TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

MARCH 20, 2000

 

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.

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

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.

 

 

MINUTES REVIEW

 

February 24, 2000

 

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