Rye Planning Board Site Walk 561 South Road, Rye, NH Monday, September 15, :30 p.m.

Transcription

1 Rye Planning Board Site Walk 561 South Road, Rye, NH Monday, September 15, :30 p.m. Members Present: Acting Chair Phil Winslow, Mel Low, Selectmen s Representative Priscilla Jenness and Alternate Jeffrey Quinn. Others Present: Planning Administrator Kimberly Reed, Don Cook, Applicant, Joe Mulledy, John Chagnon, Ambit Engineering, Ken Aspen, Ralph Hickson and Tom Clifford, Rye Water District, members of the Conservation Commission and members of the public. I. Call to Order Acting Chair Winslow called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. He asked Jeffrey Quinn to stand in for Ray Tweedie who was not at the site walk. II. Business Note: William Epperson and J.M. Lord have recused themselves from the following application. (Please see meeting of September 9, 2014) Continuation of the 561 South Road project as listed below: Major Subdivision and Conditional Use Permit by Applicant, D.D. Cook Builders of Greenland, NH for property owned and located by Bonnie M. Eggleston Rev. Living Trust and located at 561 South Road, Tax Map 4, Lot 14 to subdivide the lot into five (5) lots, construct a 590 foot town road to access the lots, with the existing dwelling on lot 1 and the other four (4) lots to be buildable lots. Property is in the Single Residence and Aquifer and Well Head Protection Districts. Case Acting Chair Winslow asked Ken Aspen of the Rye Water District to review the location of the wells in relation to the property. Ken Aspen, Rye Water District, presented a map showing the proposed subdivision superimposed over a map of the wells. He noted that the wells are deep driven bedrock wells. There is not an easy way to detect where the water is coming from for a bedrock well. Most bedrock wells are 525ft deep with the well pumps set at 145ft and 165ft. He continued that these are the best yielding bedrock wells in the seacoast area. The wells run 340 and 324 gallons per minute. 1

2 Don Cook, Applicant, pointed out on the map the back land that at this time will not be developed. He also pointed out the back area that would be developed if that was being proposed. Member Quinn asked the distance from the well head to the edge of the property. Mr. Aspen replied that he is not certain. If he had to guess it would be about 1000ft, perhaps a little less. No other questions were heard for Mr. Aspen. D.D. Cook, Applicant, stated that he would like the group to walk along the area for the proposed road and he will point out the lots. (The group walked to the area where the center of the road would be located. Mr. Cook reviewed the layout of the road.) He noted that it will have a 70ft right-of-way and will be 45ft to the center line. The site walk continued along the center line of the proposed road. Mr. Cook pointed out that the road comes in straight. He also pointed out the location of the turn in the road and the cul-de-sac location. He continued by reviewing the location of the lot lines between each lot. Jane Ireland, abutter to lot 4, expressed her concerns on the mature trees on lot 4 remaining. Mr. Cook agreed to discuss this with her further. He continued to review the property lines. As the group continued to walk Mr. Cook pointed out the wetlands located on lot 3. The group continued with the site walk. Planning Administrator Reed asked if the stone wall will remain. Mr. Cook replied that there would be no reason to move any of the stone walls. He noted that the walls are not boundary markers. Acting Chair Winslow questioned the wetland on lot 3. Mr. Cook explained that the building would be towards the front of that lot away from the wetland. Selectman Jenness asked if there would be a raingarden in the center of the development. Mr. Cook confirmed. As the site walk continued, he pointed out the flags depicting the wetland buffer. 2

3 Selectman Jenness asked about the road and topography elevations. Mr. Mulledy pointed out on the map that parts are at 85 and around the cul-de-sac it is 79 lowering down to about 72. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services, spoke in regards to the soils. Mr. Cook pointed out the start of the cul-de-sac and the teardrop to the group. Patrick Merrill, Central Road, stated that there was some mention of grassland and marsh in the field. He pointed out that Mr. Gove said the seasonal high water table is 30 inches below the grade that the group walked through. He asked what the natural grade is in the field and the natural existing grade is that is proposed for the road. Mr. Mulledy pointed out that the field is 85 and 4ft below that is at 81. The existing grade is about 75. Mr. Merrill clarified that they are 6ft below the seasonal high water mark. Mr. Gove explained that the seasonal high water table runs parallel with the grade until it runs into something that causes it to run to the surface. The site walk continued to the location of the 75ft wetlands buffer. Mr. Cook pointed out that the woods road and the edge of the wetlands run parallel. Member Quinn asked the distance from the woods road to the wetlands. Mr. Cook replied that it is about 40ft to actual wetland. The site walk continued onto lot 5. Mr. Cook noted that if they built a house in the front and did not develop the back of lot 5 they would not use the back of the lot, except for the placement of the septic. He also reviewed on the map the building area for lot 5. Continuing the site walk, Mr. Cook pointed out the area for the wetlands crossing. He pointed out the test pit areas for the proposed leach field. Selectman Jenness asked if the leach field if for one house. Mr. Cook confirmed. There was review on the map of the proposed location of the home. Jaci Grote, Conservation Commission Member, asked why the leach field is located so far from the proposed house location. 3

4 Mr. Cook explained that the perk test were not good enough in that location. Acting Chair Winslow asked if there was any possibility of having the septic on a different lot instead of going to the back of lot 5. Mr. Cook explained that it would probably need a variance. The regulations say that each house lot should have its own system. Mr. Chagnon stated that the back area of lot 5 could be shown as the septic area for this lot. The system may be able to go on another lot with an easement. He pointed out that a septic area has to be shown for each lot. Mr. Mulledy stated that even though they did not get the 24 plus seasonal high water table, as far as the State of New Hampshire is concerned, those are still terrific soils. Looking at the area where the proposed home will go, as far as the State is concerned, a septic could be built in that area. The local regulations require the 24 seasonal high. Acting Chair Winslow noted that anything near the well head is a real concern for the Planning Board. If the septic could be moved away from the well head it would facilitate the application. He continued that he sees there are three options for the septic on lot 5. One is to run a line to the back of the lot, as is being proposed. The second option would be to get an exception to have a high tech aerobic system near the house. The third option would be to have the system on an alternate lot. Mr. Cook agreed. He stated that he is not going to pollute the wells just to build an extra house. He relies on the experts to tell him if the location of the leach field will hurt or not hurt the well. That is something that the experts and the town engineer will oversee. Jim Raynes, Conservation Commission Member, pointed out the Conservation Commission is not supportive of a wetland crossing for one house when a different system could be installed. Mr. Cook replied that he understands their opinion. There was discussion on the location of the test pits. Mr. Merrill asked if it was possible to pull the cul-de-sac back so there would be more latitude on lot 5. Mr. Cook replied that each lot has to have 200ft of frontage. Mr. Chagnon pointed out that it could be done if there was less than 200ft of frontage on lot 5. A variance from the ZBA would be needed to do this. Pat Losick noted that if the cul-de-sac was pulled back it would create greater distance to both abutters. 4

5 Mr. Cook agreed. The site walk continued to the area of uplands. Mr. Cook noted that the wetlands can be seen by the flags depicting the buffer, which gets further away, and the upland becomes wider. He pointed out the wetland flags and the area of the manmade pond onsite. Referring to the woods road, Mr. Cook pointed out that a lot of the trees around it have been there for a long time. He pointed out that it definitely seems to be a road to him. The site walk continued along the property line of lot 5. Mr. Cook pointed out that they are a little more than half way back on the property. He has no intentions of doing anything on this back part of the property. No further questions or comments were heard. Adjourn Motion by Jeffrey Quinn to conclude the site walk at 5:28 p.m. Seconded by Mel Low. All in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Dyana F. Ledger 5