PB Minutes 05.02.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 2, 2005

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

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

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternat= e Ken Dunne

AD= MINISTRATIVE

CIP Appointment – Eleanor Burton – 1-year term

Mr. Scanzani said based upon the importance of= the school issues this year, he appointed Ms. Eleanor Burton (who is also a Sch= ool Board member) as a member of the CIP for a one-year term.

NEW BUSINESS

Ke= vin Armstrong- Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed Storage = of Logs in relation to a Logging Business

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. There were two notifications returned, one was stamped ‘not deliverableR= 17; and the other was not claimed.

Ms. Kristine Lamarche, Hillcrest Lane presented the plan to the Board. She said there would be a limited time that a logging truck would be= at the site, the pieces were mainly firewood size. She noted they would be using the = same entrance as the Mobil gas station (along the lot line). She ended by showing the area that= would be used and noted that the wood would be stored, cut, split and taken out f= or delivery. Trucks (logging and= /or dump truck) would access the lot once or twice per day.

Mr. McNamara asked what v= olume of logs would be on the property. Ms. Lamarche said she didn’t know a quantity; as the wood comes in, other would be taken off. Mr. McNam= ara asked if firewood was going to be split on the property. Ms. Lamarche said the wood would be split on the property using a small commercial wood splitter. Mr. McNamara asked how far back th= e wood storage would be from Route 38. Ms. Lamarche said the wood storage would be approximately 100feet back from Rou= te 38. Mr. Kevin Armstrong said = the area would be approximately 75ftx75ft.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara asked how close they would be from the WCD. Mr. Armstrong said they would be approximately 100feet. Ms. La= marche said it would have to be measured. Mr. McNamara said the plan’s scale was confusing because it appeared they would be closer to the WCD.&= nbsp; He informed the applicant that there was a 50-foot setback from the WCD. Mr. Armstrong noted that= one of the delineations on the plan was actually the 100-year flood plane, but didn’t know why it wasn’t marked as such. Mr. McNamara asked if there was an existing business. Mr. Armstr= ong said it was an existing business currently located at 27 Hillcrest Lane. Mr. McNamara asked if all of the business would be moved to the proposed location. Mr. Armstrong said there was wood = coming and going constantly. With the beginning of the season, they were starting to stockpile wood and wanted to= put it at the proposed location. = There would not be a building at the proposed location; the splitter (which was n= ot a processor) would be brought back to the Hillcrest Lane location.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the= re was a reason the proposed access was shown to be on lot 10-247 versus from 10-246= . Mr. Armstrong said they were not u= sing an entrance from 10-247; they would access to the right of the existing driveway used by the Mobil station.

Mr. Danevich said the pla= n was incomplete for what the Board needed and noted that a lot of the businesses= on Route 38 had been asked to update their site plans. He said some of the missing items = were: 1) signage; 2) no note section; 3) no driveway; 4) parking not indicated; 5) Department of Transportation specifications; 6) truck parking or designated area; 7) Fire Chief review; 8) pavement areas; 9) drainage or any negative impacts. Mr. Armstrong said n= o one would access the lot except themselves; no vehicles would be parked overnig= ht. He said there was no intent on cha= nging the lot. There would be no bu= ilding, driveway, or parking lot constructed. There would be no permanent sign; there would possibly be a temporary sign unless it would be an issue.

Mr. Scanzani noted that a= state driveway permit would be needed. He also wanted the Fire Chief to review/comment since the material being stored was combustible.

Mr. Danevich asked if the= wood was for sale, or storage. Ms. Lamarche said the wood was mostly (95%) supplied to commercial restaurants, they did very little residential business.= Mr. Danevich asked if the applicant would be opposed to putting the = wood behind a fence for the visual appeal on Route 38. Mr. Armstrong said they wouldnR= 17;t have an issue with a fence. <= /p>

Mr. Scanzani reiterated t= hat the plan needed more detail (i.e. access) so the Board could seek an expert opi= nion from the Town’s engineer or the Fire Chief in order to make a decision. Ms. Lamarche said t= hey came before the Board to find out what they needed to do, since they were unsure. Mr. Danevich asked the applicants to meet with the Planning Director and update the plan to include items such as: 1) notes section; 2) fencing; 3) hours of operation; 4) sign= age; 5) driveway – DOT permit; 6) parking; 7) statement regarding off site truck parking; 8) statement that there was no planned septic/building at th= is point; 9) Fire Chief review/comment; 10) any drainage issues.

Mr. McNamara asked that t= he WCD and flood plane be better delineated and show how close they would be in relation to the operation. He wanted to know if there would be noise from the splitter and felt the hours= of operation should be indicated.

Ms. Lamarche asked if the= fence was required. There was a con= sensus of the Board that a fence was desired versus landscaping, based upon the Ro= ute 38 location.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the June 6, 2005<= /st1:date> meeting. =

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89 – Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

Mr. Scanzani informed that the hearing would be continued to the = June 6, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 – LRL Development of Pelham= & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

Mr. Scanzani said at the request of the applicant’s engineers, this would be continued to the June 6, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 13 Lot 4-139-22 – Pennichuck Water Works – Collin’s Way – Site Plan Review of Proposed 350,000 Gallon Stor= age Tank

Mr. Dan Ware of Pennichuck Water Works showed a plan to the Board that was in the process of review with the Town’s engineer (Dufresne-Henry). He believed they had addressed all of Dufresne-Henry’s issues. He said they had two drainage areas being reviewed; the one on the site and going down the access 10.5foot paved drive) that contained a series of catch basins that collected the water and discharged it at a pre-development rate.&n= bsp; He further discussed the plan, which was done for a fifty-year storm event and designed to handle all the run off , that would end up in a deten= tion pond off Longview Circle. He said it would be a challenging = site because it was basically solid rock; they had shifted the driveway slightly= and obtained a construction easement to allow some grading (which would be show= n on a later plan).

Mr. Scanzani asked if Mr. Ware had copies of Dufresne-Henry’s comments. Mr. Ware said he had responses to their last comments and discussed = the drainage calculations with Mr. Bruce Cox.&= nbsp; He said they wanted to revise the plans to the Town’s format by the end of the week, forward to Mr. D’Andrea and Dufresne-Henry so the plans could be revised for the Board’s May 16, 2005 meeting. Mr. Ware submitted a photograph of= a gate that was proposed for the access road.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Sullivan, 34 Longview Circle said he resided = at the end of the drainage swale. He= was concerned about the safeguards in connection with the control of the overfl= ow and treatment swale. Mr. Ware= said they would look at the worst case scenario (700 gallons per minute in an overflow event). He said they= had alarms at the station that would be monitored 24 hours per day; if the tanks got within a foot of an overflow, the pumps could be shut off remotely. He said the safeguards were that an overflow should never happen and they put a small drain out of the structure and if opened wide it would be similar to a fifty-year rain event. Mr. Ware said they inspected the t= anks every five years and would drain it down half way. He said they would look into whate= ver the Board wanted them to.

Mr. Danevich thanked Mr. Ware for addressing m= ost of Dufresne-Henry’s concerns. He felt this was a critical component to Pelham’s infrastructu= re with respect to water. Mr. Wa= re was confident that he could work with Dufresne-Henry and provide the Board with= a re-worked plan that had assurances that the drainage system would work ‘as advertised’. = He said they had a state grant for beginning work in mid-June and was hopeful = the plan would be set by then. He= said there was some concern expressed about blasting. They have sent a survey to the com= munity for anyone within 1500 feet of the work area who wanted a pre-blast survey = done (return receipt requested). <= /p>

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. D’Andrea obt= ain Dufresne-Henry’s comment when the final plan was received so it could= be placed first on the May 16, 2005 agenda.

Mr. Sullivan asked if his question would be addressed at a later time, once calculations were done. Mr. Scanzani said the final calcul= ations were still being worked out. = The Board would review the Town engineer’s comments at the May 16, 2005 meeting.

The plan was date specified to the May 16, 2005 me= eting.

DI= SCUSSION

NR= PC Region-wide Build out Impact Analysis

Mr. Scanzani said NRPC had done a build out analysis for Pelham in 2004 and were now redoing a build out analysis for t= he entire region. He said it was= done slightly different and came out higher this time. He said he needed the Board’s help for the next NRPC meeting. He noted that at Town Meeting (Mar= ch, 2005) a 55+ ordinance had been passed, but was not considered as part of the full build out analysis done by NRPC. He asked that the Board consider taking a percentage of the 5+ acre = lots and reserving them for 55+, ask NRPC to recalculate so they are not just si= ngle family homes.

Mr. D’Andrea said NRPC identified 134 parcels that qualified as greater than five acres, but they have difficulty running their model on that because they only assign one density calculation for each of the zones. He suggested, for purposes of the model, to create a ‘dummy’ zone = for elderly (with a certain percentage of the 5+ acre parcels). Currently they have three zones (commercial, industrial and residential).&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara questioned how to determine the elderly percentage with accuracy. Mr. Scanzani said NRPC, as part of the build out analysis was perfor= ming updates. He said if the Town = left the model as it currently was, it may understate the traffic. He believed 10%-15% would be a reasonable assumption for elderly development. Mr. McNamara suggested possibly ge= tting a ‘ballpark’ number from surrounding communities. Mr. D’Andrea said at best th= ere could be a comparison of the number of elderly units issued versus single family permits. He said the information was not easily transferable to what could happen in Pelham. Mr. Scanzani reiterated that with = 134 parcels it was reasonable to assume 10% would be elderly. Mr. D’Andrea said he had alr= eady had four people speaking to him about elderly projects.

Mr. McNamara asked if the identified parcels h= ad problems such as steep slopes, wetlands etc. Mr. Scanzani said they had problem= s with different things, which had been excluded; through GIS mapping NRPC identif= ied those parcels that would fit the criteria of Pelham’s zoning. Mr. McNamara said each of the parc= els was developable in some fashion. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes. He said some of the parcels = might be able to be subdivided and turned into a number of projects.

Mr. Scanzani then discussed the Business Distr= ict (25 developable acres remaining). He said when NRPC reviewed the Business District they found that the= re was a substantial percentage of single family lots, which was just as high = as the number of commercial buildings. He proposed that NRPC review the business zone and leave out single families since it was unlikely those lots would be sold for single families. He said in the Indu= strial District (which was all commercial use) there was substantially more land l= eft and there were some opportunities. <= /span>

Mr. Scanzani summarized that he would like a recommendation from the Board: 1) recommend to NRPC to review the Business District from a standpoint of future building, review it as being mixed use commercial/office/industrial; 2) create an additional district for 55+ (usi= ng 10% of the remaining parcels). The Board agreed to provide NRPC guidance according to requests made by the Chair.

Ms. Bousa asked if NRPC took into consideration the parcels that may be purchased for conservation land. Mr. Scanzani answered no. He said the original study (done i= n 2004 by Conservation) made certain assumptions regarding certain parcels and that they would stay in conservation use. He said the current study showed the lots according to the way they = were zoned, and didn’t include the assumption of conservation land.

MINUTES

April 18, 2005=

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the April 18, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

May 16, 2005:

Map 13 Lot 4-139-22 – Pennichuck Water Works – Collin’s Way – = Site Plan Review of Proposed 350,000 Gallon Storage Tank

June 6, 2005:

Map 41 Lot = 10-346 – Kevin Armstrong – Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Propos= ed Storage of Logs in relation to a Logging Business

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89 – Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

Map 39 Lot = 1-53 & 55 – LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To adjourn t= he meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:40 p.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