PB Minutes 01-16-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 16, 2007

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, Alternate Paul Dadak, Alternate James McManus, Planning Direct= or Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bo= usa, Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Alternate Tom Collins, Alte= rnate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Dadak and Mr. McManus were appointed to vo= te during the evening’s proceedings.

PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING AMENDMENT= S

The Board reviewed the following proposed Zoni= ng Amendments. The amendments ha= d been reviewed/discussed at previous meetings; this was the final hearing per RSA= s.

Amend Article III General Provisions, Section 307-13 Computing Mini= mum Lot Sizes to increase minimum lot size requirements for residential dup= lex lots from 35,000 square feet of non-wetland soils to 55,000 sq. feet and to= not allow slopes greater than 20% or areas where ledge is not covered by at lea= st 4 feet of non-wetland soil to be counted in those minimum areas. The proposed changes would also require the area of proposed lots be doubled if more than 25% of the lot has slopes of 20% or if more than 25% of the lot has less th= an 2 feet of non-wetland soils depth to ledge. The changes would also require lo= ts to be accessible to first responders without first leaving the Town limits.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amended Article III General Provisions, Section 307-13 Computing Mini= mum Lot Sizes on the ballot.

VOTE:

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

Amend Article V Permitted Uses, Secti= on 307-18, table 2 to add Auto Repair Facilities and Truck Trailers/Contai= ner Pods to the table of permitted uses, but restrict them to the Business and Industrial zones.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amended Article V Permitted Uses, Section 307-18, table 2 on the ball= ot.

VOTE:

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

Amend Article IX Senior & Elderly Housing to:

clarify = age restrictions within definitions;
eliminate limit of 40 units per lot;
increase minimum lot size from 5 to 10 acres;
require 15,000 sq. feet of buildable land area per unit;
change frontage requirement from 200 to 50 feet;
not allow WCD to be counted in lot size computations;
increase setback to abutter requirements;
require sidewalks;
require sprinkler fire protection;
clarify = bond and construction monitoring requirements

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan noted that Attorney Ratigan found a couple items that he felt importa= nt for the Board to clarify; the recommendations weren’t submitted in ti= me to be included in the proposed amendments, but related to age restriction.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the recommendations for interpreting age restrictions should be reviewed by the Board publicly so t= he Board would understand how he would be interpreting such.

Mr. Scanzani said section 307:50,b and 307:50,b 2 weren’t changes that the Board had made. Mr. Gowan wan= ted the public record to record how the issue would be interpreted. Attorney Ratigan’s comment w= as in connection with age restrictions and how they related to handicapped persons. Mr. Gowan reviewed t= he comments: 1) does a handicapped or disabled person need to be 62+ years; 2)= in 307:50, b,1 it appears blind handicapped people need only to be age 55 to be handicap – clarification needed for age criteria applicable for other handicapped persons; 3) Section 307:50,b,2 definition of disabled persons.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney Ratigan’s sense (ev= en though the regulations are unclear) was that for the handicap and disabled categories, persons who have these conditions could occupy the units when t= hey are under age 62 or 55, and if that is the intent, there is nothing in 307:= 49 purpose and intent or definitions 307:50,b that states such. Mr. Gowan’s sense of the Boa= rd (and how it operates) was that Attorney Ratigan’s sense was correct; given this advice, he would interpret the regulations as outlined by Attorn= ey Ratigan. There was a brief discussion regarding the reason the definitions were worded as such. Mr. Scanzani said there was agreem= ent with Attorney Ratigan’s interpretation and Mr. Gowan’s intent to not discriminate in anyway against persons with handicaps with regard to the zoning amendment and with such it is being pointed out that the restrictions/requirements necessary for people to attain a certain age from= a Social Security standpoint and the facilities that would be developed under= Elderly Housing of continue-care reti= rement communities would require some services for those people to be able to live in them successfully. Mr. McNamara believed if someone a= lready qualified for Social Security Disability it would be prima fascia evidence = that they would qualify as disabled with regard to the regulations.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amended Article IX Senior & Elderly Housing on the ballot.

VOTE:

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

Amend Article XI Signs to:

clarify definitions;
allow off-site Charitable signs with time limitations;
allow Electronic Messaging Displays with restrictions to message size, color, display time and transition;
allow gr= oup signs to be up to 150 sq. feet in total area;
restrict roof signs;=
increase sign permit fees

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amendment to Article XI Signs on the ballot.

VOTE:

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

Amend Article XIII Enforcement and Miscellaneous, Section307-88 D to clarify non-expiration of variances to comply with NH State Law.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amendment to Article XIII Enforcement and Miscellaneous, Section 307-= 88,D on the ballot.

VOTE:

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

Amend Article VIII, Pelham’s Flood Plain Development Ordinanc= e to revise old definitions and add new definitions and references to NH RSAs to meet new requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Failure to adopt these changes will result in the Town being suspended from the program.

Mr. McNamara said under S= ection 307-48 Variances and Appeals it listed certain additional criteria that an applica= nt would have to show in order to be approved for a variance. He asked if that language came dir= ectly from the State Office of Planning. Mr. Gowan answered yes; the Town didn’t change anything.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= place the amendment to Article III, Pelham’s Flood Plain Development Ordinance.

VOTE:

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

DISCUSSION

Roads to be considered for acceptance at Annual Town Meeting: Em= pire Road, Greenmeadow Drive, Longview Drive (Bob Peterson portion), Quail Run Lane.

Mr. Gowan said the four r= oad were had been identified as meeting the initial criteria for acceptance by the Town. He said the item he didn’t have for two of the roads was a letter from Stantec (Town̵= 7;s engineer) recommending acceptance. <= /span>

Empire Road – was pulled of the acceptance list last year because of sink holes that had developed. The sink holes have been repaired.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Stantec’s issue was their inspector was not on site when the sink holes were repaired. Mr. Gowan will meet with Stantec a= nd try to resolve the issue.

<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Greenmeadow Drive= – the bond has been reduce= d down to the maintenance. Letter was received from Stantec recommending that the Town accept the road.

Longview Drive (only the portion belonging to= Bob Peterson) – Letter was received from Stantec recommending that the Town accept the road. Mr. Gow= an will provide specific lot numbers for the portion of the road.

Quail Run Lane – there is an off-site improvement that has not yet been completed. The road itself is= in good shape. Mr. Gowan was anticipating a fresh plan from Herbert Associates on how to resolve the iss= ue and build the sidewalk/headwall. The Board would have to determine if holding a sufficient bond to complete the work would make the Board feel comfortable to place the road on the ballot. There was a brief discussion regarding the status and what could be done. Mr. McNamara asked if the road was approved if the Town would be legally precluded from holding some of the bo= nd to protect the completion of the sidewalk.= Mr. Gowan didn’t believe so, but would confirm such with Attor= ney John Ratigan (Town Counsel). =

WARRANT ARTICLE DISCUSSION & VOTE

The Plann= ing Board will vote to either recommend or not recommend the Petition Warr= ant Article proposing the Town raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000 f= or the purpose of fixing the traffic problems at the intersection of Mammoth Road and Sherburne Road.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani noted this w= as the worst intersection in the NRPC territory and was considered a Class E intersection. The developments planned for Sherburne Road= area would exasperate the problem in the future. The state had no money (and didn&#= 8217;t anticipate any money) to fix the intersection. The warrant article would raise the initial ‘seed’ then money from the developments or in close proximity could be added to it. Mr. Gowan said there was a grant program that would require a 33% match from the municipality’s behalf; the estimated work to be done was $1.5 million. He said there was a development in Hudson that would be of regional impact that he would pursue funds from. Mr. Gowan noted any vote taken by = the Board would not be on the ballot in March, it would simply state the Board’s position for the public.&nbs= p; There was a consensus of the Board to take a position regarding the article.

MOTION:

To recommend the warrant article to raise and appropriate $100,000 for the purpose of fixing the traffic problems at the intersection of Mammoth Road and Sherburne Road. =

VOTE:

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

The Plann= ing Board will vote to either recommend or not recommend the Petition Warr= ant Article proposing allowing the Board of Selectmen to appoint the 6 mem= bers of the Planning Board who are residents of the Town.

Mr. Scanzani said under t= he current voting method (approved last year) those that are elected would app= oint the remaining board members. = The proposed warrant article would allow the Board of Selectmen to appoint the remaining members. It was noted t= hat anyone elected would serve out the full term. There was a consensus of the Board= to take a position regarding the article.&nbs= p; It was noted that a vote would not be on the ballot.

MOTION:

To recommend the warrant article to allow the Board of Selectmen to appoint the remaining members = of the Planning Board.

VOTE:

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

The Plann= ing Board will vote to either recommend or not recommend the Petition Warr= ant Article proposing the adoption of an interim residential growth manage= ment regulation.

Mr. Gowan discussed the l= egal opinion received from Attorney John Ratigan (Town Counsel). The opinion stated that the adopti= on by the voters could have no legal effect; first, only the Planning Board is authorized to propose to the Legislative Body an interim growth management ordinance (RSA 674:23,2). The article cannot have the affect of adopting an interim growth management and cannot direct or require the Pelham Planning Board to propose legislation in the future consistent with the procedure in RSA 674:23. Attorney Ratigan also informed whe= n an article is presented, such as this, which fails to follow the statutory pro= cedure for enacting zoning, he considered a vote to be a non-binding inquiry about= the public’s sentiment. Fur= ther, it was his opinion if the article received a majority of the votes cast tha= t it would have no affirmative legal effect and would adopt no ordinance or regulation. Mr. Gowan discuss= ed how the Town had decided upon impact fees and the fact that the Town had issued= the fewest (33) building permits in 2006 than had been issued in the past decade. He said growth control ordinances had difficulties being held up in court.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he petition was not in the correct format to actually be a growth ordinance. He also said a town couldn’t collect impact fees and have a growth ordinance. He said the reason the Town decide= d to collect impact fees was because it was viewed to be the best solution for Pelham long term. There was f= urther discussion regarding growth management and how it had affected other communities.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= NOT approve of the petition warrant article as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried. By a vote i= n the affirmative, the Board did not approve of the petition warrant article.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 10 Lot 13-163 – BEN= NETT, Bruce & Lisa – 8= 3 Pelham Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd walked the site. He believed = the outstanding issue was whether the Board would waiver the Subdivision Regulations regarding the duplex lot on the corner. Mr. McNamara said he had expressed= some reservations at the last meeting regarding the ability of the lot to be abl= e to handle the duplex. He said af= ter walking the site, it seems obvious that the site had plenty of high and dry land to accommodate a duplex. He said it seems there wouldn’t be any detrimental affect, and the steep slopes wouldn’t have an adverse affect on drainage because they had b= een there awhile. He said the sit= e walk occurred in the rain and the drainage seemed to be more on the road than fr= om the applicant’s property. He was satisfied that a duplex could be build properly.

There was no public input= , other than the owner, Mr. Bruce Bennett saying he hoped the Board would approve t= he plan.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dadak) To app= rove the waiver to Appendix IX – Scale required 1”=3D50ft. and the app= licant is requesting 1”=3D40ft. <= u>

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= approve the waiver to Section 11.04,c – Lot size.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan indicated he ha= d no additional concerns.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= approve the plan.

VOTE:

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

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – MOPAR CONSTRUCTION – Sherb= urne Road – Proposed 30-Unit Elderly Housing<= o:p>

This was continued to the= February 5, 2007= meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dadak) To adj= ourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:30pm

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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