PB Minutes 06-19-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 19 , 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanzani called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Ken D= unne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative = Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo

NEW BUSINESS

Map 2 Lot 5-59 Town of Pelham – Raymond Park - Public Hearing in accordance with = RSA 674:54 to construct two soccer fields

Mr. Domenico stepped down. He is an abutter to the property. =

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The f= ile did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Selectman Victor Danevich and Park & Recreation Di= rector Darren McCarthy held a public hearing in accordance with RSA 674:54 regardi= ng three proposed soccer fields for Raymond Park. He said they would collect non-bin= ding comments from the Board and the public to take into consideration. The state permits and maps have be= en updated. A proposed layout fo= r the park had also been done.

Ms. Elaine Marcum 425 Mammoth Road said there was a lo= ng history with the park and discussed past problems with gravel being taken f= rom the site. Mr. Danevich said a= large amount of fill had been trucked in and didn’t anticipate any problems with such. He said the postin= g was for two fields, but they were considering three full-size fields. He said to get the third field wou= ld require leveling and basic earth work, nothing like the major gravel operat= ions in the past. Ms. Marcum asked= if there would be a buffer (on the north border) between her property and the parks. Mr. Danevich said they intended to leave the buffer in its natural state. He said once the final plan was do= ne they could meet with Ms. Marcum and determine final footage numbers. Ms. Marcum discussed the problems = they had in the past with the stone wall and past construction during the early 1980’s. She was also concerned with trash overflow going into the wooded area and possibly getti= ng into Coombs brook which ran parallel to the boundary. She reiterated that gravel taken f= rom the park over twenty years ago was supposed to pay for the parks and it nev= er happened.

Mr. Scanzani said at this time the Selectmen were tryi= ng to fix a lot of the things that had happened over the years. He felt the Board could request th= at there be a buffer in the area discussed.&n= bsp; He believed there would be plenty of trash containers maintained as = with other park locations. Ms. Mar= cum said her main concern was the buffer to the boundary.

Mr. Danevich said one of the greatest challenges was funding; however, they were continuing with the design, make incremental progress and correct as many items as they could. He said the Selectmen (with a 5-0 = vote) supported the project as a top priority.&n= bsp; He noted that the change in the plans would allow for regulation-size fields as well as parking.

Mr. McCarthy said when the plan was devised they made = sure there would be enough parking for each soccer field. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the pa= rking area would be gravel. Mr. McCarthy answered yes. Mr. Scanzani as= ked that the Selectmen do due diligence to make sure areas were wet down during= construction so there wouldn’t be a lot of dust.&= nbsp; Mr. Danevich asked that the Board provide the Selectmen with written comments that would be considered during the public hearing process.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was a time table for the p= roject or if it would be done incrementally. Mr. McCarthy said they= were looking to complete the two fields first; the third field would be additional. He noted that one= of the parking areas met an ongoing trails grant requirement for Raymond Park. Mr. McNamara asked if t= here was an approximate completion date. Mr. McCarthy said pending funding they hoped to have it complete tow= ard the end of the year (weather permitting).&= nbsp;

Mr. Danevich thanked all the professionals that had he= lped with the project.

Mr. Domenico returned.

DISCUSSION=

Public inp= ut to identify areas of flooding from recent storms

Mr. Scanzani informed that FEMA was in the process of updating the flood maps and had asked for input from communities. The Planning Office has been takin= g a list (from resident correspondence) of areas that had flooded during recent storms. A map was displayed (= for residents to view) showing the current areas defined with the flood plain.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani asked for residents to let the Board know= the areas that were flooded during the recent rain storms. He read aloud a list of roads know= n to have flooded.

The following residents provided information to the Bo= ard regarding flooding that occurred on their property:

Ms. Marie Wolf, 299 Gage Hill Road (Webster Avenue/Route 38) ̵= 1; discussed flooding and water

in basements. She submitted photographs of her h= ome.

Mr.Richard Craven, 17 Washington Street (north of Town center behind former Smith property) –

discussed a culvert that had collapsed at the old rail road bed.

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road – noted the flood map was correct; he had 2-feet of water in his

basement. He wanted the Board to know that F= EMA did a good job.

Mr. Andy Ducharme, 19 Willow Street – said the current flood m= ap is correct. He wanted to know= what

being in a flood zone would= do to depreciation of homes. Mr. Ducharme was di= rected to contact the Assessor for an answer.

Mr. John Egan (brother of Paul Egan of 26 Windham Road) – wanted the= Board to put a face to the people

effected by the flooding.

Mr. & Mrs. Richard and Cheryl Koch, Glenside Drive – wanted to kn= ow if the dams within the brook would

be addressed. Mr. Scanzani discussed the larger picture of the brook and where the water flowed

from such as Derry (for Beaver Brook). Growth is= an issue. During the last storm,= raw sewage was released into the brook by Derry; there was no oil released, other than the normal run off.

Mr. Donald Sullivan and Ms. Debra Marion, 57 Jeremy Hill Road – had a p= roblem due to the Town’s storm

drain system not only from = this past rain storm, but from every storm.&nbs= p; They submitted

photographs.

Mr. Craig Minichiello, 17 Loretta Avenue wanted to kno= w how to determine if his house had perimeter

drains. Mr. Minichiello was directed to co= ntact the Planning Department to review the building plan or septic design.

Ms. Marie McNamara, Leonard Drive had a rock culvert th= at didn’t appear to be working. The culvert

went under Leonard Drive. The Highway Road Agent will be inf= ormed to review.

Mr. John Burns, 290 Gage Hill Road said he had flooding approximat= ely every four years. He noted th= at

the stone culvert (on the r= ailroad bed) was partially collapsed. He said the culvert on Route 38 across from his property was not able to handle the flow. Mr. Burns was asked= to contact the Planning Department to determine the location of the culvert so= it could be reviewed, if owned by the Town.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Department would have a= master map showing flood areas; once information is gathered a complete map will be put together indicating the areas that flooded. Residents were asked to contact the Planning Department (635-7811x4) if they had flooding. Mr. McManus noted that Balcom Road= should be included on the list of roads that flooded; the cul-de-sac was under wat= er. If anyone was interested in viewin= g the ‘preliminary’ FEMA maps, they are available to review at the Planning Department.

OLD BUSINE= SS

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council – Webster Avenue – Proposed 10-= Lot Subdivision

Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuoco & Cormier Engineering m= et with the Board to provide an update of the work they were doing regarding t= he proposed plan. In general the subdivision had not changed its format from previously discussed. They had provided/submitted report= s for the Town’s review including and Environmental Impact Assessment (prep= ared by Gove Environmental), Historical Resources Review. To be submitted is a Traffic Study (addressing the immediate vicinity and the intersection of Webster and Route 38) which in summary indicated there would not be an adverse impact on the traffic operations at the intersection.&nb= sp; Mr. Parsons said the main comments from Stantec (Town’s Engine= er) revolved around drainage. He = said the only substantial, technical change they had done was to incorporate a drainage system that was a little bit different/extensive. He explained that they had incorpo= rated the Town’s cross-drainage (catch basins/swale) to direct the water (f= rom the property and road) into a defined drainage easement. Mr. Parsons said there was a list = of technical comments (from Stantec) that had been addressed and submitted bac= k to them for review.

Mr. Gowan said Mr. Gildersleeve (the person who had be= en representing the plan thus far) indicated there would be a section of open space behind the subdivision and questioned if open space was reflected anywhere in the plan. He said= some open space behind the lots may have value as a buffer between the lots and = the Girl Scout camp. Mr. Parsons = believed the original discussion was the idea that there could be a prescribed easem= ent which in response they had agreed; however, the situation from their perspective now was that the land itself (in essence) was open space. He agreed they had no control over= the land, but it would remain as open space through its present use. He believed it was unlikely that t= he land would be developed to the back of the proposed homes. With regard to open space, Mr. Sca= nzani said the Board was concerned with having something useable that had some si= ze to it. Mr. Parsons said they = worked with the Town on all other aspects of the plan. He said they would consider any op= tions available to them to facilitate a useable part for open space. He believed the technical issues h= ad been addressed and they had done a number of studies to discuss the area of Town.

Mr. Domenico asked if the applicant had considered a d= onation to the Town in lieu of space on Webster Avenue to potentially improve other (or previo= usly owned) parks. Mr. Parsons did= n’t think the applicant had considered it, but felt it was reasonable to think = that the applicant would consider such. <= /span>

Mr. Dunne asked who Mr. Parsons represented. Mr. Parsons said he represented the developer. He understood that= there was a Purchase & Sales Agreement on the property, but neither himself, = or his company was in anyway involved with the negotiations, or (eventual) settlement for the Purchase & Sales.&n= bsp; He said they would follow the regulations of both the Town and the state. He discussed the items= that had changed due to the P&S. There was clarification made regarding the drainage and the directio= n of the flow. Mr. Dunne didn̵= 7;t understand why the Girl Scout Council didn’t recognize the Friends of= Runnels. He asked that the Selectmen review= the issue of a non-profit organization benefiting from the sale of the land. Mr. Gowan said he had raised that = issue with the Town Assessor who would be raising the issue with the Selectmen and the Department of Revenue to determine the rules with regard to tax implications.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Marie Carver, President of the Friends of Runnels = (and a registered Girl Scout) wanted to clarify that the the Friends of Runnels was not interested in purchasing the land.&nbs= p; They were a group of volunteers that cared about the property and its present/future use. She also clarified that the camp was used for both day and resident camp; the area behind the proposed lots was used for resident camp. She said a few years ago a property study was done where the proposed area was reviewed for future development.= She felt it was ironic that proper= ty reviewed for future development was now being disposed.

Ms. Luanne Fidren said she had sent a letter to Spar &= amp; Spindle Council requesting an alternative solution. She discussed the concerns with wh= at was happening with the sale. She = said the Friends of Runnels would like to investigate the governance of some of = the proceedings (i.e. By Laws, protocol for disposing land by non-profit organizations). Mr. Scanzani explained that the regulations required the Board to know that Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council was in charge of the property and legally had the responsibility and control of the property. The property is zoned Residential; according to the Town’s Regulations, if a plan comes before the Board that meets the regulations the Board will be forced to approve it regardless.

Ms. Marjorie Garland Nickerson, Scarborough Maine= addressed the Board and provided a packet of information that explained how important= Camp Runnels is to the Town and how important the Town is to Camp Runnels. She felt buffer zones and open spa= ce was very important and wanted the Board to consider such since the proposed pro= ject would take away from the current buffer.&n= bsp;

Mr. McManus questioned the status of the second access= to the camp. Mr. Scanzani said t= he property had a second access. Mr. Parsons reviewed the plan and showed the location of the access which had b= een moved from its current location approximately 120feet. Ms. Nickerson noted that the second access had been put in a few years ago for safety, winter and emergency acc= ess. Mr. Scanzani said the Board wouldn’t let the additional access go away.

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road asked how many acres= were involved in the total project. Mr. Parsons said there were twelve acres. Mr. Scanzani said open space had not been worked out yet. Ms. Burton confirmed that the environmental study had been completed and asked if it had been accepted. Mr. Scanzani said a report had not= yet been received from the Town’s Engineer. He said there was still informatio= n that had to come before the Board such as the Town’s Engineer report (including environmental and road impacts) and the road engineer hasn’= ;t reviewed. Ms. Burton hoped th= at the Council would think about the safety of the girls and ask for a permanent buffer zone to protect the campers.

Mr. Gowan questioned when Mr. Parson felt he would be = ready to meet back with the Board. = Mr. Parsons said they had completed their submittal to Stantec (Town’s Engineer) and the traffic study he expected would be submitted to the Town = June 20, 2006.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the environmental study ha= d been prepared, but didn’t know the status of counter review by the Town. He believed they had received subdivision approval June 16, 2006. It was believed that two weeks would be a reasonable amount of time to complete th= e reviews by the consultants. The next hearing would be scheduled for July 6, 2006.

Map 28 Lot<= /st1:place> 7-144-1 & 2 Martone ̵= 1; Corner of Marsh Road & Willow Street – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision and <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. Gowan informed that the applicant requested the pl= an to be date specified to the July 6, 2006 meeting. =

= ADMINISTRATIVE

= Map 6 & 13 Lot 4-137 = G&M Jeremy Hill Land Development – Meadowview Estates – Request for Bond Reduction

= Mr. McNamara recused himself. Mr. Collins was appointed to vote for this matter.

= Mr. Scanzani said during the last discussion regarding this item, there was a serious concern raised by Board members regarding the calculated bond reduction. Stantec (Town Engi= neer) was asked to review again based on the requirement (as discussed in many meetings) as part of the original approval of the Meadowview Estates Subdivision which required the water line extension down Meadowview to be completed (across a section of Longview that had already been done). It did not appear on the worksheet prepared by Stantec that the required water line was in the bond figure. Mr. Gowan said the amount was not = in the bond recommendation by Stantec; he conferred with them, consulted the minut= es and reviewed the conditions of approval.&n= bsp; He said Stantec reviewed the 1400-feet of water main, came up with a price and added into the figures contained on the memo date June 19, 2006. The contingency was based on 30% o= f the original $1 million.

= Present Surety Amount: $504,067

= Recommended reduction of Surety: $170,597.40

= New recommended Surety amount for Phases I & II: $333,469.60

= Mr. Scanzani asked if Stantec was asked to review the work that had already been done. Mr. Gowan said it was an ongoing process; there was some recent work that was just completed that may not be reflected in the figure. Mr. Chris Graham, developer, said the site was being reviewed during the day, b= ut the revised numbers were not ready for tonight’s meeting. Mr. Scanzani said the Board had Stantec’s letter listing the remaining items including the water line. Mr. Graham said Stantec’s numbers were not close to what would actually be paid; he received quotes from two different people that were half the amount. Mr. Scanzani said Stantec’s = job was to protect the Town.

= Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board take action on the recommended figure and asked Mr. Graham to provide (in writing) the estimates for the drainage to be taken to Stantec to review. He said in= the past, they have (on some cases) changed their recommended figure. Mr. Graham said weather permitting= the remaining items would be finished (eventually). Mr. Gowan said there was nothing stopping Mr. Graham from coming back before the Board for an additional request.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/Domenico)To reduce the bond to $333,469.60 (w= hich is a reduction of 170,597.40).

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

= &n= bsp;

= Mr. McNamara returned to the Board.

= Map 39 Lot<= /st1:place> 6-179 128 Realty Trust –= ; Moonshadow Drive – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the recommendations contained in= the June 6, 2006 mem= o as follows:

Existing Surety: $410,152.44

Bond Reduction Recommendation: $37,585.71

New Recommended Bond Amount: $372,566.73

Mr. Scanzani noted there was a lot of work still to be done. Mr. Gowan agreed. He said the applicant probably anticipated a larger bond release; however, they requested a bond reduction. Mr. Scanzani discu= ssed the outstanding work and said he liked projects to be further along before = he reviewed bond reductions. He = was not in favor of the bond reduction. Mr. McNamara was also not in favor of the bond reduction. He said if the applicant could com= e in and show that work had been done indicating the bond should be reduced, he would vote in favor of such. = He said at this point there was too much still to be done.

Mr. Scanzani noted that the paving had not yet been do= ne and discussed the fluctuating costs for doing such. Mr. Gowan said the contingency was= held for such situations. He sugge= sted establishing benchmarks that would be appropriate for bond reductions. Mr. Scanzani didn’t recall t= he Board considering any bond reduction prior to the base coat of gravel and drainage was in.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To deny the bond reduction reque= st.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed. The Board voted in the affirmati= ve to deny the bond reduction request.

MISCELLANE= OUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Scanzani informed that the CIP subcommittee would = hold a meeting to review a new spreadsheet. He discussed the items (and increased costs) that would be contained= on such.

= DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – July 6, 2006

Map 28 Lot 7-144-1 & 2 Martone – Corner of Marsh Road = & Willow Street – Proposed 3 Lot Subdivision and <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot Line Adjustment

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

June 5, 2006 = –

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouellette/McNamara)To approve the June 5, 2006 Planning Board = minutes as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(3-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Domenico and Mr. Dunne abstained.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:53 pm.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

Charity A= . L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary