PB Minutes 02.07.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

February 7, 2005

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, Gael Ouellette, Bill Scanzani, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Vict= or Danevich

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Alternate= Bob Yarmo, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

Mr. Culbert said the agenda was supposed to be posted that no discussion would be heard, however that didn’t happen. Mr. Scanzani said he = had a conversation with the Planning Director; it seemed that some of the plans b= eing submitted to the Planning Department were creating an undue burden on the B= oard and the Planning Department because of the re-engineering required after the plans were accepted for consideration.&nbs= p; He proposed a motion to direct the Planning Director that as part of= the ‘completed application process’ plans should include/show the 35,000SF contiguous area, 15,000SF building envelope to be shown (no part o= f which is to be in the wetland area or wetland conservation district); the Board d= oes not want to review plans that need to be re-engineered after they are accep= ted that have those items missing. Mr. Culbert reviewed the agenda. = Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates believed his plan met the regulations (so= me items with waivers). He asked= that his cases be heard.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To direct the Planning Director, from this date forward, to not accept plans if they do= not contain 1) the 35,000 square foot contiguous dry area shown/outlined on t= he plan; 2) the 15,000 square foot building envelope (out of wetland, slope etc.).

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich referred to RSA 676:4 and noted i= f a plan was submitted, the Board had to take formal action whether to accept or reject it. If a plan doesn= 217;t meet the subdivision regulations, it would be rejected and the Board must detail what was missing before it could be accepted.

* see minutes review of February 24, 2005 for further discussion of the above motion.

NEW BUSINESS

IT= EM # 1

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 – LRL Development of Pelham= & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan= . He said parcel 1-53-1 (frontage on Sherburne) would be combined with parcel 1-55 (frontage on Mammoth) and then subdivided into a 5-lot subdivision. He believed all lots complied with both the zoning and subdivision requirements; dredge and fill permits would be requested for two driveways (application was made to the Conservation Commission). He received the comments from the Planning Director and would comply with each, with the exception of three waivers being requested.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the waivers being requested: 1) Section 11.04 (B) Lot Shape 100x150 to the various sizes on t= he plan for lot 1-55-2; 2) Appendix I, Roadway Design, B,B, Street Construction Standards – curve radii 430ft – center line curve radii; 3) Application Completion Checklist – Roadway Completion – minimum curve radius 200ft, requesting 150ft. Mr. Zohdi requested an additional waiver from Section 11.04, c, Desi= gn Standards regarding the existing home located on lot 1-53 is outside the 35,000SF. He reviewed the regulation that discusses the 15,000 SF (Section 11.04 C Design Standards).=

Mr. Danevich believed the application met the requirements for acceptance, but felt the plan was ‘an uphill’ battle. His issue (as a Selec= tman) was residents seeking tax abatements for lots that are not useable. He said if the roadway went in as presented the lot would be non-functional.= He felt consideration should be given to moving the road over. Mr. Scanzani discussed the difficu= lty of the lots.

Mr. McNamara asked if the Planning Director had provided input. There were no additional comments provided by the Planning Director, other than what was provided in the member packs. Mr. Danevich noted that the Planning Director wrote that the plan ‘appear= ed’ to meet criteria. He interpre= ted that to mean further documentation would be needed. He noted his concern with the test= pits being from 1988 and under consideration the data could be updated. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel tha= t the application met the criteria for acceptance.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration.&nb= sp;

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani voted no.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, = 5 Sherburne Road was opposed to the plan. She had some concerns w= ith the scale on the map obtained from the Planning Department, which appeared = to be incorrect and may create problems on the engineering map. She continued the review of the ma= p and noted that there was a beaver hut at the rear of lot 1-53-1. She said her biggest concern was regarding traffic issues surrounding volume, safety, congestion and noise.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She referenced traffic study infor= mation done by the Nashua Regional Planning Commission. Mr. Scanzani believed the plan wou= ld fit into the studies being done at both ends of Sherburne Road. Ms. Balzotti also referenced the P= elham Profile Study which raised concerns about dangerous Road intersection in wh= ich Sherburne and Mammoth was included. She felt the new proposed road was too close to Mammoth Road. She cautioned the Board about doin= g a traffic study in the winter because it wouldn’t include the high volu= me of motorcycles as well as the traffic to the Tow= n Park (Pelham Veteran Memorial Park). She discussed her concern with the wetlands being identified appropriately, if they were to be viewed during t= he winter months. Ms. Balzotti discussed the information discussed at the Planning Board meeting of July 8, 2004, an= d the Board of Adjustment meeting of December 13, 2004 and was concerned with plans being submitted in sectio= ns to make it easier to get a road approved.&= nbsp;

Ms. Joanne Powers, an abutter, asked for lot s= ize clarification of 1-53-1. She = asked if an Environmental Impact Study or Engineering Study had been done. Mr. Culbert answered no. Ms. Powers also felt that the appl= icant was looking for an easy way into the property by requesting five lots. She said the existing house on lot= 53 may have encroached further into the wetlands than presented and without necessary permits. She had co= ncerns about the beaver activity and if they were to vacate, the terrain would be = very different.

Mr. Zohdi said all the wetlands and beaver dams were depicted on the plan. The wetland was done by Gove Environmental; an EIA would be presented for the n= ext meeting. He reviewed the size of lot 1-53-1 which was aroun= d the brook. Mr. Culbert confirmed = that the plan would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Danevich said it would be an ‘uphill battle’ to obtain his support of the plan. He felt the Engineering study, EIA, Traffic study should be completed. He said based upon the length of the driveways, additional cistern p= lacement/fire suppression would have to be discussed by the applicant with the Fire Chief= . Mr. Scanzani was concerned that the roadways/driveways required several WCD crossings.

The Board then addressed the waivers. Mr. Danevich said whether the Board agreed with the waivers, or not, per state law, they met the requirement for acceptance.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the waivers for consideration. <= /span>

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani voted no.

The plan was date specified to the April 4, 2005 me= eting.

IT= EM #2

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-207 – Brodie, Peter & Muriel ̵= 1; 44 Ledge Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance

Mr. Culbert reviewed the plan and believed it = had a problem with the 15,000SF area.

Mr. Matt Hamor of Polaris Engineering, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan= . He said he had a discussion with M= r. D’Andrea regarding the 15,000SF area, and they didn’t feel that= the 15,000SF area applied to the proposed lots. He said in the Subdivision Regulat= ions, under Design Requirements it doesn’t specify that the WCD and building setback have to be excluded from the 15,000SF area. Mr. Scanzani said part of the orig= inal discussion regarding a building envelope area it was clear that the area wa= s to be contiguous and rectangle in shape. Mr. Culbert said the intent had always been that the 15,000SF area w= as to be useable area for expansion. Mr. Hamor said expansion into the WCD could be done with a permit. He said the Subdivision Regulations didn’t exclude the WCD or the building setback area. Mr. Culbert said the WCD was not a= llowed as usable space. Mr. Hamor sa= id the Subdivision Regulations read differently.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said the Subdivision Regulations state the requirements= of the WCD. Mr. Hamor believed t= he physical appearance of the proposed plan met the Subdivision and Zoning Regulations = by virtue of the two items not being listed in the Subdivision Regulations.

Mr. Hamor reviewed the plan with the Board. He showed the parcel’s locat= ion, the proposed dwellings, driveways, wells and leaching areas. He provided the Board with a Site Specific Soil Map prepared by Peter Shower (a soil scientist). He said they realized there were portions of the parcel that were in excess of 15% slope, however, they didn’t exceed 25% except for some very small areas around the wetland= and didn’t affect the contiguous upland requirement or the 15,000SF requirement. He asked that the Board recognize that there were a number of existing fire cisterns on Shephard Road. He ended by saying they weren̵= 7;t sure if the Open Space requirement applied to the subdivision because they weren’t putting in roads or designating areas off of a road that would have open space. Mr. Hamor submitted waivers for the fire cisterns and the open space.

There was a brief discussion regarding the plan and its difficulties. Mr. Dan= evich felt if lot 12-207-1 wasn’t there and the lots were redesigned, the p= lan would meet the regulations almost in there entirety.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the= plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani and M= s. Ouellette voted no.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Mike Scanlon, 6 Shephard Road, noted there was a = huge rock pile (debris from quarry) located on lot 12-207-5 and a stream that fl= ows from underneath. He was conce= rned with the rock pile being moved and the land/water flow being reconfigured.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He didn’t understand how the= back portion of the proposed lot would be accessed without going through a wetland. He noted that his we= ll was located in the rear of his parcel and any movement of the land may impact h= is property. Mr. Hamor said they didn’t intend on moving the rock pile at this point and it was not located where the house was proposed. He said they also didn’t intend to reach the rear portion of t= he lot.

Mr. Culbert said the plan would need Conservat= ion Commission review. Mr. Hamor = said they didn’t have any 35,000SF contiguous areas or 15,000SF in the wetlands. Mr. Culbert noted t= hat the Board had never waived the 15,000SF for WCD. Mr. Hamor said they weren’t requesting a waiver from it because they didn’t believed it was necessary.

Mr. Danevich said if the waivers met the acceptance criteria they should be accepted.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the two waivers 1) fire cisterns; and 2) open space.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani and M= s. Ouellette voted no.

Mr. Danevich said he wouldn’t take action regarding the waiver for fire cisterns without the input of the Fire Chief. He said he would have = to further review the open space waiver. He said the applicant should consider reducing the proposed subdivis= ion by one lot because almost all the issues and concerns would go away. Mr. Hamor said other lots would be= affected; the 15,000SF area would still go into the WCD district. He wanted the Board to recognize t= hat plans had been approved in the past that had the 15,000SF in the WCD and in= the building setback (i.e. Car= lisle Lane). Mr. Danevich said that was pre-tax abatement requests and would not support such moving forward. = He encouraged the Board to respect it.

Mr. Scanzani wanted it noted that based upon t= he criteria for acceptance of plans, he didn’t accept the plan for consideration and therefore if the plan didn’t meet the requirements, then obviously the waivers did not.

The plan was date specified for the April 4, 2005 me= eting. This would provide time for the Conservation Commission to review the plan.

IT= EM #3

Ma= p 28 Lot 7-175 – Sweren, John & Paula – = 68 Marsh Road – Proposed 2_Lot Subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration<= /u>

Mr. David Aho of Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan= . He said the applicant was proposin= g a two-lot subdivision and had received a variance for 100ft. of frontage and asked that the plan be accepted. He said they had received state subdivision approval, the number was contained= on the plan.

Mr. McNamara said the proposed had been before= the Board of Adjustment several times over the past several years. He believed the initial applicatio= n was to subdivide into three or four lots, which was denied. He said the applicant came back in= the last few months with a plan for one further lot and given the fact that the= law pertaining criteria had changed, a variance was granted for a single family home.

Ms. Ouellette said the file didn’t conta= in a copy of the DOT approval, or the state subdivision approval. Mr. Aho said the state approval nu= mber was shown on the plan, copies are not sent out, and the state lists approval numbers on their website.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich said the space met the criteria f= or a duplex, but didn’t believe that the Board of Adjustment intended it t= o be such. Mr. McNamara believed t= he discussion was for a single-family home.&n= bsp; Mr. Aho also believed the applicant’s intention was for a single-family home. Mr. Danev= ich requested that the final plan be updated to include a note/clarify note #1 = that the proposed was for a single-family home.= Ms. Ouellette said there was a reference to ‘single-familyR= 17; in the application.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To approve the plan conditioned upon a note being added stating that the plan was for a single-family home.

VOTE:

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

IT= EM #4

Ma= p 17 Lot 12-273 – Estell Family Trust, Ronald K. &= amp; Denise W. Estell, Trustees – 158 Old Gage Hill Road North – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration

Mr. Culbert noted that Mr. D’Andrea commented that lot 273-1 didn’t show 15,000SF area per Section 11.04 = c a waiver may be required; confirmation of 35,000SF non-wetland area needs to = be confirmed or a variance would be needed; also lot 273-1 doesn’t provi= de frontage that serves as access to the lot. He continued his review of Mr. D’Andrea’s comments (a copy of whic= h is contained in the file).

Mr. David Aho of Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan= . He said the applicant was seeking = to provide a lot for his son and explained how the parcel would be subdivided. He said the appli= cant was seeking to merge his existing lot (add to his parcel) and subdivide. He said the plan received state su= bdivision approval (number is on the plan) as well as the DOT permit, a copy of which= will be provided to the Board.

Mr. Culbert confirmed that there was 35,000SF = of non-wetland area. Mr. Aho ans= wered yes and showed the location. = Mr. Culbert said the area would need to be better delineated. Mr. Scanzani said the lot constrai= nt of the WCD was why the building envelope (which was larger than required) was = not rectangular. It was his opini= on that the proposed was a good example of a valid waiver request. He confirmed that 17-12-273 and 17-12-272 would be merged. Mr= . Aho said lot 273-1 (2 acres) would stay by itself and the remaining area would be combined (which encompassed the applicant’s existing house). Mr. Danevich said the Voluntary Lot Merger Form would need to be filled out, signed/executed along with the application. Mr. Aho said they would like to do it simultaneously with the approval. Mr. Danevich said he was willing to accept the plan for consideration, but was not willing to take action of the plan until the lot merger form was signed.=

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To accept the= plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich said he would like something in t= he record (paper trail) and on the plan that combined the voluntary merger alo= ng with the subdivision approval. There was no mention in submitted paperwork regarding the voluntary merger. Mr. Aho said they agr= eed and would add notes.

The plan was date specified to March 21, 2005.=

IT= EM #5

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-152, 153-1 – S & C Land Holdings, LLC – Spaulding Hill Road & Sherburne Road – Proposed Lot Line Adjustment and= 2-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to present the plan. He said two lots would be combined= and then subdivided into three lots. He continued to discuss the request. Mr. Danevich noted that a lot line adjustment and a subdivision was being requested. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that all of Mr. D’Andrea’s comments had been taken = care of.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Ann Balcom, 103 Sherburne Road, asked how the t= hird house would be accessed. Mr. = Zohdi said the driveway would be from Spaulding Hill Road.

Mr. Mike Golden, son of John & Michelle Golden, said in walking the property they noticed some flags that went thro= ugh their land (boundary marker #206 & #207), however, these markings were = not denoted on the proposed plan. He said there was some controversy to where they owned and the abutter’s parcel (at boundary #201); this would need to be clarified. Mr. Golden also explained that the= re was a lack of water on their property. Currently there were three wells they switched between. Mr. Golden asked that the Board co= nsider having the applicant ‘tap’ into the nearby Hudson water line.

Mr. Zohdi was aware of the land dispute and explained that his crew identified the iron pin so that the applicant could properly mark their boundaries. He said the Goldens owned the property and the flagging was not an attempt to = take the land.

Mr. Golden asked if water was being proposed t= o be brought down Sherburne Roa= d. Mr. Danevich said the only proposal being reviewed was to extend the water line down Marsh Road from the High School jus= t past Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron’s property.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert said because there were water issues, the Board would probably require that the applicant drill the wells and show adequate water flow prior to foundations. He= said the abutters should calculate their water supply.

Mr. Scanzani asked if blasting would be required. Mr. Zohdi said they= were hitting ledge at 4.5 feet; the abutting properties would be surveyed. Mr. Scanzani said the abutters may= want to photograph their foundations and have the water flow tested prior to blasting. Mr. Danevich said he would request that the well be drilled and tested along with water flow readings prior to a foundation permit being issued. Mr. Scanzani wanted the two lots t= o also pay their fair share for the Sherburne Road study.&n= bsp;

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the plan conditioned upon: 1) the wells being drilled prior to a foundation permit being issued; 2) flow test to be done on the wells per state requirements; and 3) the two lots paying their fair share (to be clarified) of the Sherburne Road study.

VOTE:

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

IT= EM #6

Ma= p 35 Lot 10-352-17 – New American Homes – Susan Drive= – Well Radius Waiver Request

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the waiver request. He said the TownR= 17;s requirement was to have a 75ft. radius for the wells and when the well was done, it was drilled at 72.31 (2.69 feet short) at the northeasterly proper= ty line. He said the house, syst= em and tank were existing.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

It was pointed out that this was the third time there was a problem with a well radius in this subdivision. Mr. Zohdi explained the process us= ed to determine a well location. He= said it was difficult to have the rig sit directly on the line. Mr. McNamara suggested if this con= tinued to happen that the Board include additional footage to help alleviate the radius problems.

There was no public input.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if the well could be drilled in the proper location. After further discussion Mr. Danevich commented that the Board later= in the evening would be discussing the Subdivision Regulations and would have = the opportunity to amend the radius dimension.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To approve the Well Radi= us Waiver.

VOTE:

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

IT= EM #7

DI= SCUSSION – Subdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access an= d Road Design

Mr. Culbert noted that the Board had agreed to= the changes made up through Section 11; the review would begin with Section 12. The Board reviewed some o= f the amendments that were made to Section 11.&n= bsp; An amendment was made to Section 11.11, (B), to require that the 75f= oot well radius must be within a 15foot setback from the lot lines. The Board continued their review o= f the proposed amendments. It was n= oted that the AASHTO information was outdated and should be reviewed by the Town’s engineer. Mr. Sc= anzani will provide Mr. D’Andrea with an updated version of the regulations.

IT= EM #8

MI= NUTES

January 13, 2005

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To approve the January 13, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Danevic= h abstained.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

March 2= 1, 2005:

Map 17 Lot = 12-273 – Estell Family Trust, Ronald K. & Denise W. Estell, Trustees = 211; 158 Old Gage Hill Road Nor= th – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration

April 4= , 2005:

Map 39 Lot = 1-53 & 55 – LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance

Map 24 Lot = 12-207 – Brodie, Peter & Muriel – 44 Ledge Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Acceptance

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SE= SSION

MOTION:

Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (legal)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Culbert-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Mr. Scanzani-Yes; Mr. McNamara-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. The public s= ession was adjourned; The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately= 10:25 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