PB Minutes 11-01-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 1, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the non-public session to order at 7:00 pm.

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Bob Yarmo (arrived after the meeting commenced), Plan= ning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Alternate= Raymond Brunelle

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Map 9 Lot = 9-9 – First Street Realty Tru= st – Golden Brook Estates – Request for Full Bond Release

Mr. Culbert informed that the Board was awaiti= ng an as-built, therefore the request would not be heard.

The request was tabled to December 6, 2004.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 &= 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Site Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

The applicants had not yet been heard by the B= oard of Adjustment. The applicatio= n was therefore tabled to the December 6, 2004 Planning Board meeting.

Ma= p 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. Culbert said the applicant had requested t= hat the application be tabled, however this would not be done. He said the applicant was to meet = with Mr. D’Andrea work out the issues and re-notify abutters.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Tr= ust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-lot subdivision for consideration

Mr. D’Andrea began by reviewing his comments. He noted that the applicant was proposing a contribution in lieu of the open space requiremen= t; deeds would be needed for documents to be conveyed for lots with easements; waiver requests for soils reports standard (per Subdivision Regulation); waivers received for 100ftx150ft. (15K area); need DOT driveway permit; sta= te subdivision and state site specific permit; notes clarifying who is respons= ible for easement; as well as other notes for the Board to review. He said the Technical Review Commi= ttee had reviewed and recommended that the street name be Chardonnay Road.

Ms. Ouellette questioned why the soil report w= as not to the New Hampshire standard with the plan before the Board.&n= bsp; Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said the soils were done by Go= ve Environmental to the site specific soil mapping standard per New Hampshire and Ve= rmont; a letter could be provided. M= r. D’Andrea reviewed the provision in the regulation in comparison to the stamp (on sheet 7 of 12), which did not match the same standard required by= the Town. Mr. Zohdi said they wou= ld get the standard and add it to the plan.

Mr. Danevich discussed the waiver for sight easement and said in this case he supported the waiver for the two lots. He noted in the past, that the Tow= n had retained the right of maintenance in the event of an obstruction to the easement.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the Technical Review Committee noted from September and the issue of sight line easements. Mr. D’Andrea said the commit= tee questioned why streets were being designed that required sight line easemen= ts because they were being designed with sight line obstacles. Mr. Culbert said the Board didn= 217;t want ‘bowling alley’ streets.&= nbsp; Mr. D’Andrea suggested that the Board review the radius requirements so waivers weren’t constantly being granted to the regulation.

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich confirmed that cistern location w= ould be designated on the plans. M= r. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates said they had discussed the location = with the Fire Chief and the notation of two areas had been added to the plan (lo= ts 1-155, and 1-155-6).

Ms. Ouellette said there were six waivers (all= of which had previously been accepted for consideration) : 1) road design R= 11; center line curve radii (for two lots); 2) lot shape (for three lots); and = 3) sight distance.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry met with t= he Board and reviewed the comments contained in the October 29, 2004 report. Mr. Zohdi noted that the 15KSF bui= lding envelope areas on two or three lots was available, but not 100ftx150ft. In reference to sight distance, the Board didn’t want long straight roads, therefore sight distance easem= ents have been placed on the lots because the road curves. He didn’t feel homeowners wo= uld obstruct their own sight distance. There would be a note on the plan that stated that the Town could maintain the easement if the homeowner didn’t. Mr. Zohdi said they did everything= the Board wanted and would work with Dufresne-Henry to resolve he minor informa= tion they wanted prior to the Board signing the plan.

Mr. Scanzani wanted to know what had been done regarding a traffic study for Sherburne Road. Ms. Bousa said she drafted a scope and believed it was time for the Board to send it to a couple of consultants to determine the cost for the work. Mr. Zohdi discussed how= the Board had handled studies in the past (i.e. a certain amount per parcel). After further discussion, Mr. Zohd= i and the Board agreed to assess the lots at $500 per lot (any excess would be returned), such funds would be put toward a study for the area once the RFP’s were received.

Mr. Yarmo asked if there was any size specification for the size of plantings at the end of the cul-de-sac. He suggested 4ft – 6ft. Arborvitaes.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert made note. He then reviewed the waiver requests. <= /span>

Ms. Bousa noted in regard to the sight line easements the only reason she was in favor of them was because the cul-de-s= ac contained a limited number of lots.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the waiver requests as they are all related to design standards the Board requested in the road design, which then resulted in needed waivers: 1) to Appendix I, BB – Street Construction Standards – 16 -minimum center line curve radii 430ft required; and Appendix IX – Applicati= on Completion Checklist – Roadway: minimum curve radius 200ft – 150ft.requested .; 2) to Ap= pendix I, BB – Street Construction Standards, 29 - Required Sight Distance= of 455ft. – 520ft. - 425ft. requested along Sherburne Road; and 3) to Section 11.04, (C) Design Standards – 100ftx150ft. for various shap= es on the plan for lots 1-155, 1-155-3, 1-155-4.

VOTE:

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

* fri= endly amendment made to motion by Ms. Ouellette during minutes review/approval (<= st1:date Year=3D"2004" Day=3D"6" Month=3D"12" w:st=3D"on">12/6/04) to add $750 per lot open space contribution. Amendment was accepted by both Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Danevich.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan subject to: 1) applicant agrees to the 4ft. Arborvitaes at the e= nd of the cul-de-sac; 2) addition of note on plan showing the Sherburne Road study amount will be $500 per lot; 3) receipt of DOT driveway permit, sta= te subdivision approval, state site specific; 4) soil report (plan re-stampe= d with certification as required); 5) deed conveyance prior to plan being record= ed at Registry of Deeds; 6) all Dufresne-Henry technical comments being adhe= red to; and 7) $750 per lot open space contribution.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-116 – Kendall= & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saur= man Building, LLC ̵= 1; Sherburne Road – Proposed 12-lot subdivision for consideration

Mr. D’Andrea reviewed his comments, which were for the most part administrative.&nbs= p; He provided a brief update of the Safety Committee meeting; they were supportive of the road connection and not in favor of two separate cul-de-sacs. The committee wa= s in support of the preferred alternative cul-de-sac design; to provide a design where the ‘bulb’ (existing pavement) would remain and either a striping/curbing was done to define the area (as long as it could be design= ed per Town specifications for turning radiuses). Mr. D’Andrea said the commen= ts received from Dufresne-Henry were basically technical issues that could be accommodated on the plan.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates believed= it was the decision of the Safety Committee to leave the cul-de-sac alone and = add striping on the connecting road. He said if the cul-de-sac made some people nervous, they could leave it in for= one year and post the road bond with enough to take the cul-de-sac out after the one year period. There was a discussion regarding the cul-de-sac; Mr. Danevich didn’t want this to= set a precedent; Mr. Culbert was concerned with snow removal (placing plowed sn= ow in unused portion); Ms. Bousa was concerned with the proposed curvature of = the road. There was a brief discu= ssion regarding the three cul-de-sac proposals submitted and the preference of certain Board members: 1) reconfiguration of pavement; 2) grass center area; and 3) leave cul-de-sac alone and stripe sides.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Tom Hunt, Litchfield Circle, said during the = past month they had met with the builders, engineers and the Police and Fire Chiefs to come up with a plan. He was s= till not in favor of connecting the road and reiterated his concern regarding maintenance if the cul-de-sac was to be a grass area. He said he would be in favor of the cul-de-sac being a grass center area if it were landscaped (i.e. gravel, ro= ck garden) and not a field of grass. Mr. Culbert said although abutters are not required to maintain, generally what happens with cul-de-sac grass areas are the abutters set up a cutting schedule.

Ms. Dianne Hunt, Litchfield Circle, was concerned be= cause they had met with the Planning Director, Safety Committee and engineers and believed they had an agreeable plan, which was now being changed again. She said the plan was to leave the roadway alone, add a fog line and place a bond so after one year if it was deemed necessary to fix anything (for safety) there would be means to do so. She noted that her home w= as facing the circle and if it was changed it would change the character of the neighborhood. She did not wan= t a grass circle center cul-de-sac. Mr. Danevich noted that the Safety Committee was an advisory board to the Plann= ing Board who had no legal jurisdiction to enter into any agreement on behalf of the Board. There was further discussion regarding the proposed design.&= nbsp; Ms. Hunt said she had been in contact with everyone on the street; t= he owners of lot 1-112-3 have said they don’t want the road connected; t= he other residents of the street have also spoken through the Hunts to let the Board know their wishes. She reiterated their preference to having the center space of the cul-de-sac ve= rsus un-maintained area in front of their homes.

Ms. Courtney Magarian, representing Kenneth Magarian came forward to discuss the potential easement for lot 118. She wanted to confirm that Cuoco &= amp; Cormier (their engineer) had met with Herbert Associates to discuss such easement; discussions were still moving forward. Even though the development status= of lot 118 is not known, if any, Ms. Magarian requested consideration for an easement for potential future development.= Mr. Culbert believed the Board had requested information, such as topography, to see if a road could connect to lot 118. Ms. Magarian believed the goal of = the meeting was to determine what potential layout would/would not work, but encountered reluctance because it was not known what would be put on the property.

Ms. Bousa asked how much frontage lot 118 had = on Sherburne Road. Ms. Magarian did not know. She noted that there were approxim= ately twenty five to thirty five acres of land.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi reviewed the parcel and discussed where a potential right-of-way could be placed (near lot 8) given the wetland and sight line issues. Based upon the discus= sion, Mr. Danevich asked the applicant to update the plan and include a right-of-way = on lot 1-116-8 (access between Litchfield Circle and lot 1-118 parcel). Mr. Zohdi asked if the right-of-way could be placed between lots 7 & 8 so they didn’t lose a lot. There was no objection. It was noted that the additional n= otes has been taken care of; the bottle dump area had been taken care of. Mr. D’Andrea said Dufresne-H= enry had raised a question regarding the maintenance/cutting of the Sherburne Road area because there was a wetland soil type there; additionally the internal sight line easement maintenance needs clarification (along with a note on the plan). Ms. Ouellette reviewed= and read aloud a portion of the October 25, 2004 letter submitted by Dufresne-Henry. Mr. Zohdi understood that the Town= would be responsible for the sight line maintenance. Mr. D’Andrea said in this in= stance it was a wetland. Mr. Zohdi s= aid they would leave the 100ft. alone and not disturb the wetland. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the = Town was being asked to cut and maintain the wetland area. It was noted that the Town current= ly did such maintenance. Mr. D’Andrea then noted the only reason the state requirement for sight distance was being met was for the area to be cleared. Mr. Zohdi said at the time the roa= d was given to the Town, the wetland soil would not be disturbed and the trees wo= uld be cut.

Ms. Bousa asked where the well and existing se= ptic was located for lot 116. Mr. = Zohdi said they could not find the actual system because it was so old (built in 1955).

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the waiver requests: 1)= to Appendix I – Roadway Design, 16 minimum center-line curve radii (430f= t. required); Appendix IX – Application Completion Checklist – Roadway, minimum curve radius (200ft. required) – requesting minimum curve radii of 150ft; 2) to Section 11.04 Lot Shape, (C) Design Standards (100ft.x150ft.) to the various sizes on the plan for lots 8, 9, 10 & 11= . She believed the first waiver requ= est had previously been accepted for consideration.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = accept for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.04 Lot Shape, (C) Des= ign Standards (100ft.x150ft.) to the various sizes on the plan for lots 8, 9,= 10 & 11

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = approve both waiver requests: 1) to Appendix I – Roadway Design, 16 minimum center-line curve radii (430ft. required); Appendix IX – Application Completion Checklist – Roadway, minimum curve radius (200ft. requir= ed) – requesting minimum curve radii of 150ft; 2) to Section 11.04 Lot Shape, (C) Design Standards (100ft.x150ft.) to the various sizes on the p= lan for lots 8, 9, 10 & 11.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Bousa voted no.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = issue the required Special Permit for the WCD crossing in accordance with Zoning Regulation, Section 307-40.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Bousa voted= no.

There was a brief discussion regarding what co= nditions would be included in the approval, at which point the following motion was made. Mr. George Saurman came forward and said $750 per lot would be contributed in lieu of open space. He confirmed that the money would = be given to the Park & Recreation Department. Mr. Culbert answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea asked when the = $750 would be contributed. Mr. Dan= evich said the contribution should be made at the time the building permit is iss= ued.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = approve the plan conditioned upon: 1) to relocate the signature block to the lower left; 2) compliance with soil stamp to New Hampshire standard; 3) if state site specific permit dated August 11, 2004 needs amendment, it should be taken care of – if for some reason its not amended, it would need t= o come back before the Board for reconsideration; 4) the road right-of-way accommodation in the approximate location between lots 1-116-7 & 1-11= 6-8 to appear on the plan; 5) lots will be accessed at $500 per lot (at the t= ime of the building permit) for the Sherburne Road study (any excess will be returned); 6) the cul-de-sac shall be reviewed by a landscaper – any growth should be low and not be over 12 inches; and 7) $750 per lot open space contribution.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa answered no.

Ma= p 34 Lot 6-206 – Mendes, David – Irene Drive/Thomas Avenue – Proposed 5-lot subdivision – Voluntary Remand<= /b>

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d there had been a previous subdivision that didn’t work. The proposed plan was to subdivide= the parcel into four buildable and one non-buildable lot (18 acres to be deeded= to the Town). He said on each lo= t they didn’t have two test beds; the lot lines were changing; the soil is a= ll sand and gravel. He said when= the plan was submitted it didn’t have Gove Environmental’s stamp for the soils (because Mr. Jim Gove was out of the country); however prior to t= he plan being signed, it would be stamped.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi said the plan went to TFMoran (Town’s former enginee= r) who in turn had comments. He = said they had copies of the revised plan (in accordance to TFMoran’s comments, which were minor) that could be submitted to the Board. He said they were proposing sheet drainage with the swale being located behind all four lots.

Mr. Culbert questioned if the Board had receiv= ed a set of revised plans. Mr. Zoh= di said he could circulate copies of the revised plan.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the history of the plan. He said the owner of the parcel (approximately 30 acres) came in to the Planning Department and want= ed to build a single-family home, which was denied by the Planning Director becau= se there was less than 200ft. of frontage on the end of Irene Drive. At that point the owner pursued a = waiver from the Board of Adjustment and was denied; the owner had no other course = of action except to seek relief from court; the Board later agreed to do a voluntary remand. Mr. Danevich confirmed that the proposed plan was for a five lot subdivision; four build= able lots with the fifth lot (approximately 18 acres) being a conservation area being deeded to the Town.

Mr. Culbert questioned the difference between = the two plans. Mr. Zohdi said only minor comments had changed. M= r. D’Andrea said the comments were relatively minor in nature. Ms. Ouellette read aloud the porti= on of the TFMoran letter dated October 27, 2004 that contained their comments. Mr. D’Andrea then reviewed h= is comments, most of which were administrative in nature. Mr. Zohdi addressed the comments a= nd in reference to the test bed would dig an additional one if the plan was appro= ved.

There was no public input.

Mr. Yarmo asked if there would be a conservati= on easement placed on the land proposed to be donated to the Town. He wanted to know who would be the steward to the property to ensure there was no encroachment. Mr. Danevich said it would be the = job of the Selectmen and didn’t feel comfortable placing an unnecessary restriction on the parcel. Mr. Yarmo said the parcel qualified as a prime wetland and was probably one of = the most environmentally sensitive brought before the Board. Mr. Danevich asked if the parcel w= as scheduled to be studied next year as a prime wetland. Mr. Yarmo answered yes. He said they were also trying to f= orm a group to be the steward of parcels being purchased. There was further discussion regar= ding the parcel’s sensitivity.

Mr. Yarmo asked where access to the deeded par= cel would be located. Mr. Culbert= said Thomas Drive had access. Mr. Scanzani said the= re was a 50ft. right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Yarmo confirmed that the lot c= orners would be marked. Mr. Culbert = said the appropriate bounds would be added.&nbs= p; Mr. Yarmo requested that the Board require the property lines to be blazed so any encroachment could be easily identified.

Mr. Scanzani wanted to ensure that a note woul= d be added to the plan showing the deeded parcel. Mr. Zohdi said his client wanted t= o deed the eighteen acres to the Town of Pelham and wouldn’t be involved further.&nb= sp; He had no problems with the comments of TFMoran or Mr. D’Andrea and would adhere to such.

Mr. Scanzani made a motion to approve the waiv= er for the cul-de-sac length based upon the history of the parcel. It was noted that the cul-de-sac l= ength would be approximately 2900ft. Mr. Danevich pointed out that the two other criteria (number of houses and trip count) would be met. Mr. McNa= mara said it was not the point of the cul-de-sac regulations to meet most of the criteria. He said when the regulation was set up it was the intent that all three criteria should be m= et, not two out of three.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the waiver for the cul-de-sac length (total length approximately 2900ft.).

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette v= oted no.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = grant the Special Permit of the WCD crossing at the beginning of the road (in accordance with Zoning Ordinance 307-40).

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette v= oted no.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan subject to: 1) the administrative items of TFMoran and the Plann= ing Director being done; and 2) a note being placed on the plan that clearly indicates lot 6-206 will be deeded to the Town as a Conservation Easement lot.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette v= oted no.

Ma= p 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiGrazia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-lot subdivision for consideration

Mr. D’Andrea review= ed his list of comments, specifically the 15KSF area and if it met the requirements for lot creation. Mr. Scanzan= i discussed the 14KSF area and questioned how it could be obtained when it contained a steep slope. He asked if the = area could be moved. Mr. Zohdi cir= cled the 14KSF area on the plan. H= e said his client wanted to subdivide the lot for his daughter. He pointed out that the lot was la= rger than the one acre requirement; D & E slopes were not included in the calculations.

Mr. Danevich had trouble = with the lot and felt it didn’t comply with Section 11.05(C),1 – 100ft.x 150ft. dimension; Section 11.04 (C), V – slopes exceeding 25%; and Section 11.04 (C), VI – building area/slopes of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Zohdi said t= he slope was not calculated as part of the lot sizing; he said the only thing = that the lot didn’t comply with was the 100ft. x 150ft. area. He discussed a lot across the stre= et that removed material and created a building lot; his clients were trying to comply with the requirements. Mr. Danevich wanted to ensure that the applicants understood that natural expan= sion couldn’t happen; it was a poorly designed lot.

Mr. D’Andrea remind= ed the Board that the Subdivision Regulations don’t require the house to be located in the 15K area, just that the 15K area be shown. There was further discussion regar= ding the lot. It was agreed that t= he lot was difficult. Mr. Culbert sa= id he would like to see the site specific plan.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi noted that the site specific plan was submitted as part of= the original submission; the site specific plan was sent and approved by the st= ate. He said he would present a site sp= ecific plan to the Health Officer and the Planning Director for approval.

Mr. D’Andrea asked = if the 14K area shown on the plan excluded the WCD. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea said that the regulations don’t specify that the WCD has to be excluded. Mr. Zohdi said he would not be requesting a waiver for the 15KSF area.&nb= sp; He then reviewed the shape and said they were requesting 160ft. x 95ft.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud a request (dated A= ugust 11, 2004) to refund the $1000 subdivision plan fee and the $100 for= the tax map revision fee. It was = noted that the applicant had paid the fees once.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = waive the subdivision and tax map revision fees.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.04 (C) – Lot Shape, for= the dimensions of 160ft. x 95ft.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 11.04 (C) – Lot Shape for the dimensions of 160ft. x 95ft.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no= .

Mr. Scanzani said he woul= d like to see a site specific plan. = Mr. Culbert said Mr. Zohdi had a site specific plan that could be submitted. It was noted that the sight distan= ce was 180ft. in both direction.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the plan subject to a site specific plan being submitted.

VOTE:

=

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no.

MINUTES

Octob= er 18, 2004

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To = approve the October 1= 8, 2004 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:10 p.m.

           &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