July 15, 2002   


The Chairman, Victor Danevich called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.


The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:



Victor Danevich, Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Robin Bousa, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Community Development Director Dave Brouillet




Peter McNamara, Selectmen’s Representative Hal Lynde


Mr. Danevich noted that Ms. Bousa would vote in Mr. McNamara’s absence. 


Mr. Danevich informed that the newspaper did not post the public hearings for the Master Plan, EIA, Subdivision Regulations - Premature Development by the full 10-day requirement. He said the Board would hold a discussion and repost for adoption at the August 5, 2002. 




Map 1 Lot 57 - V&G Development - Jones Farm Road - Request for Bond Reduction


Mr. Brouillet said that the project was basically complete and the Town was still holding the maintenance bond.  He said that CLD (Town Engineer) had recommended the bond reduction, and withhold  $16,600.


Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Brouillet was in agreement with CLD’s findings.  Mr. Brouillet said he was in agreement with CLD’s findings.  He said that $2000 would also be held for general clean up. 



(Scanzani/Ouellette) To reduce the V&G Development/Jones Farm Road bond to $16,600. 



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 


Map 5 Lot 169 - Dominique Buonarosa - Rosewood Estates - Dogwood Circle - Request for Bond Reduction


The applicant withdrew the bond reduction request prior to the commencement of the meeting.  




Map 5 Lot 152 - Edwards, Joanne & Hanley, Phyllis A. - Keyes Hill Road/Mammoth Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Community Development Director’s report on completeness


Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.


Mr. Brouillet said the plan had been reviewed with the Town Staff who had no outstanding issues other than a driveway design was to be submitted.  He said the plan was complete and recommended it for acceptance. 



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



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 


Mr. Brouillet reviewed the driveway concern with the Board.  He said that because of the 50ft. frontage onto Keyes Hill Road, and the length of the driveway, it was standard to ask for a driveway design.  He noted that the soils on the lot were well drained and contained no wetlands. 


Attorney Philip Currier met with the Board representing Ms. Edwards and Ms. Hanley.  He explained that they were requesting a three-lot subdivision.  He said one lot contained an existing house, the second, new lot, contained less than the required frontage, but had been granted a Variance by the Board of Adjustment.  Attorney Currier informed that the third lot was proposed to be gifted by the owners to the Town once the subdivision was approved.  He said that the Cemetery Trustees had reviewed the plan, and were in favor of the donation.  He noted that the Board of Selectmen held a public hearing and voted unanimously to accept the gift and he was therefore seeking the Planning Board’s approval.  Attorney Currier discussed the $1000 application fee and requested that the fee be reduced to the extent possible based on the fact that only one lot was being created, with no new streets, and that a lot was being donated.  He submitted a request letter to reduce the subdivision fee from $1000 to $250. 


Mr. Scanzani felt the applicant was being very generous and believed the application fee should be waivered from $250 to zero.  Attorney Currier said the request letter could be considered amended.  Mr. Danevich noted that with every application there were administrative fees that should be considered. 


Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He showed the items that had been revised per a discussion with Mr. Brouillet.  He said that a driveway profile had been drawn and the grade would not be more than 5.5%.  He said the proposed total length of the driveway would be no more than 420ft - 430ft.  Mr. Zohdi pointed out where the Variance was noted on the plan. 


Mr. DeLuca asked if the donated land contained a lot of trees.  He was concerned with the possible costs to the Town.  Mr. Richard Jensen, Cemetery Trustee said there were not many trees to be removed and the cost would be minimal.  He said the Cemetery Trustees were in favor of the donation.  Mr. Scanzani said that as part of the CIP the future needs assessment for the Town Cemetery’s were approximately ten acres.  He said the donation would help lower the acreage needed.




Mr. Bill Wells approved of the proposed subdivision.


Ms. Gail Ploofe was also in favor of the proposed subdivision. 


Mr. Culbert asked if the configuration should be altered.  Attorney Currier noted that the design was drawn to the preference of the owner. 



(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept, for consideration, the waiver of the subdivision application fee to be reduced from $1000 to zero.



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 



(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the waiver request of the subdivision application fee to be reduced from $1000 to zero. 



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 



(Scanzani/Culbert) To approve the subdivision plan as submitted.   



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 


Mr. Danevich asked that Mr. Brouillet add the Cemetery Trustees and the Board of Selectmen to the notification process when sending out the notice of decision. 


Map 13 Lot 167-9 & 10 - White, Huston & Evelyn - Pelham Road/Plower Road - Proposed Lot Line Adjustment for Community Development Director’s report on completeness


Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.  The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.


Mr. Brouillet said that the plan had previously been before the Board for a special permit for a wetland crossing and the Board’s directive was to come back with a lot-line adjustment.  He said that all the information presented was in accordance with the subdivision regulations. 



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



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 


Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board.  He said that Bedford Design presented the plan at the last meeting and he was using some of their plans obtained from the Community Development Department.  He explained that rather than requesting a driveway easement, the plan had been revised to change the lot line.  He noted that two hammer heads had been added for emergency vehicle turn-arounds. 


Mr. Scanzani asked if the Fire Chief had reviewed the design.  Mr. Brouillet said the Fire Chief had reviewed the design and was satisfied with the two turn-around areas.  He said it appeared that all the conditions had been met. 


There was no public input. 


Mr. Zohdi noted that the maximum grade on the driveway would be 3.24%



(Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the plan.



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries. 




Mr. Danevich noted that the newspaper did not have the legal notice posted in time for the public hearing.  He said that there would be a reposting for adoption at the Board’s August 5, 2002 meeting. 


NRPC & Master Plan Committee presentation of Draft Master Plan


Mr. Steve Heuchert (NRPC) and Mr. Jeff Gowan presented the draft Master Plan to the Board.  Mr. Gowan introduced the Master Plan Committee members that were present at the meeting and noted the persons that were not present.  He read the introductory paragraph to the Master Plan aloud.  He noted that the document should be updated every five years.  He said the intent was to create a poster which would highlighted the main points. 


Mr. Heuchert said that there were nine chapters in the Master Plan.  He felt that chapter nine was the most important because it summarized the recommendations.  He read through the chapter headings as follows: 1) Goals and Objectives; 2) Population and Housing; 3) Existing Land Use; 4) Natural Resources; 5) Transportation; 6) Community Facilities; 7) Historic Resources; 8) Future Land Use and Recommendations; 9) Summary of Recommendations.  Mr. Heuchert spent some time reviewing the recommendations identified in each chapter that may be important to the Planning Board when making decisions. 


Mr. Danevich was pleased that the GIS was updated with NRPC.  He thanked everyone for their efforts during the past sixteen months.  Ms. Ann Hargrave noted that the survey responses would be attached as an appendix to the Master Plan. 


Mr. Scanzani said he was glad that the traffic module had been updated.  He believed that Route 38, Mammoth Road and the Town Center were the three bottle neck areas.  He believed that a round-about in the center of Town was the best solution.  He did not know how to address the problems with Route 38 or Mammoth Road since they were state roads.  Mr. Scanzani then discussed the wildlife and believed unless an identifiable resource map was composed and zoning was changed the Town would not have wildlife corridors within ten years.  He asked if there was any federal money available for abating the property that may be affected by a round-about added to the Town center.  Mr. Heuchert said the state had a specific procedure used for acquiring right-of-ways.  He said that he did not know all the specifics, but could provide the name of a contact person from the DOT. 


Mr. Gowan noted that the Master Plan was just that, a plan.  He said that it would mean nothing if the next steps were not taken.  He said the plan provided a basis for zoning and could help resolve conflicts.  Mr. Gowan found when reviewing the surveys that a majority referred to the rural character of the Town, which he said was very fragile, and should be fought to keep.  Mr. Heuchert suggested showing the residents what open space looked like.  He said that the Town could work with consultants to create a slide show presentation.   




Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road discussed the traffic and the future volumes and capacity.  He believed that new subdivisions should have alternates to the major roads and make the road structure denser, instead of sparser.  Mr. Hennessey said that in the community profile, the number one priority was the development of a cultural and recreation center.  He felt that performing and decorative arts should be included, if the need for more recreation was going to be defined.  He believed that arts should be mentioned in the Master Plan a lot stronger.  Mr. Gowan agreed and said that there was a recommendation for the creation of a recreation facility within the Master Plan.  Mr. Scanzani said that the CIP Committee had not yet reviewed the Master Plan.  He did not think it would be likely to address the build-out issue in this year’s CIP.  He discussed what needs would be reviewed as the Town grew.  Mr. Hennessey said he would like to have Park and Recreation redefined to include cultural activities.  Mr. Gowan agreed and said that an in-depth plan should be created by an organization of people.  Mr. Hennessey said that throughout all the discussions about the Municipal Building, there had not been any discussion regarding any public arts (i.e. sculpture, murals) being incorporated into the project. 


Mr. Danevich reviewed a few minor amendments to be made to the document: 1) date of August 5, 2002 for adoption; 2) include complete list of people involved; 3) expanded cultural arts section; 4) recommendations for working with the state regarding the public access of state routes.  Mr. Culbert said there were a few references that he wanted to ensure were not empowerment statements.  Mr. Gowan said he would review.


Ms. Shirley Wakefield discussed her concerns with Dutton Road because of the new building occurring and wanted to know what was being done about the situation.  Mr. Heuchert said he could contact Mr. Steve Williams (NRPC Transportation Planner) to find out if there were any plans. 


Mr. Danevich said that the Master Plan would be reposted for the August 5, 2002. 


Subdivision Regulations: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)


Mr. Danevich said that the public hearing would be reposted to the August 5, 2002 because the newspaper notice was not run with ten clear days.  He said that the document had been drafted by Mr. Clay Mitchell (Interim Planning Director).  The Board reviewed the document and made a few minor changes that did not affect the language contained within the document. 


There was no public input.


Mr. Danevich reiterated that the document would be posted for further review and possible adoption during the August 5, 2002 meeting. 


Subdivision Regulations: Premature Development


Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Clay Mitchell (Interim Planning Director) had intended on submitting a final document to the Planning Board for review, but had not done so.  He said that he took the same text that had been in the previous subdivision regulations.  He said the intent was to have the document readopted. 




Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, suggested changing the calendar year to a rolling year from the approval of a subdivision.  Mr. Danevich said that the current process was easier to track based on a calendar year.  He said it would be difficult to switch to a rolling year because the Planning Department did not have the computer software needed to implement a tracking system for the information.  Mr. Brouillet was in favor of a rolling calendar and would like to review the process and provide information to the Board. 


Mr. Danevich said that there would be a reposting of the notice for August 5, 2002. 


Subdivision Regulations: Cul-de-sacs


Mr. Danevich said that he crafted a different version, which he felt had the same intent as that which was included in the subdivision regulations.  He said that he had spoken with various people, including the Fire and Police Chiefs and had received feedback.  He said he kept the 2400ft, 36 homes, 360 trip count but had clarified the single access egress point measurement.  He said that an additional concept he incorporated in the document was the 1000ft. segment measurement. 


Mr. Scanzani said that during the initial discussions, he had recommended taking the length requirement out.  He felt the engineers should be allowed the flexibility to take the way the land was and design around it.  He didn’t feel that any argument had been made, in fact, regarding safety issues for length of cul-de-sac.  He wanted to leave the current regulation in effect. 


Ms. Ouellette did not support the change.  She felt that just about every safety precaution had been taken during the drafting of the original document.  Mr. Brunelle felt that the flexibility of having the 2400ft. length provided flexibility and felt the current document should stay in effect.  Mr. DeLuca said that when Mr. Tom Sommers of CLD was asked regarding a length restriction, he didn’t care about the number, but did care about the trip counts.  He ended by saying that there was no data supporting cul-de-sac lengths, but there was scientific data to support trip counts.  Mr. Culbert said he understood the concerns of the Police Chief, but didn’t feel that a road should be designed based upon the exception.  He supported the current regulation.  Ms. Bousa did not support the change.  A poll of the Board showed that Mr. Scanzani, Ms. Ouellette, Mr. Brunelle, Mr. DeLuca, Mr. Culbert, Ms. Bousa and Mr. Yarmo did not support changing the current cul-de-sac regulations.


Mr. Brouillet believed that the Master Plan addressed two things that should be considered, 1) traffic wide study for the entire Town, and 2) full build out of entire Town.  He believed the existing problem within the Town was that there were significant areas without interconnectivity.  He believed if the full build-out were reviewed it would be easier to determine a reasonable cul-de-sac length.  There was a brief discussion regarding what direction the Board was headed.  Mr. Scanzani said that road connectivity was the objective of the Board, not cul-de-sac designs. 




Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road believed that the 360 trip count was a faulty premise for New England.  He said the 360 number had been created based upon data obtained nationwide in communities that did not have a 200ft. frontage requirement.  He felt that engineers designed plans based on the 2400ft. regulations, not for connectivity.  He said that there were strips of long ribbons of asphalt pouring into a limited number of roads in Town.  Mr. Hennessey said that the Master Plan called for trails, bike ways and pedestrian routes.  He asked if emergency ways could be combined with the pedestrian routes and used for multi-purpose for access between the roads.  Mr. Culbert said that emergency ways were reviewed on a case by case basis by the Fire Chief.  He did not have a problem with combining the emergency ways and the pedestrian routes. 


Ms. Bousa informed that Mr. McNamara had submitted a letter noting his concerns.  Mr. Danevich said that Mr. McNamara’s concerns summarized what the other Board member’s had also discussed.


Mr. Danevich said that based upon the Board’s comments, the revised document would not be brought forward.   




July 1, 2002



(Culbert/Scanzani) To accept the minutes of the July 1, 2002 Board meeting as amended.



(6 - 0 - 0)  The motion carries.





 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.


The motion was adjourned at approximately 10:02 pm.


                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary