November 19, 2001   


The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:40 pm.


The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:



Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Jeff Gowan, Peter McNamara, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Gael Ouellette,  Alternate Robin Bousa, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell








Asphalt Reclamation Industries - Limited to 15 minutes


Mr. Andrew Zickell of Asphalt Reclamation Industries L.L.C (53 Briar Terrace, Leominster, MA 01420) spoke to the Board regarding post consumer waste in which they take in shingle waste, sort out trash, test for asbestos and grind into 3/8inch minus.  He had worked with Owens Corning, who now forbids recycling in there process (specifically products that contain asbestos).  Since then, his company moved from New Hampshire to Massachusetts, where he has gained the necessary permits and has now been running a running a relatively successful business.  Mr. Zickell said they were finding that most of the shingle loads were coming from New Hampshire, and therefore were hoping to join with PJ Keating, in Pelham, who has a sorting and testing operation.  He explained how recycled asphalt products (RAP) were being used in base material.


Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the grindings would only be used in the coarse base, not the finish base. 


Mr. Zickell asked for the Board’s feedback regarding grinding on the PJ Keating site.  He said that Asphalt Reclamation had provided the most data regarding asbestos testing in the country.  He said that over 3,000 samples had been tested and submitted the tests to NH DES, MA DEP and the EPA.  He said they had never received a positive result over 1% in singles since the company was founded in 1997.  He said they had found positive results of asbestos in the tarpaper and roofing cement used, but their sorting process takes the tarpaper out before grinding. 


Mr. Scanzani asked what size building they wanted to build.  Mr. Zickell said approximately 20,000 square feet, but they were researching the construction of a silo, similar to the one at the intersection of highways 495 and 93.  Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be any external dust.  Mr. Zickell discussed the four dust points and the sprinkling process they use.  He said they were proposing that the New Hampshire process be completely inside.  He said that Mr. John Keating may request to grind traditionally as he does with RAP and would therefore have to contain the dust himself. 


Mr. Danevich said his concerns were with asbestos, dust and noise control, and additional truck traffic.  He said the only access was through highway 93, which meant travelling the length of the Town from north to south.  He also discussed his concern with the proximity to the wetland area, Beaver Brook as well as the hours of operation.  He felt the Fire Chief might have additional comments. 


Mr. Gowan spoke of the current Keating location and wanted to know how far north they wanted to expand as well as how close to the road.  Mr. Zickell said they had discussed using the existing scales and the location would be on the same side of the road within 300 - 400 yards of the scales.  He said that when the plan came back the Board would like to see a detailed architectural rendering.  He spoke of discussions with the Master Plan Committee in which Route 38 had been an issue. 


Mr. Lynde wanted to know if there were any materials left at the end of the process to dispose of and how the water used in the sprinkling was treated before it went into the ground.  Mr. Zickell said the trash taken out of the system was limited to a total of 6% of the load.  He said that there had never been a water runoff problem because the shingles were very exhortative. 


Mr. Scanzani wanted to know, other than noise, if the exhaust would be a factor.  Mr. Zickell said there was a converter under the pipe and in Massachusetts they had to follow a guideline of under 1,000,000 Btu per hour.  Mr. Scanzani asked what happened to the dust after the grinding.  Mr. Zickell said the dust continually fell to the ground and was continually cleaned and put in finished grinds containers.  Mr. Scanzani asked if there was a fire hazard with the dust.  Mr. Zickell said that asphalt shingles would ignite at 4,000 degrees, which would be a considerable fire. 






ML 7-220 Oak Hill Drive - Bond Reduction/Release


Mr. Danevich said that he drove through, took pictures and informed that the only problem he saw was the stop sign. 


Mr. Dave Brouillett, CLD Engineer (Town Engineer) said when the project began there was a question as to which regulations the problems fell under.  He submitted a letter to the Board addressing the problems as they pertain to the current regulations.  He said in order for the road to be accepted an as-built plan would need to be submitted and a maintenance bond would need to be held for 10% of the value.   He recommended that the applicant meet with the Road Agent for compliance with current standards with regard to the stop sign. 


Mr. Danevich reiterated CLD’s issues as being 1) as-built plan; 2) stop sign; and 3) maintenance bond at 10%. 


Mr. Bill Hayes gave a brief history of the project.  He said his mother began the project in 1970 and after her death, he took it over.  Mr. Hayes said that per a letter dated September 20, 1998 from the then current Planning Director stated that the 1970 subdivision regulations would apply to the project.  He also had a letter dated September 15, 1998, which stated that the drainage plan submitted met the requirements of the Town.  It was his belief that the procedural regulations of 1970 applied, which was the reason a letter type bond was in the file and not a bond agreement as used today.  He said that half the road was accepted in 1984 and all the drainage was in connection with the portion of the road that was accepted.  It was his belief that a stop sign was not needed and didn’t feel it was his responsibility because the Town accepted the road.  Mr. Brouillett offered his opinion, which was that a stop sign, was not required.  Mr. Danevich said the stop sign was a debatable topic to be determined.


The as-built plan was discussed.  Mr. Brouillett informed what information was contained on an as built.  Most importantly, all the drainage would be noted.  Mr. Hayes said that the portion of the road being discussed was less than 300’.  He said that the bounds were set (as confirmed by a letter from Herbert Assoc.).  He informed that he had paved the entire road, at his expense, even the Town owned portion. 


Mr. Scanzani discussed the issues and didn’t feel that an as built was necessary.  Mr. Hayes said that the base coat and loam and seed had wintered two times.  Mr. Danevich was concerned with setting a precedent by waiving the as-built requirements.  Mr. Hayes reiterated that Town Counsel had already ruled that the 1970 regulations should be followed.  It was Mr. Brouillett’s interpretation of the regulations that the improvements were not complete until the wearing course was done, which Mr. Hayes recently completed this year.  He believed that the date the improvements were done triggered the maintenance bond for a twelve-month period.  


Mr. Scanzani made a motion to release the bond in its entirety.  Mr. Gowan seconded. 



(Scanzani/Gowan) To release the bond in it’s entirety.



(6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. Danevich voted no. 


ML 6-250 Elston Estates - Scotland Road - Bond Reduction/Release


Mr. Danevich said that he had taken pictures.  He said that he didn’t have any issues until he had a conversation with CLD (Town Engineer) who recommended having as-built documentation as well as the maintenance bond amount, which was 10% of the original bond amount.


Mr. Scanzani made a motion to reduce the bond to 10% once the as-built documentation was received.  Mr. Culbert seconded.  There was a brief discussion and Mr. Scanzani amended his motion to reduce the bond once the as built was received and accepted.  Mr. Culbert amended his second. 



(Scanzani/Culbert) To reduce the original bond amount to 10% for maintenance once the as-built documentation was received and accepted by CLD. 



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


ML 3-102 Hickory Hill Road & Tall Oaks Drive - Bond Reduction/Release


Mr. Danevich reviewed the photographs he took and said his issues were the signage and guardrails.  Mr. Dave Brouillett, CLD (Town Engineer) said he had made a recommendation that the developer coordinate with the Road Agent to make sure that all signage was in place.  He also said that there was a section of the road that did not have established vegetation.  There was a discussion as to why there was a request to reduce the bond if the vegetation was not established.  Mr. Mitchell discussed the efforts made by the developer.  He wanted an opportunity to review the drainage on 56 Tall Oaks Drive. 


Mr. Scanzani reviewed CLD’s letter.  He then made a motion to deny the bond release until further investigation.  Mr. Gowan seconded. 



(Scanzani/Gowan) To deny the bond until further investigation could be completed. 



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


ML 9-86 Willowvale Avenue - Bond Reduction/Release


Mr. Danevich said that there were four issues: 1) stop sign; 2) vegetation; 3) street sign; 4) as-built.  The Board discussed the lack of vegetation.  Mr. Scanzani made a motion to deny the bond until further investigation.  Mr. Culbert seconded.



(Scanzani/Culbert) To deny the bond until further investigation could be completed. 



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 





ML 13-83 Evergreen Estates - Beacon Hill Road - Bond Reduction/Release


Mr. Dave Brouillett, CLD (Town Engineer) discussed the site and noted that the as built had not been received and the bounds were not all in place.  Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell follow up with DES and the Fish and Game Club to determine the cause of death for over 1000 fish.  He said there was a possibility of subterranean leaching per the Fish and Game Club minutes of February 2, 2001. 


Mr. Scanzani wanted to know if the washouts into the cul-de-sac had been addressed.  Mr. Brouillett believed it had been stabilized; he felt the problem with the road was high ground water.  He still wanted to review the as built.  Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the new base hadn’t wintered.  Mr. Brouillett answered yes.  Mr. Scanzani was concerned that the maintenance bond amount would not cover some of the problems that could occur.  Mr. Brouillett felt the main problems had been remedied. 


Mr. Scanzani made a motion to deny the bond reduction request until the entire road had overwintered and the as-builts were completed and accepted and signage in place.  Mr. Culbert seconded the motion.   



(Scanzani/Culbert) To deny the bond reduction until the entire road overwinters and the as-builts are received and accepted as well as having the signs in place. 



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 




ML 9-146


Mr. Mitchell informed that the Board had voted once to revoke the bond and there were futher discussions, which ended with the developers saying they would attempt to complete the project and that they were willing to put up a new bond.  He asked that the Board direct him to not allow the people the opportunity to replace the bond.  He wanted the construction to go out to bid.  Mr. Mitchell said there was an area where debris had been left, the barn was still on the location (less than 18” from the edge of road, partial excavation was below standards, final wear course had not been placed and stabilization was not occurring on the Town’s right-of-way abutting driveways.  Mr. Danevich noted that guardrails were not in place and improper grading created landslides. 


Mr. Scanzani asked if all the inspections had been paid for.  Mr. Mitchell said that they were up to date and because there was no longer a balance in the account, he had not asked CLD to do any further inspections.  Mr. Scanzani asked if any responses had been received to Mr. Mitchell’s requests.  Mr. Mitchell said he let the appropriate people know that he was disappointed in the actions taken by the developers. 


Mr. DeLuca asked about the barn.  He said that the Cemetery and Parks Department were both interested in

having it.  Mr. Danevich said there should be a discussion off-line regarding the barn. 


There was no public input.


Mr. Gowan made a motion to revoke Nationwide’s bond in it’s entirety and to provide direction to Mr. Mitchell to not accept any further bond monies and proceed with putting completion of the project out to bid.  Mr. Culbert seconded.








(Gowan/Culbert) To revoke Nationwide’s bond in it’s entirety.  The Board has provided direction to Mr. Mitchell to not accept any further bond monies and proceed with putting completion of the project out to bid.



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Subdivision Approval  Revocation - Discussion to schedule and authorize the Planning Director and Town Counsel to initiate revocation of subdivision approval for remaining unbuilt lots in Arlene Drive subdivision in accordance with RSA 676:4-a for failure to comply with original approval and conditions of approval


Mr. Mitchell explained that the statute set up a procedure that would allow the Board to revoke an approval in certain circumstances.  He said that the statute contained five such circumstances.  Mr. Mitchell explained that careful research would need to be done since the abutters, as well as the people that held mortgages on remaining properties, needed to be notified.  He said the statute made the remaining lots ineligible for building. 


Mr. Gowan asked if the developer would need to reapply for the remaining lots as a separate subdivision.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes. 


Mr. DeLuca asked if the lots could be sold.  Mr. Mitchell said they could, but not as individual lots.  He said the lots would be recombined and sold as one lot. 


Mr. Danevich said that the Assessor received information within approximately a week.  He said there would need to be a posting to revoke the plan. 


Mr. Gowan made a motion to begin the process for subdivision approval revocation.  Mr. Culbert seconded. 


There was a brief discussion regarding the statute and it’s requirements.  Mr. Scanzani suggested amending the motion to send certified letters informing that the revocation proceedings had been initiated.  Mr. Gowan did not amend his motion.  He felt that Mr. Mitchell would take care of speaking with the appropriate parties. 



(Gowan/Culbert) To begin the process of revocation of subdivision approval.



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 




Manufactured Housing Ordinance


Mr. Danevich said the ordinance had been filed on November 8, 2001.  He said there was a lack of a definition for manufactured housing.  He read the proposed ordinance aloud. 


Mr. Scanzani said that Pelham was the only town in New Hampshire that had not adopted such an ordinance and felt the proposed should be approved. 


Mr. DeLuca asked if modular homes were included.  Mr. Danevich answered no.  He said modular homes were not included due to their lack of transportability and placement.  There was a brief discussion regarding the definition of manufactured housing and it was decided to add the words “as defined by state law” to the proposed ordinance to alleviate any confusion.  Mr. Mitchell recommended that Town Counsel review the ordinance.  He also would like the opportunity to research the issue of manufactured housing.  Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board vote that a condition be placed on the ordinance if it were to be accepted by Town Counsel.  Mr. Danevich clarified that there would be a conditional approval that if Town Counsel made no modifications the ordinance would remain as is, but if Town Counsel advised of a change a public hearing would be re-posted. 


Mr. Gowan then made a motion to continue the vote until the Planning Director and Town Counsel had reviewed the document and make any recommendations. 



(Gowan/Culbert) To continue the vote until the Planning Director and Town Counsel have reviewed the document and make any recommendations.



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Residential Growth Ordinance


Mr. Danevich read the exemption of the ordinance aloud.  There was a brief discussion regarding how the first year would be administered if the ordinance were to pass. 


Mr. Lynde questioned the language that discussed if larger parcels were subdivided more than once within one year shall be considered one approval.  He wanted to know what the definition of one year was.  Mr. Danevich said that the “year” was from January 1 - December 31.  It was decided to add to the definitions of the ordinance: “Calendar Year shall mean January 1st to December 31st”. 


Mr. Mitchell discussed Warrant Articles that lead to the adoption of CIP and a court case were an ordinance was thrown out.  Mr. Danevich gave Mr. Lynde an action item to research the adoption of CIP. 


The Board then discussed the areas of the document where the word ‘calendar’ would be added. 




Mr. Bob Lamoureux, Blueberry Circle wanted to voice his opinion that the Town should vote in favor of the Growth Ordinance.   



(Culbert/DeLuca) To place the Growth Ordinance, as amended, on the ballot.



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 



(Scanzani/Gowan) To place the Planning Board’s vote count under all zoning amendments on the Town ballot whether they are sponsored by the Board or petitioned. 



(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Mr. Danevich reiterated that the Town Ballot shall include the Residential Growth Ordinance with a note that the Planning Board recommended the ordinance with a vote of: 7 - 0 - 0.


Subdivision Regulation


Mr. Danevich noted that the Board had been reviewing the regulations as they have been updated.  He noted that an appendix addressing environmental impact studies would be added in the future.  Mr. Gowan wanted to know if any of the missing pieces took away from the document.  Mr. Danevich didn’t feel that missing pieces took away from the document.  He said that a lot of code sections had been clarified.  He said that he had received a comment that lot size calculations should be clarified in the future. 


Mr. Scanzani liked that the updates made to the appendixes.  He felt that the proposed regulations should be adopted and make small changes at later meetings.  Mr. Culbert would rather wait for public input before adopting the regulations. 


Mr. Danevich reviewed the appendixes and noted that the cul-de-sac length had been changed from 560’ to 1000’. 


Mr. Scanzani discussed the checklist required for subdivisions.  He believed that the applicant should be given the checklist (as well as CLD - Town Engineer) so that the owness was not only with CLD but the applicant as well. 


Mr. Lynde wanted to know if the Planning Director would be helped if the proposed regulations were adopted.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes. 


Mr. Scanzani suggested that an appendix be added for bond reductions.  Mr. Danevich informed that Ms. Bousa had composed a traffic study appendix that should be reviewed and added as well.  He discussed other additions that had been suggested to him. 


Mr. Gowan asked about the legality of acceptance and wanted to know if they would help Mr. Mitchell.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes and discussed how currently he was having people comply with the current regulations as well as the proposed.  He said if the Board had accepted an application or there had been a public hearing, they would have to meet the requirements of the current regulations.  Once the proposed regulations were adopted, an applicant would need to meet the new regulations. 


Ms. Ouellette noted that the cul-de-sac section was missing language.  Mr. Culbert noted that CLD still needed to provide information.  Mr. Dave Brouillett, CLD (Town Engineer) said that he still needed to meet with Mr. Mitchell before providing the information to the Board.  Mr. Mitchell advised the Board to adopt the proposed regulations.



(Scanzani/McNamara) To adopt the proposed subdivision regulations as written.



(5 - 2 - 0) The motion carries.  Mr. Culbert and Mr. DeLuca voted no. 


Ms. Bousa reviewed the proposed Appendix six - Traffic Analysis that she drafted for inclusion in the new regulations.  She said she tried to break down the requirements of DOT so that the town would have the same level of requirements.  She said that some of the new items were neighborhood impacts and air quality/noise.  She recommended that prior to doing a traffic study applicants should discuss the area with the Planning Director. 


Mr. Scanzani discussed the identification of feeder roads and gathering information on load limits, road capacity and impacts.  Ms. Bousa said the general analysis would inform of deficiencies as well as provide for a mitigation plan.  Mr. Scanzani asked about the air quality issue.  Ms. Bousa didn’t feel that the Town had a current situation where it would apply.  Mr. Scanzani asked about noise issues.  Ms. Bousa said noise issues might arise if a commercial area were abutting residences. 


Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Mitchell review the proposed appendix and work it into the new regulations.    


Mr. Danevich discussed future agenda items.  The Board added a work session to be held on December 13, 2001 with the intent to not have a meeting December 17, 2001. 


Mr. Danevich discussed road activity and noted that there were sixteen new roads.  Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Lynde discuss Campbell Road with the Selectmen.  He explained the history of the road and believed that it should be placed back on the Town ballot for acceptance.  




 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.


The motion was adjourned at approximately 10:30 pm.


                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary