PB Minutes 10.03.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 3, 2005

The Vice Chairman, Peter = McNamara called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

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

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Gael Ou= ellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Ken Dunne, Planning Director = Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Paddy Cu= lbert, Christine Medeiros, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phyllis/Ivers, Timothy – 96 Windham Road – Proposed 5-= Lot Subdivision

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. Mr. Paul Beau= chesne of 4 Hayden Road said he had not received notification of the meeting. Ms. Ouellette noted that notificat= ion for 2 & 4 Hayden Road<= /st1:address> was sent to John & Theresa Caldwell.&n= bsp; Mr. Beauchesne didn’t have a problem with the Board proceeding with a hearing.

Mr. Dave Brouillet of Keach & Nordstrom who were the Civil Engineers who prepared the plan. He discussed the proposed plan. He said the footage to the end of = the cul-de-sac would be less than 500feet.&nbs= p; They were proposing an open drainage concept; an analysis had been submitted. Mr. Brouillet said= they would be requesting a driveway permit from New Hampshire Department of Transportation (‘DOT’), and&nb= sp; subdivision approval from the New Hampshire Department of Environmen= tal Services (‘DES’). He said they were not proposing any wetland area filling, but had applied for a Special Exception (permit from DES) because of the small impacts to the wet= land buffers. He said a representa= tive from his company had met with the Conservation Commission and believed a recommendation had been submitted to minimize any clearing for a sight line easement (for 400feet sight line). He said a sight distance easement had been encumbered on the lot so = that the sight distance could be taken care of.= He said the other recommendation was to not disturb any existing sto= ne walls, which they did not intend to do because a majority of the stone wall= was the definition of the boundary.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a letter dated August 29, 2005= that had been submitted by the Conservation Commission Chairman following their meet= ing on August 17, 20= 05. The project had been reviewed (by = the Conservation Commission) and by a vote of 5-0 a recommendation was made as = follows: 1) consider the reduction in roadway pavement width to reduce impervious surface; 2) restrict the clearing in the protect wetland buffer (required to achieve the sight lines – intention not to clear cut area); and 3) preserve stone walls on property.

Mr. Brouillet said they were not requesting a waiver for road width, it was being designed for the standard 26-foot paved section of roadway. Mr. McNam= ara asked if any waivers (to the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance) would be requested. Mr. Broui= llet said there had not been any violations that required a variance.

Mr. Gowan reviewed some of his comments. He believed it was appropriate to question (when two cul-de-sacs were in close proximity such as Ivers & Sycamore) if it was possible for a connection. He said he passed that question al= ong and felt it was worthy of discussion. He said a question had been raised if it was possible to gain access= to a right of way (from Windh= am Road) to the Kirby Town Forest. Mr. Brouillet discussed the questi= on of connecting to Sycamore Str= eet and explained when the abutting parcel had come before the Planning Board it had been deemed that a connection was not necessary and the area had been developed. He then discussed accessing the Town owned land and said there were constraints due to the ne= ed to cross wetlands.

It was clarified that the applicant was not seeking a Special Exception (from the Board of Adjustment) but rather would= be requesting a Special Permit for the impact to the WCD buffer.

Mr. Gowan believed the plan was complete for acceptance.

MOTION:

(Yarmo/Ouellette) To accept the p= lan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Yarmo thought it would be important for the residents to have access through to the Town Forest for passive recreation. He sa= id the two wetlands were not hydrologically connected and wanted to know if they w= ould be by putting the culvert in. He asked for an explanation of the culvert.&n= bsp; Mr. Brouillet discussed the water flow on the parcel and said the culvert would continue the water to flow once the road was put in. Mr. Yarmo said when the plan was discussed at the Conservation Commission; he understood that the wetlands w= ere not hydrologically connected. He wanted to know why a dredge and fill permit wasn’t needed if the wetl= ands were hydrologically connected. Mr. Brouillet said he would do more research, have a discussion with the wetland scientist and get an answer back to the Board. Mr. Yarmo wanted more information regarding the culvert.

Ms. Bousa had a concern regarding the sight distance on Route 111a. She wasn’t sure that the proposed easement would provide 400feet. She noted that the Town used AASHT= O and asked for a report regarding stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance. Mr. Brouillet said = they had provided a sight distance profile.&nbs= p; Ms. Bousa asked that Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) do their= own field measurements when reviewing the site. She asked if it was appropriate to= have the Planning Director send DOT a letter (as they are reviewing the driveway permit application) advising of the Board’s concern. Mr. Gowan said he would send a let= ter to DOT.

Mr. Dunne asked if fire cisterns were required (because it was less than 1000 feet) and if the Fire Chief had reviewed the plans. Mr. Brouillet said they would meet with the Fire Chief and had no objections to working with him if= it was felt cisterns were needed. Mr. Dunne asked what the length of the cul-de-sac was. Mr. Brouillet said the cul-de-sac = was approximately 500 feet.

Ms. Ouellette observed that some of the leach fields (lots 4 & 5) were within the building envelope. Mr. Brouillet said the leach field= would actually be small percentage of the 4000SF area shown. Ms. Ouellette said that the leach = field was shown under the house on lot 5. Mr. Brouillet said he would review and could reconfigure the 4000SF area. He said they were demonstrating a viable solution; homeowners may want their houses in a different location, but they would still have to comply with state local permits. Ms. Ouellette questi= oned how close the corner of the leach field was to the well radius on lot 4. Mr. Brouillet said the well radius= was approximately five feet from the leach field.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Holly Daigle, Sycamore Street (end of cul-de-sac)= said the plan was first reviewed at the end of August and wanted to know if an Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’) had been done. Mr. McNamara said generally an EIA= was done for subdivisions larger than 10-lots.= He noted that the last meeting was ‘conceptual’ and therefore a non-binding discussion. He said the Board could ask that an EIA be done, but had not gotten = to that concern yet. Ms. Daigle informed the Board that her house was close into the wetlands and there was= a lot of wild life that should be reviewed.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara asked if a connection through Sycamore would have a significant impact. Ms. Daigle believed it would, and noted that her frontage encompassed the entire front= age of the road. She didn’t believe that there was an easement in that area.

Mr. Paul Beauchesne, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Hayden Road, wanted to know if the development would have any affect on the drainage/water run off on the Windham Road side. Mr. McNamara said the p= re- and post-development water flow had to be the same. He said the Town’s Engineer = would review the plans and the Board would then determine if the area was sensitive. Mr. Beauchesne not= ed that the pond was tied into the wetlands across the street (Windham Road); in the Spring it rose. He wanted to know where= the main access for the development would be located. Mr. McNamara said as the plan was engineered, it would be off Windham Road, however there had been discussions about possibly breaking through (the cul-de-sac) and tying the road way in.

There was a brief discussion as to whether an = EIA should be done. Mr. Brouillet= noted that there were no proposed wetland impacts; and that the plan had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission.&n= bsp; He believed an impact report (done for the Sycamore subdivision) wou= ld have taken the proposed lot into consideration. He said that a significant drainage report had been done and attested that there was no additional increase in runoff to the site. He felt strongly that the Town would not learn anything new by doing an EIA. Mr. Yarmo asked if the wildlife co= rridor could be reviewed. He asked i= f the applicant could consider an easement to the Kirby Town Forest. Mr. Brouillet said for the next me= eting he would make sure a wetland scientist was present to address the specific questions that deal with the environmental concerns of the Board.

Mr. McNamara said there was no reference on the plan to open space or the presence, or preservation of existing trails. Mr. Brouillet said he would take i= t into consideration. Mr. McNamara reviewed additional comments submitted by Mr. Gowan such as to verify compliance with Article K, stamped and signed plans by registered surveyor = (only the cover sheet was done), and fire protection.

Mr. Brouillet asked if the plans had been sent= to Dufresne-Henry. Mr. Gowan sai= d not prior to the current meeting and believed return comments could come within= one week.

Ms. Ouellette said it would be helpful to show right-of-ways, if there were any. Mr. Brouillet said they were shown on the tax map, but would be glad= to show the Board an exhibit.

The plan was date specified to the November 7, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-129-1 QAD, LLC/Nextel Communications – 60 Pulpit Road – Site Plan Re= view of Proposed 12x20 Equipment Shed

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 writte= n correspondence from abutters.

Ms. Heather Caspanaro, on behalf of Nextel Communications met with the Board to discuss the installation of twelve ant= ennas to the existing 150-foot tower. The antennas would be installed at approximately 110-feet. A 12x20 equipment shelter was also proposed to be located on the ground within the existing compound adjacent = to the tower.

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the applicant was = not proposing to increase the height of the tower. Ms. Caspanaro answered no. Mr. McNamara asked if the tower wo= uld be able to support the weight of the additional antennas. Ms. Caspanaro answered yes.

Mr. Yarmo asked what the height of the antennas would be and how many carriers the tower was designed to carry. Ms. Caspanaro said the antennas wo= uld be approximately 5-feet, but was under the impression that the Building Inspec= tor only wanted the shed addressed. Mr. Gowan said the tower had triangular platforms where the antennas would be installed and suggested obtaining a letter from the owner of the tower certifying that the tower could support the third array. He said the difference with this application was the 12x20-foot structure, which per consensus of the Board should be addressed.

Mr. McNamara asked if the plan would be review= ed by either the Building Inspector or Fire Chief, if approved. Mr. Gowan believed the Building Inspector and Electrical Inspector would review. Ms. Caspanaro indicated that the s= hed was a pre-fabricated concrete shelter.&nbs= p; She circulated photographs of the structure. She noted that landscaping would n= ot change; the shelter would be in the existing fenced in area.

Mr. Dunne wanted to know what type of equipment would be housed in the shed. = Ms. Caspanaro said the shelter housed radio and telephone components.

Mr. Yarmo wanted to know if a de-commissioning bond was in place for when the tower was no longer functional. Mr. Gowan said he would confirm. Mr. Yarmo questioned if the bond s= hould be increased, if there was one in place.&n= bsp; He asked if the compound was visible from the street. Ms. Caspanaro said she had not vis= ited the site and was meeting with the Board on behalf of the person working on = the project. Mr. McNamara said th= ey wouldn’t be responsible because they were leasing space. Mr. Yarmo felt the Board should be having the discussion with the owner. Mr. Gowan said if he were a voting member, he would want assurances = from the owner regarding the structures ability to sustain the weight.

Ms. Ouellette asked if lighting was being proposed. Ms. Caspanaro answe= red no.

Mr. Dunne said the plan showed leased areas and wanted to know if they currently existed.&= nbsp; Ms. Caspanaro answered yes. <= /span>Mr. Dunne asked if the proposed generator was with Nextel or the owner. Ms. Caspanaro said she was told Ne= xtel was not putting a generator on site at this time.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there would be an incre= ase in noise level. Ms. Caspanaro= said there would have air conditioning units to cool the shelter similar to that= in a house.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Dunne) To accept the s= ite plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Dunne made a motion to approve the site plan. Ms. Ouellette seconded = and asked that the approval be conditioned upon receiving a letter stating that= the tower could support the additional arrays.= Mr. Dunne accepted the friendly amendment. Mr. Yarmo asked that the approval = also be conditioned upon a bond being modified, if there was one in place. After a brief discussion, Mr. Yarmo withdrew his suggestion.

MOTION:

(Dunne/Ouellette) To approve the = site plan conditioned upon receiving a letter (from the owner of the tower) stating that the tower could support the additional arrays.

VOTE:

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

OL= D BUSINESS

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

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the plan had been continued at the request of the applicant.

The resident from 83 Webster Avenue was frustrated that the item had been postponed because it was the forth ti= me he had missed work to attend a meeting.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan indicated that the applicant didn’t have all their engineering so they had asked for the plan to be date specified to another date. The resident wanted to = know how many extensions an applicant was given. Mr. McNamara said the timeframe va= ried depending on if the applicant was willing to waive the 90-day period in whi= ch the Planning Board was supposed to act.&nb= sp; He suggested that the resident contact the Planning Department to fi= nd out the status.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 17,= 2005 meeting.

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89 Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the plan had been continued at the request of the applicant. He said all of the plans were not = up to date; there was information the Board was awaiting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 17,= 2005 meeting.

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

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the plan had been continued at the request of the applicant. The applicant was awaiting a dredge & fill permit; the Board was awaiting updated plans.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 17,= 2005 meeting.

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Comeau, John & Olivia – = Dutton Road= – Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the plan had been continued, at the request of the applicant.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 17,= 2005 meeting.

DISCUSSION

Ma= p 36 Lot 12-214 & 221 Harris, George – Poplar Hill Road/Stonepost Road – Informal Discussion of the possibility of constructing a road to connect to Poplar Hill Road to Carriage Hill Road

Mr. McNamara said the applicant had submitted a request that the item be generally withdrawn. The applicant would come back, how= ever a date was not given.

MI= SCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Gowan said the Planning Department had received a series of video tapes regarding conservation and open space that= he asked the Board members to review. <= /span>

Mr. Yarmo felt the Board should discuss the postponements that the Board was doing but was not sure what the options were. Mr. Gowan said the time= clock was a carefully controlled item; and the applicant can request extension to such. He discussed the submission/review process. Th= ere was further discussion regarding the submission process.

Mr. Richard Torra, Stonepost Road and member of the St= onepost Village Neighborhood Association, commented regarding agenda item cancellations. He discussed t= he scheduling difficulties. He a= sked if it would be possible for the members of the public to speak next time Stonepost Road was on the agenda, even if the discussion was cancelled. Mr. McNamara answered no. He said if the applicant was not p= resent, there was nothing for the Board for review. Mr. Torra said the item had been o= n the Planning Board agenda as an informal discussion item and questioned if it w= ould be a formal application at some point.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said when an application was submitted, abutters within 200-feet would receive a certified notice.= Mr. Torra asked if the informal discussion would be rescheduled and = wanted to know why it was cancelled for the current meeting. Mr. Gowan said there was no reason= given for cancellation. He said the applicant would let the Planning Department know when they wanted to reschedule.

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

October 17, 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 Community

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86,= 8-88 & 89 Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for rev= iew

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

Novem= ber 7, 2005

Map 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phyllis/Ivers, Timothy R= 11; 96 Windham= Rod – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES

September 19, 2005 – deferred to the n= ext scheduled meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Yarmo/Ouellette) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:53 pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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