PB Minutes 09.19.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 19, 2005

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Ms. Ouelle= tte called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alterna= te Ken Dunne, Planning Director Jeff Gowan, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa

OL= D BUSINESS

Map 30 Lot 11-93 C= ormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Co= mplex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand (Applicant requests continuance to November 7, 2005)

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the plan would not be heard because the applicant had requested a continuance to the= November 7, 2005 meeting.

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road= – Site Plan – Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older Adult Communi= ty

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the plan had been date specified to the October 3, 2005 meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING

Adoption of 2006-2012 Capital Improvement Plan

Mr. Scanzani, being the C= IP Chairman stepped down from the Planning Board and asked that Vice Chairman McNamara take over as Chairman for the CIP presentation.

Mr. Scanzani presented th= e Planning Board with the 2006-2112 Capital Improvement Plan. He thanked the

members of CIP for their = hard work during the past year. Th= ere was a brief discussion regarding the CIP.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara thanked the = CIP members for their volunteerism.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To adopt the 2006-2012 Capital Improvement Plan.

VOTE:

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

ADMINISTRATIVE        &= nbsp;

=

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-20 & 22-9 – Fireside Homesteads, LLC – Heather Lee Lane – Request for Bond   = Reduction

Mr. Scanzani said a reque= st for authorization of bond reduction had been received for Heather Lee Lane. The current bond amount being held= was $97,700; the Town Engineer’s recommended reduction was $72,700 which would retain $25,000. There w= as also a recommendation that the Planning Board walk the site. Mr. Gowan discussed the request. He said the original bond amount w= as $293,000 with the current bond amount being $97,700. He said Town Engineer Dufresne-Hen= ry recently estimated the ‘fix’ needed to correct the sight distan= ce would be a $25,000 expense. M= r. Gowan agreed with the recommendation and added that there should be a site = walk to ensure everyone agreed with the sight distance issues that still remaine= d on site. He said during the engi= neering review process, the work to remedy the sight distance took place, including work on an adjacent property (that was not part of the subdivision); the wo= rk did not entirely remedy the sight distance problem and felt the Board should ‘weigh in’. He sa= id the current Town Engineer felt additional work should be done; however this wou= ld be problematic because the ‘hump’ was on an abutting piece of property and the landowner was not interested in having their property ripp= ed apart a second time.

Mr. Scanzani believed the= only condition of approval was the sight distance. Mr. Culbert questioned if the work= was done according to the plan. M= r. Gowan said the sight distance was a condition of approval. He believed it was TF Moran that d= id the initial engineering review and from review of the records, they were satisf= ied with the remediation toward getting sight distance. He said after reviewing the site a= nd meeting the developer, everyone agreed that the sight distance has not met = the Town’s full standard. M= r. Culbert asked if the plan was wrong, or if the work that was done wrong. Mr. Gowan believed the plan was co= rrect as drawn; but that the original work done was not to plan, but signed off o= n by the Town’s (former) engineer.

Ms. Ouellette asked by ho= w much the sight distance was off/short. Mr. Gowan said the sight distance was off by a couple hundred feet in one direction, and just tree/vegetation cutting on the other side.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the site and pointed out that the problems weren’t found un= til Dufresne-Henry did their final review/sign-off.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Charles Gaudet, devel= oper, discussed that one of the conditions the former Planning Director (Amy Alexander) placed was that there would be an inspector on site all the time; Ms. Alexander also visited the site often.= Mr. Gaudet said he was under the directive of the inspector and Ms. Alexander to create the line of sight according to their expectations of the approval of the plan. He revi= ewed and read aloud a section of the Road Bond Agreement. He said the road had been complete= d and would over-winter a second time due to the March restriction. He said they had received all the = bond reductions they had requested. He circulated a bond reduction schedule. He said after a discussion with former Planning Director (Will D’Andrea) line of sight was pointed out. At this point Mr. Gaudet spoke wit= h his abutter and explained what would happen; he then hired equipment but when it was brought to the sight the abutter changed their mind and didn’t wa= nt their property destroyed again because it took too long for them to reseed = and grass the area. He said his s= tance was that everything had been approved, and the request was for the final bo= nd reduction.

Mr. Scanzani explained th= at the reason the Board insisted upon a 30% hold back was due to situations simila= r to the one being presented. He believed the Board understood the request, but believed they would want to schedule a site walk to understand what could/could not be done.

Mr. Yarmo said it sounded= like the original engineer made the mistake and questioned if they could be brou= ght into the process. He said eng= ineers carried errors/emissions insurance for such instances.

There was further discuss= ion regarding what action should be taken.&nbs= p; Ms. Ouellette questioned if Dufresne-Henry should suggest a solution prior to a reduction being granted. Mr. Gowan said he had asked Dufresne-Henry (Renee LaBranche) how the issue would be resolved and was told that they recommended holding $25,000, which would be more than adequate to resolve the situation. Ms. Ouellette questioned where the= Town stood if the $25,000 was not enough. Mr. Gowan said that decision would be up to the Board; in the past t= he Town has relied upon the feedback from the Town’s engineer. Mr. Culbert said he didn’t w= ant the Town to be stuck with remediation that cost more than that being held.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Yarmo said he was not comforta= ble releasing the bond.

Mr. Danevich questioned i= f the road could be marked and staked so Board members could review independently= (as had been done in the past). H= e was reluctant to reduce below $25,000. He felt the Board should seek counsel’s opinion. The Board continued discussion.

Mr. Danevich made a motio= n to reduce the bond to $25,000 based upon the engineers expedited site review a= nd the opportunity to come back quickly to reduce further if so determined. Mr. McNamara seconded the motion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert asked if the decision = could wait two weeks until the Board had the opportunity to review the site. After further discussion, and a suggestion by Mr. Scanzani that the Board walk the site with the responsible engineer (who designed the plan) and Dufresne-Henry so that an agreement regarding a solution could be determined, Mr. Danevich withdrew his motion.

A site walk was scheduled= for Saturday, September 24, 20= 05 at 8am.

Mr. Gaudet wanted it note= d that the initial bond reduction request was initiated on July 21, 2005 and this was the first m= eeting to discuss such. Mr. Scanzani= said the latest letter the Board received was dated August 24, 2005 from Dufresne-Henry.

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

October 3, 2005

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC &#= 8211; Atwood Road= – Site Plan – Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older Adult Communi= ty

November 7, 2005

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 – Court Remand (Applicant requests continuance to N= ovember 7, 2005)

=

SI= TE WALK – Sep= tember 24, 2005 8am

Map 22 Lot 8-20 & 22-9 – Fireside Homesteads, LLC – Heather Lee Lane – Request fo= r Bond Reduction

MINUTES

August 1, 2005

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara) To approve the <= st1:date Year=3D"2005" Day=3D"1" Month=3D"8" w:st=3D"on">August 1, 2005= meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 4) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzan= i, Ms. Medeiros, Mr. Danevich and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

August 15, 2005

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he August 15, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 3) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzan= i, Ms. Medeiros and Mr. Dunne abstained.

Septemb= er 8, 2005

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he September 8, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

=

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:22pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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