Currier road to improve and widen the turning radius.  He felt the road should be widened to the extent it could.  Mr. Culbert said the road would be corrected as best as possible.  Mr. Jordan said that one round would be increased to 45ft. and the other round would be 23ft.  Mr. Scanzani reiterated his point that moving the yellow stripe over a bit would also ease the intersection.  Mr. .Mooskian asked that the pavement be evened out where the cuts had been made. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked why the intersection could not be a true 90-degree, four-way intersection.  Mr. Culbert said that it could not be done based upon Currier Road. 

 

Ms. Bousa asked when the road would be paved and striped.  The developer said he planned on putting the top coat on Currier Road at the end of September and would like to do everything at the same time.     

 

Mr. Norkiewicz asked if signs warning of the stop at the intersection could be installed.  Mr. Culbert said that the Highway Road Agent would need to make the determination.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To allow the developer to enact the changes agreed to (in-field with TFMoran, Mr. Foss and Mr. Mitchell) and to review the radius (of Currier Road) to see if it could be extended, also review the possibility of moving the striping over.  Mr. Mitchell shall be authorized by the Board to review the changes.  To allow the developer, for the reconstruction portion of the road, to put the finish coat down this year (since the base coat had already over-wintered), as well as do the striping. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that an abutter had brought up an issue regarding the existing culvert under Island Pond Road.  He said after the plan had been approved by the Planning Board (which stated a condition that the culvert had to be removed), a state permit was procured which required the culvert to remain, which the former Planning Director approved the retention of the culvert.  He said the Planning Board had to ratify the Planning Director’s approval.  He said the action exceeded the authority of the former Planning Director because the regulations clearly state that any state approval that modifies a plan, must come back to the Planning Board for approval.  He said the applicant followed the process they were supposed to follow. 

 

The Board discussed their recollection of the approval and what could be done to correct the situation.  Currently there was a site specific Planning Board approval, with conditions that were not met.  Mr. Culbert noted that the future development needed to be taken into consideration.  Mr. Yarmo pointed out if the culvert were removed the water flow would be changed, between the two culverts, which was not allowed by the DES.  Mr. Scanzani said the DES did not control the Planning Board decisions and could not over-ride the decisions.  The developer understood that originally there was no detention facility and the reason a new pipe was not allowed to be run down the street was because DES had informed that the water had to be retained on site, which was the reason one lot was eliminated.  He also believed that the detention basin was installed to pick up the water from across the street at a later date. 

 

Mr. Michael Gospodarek, Herbert Associates said that the downstream drainage system was analyzed and it was found that the existing system was inadequate to handle any increased of drainage flow.  He said the task was then how water would be held.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the culvert size on Island Pond Road was not big enough to handle the water coming from Cara Estates.  Mr. Gospodarek answered yes and also noted that the detention on Diamond Hill would not have been able to handle the extra flow.  He said there was an access easement across the street, which would allow water to be drained back, but the assumption was that a new development would be self-sustained. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked where the water was currently going.  Mr. Gospodarek said the fifty-year storm event was reviewed when the detention pond was developed so that the water level would stay at the same level as pre-development.  Mr. Lynde suggested bringing the plan back for Board review.  Mr. Scanzani made a motion to have the Town engineer review and compare the original approved plans including the drainage calculations against the new plans with drainage calculations.  Mr. Lynde seconded the motion.  Mr. Scanzani went on to discuss the drainage indicated on the original plan.  Mr. Yarmo said that DES’ issue was the drainage flow and direction, pre- and post-development.  Mr. Culbert asked that the drainage calculations be reviewed in conjunction with DES’ comments and brought back before the Board.  Mr. Scanzani wanted to review the plan to ensure that it addressed the long-term drainage of the area.             

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Lynde) To have the Town engineer review and compare the original approved plans including the drainage calculations against the drainage calculations on the new plans. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The Board asked that the plans be brought to the September 4, 2003 meeting for review. 

 

Map 7 Lot 116 - Mary Francis Renner - 131 Bridge Street - Preliminary Discussion

 

Mr. Mitchell said there had been a site plan approval and a variance for a site that was highly constrained due to wetlands.  He suggested that the applicant discuss the situation with the Board before continuing.  The applicant was not present, Mr. Mitchell asked that the Board continue discussion at the September 4, 2003 meeting.  The Board agreed to listen to the applicant at the September 4, 2003 meeting.  

 

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

 

Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde stepped down.  Mr. Culbert noted that Mr. Brunelle would vote in place of Ms. Ouellette for this case only.

 

Mr. Culbert said that the plans were not delivered to the Town engineering firm by the former Planning Director, therefore, the applicant had not yet had the opportunity to review the comments of the Town’s engineer.  Mr. Mitchell said he had received a one-page report from West Environmental regarding the location of the wetland flags  Mr. Michael Gospodarek, Herbert Associates informed that he had a copy of the plan that showed the wetland flag delineation for the Board to review.  Mr. Mitchell reviewed the items that the Board had requested of the applicant during the previous hearing.  A letter had been submitted to the Board from Ms. Julia Steed Mawson (South Shore Drive), dated July 12, 2003 which discussed the fact that the EPA was reviewing monitoring wells on her lot due to an oil spill two years ago.  Ms. Shirley Wakefield explained that the EPA was currently monitoring the property and would continue monitoring until next year.  Mr. Mitchell continued reviewing his list of items that the applicant should discuss:

 

1.      Calculations showing compliance with Zoning Section 307-52(C) regarding wetlands, slopes, and open space amounts on the plan.

2.      Clarification on the status of hazardous waste on the site - monitoring wells?

3.      Lighting

4.      Waiver for three-side access.  Fire Chief and Safety Committee OK, but waiver needed in writing

5.      HUD requirements, if any.

6.      Maintenance issues related to Smith Road

7.      State approvals needed and status.

 

Mr. Mitchell then noted the following information for the Board:

 

·        The plans were accepted as complete on 5/5/03.

·        The Board should have reviewed the letter from Town Attorney Gorrow on several issues.

·        The Board should be clear on the impact to the WCD.  I have highlighted my review plan for your           consideration

·        The Board should determine whether the requirements of Section 307-53(B)(1) have been met in that the project has ‘Produce[ed] some viable open space useful or beneficial to the residents of the complex.’

·        Details should be provided for the culvert and the wetland impact at station 9+00 in the roadway.

·        The additional setbacks required per Zoning 307-41 should be added to the final plan set showing compliance.

·        The applicant should clarify the purpose and use of the bump-out on Building 1.

·        The applicant should demonstrate compliance with Section 307-54 of the Zoning Ordinance which details the septic system requirements.

·        The Board should determine whether compliance with the following Site Plan Regulations have been met:  a) 248-34(C) Off-site Drainage - The Board may wish to have TFMoran provide guidance on this issue; b) 248-35 Landscaping - There is no plan present to determine compliance.

 

Mr. David Jordan, TFMoran (Town engineer) said that he had received the plans and would be able to review them prior to the next meeting. 

 

Mr. Yarmo asked if the application fees had been paid on time.  Mr. Culbert said the problem was not with the application fees, they had been paid; the problem was that the former Planning Director had ‘dropped the ball’ and not forwarded the plans for Town engineering review. 

 

Mr. Scanzani noted that the applicant had agreed to consent to an extension of 30-days.  He suggested that a letter be sent to the Board of Selectmen also requesting that an extension be granted.

 

Attorney Michael Donovan, asked what new information had been added to the file since the May 5, 2003 meeting.  The Board provided Attorney Donovan with a copy of Mr. Mitchell’s memo.  Mr. Scanzani said the only other new item in the file was the letter from Ms. Julia Steed Mawson dated July 12, 2003.  Attorney Donovan asked for an explanation regarding the Fire Chief’s comments about three-sided access.  Mr. Mitchell said that the Fire Chief said he was satisfied with three-sided access and provided a memo (dated May 15, 2003) confirming such.  Attorney Donovan asked that the turning radius onto Smith Road (emergency access) be reviewed so that abutting property would not need to be taken for emergency vehicle access. 

 

Ms. Shirley Wakefield asked when the plan with the wetland delineation would be available for review.  Mr. Michael Gospodarek, Herbert Associates provided Mr. Mitchell with a copy of the plan showing the wetland delineation.  Mr. Mitchell told Ms. Wakefield that the plan showing the wetland delineation would be available to be copied Tuesday, August 5, 2003. 

 

The plan was date specified to the September 4, 2003 meeting.

 

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

 

Map 5 Lot 75 - Keyes Hill Realty Trust - off Keyes Hill Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for Continue Consideration

 

Mr. Michael Gospodarek, Herbert Associates, said the conceptual/preliminary plan had been reviewed by the Board at which time the layout of the road was discussed.  Per the request of the Board, the road had been realigned.  He said that comments had been received by TFMoran (Town Engineer) and it appeared that they had reviewed the initial plan, not the revised. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. David Jordan of TFMoran if they had received incorrect plans for review.  Mr. Jordan believed that was the case.  The plans had been submitted to TFMoran in early June.  Mr. Gospodarek discussed the items on the plan that had changed, such as the street layout, lot sizing and different wetland impact.  He said the profile had been changed slightly.  Mr. Mitchell recommended that the items of disagreement between TFMoran and the plan be reviewed.  He then noted the differences as follows:

a) easement will be added to the plan as required by the Fire Department - Mr. Gospodarek showed the location that sisterns would be installed; b) length of the cul-de-sac - Mr. Gospodarek said that TFMoran had indicated the maximum length for a cul-de-sac was 500ft, which was the length in the old regulations, not the maximum as contained in the new regulations (2400ft) - At the Board’s request, Mr. Mitchell will correct the typo contained in the regulations with regard to the cul-de-sac length noted in the Subdivision Regulation Appendix; c) to be deeded to the Town of Pelham - Mr. Mitchell asked if Mr. Gospodarek had discussed the deeding of the land with the Town; Mr. Gospodarek said the deed had not been discussed with the Town as of yet; Mr. Mitchell suggested that Mr. Gospodarek contact Town Administrator Tom Gaydos regarding deeding land to the Town; d) perk test will be performed at a later date - Mr. Gospodarek said that tests were typically done right before the septic design approval; test pit information was included on the plan, but the perk test had not yet been done; e) Manning’s coefficient of friction  - Mr. Gospodarek said typically they used concrete pipe with a coefficient of friction at .013, which was also the recommendation of TFMoran, but the Town’s regulations specifically state to use .015 pipe; he said when a site specific plan was requested, a different type of drainage calculation had to be submitted to the state because they require .013; he wanted the Board to understand that when the Town’s regulations, pertaining to drainage issues, were different than the state’s, two different sets of plans were submitted (to the state and to the Town) so that a state approval could be obtained; Mr. Mitchell recommended to the Board that they use .013 as the required pipe, which was also the standard engineering practice; Mr. Lynde wanted to know which pipe would protect the Town more; Mr. Gospodarek said it depended on the desired outcome; f) two catch basin issue - Mr. Gospodarek said at the beginning of the catch basins there was no velocity going into them, but it was only for the first ones. 

Mr. Mitchell confirmed that Mr. Gospodarek was requesting state wetland, state subdivision, and state site specific approvals.  He also confirmed that if any changes resulted from the approvals that the plan would be brought back to the Board for review.  Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. James Gove, Gove Environmental showed on the plan which five areas had direct wetland impacts.  He said by moving the road over the plan attempted to protect more of the wetland canopy.  He said the plan had been submitted for placement on the Conservation Commission’s agenda.  He said because there would be less slope grading, the revised design would maintain more of the overall wetland canopy.  Mr. Scanzani asked if the large old-growth tree would remain since the tree was part of the canopy protection.  Mr. Gove believed that the tree was located outside the road grading. 

Mr. Yarmo said that the Conservation Commission had reviewed the plan and believed that it reflected the comments made at the site and at the meeting.  He said there was a recommendation to relocate one of the driveways away from the stream and wanted to know if it could be done.  He then asked Mr. Gove what the benefits were to open bottom culverts.  Mr. Gove said recently there was mixed reviews of open bottom culverts.  He said initially they seemed to be preferred, but lately the EPA had been sharing studies that showed the restriction of reptile and amphibian movement.  It appeared that certain amphibians would not move through open, or closed culverts because they are dark.  He said right now there didn’t seem to be any proof that an open bottom culvert was any better than a closed bottom culvert.   

 

Mr. Lynde recalled that when the site was reviewed there was a discussion with regard to using a different technique that would be more biodegradable and efficient for a burm, rather than using silt or hay bales.  Mr. Gove discussed the efficiency of grinding stumps to create a burm, which is what he recommended. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the process being underwent by the Town to rename certain streets due to E911.  He wanted to know if street names being proposed by developers were being sent for review to E911.  Mr. Lynde explained the renumbering process and informed that the Safety Committee reviewed proposed street names before recommendations were submitted to the Selectmen for approval. 

 

The Board discussed burm options and Mr. Gove was asked to provide information on alternate techniques.  Mr. Gove said there was a variety of sediment erosion control options.  He noted that hay bales had been removed from the EPA’s list five years ago.  He offered to set up an informational meeting with the Board to discuss the options available. 

 

Ms. Bousa noted that the plans should be sent to TFMoran for review and that a new drainage report should be submitted.

 

Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Gospodarek if they had permission to perform work on ML 5-75-1.  Mr. Gospodarek believed there was a slope easement on ML 5-75-1.  He noted that all the slopes were 4-1. 

 

Mr. Culbert polled the Board and a majority of the members were against approving the plan with the condition that TFMoran review the plan.  The Board requested an extension.  The owner was not present, therefore, the following motion was made:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To send a letter to the Board of Selectmen requesting a 30-day extension in accordance with the statues.   

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 6 Lot 123 & 129 - Jodi Realty Trust & JDL Realty Holding, Inc. - 13 & 27 Bridge 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.  Mr. Scanzani noted that there were a few notifications that were unclaimed. 

 

Mr. Gregory Curtis and Dave Aho (Patriot Land Surveying) met with the Board to discussed the proposed plan, which had been submitted in June.  Mr. Curtis said the proposed was basically a lot-line relocation.  He said if the lot line adjustment was allowed, the lot would be just under an acre in size.  He said there were no plans for development on the land. 

 

Mr. Brunelle asked if the intention was to make the business larger.  Mr. Curtis said there were no intentions for development, or to expand at this time.  He said the applicant was seeking to consolidate the property.

 

Mr. Lynde confirmed that the requirement for a commercial lot was 60,000SF.  He pointed out that because the lot would fall short of the size requirement, any change-of-use would need review from the Board of Adjustment for a variance. 

 

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the lot line would be crossing any wetlands.  Mr. Aho, a licensed land surveyor, informed that he was not a wetland specialist, and went on to discuss what he had viewed on site, which did not appear to be wet.

 

The Board discussed the lot line being proposed and questioned why the applicant would purchase land and not seek to make the lot conforming.  Mr. Aho said they were seeking to make the lot more conforming than it was, and reiterated that there were no intentions to expand, or develop the lot further.  Mr. Curtis said presently, the only intention was to acquire land.  The owner/operator of Pelham Auto & Financing (the business located on the lot being discussed) explained that his abutter needed to keep a certain amount of acreage to keep his parcel in land use, therefore, a decision was made to purchase what land he could at this time. 

 

Mr. Mitchell advised the Board if they intended on approving the lot a waiver would need to be granted to Section 10.03 (D - I),(M) & (N). 

 

There was no public input.

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To request that the applicant submit, in writing, a waiver request to Section 10.03 (D - I),(M) & (N).

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To accept, for consideration, the written waiver request to Section 10.03 (D - I), (M) & (N).

 

VOTE:

 

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To approve the submitted waiver request to Section 10.03 (D - I), (M) & (N).

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the plan as presented, with the understanding if the applicant expands under the current use, or has any other plans for the property the Board shall have the opportunity to review. 

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries. 

 

The Board requested that the applicant supply the Board with the number of cars they were licensed for. 

 

Map 6 Lot 206 - David Mendes - Irene Drive - Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision 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. Michael Gospodarek, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He explained that the proposed subdivision was for five lots that would connect both ends of Irene Drive.  He said there were substantial wetlands on both sides of the roadway as well as a 100-year flood plan inclusion.  He informed that a wetland permit would be needed.  To alleviate drainage constraints, the roadway was designed for sheet-flow drainage. 

 

Ms. Ouellette asked why ML 206-4 did not conform to the regulations in design.  Mr. Gospodarek said the focus had been on the buildable areas due to the wetlands.  He said if the lot line were shifted, the other lots would end up as ‘pie’ shaped.  He said he would try to review for other options. 

 

PUBLIC INPUT

 

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, brought it to the Board’s attention that when Irene Drive was initially reviewed the wetlands were significant  She said there were four species in danger located in the area.  She asked that the Board take into consideration the sensitivity of the area.  She said that Herbert Associates had previously noted when discussing the connection of Irene Drive, that wetlands would need to be crossed.  At the time, Gove Environmental said they would have a problem ‘chopping’ up a very nice wildlife corridor and questioned whether the state would allow it.  She noted that the wetland connected through to Beaver Brook.  She ended by suggesting that an environmental impact study be done. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if only one house was being proposed on the 12-acre parcel.  Mr. Gospodarek answered yes due to the wetland areas.  Mr. Scanzani suggested requesting site specific for each of the lots due to the sensitivity.  He said an environmental impact study may also be a good idea.  He ended by saying he was in favor of the connection.   

 

MOTION:

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

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any culverts across the proposed road.  Mr. Gospodarek said there was one culvert, located at the low point near Thomas Avenue.  Mr. Scanzani asked that the wetland crossing be reviewed.

 

Mr. Culbert said he would be willing to accept a ‘pie’ shaped lot (if it could be squared a bit) if the connection through to Irene Drive could be accomplished.  Mr. Yarmo asked if there would be a conflict with DES if they didn’t allow a dredge and fill.  Mr. Gospodarek didn’t feel that there would be a conflict with DES.  There was a brief discussion regarding the options and impacts if the road was not connected. 

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the 100-year flood plan would complicate the road drainage.  Mr. Gospodarek answered no.

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for Section 12-02 (storm water management), because the road was designed for sheet drainage.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

Mr. Scanzani suggested holding off approving the waiver until the Board had the opportunity to review the engineering, EIA and site specific for each lot. 

 

A site walk was schedule for August 23, 2003.  Mr. Mitchell asked that the latest plans be sent directly from Mr. Gospodarek to Mr. Dave Jordan of TFMoran for review.  Mr. Jordan will send a confirmation when he receives the plans. 

 

The plan was date specified to October 6, 2003.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Engineering Firm Request for Qualifications (RFQ) - To be discussed at the next scheduled meeting.  Mr. Culbert asked that Board members bring a list of their top five companies so that a decision could be made.

 

Planning Director - Mr. Lynde asked that the preference list be forwarded to Town Administrator Tom Gaydos, with a carbon copy to the Selectmen. 

 

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the information contained in the Board member packages.  He noted that there was a Planning Board approved site from years ago that now had a different use.  He said issues had now been brought up and there may be some issues due to wetlands.  He recommended that the owner come before the Board with a site plan for review.  Mr. McNamara felt that the Code Enforcement Officer should review the site.  After further discussion, the following motion was made:

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To research the status of approvals (for Wakefield Engineering) and request that Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell send a letter from the Planning Board to Town Administrator Tom Gaydos and the Selectmen to request that the Town’s inspection services review the site and provide a report to the Board. 

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

Mr. Scanzani discussed the issues surrounding the Cara Estates subdivision.  He was upset that a letter had been sent to DES from the Conservation Commission after the Board had approved the subdivision.  He said the letter was carbon copied to the Planning Director, Town Administrator, Herbert Associates (engineering), Gove Environmental (environmental), but the Planning Board had not been copied.  He felt if another board in Town had a problem, they should have discussed the issues at the time the plan was being reviewed.  Mr. Yarmo (Conservation Commission Chairperson), who had sent the letter to DES, said when he sends a letter to the Planning Director he assumes it is being copied to whomever needs to receive a copy.  He said the Conservation Commission was supposed to contact DES with violations.  He said the owner of the time had informed that there were wetlands and he was supplied with a plan from the engineer that showed the location of the wetlands.  Mr. Lynde believed that Mr. Yarmo raised an issue that the Planning Board didn’t deal with.  Mr. Culbert suggested that the Board should have received a ‘heads up’ that a letter was being written.  Mr. Yarmo said that the Board knew he didn’t agree with the decision on the night of the meeting.  Mr. McNamara noted that the Conservation Commission is advisory only to the Board.  He said if there were problems they should be brought to the Board during consideration, not after the fact.  Mr. Yarmo said he did discuss his opinion regarding the plan at the meeting.  Mr. McNamara said that the Board, based on information at the time, decided to go another way.  Mr. Yarmo said the Conservation Commission had responsibilities to the DES, the issue was brought up to the Board as well as the state.  Mr. Mitchell believed that the authority of the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board were independent from each other.  He said with respect to the Planning Board’s approval, the Conservation Commission was only advisory.  He believed that the Conservation Commission had independent statutory obligations to report to DES on matters related to wetlands approvals.  Mr. Mitchell said the question was when the area became wetlands, and why.  Mr. Scanzani pointed out that a Planning Director had granted approval for something that they had no authority to do so.  There was further discussion regarding the previous, and the current condition of the site. 

 

There was a brief discussion about engineers submitting different plans to the state and to the Town so that approvals could be granted.  Ms. Bousa suggested not granting conditional approvals or let plans be reviewed until the state approvals are obtained. 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

July 7, 2003

MOTION:

(Lynde/Scanzani) To approve the July 7, 2003 meeting minutes as written.

 

VOTE:

 

(5 - 0 - 2) The motion carries.  Ms. Bousa and Mr. Culbert abstained. 

 

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

 

September 4, 2003:

Map 10 Lot 352 - New American Homes, LLC - Cara Estates - Planning Director’s Report on In-Field Changes (Board asked that the Town engineer bring in comparison of the initial plan’s drainage calculations, versus the latest plans)

Map 7 Lot 116 - Mary Francis Renner - 131 Bridge Street - Preliminary Discussion

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

Map 5 Lot 75 - Keyes Hill Realty Trust - off Keyes Hill Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

 

October 6, 2003:

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

 

SITE WALK

 

August 23, 2003 - Map 6 Lot 206 - David Mendes - Irene Drive - Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:00 am.

                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,

 

                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary