PB Minutes 09.08.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 8, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Ouelle= tte called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Planning Director Jeff G= owan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternat= e Bob Yarmo, Alternate Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street<= /st1:address> – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

Mr. Paul Terbide a professional land surveyor/engineer licensed in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts= , representing Citizen’s Bank presented the proposal to the Board. He discussed the current site, tra= ffic flow and parking. He said the= y were having a problem with the traffic cuing/parking access due to the drive-thru traffic. He said the bank was seeking to expand the back area add additional parking spaces, and provide a dedicated drive-thru area. He= said the problem with the site was that it bordered Beaver Brook, there was a wetland buffer and there was an existing wooded area that buffered the site from the brook that would need to be impacted.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the plan was complete for acceptance. Mr. Gowan answered yes.

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. Terbide continued his presentation. He said the tot= al new/additional pavement would be approximately 3740SF to bring the total pavement on the site to 23,500SF; tree cutting would be limited to the area= of the graded slope area. He sai= d the tree cutting area would be approximately 5400SF. There would be a minor encroachmen= t of 3ft. or 4ft. into the 50ft wetland buffer in one area. Mr. Terbide said the slope would i= mpinge upon the wetland buffer and setback. He said other than the noted cutting, the tree buffer would remain in its current state. He said th= e bank was also proposing to remove four trees in one area so drivers would be abl= e to see the traffic pattern from Bridge Street (Route 38) as well as the bank sign.

Mr. Gowan informed the Bo= ard that he had contacted District 5 (due to the site being within the state’s right-of-way) for guidance, but to date had not received a response. He said the tree-cutting would be = in the state’s jurisdiction.

Mr. Scanzani wanted to kn= ow how the slope/bank would be stabilized once the tree barrier next to the brook = was cut. Mr. Terbide said the gra= ded area would be a 3-1 slope and probably planted with grass and ground-cover shrubs; during the vegetation of the grass straw would be put down until the seeds germinated. Mr. Scanzan= i said the trees along Route 38 were aesthetically pleasing and wanted to know if = the area would be clear cut. Mr. Terbide said there were only three trees that would be impacted by the park= ing expansion; and there was a cluster of trees that the bank was interested in removing to provide visibility of the bank sign from Route 38. Mr. Scanzani asked if the entire p= arking area would be repaved. Mr. Te= rbide said the site would have an inch and a half added with top coat; relined and striped.

Mr. McNamara asked if any drainage studies had been done to determine if the runoff from the site wou= ld be affected from the increased pavement.&n= bsp; Mr. Terbide said drainage computations had been submitted for pre- a= nd post-development. They were proposing sheet flow with no curbing; the area would be uniformly graded so there would be no concentrated drainage.&n= bsp;

Mr. Bousa asked how many = parking spaces the bank felt they needed. Mr. Terbide believed the bank needed more than what was being proposed. Ms. Bousa was conce= rned that it may be difficult to pull out of the new spaces based on the proposed radiuses for those spaces. Mr. Terbide believed all the spaces would be accessible from the by-pass lane.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The spaces were proposed to be 18ft.x9ft. (11ft. across the back).

Ms. Ouellette asked for t= he distance from the proposed island the proposed new parking spaces. Mr. Terbide said the distance was 18ft. Ms. Ouellette was conce= rned with cars maneuvering in the 18ft.if the drive-thru was full. Mr. Terbide said there was clear visibility; there would only be ground cover shrubs on the island.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Bousa) To accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked that t= he plan be sent to Dufresne-Henry (Town engineer) for review. He also asked that the applicant w= ork with Mr. Gowan to resolve any issues/concerns brought up by Dufresne-Henry.

Mr. McNamara wanted to kn= ow what size the trees were that would be removed.= Mr. Terbide believed the trees were less than ten to twenty feet in height.

The plan was date specifi= ed to October 17, 2005.

&n= bsp;

Ma= p 3 Lot 5-37-4 Jarek, Nicholas & Doyon, Joseph – = 8 Mercury Lane – Proposed Spe= cial Use Permit to convert a Duplex into Condominium form of ownership

Mr. Scanzani noted that a= Special Use Permit to convert a duplex into a condominium was simply a conversion of the ownership structure; the only requirement is that the applicants prove (with a certified plan) that the septic is correctly sized for the use. The New Hampshire state statues do not all= ow for any discrimination in the type of ownership of property.

Attorney David Groff, representing the applica= nts presented the proposed Special Use Permit to the Board. He said the owners wanted to conve= rt an existing duplex into a condominium. He said the common area (and limited common area) was shown on the p= lan provided. He said units would= be owned individually by Mr. Jarek and Mr. Doyon. He said the request for permit, certification from Dracut Sewer Service (regarding the inspection of the system) had been submitted. T= he location for the leach field was shown on the plan.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To accept the application for Special Use Permit for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked if it was Mr. Gowan’s opinion that there was sufficient proof that the septic was working and acceptable. Mr. Gowan answered yes.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve/g= rant the application for Special Use Permit for the change in ownership

VOTE:

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

Attorney Groff brought the Special Use Permit forward for signature. Mr. Sc= anzani and Ms. Ouellette signed the permit and asked that a copy be provided to the Town for their records.

Ma= p 17 Lot 12-234 Croteau, Kristie & Bryan – 3 Ledge Road – Proposed Speci= al Use Permit to convert a Duplex into Condominium form of ownership

Attorney David Groff, representing the applica= nts presented the proposed Special Use Permit to the Board. He said the applicant would like to split the duplex into two individual units. He said the limited common area and existing leach field and alternate location were shown on the plan.

Ms. Ouellette noted that she had a business relationship with the Croteaus (plowing and automobile repair) and would st= ep down if the Board so desired. Mr. Scanzani said he had the same situation.&n= bsp; There was no objection to either Ms. Ouellette or Mr. Scanzani remai= ning seated for the proceedings. <= /p>

MOTION:

(McNamara/Bousa) To accept the application for Special Use Permit for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he application for Special Use Permit.

VOTE:

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

Attorney Groff brought the Special Use Permit forward for signature. Mr. Sc= anzani and Ms. Ouellette signed the permit and asked that a copy be provided to the Town for their records.

Ma= p 7 Lot 4-2-1 Valley Hill, LLC – 356 Mammoth Road – Proposed Special Use Permit to convert a Duplex into Condominium fo= rm of ownership

Attorney David Groff, representing the applica= nt presented the proposed Special Use Permit to the Board. He said the building was new and w= as not yet occupied. He had previous= ly provided the approval for operation and a copy of the design. He said the units were shown on the plan.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the Board was allowed to proceed prior to a deed being drawn. Mr. Gown shook his head yes.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To accept the application for Special Use Permit for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he application for Special Use Permit.

VOTE:

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

Attorney Groff brought the Special Use Permit forward for signature. Mr. Sc= anzani and Ms. Ouellette signed the permit and asked that a copy be provided to the Town for their records.

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-34 Dumont, Georgette &#= 8211; 35 Old Gage Hill Road South – Proposed Special Use Permit to convert a Multi-Unit Building into Condominium form of ownership

Attorney David Groff, representing the applica= nt presented the proposed Special Use Permit to the Board. He said the structure had four residential units and one commercial unit (The Perfect Place – daycare center). He said the plan sho= wed the location of the units, common areas, and septic location. The septic system has been certifi= ed as ‘in proper working order’.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara asked if the septic serviced the = four units and the daycare. Attorn= ey Groff said the septic serviced everything on the site. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the sy= stem was installed in 1998. Attorn= ey Groff said the system was app= roved on August 13, 19= 98.

Mr. Scanzani asked if each of the units would = pay their ‘fair share’ if the septic system were to fail. Attorney Groff said there were com= mon expenses that would include the maintenance of common utilities (well and septic) as well as common areas, insurance and plowing. There would be a schedule of fees.=

It was noted that each of the units would beco= me condominiums.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To accept the application for Special Use Permit for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he application for Special Use Permit.

VOTE:

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

Attorney Groff brought the Special Use Permit forward for signature. Mr. Sc= anzani and Ms. Ouellette signed the permit and asked that a copy be provided to th= e Town for their records.

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 said the application would not be discussed. The plan was date specified to the October 3, 2005 meeting.

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. Scanzani said the application would be date specified to the October 3, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 41 Lot 10-246 Armstrong, Kevin – Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Propos= ed storage of logs in relation to a logging business

Mr. Scanzani said the application had been date specified to the present meeting, however the applicant had not taken any action regarding the application (i.e. go before the Board of Adjustment).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He asked that the Board consider a motion to deny the application due specifically to the applicant not taking= any action to move the application forward.&nb= sp; The applicant was not present.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Medeiros) To deny the application based on the fact that the applicant had not followed through with requirements to move the plan forward.

VOTE:

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

DI= SCUSSION

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-214 & 221 Harris, George – Poplar Hill Road /Carriage Hill Road – Informal Discussion of the possibility of constructing a road to connect Poplar Hill Road to Carriage Hill Road

Mr. Scanzani said the application would be date specified to the October 3, 2005 meeting. He = noted that the Board had received some information from the residents of the Ston= epost Village Neighborhood Association that would become part of the public record.

Ma= p 23 Lot 8-17 Patch Development – Webster Avenue – Informal Discussion of proposed Residential Subdivision

Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuoco & Cormier Engin= eers presented the plan to the Board for review. He discussed the property, which w= as presently being used by the Girl Scout Camp (Spar & Spindle). He said the parcel contained approximately 300 acres, however the only area being reviewed was approxima= tely 25-26 acres which had frontage onto Webster Avenue. He said there would be twelve lots, each containing 200-feet frontage. He said they also w= anted to discuss two additional back lots. He noted that no new roadways would be proposed. Mr. Parsons said he was recommendi= ng that additional space be set aside for open space at the rear of the proper= ties which would act as a buffer to the remaining property. He noted that they had no intent to develop further parts of the land; it would be restricted to the proposed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Parsons said he had reviewed t= he intersection of the Webster and the main road for sight distance, which didn’t appear to have any problems.&= nbsp; He said a survey of the property had been done to determine the prop= erty limits onto Webster. A topogr= aphic survey had also been done. A wetlands specialist had also walked the site and found only one small isola= ted wetland in the vicinity of the development. The drainage was also discussed. Mr. Parsons noted there was a 50-f= oot right-of-way that would be maintained for the Girl Scouts (Spar & Spind= le) to be able to access the parcel from Webster Avenue. He said as the plan moved forward, he would work directly with the appropriate persons.

Ms. Ouellette noted that Webster was a dead-end street and wanted the applicant to know that they would be held to the basic cul-de-sac regulations. Mr. P= arsons said he would review such.

Mr. McNamara understood that the lots would me= et the Town’s dimensional requirements and questioned why the applicant = was seeking the Board’s input at this time. Mr. Parsons said they felt coming = before the Board earlier versus later would be beneficial. Mr. McNamara said he would like to= know what was located in the surrounding area.&= nbsp; He said possibly the open space could be distributed to mitigate some the cutting that would be done on the parcel. Mr. Parsons said they were willing= to work with the Board regarding creativity for open space.

Ms. Bousa asked if there was frontage onto Gage Hill Road. Mr. Parsons said on the property in total there was frontage. Ms.= Bousa said the Board would want to know what was beyond the property for possible future access points. Mr. Par= sons said as a minimum, he intended to provide such information to the Board and prov= ide options for the land in total.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Patch (or his succes= sor) was intent on purchasing only the land being presented. Mr. Parsons answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked if there was any agreement (now or future) to purchase additional acreage. Mr. Parsons didn’t believe t= here was any agreement for additional acreage.&= nbsp;

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

October 3, 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

Map 24 Lot = 12-214 & 221 Harris, George R= 11; Poplar Hill Road /Carriage Hill Road – Informal Discussion of the possibility of constructing a road to connect Poplar Hill Road to Carriage Hill Road

October 17, 2005

Map 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank &#= 8211; 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

MINUTES

August 1, 2005 = 211;deferred until there were enough members who were present at that meeting to vote.

August 15, 2005 &#= 8211; deferred until there were enough members who were present at that meeting to vote.

Miscellaneous Discussion

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the CIP plan would be presented to the Board at the September 19, 2005 meeting.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding an NRPC watershed audit. Mr. Scanzani said he had asked NRPC to help the Town review certain intersections at no cost to the Town. He proposed a special planning meeting to bring in Town people to discuss future planning. He s= aid it would be a good idea to have NRPC set up a meeting with Windham to discuss regional issues. He was open to any additional idea= s. Mr. Gowan said NRPC was creating a committee and wanted each community to have a representative. He said there were funds available= to the communities affected by the I93 widening which NRPC would help acquire. He said he would for= ward documentation to the Board for review.&nbs= p;

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:52pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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