PB Minutes 11-15-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 15, 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, Gael Ouellette, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Bob Yarmo

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Robin Bo= usa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

Mr. Y= armo would be a voting member.

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Me= rrimack Valley Homes, Inc. – Green Meadow Drive – Request from Bond Reducti= on (TFMoran recommends a reduction of $114,910 leaving $86,090 remaining)=

Mr. Culbert informed that TFMoran recommended a bond reduction in the amount of $114,910 leaving $86,090 in the fund. Ms. Ouellette reviewed the letter = dated October 21, 2004 from TFMoran stating that they had reviewed the project for the purposes of a bond reduction; what is left to do is the 1 ½ inch wear course, hand work for the driveways, as well as the stone bounds; cost= for remaining is $25,790 – 30% to be retained for performance in the amou= nt of $60,300. The original bond= was $201,000; reducing $114,910 amount to be retained $86,090.

MOTION:

(Yarmo/McNamara) To red= uce the bond to a remaining balance of $86,090.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-115 – Hammar & Sons – 71 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review for a 4500sf building addition to existing retail/manufacturing facility

Mr. Culbert said the Board would hear a short presentation (due to the time clock – 30-day requirement); the applic= ant would then take input from the Board and the plan would be set for the next meeting.

Mr. George Fredett, representing Hammar & = Sons met with the Board to discuss an addition to an existing building at 71 Bridge Street. He provided the Board with informa= tion regarding the existing building. The presentation was made under Section 248:27 (minor addition); impervious area would not be added or expanded. A waiver would be requested to use the existing parking and not expand (altho= ugh an area for expanded parking was shown on the plan, it was not proposed – however, if required it cou= ld be expanded).

Mr. Culbert said he didn’t consider a 45% addition minor (based upon the 10,000 SF existing). He wanted to better understand the septic system and what would be needed.&nb= sp; He wanted further explanation of the parking. He wanted to see the wet area and = slopes identified and believed a full site plan was needed.

Mr. McNamara asked that the flood plain delineation be included.

Mr. Culbert suggested that the applicant conta= ct Planning Director Will D’Andrea to obtain a copy of his comments.

Mr. DeLuca asked if the existing retaining wall (to be used as part of the addition) was anticipated at the time the buildi= ng was constructed. Mr. Rick Ham= mar said the original concept was to have the building look as presented; photo= graphs could be submitted. He discus= sed how the current tenants were running their businesses and the intent of use= for the addition, which they were trying to do feasibly at a reasonable cost. Mr. DeLuca suggested to the applic= ant that they bring in the original plan for the building that showed the possi= ble addition. Mr. Culbert said a subdivision plan would have to be submitted because of the concern about the wet and slope areas. The other members of the Board agreed that a site plan would be needed. Mr. Yarmo asked that the wetland violation filed a couple years ago be addressed. Mr. Culbert asked that it be discu= ssed with Mr. D’Andrea. Mr. = Hammar did not believe that it was true.

Mr. Hammar asked if a full subdivision site pl= an would be needed if the second story was not added and the footprint was the= way it originally was. He said th= ey were trying to do this feasibly; and noted there were ten acres on the site. Mr. Culbert said it may= not be possible because zoning and wetlands had changed. The plan would have to be based up= on the property today.

Mr. Fredett said if the Board was not going to consider the plan as a minor site plan it would not be ready at this point = for engineering review. If that w= as the case, the applicant suggested that the Board hold off and submit revised pl= ans. Mr. Hammar said the plan was discu= ssed prior to bringing it to the Board to find out if a full plan would be requi= red; from the meeting a plan was done based on the small footprint and existing conditions of the site. Mr. C= ulbert reiterated that the Board wanted a full site plan to be submitted for engineering review.

The applicant withdrew the plan without prejud= ice and would submit at a later date. A letter stating such will be submitted to Mr. D’Andrea.

It was noted that the Board had required other business on Route 38 to submit full site plans.

DI= SCUSSION

Su= bdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access and Road Design.

Certain members of the Board were not comforta= ble discussing possible Subdivision Regulation changes without Board members present.

The Board deferred discussion of the Subdivisi= on Regulations until the next Work Session.

MINUTES

Novem= ber 1, 2004 –= ; Deferred until the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Yarmo) To adj= ourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:00p.m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfully submitted,

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

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