TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD
MEETING
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
The Chairman called the roll:
PRESENT: Jeff Gowan, Paddy Culbert, Alternate
Henry DeLuca, Alternate Victor Danevich, Selectmen’s Representative Greg Farris
ABSENT: Michael Soby, Alternate Carl Huether,
Alternate Richard Foote, Planning Director Vincent Messina
The Chairman announced that Mr. Danevich would be
Acting Secretary and voting for Mr. Soby.
Mr. DeLuca will be voting for Mr. CaraDonna.
The Chairman announced that hearings for ML 12-20 -
Schlapp and ML 1-161 - Estate of Charles Jack
would be continued to the April 3, 2000 Planning Board meeting.
A site walk was scheduled for ML 12-203 Schlapp for
Saturday, March 25 at 8:00 am.
ML
7-37 -
Yarde Metals/Route 38/ Preliminary Site Plan Review
Mr. Steven Haight, Herbert Associates, appeared before the board to present the preliminary site plan for ML 7-37. Mr. Haight stated that Yarde Metals proposes to construct an industrial warehouse and offices with a proposed expansion for a total buildout of 70,000 square feet. The parcel is located just south of the lights at Route 38 and Main Street. Mr. Haight stated that they are currently working on securing access from Route 38. The details are being worked out with the State DOT.
Mr. Haight explained that Yarde Metals purchases bulk specialty aluminum and cut it into smaller bundles for shipping. They anticipate one or two tractor trailer trucks coming to the facility early in the morning to drop off the product. During the day, 40 ft. trucks will be entering and exiting the facility to deliver the product. Yarde Metals will employ 3 to 5 office personnel and 6 to 8 warehouse personnel.
A septic system and on-site well are proposed. The access will be around to the rear of the building. An 18 ft. graveled roadway is proposed for fire access.
Mr. Haight stated that this site would serve as the corporate headquarters. There are two other facilities – one located in Bristol, Connecticut and one in Tewksbury, Massachusetts. Mr. Haight submitted renderings of the proposed facility and photos of existing facilities.
Mr. Farris stated that Mr. Haight and Mr. Messina had appeared before the Board of Selectmen to discuss this facility and a proposed entrance off of Route 38. Mr. Farris explained that the town has one road entrance, not a driveway, access that was granted in 1967. The initial proposal would involve 20 ft. of a town owned road to a 50 ft. right of way driveway. It was suggested that this could go all the way to the rear of the property. The applicant has agreed to maintain this road from Route 38 into the property. Mr. Farris stated that this is an existing “street cut” that the town owns. The legal access is off of Atwood Road but the Route 38 entrance would keep the truck traffic off of it. The Chairman of the BOS visited the Tewksbury facility and was very impressed with the overall operation. Mr. Danevich read aloud a letter submitted to the file from the Town Administrator relative to this meeting.
Mr. Farris asked what materials the proposed building would be made of. Mr. Haight explained that it would be “split face architectural block”. The roof would be aluminum as shown in the photos and all proposed signage would meet town regulations.
Mr. Gowan asked for clarification on the abutting wetlands. Mr. Haight located the pond to the south of the parcel. He noted that the soils have been completed and the land slopes off to the south of the lot.
Mr. Culbert asked if this would “tie up” the only road access left on Route 38. Mr. Farris stated that this road access was granted for the specific lot and cannot be moved. Mr. Culbert asked if a perimeter road could be created from it as called out in the Master Plan. Mr. Haight explained that this road would be constructed according to town specifications and remain a town road.
Mr. Gowan requested that the applicant and his engineers consult the architectural review guidelines to blend the proposed facility in with the rural character of the town. Mr. Haight stated that he would work with the Planning Director on this issue.
Mr. DeLuca asked for clarification on proposed parking. Mr. Haight stated that the entire parking configuration could change. He located where the 40 ft. long trucks would be parked at night. The owner has offered to screen this area with trees and landscaping. Mr. Haight explained that they are attempting to provide adequate turning area for the trucks on the site.
Mr. Gowan requested that the hours of operation, proposed lighting, signage, hazardous materials storage, etc. be addressed and noted on the plan. Mr. Haight stated that the information would be provided and noted on the plan.
Mr. Doug Hjorth, Balcom Road, expressed concern with the cranberry bog located just to the South of this parcel. He explained that this is a prime wetland area that provides a link to Pelham’s past as the only commercial cranberry bog in town. It is a tremendous and interesting wildlife habitat that provides a transition zone between the pond and the cranberry bog. Mr. Hjorth requested that the board consider providing as much of a buffer zone around this area as possible.
Mr. Hjorth noted that this pond has been utilized as a swimming hole in the past by local youth and could be considered a safety hazard.
Mr. Dave Clark, 32 Atwood Road, expressed concern with the potential runoff and drainage from this proposed facility and how it would effect his property. Mr. Clark stated that when Fletcher Drive was constructed, he was told that it would not cause water problems for him. He explained that the construction of Fletcher Drive made his existing water problems worse and he feels that the proposed industrial facility will further increase the problem.
Mr. Clark stated that his property is located in the 100 year flood zone and that his basement has been flooded on three occasions. He noted that there are 19.7 acres of prime wetland located behind his house. Mr. Clark is against this proposed facility and its potential impact on the wetlands and his home. He referred to the statutes regarding the wetlands and their protection. Mr. Clark expressed concern that his view will be altered.
Mr. Gowan explained that the landowner has a legal right to develop his property and that the Planning Board must look at the site plan and review it carefully. If accepted for consideration by the board, the site plan and any proposed drainage would be thoroughly reviewed by CLD. A site walk would be conducted and the abutters are welcome to attend and give input.
Mr. Clark feels that the proposed facility would be devastating to the value of his property and he does not support it. He asked that the board take a close look at this project.
Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission Chairman, asked if the Department of Environmental Services would be reviewing this site plan because of its proximity to the prime wetland. Mr. Haight stated that he is before the board tonight for discussion purposes only. They would bring the site plan to the DES if warranted.
Rick
Cummings/Conservation Commission – Land Grant
Mr. Rick Cummings, Conservation Commission, appeared before the board to discuss a $7,600 land grant awarded to the town by the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Cummings explained that this grant is for the purpose of setting up a project that would inventory all major sources of ground water within the town borders. It will also identify potential pollution sources that are adjacent or nearby. Based on this, appropriate action would be taken, such as the creation of educational materials and working with the Planning Board to modify existing by laws to prevent future pollution. Mr. Cummings explained that a stipulation of this grant is that the PCC show “community support” in the form of letters of support from the Planning Board, Pennichuck Waterworks, the Board of Selectmen and the School Department. He stated that this will be matched with $2,400 from the town in the form of 240 volunteer hours at $10.00 per hour.
Mr. Culbert asked if this grant would include looking at the groundwater situation around the old landfill on Simpson Mill Road. Mr. Cummings explained that the project is in the preliminary stages at this time but offered to check into that for Mr. Culbert.
MOTION: (Culbert/Danevich) To forward a favorable letter to the
Conservation Commission supporting this grant.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
ML 5-37-1 -
Delores & Benoit Fontaine/18 Mercury Lane – Seeking Special Permit
to Convert Duplex to Condominium
Attorney David Groff, representing Mr. and Mrs. Fontaine, appeared before the board seeking a special use permit to convert their duplex at 18 Mercury Lane to a condominium form of ownership. Attorney Groff stated that a site plan and authorization for representation has been submitted to the file. He explained that sufficient available land has been shown for an alternate septic system as required. A copy of RSA 356 B 5 has also been submitted to the file regarding this matter. Attorney Groff reported that the current septic system was upgraded in 1992 and a letter verifying its adequacy has also been submitted to the file.
There was no public input.
MOTION: (Culbert/Farris)
To accept for consideration the special use permit to convert the duplex
at 18 Mercury Lane (ML 5-37-1) to a condominium form of ownership.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
Mr. Culbert stated that the applicant has met all of
the requirements and regulations. He
recommended that the board vote to approve this request.
MOTION: (Culbert/Danevich) To approve the special use permit to convert
the duplex at 18 Mercury Lane (ML 5-37-1)
to a condominium form of ownership.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
OLD
BUSINESS
ML
6-250 - Arthur Fosse, Jr./Elston Estates/133 Marsh Road – Proposed 7 Lot
Subdivision
Mr. Doug Lees, Dana Perkins Civil Engineering,
representing Arthur Fosse, appeared before the board to present the subdivision
plan for ML 6-250. Mr. Farris stated that the
board was waiting for a favorable letter from CLD regarding the drainage design
change made to this plan.
Mr. Todd Connors, CLD, stated that David Brouillet,
who is on vacation this week, informed him that everything had been worked out
with the engineer and that he would recommend approval. Mr. Connors assumed that the Planning
Director has the letter.
Mr. Farris suggested that the motion include that
any comments or recommendations made by CLD in the letter be noted on the
plan.
MOTION: (Culbert/DeLuca)
To approve the plan contingent upon a favorable letter from CLD with all
additions and changes being added to the plan.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
MOTION: (Culbert/DeLuca)
To approve the side walks on the school side of Scotland Road.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
MOTION: (Farris/DeLuca) To
approve the waiver request to the regulation that requires 300 ft. of site
distance for a residential driveway on a town road for Lot 6-250-4.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
MOTION: (Culbert/DeLuca) To approve the waiver request for length of cul de sac – 560 ft. to 730 ft.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
ML
13-84 - New England Pentecostal Church/327 Gage Hill Road – Proposed
Addition to Existing Building
Mr. Steven Haight, Herbert Associates, appeared before the board to present the site plan for the proposed addition to the Pentecostal Church. Mr. Haight stated that the board had conducted a site walk of this parcel last Saturday. He presented the renderings prepared by Michael Kern, architect for the project.
Mr. Haight stated that they are seeking a waiver to the regulation that requires that the septic tank be at least 20 ft. from the lotline. He noted that the State requires that it be ten feet from the lotline. Mr. Haight explained that in order to keep the septic tank and line from being located underneath the parking area, they will be asking for a waiver to the requirement.
Mr. Haight stated that HISS mapping has been completed by Mary Gospodarek along with the test pits. The parcel is approximately six acres and the septic system is being proposed in the upper half of the lot. If there is ever a need to replace it, there will be plenty of room left to do so. Mr. Danevich stated that a lengthy drainage report has been submitted to the file.
Mr. Farris stated that at the ZBA meeting, it was mentioned that this building would be utilized as a daycare center. He asked if church still intended to do that. Mr. Haight explained that the church appeared before the ZBA in January for a special exception to allow a daycare in the proposed expanded facility. The church anticipated that sometime in the future they would like to provide daycare within the facility.
Mr. Farris stated that a request for a daycare on Route 38 came before the board last year and that there were a significant number of regulations that they had to meet. Mr. Culbert believes that the applicant would have to return to the board for a site review because it would be a change of use. Mr. Gowan said they would not if it were already on the plan. Mr. Haight explained that the special exception was for the board to know that a future play area is being provided and identified on the plan. The church anticipates a daycare in the future. The applicant will have to meet all of the State regulations for the daycare.
Mr. Gowan asked if the proposed addition was designed with the State standards in mind. Mr. Haight said yes. Mr. Culbert does not see where the floor plan calls for a daycare facility. Mr. Haight stated that a daycare is not currently run at the church.
Mr. Farris feels that the process is “backwards” when compared to when the daycare facility located on Route 38 that came before the board last year. He is not comfortable with approving this plan for a daycare facility. Mr. Farris wants to know exactly where the daycare facility will be located within the church. Mr. Culbert stated that the previous applicant came to the board with the State regulations for the board’s review. Mr. Gowan reminded the board that the previous daycare facility was to be located in a strip mall and was much smaller. This proposal is within a much larger space. Mr. Gowan stated that he sees no harm in having the applicant return to the Planning Board for review.
PUBLIC INPUT:
Mr. Kenneth Dorrance, St. Margaret’s Drive, stated
that once the applicant has the “floor space”, they can do anything they want. Mr. Dorrance noted that the septic system is
approximately 75 ft. from his well. He
realizes that this is within the regulations.
Mr. Dorrance offered pictures to show how water runs from this area to
his property each time it rains or snows.
He explained that the drainage problems were resolved when the town
constructed the new road and drainage.
Mr. Dorrance feels that this expansion will cause more water problems
for St. Margaret’s Drive.
Mr. Dorrance stated that he supports the church, the
daycare center and the basketball court; only on a much smaller
proportion. He stated that he is
opposed to the church operating the facility under the guise that it is for the
church. Mr. Dorrance feels that this is
a facility operating under a church’s name.
He believes that the church will be operating this daycare business
seven days a week for the money. Mr.
Dorrance feels that this facility will detract from the rural character of his
neighborhood.
Mr. Dorrance noted that the applicant appeared before
the ZBA for a daycare center and now he is before the Planning Board for
something different. He stated that
there seems to be two different agendas.
Mr. Dorrance stated that it is very difficult now to enter and exit St.
Margaret’s Drive onto Route 38. He
questioned how the additional traffic would be handled.
Mr. Dorrance suggested that the septic system be
moved further back on the lot. He noted that this septic system is located
across the street from his house and a smell exists now. Mr. Dorrance feels that the location of this
proposed septic system will reduce the value of his house. He asked that the board consider his
concerns.
Mr. Gowan noted that the applicant stated very
clearly at the previous board meeting that this facility would be utilized for
the “existing parishioners”. Mr.
Dorrance noted that the applicant
stated at the ZBA meeting that the proposed gym and daycare facility “would be
open to everyone”.
Ms. Beverly Dorrance, St. Margaret’s Drive,
expressed concern for the increased traffic to the proposed gymnasium and
recommended that a time frame be set for its use. Ms. Dorrance also feels that this gymnasium will create a noise
nuisance and that the lighting would be a problem. She believes that kids will congregate in the parking lot.
Mr. DeLuca asked if the Dorrances had any
suggestions for the board. Mr. Dorrance
stated that the church held a “coffee” to discuss the abutter’s concerns. He stated that there is no buffer to shield
their view of the septic system. Mr.
Dorrance expressed concern that the proposed leachfield would be located too
close to his well. Mr. Haight explained
that the leachfield would be approximately 100 ft. from Mr. Dorrance’s
well. He further noted that the
location of the leachfield is dictated by State regulations in terms of setback
ratings to the sideyard, down and upstream.
Mr. Dorrance asked why the septic could not be located under the parking
lot. Mr. Haight explained that the
parking lot would have to be raised three or four feet if the septic were to be
located there.
Mr. Dorrance asked why a building that is 38 ft.
high with a business that will operate seven days per week from 6 am to 11 pm
is being built in the residential zone.
Mr. Gowan asked if the hours of operation were shown on the plan. Mr. Haight said the hours of operation are
not shown on the plan and he questioned where Mr. Dorrance was getting that
information. Mr. Haight explained that
church services are held on Sunday and Wednesday and there will be approximately
100 cars at each of those services. The
ancillary use related to the classrooms would come during the course of the
day. He offered to be more specific
with the times on the plan.
Mr. Danevich stated that the minutes from the ZBA
meeting noted hours of operation of 7:00 am to 4:00 pm and that the preschool
facility would be to assist the parishioners.
The minutes further state that no more than 50 children would be playing
at the daycare facility.
Mr. Culbert asked if the applicant went to the ZBA
specifically for a daycare. Mr. Haight
said yes, they did. Mr. Culbert
questioned why the applicant was not coming to the Planning Board for the
daycare at this time. Mr. Haight
explained that the intent of the church is the expanded use of the facility
which will include a daycare up to 50 children. He offered to come back to the board for review if the daycare
facility is incorporated. The daycare
facility has been clearly identified on the site plan.
Mr. Haight reiterated that the only reason the
applicant went to the ZBA was to apply for a special exception for the daycare
within the expanded facility. The
expansion of the church is an allowed use within the residential zone. Appearance before the ZBA was not required
for the expansion of the church.
Mr. Culbert stated that the applicant must come to
the Planning Board with the same intent that they went to the ZBA with. Mr. Haight explained that the intent was to
show that the proposed expansion would house a daycare facility. He offered to bring the plan back to the
board when the daycare facility is incorporated into the building.
Mr. DeLuca questioned the hours of operation for the
daycare facility. He asked about adding
more parking and shrubs. Mr. Haight
explained that it is possible to add more parking and that additional shrubbery
can be included if requested.
Mr. Gowan stated that the new septic was flagged at
the site walk. He noted that he was
assured that the run off from the additional permeable surface would be properly
dealt with. Mr. Gowan expressed concern
with the proposed lighting. Mr. Haight
explained that they propose to install five 12 ft. “cut off luminaries” where
the light will shine downwards. These
lights can be put on a timer if the board wishes.
Mr. Danevich stated that the parking issue was not
addressed at the ZBA meeting. Mr.
Haight explained that the parking calculations were done according to parking
for a church facility. He further noted
that the calculations were based on actual usage and had been increased to 101
spaces.
Mr. Farris referred to a recent newspaper article in
the Lowell Sun regarding the church and their wish to expand the
congregation. He is concerned about
this issue.
Mr. Farris asked if the proposed height of 36 ft.
for the gymnasium is really necessary.
He believes that the proposed gym will be utilized by many more people
than just the parishioners. Mr. Farris
expressed concern that a buffer of trees will take too long to establish for
proper protection of the abutters view of this proposed structure. Mr. Kirn, the architect on the project,
explained that the gym is a full size high school court at 50 ft. by 84
ft. The height required is 26 ft.
clear. When you add the 4 and 12 pitch
(which is the minimum pitch for an asphalt type shingle), you reach the 36 ft.
height.
Mr. Farris stated that the gymnasium is the same size as the high school’s. He is concerned about “use” and balancing it with the neighborhood. Mr. Farris questioned the need for this size basketball court and the traffic it will generate.
Mr. DeLuca questioned whether the septic system
could be moved down to allow for future parking expansion. Mr. Haight explained that future parking
expansion has been provided for. He
further noted that there are 2 to 5 inch saplings along the property line. The proposed gym is as far away from the
abutting property as possible. The
opposite side is also buffered by a stand of trees on two sides. Mr. Haight added that this plan has been a
year and a half in the planning.
Mr. Culbert suggested that a fast growing upright
evergreen be considered for the screening the septic system from view.
Mr. Haight explained that installing the septic
system under the parking area would not be aesthetically pleasing as it would
raise it up two or three feet.
Mr. Culbert suggested that they consider “church
parking” to accommodate the number of vehicles.
Mr. Danevich asked if any additional signage were
being proposed. Mr. Haight said
no. Mr. Danevich suggested that “No
Parking” signs be considered for St. Margaret’s Drive. Mr. Haight offered to include that on the
plan and noted that the lighting specifications are already given.
Mr. Danevich asked that the hours of operation be
included on the plan. He also requested
that the applicant return to the board for review of the proposed daycare
use. The treeline buffer should also
be noted.
Ms. Alicia Harshfield, Conservation Commission
Chairman, stated that the PCC is concerned with the runoff from the increased
roof and parking area. Mr. Gowan stated
that CLD will be reviewing the plan and all of the drainage calculations. He further noted that most of the proposed
parking is already paved area.
Mr. Culbert requested that the hours of operation be
specified on the plan. Mr. Haight
offered to identify all functions and the hours of operation.
Mr. Culbert requested that the proposed lighting be
timed to be turned off after nightly functions and that the residents of St.
Margaret’s Drive have their view screened to protect their privacy. He further requested that a professional
landscaper be consulted relative to the proper trees for buffering.
Mr. Farris requested that the gymnasium wall that
faces front be broken up with some natural lighting. Mr. Kirn offered to discuss this issue with the applicant. He noted that sunlight is a problem in a
gymnasium. Mr. Farris stated that there
are shades that could be utilized.
This site plan was date specified to the April 3rd
board meeting.
MOTION: (Culbert/Danevich) To accept for consideration the waiver
request to allow the septic components to be less than 20 ft. but greater than
10 ft. from the lotline.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
NEW
BUSINESS
ML
3-138 - Nationwide Construction/Bush Hill Road – Proposed 5 Lot
Subdivision
Mr. Steven Haight, Herbert Associates, appeared before the board to present the plan for a five lot subdivision of ML 3-138. Mr. Haight explained that this is a proposal for four house lots and one residual lot which would be deeded to the town. The residual lot has approximately 10.5 acres. Each of the lots comply with the zoning and subdivision regulations. Lots #3 and #4 will share a driveway which runs along an existing wood road.
Mr. Gowan asked for clarification on the residual lot. Mr. Haight explained that the dog leg shaped residual lot is unbuildable land. The soils are very poorly drained. Mr. Haight pointed out that they attempted to keep the four house lots as rectangular as possible.
Mr. Danevich stated that there is a WCD crossing for a driveway but the application does not specify the parcel. Mr. Haight stated that the only WCD crossing would be on Lot 3-138-3. There are two crossings for one driveway.
Mr. Gowan asked for clarification on the driveway site distance. Mr. Haight explained that preliminary site distances were completed and noted that some of the trees will have to come down in order to meet it. He stated that this could be viewed at the site walk.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Richard Anderson, 110 Bush Hill Road, questioned the impact of this proposed subdivision on the 100 year flood plain. Mr. Haight referred to the plan and located the 100 year flood plain for Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson suggested that the Conservation Commission take a close look at this area as it is a primary tributary to Gumpus Pond. It is a critical area that effects those both up and down stream.
Mr. Gowan explained that the PCC will have to approve the wetlands crossings and in that process complete a thorough review of this parcel. A site walk will be conducted and CLD will review and comment on the plan and drainage calculations. Mr. Gowan further noted that the board can request site specifics on each lot.
Mr. Nathan Sprague, 16 Valley View Road, expressed concern that the tree cutting on this parcel be kept to a minimum and he recommended site specifics be required for each lot. Mr. Gowan noted that the board can request that a “no cut” zone be established to protect the area.
Mr. Paul Steck, Jeremy Hill Road, asked if any waivers were being requested. He believes that the driveway located on the left side of the plan is currently referred to as Coleman Lane. Mr. Haight explained that no right of way exists on this parcel but there is an old path or wood road that exists that would become the driveway.
Mr. Steck assumed that it was an existing road that was closed by bars and gates. Mr. Haight offered to research the history of this road for the board.
Mr. Anderson asked for clarification on the size of the original lot. Mr. Haight explained that a tax map sketch might identify this lot as having 25 plus or minus acres.
Ms. Frances Chadwick, Bush Hill Road, asked how much above the water level is the highest portion of this parcel. Mr. Haight explained that the highest portion is approximately 16 ft. higher than what is shown as the edge of poorly drained soils.
Mr. Gowan asked for clarification on the proposed septic. Mr. Haight explained that the 4,000 sq. ft. area and test pit data are shown for each lot on the plan.
MOTION: (Culbert/Danevich) To accept the plan for consideration.
Mr. Gowan stated that a site walk would be scheduled at the end of the next board meeting.
Mr. Culbert requested site specifics on each of the four lots. He further requested that the building envelope be kept as small as possible to protect the natural landscape.
Mr. Farris requested that the location of each proposed house and septic be shown at the site walk.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
MOTION: (Culbert/Farris) To accept for consideration the waiver request for the two WCD crossings.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0 The motion carries.
MOTION: (Culbert/DeLuca)
To accept the minutes of the February 24, 2000 board meeting as read.
VOTE: 4 – 0 – 1 with Mr. Farris abstaining. The motion carries.
March 8, 2000
MOTION: (Culbert/Farris)
To accept the minutes of the March 8, 2000 board meeting as amended.
VOTE: 4 – 0 – 1
with Mr. Danevich abstaining. The
motion carries.
Mr. Danevich reported that a Planning/Zoning Conference featuring Bernie Waugh is scheduled for May 6 and that anyone interested in attending should contact the Planning Department.
Mr. Danevich reported that the Planning Department
web site is up and running and could be accessed through the Pelham web
page.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: (Culbert/Farris) To
adjourn the meeting.
VOTE: 5 – 0 – 0
The motion carries.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm.
Respectfully
submitted,
Susan
J. Tesch
Recording
Secretary