PB Minutes 9-09-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 9, 2004

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

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Alternate= Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 40 Lot 6-185 – Bond= s for Irene Drive= and Honey Lane/Robin Road – Bond Revocation/Reduction

Mr. D’Andrea said t= he agreement that had been worked out to finish the work for Irene and Honey L= anes had fallen through and become obvious that the work would not be completed = in a timely manner as requested by the Board.&n= bsp; He said the Board could consider the possible revocation of the bonds. Attorney Rattigan (who= was involved with the settlement agreement) had been contacted; however respons= es had not been received until late in the afternoon (Sept. 9, 2004) – a summary state= ment and recommendations of how the Board might want to proceed were forwarded to the Board. In summary the recommendation was to revoke the remaining $10,000 for the Irene Drive guardrail and a partial reduction of the bond for Honey and Irene Drives wi= th a revocation of the remaining bond amount to cover the remaining work as identified in the October 6, 2003 TFMoran letter in agreement that the Board had reviewed in 2003 (basis for the revocation).

Mr. Culbert felt that the= Board should look at taking in total, the Irene Drive bond, and hold back $50,000 on Honey Lane = and Robin Road = in the event something came up; this would show the Board’s willingness to w= ork with the court and Mr. Mahoney to settle the situation.

Mr. Scanzani felt both bo= nds should be pulled with no amount back because the Board had tried on several attempts to work out getting things done.&= nbsp; Mr. Culbert believed there was a contractor who said they could do t= he work on Honey Lane for $35,000; however he felt $50,000 should be held to cover the repairs outlined in the October, 2003 letter. Mr. Scanzani was concerned that the amount of money necessary to do = the job may not be sufficient. He= felt the Board’s responsibility was to protect the Town and therefore felt both bonds should be pulled, the work should be done, and any remaining mon= ey returned to the developer.

Mr. Danevich felt the Boa= rd should follow the attorney’s example as specified. He made a motion to begin the revoc= ation process of the Irene Drive= bond for the remaining $10,000. Mr. Scanzani seconded the motion.

Mr. McNamara reviewed not= es from the Board’s October 2001 meeting where the Board made a motion to rev= oke the entire bond amount if certain conditions weren’t met in two weeks. He felt the developer = was acting basically in bad faith. He said if there was a certainty that the amount in the bond was in excess of = what needed to be done he might be in favor of reducing the revocation, otherwis= e he wanted to pull both bonds. Mr. Culbert said everyone who looked at the guardrail felt it was reasonable for the work to be done in for $6500-$7000; the motion was to pull the entire $10,000 Irene Drive bond, any amount remaining would be returned to the developer. Mr. Danevich noted= that the Selectmen had committed to the residents that plowing wouldn’t be= an issue this year and intended to have the work done this year. He said that the Town accepted Honey Lane = and Robin Road = and would continue to plow the roads this year.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = begin the revocation process on the Irene Drive bond for the remaining $10,000.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani asked how th= e Town was being reimbursed for plowing the roads. Mr. Danevich said last year the de= veloper wrote the Town a check.

There was a discussion re= garding the Robin Road/Honey Lane<= /st1:address> bond. Mr. Danevich noted the difference between the two bonds – Irene Drive is a cash bond – = Robin Road/Honey Lane is an insurance bond. He felt= there should be a two step process; 1) reduce the bond; 2) revoke the remaining b= ond.

Ms. Bousa arrived.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = reduce the insurance bond from $104,000 to $50,000 for <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Robin Road/Honey Lane.

VOTE:

(3-2-1) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani and Ms. Ouellette v= oted no. Ms. Bousa abstained.

Mr. McNamara said he relu= ctantly voted yes; he felt the Board should protect the residents of the Town.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = revoke the remaining $50,000 insurance bond for Robin Road/Honey Lane.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa abstained.

Mr. Danevich said $50,000= was more than sufficient to cover the remaining work/cost of the project. The next step was for the Town to = begin the proceedings so that the road could be added to the ballot in March, 200= 5.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot Subdivision for consideration

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Ed= Herbert Associates came before the Board to discuss the application. He said the project had been broug= ht before the Board two times in the past; a state driveway permit needed to be obtained. He said second revi= ew comments had been received from Dufresne-Henry, which he was willing to rev= iew with the Board.

Mr. Gospodarek, along wit= h Mr. Peter Zohdi of Ed Herbert Associates, the Board and Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town engineer) reviewed the plan and the comments to such m= ade by Dufresne-Henry. The Board = discussed Subdivision Regulation 10.03 the requirement to submit an existing conditio= ns plan; a majority of the members agreed that the regulations (section 10.03)= should be enforced from today on. Re= view of comments continued. It was decided that cistern placement would be left up to the Fire Chief. Next topic was the turning radius;= a majority of the Board agreed to leave the turning radius alone until a later discussion; at this point a waiver would be requested by the applicant. Drainage was discussed and what the state was requiring in comparison to what Dufresne-Henry was requesting; Mr. Hertrich said typically whatever DOT wants that’s what ends up on pla= ns, they were generally happy with DOT’s comments. It was noted by Mr. Gospodarek that ‘cross sections’ was not contained in the Subdivision Regulatio= ns except on the checklist. The = Board discussed the slopes and Dufresne-Henry’s recommendation to add a gra= vel ramp for access to the detention pond; Mr. Gospodarek pointed out that acce= ss could come from the state easement for access. Driveway grading with regard to dr= ainage was then discussed; Mr. D’Andrea said the applicant had flexibility a= s to where a driveway was located, but felt if the Town’s engineering revi= ew showed grading in the Town’s right-of-way, it should be shown on the plan. After further discussio= n, Mr. D’Andrea reiterated that the Town’s engineering firm commented = that the subdivision design was not complying with 11.05, 3, d. Grading and slope of the driveways= were then reviewed. Mr. Culbert sa= id the plan would need to either adhere to the regulations, or a waiver would have= to be requested. Adequate sight distance was determined to be a minimum of two hundred feet (200ft.) in each direction based upon the speed limit of the street being thirty miles per h= our (30mph); Mr. Gospodarek said they would comply with the state requirements. Mr. Hertrich sa= id they would be happy with what the state standards specified. Street lighting will be reviewed t= o see where it would be needed.

Ms. Bousa clarified that = the state intersection sight distance requirement was four hundred feet (400ft.) regardless of the speed limit which was a lot less than AASHTO. A majority of the Board felt the T= own’s regulations should be enforced concerning sight distance.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= Board previously determined that the subdivision would not contribute to a traffic study at the end of Sherbu= rne Road. Mr. D’Andrea recalled at the= last meeting that the Board was looking to put the applicants on notice that they would be looking at doing a contribution for a future study. Mr. McNamara asked if there was an= y open space. Mr. D’Andrea sai= d the applicants had proposed a voluntary contribution (of $500) per lot toward o= pen space. Mr. McNamara said the = Board had to decide how the regulation would be enforced; he felt open land was m= ore valuable than $500 per lot. M= r. Culbert believed in the past contributions were more in line with $1000 per lot; it was agreed that further discussion should occur.

A waiver for sight distan= ce to be reduced to 400ft. along Sh= erburne Road was submitted by Mr. Gospodarek.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Bousa) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver request for the reduction of sight distance alo= ng the proposed Swan Road from the required 455ft – 500ft to be reduced to 400 ft. along Sherburne Road.

VOTE:

(4-1-1) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no= . Mr. Scanzani abstained.

Ms. Ouellette pointed out= that the file contained a waiver request for the turning radius, but the Board h= ad received in July, but had not yet acted on it.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= accept, for consideration, the waiver request for road design; minimum center line curve radii 430ft. requirement minimum curve 200ft – applicant requesting minimum curve to be 150ft.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input= .

The applicant requested t= hat the plan be continued until the October 4, 2004 meeting. = The Board date specified the plan to the October 4, 2004 Board meeting.

ANNOUNCEMENT: Mr. Culbert reviewed the agen= da and said it appeared the Board would probably not be hearing the Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiGrazia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for consideration or the Map 22 Lot 8-119 – Asored Realty – 7 Main Street – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space; they would be heard at the next meeting. He said the Board would accep= t for consideration the two new business items (due to their time clock), with no discussion; they would be moved to the next meeting. He noted that they would be schedu= led for September 20, 2004. &= nbsp;

Map 28 Lot 2-40 – Rando, Elena – 116 Mammoth = Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

A request was received by= the applicant’s representative (dated September 9, 2004) that requested a continuation to = the September 20, 2004 agenda in order to obtain state subdivision approval and work with the planning st= aff concerning the driveway issues.

The application was moved= to the September 20, 2004 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-116 - Kendall & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurm= an Building,LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for consideration

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Ed= Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the Board had previously reviewed and this was the third meeting regarding the project. The Conservation Commission has re= viewed the project; second comments have been received and they were ready to addr= ess; state driveway permit has been submitted for the file.

It was noted that Dufresn= e-Henry had commented on the plan per letter dated August 27, 2004, to which the applican= t had not responded. A majority of = the Board felt the comments should have been formally responded to prior to the meeting. Mr. D’Andrea s= aid he reviewed the comments and felt drainage was one of the more significant comments that should be addressed. <= /span>

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer) addressed the drainage issues found. The detention basin is= a long swale (470ft long) open ditch with no way to contain the water; the question is how it would work. Mr. Gospodarek said it was a swale, not a detention basin that would treat the undesirables and reduce the runoff (which is recognized by the state as an acceptable way of treating runoff and reducing the peak flow). He provided a copy of the state DES permit that reviewed the treatment swale.

Mr. Culbert reiterated th= at the applicant should ‘get together’ with Dufresne-Henry prior to Bo= ard meetings to discuss plan comments. Mr. Gospodarek discussed the fifteen day clock of the Town to receive revised plans. Mr. D’An= drea discussed the ‘time clock’ and understood Mr. Gospodarek’s feelings and noted because the Town had a new engineering firm the timeframe for review may be a little longer at this point. There was further discussion regar= ding the review of plans; the Board asked that the applicant meet with the Town’s engineer and not bring plans back to the Board until a majorit= y of the comments had been addressed. It was understood that after comments were addressed by the applicant and the Town’s engineer that th= ere still may be ‘disputes’ to be addressed by the Board. It was stated that this is still a ‘work in progress’.

Mr. Hertrich said the onl= y other issue was the well radii for lots 7 & 8 extending into the treatment sw= ale area. His concern was if ther= e was problem with the well and it became contaminated, the owner may look to the Town because of the swale.

Ms. Bousa questioned the = note reading ‘vegetation shall be cut down and maintained by others’= on sheet 23 of 23 and wanted to know if it was intended for sight distance to = be maintained on private property. Mr. Gospodarek said they were requesting that the Town take the easement. Mr. D’Andrea believed the DOT driveway permit contained a stipulation that the private property owners wo= uld maintain. Mr. Zohdi said when= it was deeded, the property owner would be the Town. Ms. Ouellette read the language in= the permit.

Mr. Hertrich made a sugge= stion regarding the process; basically said they could generate a letter and then meet with the engineer to review, therefore having a short list of items wh= en they return to the Board.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Thomas Hunt, 27 Litchfield Circle said he didn’t like the proposed design, specifically the ‘circle’ design and the extension of his driveway both of which= he would end up maintaining. He brought forward a proposal (alternate plan) that he felt was in line with t= he Master Plan (Chapter 5, page 16 discussion re: round-abouts). He noted there were ten children u= nder the age of six in the area where the road was proposed to go downhill; his roundabout proposal would calm traffic and help alleviate some of the traff= ic safety issues. Ms. Bousa note= d that roundabouts were for intersections; she believed Mr. Hunt was looking for s= ome change in the roadway design that helps protect the curvature there today.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was further discussion regar= ding the alternate proposal given by Mr. Hunt.&= nbsp; Mr. Peter Zohdi of Ed Herbert Associates said the first proposal sho= wed the cul-de-sac remaining; it was the decision of the Board to take it out.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It wasn’t believed that Mr. Hunt’s proposal could be done, however, Mr. Zohdi said they would rev= iew to see what could be done. Mr= . Hunt discussed the difficulty in turning onto&n= bsp; Mammoth Road and wanted to know if adding a light had been reviewed. Mr. Scanzani said the Board had requested a master study to be done on both ends of Sherburne Road; which would include traffic studies and their impacts. <= /span>

Mr. D’Andrea relaye= d to the Board a conversation he had with an abutter, Mr. Ken Magarian who called la= te in the afternoon and informed his engineering representative would be unabl= e to attend the meeting. The Board previously discussed a future right-of-way to Mr. Magarian’s property (lot 1-118); the plan does reflect such.&n= bsp; Mr. Magarian was concerned about a future right-of-way extension; he disagreed with the applicant’s assertion that the abutter/abutterR= 17;s engineer had not contacted the applicant’s engineer. Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Magarian currently had road frontage. = Mr. D’Andrea said Mr. Magarian currently had frontage onto Sherburne Road. Mr. Gospodarek said he had receive= d a call from Mr. Magarian’s engineer at four o’clock September 9, 2004.&= nbsp; Mr. Culbert asked that Mr. Gospodarek and Mr. Magarian’s engin= eer get together and discuss road connectivity. Mr. Zohdi said for a reasonable ri= ght-of-way to be given their wetland study should be provided to see if it made sense. He said they would wri= te a letter requesting the wetland study so it could be reviewed by them and Mr. D’Andrea. Mr. Gospodarek asked who would review the use of the property. Mr. Culbert didn’t feel the = use of the property was part of it. =

Mr. Culbert asked if the = plan would be ready for the October 4, 2004 meeting. = Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Map 2 Lot 5-89 – Best B= uilt Realty Trust – off C= astle Hill Road – Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision f= or consideration

Attorney Steve Clark, new= legal council representing Al Torrisi, met with the Board. He understood there was history wi= th the plan and said they were present at the meeting because the plan was under an extension; the Board took jurisdiction and it had been represented (at a meeting in the winter) that if the plan was redesigned waivers may not be necessary. He said they recen= tly reached a tentative agreement with an abutter regarding that would result in the elimination of one of the retaining walls. Attorney Cl= ark said they had just received comments back from Dufresne-Henry (Town engineer) that dealt with the= June plan; however, the plan currently before the Board was from August (which w= ould have different calculations if the retaining were to be removed). He said they would like to address everything at once, however he pointed out that they were on the last day of their extension. He said it w= as up to the Board whether the applicant proceed with a presentation, or have the applicant be allowed an additional extension to come back with a revised plan. Mr. Kurt Meisner, Meisner-Brem informed they had a plan they could present, but the potential easement could possibly change the plan.&n= bsp; He said they would like to secure the easement and have some roadway= redesign.

Mr. Culbert believed the = problem in the past had been that the plan was ‘in limbo’ and extensions kept being requested; at which point the Board said either do something, or ‘pull it out’. He understood that now the applicant had the possibility of working with an ab= utter that would change the plan significantly.&= nbsp; He asked how much of an extension was being requested. Mr. Meisner said he would like at = the minimum, one month.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding what action would be taken. The Board was polled and a majority was in favor of granting ‘= one last extension’ for thirty days.&nbs= p; Mr. Meisner requested an extension to the October 4, 2004 meeting.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = grant an extension, with the understanding that the applicant is working toward something, and if they can’t get it approved, it won’t matter – the plan is to be substantially complete (working closely with Du= fresne-Henry) so when it is brought back there is a short list of items.

VOTE:

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

The plan was date specifi= ed to October 4, 2004= .

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 &59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Site Plan Review= to re-open pre-existing variety store

Mr. D’Andrea said t= he Board had ‘tabled’ the plan until this evening, in anticipation that = the applicant would make application to the Board of Adjustment (because the variance had expired); however the materials were not submitted in time to = make the August meeting but they were scheduled for the September 13, 2004 Board= of Adjustment meeting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 20= , 2004 meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiG= razia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for consideration

There was a brief discuss= ion as to whether the plans could be date specified since the abutters had previou= sly been sent home. Mr. Culbert s= aid he informed the abutters that the plan would be date specified to the September 20, 2004 meeting prior to them leaving. After further discussion, Mr. D’Andrea said the abutters would need to be re-notified. Mr. Culbert said= the abutters would be re-notified and the file/application would not be opened = at this time.

Map 22 Lot 8-119 – Asor= ed Realty – 7 Main Stre= et – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

DISCUSSION

Temporary Uses

Mr. D’Andrea said h= e wanted the Board to begin thinking about/discussing temporary use procedure. He said there were a lot of uses t= hat were temporary that may or may not require site approval. He reviewed the existing site plan= regulations (248:50) and the process currently taken.&= nbsp; He said he was seeking direction from the Planning Board regarding temporary uses. There was bri= ef discussion; it was suggested and agreed to have the Planning Director draft= a proposal for review.

G & M<= /st1:PlaceName> Jerem= y Hill Land Development, LLC – Amendmen= t to Subdivision

Not discussed.

Agreement – Meadowview Estates

Not discussed.

MINUTES

August 2, 2004 – Deferred until th= e next meeting.

August 16, 2004 – Deferred until t= he next meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLAN(S)

Septe= mber 20, 2004: =

Map 28 Lot 2-40 – Rando, Elena – 116 Mammoth Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivisio= n

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 &59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Si= te Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

Octob= er 4, 2004:

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – = Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot Subdivision for consideration

Map 38 Lot 1-116 - Kendal= l & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurman Building,LLC – Sherburne Road ̵= 1; Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for consideration

Map 2 Lot 5-89 – Best Built Realty Trust – off Castle Hill Road – Proposed 6= -Lot Subdivision for consideration

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:35 pm.

&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