PB Minutes 01-24-2008

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 24, 2008

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 Joseph Passamonte, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty= , Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Tim Dohe= rty

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. Passamonte was appointed to vote for Mr. Doherty and Mr. McGlynn was appoin= ted to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

PUBLIC HEARING – Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to place the following roads on the Warrant to be accepted as Town roads: Bear = Hill Road, Blue Jay Avenue, Arlene Drive (beginning at Map 4 Lot 9-146-7), Kathl= een Lane (small side road connecting Arlene Drive to Moekel Road between Map 4 = Lot 9-146-7 and Map 4 Lot 9-146-6), Irene Drive (beginning at Map 34 Lot 6-206-= 1), Litchfield Circle (beginning at Map 38 Lot 1-112-4), Susan Drive, Fineview Circle, Diamond Hill Drive (portion of road between Map 35 Lot 10-352-16 and Map 38 Lot 10-352-17), Meadowview Road, Holstein Drive (beginning at the cul-de-sac and ending at Meadowview Road), Longview Drive (beginning at Map= 13 Lot 4-137-15 and ending at Map 13 Lot 4-137-22)

Mr. Gowan informed that h= e had visited each road with Highway Road Agent Don Foss. He said his department sent out le= tters to the developers/property owners of the roads and without exception, all t= he developers had given/provided to them, everything they had asked for, or evidence that= the items were en-route.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Gowan provided an exp= lanation of things that had occurred with Arlene Drive. He said Stantec identified a slight discrepancy with the height of t= he road when verifying the as-built; one section was approximately 1ft. higher than it should be and in another section was approximately 2ft. lower than = it should be. He said the only w= ay to resolve the issue was to force the person holding the bond to pay to have t= he road ripped out; however he and Mr. McNamara reviewed the site and didnR= 17;t feel that what was on site was that bad.&n= bsp; He saw no value in pursuing rectification of the error.

Mr. Gowan then addressed = (sections of) Meadowview Road, Holstein Drive and Longview Drive, which had been added to the list. He said this was a project where there was some disagreement between= the developer of the project and past members of the Planning Board regarding representations made that there would be a water main connection that was a= n off-site improvement. The water main w= ould lead from the section of Longview (that al= ready existed) and the section of Lo= ngview being extended. At the time o= f the project, the Planning Board wanted the water main to extend down to Jeremy = Hill so a hydrant could be installed. &nbs= p; The initial plan was approved in 2000. A year ago the Planning Board set a deadline for the work to be completed or the Board would automatically revo= ke the bond that was in place. T= he work was not completed and as the Board was poised to revoke the bond, they brought suit against the Town challenging the assertion that the water line extension was part of an approved plan.&nb= sp; Town Counsel has proposed a settlement agreement, part of which is to complete the ‘punch list’ of remaining work that Stantec has identified and to work with Pennichuck to extend the water line. In light of the agreement, Town Co= unsel had recommended placing the three roads on the ballot for acceptance with t= he understanding if the agreement was not signed by the last day of January, t= hat at Deliberative Session (February 5, 2008) Mr. Gowan would make a motion to remove the roads from the ballot.

The Board discussed the t= hree roads and the recommendation to place them on the ballot with the conditions set forth in the settlement agreement.&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan reiterated Town Counsel’s recommendation to make the motion that the full list of roads be placed on the ballot without conditio= ns, but with the understanding if the contract is not signed by January 31, 2008 a motion would be made at Deliberative Session to take the roads being discussed off= the warrant.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To recommend to the Board of Selectmen to place the roads (as so noted by Mr. Gowan) on the Town ballot for acceptance.

VOTE:

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

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 14 Lot 4-137 <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">G&M Jeremy Hill Land Development &#= 8211; Meadowview Estates – Request for Partial Bond Release<= /b>

Mr. Gowan said right now = the Town holds a letter of credit in the amount of $278,626 which represents the value= of completing the punch list items and completion of the water main. The recommendation is to reduce the surety amount of $278,626 by $129,771 retaining $148,855. Mr. Gowan suggested that the motio= n be subject to mutual signing the draft settlement agreement by January 31, 2008.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Dadak) To re= duce the bond from its current amount of $278,626 to retain $148,855, subject to t= he mutual signing of the settlement agreement by January 31, 2008.

VOTE:

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

NEW BUSINESS

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148, 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC – Spaulding Hill Road – Seeking 6-month extension of June 4, 2007 approval of a 24-lot Subdivision<= o:p>

Mr. Montbleau stepped dow= n. Mr. McManus was appointed to vote.=

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 provided the Bo= ard with a brief history. He said the = plan had been approved June 4, 2007. He said like other recent plans before the Board, they had been approved, but had not yet completed the full punch list of working items. Given this, the plan had not been = signed and recorded within the Town’s        6-month required timeframe. He said applicant was coming before the Board to have their approval reaffirmed. He noted that the community well had been approved. The remaining punch list of items should be able to be completed wit= hin six months.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. M= ike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the extension request. Mr. Zohdi provided a summary of the project and the approvals that had already been obtained. He said within the next six months= his client believed the project would be started in the next six months at which time the bond would be posted for the improvements. He said the subdivision complied w= ith the previous as well as the proposed zoning.

Mr. McNamara asked if all= the state permits had been obtained. Mr. Zohdi said he had all the state permits.

Mr. Gowan recommended tha= t any motion include/make reference to the conditions proposed in the June 4, 2007 mot= ion so the full list would remain in force with this approval.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant was fairly confident that construction would be able to commence within the next six months. M= r. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Croteau asked where t= he trail easement was located. Mr. Gow= an said the trail easement was item six in the conditions. He said that was one of the items = that remained to be satisfied. Mr.= Zohdi said they previously spoke about the trail easement and showed where they w= ould possibly propose the easement. Mr. Gowan asked that the Board stop approving plans subject to the Planning Director working details after-the-fact.&n= bsp; He said moving forward he would like those items shown on the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

(Croteau/Passamonte) To= approve the six-month extension, subject to all of the conditions of approval as = were referenced on the Notice of Decision memorandum dated June 4, 2007

VOTE:

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

Mr. Montbleau returned to= the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Hammar & Sons, Inc. – Site Plan Review of Proposed 450= 0SF Addition to be used for Retail

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the applicant had requested a continuance to the March 3, 2008 meeting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to March 3, 2008

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & 221&nb= sp; HARRIS, George Jr., George III & John – Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road – Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots= to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland &a= mp; WCD Crossing

Mr. Passamonte stepped do= wn. Mr. McManus was appointed to vote.=

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. M= ike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates came forward to discuss the proposed subdivision. Mr. McNamara believed the aim of the discussion was to reduce = the number of items that were in controversy.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Gospodarek said they = had a lengthy item list the last time they appeared before the Board. He said the previous list from Sta= ntec was quite lengthy, but it had since been brought down to twenty-seven items= , of which fifteen were things that needed to be changed on the plan. He said the other items were quest= ions to the Board, or waivers. He = noted that some of the lot numbers had changed for the waivers. Mr. McNamara asked if the Board had accepted for consideration all the waivers that had been submitted. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. He further explained that they add= ed one waiver at the suggestion of Stantec.

Mr. McNamara asked for an= overall description of the plan and what changes had been made. Mr. Gospodarek said they had reduc= ed the number of lots since the last submittal to help with a lot of the issues su= ch as 4K areas, well radiuses and frontage.&n= bsp; They now had thirty lots, two of which would be non-buildable (3.29 acres and 5.91 acres) and donated to the Town. Mr. Gospodarek said the general dr= ainage hadn’t changed very much, they had done regarding and were also having extra soils analysis done. He= said the plan set showed a more detailed round-about for the connection to the existing Stonepost Road.

Mr. McNamara reviewed a l= ist of items that would require Board action.&nbs= p; He said in the Stantec letter there was discussion regarding some of= the homes not being within the building envelope. Mr. Zohdi said the Town’s Zo= ning said they needed a 15KSF area for a building area and wanted to know if the Board would tell them they had to build within the 15KSF even when a lot was larger. He wanted some latitu= de with the lots as long as the requirements were met. Mr. McNamara read the definition of ‘building envelope’ contained in the Subdivision Regulations. He said Section 11C – Design Standards went through eight items that detailed the reason why there was a building envelope. He said th= ose things would be ‘gutted’ if the Board accepted Mr. Zohdi’s interpretation of building envelope. Mr. Zohdi explained his position.&n= bsp; He said as long as he had the 15KSF area and the lot complied with t= he zoning, he felt he should be allowed to build elsewhere. Mr. McNamara said the purpose of t= he regulation was so that the Board knew that a home would be built in an area that they knew it could be. H= e said a house could be built anywhere on the lot, as long as it complied with the regulations and the plan showed the 15KSF area. Mr. Gowan understood the point tha= t the applicant was making and said one way to resolve the philosophical dispute would be to show the area of the lot that was buildable. He felt the Board should take a po= sition so the applicant (and others) would know what direction to go in. Mr. Zohdi said previously, Board m= ember Culbert requested site specific and his client went through the expense to = do so and pointed out that there were other places that they could build a hou= se, and so they noted that. Mr. McNamara reviewed the regulation and felt Mr. Zohdi’s interpretation = did away with the guidelines.

Mr. Gospodarek said when = they came into the issue they provided a second set of plans that showed the individual lots and how the driveway regulations could be met. He provided the Board with an exam= ple plan showing lot 221-4 with the existing grade and how they would have to f= ill several feet to be able to construct the house in the specified area. Mr. Zohdi explained that the first= plan showed all the lots as site specific. At this point most of the lots were still shown as site specific.

Mr. McNamara said if the = lots were site specific it would partially satisfy some of the difficulty he was having.   The lots specified by Stantec= to be site specific were lots 12-222-1-3, &= nbsp; 12-221-4, 12-221-9,

12-221-11, 12-221-19 and 12-215-2. Mr. Zohdi said they= would do those lots site specific. = Mr. Gospodarek said those lots had concerns other than just the 15KSF.

Mr. McNamara said there w= as a 300ft. retaining wall proposed; at its highest would be 18ft. He understood it was put in to pro= tect a minimal wetland. Stantec has recommended that the wall not be built for a number of reasons, not only potential liability to the Town (i.e. maintenance, someone falling). He said it seemed to be a lot of w= ork for minimal protection. He as= ked if the Board would consider not mandating the wall and asking for mitigation t= o be done elsewhere in the subdivision. Mr. Zohdi agreed with Stantec. He said they would have to go back to the Conservation Commission. He asked that the Board inform the Commission that they agreed with Stantec.&= nbsp;

It was noted that Louis-B= erger had submitted a memo dated January 24, 2008 that outlined concerns regarding potential impacts to important habitat features. It was also noted that the Conserv= ation Commission had forwarded an e-mail to the Board dated January 24, 2008. Mr. Zohdi was upset that Louis-Ber= ger had the plan for awhile and had forwarded a memo on the day of the meeting. Mr. McNamara then no= ted that a packet, dated January 22, 2008 had been received; it was sent from Mr. Meisner to CLD (traffic estimates). He said = at this point the Board couldn’t respond to the memos because they didn’t have the opportunity to review them.

Mr. Zohdi said he would l= ike to know if the Board could address the road connectivity, waivers.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec met with the Board to discuss the plan. As he understood, the retaining wall was put in to avoid encroachment into the WCD (‘Wetland Conservation District’). He said they felt if the wall went= in it would have under-drains and may ultimately de-water the wet area. He said with a slope there might b= e a better chance of preserving the wetland.&n= bsp; After further discussion by the Board, there appeared to be agreement that the retaining wall shouldn’t be constructed.

The Board continued their= review of Stantec’s comments. =

With regard to road conne= ctivity, Mr. McNamara said there wasn’t any new information since it was last discussed. Mr. Hertrich said = the initial traffic report included some trip estimations, but they had asked for more information. Mr. Gowan said t= here was some round-about detail that was included in the additional information provided by the applicant. Mr. McNamara said the previous plan showed a ‘thumb’ of land and was curious how it was now designed. Mr. Gowan said the tip would be given to the Town and represented the connectio= n to the Town land. Mr. Zohdi said= they consolidated two lots into one and were able to gain additional frontage.

Mr. Dadak said in reviewi= ng the August 20, 2007= minutes, there were six waivers submitted and approved for consideration. He said Stantec was recommending t= hat an additional waiver be submitted. The waiver was to Appendix I – roadway design – K Factor. Mr. Gospodarek said they were goin= g to change the distance and comply. Mr. Gowan noted that the Highway Safety Committee (given the connection that th= ey recommended) suggested that the road remain Stonepost Road up through the Harris Subdivision.

Mr. Dadak then addressed = the memo received by the Conservation Commission.&n= bsp; He said they didn’t do a site walk because of snow cover; but included comment based on what was presented by Jim Gove and Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental. Mr. Gowan= said he let the Conservation Commission know that the Planning Board would be walking the site and they requested to be informed of the date, which he fe= lt should be done in the next couple weeks.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said their professional was ready to go for the site walk. They had staked the cen= ter line of the road and would be ready at any time the Board wanted to walk the site.

PUBLIC INPUT

Dean Colarusso, 65 Stonepost Road wanted to know if the Board would vote regarding the connectivity of Stonepost Road. Mr. McNamara said the Board would = not take a final vote (until probably the next meeting) because they needed additional information. Mr. Colarusso asked if the abutters would receive any notification prior to a v= ote happening. Mr. McNamara sugge= sted that the abutter contact the Planning Department one week prior to the date= of the meeting. Mr. Colarusso di= scussed the late notice that information was submitted, such as the traffic study.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the abutters would want to discuss that type of information with the Board. Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board decide the road connection at the next meeting for the hearing. Mr. McNamara said that was more th= an reasonable, as long as they received information in advance.

Mr. Aidan Fallon, Stonepost Road asked if the abutters would receive copies of the traffic study prior to the next meeting. Mr. Gowan said = the Planning Department would provide a copy to the resident’s attorney.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said information would be avail= able for review in the office. Mr. Haverty suggested forwarding an electronic copy to the residents and asked = that they coordinate having a point person.&nbs= p;

Mr. McManus asked why Sto= nepost was being connected. Mr. McNa= mara said the general answer was multi-faceted.= He said the Board received recommendations from Fire and Police to h= ave connectivity in Town. He said the potential connectivity would allow passage into and out of the area of Town more easily to the surrounding residents a= nd potential future developments. Mr. McManus reviewed the plan and offered suggestions to change the proposed plan. Mr. McNamara said the B= oard had reviewed the plan and discussed the benefits and noted that the Town ha= d an obligation to the Town’s welfare in general and future connectivity.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gowan said the Highway Safety Committee had made a recommendation in favor of the connection because the = only connectivity that exists in the area was Spring Street Extension. He said the Police and Fire Chiefs= gave testimony to the Board that it was not just about response time, but it was also tactical response. He sa= id they didn’t like one-way in and one-way out. Mr. Gowan said there was balance b= etween the interconnectivity of the Town property and conservation land and the de= sire of emergency responders. He f= elt the plan in front of the Board was the best effort to try to balance all the concerns. Mr. McManus reviewe= d the plan and questioned whether a connection to another road (such as Harley) w= ould be better. Mr. Gowan said the= re was a tough corner to negotiate around a quarry. Mr. McNamara said a connection thr= ough Harley was looked at initially, but ruled out because the quarry made it so= the connection was virtually impossible. He said the only reason the connectivi= ty is possible was because of a Town vote allowing a road to go through.

Mr. Fallon came forward b= ecause he felt Mr. McManus needed to understand some information that had been discussed. Mr. Haverty said t= he public input portion of the meeting had been closed and procedurally, the B= oard couldn’t re-open it. Mr. McNamara said the connection was not definite and the Board would take a fi= nal vote at the next meeting, subject to all the information coming in. He said at that time if there was significant different information that came in the Board would vote on it.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Fallon felt Mr. McManus was gi= ven incorrect information. He wan= ted to make a statement about the safety board.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said the Board had already went though it; he understood Mr. Fallon’s concern regarding the safety board. He believed there had been discuss= ion in the past about the safety committee providing general comments versus speci= fic comments. He said the matter = would be taken up at the next meeting.

A site walk was scheduled= for February 9, 2008= beginning at 9am.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the February 21,= 2008 meeting.

Mr. Passamonte returned t= o the Board.

SITE WALK – February 9, 2008

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & = 221 HARRIS, George Jr., George III &am= p; John – Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road – Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland & WCD Crossing

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

February= 21, 2008 -

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & = 221 HARRIS, George Jr., George III &am= p; John – Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road – Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland & WCD Crossing

March 3,= 2008 –

Hammar & Sons, Inc. &= #8211; Site Plan Review of Proposed 4500SF Addition to be used for Retail

MINUTES

Janua= ry 7, 2008

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Haverty) To = approve the January 7, = 2008 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Dadak abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Haverty) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:03pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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