PB Minutes 7-08-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 8, 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, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Vic= tor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Henry De= Luca, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

NEW BUSINESS

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 R= 11; Meissner, Maureen & Eloise – Sherburne Road – Proposed 5-L= ot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the proposed plan for discussion. He said the plan for consideration= had been before the Board approximately eight years ago for a residential subdivision of eighteen to twenty lots.&nb= sp; At that time the project came off Mammoth Road, the layout is now dif= ferent with access coming from Sh= erburne Road and dividing up into five lots varying fr= om 1.4 to 9.9 acres in size. Mr. Gospodarek said they would like to ‘punch’ the road next to the buffer zone, cross the wetlands and stay very close to the wetlands with th= e road ending in a 775foot cul-de-sac. He said the lots abutting Long Pond were 9.76 and 9.95 acres in area; he was unsure what the developer had in mind for those lots.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, 5 Sherburne Road was concerned for the wetlands because of the proposed location of the road. Mr. Culbert said the plan still ne= eded to be reviewed by the wetland and soil scientists. Ms. Balzotti asked if there was a potential for the subdivision to be increased to the number of lots that had been proposed the last time the parcel was reviewed coming off Mammoth Road. Mr. Culbert said the plan didnR= 17;t show access as coming off from Mammoth Road.

Ms. Bousa asked that the = lot lines be clearly defined. Mr. Gospo= darek provided a detailed plan showing the lot lines.

Mr. McNamara said in ligh= t of the other developments coming forward on Sherburne Road, he expected there would be some provision for open space on the plan. <= /p>

Map 15 Lot 8-86 & Map 22 Lot 8-88 – Ploof, Roger – Tina Avenue & Balcom Road – Proposed 24-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the proposed plan for discussion. He said there was an existing road= way that went to Route 38 and they were proposing to connect the roadway system from Balcom Road to Rita Avenue to Tina Avenue. He said there was a major wetland crossing, but there are not a lot of wetlands on the property. The main roadway is about 2400ft w= ith a cul-de-sac breaking off for about 700 feet.

Mr. Danevich reviewed a l= ist of concerns as follows: 1) lot lines between lots 8-87 & 8-89 are unclear = and the right-of-way off Tina Avenue is unclear (and has permission to cross be= en granted) (lot 8-87 contains the stump dump that had been identified and tra= cked by the Planning Department); 2) lot 8-62 connection to Balcom Road - owners= hip and lot lines are unclear; 3) what is rectangle next to lot 8-86-12 –= Mr. Gospodarek said the rectangle was probably a 50 foot right-of-way for lot 8= -211 (Town property), so it would not be land-locked – Mr. Danevich said t= he Board would need to understand what the rectangle was; 4) lot shapes (angle= s) of lots 15 through 20 – Mr. Danevich preferred to see rectangular lot= s as described in the Subdivision Regulations; 5) due to size, lots 5 through 11 potential for future subdivision which could cause a potential stacked-lot problem for the Board of Adjustment – seeing the engineering may alleviate concern.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the redefinitions of the lot lines would be certified and justified. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Danevich said the are= a was subject to clearing, but explained that the issue was off-property not part= of this subdivision. He said the= two issues that had been before the Selectmen were the stump dump (off property part of the right-of-way power transmission 8-87) and the clearing over the past summer (off property 8-99,100 & 102).

Mr. Yarmo asked if the pr= operty abutted the Golden Brook Prime Wetland.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek said it abutted lot 8-211, that he believed was the location of the brook. Mr. Cu= lbert asked if the proposed wetland crossing was part of the brook. Mr. Gospodarek believed the wetland crossing was part of the Beaver Brook system.

Ms. Bousa said when the p= lan came back for review, it would be good to know the length of the road from Route= 38 to Balcom into the new subdivision in case there was a potential for no connection.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue said he had many issues. He began with his concern regarding a triangular piece = of land that had no deed or coordinates (under the power lines). He said there was a road built fro= m Rita Avenue= to the proposed piece through the power lines (lot 8-89) consisting of a crushed concrete material that had been put in through the years; he asked if it co= uld be checked for contaminates. = He said his reference map showed lot 8-87 as having considerable wetland, but = the plan being presented didn’t. Mr. Culbert noted that the plan would be going out for engineering r= eview. Mr. McManus said another concern w= as the fact that the state had the Town remove the garbage dump on lot 8-87 and wa= nted to know if the stump dump now located on the lot would affect the aquifer.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert said that was a differ= ent property that wouldn’t affect the proposed site plan. Mr. McManus said when he was going= to purchase the property the same engineering firm was involved however at that time there was a major wetland and there would have been limited houses. He said he would attend the next m= eeting and review his paperwork.

Ms. Patricia Pellerin, 5 Tina Avenue said the clear cutting of trees (behind Tina Avenue to Rita Avenue) was required to stop p= er Ms. Arlene Allen of the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’= ) so a permit could be applied for. She said a permit has not been applied for and believed it was relevant since it was the same developer.

Mr. Scott Bowden, 42 Balcom Road understood when he purchased his property that the surrounding land may be developed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He was dismayed that the policies = in Town discouraged dead end roads. He said Balcom Road was great for pedestrians and rarely ran into traffic. He addressed the flow of the brook= and said that it flowed into Golden Brook.&nbs= p; He said it was active most of the year, but did dry up.

Mr. Jon Rickards, 8 Tina Avenue said his main concern was the increase in traffic. He asked if lot 8-87 was buildable= . Mr. Culbert said lot 8-87 was not = part of the proposed subdivision so it was unknown if it was buildable. He said the Selectmen’s Representative had the same question.

Mr. Pat Gendron, owner of= lot 8-85, said he had access onto Route 38, but because the front was swampland= , he would not be able to put a road in. He requested a right-of-way from the proposed road to his property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert said the Board could n= ot make that demand and suggested that Mr. Gendron discuss the request with the developer.

Mr. Danevich reviewed sta= te law (RSA 676-4) and noted that nothing binding could occur from the current discussion based upon the posting of the meeting. He said because the plan was conce= ptual, the developer could come back with a different plan. He said when the plan was resubmit= ted, the abutters would be re-notified. He ended by saying that any plan over ten lots the Board would requi= re a wetland impact study, environmental study, economic study and traffic study. Mr. Danevich said he w= as interested in verbiage regarding the cut through impact of traffic from Rou= te 38. He also wanted to make su= re that the deeds were clear regarding the authority to pass over the right-of-way.

Ms. Bousa asked that consideration be given to provide open space.

Mr. Culbert reiterated th= at the Board would require economic, environmental and traffic studies.

Map 21 Lot 3-123 – Grin= ley, Bill/Patriot Welding & Fabrication – 214 Mammoth Road – Site Revie= w for General Home Occupation

Mr. Bill and Christine Gr= inley, 214 Mammoth Road, met with the Board to request final site plan approval for Patriot Welding. Mr. Grinley said a Special Excepti= on had been granted by the Board of Adjustment (Case #2283 – May 10, 2004) for a General= Home Occupation. He said they were changing from a minor to a general primarily for the ability to post a sign. He said because of the location of the shop it was hardly visible and the sign was necessary for customers.

Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Mc= Namara (Planning Board member and Chairman Board of Adjustment) to provide an over= view of the discussion by the Board of Adjustment (‘BOA’). Mr. McNamara explained that the BO= A had to grant a special exception if an applicant met all the conditions, which = is unlike a variance where there is some room for discretion by the BOA. He said in this case the applicant provided a very detailed presentation and addressed, point by point, Section 307-76 of the Zoning Ordinance. There was no question by the BOA that the applicant qualified for the special exception. Mr. Danevi= ch wanted to ensure that there would be no change in significant lighting on the property. Mr. Grinley said th= ere would be no exterior lighting other than the interior lighting from the sho= p; the sign would be unlit. Mr. Danevich asked if there would be an increase of noise. Mr. Grinley said no work was perfo= rmed outside of the shop. Mr. Dane= vich asked if materials were stored outside or inside. Mr. Grinley stated that material s= torage was inside, with the exception of steel scrap that is stored in a two-wheel= ed trailer (6ftx8ft) located behind the shop.= Mr. Danevich asked if major modifications had been made for customer= parking. Mr. Grinley answered no. He said it was their intent to mai= ntain the ‘neighborhood aspect’ to the property. Mr. Danevich asked about hazardous materials. Mr. Grinley said no hazardous materials existed apart from an Acetylene cylinder which was chai= ned inside the building. Mr. Dane= vich felt the applicant did a good job at screening and wanted to make sure it w= ould be maintained going forward. = He noted that the Fire Chief (or designated inspector) reserved the right to p= eriodically review sites containing hazardous materials, which would be a stipulation f= or approval. Mr. Grinley felt th= at type of stipulation would be to his benefit as well.

Ms. Ouellette assumed tha= t the driveway and access to the house was from Mammoth Road. Mr. Grinley answered yes. Ms. Ouellette questioned where the access to the rear building (business) was located. Mr. Grinley said the access was fr= om Mammoth Road through property that was supposed to, and was asserted to belong to the To= wn as a right-of-way. Ms. Ouelle= tte reviewed the tax map which showed the right-of-way to be a part of lot 3-115-15. Mr. Grinley said the assertion was made three years ago that it belonged to a Mr. Blake. Due to = the assertion Mr. Grinley sought, and obtained Mr. Blake’s permission to = access the shop (as described at the time); there was some contention whether or n= ot permission had been granted therefore Mr. Grinley had done preliminary work= to obtain a driveway permit to modify his existing driveway in the event it be= came an issue. A copy of the accep= ted Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) driveway permit was submitted to the Board. Ms. Ouellette asked if= there would be two driveways. Mr. G= rinley said he would have one driveway. He was hopeful that he and Mr. Blake could come to a resolution regarding the access to the shop. He said t= he DOT permit was valid for a year. =

Mr. Yarmo asked that deli= veries and tractor trailer access be addressed.&n= bsp; Mr. Grinley said he picked up the material and intended to maintain = the integrity of the neighborhood. Mr. Yarmo asked how long the business had been in operation. Mr. Grinley said he had been in operation since January.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Leroy Blake, 2 Luann Lane, said the strip of land on the plan described as a public right-of-way was actual= ly part of his lot. He said they= had to work the access out; currently the applicant had put a road in across Mr. Blake’s property. Mr. B= lake said the exact lot line measurement was unknown. Mr. Culbert said it appeared that = the applicant would gain access to the lot through a different driveway if the right-of-way was not resolved. Mr. Danevich noted that the Board’s site plan approval would not grant the applicant access to someone else’s property. Ms. Ouellette said the Board neede= d to be clear where the access to the lot would be. Mr. Culbert explained that the Boa= rd would not get involved in a civil matter between the applicant and his neig= hbor.

Mr. Yarmo questioned wher= e the DOT driveway permit allowed the driveway to be placed on the site. Mr. Grinley provided the Board wit= h a copy of the proposed sketch that DOT approved. It was noted that the future right-of-way would be a separate issue if an agreement was made between the applicant and the abutter.

Mr. Joe Smolko, 6 Luann Lane, asked if there were any brazing fluxes or solvents used. Mr. Grinley said fluxes were used = with all welding electrodes; he had MSDS sheets to explain the possibility of pu= blic hazard, all of which are well below minimum. Mr. Smolko was concerned with the = handling of hazardous material and ground water issues. Mr. Grinley said nothing was stored outside and they were careful to protect.&= nbsp; Mr. Danevich noted that as a commercial property/business owner, the applicant would have to declare to the Pelham Fire Chief all hazardous chemicals per National Fire Protection Agency (‘NFPA’). Mr. Smolko asked if there were any= other inherent rights that came with a General Home Occupation versus a Minor Hom= e Occupation other than signage. Mr. Grinl= ey said primarily the only differences was that under a General Home Occupation a business was allowed to have a maximum of two off-site employees and the business could have an unlit 3ft. x3ft. sign. Mr. Smolko wanted to know if the business would be allowed to grow from what was presented at the meeting. Mr. Culbert answered no.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept for consideration, the Patriot Welding and Fabrication site plan review f= or a General Home Occupation as stated by the applicant.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ms. Ouellette confirmed t= hat there were no waivers. Mr. Da= nevich made a motion to approve the Patriot Welding and Fabrication site plan revi= ew for a General Home Occupation with concurrence from the Fire Department. Mr. McNamara seconded the motion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Ms. Bousa questioned if a condition should also be placed on the approval if the applicant worked out access with the abutter that the other driveway would be removed. Mr. Danevich said the Board didn&#= 8217;t have the authority to grant access onto an abutting property. He said if the applicant failed to= meet the conditions of the DOT approval, they would have to come back before the Planning Board.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = approval from DOT granted two accesses, or a wider access than what the applicant presently had. Mr. Grinley sa= id the DOT approval was for changing/altering the existing driveway. Mr. Culbert confirmed that there w= ould only be one driveway. Mr. Gri= nley said there could only exist one driveway unless an application was made to = DOT for a second point of access. Mr. Danevich clarified his motion by saying if the applicant failed to meet the stipulations in the approved DOT permit #359-0403 the applicant was require= d to come back before the Planning Board to modify the plan.

Mr. D’Andrea confir= med that the applicant currently used two separate driveways (for the house and for = the business); with the preference to continue using two separate driveways. Mr. Grinley answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the requirement of the Board would limit the applicant to one driveway per the DOT’s approval. Mr. Gri= nley agreed. Ms. Ouellette wanted = to ensure that the applicant understood what the Board was granting. She reiterated that the Board was approving the one driveway permitted by the DOT. Mr. Grinley made the Board aware t= hat it was possible for a person to have two driveways as a point of access to the= ir property off Mammoth Road<= /st1:address>. Ms. Ouellette said the applicant, through the DOT’s approval and the Board’s approval, would be limited to one driveway. Mr. Danevich reviewed section 11.05,a,1 of the Subdivision Regulations that addressed access to lots. Mr. Grinley pointed out that if a lot was approved prior to 1975, it was allowe= d to have two points of access (with less than 300ft. of road frontage).

Mr. Culbert reiterated th= at the Board was approving one driveway access off Mammoth Road as approved by DOT. Mr. Danevich said if the applicant= chose to change the access (through an agreement with his abutter); he may need to come back before the Board for modification of the site plan. Mr. Grinley understood.

Ms. Ouellette asked if th= e Fire Chief had provided something in writing that indicated he reviewed the site. Mr. Grinley said the Fi= re Chief had not inspected the site, but rather the inspector, who was only concerned with the heater. Th= ere was further discussion regarding what the Board wanted from the Fire Department. Mr. Danevich said= he wanted to ensure that the Fire Chief would be allowed periodic review of the site.

Ms. Bousa asked if the Bo= ard had a copy of the plan that the DOT driveway permit was contingent upon (dated = May 7, 2004). Mr. Grinley provided the Board wit= h a copy of the plan.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve the Patriot Welding and Fabrication site plan review for a General Home Occupation as stated by t= he applicant with a stipulation that the Fire Chief be allowed periodic acce= ss to the site for review.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 17 Lot 12-181 – Gag= non, David/Albach, Alicia – 334 Gage Hill Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivis= ion for consideration

Mr. Tony Basso of Haynor = & Swanson, representing the applicant David Gagnon, presented the plan to the Board. He said the proposal w= as a two-lot subdivision of approximately 5.2 acres that contained an existing t= wo and a half story dwelling (an outbuilding and a pool) with a driveway onto Route 38 that would be left alone. He said the new lot would be approximately 3.6 acres that would cont= ain a single family residence. He= said the front of the property was entirely clear, the back was wooded; there we= re no wetland or buffer impacts contemplated.= Mr. Basso said they had applied for the state curb cut permit and st= ate subdivision approval. He ende= d by saying that the proposed house would be into the tree line. He ended by saying he didn’t realize that they needed to show the 15,000 SF box area until speaking with= Mr. D’Andrea; he showed two locations where they could fit and meet the requirements.

Mr. Danevich confirmed wi= th Mr. D’Andrea that the application was recommended for consideration. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. D’Andrea said he recommended the following conditions if the Board were to approve the plan:= 1) Show 15K area on lot 12-181-1; 2) add notes to plan for the well test and t= he WCD signs to be posted prior to a building permit being issued per the Town’s regulations; 3) receipt of subdivision approval; 4) receipt of= NH Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) driveway permit.

Mr. McNamara said before = anything was approved he would like to know where the house and driveway was going t= o be located. Mr. Basso said the driveway was shown on the second sheet; they were proposing to place the ho= use in the tree line. He said the= 15K could be placed anywhere on the lot. Mr. Culbert said the 15K area would need to be identified on the plan that got approved.

Ms. Bousa asked if the ex= isting house lot currently contained two wells.&n= bsp; Mr. Basso said the lot contained two wells; one would be abandoned.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Bousa asked if the sight dista= nce to the east was known. Mr. Basso= said the sight distance to the east was 600feet.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Howard Augustine, EAH= Realty, asked if a road, or a driveway would be put in. Mr. Basso said there would be a si= ngle driveway leading to a single residence.&nb= sp; Mr. Augustine said he owned the abutting thirteen acre lot (with the only access being along the stone wall) didn’t want the applicant to = do something that would have the state stop his own ability to access his lot = in the future. He said the state= would only issue a certain amount of permits in the area. Mr. Basso said the state curb cuts= were based upon individual properties. He said the curb cut they were requesting would be located approxima= tely 130feet from the stone wall and didn’t feel it would impact Mr. Augus= tine. Mr. Augustine questioned if he wou= ld be affected in the future if he wanted to put a road in. Mr. Culbert didn’t feel the = proposed subdivision would affect Mr. Augustine.&nb= sp;

Mr. Danevich felt the sub= division was straight forward. He said= the Subdivision Regulations allowed for expedited review and was willing to mak= e a motion to approve the plan with the Planning Director’s conditions. Mr. McNamara asked if the 15K area= could be located tonight. Mr. Danev= ich believed the intent of the regulation was to show that the lot could suppor= t a viable piece of land. Because= of the slopes not being steep, he was okay with a stipulation. Mr. McNamara wanted to ensure that= the location would not be radically different from what was discussed.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= approve the plan conditioned: 1) Show 15K area on lot 12-181-1; 2) add notes to p= lan for the well test and the WCD signs to be posted prior to a building perm= it being issued per the Town’s regulations; 3) receipt of state subdivision approval; 4) receipt of NH Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) driveway permit.&nbs= p;

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 38 Lot 7-95 – Jose Hot Dog Stand – Pelham Plaza = Route 38 – Conceptual Site Plan for General Discussion (abutters not notifi= ed)

It was Mr. Danevich’= ;s understanding that per the Subdivision Regulations the Board should constra= in itself of any type of comments and only provide general feedback in this case.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert and Associates brought the conceptual site plan to the Board for general discussion. He understood tha= t he was before the Board to look at the type of site plan that they would put together for the project. He = was seeking information from the Board as to what type of site plan was needed = for the project. They were propos= ing to create a plan that showed the buildings, lots, parking and hot dog stand.

Mr. Danevich provided a b= rief history of the last three-four years. He summarized by saying that Jose Hot Dog had applied, and was appro= ved for an Itinerant Vendor’s Permit.&nb= sp; The definition of the permit called for a transient type of business; when the permit was issued, several of businesses within the plaza objected= to the type of vendor license that was supplied, which forced the Town to re-r= eview the policy; through legal interpretation, Jose Hot Dog did not qualify under the permit. It was determined= that Jose Hot Dog fell under Site Plan Regulations and the plaza was not approved for expansion. Mr. Danevich d= iscussed the items that the Board would need to address (septic, leach, parking, etc= .) when the applicant made their application for site plan approval. He said it did not meet most of th= e site plan regulations for operating a commercial business of food nature. He believed that the Board would r= equest the Health Inspector and several other entities to weigh in on the topic. <= /p>

Mr. Yarmo was concerned w= ith the aesthetics of that section of Route 38. = He asked if the portable toilet was part of the operation. No one could answer the question.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Bousa said the facilities may = be for the gas station.

Mr. McNamara agreed that = the applicant would have many hurdles in connection with their application.

Mr. Culbert said he would= view the business as permanent and therefore would need to meet the same regulat= ions that the other restaurants in Town had to meet. He had a problem with the safety a= spects of the location for the propane gas as well as it being next to the electricity. He said there wa= s a similar type of business that was located near Dunkin’ Donuts (seven = or eight years ago) that had to leave. Mr. Gospodarek asked if it would be appropriate to focus on the envi= ronmental, location and aesthetic issues. Mr. Danevich said it was the Board’s job to maintain consistency amongst = all the vendors; the Selectmen had denied the itinerant license because the business (even though it’s on wheels) had not moved in three years and didn’t meet the state definition of itinerant. He said because the Selectmen had = denied the permit, it was now before the Planning Board for a full-blown site plan review and was a commercial property. He said the level of consistency must be maintained between all the restaurants in Town.

Mr. Gospodarek confirmed = with the Board that he should proceed by addressing each item under the Site Plan Review. Mr. Culbert said it w= ould include related inspections. =

There was no public input= .

OLD BUSINESS

Map 4 Lot 9-69-23 – Mesiti Mill Pond Realty Trust/Arlene Gordon – Arlene Driv= e – Proposed 3-Lot (Map 8 Lot 9-69-2= 2) subdivision for consideration

Mr. Mark Gross of MHF Des= ign Consultants, representing Mesiti Mill Pond Realty Trust, met with the Board= to discuss the proposed subdivision. He said the plan was for a three-lot subdivision; currently there we= re two existing lots they were planning to consolidate and re-subdivide into t= hree lots. The existing lot (owned= by Arlene Gordon) containing the dwelling was approximately 2.2 acres; the vac= ant lot (part of the original subdivision for the extension of Arlene Drive in 1997) is approximat= ely 2.54 acres. Mr. Gross said th= ey were proposing to re-subdivide the lots so that the lot containing the exis= ting house would be 1.82 acres; the middle lot would be 1.7 acres and the third = lot would be 1.22 acres. He said = all the lots were designed to meet the Town’s Zoning Requirements and Subdivision Regulations. He n= oted that state subdivision approval had been received and was attached to the application.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the Planning Director’s concerns and asked Mr. Gross to address the follo= wing compliance issue – per 11.11.C.2 test pits not a minimum 50feet on lot 9-146-9. Mr. Gross said he ha= d been in contact with Mr. D’Andrea about this and noted that they went out = and field located the test pits, which were more than 50 feet apart, and showed them on an updated plan. It w= as noted that the Board had not been provided with the revised plans. Mr. Gross informed that Mr. D’Andrea’s request to verify the sight distance for the propose= d driveways was shown on the revised plan. He said the third issue was the location of the driveway with respect to the 4K area, which had also been revised to allow enough room for a driveway so it didn’t encroach in the 4K area.

Ms. Ouellette asked how m= uch of a physical separation there was between the two driveways. Mr. Gross said there was approxima= tely fifteen to twenty feet between the proposed driveways. He noted that they would require a= small sight distance easement on one of the proposed lots to obtain a 200 foot si= ght distance (toward the west). <= /p>

Mr. Yarmo asked for an explanation of the notes: ‘approximate limits of previous wetland mitigation area’ and ‘limit of existing conservation easement’. Mr. Gross sa= id under the original subdivision plan there was a crossing and they were requ= ired to mitigate the crossing. Mr.= Yarmo asked if there were any impacts on the wetland or buffer. Mr. Gross answered no.

Mr. Danevich confirmed th= at the minimum 50 feet apart for the test pit would be revised. Mr. Gross answered yes. Mr. Danevich asked Ms. Bousa what = an appropriate site distance would be for the proposed application. Ms. Bousa said it depended on what= was considered to be the appropriate speed of the road, whether posted, or what’s actually driven. Mr. Culbert believed the road was posted for thirty miles per hour. Ms. Bousa said she would have to c= heck the AASHTO regulations. Mr. Danevich asked what the proposed sight distance currently was. Mr. Gross said the driveway for lot 9-146-9 was approximately 235 feet and the sight distance for the 9-146-8 w= ould be 200 feet; both of which were based upon AASHTO for a design speed of 30 miles per hour. Ms. Bousa had= a concern with the driveway on lot nine because the driveway radius encroache= d in front of the abutting property. Mr. Gross said the driveway had been revised and separated. Ms. Bousa said if the stopping site distance in AASHTO was 200ft for thirty miles per hour it would be reasonable. There was a brief discussion regarding the sight easement.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich said it would need to be shown on the plan. Mr. Gross said it would be contain= ed on the recordable plan so that the lot owner would be aware of it.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Giannantonio, 27 Arlene Drive, said there had been many discussions about what has gone on with Arlene Drive with the prior develop= er; some of the issues had not been resolved.&= nbsp; He said the residents were concerned with getting into situations wi= th a developer when the previous part of the development was not complete. Mr. Culbert said there were negoti= ations with the other developer. Mr. Giannantonio also had concerns with the wetlands and noted that there was a considerable amount of ledge which seemed to make the land difficult to develop. He understood that M= rs. Gordon was giving up a piece of her lot so that only two homes would go in. Mr. Gross answered yes. Mr. Giannantonio reiterated his co= ncern for the unfinished business on Arlene Drive. Mr. Culbert said the Board could not hold another developer responsi= ble for a previous developer. Mr. Giannantonio said it was the same developer. Mr. Culbert said state law didn= 217;t allow the Board to intermingle the two subdivisions.

Mr. Danevich said it appe= ared that all the criteria had been met and the applicant had addressed the three remaining issues and agreed to a resolution as expressed by the Planning Director.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. D’Andrea was satisfied that the applicant could comply with the regulations, given the topography of the land. Mr. D’Andrea was satisfied t= hat the applicant met the minimum requirements for approving the subdivision (creation of the lot) any ledge problems haven’t been determined. He said other issues would be addr= essed when the state subdivision approval was granted.

Mr. Danevich wanted it no= ted that the applicant had agreed to update the plans with the following: 1) complia= nce issue of 11.11.C.2 – test pits reflect a minimum of 50 feet on lot 9-146-9; 2) will add a sight easement on lot 9-146-8 (approximately 15feet = to ensure adequate sight distance); 3) 4K area on lot 9-146-9 to be moved so it doesn’t conflict with the proposed driveway location. Mr. Gross agreed with Mr. Danevich’s statement. <= /p>

Mr. Danevich made a motio= n to approve the plan. Ms. Bousa s= econded the motion and asked that WCD signs be added to lot 9-146-9.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Bousa) To app= rove the plan with the following conditions: 1) compliance issue of 11.11.C.2 R= 11; test pits reflect a minimum of 50 feet on lot 9-146-9; 2) will add a sight easement on lot 9-146-8 (approximately 15feet to ensure adequate sight distance); 3) 4K area on lot 9-146-9 to be moved so it doesn’t conf= lict with the proposed driveway location; 4)WCD signs to be added to lot 9-146= -9.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot subdivision for consideration

Mr. Culbert noted that th= e Board had not yet received the comments back from Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer). Mr. Danevich said = the Planning Director have provided comments and asked if the presentation woul= d be an update with no action anticipated. Mr. Culbert answered yes.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the plan was for an eight-= lot subdivision. The road would be approximately 1075 feet long (curbed and gutters/close drained) ending with a green space cul-de-= sac. He showed the areas of the treatme= nt swale and detention pond. He = said there were no wetland or buffer zone impacts. Mr. Gospodarek said they had appli= ed for a state driveway permit; he discussed some of the state’s concerns, s= uch as how the detention basin would discharge into the drainage system. He said one of the interesting thi= ngs with the project was that the Town’s regulations called for a fifty-y= ear storm event but because the state doesn’t design for a fifty-year sto= rm event, he would have to do a design that held back the water through a ten = year design. He said a road radius waiver (for 150 feet) would be requested.&= nbsp; He noted that no comments had been received regarding the project.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the Planning Director’s comments as follows: 1) 10.04(J) note indicating = that ‘all road and drainage work to conform to the standard specifications= for construction in the Town of Pelham’; 2) 10.04(K) location of undergro= und utilities; 3) 10.04 (N) statement regarding how open space would be handled= ; 4) 10.04(O) deeds for documents of conveyance; 5) 10.04(R) soil report missing= ; 6) 11.04(C)(1) 15K area 100x150 – lot 1-155-4 60wx130wx150d (verify 15K) – lot 1-155-3 & lot 1-155 not100x150; 7) 11.04(c)(6) soils info n= ot provided to verify; 8) 11.11(A)(2) not on plan stating well test to be done prior to building permit being issued; 9) 11.11(C)(2) two test pits 50feet within 4K area – lots 1-155, lot 2, lot 3, lot 4, lot 6, lot 7 & = lot 8 shows one – lot 5 not 50 feet apart; 10) 11.14 open space; 11) 11.1= 5(A)(2) note on plan that WCD signs to be posted prior to building permit; 12) rece= ipt of NHDOT Driveway Permit; 13) Receipt of State Subdivision approval; 14) Receipt of State Site Specific. Mr. Danevich requested for consistency, that the cul-de-sac be an open green space.

Mr. McNamara believed tha= t due to the numerous developments in the area that a traffic study (contributed to = by all of the ongoing developments) should be done, however he was unsure organizationally how it would be worked out. Mr. Danevich agreed, but believed = that the Planning Director had been asked to check with NRPC regarding the cost = for a study. Mr. D’Andrea s= aid the Board had discussed NPRC doing a traffic study and noted that the Board= had also granted a wavier to the Litchfield Circle development. He felt it may be more appropriate= to have the twenty-two lot subdivision do the traffic study keeping the two smaller subdivisions in the background.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara said incremental versus total planning and at last coun= t, counted forty lots that could come before the Board in the near future. He said if a study wasn’t do= ne, the Board would be faced with a number of lots without having made provisio= ns for Sherburne Road. He believed traffic was already a concern on both ends of Sh= erburne Road. Ms. Bousa addressed the traffic and suggested that each of the proje= cts contribute to a study; she preferred to hire a traffic consultant (as oppos= ed to NRPC) because they could provide a specific design. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the t= iming. Ms. Bousa said if the developers voluntarily contributed to a study; money could be put aside for when a stu= dy could be done. Mr. McNamara s= aid the contributions could be made for improvements to both ends of the street. Ms. Bousa said consideration could be given to collecting an impact fee based upon the add= ed number of trips to the intersections. There was further discussion regarding the possibility of money being voluntarily contributed to a study. Mr. Danevich suggested that the Board ask Mr. D’Andrea to come= up with a proposed traffic study. Ms. Bousa said a quote could be requested from a company for specific items to = be evaluated. It was agreed that= the main issue was both ends of the street.&nb= sp; Ms. Bousa asked the Board if they wanted her to draft a scope to be = reviewed by the Board and sent out to someone. No one objected. Mr. Danevich said there would be no action, other than the applicant would be p= ut on notice that the Board probably would request a per-lot fee/contribution toward an area wide traffic study.

Ms. Ouellette told Mr. Go= spodarek it had come to her attention that there was a serious water issue in the ar= ea that would have to be addressed.

Mr. Gospodarek discussed = the intersection and said there may be a resource that had already occurred bas= ed upon Hudson’s impact fees. He discussed how= Hudson’s imp= act fee structure was set up. Mr. Dan= evich discussed how the Town handled the impact fees contributed in the Spring St= reet area and suggested that the same practice be used.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Roula Johnstone, 20 Nicholas Lane, asked if the trees would be spot cut, or clear cut at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Culbert said = the Board discouraged clear cutting. Mr. Danevich said once the lot passed through the Board and was tran= sferred to a homeowner, it was the homeowner’s choice to clear to the lot line. Ms. Johnstone asked if = there would be any privacy at the end of the cul-de-sac. Ms. Bousa said there appeared to b= e a twenty foot buffer at the end of the cul-de-sac and Ms. Johnstone’s lot. Ms. Johnstone asked if t= here would be any blasting. Mr. Cu= lbert said in the past, the Board had told people to document the state of their = foundation and the condition of their well in the event of a civil suit. Ms. Johnstone pointed out that a l= ot of the neighbors had multiple wells because of the major water issue in the area. She was also concerned = with the drainage of the area due to the elevation. Mr. Culbert said the developer had= to manage the water on their lot and could not negatively affect an abutter’s property. Mr. D’Andrea clarified that there would be a fair amount of tree cutting = at the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line because of grading at the en= d of the cul-de-sac and a drainage structure being constructed. Mr. Gospodarek showed the area tha= t the treatment swale would be placed.

Mr. Danevich didn’t= feel that the Board had any further action other than the applicant updating the plan based upon the Planning Director’s comments, wait for engineering report and to have Mr. D’Andrea figure out a contribution toward a traffic study.

Mr. Yarmo asked for clari= fication of the drainage in connection with the storm events. Mr. Gospodarek explained how he wo= uld have to design the drainage. =

Ms. Ouellette asked if Mr. Gospodarek could review pulling the cul-de-sac back to provide a larger buffer. Mr. Gospodarek said he would review.

There was a brief convers= ation regarding when the plan would be brought back to the Board. Mr. Gospodarek didn’t feel t= hat there would be enough time to re-present the plan at the August 2, 2004 meeting, therefore he requested, and the Board agreed to date specify the plan to the August 16, 2004= meeting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the August 16, 2= 004 meeting.

Map 29 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood R= oad – Site Plan Application to construct a 30’x40’ garage wit= hin the Wetland Conservation District adjacent to a Prime Wetland

Mr. Culbert noted that the applicant had to bring their plan before the Board of Adjustment for a vari= ance and was therefore showing the Planning Board what they would be presenting.=

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said he was requesting that the= Board review the new location of the garage and driveway and provide a recommenda= tion/opinion of the updated plan.

Mr. Culbert read aloud Mr. D’Andrea’s comments as follows: 1) a variance has been applied = for due to new location; 2) why is an earthen berm still needed with new locati= on?; 3) runoff from building driveway is going where?; 4) garage intended to rep= lace outdoor storage? – if so, should we restrict use of remaining area?; = 5) 248-22 – recordable plan required; 6) 248-31(A) – front setback, minimum 40feet or 3x height? – verify height of building; 7)249-31(C) – waiver request needed to allow drainage facilities in WCD; 8) 248-3= 3(D) – requires paved driveways, loading areas, etc.; 9) 248-34 – address drainage; 10) 248-35 – landscaping plan; 11) 248-38 – f= lood protection; 12) 248-40 – fire prevention & protection; 13) amended wetlands permit; 14) Conservation Commission review; 15) Special Permit.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the proposed driveway would replace the existing driveway. Mr. Gospodarek answered no and sai= d that was not the intent. Ms. Ouell= ette asked if the open storage in the back of the existing driveway would still = be used. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Danevich asked if the applicant intended to update the plan after a variance was granted. Mr. Culbert answered yes. Mr. Danevich asked what the time c= lock was for the application. Mr. D’Andrea said the applicant was scheduled for the next Board of Adjustment meeting, but would not be heard due to an abutter notification problem would be postponed until another date. It was noted that the Planning Boa= rd would not be able to hear the plan before their August 16, 2004 due to the Board of Ad= justment notification process. It was = agreed between the Board and the applicant that the plan would be date specified to the August 16, 2= 004 meeting.

Mr. D’Andrea asked = Mr. Gospodarek if he received the direction he was looking for. Mr. Gospodarek said he wanted the Planning Board to provide comment regarding the location of the garage and driveway versus the previous plan. <= /span>Mr. McNamara believed that the design was based upon the basic concern of the B= oard from the last meeting. No obj= ection was voiced from the Planning Board.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the August 16, 2= 004 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 6-179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Ms. Ouellette noted that = comments from TFMoran had been received dated July 8, 2004. She confirmed that the comments made were not reflected on the plan being presented. Mr. D’= Andrea said he reviewed the comments and noted that they referenced the plan being presented, but were not reflected. <= /span>Ms. Ouellette said that an abutter (Ms. Mary Masse, 7 Mammoth Road – lot 1-58) had submitted a letter. She read = the letter aloud, which brought attention to her driveway location being in line with the entrance to the new road. <= /span>Ms. Masse requested that the entrance to the new road be located more south of = her driveway. Mr. Culbert reviewe= d the plan and said it didn’t appear that the road could be moved any furth= er south.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said last time they were before= the Board there had been some outstanding issues with TFMoran and some environm= ental concerns, which he believed Jim Gove of Gove Environmental had addressed. He highlighted some of the changes= that were made such as the cul-de-sac being redesigned so that the easement was touching the back of the property; the culvert crossing was enlarged to 14ftx5ft; 3.5 feet on each side of the stream bed with a rock type erosion control for the wildlife crossing; a lot had been combined which reduced the buffer zone impact; the mitigation for the flood plain area; other smaller issues were also addressed. He asked for approval.

Mr. Danevich asked for clarification of note 16. Mr. Gospodarek said the note came from the conveyance of an easement to the Town through a wetlands permit. Mr. Danevich requested that the wording ‘at the time of road acceptance’ be removed.

Ms. Bousa asked if the fi= le contained a sign-off letter from the Louis-Berger Group for the environment= al report. Ms. Ouellette said a = letter had been received on July 1, 2004 and went on to read a portion of which aloud. It appeared they would be fine if = the culvert was 14 feet and soil was laid over the sized rip rap. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan showe= d the detail with the sized stone. = He was not convinced that the soil would remain over the rip rap, but didn’t think it would be an issue if it was a condition for approval.

There was no public input= .

Mr. D’Andrea asked = if the dredge and fill that was reviewed reflected the road configuration (with the culvert). Mr. Gospodarek answ= ered yes. He said they indicated v= erbally to the state that the culvert size would change, but that the impact to the 50foot right-of-way would stay the same.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said if the Board were to approve the plan he wou= ld recommend the following conditions: 1) satisfactory review of the remaining comments of TFMoran (letter dated July 8, 2004); 2) satisfactory review of comments #2 & #3 from the Louis-Berger letter dated July 1, 2004; 3) receipt of the State Subdivision approval; 4) receipt of the Site Specific permit; 5) receipt of the NHDOT driveway permit; 6) lot 1 – verificat= ion of the provision of the 35,000SF of minimum contiguous upland area; 7) note= s be provided that WCD will be posted prior to building permit and that well tes= ts will be provided prior to building permit; 8) surveyor, engineer and soil scientist stamps be placed on the plans; 9) modification to note #16 regard= ing the conservation easement to be conveyed at the time of plan recording; 10) sheet 3 of 13 shall be amended to read sheet 3 of 14; 11) Board needs to gr= ant a Special Permit for the WCD road crossing. There were no objections from the applicant.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) satisfactory review of the rem= aining comments of TFMoran (letter dated July 8, 2004); 2) satisfactory review of comments #2 & #3 from the Louis-Berger letter dated July 1, 2004; 3) receipt of the State Subdivision approval; 4) receipt of the Site Specific permit; 5) receipt of the NHDOT driveway permit; 6) lot 1 – verification of the provision of the 35,000SF of minimum contiguous upland area; 7) notes be provided that WCD will be posted prior to building perm= it and that well tests will be provided prior to building permit; 8) surveyo= r, engineer and soil scientist stamps be placed on the plans; 9) modificatio= n to note #16 regarding the conservation easement to be conveyed at the time of plan recording; 10) sheet 3 of 13 shall be amended to read sheet 3 of 14;= 11) Board still needs to grant a Special Permit for the WCD road crossing.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

* It was noted that condi= tion 11 was a comment; during the August 2, 2004 meeting it was clarified that the Board granted the Spe= cial Permit for the WCD road crossing.

&n= bsp;

DISCUSSION

Subdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access an= d Road Design

Discussion was deferred t= o a later meeting.

MINUTES

June 7,= 2004

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the June 7, 200= 4 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa abstained.

June 21= , 2004

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= approve the June 21, 2= 004 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. McNamar= a and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

DATE SPECIFIED APPLICATIONS to August 16, 2004

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot subdivision for consideration

Map 2= 9 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood Road – Site Plan Application to construct a 30’x40’ garage within the Wetland Conservation District adjacent to a Prime Wetland

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SE= SSION

MOTION:

Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (Consideration or negotiation of pending clai= ms or litigation)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Culbert – Yes= ; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Ms. Bousa-Yes; Mr. Yarmo-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes

Also present was Mr. D’Andrea.

It was noted that when th= e Board returned, after the non-public session (and the non-public minutes were sea= led), the Board would not take any other public action.

The Board entered into a non-public session and adjourned the public meeting at approximately 10:50pm.

&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