PB Minutes 4-19-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

April 19, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The acting Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani (arrived after the meeting had commenced), Henry DeLuca (arrived after the meeting had commenced) Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Alternate Bob Yarmo, Al= ternate Raymond Brunelle

NEW BUSINESS

Map 24 Lot 12-44-9, 14 –= ; DHB Home Builders, Inc. – Mulberry Estates Phase II – Well Radius Waiver Request

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates represented the plan to the Board. He said a well radius waiver reque= st was submitted for two lots. The s= eptic for Lot 9 had to be moved due to ledge, = which then moved the well radius to encroach in the Town right-of-way. Approved state waivers had been pr= ovided to the Board which were also approved by the Town’s Health Agent and recorded at the Registry of Deeds. The second waiver request was submitted because the well radius for = Lot 14 encroached by 1.9feet on two abutting properties.

Mr. McNamara asked how fa= r the well would be located (on Lot 9) from th= e Town right-of-way. Mr. Gospodarek = said the well would be approximately 50ft. from the Town right-of-way.

Mr. Danevich wanted a bet= ter explanation of the reason for the waiver requests. Mr. Gospodarek said one request wa= s due to a septic issue, the second was due in part to septic, and in part for a better layout (due to a mistake in initial plans however the original plans were not available for review).

Ms. Ouellette asked if th= e lots being encroached by the radius from Lot = 14 were currently occupied. Mr. Gospodarek believed Lots 13 & 15 were still owned by the developer and = had not been transferred.

Mr. DeLuca arrived.

Mr. Danevich said he was = not opposed to the changes for Lot 14, if th= ere were no issues/objections by the Planning Director. Mr. D’Andrea said he had no = issues with Lot 14. Mr. Danevich then discussed the encroachment of the Lot 9 in the Town right-of-way; based upon the grade (which was not steep) he had no problem = with the request.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Danevich) To= accept, for consideration, the waiv= er request for Map 24 Lot 12-44-9.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= accept, for consideration, the waiver request for Map 24 Lot 12-44-14.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= approve the waiver request for Map 24 Lot 12-4= 4-9.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Danevich) To= approve the waiver request for Map 24 Lot 12-4= 4-14.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 1 Lot 5-104, 113, 115 – Sousa Realty & Development – Lawrence Corner – Proposed 20-Lot Subdivision – Court Ordered Remand

Ms. Bousa stepped down. <= /p>

Mr. Tony Basso of Haynor = & Swanson discussed the plan. H= e said approximately a month ago he had met on-site with the Town’s consulta= nt (Dufresne-Henry, Inc) and came up with an idea to handle the storm water; testing was done and a design was submitted. Mr. Basso said other issues that w= ere addressed were 1) adding a right-of-way to the Lynch property (the plan sho= ws the right-of-way to be along the wood road); 2) open space – he recal= led reviewing the ordinance and addressing the issue approximately two and a ha= lf years ago (during the second, or third meeting) – he didn’t feel that the site met the requirements for open space (based upon the slopes and the site not being centrally located); there were additional comments from Dufresne-Henry, Inc. that he felt could be easily stipulated and said they = were willing to work with the Town’s consultant.

Mr. Richard Hertrich of D= ufresne-Henry, Inc. (Town Engineer) provided the Board with a brief summary. He said they had a meeting on site= with Haynor & Swanson approximately one month ago. He said there was a discussion reg= arding the post development drainage and leaching catch basins had been proposed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Subsequent plans showed three leac= hing catch basins. He briefly disc= ussed the drainage report and said the concern was that no boring had been done at the precise leaching locations. He said they would like additional information regarding the basin location, w= hat the soils were in the exact location and what the percolation rate would be. He said there was a question wheth= er the storage volume in the basins were correct and wanted to ensure that the leaching catch basins were deigned to a level that they and the Planning Bo= ard were comfortable.

Mr. Culbert felt the drai= nage issues sounded major. Mr. Her= trich said it was the whole key to making the drainage work. Mr. Basso discussed the testing an= d the reason for the location of the boring holes (due to overhead power lines).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He didn’t feel there was a m= ajor issue and believed they could get what was trying to be achieved. He said they tried to test in the = two areas. Due to overhead wires = on the Lynch family side, they could not test in that area for the basin, so tests were done across the street. = Mr. Basso said that the GEOTECH representative found that the soils were fairly consistent with what was fo= und on site and felt good about the locations.= He said they could provide additional tests. He said the question was not if the system would work, but rather getting the test in the right spot. Mr. Culbert said with the runoff f= rom this Spring, he would have a problem not getting the drainage right before = the plans were approved. Mr. Bass= o felt the drainage was right.

Ms. Ouellette said that d= rainage was a big issue.

Mr. Basso said this was a= n issue in ‘decimals’. He= said in the report the estimates of runoff was a small amount of water. Ms. Ouellette discussed water table heights and said that they had to build for the overflow. Mr. Basso said the report identifi= ed such items. Ms. Ouellette ask= ed Mr. Hertrich if this was something that could be fixed. Mr. Hertrich said they would feel = more comfortable knowing information exactly where the basins would be located.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said they wanted to make sure t= hat it would leach for whatever the volume was.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich said a certain amount of this would happen in the field. He suggested requestin= g a back up area or space for expansion of the existing system, either of which should be listed on the plan.

Mr. D’Andrea had a = question of depths with regard to the high water table. Mr. Hertrich noted that one of the boring holes reached ledge. M= r. Basso discussed the four boring holes and what was observed. Mr. Hertrich said the first commen= ts from those that reviewed the study (GEOTECH, drainage representative of Dufresne-Henry and Mr. Hertrich) was that the leaching-catch basins were not located where the soils information was taken.

Mr. Culbert said that he = would like Haynor & Swanson to come back with the information based upon the = engineering firm’s comments. He sai= d that drainage was very important. = Mr. Basso said the amount of runoff was small.= He believed that he could move the basins and obtain the information wanted.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the utilities would be underground for the proposed site. It was noted that the overhead wir= es previously mentioned were existing, and the utilities for the proposed site would be underground.

Attorney Brad Westgate of= Weiner & Bennet, representing the applicant asked that comments be provided prior to attending the meeting.

Mr. Danevich asked for a = review of the list of issues. Mr. D’Andrea said the court remand listed the issues.

Attorney Westgate provide= d his recollection of the issues: 1) Technical Review Committee request; 2) testi= ng that Haynor & Swanson did relative to the off-site drainage on Lawrence Corner Road and the integration of that testing into a drainage management = plan and the location of catch basins; 3) Lynch right-of-way placement (which has been added back onto the plan) which he maintained for the record that they were not obligated to do; 4) looking back on the record regarding open space (after first two meetings open space issue was not summarized or left as a pending item).

Mr. D’Andrea said t= hat the Technical Review Committee had reviewed the court decision. The committee recommended that a f= uture right-of-way was still recommended to allow more than one access way to the subdivision. There was a ques= tion regarding the paved section of the roadway and the location of the cisterns= . Mr. Basso said he had not received correspondence from the Fire Chief regarding cistern location. It was noted that the Fire Chief c= ould provide information regarding cistern location and size.

Mr. Danevich said the roa= d width was something that he had been concerned with. He believed that the Board had com= e to the determination that there was no suitable land for open space. Mr. Danevich discussed the right-o= f-way easement and asked if there could be a second egress from ML 5-104-2 to ML 5-104-3. Mr. Basso said he co= uld review the location and noted that the right-of-way was placed on the wood = road as previously wanted. Mr. Dan= evich said a concern about an easement would be a connection to a cul-de-sac. It was noted that there was an eas= ement on ML 5-104-3 depicted on the plan. Mr. Danevich asked the status with road width. Mr. Culbert said the court had inf= ormed that the road width was fine. He discussed what the Board could discuss.&nb= sp; Mr. Basso said the existing road was sixteen feet and the proposed w= idth was twenty feet (paved) with shoulders.&nb= sp;

Mr. Danevich reviewed som= e of the issues: 1) right-of-way road width – 20ft. paved; 2) cisterns – applicant agreed to work with the Fire Chief to hatch out onto plans; 3) op= en space – was discussed; 4) drainage – to be brought back at the = next meeting; 5) Lynch right-of-way – to be commented on.

Mr. Culbert recalled a pr= evious discussion regarding money being voluntarily donated per lot in lieu of open space. Attorney Westgate said= in January, 2002 Mr. Basso indicated that the developer would be willing to ma= ke a recreation contribution in lieu of open space. Mr. Basso said the offer was $400 = per lot. Mr. Danevich wanted to m= ake clear that the contribution was voluntary.= Mr. Basso confirmed that the $400 per lot contribution was voluntary.

There was no public input= .

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 17, 2004= meeting.

Mr. Danevich believed the remaining issue was the drainage and noted that the main goal for the appli= cant was to ensure that they were squared with the Planning Director and the Town’s engineer prior to coming back before the Board.

Ms. Bousa returned to the Board.

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC = 211; Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeki= ng Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration<= /u>

The applicant requested a continuation in writing (and waived the statutory time limit). The Board granted a continuation a= nd date specified the plan to the May 3, 2004 meeting. = Mr. Danevich noted that the Planning Board meeting may be conducted at the Municipal Building, therefore, the location = of the meeting was still to be determined.

DISCUSSION

Subdivision Regulations

In an effort to ‘pu= t to bed’ the misconception regarding the time and information that went i= nto the re-writing the cul-de-sac provisions, as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, Ms. Ouellette reviewed what research had been done. She said the regulation had been d= rafted through the combined efforts of civil engineers, traffic engineers/speciali= st, planners, designers and residents to promote public safety, the interconnec= tion of streets, reduction of traffic volumes and to promote non-vehicular connections when terminated roads cannot be avoided. She said the three hundred sixty vehicular trips were based upon information contained in AASHTO.

Mr. Scanzani arrived.

Ms. Ouellette continued t= he discussion and noted that additional safety factors were added based upon eighteen months of research of solid facts and findings.

It was noted that Mr. Sca= nzani had provided the Board with recommendations regarding revisions to the subdivision regulations. Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board adopt the revisions and then review further. The Board wanted tim= e to review the suggested revisions. Mr. Scanzani outlined some of the suggested revisions, which were mainly inadvertent deletions during the last codification revision process. Mr. D’Andrea will circulate = the revisions to the Board members. Mr. D’Andrea said a summary of the changes would need to be posted for pu= blic inspection prior to the meeting. There was a brief discussion and it was decided to review/discuss the revisions at the = May 3, 2004 meeting, and possibly adopt the revisions at the May 17, 2004 meeting.

Mr. McNamara said that he e-mailed a case in which the court upheld the denial of a wetland crossing. It was particularly interesting because it was similar to proposals brought before the Board.

MINUTES

April 5= , 2004

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the April 5, 20= 04 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 3) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= , Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Danevich abstained.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To nominate Mr. Culbert as Chairman.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Bousa) To nom= inate Mr. McNamara as Vice Chairman.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara abstained.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = nominate Ms. Ouellette as Secretary.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

DATE SPECIFIED CASES

May 3, 200= 4

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – = Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

May 17, 20= 04

Map 1 Lot 5-104, 113, 115= – Sousa Realty & Development – Lawrence Corner – Proposed 20-Lot Subdivision – Court Ordered Remand

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Danevich informed that broadcasting may be from the Municipal Building beginning = May 3, 2004. He said Mr. D’Andrea was wor= king with the Town Administrator. = Mr. Danevich then noted two years ago the second grade class had met with the Planning Board and wanted to know if the Board would be interested in meeti= ng again. The Board was interest= ed; Mr. Danevich will research and get back to the Board.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SE= SSION

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) Req= uest for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, e (Legal)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Mr. Scanzani-Yes; Mr. DeLuca-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Ms. Bousa-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

Mr. Culbert noted that th= e Board would not take any other action publicly; the minutes of the non-public ses= sion would be sealed at the conclusion of the non-public session.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The public meeting was ad= journed at approximately 9:00pm.

The Board entered into no= n-public session at approximately 9:0= 0pm. Also present was Mr. D’Andre= a.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A. L. Willis

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary

MOTION:	(Ouellette/Danevich) To= accept, for consideration, the waiv= er request for Map 24 Lot 12-44-9.
VOTE:	(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.
MOTION:	(Ouellette/McNamara) To= accept, for consideration, the waiver request for Map 24 Lot 12-44-14.
VOTE:	(6-0-0) The motion carried.