PB Minutes 12-04-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

December 4, 2006

The Chairman Bill Scanzan= i called the meeting to order at 7:3= 0 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate Paul Dadak, Alternate T= om Collins, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, = Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternat= e Bob Yarmo

NEW BUSINESS

<= u>Map 29 = Lot 7-95 Raymond Cover – 150 Bridge Street – Site Revi= ew for Change of Occupancy

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. Gowan noted he was an abutter to the parcel and would step down (though he was not a voting member). There was no objection to Mr. Gowan participating in the hearing.

The applicant Mr. Randy Cover said he would li= ke to open a martial arts studio in the Pelham Plaza where Exquisi= te Flowers was formerly located.

Mr. Gowan said this was clearly a use that wou= ld have less of an impact than the former use. He said the applicant had come bef= ore the Board because the regulations required such.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = accept, for consideration, the Change of Occupancy.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara questioned if there would be a significant traffic increase in the area (i.e. parking, entrance, exit). Mr. Cover didn’t feel there = would be an increase. He intended t= o ask people to park in another section of the parking lot. Mr. Gowan didn’t feel there = would be any problems.

Mr. Collins was appointed to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

Ms. Ouellette noted that a waiver request had = been submitted for the application fee. Mr. Gowan noted that this was a straight forward application that didn’t require a lot of engineering.= There was a brief discussion regarding the specified fees, if changes should be made to the fee structure, if it should remain on a case-by-case basis and how the law would be enforced.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said he would try to remain consistent with his recommendation. He and his st= aff discussed a fee of $25 being a fair amount in this case. Mr. Domenico felt the $200 fee was reasonable and was not in favor of granting a waiver to such. Ms. Bousa was also not in favor of granting the waiver.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Dunne) To app= rove the Change of Occupancy for Map 29 Lot 7-95 – 150 Bridge Street.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-115 Paul Kirlis dba The Cigar Room LLC –= ; 71 Bridge Street, Unit #1 – Site Review for Change of Occupancy

Mr. Rick Hammar, represen= ting the applicant, discussed the request for the Change of Occupancy. He said Bits and Pieces (a quilt s= hop) would be moving (occupying another space within the building) and they were proposing a cigar store in that unit (1200SF). He said the business would be run = by a gentleman and his wife. The intention was to sell cigars (and their accessories); there was no intentio= n to sell cigarettes, pipes or tobacco. Mr. Hammar said they placed restrictions on the cigar store so as to= not sell drug type items. He didn’t feel there would be an adverse affect on traffic due to the business.

Mr. Domenico questioned i= f the establishment would have an area for folks to sit and smoke a cigar. Mr. Hammar said there would be cou= ch put in the back. He said he asked= the fire department to check it out and was given the ‘green light’= . He said the owner would also check= I.D. to ensure people were 18 years of age when they walk in.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the Change of Occupancy for Map 35 Lot 6-115 (71 Bridge Street<= /st1:address>).

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ms. Bousa asked what the = hours of operation would be. Mr. Hamma= r said there wouldn’t be any odd hours, it would be like a 9-5 type job.

Mr. Gowan noted there was= a waiver request for a reduction of the $200 application fee. There was no action taken on the w= aiver.

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = approve the Change of Occupancy for Map 35 Lot= 6-115 (71 Bridge Street).

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 23 Lot 8-18 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council - Webster Avenue – Proposed 10 = Lot Subdivision

Attorney Mark Johnson, representing the applic= ant met with the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision. He said over the last couple month= s they had been working with the Town to see if the Girl Scouts would grant the Ri= ght of First Refusal if they were to sell the property; this would be in lieu of open space requirement. He be= lieved an agreement had been facilitated with the Girl Scouts and was also accepta= ble by Town Counsel. He understoo= d this agreement had to go to the Board of Selectmen for review and signature. He said at this point they were as= king the Board to agree that, when executed and recorded, the Right of First Ref= usal would satisfy the open space requirements.= He said they were also asking that as a condition for approval, the = plan would not be recorded until the Right of First Refusal was recorded at the = same time.

Mr. Scanzani believed there had been a request= (by the Board) that the applicant work on negotiations with the Town attorney, = Selectmen to come out with what the Board wished to take in lieu of the open space requirement. The Board previo= usly rejected the offer of a fee and small section of land in the back of the lot. Mr. Scanzani believed th= at the proposed agreement met what the subcommittee was asked to do.

There was no public input.

Ms. Ouellette questioned = if there were waivers being requested. Attorney Johnson listed the waivers that would be needed. Ms. Ouellette said the only waiver= in the file was for the well radius setback for lot 8-17-1.= Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuoco & Cormier (applicant’s engineer) said they were recommended by Stantec to submit a request for the well radi= us of lot 8-17-1, but was later determined by the Board as not relevant. With regard to the waivers mention= ed by Attorney Johnson, Mr. Parsons believed each waiver request had been debated= by the Board. He believed there = was a technicality with regard to landscaping because the lot was thickly wooded. Mr. Scanzani said all= the issues were brought up and discussed in Stantec’s documentation. After further review if the file, = Ms. Ouellette found the waivers being requested (per letter dated April 18, 2006 from Cuoco & Cormier) and reviewed as followed: 1) landscaping design a= nd plan Section 11.07; 2) existing topography / wetlands – only did port= ion that affected the proposed lots (USGS maps and National wetlands maps used)= ; 3) property boundary – they didn’t survey entire boundary line the= tax map was used; 4) drawing scale; and 5) locus map scale.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.07 – landscape design and plan. <= /u>

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = approve the waiver request to Section 11.07 – landscape design and plan (subject to the fact that it was probably already done and the street was existing).=

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 10.03,d&g – existing topography / wetlands

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = approve the waiver request to Section 10.03 d&g.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 10.03,c – property boundary. =

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = approve the waiver request to Section 10.03,c – property boundary.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had already determ= ined that the well radius was not required.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 10.04,a – scale of drawing.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

To approve the waiver r= equest to Section 10.04,a.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request Appendix IX, 10 – locus map. =

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico) To = approve the waiver request to Appendix IX, 10 – locus map.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

Mr. McNamara thanked the applicant for their w= ork and negotiations surrounding the plan. He discussed the agreement that had been negotiated.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Dunne) To app= rove the plan contingent upon Board of Selectmen and the Girl Scouts of the Spar &= amp; Spindle Inc. approval and ratification in the legal simultaneous recordin= g of said agreement herein referred to as the Right of First Refusal agreement.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ma= p 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossing

There was environmental information not yet received; the plan was date specified= to January 4, 2007.=

Map 38 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Elderly Housing =

The plan had gone out for a second review to Stantec (Town’s engineer); comments were not yet received back. The plan was date specified to the= January 4, 2007.=

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120’x60’ two story Warehouse Building=

The Board was waiting for review comments by Stantec (Town’s engineer). The plan was date specified to January 4,= 2007.

Ma= p 32 Lot 1-146, 148 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Roger Montbleau – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road= - & 149 Proposed 24 Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drai= nage within the WCD

Mr. Scanzani said a concern was raised at the previous meeting regarding where the continuation of the road could be located.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the proposal with the Board. = He showed three versions the first two being: 1) access from Spaulding Hill Ro= ad with a proposed loop road and a right-of-way at the end of Marie Avenue: 2) access from Spaulding Hill Road with a proposed loop road and a cul-de-sac = at the end of Marie Avenue (a waiver would be needed if the loop road was considered a cul-de-sac). Sin= ce the last meeting, Mr. Zohdi met with the owner of the abutting parcel who is do= ing a proposed development. He sa= id he obtained a copy of the topography for the abutting parcel and showed where a road (off the proposed loop road which would connect to Mammoth Road) could be constructed = to connect through the abutting parcel. He said the Board would have to make a determination of how much disturbance they wanted.

Mr. Gowan said the Board had asked the applica= nt to find out if it was possible to connect.= He understood that detailed engineering had not been done, but asked= if it were possible for the driveways on the abutting parcel to meet the newly proposed driveway regulations. Mr. Zohdi said the road would go against the topography, but believed the drive= ways would work. He didn’t w= ant to elaborate on the plan for the abutting parcel because it was not his own. Mr. Gowan discussed the abutting p= arcel and noted that the owner did a preliminary phase III a few years back which would directly abut the proposed Spaulding Hill Development. Mr. McNamara asked if the Mr. Gowa= n had any realistic basis that the abutting property would ever be subdivided/developed. Mr. Gow= an said the developer and engineer have expressed interest in continuing, but = like every project, it would be decided based on the market. There was further discussion regar= ding the abutting parcel. Mr. Zohd= i said he would provide a slope easement to the abutting parcel. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the ot= her right-of-way would still occur to the Town parcel. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. McNamara said he would like St= antec (Town engineer) review the proposed connection to the abutting parcel.

Mr. Scanzani questioned if the traffic analysis would be reviewed; if no, he didn’t want to see one. Ms. Ouellette said the Board had considered waiving the traffic analysis impact. Mr. Scanzani said they were workin= g with the state to find a solution with the end of Sherburne Road and (because of= the substantial development on Sherburne Road) were looking to come back to dis= cuss with engineers to put money away to have the state do something with the en= d of Sherburne Road. The Sherburne Road intersection is not currently on the state’s 10-year or the 14-year plan. Mr. Zohdi said he had currently three clients on Sherburne Road that were willing to pay their fa= ir share for a study and improvements which would have to be discussed with Mr. Gowan and a traffic engineer. Mr. Gowan said he instructed Volmer (Town’s traffic consultant) to hold o= ff reviewing any traffic analysis submitted thus far pending the Board’s decision on how they want to handle such.&= nbsp;

Mr. Dadak noted that there were four community well systems proposed in developments on Sherburne Road. He said he contacted the Departmen= t of Environmental Services (‘DES) because it seemed to be a lot demand fo= r an area that had a history with getting water out of the ground. He said DES suggested getting a plan showing where the wells were proposed. He said geo-hydrology was not an e= xact science, but if they were sent a sketch, they would review the locations of= the systems and how they may interact. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel they were related; the wells on the l= ower portion of Sherburne Road<= /st1:address> were at the point of having a lot of water. Mr. Gowan this would just be addit= ional information for the DES to consider when reviewing the area. Mr. Scanzani noted that there had = been discussions about some of the community wells being managed by Pennichuck a= nd because of (the eventual) connectivity to Longview, the lines may also be able to be extended to that area. There was further discussion regar= ding Pennichuck managing the water systems and the possible connection of each.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara asked if Pennichuck had committed= to providing water to the proposed development. Mr. Zohdi answered no; they alread= y got the water (and approval from the state), the wells were drilled and pump tested.

Mr. McNamara said based on Mr. Zohdi’s representations, he would reluctantly agree to waive the cul-de-sac regulation. Mr. Zohdi said he= would provide additional engineering information. Ms. Bousa said when the cul-de-sac waiver was submitted she wanted it to describe the length being requested a= nd wanted to ensure everyone was in agreement to what the length was. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan and sa= id the distance from the intersection at Spaulding Hill Road along the proposed road to half the distance around the loop was approximately 3000 feet. Ms. Bousa said the cul-de-sac regu= lation was written as the point from which a fire truck could no longer approach f= rom more than one direction, which she felt was at the intersection of Sherburne Road and Spaulding Hill. Mr. Zohdi said another access was from Sl= avin Road to Applewood to <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road. Ms. Bousa asked that when the plan= was submitted the connection be shown of the network. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan (submi= tted to Mr. Gowan) and showed where the additional connection could be obtained. Ms. Bousa said there would be an additional 500-800 feet if the distance was measured from the <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road intersection. There was furth= er discussion regarding the cul-de-sac and the current proposal.

There was a consensus of the Board to have Mr. Zohdi design to the third plan set (newest proposal) with includes the road connectivity with the understanding that the cul-de-sac regulation would ha= ve to be waived. Mr. McNamara was concerned that there were some larger units that may be further developed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi said to the intersection= there were only two houses. Mr. McN= amara was hopeful that the eventual development didn’t present itself. Mr. Domenico questioned if further subdivision could be restricted until there was a connection to Green Meado= w. Mr. Scanzani felt that may be poss= ible, but the Board would need to review a plan.= Mr. Gowan said a condition of no further subdivision by itself may be troublesome; however a condition of no further subdivision until a certain = condition is met would be a different situation.&nbs= p;

The plan was date specified to the January 4, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit = for Wetland Crossing

Waiting for information.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The plan was date specified to January 4, 2007.=

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – January 4, 2007

Map 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Rea= lty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision and S= eeking Special Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossing

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Elderly Housing<= /p>

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120’x60’ two story Warehouse Building

Map 38 Lot = 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 Spaulding Hill Developme= nt, LLC/Roger Montbleau – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road - & 149 Proposed 24 Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

MINUTES

November= 20, 2006 –

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = approve the meeting minutes of November 20, 2006 as amended. <= /span>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa a= nd Mr. Dunne abstained.

November = 27, 2006 – deferred.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:00 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