PB Minutes 11-05-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 5, 2007

Chairman Peter McNamara c= alled the meeting to order at 7:00= pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paul Da= dak, Roger Montbleau, Jason Croteau, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Robert Have= rty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Tim Dohe= rty

In the absence of Mr. Cul= bert and Mr. Doherty, Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. McGlynn and Mr. Passamonte to vote.=

PRESENTATION – Benjamin Frost, Housing Awareness Coordinat= or, New Hampshire Housing – RSA Training

New Hampshire Housing, Ho= using Awareness Coordinator Attorney Ben Frost and Nashua Regional Planning Commission Representative Camille Patterson (who manages the ITRAC Program)= met with the Board to provide and update regarding legal issues both in Legisla= ture and Court regarding Planning and what might be expected next year.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 4 Lot 9-146 – Antho= ny Mesiti – Mill Pond Estates, Arlene Drive – Request for Bond Reduction<= /o:p>

Mr. Gowan provided the Bo= ard with Stantec’s opinion regarding the amount for reduction. The original bond amount was $221,= 000 the current bond being held is $140,000; the recommendation was to release $117,900 retaining 10% of the original bond $22,100 until the road would be= on the ballot. The work was not = done in time to ‘winter’; so the road would go on the March, 2009 ballot. Mr. Gowan said the wo= rk had been done and it was Stantec’s opinion that the bond could be reduced.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = reduce the bond by $117,900 from $140,000 to a total of $22,100 to be retained. =

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 7 Lot 4-185 – Geoff= rey Detellis – Rocky Hill Road – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan informed that t= he original bond amount was $164,520 the current amount being held was $14,279= . He said while the roadwork was com= plete, Stantec couldn’t recommend a bond reduction in the event there were problems while the road ‘over-wintered’. He felt it would be in keeping wit= h the Regulations to follow Stantec’s recommendation.

Map 8 Lot 9-64 – Timoth= y A. Ivers Trust – Ivers = Grove Lane – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said the origin= al bond amount was $168,773.11. He sa= id the work had been completed. The current bond being held was $35,642.30.&nb= sp; Stantec suggested a reduction of $18,764.99 retaining $16,877.31 whi= ch was 10% of the original bond.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = reduce the current amount of the bond ($35,642.30) by $18,764.99 to a final guaranteed amount of $16,877.31.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – SDK Land Holdings, LLC – Irene Drive Extension – Request for Bond Reduction/Release

Mr. Gowan indicated that = the project had been done for quite some time.= The original bond amount was $62,090 with the current bond being that original amount. Stantec reco= mmends a reduction of $55,800 retaining 10% of the original amount ($6,290).

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Croteau/Haverty) To re= duce the current bond ($62,090) by $55,800 to a final guaranty amount of $6290 per Stantec’s recommendation. =

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 28 Lot 2-12 – JRV Homes – Quail Run Road – Request for Full Bond Release and recommendation that the Board of Selectmen accept the road per the authority provided by the voters at the 2007 Annual Town Meeting

Mr. Gowan said Quail Run Road was completed (inclu= ding the top coat) and had ‘wintered-over’ several winters. He said the remaining item wa= s to complete the sidewalk along Burns Road which required work along the wetlands. Because the work pre-dated Stantec= , he and Highway Road Agent Don Foss reviewed the work done to the Town road; bo= th were satisfied with the work. In anticipation of the work being completed it was recommended to place the ro= ad on the ballot for Selectmen approval. Mr. Gowan said the recommendation was to release, in its entirety, t= he $121,000 bond amount. He said= if the Board took action to release the bond, he would ask the Board to then t= ake action to allow him to make a recommendation to the Selectmen that the road= be accepted by them.

The Board discussed the r= ecommendation. Mr. Gowan discussed the items that= were required to be done prior to a letter being sent to the bank requesting the release of the surety.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said he had done the subdivision. He said there was a section that h= ad been accepted by the Selectmen and voters as a Town road. He explained that the second secti= on was Burns Road, which fell under the jurisdiction of the Selectmen, and had nothing to do w= ith the subdivision. He said the Planning Board asked the Selectmen to do site work on Burns Road. He said there was a bond set and t= he Selectmen were happy with the amount set for that portion. He said the Quail Run portion was = under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board and the Selectmen. Mr. McNamara asked what the status= was of the sidewalk on Burns R= oad. Mr. Zohdi said it had been completed. He said he met wit= h the Planning Director and Mr. Foss and had done everything they had to do for completion. Mr. McNamara note= d that the original bond of $121,000 was put on for the Quail Run subdivision.

Mr. Passamonte questioned= why 10% was not being held back. Mr. = Gowan explained the instances in which 10% would be retained. He said in this case, the road and= top coat had been done for a number of years; it was just off-site improvements that had to be done.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = release the original bond in the amount of $121,000.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Gowan asked that the = Board consider allowing him to seek the Selectmen’s acceptance of the road = on the Board’s behalf.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Montbleau) To = allow Mr. Gowan to provide his recommendation to the Selectmen as indicated.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 29 Lot 7-98 – Pampe= red Nails – 122 Bridge S= treet, Unit #4 – Limited Site Plan Review to add a shampoo sink and hair sta= tion in an existing nail salon

Mr. Dadak 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.

Mr. Gowan indicated that = he was an abutter, but had information to add to the application.

Ms. Huang, co-owner of Pa= mpered Nails came forward to discuss the submitted request to add a shampoo sink a= nd hair station in her existing nail salon.&n= bsp; She said nothing would be built, there was an empty room not being used.

Mr. Gowan said the Town D= eputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski had reviewed and calculated the septic load of the entire building against the approved/installed septic design and felt t= he applicant’s request was within the capacity of the design.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the Limited Site Plan Review.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 24 Lot 12-202 – Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman L= ane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. McNamara noted that t= he Board had discussed the plan during the October 15, 2007 meeting and asked the applicant to = make some corrections to the plan.

Mr. Mike Grainger of Grai= nger Engineering said updated plans had been sent. Mr. McNamara reviewed the changes = that were requested at the previous meeting.&nb= sp; Mr. Grainger said he showed a 150x100 building lot envelope on lot o= ne; it also encompassed the 4K area. The notation of the proposed well and 4K area had been removed. The existing leach field and = tank were now shown. The Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) area was delineated in greater detail. Three small retention= areas (rain gardens) were also added to stop water from flowing in the drainage a= rea. Mr. Grainger said an additional no= te was added to indicate any relocation of the existing house, septic or well to t= he rear of lot 12-202 would require the owner to come back to the Planning Boa= rd.

Mr. McGlynn had some conf= usion regarding the wetlands. Mr. Grainger said the 50ft. buffer was shown and no building could occur in that location because it also fell within the 15-foot setback of the lot. Mr. Gowan said Mr. Culbert had rai= sed concerns regarding some of the items that had shown up on the plan. He outlined the concerns raised.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Passamonte asked if i= t was okay to place the proposed well inside the building envelope. Mr. Gowan said the only concerns f= or a well were it’s location to property lines and septics. He said wells were quite often pla= ced in the 4K area.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= letter submitted by the Pelham Fire Department and their indication that a fire cistern was not required.

Mr. Dadak reviewed the fi= le to determine if there was a waiver request that was accepted and not approved.= Mr. Grainger recalled that the wai= ver was for the proposed well to be placed within the 15-foot setback. Mr. McNamara suggested to the Boar= d if they acted favorably on the waiver, that they make it clear that the well placement should be site specific and were it to be placed in such a manner= to go over the property boundary lines, the Board would not be inclined to gra= nt any further relief. Mr. Grain= ger understood.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Haverty) To = approve the waive request for the 15-foot setback of the well.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

&n= bsp;

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Passamonte) = To approve the subdivision.=

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Croteau voted no.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 -= Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Seeking 6-month extension of Ma= rch 8, 2007 approval of a 40-unit Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District Crossing

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates came forward to discuss the extension request with the Board. He said previous to the current si= te plan, the plan had come before the Board and received an approval as an eight-lot subdivision and had been recorded at the Registry of Deeds. He said since the approval, the ow= ner decided to do an adult community and obtained a conditional approval for 40-units. He said after the approval was granted, wells were drilled and one came up with nothing, the second one was 2.5 gallons per minute and didn’t work. Mr. Zohdi said he was aware that s= ome abutters (on the north side) were upset and had difficulty with their water= . He said on October 15, 2007 he and other interest= ed persons met with a member of the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) Subsurface and received some direction from them. He said they suggested experimenti= ng with the use of four individual wells each supplying ten units. He said since then he had been wor= king with a person experienced in water design and was in the process of hiring someone to do hydro-geology to obtain direction on which way to go with the wells.

Mr. Zohdi said he was in = front of the Board to provide a status report and to request a six-month extension.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He provided the Board with a plan showing the proposed location of the four wells (two close to Sherburne Road) each having a 125-foot well radius. Each unit needed three hundred gallons of water per day, making it s= o 12,000 gallons of water per day was needed. No testing had been done on the proposed four wells.

Mr. McGlynn and Mr. Dadak= recused themselves from the discussion as they had during previous meetings. Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. McManus= to vote.

Mr. Zohdi said with the information obtained from the state regarding water usage in adult communit= ies he learned that they didn’t use as much water as required. He said wh= en a system is designed for an adult community the state allows them to review o= ther communities to see how much water is used.= In Mr. Zohdi’s experience, each bedroom used a maximum of 46.5 gallons per day. He said the = state finally, after receiving data from engineering firms, realized that an adult community didn’t use as much water as a condominium project.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= y had to meet the three hundred gallon per unit requirement. Mr. Zohdi said yes, and no and exp= lained how the state required him to calculate the usage. Mr. McNamara asked if a request ha= d been made of DES. Mr. Zohdi answer= ed no.

Mr. Gowan said the issue = that caused the delay was the issue of neighboring wells running into problems.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said there hadn’t been en= ough water produced by the wells for any testing that would have potentially impacted neighboring wells. M= r. Zohdi said Mr. Gowan was correct, and that they hadn’t performed a 72-hour pump test. To confirm= the testimony, Mr. McNamara asked if there was any correlation between the loss= of water and problems with water that certain abutters and others had during t= he summer with anything that was done on the property. Mr. Zohdi said he couldn’t s= ay there was nothing, but went on to explain if water was pumped and the neigh= bors had a problem with water over a period of time there might be a problem. Mr. Gowan asked if any hydro-fraci= ng had been done to the test wells. = Mr. Zohdi said hydro-fracing had been done.&nb= sp;

Mr. McManus wanted to kno= w how the yield was determined if it wasn’t pumped. Mr. Zohdi said the driller had a m= eter on the drill that indicated they were producing approximately two gallons.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

There was further discuss= ion regarding the request and the fact that the applicant would need to prove t= hat water would be available. At = the last meeting the Board requested that the applicant notify abutters with we= lls within 2000 feet, five days prior to well monitoring. Mr. Zohdi had no objection. Mr. Haverty said during the October 1, 2007= meeting he recalled that the Board was expecting the test results to be provided prior= to the present meeting. He belie= ved that the Board wasn’t going to grant the extension until they knew wh= at the yield testing. Mr. Zohdi = said the yield test had not been done. He said an extension didn’t say anything about the well. He said if they had an extension, = they would then notify the abutters and do the test wells. He said if they were to do the work first and then come to the Board and they didn’t grant the extension,= a lot of money would be wasted. He said granting an extension would be a win-win situation; if the extension w= as not granted the applicant would have to go back to the original subdivision= and put eight individual wells in.

Mr. Passamonte said when = the applicant had previously been before the Board the issue was that there was= no water and it was during the summertime.&nb= sp; He wanted to know if there would be more water during the winter and spring time. Mr. McNamara bel= ieved during this year the rainfall was below the average. He said it was unknown in terms of ground water. He asked if Mr.= Zohdi had brought anyone else who could testify.= Mr. Zohdi said the only person he brought with him was Shane Gendron= who was also working on the plan. Mr. Passamonte understood from the last meeting that the applicant was to bring= a water expert. Mr. McNamara ha= d the same understanding, however was unsure what they would testify about other = than general terms. Mr. Zohdi said= he would like to have a six-month extension, but went on to suggest ‘tabling’ the six-month extension subject to him finding the wa= ter and coming back with information regarding the water. He said he would like to hav= e some kind of understanding that the Board would honor the six-month extension if= he drilled the well, got sufficient water, and DES approved the forty units.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Mark Maglio, 32 Nicholas Lane said he was one of the people that lost water during the beginning of Augus= t. He said it was the driest August o= n record, but it happened during the beginning. He said the plans didn’t show his, or his neighbor’s wel= ls were located. He discussed the location/situation of his well and his neighbors. He said he wanted to make sure tha= t they were protected somehow. Mr. M= aglio wanted to know how planning reviewed the utility lines (i.e. Comcast, high speed internet) to ensure service was not affected. Mr. McNamara said the Planning Boa= rd didn’t get into those issues unless it was something on a community basis.

Ms. Rula Johnstone, 20 Nicholas Lane wanted to know who did the physical testing of the wells for pressure testing. Mr. Gowan believed t= hat it was done by private contractors that reported their findings. Mr. Zohdi said for a larger system= , DES would come for the 72 hour test and monitor it. He said the smaller systems would = be done by a licensed contractor and report back to DES. Ms. Johnstone recalled that during= a previous meeting the applicant indicated that a well person would come in a= nd discuss the issues. She said = her property experienced some well issues but currently they had water. She said within five hours someone= was at her house testing her well. She didn’t understand why it was taking over two months to obtain any information. Mr. McNamara bel= ieved part of it was administrative because during the first meeting everyone see= med to be under the impression that a sustained yield test had been done. Ms. Johnstone asked if the wells sh= own on the plan had been drilled. Mr. Zohdi said they had not drilled the proposed wells they were in a new location. He understood from = the last meeting that they wouldn’t do anything more until they came back= to the Board and told them their plans. He explained what he was requesting of the Board at this time. Ms. Johnstone asked if the two wel= ls that were previously drilled would be utilized. Mr. Zohdi the two wells that had a= lready been drilled would not be utilized. Ms. Johnstone understood that abutters within 2000ft. would be notif= ied of yield testing, but also understood that included notification of any drilling so they would have the opportunity to monitor their water within t= he drilling period. Mr. Gowan sa= id five-day notification was to be given (to abutters within 2000ft)prior to drilling and then monitoring would be done during the sustained yield test.= Ms. Johnstone was concerned about = doing the yield test during the winter, if the extension was granted, because the= re may be more water during that time. She wanted to know if there would be a period of time that she would= be protected (as an abutter) if she experienced well issues.

Mr. Haverty questioned if= it was within the Board’s purview to require the developer to post a bond fo= r a period of time while things were worked out. Mr. McNamara was unsure. He said in most bond issues it was= for work done on a property. Mr. = Gowan said he would have to consult Town Council. Mr. Passamonte questioned what goo= d the money would be if there was no water. Ms. Johnstone pointed out her property would be worth nothing if the= re was no water. There was furth= er discussion regarding the applicant’s request and the standards that w= ould have to be met per DES.

Mr. Paul Dadak, 103 Sherburne Road wanted it on the record, and showed on the plan, where a community well was currently located and that there was another community well proposed at the Magarian project. He said the= re was not only a history of the area being hard to get water out of the ground, b= ut there were going to be multiple community wells drawing water. He said in the six years residing = at his home the well had gone dry once. There was a brief discussion regarding the science behind finding wa= ter.

Mr. Ted McGlynn, 9 Scenic View Drive, said he had discussed his concerns with the wells and their radiuses. He said the situation seemed to be= a bit odd; the Board had made requests, but information (for the third/forth time) had not been provided. He ask= ed if having four wells would equal one big well, in terms of community wells. He wanted to know if the wells wou= ld be tested together or one at a time. Mr. McNamara believed testimony was given that the wells would be te= sted simultaneously. Mr. McGlynn w= as unclear regarding the definition of Community Well. Mr. Gowan believed the standard wa= s the number of units on the property. He said the applicant still had to follow the DES regulations, even if more we= lls were drilled. Mr. McGlynn sai= d he approved of having a 2000ft. radius for notification but wanted to know if = it was well-to-well or property-to-property.&= nbsp; He recommended that people contact DES regarding their concerns about the monitoring. He said they = could also request that the radius be extended so they could be included. Mr. McGlynn said he was uncomforta= ble with the way the plan was coming back and forth to the Board. Mr. Gowan said it would easier to calculate the 2000ft. by doing it property-to-property versus well-to-well. Mr. Zohdi said = he would use the tax map and draw a 2000ft. radius around the property. He said it was his understanding f= rom DES that they could drill as many wells as they wanted as long as they comp= lied with the setbacks to the septic.

Mr. Maglio said there was= an impact fee being collected for the Sherburne Road area and suggested that it might be good = to have a fee for a community wa= ter system in the area. Mr. McNam= ara said the plans had already been approved and it would be legally impossible= to go back and impose something that wasn’t part of the plan. Mr. Maglio said it might be someth= ing for the Board to consider in the future, especially in the particular area = of Town.

Mr. Zohdi said they were = looking to see if they could built a nice community well system.

Mr. Haverty asked if the = Board could predicate an extension based upon DES approval. Mr. Gowan said Mr. Zohdi indicated= that they had no intention of drilling the wells if the plan was not extended. He noted if the DES didn’t g= ive approval, the project would not happen anyway. The Board discussed how they would proceed. It was noted if the extension wasn’t granted, the applicant had the right to build eight individual wells.

Mr. Passamonte wanted to = know if in six months the applicant could come back with another extension request = and keep doing so indefinitely. M= r. Zohdi said the project was costing his client and if water was not found wi= thin two or three months they would have to find a remedy. He also stated if he couldn’= t obtain a DES approval, he couldn&#= 8217;t do the project because it was approved by the Board conditioned upon obtain= ing it. He said during the extens= ion period if negotiations go well and they can get off-site water, they wouldn’t have to drill. Mr. Gowan added if the applicant was successful in getting a community water sy= stem, they would have to come back to the Board with an amended plan showing the water lines etc.

Mr. Passamonte wanted to = know why alternate plans had not yet been presented since the applicant had been loo= king for water for eight months. M= r. Zohdi said they had not gotten to the final negotiations yet.

Mr. Haverty asked if ther= e were objective criteria to measure what quality/quantity should be. Mr. Gowan said the Town didn’t have criteria, but the state did. He discussed the Town’s requirements for individual wells and said the standard for a community well system was higher and taken care of by the state.

The Board members discuss= ed their feelings regarding the extension request.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan noted that DES will make the determination as to what dist= ance from the applicant’s property they will monitor wells. Mr. Zohdi had no objection notifyi= ng abutters within 2000ft. of the property line of the sustained yield test. It was noted that the Board would probably look relatively dimly on any further extension.

MOTION:

(McManus/Haverty) To ap= prove a six month extension subject to abutter notification within 2000ft. of the= applicant’s property line if a sustained yield test if performed; as well as providin= g notification five days prior to drilling.

VOTE:

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

Map 41 Lot 6-126 -= Nashua Redimix = 211; Bridge Street (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ftx40ft Concrete Batch P= lant

The applicant requested a continuance. The plan was date specified to the December 3, 2007 meeting. Mr.= Gowan said a meeting was conducted with Stantec, Vollmer, the applicant’s engineer, Dracut Planner and a member of the Dracut Planning Board to prima= rily discuss traffic issues. They discussed some of the shortcoming of the available traffic information. The applicant will do additional w= ork for review by Stantec.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

December= 3, 2007 –

Map 41 Lot 6-126 - Nashua Redimix – Bridge Str= eet (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ftx40ft Concrete Batch P= lant

MINUTES

Octob= er 15, 2007- deferred to the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:38 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