APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 5, 2004

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

The Secretary, Mr. Bill Scanzani, called the roll:

PRESENT:	Paddy Culbert, Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Hal Lynde, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Planning Director Will D’Andrea
ABSENT:	Henry DeLuca, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

Mr. Culbert announced that Mr. Yarmo would vote in Mr. DeLuca’s absence.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 4 Lot 180-14 – Two M Construction – Benoit Avenue Extension – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Michael Farris, representing Two M Construction requested a bond reduction from the Board, which had been previously denied. The request was denied because the plan called for a retaining wall, which had not been built. Mr. Farris explained that the hill requiring a retaining had been removed per a discussion with former Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell, and through agreement with the neighbor. He said that former Planning Director Amy Alexander confirmed that removing the hill was probably the right thing to do. Mr. Culbert said that the plan still showed the retaining wall and that 100ft. of paved area. Mr. D’Andrea said that an as-built plan had been received which showed the extension, but the portion of the right-of-way was not included. He said there was also an as-built that showed the profiles of the road. Mr. Scanzani said that the right-of-way may be used to further a road and suggested that the Board find out the status.

Ms. Ouellette arrived.

Mr. Farris said that Ms. Alexander said if the road was removed, the road would not need to be paved. He said the road had gravel and was ready to be paved, if the Board preferred. Mr. D’Andrea said that the plan didn’t show the typical subdivision layout. Mr. Culbert said a set of plans that showed the current situation should be submitted. Mr. D’Andrea agreed that the removed hill ‘worked’, but was unsure what the drainage situation was. Mr. Farris asked for guidance from the Board. Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board walk the site. The Board concurred. Mr. Culbert reiterated that an updated set of plans should be submitted.

Map 10 Lot 352 – New American Homes – Cara Estates, Phase I – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Tom Murray, New American Homes met with the Board to discuss the request for bond reduction. He informed that during the reduction of the bond from $284,000 to $198,000 an error occurred and an increase of $5209 was needed. He said he agreed with Mr. D’Andrea to increase the bond. Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Murray to work with Mr. D’Andrea regarding the increase of funds.

Map 10 Lot 352 – New American Homes – Cara Estates, Phase III – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Tom Murray, New American Homes met with the Board to discuss the request for bond reduction. He said that phase III was near completion, except for a question regarding the drainage. He said the current bond being held was $100,000 and said that $60,325 could be released, which would retain $39,675 (the amount included drainage).

Mr. Culbert asked if the Currier Road intersection had been changed to add a ‘cheater’ lane. Mr. Murray said the road had been widened before it was topped, then an as-built was done. He believed the issue had taken care of itself because he hadn’t heard anything since. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel the road was built to spec. He discussed the situation and what should be done to improve the intersection at Currier Road and Island Pond Road. Mr. Murray said the subdivision was built per the approved plan. He noted that he had an on-site meeting with his own engineer, Highway Road Agent Don Foss, former Town Engineer TFMoran, former Planning Director, and Fire Chief David Fisher, at which time, the road was marked by the Fire Chief since he was the person who had concerns with the intersection.

In Mr. Scanzani’s opinion the bond should not be reduced until the following issues were resolved: 1) DES questions regarding drainage pipe; 2) reason for siltation pond location and why drainage was not tied-in to Island Pond Road as stated as part of conditional approval of plan; 3) correction of Currier Road/Island Pond Road intersection and turning radius so traffic does not go into on-coming traffic when turning the corner. There was a brief explanation regarding the intersection. Mr. D’Andrea’s recollection was that the Board gave approval according to the recommendations provided during the on-site meeting (as discussed by Mr. Murray), at which time an as-built plan was submitted that showed it complied with the agreed upon plan. Mr. Scanzani said that the road was not built to spec and felt the current Town Engineer should review the site. He reiterated his feeling that the bond should not be reduced until the state issues were addressed. Mr. D’Andrea said the meeting with DES would have to be rescheduled. Mr. Murray wanted the Board to be clear that the subdivision was built per the plan. He believed that two detention basins were added after-the-fact, when DES reviewed the site. He noted that the current detention basin had been in for over a year with no problems. He didn’t feel that DES would review the site and request that the detention basin be altered and tied in to the detention basin below Island Pond Road. Mr. Murray said he had complied with the requests made of him and said if someone told him what was wanted at the Currier Road intersection (in the spring), he would comply. He ended by saying he didn’t feel the Board had the right to withhold his bond money that the Town’s Engineer said could be released.

There was a discussion regarding the bond amount and what would be needed to complete work. Mr. Murray noted that the only work remaining was 185ft. of drainage, which was not located on the newly paved roads. Mr. Scanzani was unsure if there were any utilities in the way. Mr. Murray said the cost of the remaining work was approximately $9000 and reiterated that in the spring, he would reconstruct the corners of the Currier Road intersection if the Board so advised. Mr. Culbert felt holding $40,000 was a reasonable amount. The Board discussed the amount that would be retained.

MOTION:	(McNamara/Yarmo) To release $55,000 from the $100,000 bond, which will retain $45,000.
VOTE:	(6 - 1 - 0) The motion carries. Mr. Scanzani voted no.

Mr. Murray wanted to know who would make the determination as to what would be done at the Currier Road intersection. Mr. Culbert said that Mr. D’Andrea would discuss the issue with the Board and with Mr. Murray. Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board walk the site.

Map 3 Lot 101 – M & P Trust – Gauthier Road Subdivision – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani informed that the original bond was $67,000; the current amount was $20,100; TFMoran recommended a reduction of $13,400 which would retain $6700. Mr. D’Andrea had no comments regarding the proposed reduction.

MOTION:	(Scanzani/McNamara) To release $13,400 from the $20,100 bond, which will retain $6700.
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

Map 3 Lot 88-2 & 89 – M & P Trust – Priscilla Way Extension – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani informed that the original bond was $117,000 for station 1600 – 1978; the current bond being held was $45,500; the Town Engineer’s recommendation was to hold a 10% maintenance bond, which would release $33,850 and retain $11,700.

MOTION:	(Lynde/Scanzani) To release $33,850 from the $45,500 bond, which will retain $11,700.
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

Map 3 Lot 88 – M & P Trust – Gettysburg Estates – Hancock Lane – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani informed that the original bond was $156,000; the current bond being held was $46,800; the Town Engineer’s recommendation was to hold a 10% maintenance bond, which would release $31,200 and retain $15,600.

MOTION:	(Lynde/Scanzani) To release $31,200 from the $46,800 bond, which will retain $15,600.
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 6 Lot 206 – David Mendes – Irene Drive – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for continued consideration

Mr. Dave Brouillet of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan. He said the original application showed a connecting road from Irene Drive to Thomas Avenue. He said the Conservation Commission was concerned with the road connection due to the impacts on the wetlands. He said the plan was reviewed again and revised to minimize the extension. He said the proposed plan showed a 300ft. extension of the existing Irene Drive to the beginning of the cul-de-sac, which would be a total distance of 2800ft. from Robin Road (to the beginning of the cul-de-sac). Mr. Brouillet noted that approximately seventeen (17.7) acres would be set aside as a conservation area. He believed that a favorable letter had been submitted by the Conservation Commission and was now seeking guidance from the Board. He noted that the original plan called for a five (5) lot subdivision, but the revised plan eliminated a lot and showed a four (4) lot subdivision. He said no waivers would be requested, except for the length of cul-de-sac.

Mr. Scanzani felt that the Louis-Berger Group provided a good Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA). He suggested that the lots be site-specific due to the sensitivity of the parcel so that the building envelopes on each lot would be limited. Mr. Brouillet said he did not have a problem providing the Board with a site specific layout for the current/revised plan, if it were desired.

Mr. Culbert said at a previous meeting there was a discussion regarding recently disturbed land and recalled being told if those areas were corrected, some of the water problems may be alleviated.

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental reviewed the plan and pointed out the areas that contained old fill, or had been excavated in the past. He then showed an area that had old fill in an area that had regenerated itself as a wetland. He said the activity of the beavers had helped dam some of the area. He said because the area was going to be deeded to the Town the area would be better served if it were left alone. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if some of the current water flow would be eased if the old fill was removed from the ‘knob’ portion of the parcel. Mr. Gove said the water flow may be somewhat helped, but because the area had regenerated itself, it may be best to leave it alone. Mr. Yarmo didn’t feel that removing the old fill would do very much because of the beaver dam located to the north of the area.

Mr. Lynde wanted to know if the EIA was done for the current/revised plan. Mr. Brouillet said the EIA done by Louis-Berger Group was in connection with the old plan (presented at a prior meeting). Mr. Scanzani felt it was important to ensure that siltation from the lots didn’t make it to the wetland. He was in favor of using mulch burms, rather than silt fencing. He also wanted to limit the building envelope on each lot.

Mr. McNamara wanted to know the length of cul-de-sac. Mr. Brouillet said the cul-de-sac was 2800ft. from Robin Road, to the beginning of the cul-de-sac, which would total 2900ft. He noted that there would be twenty-four (24) homes.

Ms. Bousa said she was a proponent for the cul-de-sac regulation, but felt that the proposed plan was a suitable compromise based upon the case history of the parcel. She noted that the parcel had been turned down as a single building lot. Mr. McNamara said the denial of the parcel was currently being appealed. Mr. Lynde didn’t feel that the Planning Board should be held accountable for another board’s decision. Mr. Scanzani said he had previously stated that the best thing for the lot was to purchase the parcel as conservation land. Mr. Yarmo was in favor of the proposed plan because he felt it was good for the developer and the land, and was a good compromise.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. William Hayes, Pinewood Drive, said the Nietupski Brother’s lot was currently land-locked, if the plan were approved, his lot and Mr. Merriam’s lot would also be land-locked. He said if the Bob Thorndike maps were reviewed, the Board would find that he, Mr. Hayes, had a right-of-way. He said that the Board, Mr. D’Andrea, and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates had previously told him that the right-of-way would be maintained, but it was not shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Hayes said he wanted the right-of-way that he was entitled to under the regulations, and shown on his deed. Mr. Zohdi said it was his fault that the driveway easement was not shown on the proposed plan, and he would provide a driveway easement to Mr. Hayes so he could access his parcel. Mr. Scanzani noted that reference to the easement was contained in the notes from the last meeting. Mr. D’Andrea said correspondence was also contained in the planning files.

Mr. Rich Liardo, 16 Nancy Avenue, wanted to know if any additional water would flow to his lot due to the construction of the subdivision. He wanted to know if the Board would guarantee that there wouldn’t be additional water onto his property if the plan were approved. Mr. Culbert said the road would not be connected, but could not answer to what affects the beaver dam would have on the drainage.

Ms. Dana Ventolieri, 4 Nancy Avenue, wanted to know how the drainage would be mitigated as to not affect the lots on Nancy Avenue. She said she owned sixteen (16) acres, five (5) of which were currently covered with water. Mr. Culbert noted that the regulations didn’t allow for pre- or post-development changes. He said the subdivision would not add to the water currently on her lot. Mr. Yarmo said that there was no water displacement and the condition should remain unchanged. Ms. Ventolieri asked if the seventeen (17) acres to be deeded as conservation land was a concession to ‘turn the Board’s head’ with regard to the cul-de-sac length. Mr. Culbert said that nothing had been approved and the Board was not ‘turning its head’. He said the Board was determining if something would outweigh the regulations and waiver them. Mr. Scanzani said that the Subdivision Regulations were made by the Planning Board and anything in the Subdivision Regulations could be waivered at the Planning Board’s jurisdiction and could be changed through the posting of a public hearing. He said anything dealing with zoning would be handled by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He said the Subdivision Regulations were created to support the zoning. Ms. Ventolieri asked if frontage requirements applied to cul-de-sacs. Mr. Culbert answered yes. Ms. Bousa noted that the compromise she discussed was the fact that the applicant took the Planning Board’s concerns of the cul-de-sac length and the environmental impact into consideration and came back with a revised plan showing a shorter cul-de-sac and one less lot.

Mr. Lynde appreciated the efforts of the applicant, but felt a precedent with regard to cul-de-sac length would be set if the proposed plan were approved. He said the revised plan was better than the original, but still didn’t meet the regulations. He felt the parcel should be allowed as a single house lot. Mr. Yarmo believed the developer indicated that the road could be constructed to meet the subdivision regulations, which he felt would have a detrimental impact on the environment. He felt those circumstances made it worthy to grant a waiver. Mr. Lynde didn’t feel the plan could be approved with the connection because Thomas Avenue could not be widened, and was not sufficient to handle the increased traffic.

The Board discussed the previous plan as well as the proposed/revised plan.

Mr. Scanzani began to make a motion; Mr. D’Andrea informed that the proposed/revised plan had not gone through review by the Town’s Engineer. Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board make a decision regarding the waiver for the cul-de-sac length.

Mr. Culbert discussed the parcels of land that would possibly be land-locked. Mr. Scanzani recalled if Mr. Hayes maintained his right-of-way, Mr. Hayes would in turn grant a right-of-way to the Nietupski Brother’s parcel. Mr. Hayes said that he would work something out with Mr. Nietupski since they were friends. He then discussed the parcel and said his right-of-way went up to Thomas Avenue and if the parcel stayed as one lot, he had the right to go down Thomas Avenue to access his lot.

A waiver for the cul-de-sac length was submitted to the Board.

MOTION:	(Scanzani/Bousa) To accept, for consideration, a waiver of the 2400ft. cul-de-sac length regulation to 2900ft.
VOTE:	(3-3-1) The motion failed. Mr. Lynde, Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette voted no. Mr. Scanzani abstained. The waiver request for cul-de-sac length was denied.

Mr. McNamara explained that he voted no because there was ample documentation that a wetland crossing in this area would be horrible, given the proximity to critical wetlands. He didn’t feel that there had to be an alternative. He said that the cul-de-sac regulations had been changed so that waivers didn’t have to be granted as they had been in the past. He believed this was the first time a waiver had come in since the regulations were changed. He also didn’t feel that there was a compelling reason brought forth to justify granting a waiver for the cul-de-sac length.

Mr. Lynde reiterated the reasons that the two (2) submitted plans should be denied; such as, they don’t meet the Subdivision Regulations (cul-de-sac), second egress not feasible to through traffic onto Thomas Avenue, major wetlands impact. He felt the lot should have been a single house lot.

MOTION:	(Lynde/McNamara) To deny the two (2) plans that had been submitted/presented to the Board.
VOTE:	(4 - 3 - 0) The motion carries. Ms. Bousa, Mr. Culbert and Mr. Scanzani voted no. The two plans submitted/presented to the Board were denied.

Map 6 Lot 179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Mr. Dave Brouillet, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said there was nothing new being presented, except that the plan had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Yarmo said a memo had not been written by the Conservation Commission. It was his understanding that the plan would be coming back for review to the Conservation Commission for another meeting. Mr. Brouillet said that the plan was going to be re-reviewed regarding mitigation.

Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental said the plan would be going back to the Conservation Commission for review to show more detail of the crossing and the flood plane. Once that meeting occurred, he believed the Conservation Commission would then submit a memo to the Planning Board.

Mr. Lynde asked if there was any impediment regarding the flood plane area. Mr. Brouillet said that the culvert was proposed to be oversized so that it would be larger than anything located upstream. It was the design intent that there would be no water backup due to the culvert. Mr. Lynde asked if there would be water backup in the event of a one hundred-year flood. Mr. Gove said any increased flow would go through the box culverts.

It was noted that the plan would be reviewed by the Conservation Commission in February. The plan was date specified to the Planning Board’s March 1, 2004 meeting.

Map 11 Lot 93 – Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde stepped down. Mr. Culbert said because of the attorney involvement with the case, he requested Town Counsel to be present for the proceedings.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis submitted a copy of a letter forwarded to the Board which requested that Mr. Yarmo consider recusing himself. The request was based upon Mr. Yarmo being the Chairman of the Conservation Commission whose partnership with the Little Island Pond Association is involved with the preservation and conservation of land in the area of the proposed plan. Attorney DeCarolis also noted that the Little Island Pond Association was the primary opponent to the proposed plan. He reiterated his request for Mr. Yarmo to consider recusing himself. He said by statute, the standard of a member was disqualified if they didn’t meet the juror standard as cited in the Planning Regulations (RSA 674). He said the juror, or in this case the planning board member, should be recused if they were not indifferent. Attorney DeCarolis said there was some concern, given all the work the Conservation Commission had done with the watershed association (Little Island Pond Association).

Mr. Yarmo didn’t feel he had a conflict and was able to judge a project on its merits.

Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel that Mr. Yarmo’s integrity was being questioned by the applicant, or the Board. It was pointed out that the Board would not have a quorum if Mr. Yarmo recused himself. Mr. Yarmo noted that the Little Island Pond Watershed Association had nothing to do with the Conservation Commission. He said there hadn’t been much communication between the two regarding the proposed plan. The issue of conflict had not been brought up at the Conservation Commission meeting. Mr. Yarmo reiterated that he had no conflict. Mr. McNamara said the issue was not if Mr. Yarmo could judge the case impartially, but if there was appearance of a conflict; he used the example of Mr. Yarmo being seated as a juror (during a trial) and if a judge felt Mr. Yarmo appeared to be impartial. Mr. McNamara also believed that this issue should have been brought up in the past. After further discussion, the applicant said they would approve an extension; Mr. Scanzani made the following motion:

MOTION:	(Scanzani/McNamara) To continue the plan until the next scheduled meeting.
VOTE:	(4 - 1 - 2) The motion carries. Mr. Yarmo voted no. Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde previously stepped down.

After brief discussion with members of the public, Mr. Culbert said the statutes would be further reviewed.

The plan was date specified to the Planning Board’s February 2, 2004 meeting.

Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Lynde returned to the Board.

Map 4 Lot 185 – Geoffrey Detellis – Beniot Avenue – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing the applicant provided the Board with a brief introduction. He said the primary issue for the Board was the driveway. One proposal was a common driveway, which sometimes created issues, but in this case the Town Ordinance required a waiver of any liability of the Town. He said he also prepared a common access declaration which stated that the owners would share equally all maintenance of the driveway, the driveway must be kept open for each other, all emergency vehicles must have access as well as access for Raymond Park. He said Mr. Detellis would be solely responsible for construction of the driveway. Attorney DeCarolis said that the Town didn’t have regulations regarding the grade for driveways. He submitted photographs of different streets and driveways that ranged between 12% and 21% grade. He said the proposal was for the driveway to be at 10% grade, which was not unusual or excessive.

Mr. Dave Brouillet, Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said during the previous Board meeting there was concern regarding the shared driveway, slope and width. He brought two (2) proposals for the Board to review. The first proposal showed two separate driveways with 18ft. width and a 10% grade. The second proposal showed a common drive at the egress (to minimize the wetland crossing), which split to two (2) separate driveways with a 10% grade. Notes had been added to the details for check dams and driveway-side ditches (1ft. depth) and erosion control measures (mulch burms). Mr. Brouillet asked for the Board’s preference of plans so they could meet with Dufresne-Henry (Town Engineer) to review the plan.

Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates said the client preferred the shared driveway. He went on to discuss the emergency access that the applicant would provide to the Town for Raymond Park. He reiterated that the Town had no regulations regarding driveway length, or slope. He also noted that the applicant wanted to use the view of the property which the shared driveway would provide.

Mr. Brouillet referenced a letter dated October 17, 2003 submitted by Fire Chief David Fisher which specified certain items, such as the preference of width being 18ft., 10% grade, placement of cisterns on top of hill near the homes, cul-de-sac near cistern, and passing areas for emergency vehicles.

Mr. D’Andrea discussed the proposed plans and suggested that the Board ensure that a safe, all-season driveway access to the 15,000 SF area be provided.

Mr. Scanzani asked for the Fire Chief to submit a letter that clarifies the issues of the proposed plan. He said he wasn’t usually comfortable with shared driveways, but was more comfortable with the shared driveway since the applicant would be signing, submitting and recording a letter at the Registry of Deeds the waiver of liability letter. He wanted to review the drainage. Mr. Scanzani asked if there were going to be flat areas of the driveway.

Mr. Culbert said no one had ever come in with a contract for a shared driveway and wanted to ensure that the maintenance contract was a part of the deed and would be transferred upon sale. He asked that something be added (similar to a cut) to the driveway for better access during inclement weather.

Mr. McNamara had concern with the grade and length of the driveway. He felt the Board should consider the future of the lot (when sold by the applicant). He wanted to ensure that during construction there was not a lot of disruption, which could cause problems with mud and run-off.

Ms. Ouellette said one of her concerns was that there was no flat platform of the driveway at the intersection of the roadway.

Mr. Yarmo said the Conservation Commission wanted to review the construction sequencing plan, and they wanted the drainage swale out of the WCD, which they wanted the Town Engineer to review.

Mr. Lynde wanted Dufresne-Henry’s comments addressed.

Mr. Culbert wanted the driveway to be functional and include areas for stopping and turning around.

Mr. Zohdi asked for latitude to discuss the driveway grade with the Fire Chief and Mr. D’Andrea. He discussed alterations that could be made to the driveway that would address the concerns stated by the Board. Mr. Culbert suggested that a parking area be included part way up on the driveway in the event of inclement weather. Mr. Scanzani reiterated that the safety, drainage and runoff should be addressed. Mr. Zohdi asked permission to work with Mr. D’Andrea, the Fire Chief and the Town’s Engineer for review of the plan, which could then be further reviewed by the Board at the next meeting.

Ms. Ouellette wanted to know how binding the maintenance declaration would be. Attorney DeCarolis said a note would be added to the plan stating that the approval was made subject to the declaration of easement being recorded at the Registry of Deeds. He said the declaration was perpetual and would run with the land, there would be no avenue for termination included. Mr. Yarmo asked if the Town would be held harmless. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes and noted that it was required.

Mr. Zohdi said he would work with Dufresne-Henry to address the concerns and the drainage.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. William Hayes, on behalf of the Town as an abutter, was in favor of the shared driveway based upon the Fire Chief’s input and the access to Raymond Park. He preferred a cistern versus a sprinkler also based upon the Fire Chief’s comments.

Ms. Sharon Jozokos, potential property owner (lower lot) said she was in favor of the proposed plan. She was raised in Town and wanted her family to have the same opportunity. She noted that she would allow Mr. Detellis to park in her driveway if he needed to during inclement weather.

Mr. Culbert said the Board would like the applicant to further review the shared driveway option including the safety standards. Mr. Scanzani recommended that the Fire Chief provide further comment regarding the plan. Mr. Culbert asked that the applicant meet with Dufresne-Henry to further review the plan.

The plan was date specified to the Planning Board’s February 2, 2004 meeting.

DISCUSSIONS

Zoning Amendments

Mr. D’Andrea reviewed the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinances. The first was a clarification of what frontage should be. He read aloud the proposed language. There was discussion regarding the inclusion of the word ‘contiguous’. There was further discussion regarding the access for lots and how the language should be worded so it would not conflict with the definition section. The Board agreed that the words ‘and shall be capable of providing access to the lot’ shall be deleted to help end confusion.

The second proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinances was to strike the word ‘favorable’ when accepting comments from the Conservation Commission since they are advisory to the Planning Board. The word ‘favorable’ would technically make the Conservation Commission a regulatory board, which in Pelham it is not. The Board agreed that the word ‘favorable’ to be removed.

The third proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinances was to update the criteria language to reflect current cases in the law (specifically the Simplex case which changed the criteria for hardship).

Mr. Culbert informed that the Planning Board would officially vote on January 15, 2004 regarding the amendments to the Zoning Ordinances.

MOTION:	(Scanzani/Ouellette) To move (accept) the proposed Zoning Amendments 2004 Town Meeting Draft of December 15, 2003 for the January 15, 2004 meeting.
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

Mr. Culbert informed that the Planning Board would officially vote on January 15, 2004 regarding the amendments to the Zoning Ordinances.

Roads to be accepted at Annual Town Meeting

Mr. D’Andrea said that Herrick Circle and Dodge Road had outstanding construction issues and were not recommended at this time to be placed on Town Ballot. He said he used last year’s road list and checked with TFMoran (former Town Engineer) and Highway Road Agent Don Foss to make sure there were no outstanding problems.

MOTION:	(Scanzani/Ouellette) To place on the March 2004 Town Ballot the following roads to be accepted as Town roads: Scotland Road Sycamore Street Jones Farm Road Woodlawn Drive Extension Gaudet Lane Priscilla Way Meagan Circle Melissa Circle May Lane Velma Circle Ellsworth Drive Matthew Drive
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

Mr. D’Andrea will check with the Safety Committee to ensure that the road names provided were not included in the E911 road name change list. If the road names are to be changed, they will be corrected but will have a reference as to the former name.

The changes to Irene Drive, Robin Road and Honey Lane were not done in time for the winter. The roads are being plowed during the winter. Mr. Lynde said he wanted to see a schedule of what was to be done. Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. D’Andrea follow up with the status of the roads in the spring.

MINUTES

December 1, 2003 – deferred.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

February 2, 2004:

Map 11 Lot 93 – Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Map 4 Lot 185 – Geoffrey Detellis – Beniot Avenue – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

March 1, 2004:

Map 6 Lot 179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

SITE WALK

January 10, 2004 – 8:00am – Old Town Hall building

Map 4 Lot 180-14 – Two M Construction – Benoit Avenue Extension

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:	(McNamara/Lynde) To adjourn the meeting.
VOTE:	(7 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:55 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Charity A. L. Willis

Recording Secretary