PB Minutes 01.13.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 13, 2005

The Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Bill Scanzani, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevi= ch

Mr. Culbert informed that Raymond Brunelle had resigned and believed the Selectmen had accepted it.

Mr. Yarmo voted in Mr. DeLuca’s absence.

2<= sup>nd PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Pl= anning Board vote to place proposed amendments on the ballot for the 2005 Annual Town Meeting.

Item #1 – Amend Article IX Elderly Housing Sections 307-49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 5= 4 of the Zoning Ordinance to modify standards for elderly developments.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To show Plan= ning Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #1 (Elderly hous= ing) for placement on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #2 - Amend Section 307-88.A of the Zoni= ng Ordinance to provide a more detailed description of the criteria necessary = to meet the ‘hardship’ criterion.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Yarmo) To show Planning= Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #2 for placement on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #3 – Amend Section 307-74.B of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size= of accessory dwelling units from a maximum of 500 square feet to 750 square fe= et.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouellette/Scanzani) To show Plan= ning Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #3 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #4 – Amend Section 307-76.II of the Zoning Ordinance to define that the = sale of three (3) or more vehicles per year shall be considered a home occupation and shall not be permitted and to exclude automotive related uses as a home occupation.

&= nbsp;

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/McNamara) To show Plann= ing Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #4 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #5 – Amend Section 307-90 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount= of fines imposed from not more than $100.00 to not more than $550.00 for each = day violations may exist.

&= nbsp;

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/McNamara) To show Plann= ing Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #5 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #6 – Amend Section 307-40.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to also allow well= s to be located within the Wetland Conservation District by the granting of a special permit and require application review by a Wetland Scientist.

&= nbsp;

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouellette/Scanzani) To show Plan= ning Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #6 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #7 – Amend Section 307-69.LL of the Zoning Ordinance to limit temporary signs to specific lengths of time, require it be for special events, and require a permit for each sign.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouellette/McNamara) To show Plan= ning Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #7 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #8 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that areas within a WCD setback may be counted toward the minimum lot size and stipula= te that slopes 25% or greater shall not be counted in computing minimum lot si= ze.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To show Plan= ning Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #8 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(4-1-1) The motion carried. Mr. Yarmo voted no. Mr. McNamara abstained.

Item #9 – Amend Section 307-28 and 307-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit= the removal from the Town’s above ground water resources or below ground aquifers for more than 1000 gallons of water per day unless said water is f= or the purpose of redistributing that water to the landowners of Pelham.<= /o:p>

&= nbsp;

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/McNamara) To show Plann= ing Board recommendation of the amendments contained in Item #9 for placement= on the 2005 Town Meeting ballot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. D’Andrea asked if the Board wanted to consider the order in which the amendments would be placed on the ballot. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to keep the order of the amendments as reviewed. Mr. Culbert suggested that the Boa= rd send (to be included within the Town Report) a brief explanation of each amendment to the voters.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 16 Lot 13-84 & Map 17 Lot 13-83-7 – New England Pentecostal Ministri= es – Route 38, Beacon H= ill Road & St. Margaret’s Drive – Proposed Lo= t Line Adjustment

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere 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.

Bishop Stanley Choate and Co-Pastor Ruth Choate met with the Board to discuss their request. Bishop Choate said he expected the engineering firm to be present at the meeting but wanted the Board to proce= ed.

Mr. Culbert confirmed that Bishop Choate would= be acquiring another piece of land to add onto their existing lot. He confirmed that lot 13-83-7 would remain a conforming lot and WCD signs would be placed every 25 feet. Bishop Choate said the lot had bee= n laid out and posted. Mr. Culbert questioned if the owners of lot 13-83-5 had been approached to see if additional land could be purchased. Bishop Choate said the owner had been approached and was taking it u= nder consideration. However, becau= se of the time constraints to acquire the additional lot (the owner was looking to move in February), they were not able to conclude an agreement with the own= er of lot 13-83-5 for additional land.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the plan and questioned = what the two additional leach beds were. Bishop Choate explained that there was a leach field already in place for the church building and when the new structure was added, the two additional leach fields were installed.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board review the Board’s prior approval.

It was noted that the parcel was currently 5.97 acres and would be close to 7 acres when completed. Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant intended to build on the land being acquired. Bishop Choate said no building was planned. Mr. Scanzani reitera= ted that he would like to pull the approved plan for 13-83-7 and verify the lot sizing calculations for the lot. Mr. D’Andrea said the surveyor verified the lot lines for both lots. He was comfortable with= the remaining acreage being calculated correctly which would be certified and n= ew deeds created based upon the plan. He said the reconfigured lot met the 35K minimum lot size requirement. Mr. Scanzani ask= ed the Board members if they were comfortable that there was 35K SF of contiguous = dry land. Mr. D’Andrea said= it could easily be condition that the engineer who drew the plan certify that there is a minimum of 35K (contiguous) non-wetland in conformance with the regulations. Mr. Culbert unde= rstood that the applicant was under time constraints and believed a conditional approval could be granted.

Mr. Scanzani felt the 35K would be a problem b= ased upon page 3 of the proposed plan. Mr. McNamara shared the concern of creating a non-conforming lot. Mr. D’Andrea reiterated that= the Board could request as a condition of approval that the engineer certify th= at the area between Beacon Hill Road and the wetland contains a minimum of 35K= SF of non-wetland. Mr. Scanzani = said he wanted to review the calculations (in the log book).

Mr. Yarmo said installing WCD signs would be g= ood note to add to the plan. He a= lso requested that the new deeds contain language giving a description for the WCD.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Tarmey, 11 St. Margaret’s Drive, discussed the proposal and said it appeared to attempt to circumvent a Boar= d of Adjustment denial from approximately one year ago. The owner of parcel said the rear property (on Beacon Hill R= oad) was landlocked creating a hardship. The variance was denied because the Board of Adjustment didn’t feel there was a hardship due to the fact that the property was built for t= wo acres; there is excessive water on the property. He noted that it took twenty-five = years to have a paved road built, which was not able to be built to Town standards because of the slope. He said= every time there is a major storm, the Highway Department has to close it. Mr. Tarmey questioned what the land would be used for because it has excessive wet areas. He also wanted to know how the lot= would be accessed and was concerned that there would be additional traffic on a r= oad that was already in ‘tough’ shape. He didn’t feel that the parc= el contained the required 35K SF of dry land.= Mr. Culbert said if there was to be any building on the lot, it would have to be brought up to Town standards.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani asked what the basis was for the Board of Adjustment denial. M= r. McNamara (who is also a Board of Adjustment member) said the owner (Mr. Doo= ley) came to the Board of Adjustment seeking a variance to subdivide his property with the back property having no frontage.= The variance was rejected because of the water concerns and also bec= ause Mr. Dooley had purchased the house knowing the restrictions.

Mr. Culbert said it was known that St. Margare= t’s Drive was a bad road and if in the long term plans the applicant saw subdivision, they would have a hard time.&= nbsp; Bishop Choate understood. He said development was not an issue and had no problem with the Board placing= a restriction regarding building.

MOTION:<= o:p>

Scanzani/McNamara) To accept the = plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the Board’s conditions as follows: 1) have an engineer certify and show calculations th= at lot 13-83-7 has 35K contiguous square feet in conformance with the TownR= 17;s Subdivision Regulations keeping lot 13-83-7 with new lot line in conformanc= e; and, 2) WCD signs installed every 25ft. and must be reflected in the two new deeds that will be drawn.

Ms. Bousa felt the 100ftx150ft building envelo= pe for the existing house should be shown on the plan because she didn’t think they had and felt there may be an issue. Mr. D’Andrea didn’t fe= el it would be applicable because the conditions already existed. Ms. Bousa still felt there was an issue.

Mr. Culbert asked what Bishop Choate said about lot 13-84 being a non-buildable lot. Bishop Choate said they were trying to obtain a small portion of an abutting lot (which would decrease the number of angles). Mr. D’Andrea cautioned the B= oard regarding limiting building because 1.1 acre being transferred would become part of the larger 13-84 which would contain a total of 7 acres; they would have full rights to come back to the Board for a site plan for any type of further activity. He believed= the applicant was acknowledging that it wouldn’t be a separate lot. Bishop Choate understood that it w= ould not be a separate lot. He questioned if the lot could be used for their playground. Mr. D’Andrea said it would r= equire a site plan review as a change in the property.

Mr. Scanzani noted that the part being added w= as basically dry and didn’t want to have any restrictions placed on lot 13-84 because it was just an addition of land; anything down the road would require a site plan.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Scanzani) To approve th= e lot line adjustment conditioned upon : 1) have an engineer certify and show calculations that lot 13-83-7 has 35K contiguous square feet in conforman= ce with the Town’s Subdivision Regulations keeping lot 13-83-7 with new lot line in conformance; and, 2) WCD signs installed every 25ft. and must= be reflected in the two new deeds that will be drawn.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DI= SCUSSION(S)

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

Mr. Culbert said the Board would discuss the proposed amendments to the Subdivision Regulations at the February 7, 2005 meeting. He said the second meeting in Febr= uary would be the meeting that the Board approves the Subdivision Regulations changes. There was a brief discussion regarding fees that were collected and a suggested change in pro= cess that would be further discussed during the meetings in February.

MI= NUTES

January 3, 2005 – deferred.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanz= ani/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m.

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary