APPROVED

 

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 18, 2003†††

 

The Chairman, Mr. Paddy Culbert called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

 

The acting Secretary, Ms. Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

 

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell

 

ABSENT:

 

Bill Scanzani, Henry DeLuca, Selectmen Representative Hal Lynde, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

 

ADMINISTRATIVE

 

Map 8 Lot 20 & 22-9 - Fireside Homesteads - Heather Lee Lane - Request for Bond Reduction

 

Mr. Mitchell said because of a posting problem, the bond reduction was not discussed.He said that TF Moran (Town Engineer) recommended reducing the bond to retain 30% ($87,900) because the amount would exceed the amount of work to be done.The original bond amount was $293,000; reduction amount of $157,955; retaining $87,900.

 

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) The $293,000 bond shall be reduced by $157,955 retaining $87,900 (30%), as recommended by TF Moran (Town Engineer).

 

VOTE:

 

(4- 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Map 7 Lot 116 - Mary Francis Renner - 131 Bridge Street - Preliminary Discussion

 

Mr. Culbert informed that he walked the property Ms. Renner was questioning and it had approximately 15ft. back from the road before it dropped down into land that was very wet.He did not feel there was any use of the land.Mr. Mitchell said the property was barely an acre.He went on to explain the reason he recommended that Ms. Renner have a preliminary hearing to discuss her situation with the Planning Board.The following concerns were discussed: state approvals for curb cut, proximity to wetlands, parking, size of lot for commercial use (60,000SF), contiguous high and dry land (35,000SF).

 

Ms. Mary Francis Renner approached the Board and discussed the fact that she was interested in developing the land at 131 Bridge Street to sell vegetables.She reviewed the fact that variances had previously been granted for the property.She asked if regulations had drastically changed since the variances had been granted.Ms. Ouellette answered yes.She said that the regulations had drastically changed regarding wetlands and went on to point out that the land was in close proximity to the aquifer that fed the Town.She didnít feel that the money spent on engineering would be cost effective for the intended use by the applicant.

 

Mr. Culbert noted that the applicant would need to meet with the Board of Adjustment, the Conservation Commission and the state regarding the access to the property and fill permits.He said once the applicant met with the Planning Board there would be further discussion regarding parking, traffic control, and Health Officer review.

 

Ms. Renner asked who she would contact to find out the traffic count number on Route 38.Ms. Bousa suggested accessing the NRPC web site.Mr. Mitchell noted that the state would be concerned with how people got on to the site and the Town would be concerned with how people got around on the site.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Map 12 Lot 203-14 - Ronald & Elizabeth Carrick - 44 Mulberry Lane - Seeking a Special Permit to permit the construction of a swimming pool within the Wetland Conservation District in accordance with Article VII, Section 307-14 B of the Pelham Zoning Ordinance

 

Ron and Elizabeth Carrick, 44 Mulberry Lane, met with the Board to discuss their request for a special permit.Mr. Carrick explained he currently had a permit to install a pool and was seeking a little leeway (5ft to 10ft) in the event ledge was encountered during installation.He said technically the area was a no-cut/no-disturb zone, but in actuality, the area had been cleared by the developer and since, unknowingly maintained by himself.He said the existing tree-line would not be disturbed as it currently was.He showed the Board a photograph of the property and pointed out the proposed location of the swimming pool.

 

Mr. Culbert was concerned with setting a precedent and was not in favor of allowing the applicant the ability of going into a no-cut zone.

 

Mr. Mitchell informed that Mr. Bob Yarmo, Conservation Commission Chairman, met with him and did not have a problem with the application, given the fact that the area had already been cleared.Mr. Culbert noted that Mr. Yarmo was only the Chairman for the Conservation Commission, and that the members of the Conservation Commission should also review and comment.

 

Ms. Ouellette asked if the developer could be held liable for clearing the no-cut zone.It would have to be reviewed.††

 

Mr. McNamara asked if the area of the pool could be reduced.Mr. Carrick said reducing the size of the pool was not his intention.He explained that when the property was purchased he had been told that the entire area was usable.

 

Mr. Mitchell suggested that the Board review the site.Conservation Commission review was further discussed.Mr. Carrick said he was willing to plant other vegetation around the area.Ms. Bousa felt additional plantings would be good mitigation.Mr. Carrick said he was currently 10ft. away from the 75ft buffer and may not need to encroach.He said the reason for the special permit was in the event blasting was needed, he would have the leeway to shift the swimming pool.Mr. Mitchell said if mitigation was preferred the square footage for plantings should be specified.

 

Ms. Ouellette pointed out if the property remained as it currently was, the buffer was not protected because the damage had been done.She believed to continue the intent of the Water Conservation District (WCD) mitigation should be attached to an approval, rather than leaving the property in the current condition.She also felt that measures should be taken to ensure similar situations were stopped.

 

Ms. Carrick noted that the septic was specifically moved to the front yard so a pool could be installed, but no one informed them of a problem with the no-cut zone.Mr. Culbert asked if the property deed contained language regarding the no-cut zone.Ms. Carrick said the assumption was that the no-cut zone began at the tree line, not in the area that had already been cleared by the developer.Ms. Ouellette felt because the clearing had already occurred the Board could only protect what was currently there in conjunction with requesting plantings as mitigation.

 

The Board discussed the involvement of the Conservation Commission, and receipt of favorable written comment, as outlined in the regulations.It was believed that Mr. Yarmo should be able to poll the members via telephone and forward written comment.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the Special Permit on condition that:

1) favorable letter from the Conservation Commission;

2) mitigation to match the square footage of any area of encroachment on the WCD, not limited to, but including tree planting;

3) encroachment only as a last resort;

4) owner to mark existing WCD area with appropriate signage.

 

VOTE:

 

(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

DISCUSSION

Engineering Firm Request for Qualifications (RFQ)

 

The Board members listed the engineering firms they preferred.Further discussion would be scheduled for an upcoming meeting.

MINUTES REVIEW

 

August 4, 2003 - Deferred to next scheduled meeting.

 

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, c (Matters which, if discussed publicly, would affect adversely the reputation of any person.)

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Mr. Culbert-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Ms. Bousa-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes

 

Mr. Culbert noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting.The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 8:25 pm.Also present was Mr. Mitchell.

 

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:45 pm.

 

MOTION:

 

(McNamara/Ouellette) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.

 

VOTE:

 

(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

ADJOURNMENT

 

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To adjourn the meeting.

 

VOTE:

 

(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

 

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:45pm.

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Respectfully submitted,

 

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Charity A. L. Willis

††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Recording Secretary