PB Minutes 06.20.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 20, 2005

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

Mr. McNamara called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette (arriv= ed after the meeting commenced), Paddy Culbert, Christine Medeiros, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Planning Director Wi= ll D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa, Alternate Ken Dunne

Mr. Scanzani informed that Mr. Yarmo would be a voting member for the proceedings.

DI= SCUSSION

NR= PC – Discussion of Work Program

Mr. Steve Williams, NRPC Executive Director met with the Board and introduced Ms. Kerry Deeres NRPC Assistant Director. Mr. Williams circulated four Town = maps for review: 1) streets & Town facilities; 2) conserved land/environment= al features; 3) current land use; and 4 color aerial. He said the Selectmen would also be provided with copies. He then discussed the fact that NRPC would be focusing on local services strategic issues. Ms. Deeres reviewed h= ow NRPC currently worked with the Town and how she wanted to help. She welcomed any suggestions/interest.

Mr. Scanzani said he would like NRPC to work w= ith the Town in connection with roads/road planning/impacts/intersections as we= ll as seeking cooperation with surrounding towns regarding development issues.

Mr. Danevich requested that the maps be provid= ed in electronic form. He said he would like brochures/information that could help residents understand land use. He wanted better guidanc= e regarding junkyards because it is regulated by several agencies. He ended by requesting help seeking grants.

Mr. Williams discussed strategic issues (i.e transportation, economic development) that would benefit communities by wor= king toward joint solutions. The f= irst meeting was held, the Town was represented by Mr. D’Andrea and Select= men Jean-Guy Bergeron. The process would be worked on over the next couple years. The next meeting will be July 19, 2005.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Williams said NRPC had been developing a build-out impact analysis for the entire region looking at both residential and non-residential. This process will help determine several items at build-out such as a traffic model, estimated water needs, solid waste produced, number of school children and number of public safety calls. Mr. Williams said NRPC would meet = with the Town and send related information of the process. He asked for the Town’s inpu= t so NRPC could ensure that Pelham’s special issues could be included in t= he plan.

Mr. Scanzani thanked NRPC for meeting with the Board.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-95 Pelham Plaza Corp. – Jose Hotdog – Pelham Plaza/Route 38 – Modification to a Site Plan – Proposed hot dog stand

Mr. McNamara read the list of abutters aloud. There we= re 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.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He rev= iewed the information provided to the Board.&nbs= p; He said the hot dog stand proposed to place two tables with four cha= irs each. He noted that the busin= ess was seasonal (closed in the winter).

Mr. Culbert asked how the business was current= ly operating. Mr. Danevich said = the business was running with a 30-day Hawkers & Peddler license. The request being made was permane= nt approval of a site plan. Mr. = Zohdi said it was a revision to an existing site plan. Mr. Culbert said when this was originally presented he had questions regarding sanitary water supply, bath= rooms, why this wasn’t being treated like the other restaurants in Town, con= cern over the intersection and the fact that the gas was next to the electrical connection. He said the plan hadn’t changed since it was originally presented. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have answers to the questions because they were building permit issues.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the structure would be permanent with a temporary, renewable Hawkers & Peddlers license. Mr. Danevich didn’t believe = state law provided clear definition of what an itinerant vendor was, which was the dilemma faced by the Selectmen over the past few years. He said it had wheels and could mo= ve, but there was no case law. He= then provided the Board with a brief history of the case. He said Board was not Jose Hot Dog= , but rather the use of the designated area as an itinerant vendor area. He said it would allow the Town to= tax additionally the property. Mr. Scanzani said there would be a number of waivers needed (i.e. septic system, setbacks). Mr. Danevich said = this was a precedent setting case and went on to list other vendors in Town. Mr. Culbert said there was a simil= ar situation years ago in front of the new Dunkin’ Donuts years ago and = the vendor was forced to move.

Ms. Ouellette arrived.

Mr. Scanzani said the business may close, howe= ver the structure didn’t move (and didn’t meet setback requirements). Mr. McNamara believed this case was different in kind to the other vendors discussed by = Mr. Danevich. He said the business (Jose Hot Dog) may be labeled itinerant; however they had been doing busine= ss on the site (in the same location) for many years. Mr. Danevich said the Board had to separate the type of business with the land use. Mr. McNamara felt the use couldn&#= 8217;t be ignored because of the traffic being generated, pedestrian safety etc. Mr. Danevich said the Board had to review the options (i.e. location and restrictions). Mr. McNamara felt the Board needed= more information than they were provided with.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani believed there were zoning issues= and waivers that would need to be reviewed.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked if Town Counsel had been obtained. Mr. Danevich said the Selectmen ha= d, but it was not for release. Mr. Scanzani questioned if a new zoning district was being created without aski= ng the voters.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue said the owner ran a = clean business. However, he didn= 217;t feel this business was fair to other business owners who had to pay a tax, = put up a building, have a bathroom etc. He said if the owner moved the vehicle on the days they were closed,= he would obey the law. Mr. Scanz= ani said as long a permit was granted every thirty days.

Mr. Zohdi requested a ruling regarding the tra= iler and if it was a considered a structure that would have to comply with setba= ck requirements. Mr. D’And= rea said it was arguable and questioned whether it would be a structure. He said to comply with the itinera= nt vendor license the trailer could be moved for one day, brought back and par= ked for the rest of the days; in this situation it would not be considered to b= e a structure because it would be portable and would move. There was a discussion as to wheth= er the trailer was considered a structure because it was not moved. Mr. Scanzani was uncomfortable with setting a precedent that had unaddressed zoning requirements. He said from a Site Development standpoint waivers would be needed.

Mr. Danevich felt the Board should obtain a written statement from the Fire Chief (re: life safety). He said the electrical, fire and certificate of occupancy were signed off on a few years ago and didn’t expect anything different this time. He said clarification should be obtained from the Planning Director regarding the setback. He sai= d the Board should also formally request a summary from the Selectmen regarding w= hat had occurred over the past four years.&nbs= p; He said the Board should also review conditions that would be applie= d. It was reiterated that the Board&#= 8217;s issue was to review the site plan modification and determine if an itinerant vendor would be allowed. Mr. Danevich said if the Board approved the site for an itinerant vendor, the n= ext question would be to define what an itinerant vendor was and how to enforce. He said the Board al= so had to determine how many vendors would be allowed. Mr. Scanzani said if an itinerant = vendor area was allowed it was creating new zoning which should be brought before = the voters. Mr. D’Andrea sa= id itinerant vendor use was allowed in zoning.

Mr. Yarmo suggested reviewing the whole area a= nd determine which areas could support itinerant areas and identify what uses = they might be based on traffic/trip count. Mr. Culbert agreed with identifying an itinerant area, but felt traf= fic etc. would be identified by the Fire Department when a vendor moved in. Mr. McNamara discussed the traffic problems that had occurred last year due to a car rally. Mr. Scanzani reiterated his feelin= g that new zoning would be created if approved.&n= bsp; He also felt there were safety concerns that may be able to be addressed.

Mr. Danevich said more information was needed regarding 1) written comment from Fire Chief; 2) zoning setback requirement= s; 3) Selectmen to provide summary; and 4) outline conditions. Mr. Culbert felt the itinerant area should be clearly identified.

The plan was date specified to the July 7, 2005 mee= ting.

Ma= p 7 Lot 9-136-48 Taris, Kathleen – 19 May Lane – Amend Subdivision plan and grant a waiver from Section 11.14.B to allow both the replanting within the WCD and to allow a portion of the WCD for residential uses.

Mr. Scanzani said at the last meeting, the Boa= rd had asked the Conservation Commission to review and requested the Mr. Yarmo provide an update.

Mr. Yarmo said the Conservation CommissionR= 17;s recommendation was put in writing; in summary the commission agreed to 1) r= educe the wetland buffer to 25-feet running parallel in line with the wetland; 2)= to re-plant per the recommendation of Gove Environmental Services; 3) the 25-f= oot buffer area would be allowed to grow back natural (no mowing); 4) additional plantings allowed as the resident saw fit 5) the area of the driveway (currently in the 50-foot buffer area) is allowed to remain.

Mr. Scanzani said the area had already been cleared and there was no protection to the edge of the wetland, the applica= nt has requested re-planting to protect the area better and in the process wou= ld have some use of the back yard.

Mr. McNamara asked if the Conservation Commiss= ion would monitor the plantings or conditions.= Mr. Scanzani asked if they wanted Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) signs posted. Mr. Yarmo said the Conservation Commission discussed the issue and didn’t think it was practical to put stakes in the ground (in the mid= dle of the back yard) with signs. Mr. Scanzani said he wasn’t worried about the current owners, but felt so= me sort of WCD sign should be put at the 25-foot line. Mr. Yarmo said signs could be put up.

Mr. Culbert questioned ‘residential uses’ and believed just a portion would be approved as lawn. Mr. D’Andrea said no structu= res would be allowed to be build within the 50-foot WCD setback (25-feet will be allowed to be used as lawn). =

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the= reduction of the no-cut area of the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’= ;) to 25-feet (from the original WCD); two stakes be driven into the ground = with WCD signs on them; also the recommendations of Gove Environmental and the Conservation Commission letter shall be met.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He bel= ieved the plan was nearly complete. He said the recreation land was a big concern. He said a drainage easement had to= be added to all the plan sheets. He said he spoke with the abutter (ML8-85 - with frontage on Route 30) who initially wanted right-of-way (which was added) now requested a slope easem= ent, which the applicant didn’t object to (a 10-foot slope easement would = be added to the plan). He said the abu= tter requested additional sight distance was needed to comply with the 400-foot requirement for lots 8-86-3 & 4; this will be added to the plan. Mr. Zohdi said the plan was submit= ted to New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and was pending with the Conservation Commission. He s= aid there was a favorable letter in the file from the Conservation Commission that wa= s forwarded to the New Hampshire Wetland Bureau.

Mr. Scanzani said there were two telephone pol= es one on lot 8-99 and one on lot 8-88 and questioned if they could be put underground. Mr. Zohdi said it would be done; the subdivision regulations require underground utilities and anything dealing with the subdivision would have underground utilities.

Mr. Scanzani asked for a discussion of open space. Mr. Zohdi said he had a discussion with the Town Administrator Tom Gaydos, Darren McCarthy Park &am= p; Recreation Director and Bill Scanzani Planning Board Chairman regarding a proposal for recreation activity; his client had an agreement with the owne= r of an abutting parcel (7 or 8 acres majority wet) which would be purchased and added to the proposed parcel then donate to the Town. He said on behalf of his client he= was proposing a voluntary $100,000 (to the Park & Recreation Department) thirty-days after all approvals were in place, after which at the time a bu= ilding permit was requested for the next twenty lots (only) his client would pay $= 4000 per lot (total $80,000). Mr. McNamara asked for the identification of the land to be purchased. Mr. Zohdi said lot 8-104 (8 or 9 a= cres – majority wet) would be purchased and deeded to the Town. He said the Town currently owned l= ot 8-87 and any dispute regarding such would ‘go away’. Mr. Danevich said he spoke with th= e Town Administrator (earlier in the day) who was under the impression that the dispute with lot 8-87 had been resolved and was already a Town parcel. There was a brief discussion regar= ding clearing that had occurred erroneously.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi discussed the clearing that occurred and said there was no wetland violation.

Mr. Scanzani informed that there were two reco= rded deeds for lot 8-87; the Town had one that he believed pre-dated the one the applicant currently had. He s= aid the applicant had put stumps and started to fill (at the point where the ro= ad was going in), which would be a violation at that location if the Town owne= d. He said the Board could not resolv= e all the issues. He said lot 8-104= would probably be restored, but it was to be used for conservation, the restorati= on may not be necessary. He note= d that the applicant had offered $180,000 to do what needed to be done for a park. Mr. Zohdi said if it was acceptable, they would put it in writing and submit to the Planning Department. Mr. Scanzani sugg= ested that the road be cored in front of lot 8-87 to ensure that none of the stum= ps are filled along the roadway. If anything was found, he felt it should be required to be solid filled. Mr. Zohdi said stumps on the Town’s property (lot 8-87) would be handled with the Selectmen. He said the Town Administrator was= very concerned about the proposed Tina Avenue Extension and if there were any st= umps buried under the road. He sai= d the applicant would agree (if the Planning Director agreed) to dig sufficient t= est pits along the entire length of the road; if there was anything there, if t= here were any problems, they would take it out.= Mr. Danevich questioned where the stumps would be buried. Mr. Zohdi said burying stumps was = not illegal and they could be buried along the lot line, but most people ground= it up and used for erosion control. Mr. Danevich questioned if the stumps would be removed off property.= Mr. Zohdi answered yes. He said if there were stumps burie= d along the lot line, they would not take them out, but any other stumps (including under the road) they would take out. Mr. Danevich discussed previous problems the Town had with stumps and agreed that a coring should be done. He said the area of concern went back to lot 8-86 forward to Tina Avenue= . He said he would like to obtain Selectmen, Park & Recreation and NRPC’s comment. He said there were concerns regard= ing active soccer fields under power lines.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani questioned what the power transmission easement width was under lot 8-87. Mr. Zohdi believed it was 350 feet= . Mr. Scanzani asked how wide the To= wn parcel was. Mr. Zohdi said it= was approximately 400 feet and noted that the power lined was skewed. He asked if the Town parcel 210. Mr. Danevich said it was part of G= olden Brook. Mr. Scanzani said it w= ould be nice to know how much of lots 8-104&nbs= p; & 8-87 was usable for park space or parking.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the DES was done with = the violation issue on lot 8-104. Mr. Zohdi answered no. Mr. Yarmo = noted that it may come with recommendations/requirements for restoration. He questioned who would be respons= ible if it ended up in the Town’s hands for restoration. Mr. Zohdi said his client would be responsible; they would not deed anything or provide money until all approv= als were in place on the parcels. Mr. Danevich said if there were any disputes it could possibly take twenty year= s; the $180,000 put the Town in the position of hostage and he would not trade= his vote for such. Mr. Zohdi said= the plan wouldn’t be approved until the state approved it. Mr. D’Andrea said the state = only approved the subdivision in relation to the septic systems; there was still= an outstanding issue with the cutting on lot 104 and DES may come back with restrictions for restoration that would preclude the Town from using in any capacity. He questioned what = the point was of accepting lot 104 for open space if it came back from DES with= restrictions and precluded the Town from using such.&nb= sp; He said he could ask DES for final determination, but was unsure how quickly the Town would receive a response.= Mr. McNamara asked if there was any information contained within the studies/reports received that would allow for a determination. Mr. D’Andrea said not for lo= ts 8-104 or 8-87. He said there were s= erious drainage questions, and outstanding environmental report questions.

Mr. McNamara asked if the questions (regarding Health Ordinance compliance) submitted by Rangeway Land Surveying (dated March 2, 2005) h= ad been resolved. Mr. Zohdi said they= were all resolved. Mr. D’And= rea said confirmation had not been received.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara asked if the concerns submitted by Craig Wood (Louis-Berger) dated June 6, 2005 regarding the environmental review had been resolved.

Mr. Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental said his office had only received one letter from Louis-Berger dated April 27, 2005. Mr. McNamara noted that both Gove Environmental and Herbert Associates were copied on the June 6, 2005 Louis-Berger le= tter. Mr. Hurley was shown a copy of the letter and stated that the issues would be addressed.

Mr. McNamara noted that Mr. D’Andrea had= a list of fourteen comments and questioned if any had been resolved. Mr. D’Andrea said they were = all still outstanding. He said th= ere were several questions regarding drainage that should be resolved. Mr. Zohdi discussed a new type of drainage structures and leaching system that were being proposed for the development, which DES was in favor of.&nb= sp;

Mr. Rene LaBranche of Dufresne-Henry said he h= ad discussed the bio-retention areas with Mr. Dick Hertrich (of his office). He said their sense was that the bio-retention areas were probably used in areas that didn’t experience winters like New England. He said there was a concern with s= torm water infiltrating into the ground; another concern were areas where the gr= ound water table was high. He said= there wasn’t significant storm water capacity above the retention areas. He said when/if the system needed = to be replaced/maintained if it would be done per the design. He said they hadn’t been giv= en enough information to know how long the system would last. He felt the bio-retention areas wo= uld be a huge burden on the Highway Road Agent.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani discussed the proposed drainage a= nd pointed out that there was nothing contained within the Subdivision Regulations tha= t addressed this type of drainage. He questioned if the Town wanted to experiment with drainage that was unknown = how long it would last. Mr. LaBra= nche questioned if the Univers= ity of New Hampshire had similar drainage set up as one of their programs. Mr. Hurley said he wasn’t aware if they= did. Mr. Scanzani questioned what drain= age system would best protect Golden Brook.&nb= sp; Mr. D’Andrea said the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) didn’t address this type of system because at the time it was done, the plan showed the original drainage system. It was Mr. Yarmo’s understan= ding that the proposed system was supposed to be the latest science in able to restore the ground water and should be investigated because it seemed to be ideal for the location but was unsure if the Board had the information needed. Mr. LaBranche said th= ere were other aquifer/ground water recharge systems.

Mr. Culbert asked if it was known that the sys= tem didn’t work in a cold weather environment. Mr. LaBranche said they didn’= ;t know if it did or didn’t work in cold weather. Mr. Culbert questioned if the syst= em had been used in New England. Mr. D’Andrea said Mr. Zohdi = made representation that DES was in favor of the system therefore, they may have used and further information may be able to be obtained. Mr. Scanzani said treating the dra= inage made since due to the environment but was still unsure about its implementa= tion parallel to the road. Mr. Yar= mo felt it was worth reviewing. = Mr. Scanzani questioned Mr. Zohdi if he was using the system anywhere else. Mr. Zohdi said this was the first = time designing the system.

There was further discussion regarding the proposed drainage the need for more information, and the possible burden to= the Town.

Mr. Culbert said he would like more information regarding the drainage and noted he would like the lots to be site specific= .

Mr. Scanzani believed there were outstanding issues to be addressed with Dufresne-Henry and the Planning Director. He said he would like an opinion/resolution from DES regarding the proposed lot (8-104) for recreation. There was a discu= ssion regarding the recreation land and the voluntary $180,000 that would be give= n to the Town. Mr. Zohdi said the = money was being given to Park & Recreation so it could be used where needed, = not at the site. Mr. D’Andr= ea said if the applicant wanted to be generous, they could do so without tying= it to the approval of the subdivision. He felt the Board needed resolution to the questions if the lot (104) was tied to the open space requirements.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich said it was not the purview of the Board to determine h= ow money would be spent other than to make a proposal to the Selectmen.

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Zohdi work with Dufresne-Henry regarding the drainage.&nbs= p; He was concerned EIA having information about the previously proposed drainage. Mr. McNamara sugges= ted requesting comment from Louis-Berger regarding the proposed drainage. Mr. Yarmo suggested requesting com= ment from Gove Environmental as well. Mr. Culbert said if the plan would move forward with the proposed drainage, he wanted a new EIA that contain= ed information regarding the proposed drainage. Mr. Zohdi requested a continuance to the July 18, 2005 meeting. The Board preferred continuing to = August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

Mr. Zohdi understood the Board’s concern with parcel 104, but didn’t feel the situation had a major effect on = the subdivision.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue discussed lot 104 and informed it was a major wetland. He said photos had been submitted to the Board that showed tree cutting into t= he water. He felt if a ball fiel= d were to be constructed, it should be put in the new subdivision. Mr. McManus said at a previous mee= ting Mr. Gove explained to the Board that three wetlands had been filled in to t= he rear of the existing house. H= e said he invested the situation with DES and found there were certain items that = were supposed to be done (i.e restore wetlands) but were still outstanding. He didn’t understand how the Conservation Commission could send a recommendation for approval with the i= tems still outstanding. Mr. Yarmo clarified the Conservation Commission didn’t send a recommendation for approval, but rather had sent comments about the dredge and fill application (attached to it were restoration issues).&= nbsp; He noted that two letters had been written one to the dredge and fill and the other was to the Board. Mr. McManus said he had a plan (dated 1957) for the parcel in question that sho= wed a distinct wetland to the right of where the stumps were buried. He said over the next several year= s the ‘stuff’ would ooze out into Golden Brook. He said another issue would be a p= arking lot over the stump dump. He s= aid it was a wild life corridor and should be reviewed further.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing Patrick Gendron told the Board they had no issue with the subdivision. He said the issu= es they had were in connection with sight distance, grading easements and drai= nage easements and wanted to ensure they were incorporated into the approval for= the project.

Mr. Yarmo believed there were two areas that needed t= o be restored. Mr. Scanzani said t= he temporary culvert was going to be taken out because the road wasn’t in that location; where the road crossed, there were other special considerations.

Mr. Hurley said there were three restoration a= reas on site: 1) two small areas towards the northern edge of the sand pit; 2) t= wo isolated areas (1244SF & 972SF) that had been dug out during the sand pit/gravel operation; 3) at existing crossing of stream to Golden Brook. He explained what/if any restorati= on would take place in the areas discussed.&n= bsp; Mr. Yarmo said he would like restoration depicted on the plan so the Planning Department would be able to follow up.

The plan was continued and date specified to t= he August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d the Board had previously reviewed the plan; two parcels of land would be combin= ed and then re-subdivided into five lots.&nbs= p; He said they would like to leave the existing house, driveway, system and well on the parcel with frontage onto Sherburne Road. He said the road and driveways wou= ld cross the wetland and Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). He said the Conservation Commission walked the site and believed a letter of recommendation had been submitted.= Mr. Zohdi said approximately 15-18= years ago the subdivision had been brought before the Board, but at that time the only access to the parcel was from Mammoth Road. &n= bsp; He said since that time a right-of-way had been secured to purchase a parcel to make the minimum impact for the subdivision.

Mr. Yarmo asked what square foot impact there would be to the WCD. Mr. Zohd= i said there would be 79,036SF of the WCD impacted. Mr. Yarmo said the roadway was pro= posed at 950ft long with 840ft being in wetland or WCD. He said the Conservation Commissio= n felt it was somewhat excessive to put a 950-foot road in for a four-lot subdivis= ion and the impacts could be reduced if the road was designed as a driveway.

Mr. Scanzani asked how many wetland crossings = were proposed. Mr. Zohdi said ther= e were four.

Mr. Yarmo said according to the Dredge and Fill permit there were some violation areas (described as old excavations) that would be restored. Mr. Zohdi = said those disturbances in the wetlands were from excavators digging test pits.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani said based upon the amount of wetlands, he believed the Board would request site specific lots.

Mr. Danevich asked if the Planning Director’s comments had been addressed. Mr. D’Andrea said most had n= ot been resolved and believed a couple would go away if waivers were granted.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said one significant question w= as if lot 1-53 had the required 35,000SF dry area. He disagreed with Mr. Zohdi’s argument that the house didn’t have to be placed in the 35,000SF area. He reviewed a portion o= f the language contained in Section 307-13 and questioned if lot 1-53 complied wi= th zoning. Additionally, Mr. D’Andrea noted that several waivers would have to be granted. Mr. Danevich didn’t understa= nd why the items weren’t resolved. He reviewed some of the outstanding items including the Town Health Inspector’s report and suggested that the applicant work them out and come back to the Board.

Mr. Zohdi pointed out that lot being created h= ad a 35,000 square foot high & dry area but not exactly where the house was located. He questioned if it = made sense to go to the Board of Adjustment.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara reviewed Section 307-13 and believed the intent was the house would be placed within the 35,000 square foot area. Mr. D’Andrea said lot curren= tly conformed; the proposal was to modify the lot lines making the lot non-compliant. Mr. Scanzani said the lot was being modified for the road placement. Mr. D’Andrea said that would be an argument for the Board of Adjustment for a variance. Mr. Zohdi said there was a situation that an existing house was not located in = the 35,000SF area. Mr. McNamara s= aid the Planning Board didn’t have the jurisdiction to create a non-conforming lot. Mr. Scanz= ani questioned at what point the Board was creating so many wetland crossings t= hat the wetland would be destroyed. He asked if there were other issues in the Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’). Mr. D’Andrea said an EIA had not been done through Louis-Berger.

Mr. Rene LaBranche of Dufresne-Henry highlight= ed the comments of Mr. Dick Hertrich from his office. In summary it was noted there was a shared driveway between lots 1-55 & 1-55-1 – will there be an agreement between the land owners; number of lots don’t meet shape requirement; street light at intersection; sidewalk; lot 1-55-1 doesn’= ;t appear to have 75-foot dimension; up slope with wetlands at cul-de-sac poss= ible problem getting platform or accommodating 3-1 slope; type of material excav= ated and potentially used for fill at WCD areas – tests pits should be don= e, verify material to be used for construction.

Mr. Danevich asked how much frontage the prope= rty had along Long Pond. Mr. Zohd= i said there was approximately 450-feet along the front. Mr. Danevich said there was a significant impact if the access came off Sherburne Road and questioned if the applicant would accept an exchange; access through the Pelham Veteran Memorial Park (R= 16;PVMP’) road in exchange for frontage along Long Pond. Mr. Zohdi said years ago they prop= osed access from the park, but the veterans were against it. Mr. Scanzani believed years ago th= e right decision would have been to pave the entrance to PVMP for access to Jones Farm Road due to safety concerns. Mr. Culbe= rt believed paving the entrance went to Town vote, and was turned down. Mr. Scanzani believed it made sens= e to access from Mammoth Road to the Town owned parcel into the proposed, which would not have any wetland impacts. Mr. Danevich said he= could ask the Selectmen’s opinion. Mr. Culbert said he was convinced it was a Town vote.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the waiver requests: 1)= section 11.04 lot shape (1-55-2); 2) appendix I, BB; and 3) appendix IV – min= imum curve radius 200feet requesting 150feet.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said waivers would also be needed from 1) 11.04, = C, 7 – create a lot that required a WCD crossing to access building envelo= pe; 2) 11.05, I, e – to allow a shared driveway including all legal documents; 3) open space not addressed.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani said the Fire Department may have other criteria.

Mr. Scanzani said he had a problem with the le= ngth of the road through the WCD. = He also had a problem with access from Sherburne Road and believed the only proper access was through PVMP. Mr. Zohdi said = they tried to come through PVMP (prior to the Jones Farm Road subdivision) but we= re not successful. Mr. Danevich said= all he could do was to ask the Selectmen’s opinion.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Joanne Powers, one of the major abutters to the parcel. She reviewed some= of the papers contained in the file. She questioned the discrepancy between the NHDES letter dated May 13, 2005 wh= ich was a site specific permit that stated 183,000SF for construction of a four-lot subdivision and the testimony given regarding the disturbed area. Mr. D’Andrea said the number= DES quoted was the complete land disturbance for all of the road improvements n= ot just the area within the wetland or WCD.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi discussed the difference between site specific and dredge & fill. Ms. Powers questi= oned if the dredge & fill permit had been approved. Mr. D’Andrea answered no. Mr. Zohdi said there was a letter = submitted by the Conservation Commission and the permit was pending with the state. Mr. Yarmo said the dredge & fi= ll permit is approved pending all other approvals from the Town. Ms. Powers said the abutter notice= she received stated this would be minor impacts for road construction and belie= ved it was a misrepresentation. S= he read aloud a portion of a letter she had previously submitted to the Board. She understood the rea= son the owner of the parcel may want to develop the parcel, however, granting w= aivers in this environment was risky, even small accommodations. She asked that the Board consider = what it meant to create the lots. &n= bsp;

Mr. Jim Fenton, Dutton Road, informed the Board tha= t the PVMP was dedicated to the veterans many years ago and suggested that the To= wn history and the Town Meeting that established it before making a decision w= hat could be done.

Ms. Powers reviewed the Conservation Commission letter (dated Jun= e 6, 2005) that stated they would be interested in conducting an EIA and asked if the Board would give it consideration. Mr. Yarmo said the Conservation Commission discussed an EIA given the impact the wetlands. Mr. Scan= zani said the plan was challenged enough with/without an EIA at this time.

Mr. Culbert said he would like the plan to be = site specific if it were to move forward. Mr. Yarmo said the only two houses that were in a sensitive area were the first two lots.

Mr. Scanzani questioned the Board if they felt they had jurisdiction on the 35,000SF area on lot 1-53. He said there was a non-conforming= use with the existing house and was not comfortable resolving other issues on t= he lot until the Board of Adjustment ruled on the case. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the violation would be present with/without the subdivision. Mr. Yarmo questioned if the subdiv= ision was contingent upon the lot being subdivided. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes. The Board agreed that the applicant needed to go before the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Zohdi wanted it on the record that the dre= dge and fill was considered minor per the classification/definition of the New Hampshire Wetland Bureau.

The plan was date specified to the August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-26 &nbs= p; Laliberty, Lorrie – 5 Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision= for acceptance

Mr. Scanzani said the last time the plan was before the Board they wanted to see site specific, locations of septic and = well to ensure the lots had 35,000SF areas.&nbs= p;

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d they were proposing a two lot subdivision, one parcel would be 3.3 acres (contai= ning an existing house with attached garage) and the proposed parcel would be 2.7 acres (which would be site specific the architecture is not yet done). He said previously the Board reque= sted the lot size calculation which was now included on the plan. He said there were waiver requests submitted.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the waiver for the 15-feet well radius to the boundary line.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Danevich) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request of the lot 15,000SF to 12,678SF for the existing lot.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the waiver request of the lot 15,000SF area to 12,678SF for the existing lot.=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Kevin Fenton, 9 Dutton Road said he had already discussed amongst themselves and wanted the applicant to publicly agree to clearly mark the property lines. He said there was also discussion about securing the bank. Mr. Zohdi said they would set gran= ite bounds/iron pipes per the regulations.

Mr. Yarmo asked to review the site specific pl= an to ensure it had dimensions on it. Mr. Zohdi showed Mr. Yarmo the plan. Mr.D’Andrea said it was sheet= 5 of the plan. The plan had dimensions. Mr. Yarmo asked f= or clarification of the bank being stabilized. Mr. Fenton said the bank was mostl= y sand that would need to be stabilized if it was dug into.

Mr. Ouellette said Mr. D’Andrea had note= s he had called attention to that should be included on the plan:

1) plan will be site specific; 2) no further subdivision of lots; 3) as-built (once foundation and well test is done they are to be in that specific spot prior to building permit being issued); 4) combine with note #10 ‘at the time of the well test, the specific location will be noted’; 5) note #9 – the words ‘where required’ shall be removed; 6) final okay needed from Health Inspecto= r; 7) final review and show tree line on lot 7-26-1, the WCD line (limit of cutting and tree line). Mr. Zohdi agreed to Mr. D’Andrea’s comments.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the= plan subject to the items on Mr. D’Andrea’s list being complied with.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MINUTES

June 6, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Yarmo/McNamara) To approve the = June 6, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

July 7, 2005

Map 29 Lot 7-95 Pelham Plaza Corp. ̵= 1; Jose Hotdog – Pelham Plaza/Route 38 – Modification to a Site Pl= an – Proposed hot dog stand

August 1, 2005=

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 P= elham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danev= ich/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 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