PB Minutes 03-06-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 6, 2006

The Vice Chairman, Peter = McNamara called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani (arrived = at 7:40pm), Peter McNamara,= Gael Ouellette, Alternate Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bo= usa, Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Gowan reviewed the agenda and made note of= the cases that would be continued to subsequent meetings.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Coun= cil – Webster Avenue – Preliminary Discussion of Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

Mr. McNamara noted that the plan was conceptual therefore the discussion would = be non-binding. Mr. Gowan noted = that the applicant had contacted the abutters even though the discussion would be conceptual.

Mr. Scanzani arrived.

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

Mr. Paul Gildersleeve Cuoco & Cormier Engineering representing Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council presented the conceptual plan to the Board. He reviewed the parcel and where the nine lots were being proposed (eastern ed= ge of 300+ acres on Webster A= venue). Each lot will have its own well and septic. He then discussed the possible grading and drainage. The drainage would match the current site going to Island Pond Brook and then i= nto Island Pond. The back yards w= ould remain as they were and roof-top infiltration systems would be used to capt= ure first flush flows next to each unit. The proposed lots would be serviced with cable/telephone using exist= ing overhead electric line along Webster Avenue and Canal Avenue. In the back of the nine lots there= would be a deeded/restricted area (of approximately 70-feet) to make sure that th= ere was no more grading of the trees if any further development occurred. Mr. Gildersleeve said he would be requesting some waivers. Mr. Scanzani stopped the applicant from going on, since the plan was in a conceptual stage and had not been reviewed by the Town’s engineer.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Sandra Drolet, Webster Avenue said there were four= teen lots marked along the road and wanted to know why the plan only showed nine lots. Mr. Scanzani said there= had been another (preliminary) plan shown in the past that he believed contained additional lots. Mr. Gildersl= eeve believed initially there were fourteen lots along Webster Avenue, but Spar & Spin= dle desired to reduce the amount of lots on the parcel.

Mr. Mark Gravel, 41-43 Webster Avenue wanted to know= the building timeframe and if residents on Webster Avenue would be inconvenien= ced by construction vehicles. Mr. Gildersleeve said the construction equipment would access through Webster Avenue. They were hoping to get final appr= oval in May, 2006 with construction lasting for approximately nine months.

Mr. Bob Riedel, West Shore Drive asked if the Little Island Pond Association had been notified of the proposed plan given that t= he property abutted the pond and drainage would flow into such. Mr. Gowan said legal notification = would be for those within 200-feet of the parcel. Mr. Riedel said the pond abutted t= he property. Mr. Scanzani said t= he pond was not owned by the Association.&nbs= p; Mr. Riedel asked if there was a representative from the state presen= t. Mr. Scanzani said they would not h= ave to be notified because development was not occurring within 500-feet of the pond. There was further discu= ssion regarding the drainage which would be flowing into the pond outlet (not into the pond).

Mr. Eric Tagert, 29 Grace Road said he believe= d the brook flowed out of the pond (and was an outlet). He asked what percent of the propo= sed development would be on the crest of Webster Avenue (pond side) versus on the side of Route 38. Mr. Gildersleeve said the= re were five lots on the Webs= ter Avenue side.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani reminded = the public that the plan was preliminary and had not yet been reviewed by the Town’s engineer. It was= noted that the drainage flow would go south westerly (more westerly).

Mr. Richard Black , 41 Webster Avenue was concerned wit= h the locations of the leach fields and white pipes sticking out of the front yard. Mr. Gildersleeve said t= he leach fields would be in the back. There would be two cisterns on the parcel.

Mr. Gildersleeve said no bedrock was found bel= ow 7-8 feet. He said there was an estimated seasonal high water table at 2.5 – 3 feet that he believes = they could work with.

Ms. Ouellette asked what the dotted areas were= on page C8. Mr. Gildersleeve sai= d the dotted areas contained slopes in excess of 15%-25%. Ms. Ouellette asked what the inten= tion was for the gravel road. Mr. Gildersleeve said they thought about keeping the gravel road because it was used by the Fire Department; they could put an easement and keep for access purposes. Ms. Ouellette asked= what the width of the road was. Mr. Gildersleeve said it was approximately 10 feet wide. Ms. Ouellette asked if the lot line could be moved so an easement didn’t have to be given. She didn’t want the easement= used for an access to the back lots.

Mr. McNamara noted that the plan was prepared = for Webster LLC and asked if there would be a transfer of the property upon subsequent approval of the plan. &nbs= p; Mr. Gildersleeve said Spar & Spindle owned the property and woul= d be transferred at the time of development.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked if there were any plans to develop the remaining parcel (300 acres). Mr. Gildersleeve was not aware of any plans.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gowan asked how the Board felt about the o= pen space shown on the plan. Mr. Scanzani said he would rather have the open space added to the lots. Mr. Danevich was curious to see wh= at the residents had to say. Mr. Sca= nzani questioned who would maintain the easement. Mr. Danevich believed it would rem= ain in its natural state. Mr. McNama= ra believed that the proposal had been before the Board and recalled there had= been a discussion regarding some sort of buffer for Webster Avenue with regard to drain= age concerns. He would like to se= e more open space than was indicated on the proposed plan. Mr. Scanzani said some of the lots= may end up as site specific because of the steep slopes however the Board wouldn’t know until a formal application was submitted and sent to engineering for review. Mr. G= owan wanted to be clear that the plan would benefit from having the same type of review (with Dufresne-Henry at the applicant’s expense) as plans with roads being built. There woul= d be an escrow for engineering services. Mr. Gowan said because the proposed was ten lots he felt the Board c= ould request an Enviornmental Impact Analysis.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara said the Board may also want a traffic study as well.

There was further discussion regarding the proposed and how the open space was laid out. Mr. McNamara wanted to know more information regarding the topography of the surrounding. He asked if the applicant wanted a= ny additional comment from the Board. <= /span>

Ms. Ouellette pointed out to develop the back piece it would need to tie into Webster Avenue with a cul-de-sac (or loop) which would be required to adhere to the Cul-de-sac Regulation (because Web= ster Avenue was a one-way in/out). Mr. Scanzani asked how many homes were currently on Webster Avenue. Mr. Gowan will research and inform= the Board.

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Pl= anning Board acceptance of resignation of member Christine Medeiros=

Mr. Scanzani said the Board accepted Christine= Medeiros’ resignation with regret. Ms. Medeiros had a scheduling conflict between work and school.

OLD BUSINESS

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

The applicant was preparing a response to a se= cond letter from Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer).

The plan was date specified to the March 20, 2006 = meeting.

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Saurm= an Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

The applicant requested postponement to the March 20, 2006 = meeting to allow for sufficient time to review Jim Gove’s (of Gove Environmental) letter dated Marc= h 2, 2006 in response to previous correspondence.&nb= sp;

The plan was date specified to the March 20, 2006 meeting.

Ma= p 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Currier Road, Peabody Lane & Rte 38 Bridge S= treet – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision =

The applicant requested postponement to the March 20, 2006 = meeting to allow time for the the Town and the Town’s engineer the opportunity to review the revised plan and discuss any changes.

The plan was date specified to the March 20, 2006 meeting.

Map 35 Lot<= /st1:place> 6-113 KLN Construction Co. &#= 8211; 79 Bridge Street – Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

The applicant requested d= ate specification to the April 3, 2006 to allow time to verify sight distance and obtain a drivew= ay permit from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the April 3, 2006= meeting.

Map 6 Lot 4-166 Boucher, Barbara – 55 Gibson Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Weeks of Cuoco = & Cormier, representing the applicant, reviewed the proposed plan with the Board. He said he was unable = to attend the previous meeting, but had received a briefing and understood that the main issue was waiting two meetings for approval of waivers. Mr. Scanzani reviewed the requested waivers.

There was no public input= .

There was one change to t= he plan; a driveway easement was added to the proposed lot 4-166-1 for the existing driveway (the note on the plan needs to be completed). Ms. Ouellette asked if the Board w= as going to request that a note be added to the plan stating ‘no further subdivision’. Mr. Gowan believed the Board had previously discussed ‘no further subdivision of the five acre lot’. This could be a condition for approval; Mr. Weeks did not object.

Mr. Danevich said there w= ere no objections, or outstanding action items from the last meeting; the reason t= he plan was held over was due to the two-meeting waiting period for waiver approval.

Mr. Scanzani appointed Mr= . Dunne as a voting member by virtue of the fact that the Board needed an additional person to constitute a quorum.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.04 Storm Water Management Plan.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= -------------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.04,S – Site Plan Specific Soil Map.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 11.07 – Landscaping Design and Plan.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.03, d & g – Existing Site Conditions, Topo= logy and Wetlands Area.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.04, a – Scale of Plan –request of 1inch=3D100feet.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= -----------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the plan as amended with note #11 (driveway easement) and that the five a= cre parcel will not have further subdivision.

VOTE:

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

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Je= nna Auto Sales – 563 Mam= moth Road – Site Plan Review of vehicle stora= ge and sales

Mr. Scanzani read aloud a= memo forwarded by the Highway Safety Committee (‘HSC’) dated February 27, 2006. In summary there was a consensus o= f the HSC that the applicant should be required to provide a paved platform with grooves to contain any liquids and a holding tank below the platform to capture/contain/separate any spillage (the same as required for gas stations).

Mr. Randy Guilbault met w= ith the Board to discuss the site plan of 563 Mammoth Road.= He proposed to pave the whole area and put a berm around three sides (150-feet). He discussed mate= rials that could be used to soak/capture any spill (a sample of such was provided= to the Board). This material is = used at the auction where Mr. Guilbault purchases the cars.

Ms. Ouellette was concern= ed with trying to soak up a spill that had already seeped into soil/water table. Mr. Guilbault said he also intende= d on sealing the pavement. He said= if there was going to be a leak, most times it would be when the car was started. He provided the Boar= d with photographs of the cars purchased. Mr. Scanzani noted that the applicant would need to go before the Bo= ard of Selectmen. Mr. Danevich said = the business qualified as a junkyard. He reviewed the RSA requirements for junkyards (RSA 236-114 V, b &am= p; c; RSA 236-123).

Mr. Gowan discussed how s= pills could be handled/captured on the site and wanted to make sure the Board took into consideration the disposal of the material/liquid captured. He also discussed screening the si= te from Mammoth Road. Mr. Scanzani summarized the Board’s discussion: 1) designate under RSA 236-114 V, b & c; 2) fencing along Mammoth Road and continued for sight line per RSA 236-123; 3)= limiting hours of operation to 8am-6pm= ; 4) no sign; 5) no additional lighting to be added; 6) per applicant’s recommendation – paved area with resilient coating and three-sided be= rm; 7) no more than 2500SF of area taken for the project; 8) no more than 15 ca= rs on property to be sold; 9) resilient coating to be maintained in good condition; 10) normal licensing and renew al process per the Board of Selectmen’s requirements for a junkyard; and 11) Fire Department shou= ld be notified of any spill.

Mr. Dunne asked if the pr= operty (of the building) was more than 300-feet from the road per requirements. Mr. Danevich said RSA 236-118 was specific to a new junkyard. M= r. Guilbault said he wasn’t selling any parts, he was only storing cars.= Mr. Danevich said per state law, M= r. Guilbault qualified as a junkyard dealer and all the provisions set forth w= ith in RSA 236-111 to RSA 236-129 would need to be adhered to. There was further discussion regarding the classification of Mammoth Road. Mr. Gowan questioned if the applicant could meet the requirements if= he was located in the rear of the property.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich suggested that the Board obtain legal opinion regarding= the setback. He pointed out that neither the Planning Board nor the Selectmen had jurisdiction to waive state law.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Gowan questioned what thickness the area would be paved. Mr. Guilbault provided the Board with an estimate that he had obtained. He said he was info= rmed by the paving company that 2” would be adequate because the site currently had recycled asphalt which was a good base.

It was noted that the app= licant was making a good faith effort to comply with rules and regulations.

Mr. Gowan asked if the Bo= ard wanted to provide an opinion regarding having a three-sided versus four-sided berm= or if it would be left up to him, the building inspector and a third party. Mr. Danevich suggested holding off= until legal opinion was obtained. <= /p>

The Board needed clarific= ation regarding the 300-foot setback. If the location was moved, a decision would need to be made regarding a 2̶= 1; versus 3” pavement. The opinion of the Code Enforcement Officer should be obtained regarding the berm.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the March 20, 20= 06 meeting.

Map 21 Lot<= /st1:place> 3-102 & 102-1 Cynthia Cur= rier 2000 Rev. Trust – Te= nney Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

The applicant requested postponement to the April 3,2006 to = obtain the engineering review from the Town Planner and allow time for the applicant’s engineer (Herbert & Associates) to respond.

The plan was date specified to the April 3, 2006 me= eting.

DISCUSSION

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development – Sherburne Road – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult community<= o:p>

The applicant requested a postponement to allow time to obtain additi= onal information to present to the Board.

The plan was continued and date specified to the March 20, 2006 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

March 20, = 2006:

1. = Map 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

2. = Map 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Sa= urman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

3. = Map 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Currier Road, Peabody Lane & Rte 38 Bridge S= treet – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision

Map 6 Lot 4-16= 6 Boucher, Barbara – 55 Gibson Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision
Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy d= ba Jenna Auto Sales – 563 Mammoth Road – Site Plan Review of vehicle storage and sales
Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Develo= pment – Sherburne Roa= d – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult commu= nity

April 3, 2006:

Map 35 Lot 6-113 KLN Construction C= o. – 79 Bridge Str= eet – Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing
Map 21 Lot 3-102 & 102-1 Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust – Tenney Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

February 23, 2006

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To = approve the February 2= 3, 2006 minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Dunne a= bstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich)To a= djourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:10 pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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