Town of Pelham, NH

Pelham Conservation Commiss= ion

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

<= /p>

MEETING OF 6/8/2005 = &nb= sp; = APPROVED 9/21/05

Members Present:

Bob Yarmo, Chairman &= nbsp; Paul Gagnon &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Paul Dadak = &nb= sp; Amy Breault

Diane Antinerella (Alt.)<= /p>

Shirley Wakefield (Alt.)<= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:4'> &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Glennie Edwards (Alt.)

Conservation Chairman Bob= Yarmo brought the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.

HEARINGS:

Map 39, Lot 1-53 & 55, LRL Development of Pelham and Lisa and David Gerniglia, Sherburne & Mammoth Rd., Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision – Dredge & Fill Application Review

This case came before the Conservation last month. The = dredge and fill is for a wetlands crossing – 1 large crossing and a couple of driveway crossings. Jim Gove = of Gove Environment had made a presentation at that time. The Conservation Commission wrote a letter to the Planning Board that said we pretty much accepted Gove’s recommendation which included the change in the specification of mulch berms. The other concerns of = the Conservation and expressed in the letter was to condense the driveways at t= he crossing to minimize the crossings. This is a 5-lot subdivision for 4 new homes. One of the lots has an existing ho= me.

PUBLIC INPUT:

Darlene Belzotti, 5 Sherburne Road, an abutter, shares wetlands with the applicant. She has concerns about the presenc= e of Blanding turtles that was indicated a mile away from where the dredge and f= ill is to be done. She said that = in the application it indicated that these turtles only travel .6 miles which means they wouldn’t reach the wetlands in question. She says that she has other source= s that indicate otherwise. She had contacted the amphibian and reptile specialists of the endangered species u= nit in Albany who work for the fish and wildlife marine resources and they indicated that they travel further than any other turtle and when they have radio-tracked them they see them moving about a kilometer from their over-wintering site to where they nest.&nb= sp; They have records that record them moving as high as 1.5 miles. That would put them in that distri= ct says Ms. Belzotti. She says t= hat they have had trackings of up to 4 miles in other states. She feels that the Blanding turtles should be of more concern where they are a threatened species in New Hampshire. Alvin Brice was the party that she= had communication with.

Ms. Belzotti had also con= tacted the New Hampshire Audubon Society and a person named Lord Deming; the senior biologist there indicated that Blanding Turtles do travel extensively. She says she didn’t see any reference to the beaver hut and beaver dam that is on the property. She also had concern for River Bir= ch and Wild Garlic plants that are rare and might be in this area. She would like = to see a wildlife study done of this area before there is any disturbance of t= he wetlands. She said that she h= ad attended a prior Planning Board meeting in July of 2004 and the plan showed= 60 units on it. She feels that t= his builder is avoiding a wildlife or traffic impact study because of only 5 lo= ts being developed. She said she= had documentation for the DOT that Sherburne and Mammoth Road is the busiest interse= ction in the whole town including intersections along route 38. She didn’t think it was fair= for a builder to come in and give partial information just to get a road in and t= hen come back with a completely different plan that has completely different impacts on the environment and the area.

Mr. Gagnon asked Chairman= Yarmo about this idea of 4 lots to 16-lot subdivision to 60 units. Mr. Yarmo sits in on the Planning = Board meetings and acknowledged that he had seen the conceptual plan and it is his understanding that that plan has been withdrawn. Some of the issues that Ms. Belzot= ti has raised are Planning Board issues said Mr. Yarmo and are not necessarily conservation issues. Ms. Belz= otti said that there were 30 units each on two of those four or five parcels. Mr. Yarmo said he didn’t thi= nk that was going to happen because he didn’t think the Planning Board w= ould allow it to happen. He said it would probably allow a provision in the approval that the plan be no longer subdivided. He suggested that= Ms. Belzotti attend the Planning Board meeting when this comes up again to ask = for that restriction. Mr. Yarmo s= aid that he was aware of the endangered species along Beaver Brook but that Bea= ver Brook is on the other side of Mammoth Road, route 128, and not impacted by this project. Mr. Yarmo said that Conservation had been through this very same thing with developers upon see= ing environmental reports where endangered species are identified on the site a= nd have made suggestions and the Planning Board has supported those suggestion= s to protect those species. He sai= d that some of the species are about a mile or a mile and a half from this project= . Mr. Yarmo didn’t think a wil= dlife study needed to be done on a 4-lot subdivision of 30.7 acres. The impact from what he has seen h= as been quite minimal.

Ms. Belzotti asked what w= ill happen if the builder or another builder comes back with more houses after = the road is put in as far as the impact on the environment. Ms. Belzotti said she didn’t= think that putting 4 houses on this much acreage was a reality, that there would probably be more houses in which case there would be more of an impact when= the next plan comes in, but at that point the road would be in and the damage is going to be done. Mr. Yarmo didn’t think that would happen because he didn’t think the Plan= ning Board would allow it to happen. The road is being designed and considerations addressed here are for a 4-lot subdivision. Mr. Yarmo again suggested that Ms. Belzotti attend future Planning Board meetings when this subdivision might be scheduled to ask that no further subdivisions be allow= ed on this parcel.

Mike Gospoderek of Herbert Associates represents this plan. Mr. Gospoderek said he didn’t think that this was set up for another subdivision because of turning radiuses that the town requires. If for some reason that gets chang= ed they would have to come back before the Planning Board and apply for all the permits necessary from the state said Mr. Gospoderek. Ms. Belzotti says she owns part of= the wetlands.

Mr. Gagnon said that he h= ad seen the beaver hut when he went on the site walk. Mr. Gagnon advised that he had ask= ed Dave Brouillette of Herbert Associates if the client might consider putting= two homes onto the higher ground, and since this is attached to Veteran’s Park whether there would be any interest in selling a portion of it to the = town to offset the loss of revenue from the other two homes. Mr. Yarmo said the developer was building 700-ft of road at $250.00 per foot, and that there must be some equation that you could put in one driveway to Sherburne Road at $30.00 per foot, versus 700-ft at $250.00 per foot, and possibly the Conservation Commission could supplement the difference, if there was a difference, to t= he developer to purchase the acreage next to Veteran’s Park. We threw that idea out at the last meeting said Mr. Yarmo. The b= uilder would construct two units instead of four, a driveway instead of a cul-de-s= ac and the offset in profit be covered by money that Conservation would spend = to purchase the land. The develo= per would end up whole, the town would end up with a larger Veteran’s Memorial Park and we’d only have two homes in this development instea= d of four. Mr. Gospoderek would re= lay this information back to his client to see if there might be a positive response to this idea. Mr. Ga= gnon would like to see a response from the client before the Conservation Commis= sion closes on this issue. Mr. Gos= poderek said he could not get a response in time before the next Planning Board meeting. Mr. Yarmo said he fe= els that it’s a minimum environmental impact for four houses on 30 acres.=

Joanne Powers, Sherburne Road, an abutter, says it’s her understanding that what this whole project is about, is “they” are not requesting building permits, they are requesting lots, that this parcel be divided into 5 lots. The specific dredge and fill where= the roadway is planned is to be able to create two house lots to access the high and dry land. She had a long conversation with the Planning Department, Mr. D’Andrea when she asked specifically can waivers, or any of this be subject to final use of the property. Ms. Powers said thi= s is a significant wetland and has a running brook in it. She feels that the Conservation Commission needs to consider the ramifications of what might be built once = the dredge and fill is approved by Conservation. Mr. Dadak said according to the pl= an in front of him that there is very little high and dry land to build on. Mr. Yarmo said the concerns that M= s. Powers brings up are strictly Planning Board issues.

Mr. Gagnon asked if Conse= rvation Commission couldn’t recommend that the Planning Board state in their approval that the plan be subject to no further subdivision. Mr. Yarmo agreed with Mr. Gagnon.<= /p>

MOTION (Dadak/Gagnon) That the following comments be sub= mitted to the Planning Board:

#1 – There be a res= triction to no further development or subdivision

#2 – That they cons= ider all means for narrowing the road, lowering the road, anything that would reduce= the impact on WCD

#3 - Consider that they pursue or get a response to our request that there be consideration for only 2 homes or les= s.

#4 - That an easement be added for miti= gation

VOTE: 6-0 to support Motion

MOTION: (Gagnon/Dadak) Comment to DES: We support the Dredge and Fill with the understanding that the overall impact = of the Dredge and Fill and the WCD impact is based on 4 new houses and one existing house on 30 acres and that impact in proportion to the acreage was felt to be reasonable for our favorable comment. If you look at the percentage of t= he WCD impact based on the parcel size, it’s a reasonable request and weR= 17;re approving it. But, if you loo= k at the percentage of WCD impact based on the size of the road, it’s not reasonable. We are also askin= g the applicant to consider narrowing the road to lessen the impact. We would not normally approve a ro= adway that has this much WCD impact except for the fact that there are only 4 hom= es.

VOTE: 6-0 to support Motion

Map 7, Lot 9-136-48 – Kathleen Taris, 19 May Lane. Planning Board seeking input from Conservation Commission on waiver request to Section 11.14B to allow both t= he replanting within the WCD and to allow a portion of the WCD for Residential uses.

Mr. Yarmo gave a “R= eaders Digest” version of this case and said that this is another one of the contentious items with regard to the builder misrepresenting the parcelR= 17;s restrictions. The builder was= David Mendes. The Taris’ boug= ht this house from the developer and came back to the Planning Department to p= ut a pool in. The area that they w= anted to put the pool in is in the WCD. The problem is that the WCD was cleared and it’s Mr. YarmoR= 17;s understanding that the Taris’ bought this house with the WCD cleared. There has been some = legal action between the builder about them not understanding the WCD that the WCD was not fully usable.

Ms. Taris said she specif= ically asked the builder through the realtor in August 7^th, 2002 about = this and was told it was Conservation and she understood that. Her concerns were based on the fac= t that she wanted to put a pool in or even building an in-law accessory dwelling in the future to the existing home. The realtor told her not to worry that she had 50 feet from the foundation before the WCD line. That was subsequently cleared and the Taris had no reason to discount their expertise and believe him. When the Taris’ went for a variance for the pool the builder showed up and said it was a natural clearing. Ms. Taris has pictures of this are= a and it showed that it was never a natural clearing. Gove did the original sub-division= and pictures showed that this lot was always treed. Ms. Taris has letters from Gove Environmental stating that this was always a treed lot and was cleared duri= ng development.

Mr. Yarmo said the Planni= ng Board is seeking the Conservation’s input on a waiver request of Section 11.14-B to allow both the replanting within the WCD and to allow a portion = of the WCD for residential uses. The plan of this parcel shows that the line of the WCD is 2 feet from the exist= ing deck. Ms. Taris said she also believed that her driveway was in violation and the they are trying to corr= ect the deed. The homeowner is tr= ying to restore a portion of the WCD and still have some kind of functioning side yard said Mr. Yarmo. If the e= ntire WCD is restored they would have brush right at the corner of their deck and= not have a usable side yard which they thought they had bought said Mr. Yarmo.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Taris’, when questioned = about other homes in the area having this same problem, stated that there are two other homes on the street that are in violation.

Jim Gove has recommended,= and the Taris’ would like to do, is to replant trees along the WCD. Mr. Yarmo said Wil, the Planning Director, advised that Mae= Lane has quite a few other WCD violations by the builder which is unfortunate.

Mr. Yarmo recommended tha= t the Conservation follow the scope of Gove’s letter and instead of a 50-ft= WCD buffer, we create a 25-ft. buffer that would parallel the edge of the poorly drained soil as indicated on the plan as a no cut zone. That area will grow back natural e= xcept where the driveway is and indicates it’s also in the WCD. Ms. Taris asked if she could plant= trees in the WCD over time as it is costly to do it all at once. Mr. Yarmo said absolutely. Mr. Gagnon said he would add that = within the 25-ft, we’re now allowing the Taris to use, that there would be no structures, no sheds, and no bigger deck.

MOTION: (Gagnon/Edwards) The recommendatio= n to the Planning Board is that we concur with the Gove Environmental correspond= ence with the additional plantings shown on the plan, and in addition to that we want to create a 25-ft no cut area that parallels the edge of the wetlands exclusive of the driveway. Ms. Taris will also relocate the WCD signs to the 25-ft line after the trees ha= ve been planted. VOTE: 6-0 in favor.

Mr. Yarmo said that the P= lanning Department and the building inspector should have seen these problems. At issue is the foundation permit, foundation sign-off, a framing sign-off, septic system sign-off, a certific= ate of occupancy and this issue doesn’t get caught. Mr. Yarmo said there is a serious enforcement problem in the Planning Department and no aspersions on Wil as = he knew he’d been trying to rectify some issues. Ms. Edwards asked if we, the town = of Pelham, has the ma= npower from this point on for enforcement issues – the answer was no, we don’t, the only guy is Wil. Ms. Taris wanted to point out that originally this house was site-specific on the original plans that were submitted to the town. She said there was leeway granted = for septic design reasons if needed.

Ms. Tarris asked if volun= teers in the town could check for violations where it concerns conservation area. Mr. Yarmo said yes, but that perso= ns would need to work under the Conservation Commission and have to be appoint= ed by the selectmen’s office.

MEETING MINUTES: None

Motion to move to non-pub= lic session (Edwards/Dadak) Vote:= 6-0 to move to non-public session.

Meeting adjourned at 10 p= .m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfu= lly submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary