PB Minutes 09-20-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 20, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Alternate= Raymond Brunelle

Mr. Culbert informed that= Mr. Yarmo would be voting in Mr. DeLuca’s absence.

Mr. Culbert announced tha= t the following cases would not be heard and would be date specified as follows: =

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – Mendes, David – Irene Drive/Thomas Avenue – October 4, 2004

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – November 1, 2004

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 – KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road – November 1, 2004

G & M Jeremy Hill Land Development, LLC – Amendment to Subdivision Agreement – October 4, 2004=

DISCUSSION

Law Update – John Rattigan

Attorney John Rattigan of Donahue,Tucker & Ciandella met with the Board to discuss recent changes= in the law that were adopted during the last session and affect the Planning B= oard and Board of Adjustment. He provided a packet of the statutes that included the recently adopted bills = as follows: SB414 (impact fee clarification), SB 176 (requirements of plot pla= n), SB 359 (pre-existing streets), HB 1295 (right to know), HB 1148 (wetlands),= HB 761 (innovative land use).

OLD BUSINESS

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – Mend= es, David – Irene Drive/= Thomas Avenue – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision R= 11; Voluntary Remand

This application was date specified to the October 4, 2004 Board meeting.

Map 28 Lot 2-40 – Rando, Elena – 116 Mammoth = Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the application. He said at the l= ast meeting the plan was presented to the Board and it was suggested to come up with a couple options for a driveway profile (option A – basically keeping the existing driveway profile 13%; option B – existing drivew= ay at the beginning with an 11.55% grade at station 100). He explained what notes had been a= dded (which included that the parcel would not be further subdivided; proper documentation for shared driveway to be reviewed by counsel and recorded).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He believed they complied with everything the Board requested. Mr. Culbert said in the future plans should be submitted to the Planning Depart= ment before the meeting. Mr. Zohdi= said the only difference between the plan being presented and the plan being reviewed by the Board were the two notes.&= nbsp; The plan had been submitted in advance of the meeting.

Mr. Danevich preferred op= tion B, which appeared to be less steep of a grade for both residences. Mr. Zohdi said his client would ra= ther go forward with option A (the grade difference was option A 13%; option B 11.55%). There was a consensu= s of the Board for option B.

Ms. Ouellette said the on= ly waiver she had was for the shared driveway.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the waiver for the shared driveway.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich noted that he seconded the motion with the understanding that there was a note on the plan stating ‘no further subdivision’.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan subject to: 1) Option B driveway; 2) legal documents of the shar= ed driveway to be reviewed by Town Counsel; 3) receipt of DES pending approv= als; 4) receipt of State subdivision approval.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no= .

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Site Plan Review= to re-open pre-existing variety store

The applicant was unable = to meet with the Board of Adjustment – therefore the application was date specified to the November 1, 2004 Board meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiG= razia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for consideration

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud because they had been re-notified of the hearing. There were= no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters. However, Ms. Ouelle= tte noted that one abutter notification had been returned ‘unclaimed̵= 7;.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall, Land S= urveyor from Edward Herbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the application/plan, which was a subdivision of an existing lot into two lots = (1.2 acre lot with existing house; creating a lot with just over two acres that fronts partially on Arlene Drive and Moekel Road). He said a Variance had been approv= ed (July 12, 2004) to allow a lot with less than the required 200ft of frontage (165ft. Arlene Drive; 163ft. Moekel Road).= He showed the wet areas of the new proposed lot, 4K area and house location. The proposed the ho= use to have frontage and a driveway on Moekel Road, which would allow the house to= be in a little more favorable location and the driveway could be put in without impacting the 50ft. WCD buffer (special permit will not be needed). It was noted that the plan being presented contained a fourth page that showed the septic design, proposed h= ouse location and driveway, however the plans that were submitted for the meeting only contained three pages. M= r. Aspinwall provided the Board with a plan set copy that contained the fourth page. Mr. Culbert reminded Mr. Aspinwall that plans had to be submitted prior to the meeting.

Mr. Scanzani asked for clarification about the right-of-way (for future utilities) on lot 9-146-7 = and questioned if it was deeded to the Town.&n= bsp; Mr. Aspinwall discussed the history and explained that during a prior development, when Arlene D= rive was extended, it was left as a dedicated right-of-way (like an easement) contained as part of lot 7. I= t is a utility and right-of-way easement. Mr. D’Andrea believed it was laid out as a right-of-way on a p= rior subdivision. Mr. Scanzani bel= ieved the only thing that came through was the utilities and usually would be dee= ded to the Town. Mr. Culbert note= d that lot 7 was not part of the plan. Mr. D’Andrea agreed that it was not part of the plan being presented, and= was uncomfortable that it showed up on a recorded subdivision plan that defined= it as a right-of-way. He was fine keeping it the way it was on the plan.&nbs= p; Mr. Aspinwall said the dedication would stay unless someone went to = the Selectmen and requested a release of the easement. Mr. Danevich asked the conversatio= n be restricted within the boundaries of the application.

Mr. Danevich reviewed som= e of the Planning Director’s comments as follows: 1) location of existing utilities: 2) lot size calculation ; 3) 10.04 (R) – source of soils; = 4) 11.04 (C) – 15K area not shown - unclear where back yard would be; 5) 10.04, (R), 1 – lot size by soil type; 6) 10.04 (R), 2 – description of soil types; 7) 11.11 (A)(2) – well test prior to build= ing permits issued; 8) 11.11 (C)(2) – 4K doesn’t contain the test p= its; 9) 11.12(A) utility locations; 10) 11.05 – need to know driveway grad= e; 11) adequate sight distance for the driveway on Moekel. Mr. Danevich asked that the Safety Committee review (specifically the Fire Chief’s comments) lot and its access; cistern placement may be requested. Mr. D’Andrea said he had con= cern regarding the 15K area and said he had spoken about it to Mr. Aspinwall. Mr. Aspinwall said he would be requesting a waiver of the 15K area and included such in the application. He discussed the information alrea= dy submitted to the Board and believed the only waiver request was for the 15K= areas. Ms. Ouellette read the request alo= ud, which was dated March 4= , 2004, however, it did not include the number being requested. Mr. Culbert said the waiver reques= t had to include what number they were requesting. Mr. Danevich said he would not sup= port reducing to an impractical amount. He said he would accept the waiver for consideration, but would not support it.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept the waiver (15K area) for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Aspinwall confirmed t= hat the Board wanted the Safety Committee to review the plan. Mr. Danevich said the Fire Chief s= hould specifically understand the driveway and the fact that it had to be accessed through another town.

There was no public input= . Mr. Danevich wanted to make sure that Mr. Aspinwall was clear that the Planning Director had a list of requirements. He said he had added that the set of plans be updated and the Safety Committee/Fire Chief’s comments regarding cistern location/potential = placement should be obtained. Mr. Culbe= rt said he would like to see 15K (it didn’t have to be rectangular.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 4, 2= 004 meeting.

Map 35 Lot 10-352-21 New Amer= ican Homes – Cara Estates – Well Radius Waiver Request

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Edwa= rd Herbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the request. He said the septic had originally = been done in October, 2003 and was in a subdivision done for Neil Fineman in Jun= e, 2001 located at the end of Susan Drive. The septic plan was done and submitted to Town Health Agent Paul Zarnowski and later approved by the state.= The presented plan showed the proposed location and the location tha= t it had been installed. The radiu= s for the existing well showed it 4.5feet across the lot line onto lot 22 and also into the temporary turn-around easement.&n= bsp; The waiver being requested was for the arc section that went across = the lot line.

Mr. D’Andrea clarif= ied that the issue of the well radius was brought to the attention of the developer prior to the issuance of the building permit; the plan showed a new location for the well radius – a building permit was issued based upon the rev= ised plan; however, when the as-built came back with the foundation location, the well was placed in the original location (which doesn’t comply). He said this was the same lot that= had a lot line adjustment request a few months ago.

Mr. Aspinwall discussed t= he reasons for requesting the waiver. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the development and said that they had = been very cooperative and was doing well with the other two phases. He felt this was an anomaly from w= hat was happening.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the waiver request. It was al= so suggested that the Board review (in the future) setting penalties/fee sched= ule.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(McNamara/Scanzani) To = accept the waiver for consideration.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To = approve the plan with the waiver request.

VOTE:

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

Map 22 Lot 8-119 – Asor= ed Realty – 7 Main Stre= et – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

Mr. Kent Brown of Brown Engineering, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan. He said his applicant would like to finish off the barn that was attached to the house, which would provide an additional commercial space (approx. 968SF). He discussed the parking area and = noted that his client would like to provide additional parking, which would meet = the regulation for the additional space (the existing parking would be maintained).

The Planning DirectorR= 17;s list of concerns were read aloud: 1) adequate access and on-site circulatio= n; 2) clarify square footage in Note #4; 3) existing parking spaces (2993=3D30= spaces)(existing 2025=3D22 spaces) - provide 24 (1 in right-of-way, 6 access issue); 4) acce= ss conflict with car exiting and entering – exit around parked car puts vehicle in path of entering vehicle; 5) Lighting proposed; 6) Leach field location; 7) Fire Dept. 18ft Fire Lane.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani said it appe= ared that a non-conforming use was being expanded. Mr. McNamara noted that a variance= was granted in July, 2003, however the application was submitted August, 2004; = if a variance isn’t acted upon in one year, it’s no longer valid. Mr. Danevich said the space was us= ed, and the application was for an expansion.&= nbsp; Mr. D’Andrea said the applicants had been using that space for= a particular use; they came before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (“ZBA’)to change the type of use that was in the building. He said after reading through the = ZBA minutes it seemed clear that approval was granted for the property/building/first floor to be used in a different manner. He believed the variance had been = acted upon (within the timeframe) because there was a change to the uses as allow= ed/specified in the variance. The building= had received authorization to be used for the new use. Mr. D’Andrea believed that t= he use issue was satisfied and separate from the site plan issue. He said the variance clearly said = it was for the building, and was for this particular type of use. Mr. McNamara said he received phone calls from a couple members of the ZBA who were a little concerned because = in the original application for the variance there was no mention made about t= he barn and the discussion was specifically about the house; the members were<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> concerned that there was not an ex= plicit representation of what was going on; if there was full disclosure at that t= ime, some of the ZBA members may have voted differently and asked Mr. McNamara to present their concerns to the Board. Mr. D’Andrea reviewed t= he ZBA minutes and the section where the parking spots were discussed and the fact that there were opportunities for additional parking; the variance was for = the building (which he felt the barn was a part of).

Mr. Scanzani reiterated h= is belief that an additional ZBA opinion was needed for an expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. McNam= ara said that was also the opinion of some of the ZBA members. Mr. Danevich agreed. Ms. Ouellette reviewed the ZBA minutes. Mr. Brown pointed ou= t that the barn was currently attached to the building and one could walk through = the building into the barn, which was currently used as storage. He said his client would like to f= inish the barn off and make it into usable space. Mr. Danevich reiterated that out o= f due diligence/process it would have to go back to the ZBA. He was unsure if the Board had jur= isdiction to approve an expansion of a non-conforming use in the area and suggested t= hat the applicant go back before the ZBA. Mr. Culbert said he felt the same way.

A majority of Board membe= rs felt the applicant should go back before the ZBA regarding expansion of use.

There were no abutters pr= esent either for or against the application.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani cautioned the applicant that the lighting should not point onto other properties; driveway access would be an issue; parking spaces should be reviewed and possibly mo= ved to the back.

With consent of the appli= cant, the application was date specified to the December 6, 2004 meeting.

Map 11 Lot 13-6 – Alexa= ndre & MaryAnn Mitiaev – 16 Maple Drive – Special Permit to convert a duplex into a condominium form of ownership

Attorney David Groff, rep= resenting the applicants, met with the Board. He said the proposal was to convert the existing duplex into a condominium. He said under the statutes a conversion was allowed as long as the existing use meets the requirements for septic and future expansion of such.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the Special Permit for consideration.&nb= sp;

VOTE:

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

There was further discuss= ion regarding the Town’s regulation.&nbs= p;

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Janet Gallant, 12 Kopers Lane said she was worried about the impact on the neighborhood with the addition to another duplex (there are currently four on the street). She was curious about joint owners= hip and if one condominium would be allowed to have an addition leaving the oth= er side looking somewhat deteriorated. She ended by questioning why the owners wanted to convert since she believed the resale value was higher with a duplex.

Mr. Culbert said the stat= e law allowed the change of ownership and the Board could not control it. He said the value would increase w= ith a condex versus a duplex. The u= pkeep of the property would be a civil issue.&nb= sp; As far as expansion, it would depend upon the language contained in = the condex statements. Mr. Scanza= ni noted that the requirements for a duplex would not go away; expansion would still require the proper permits.

Ms. Gallant questioned if= the area outside would be considered common.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert said it would depend on how the condex agreements were written.

Mr. Frank Hojlo, 7 Maple Drive asked if a condominiu= m ownership had to be occupied by the owner. Mr. Scanzani answered no.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = approve the application request to convert a duplex into a condex.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich said the app= licant had the right and had met the state criteria for ownership.

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 – KDS Properties, LLC – At= wood Road – Site Plan – Proposed 20-uni= t, 55 years of age and older adult community

This application was date specified to the November 1, 2004 Board meeting.

DISCUSSION

G & M<= /st1:PlaceName> Jerem= y Hill Land Development, LLC – Amendmen= t to Subdivision Agreement – Meadowview Estates

This was date specified t= o the October 1, 2004= Board meeting.

MINUTES

Augus= t 2, 2004

Mr. D’Andrea said t= here had been a request regarding the way in which the approval was worded for the F= ort case (Map 38 Lot 1-112-13 – Fort, Michael – 5 Autumn Street = 211; Modification to an approved Subdivision Plan – Propose to remove a portion of a No-Cut easement along property line); the applicant wanted the Board to consider adding the verbatim wording into the minutes. He said he wanted the Board to be = clear that the plan being presented was what the applicant would be able to do and maintain. The Board briefly discussed if the minutes should be modified. Mr. McNamara questioned if the mee= ting transcript would be included. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the state statute only requires the minutes to contain is who made a motion and what the vote was.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the August 2, 2= 004 meeting minutes as written (no including verbatim transcript)(subject to = any typos found).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

Augus= t 16, 2004

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the August 16,= 2004 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzan= i and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

DATE SPECIFIED PLAN(S)

Octob= er 4, 2004:

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – Mendes, David – Irene Drive/Thomas Avenue – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision – Voluntary Remand

Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiGrazia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for consideration

G & M Jeremy Hill Land Development, LLC – Amendment to Subdivision Agreement – Meadowv= iew Estates

Novem= ber 1, 2004:<= /o:p>

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Si= te Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 – KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road – Site Plan ̵= 1; Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older adult community

Decem= ber 6, 2004:<= /o:p>

Map 22 Lot 8-119 – Asored Realty – 7 Main Street – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:25 pm.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respectfully submitted,

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Charity A. L. Willis

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