PB Minutes 10-15-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 15, 2007

Chairman Peter McNamara c= alled the meeting to order at 7:00= pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paul Da= dak, Paddy Culbert (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Roger Montbleau, J= ason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamon= te, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None.

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. Passamonte to vote in Mr. Culbert’s place until he arrived.

PUBLIC HEARING

In accordance with RSA 231:158 II the Planning Board will conduc= t a Public Hearing to allow National Grid to conduct tree trimming and some tree cutting along Old Bridge Street which has been designated as a scenic road = by the citizens of Pelham. This = tree work is required to protect National Grid’s Power lines and to reduce= the likelihood of future power outages caused by fallen trees or limbs.

Mr. Gowan said the public= hearing was a formality. He explained= that when a road was designated as a scenic road, there was a public hearing pro= cess required. He discussed the pr= oject that National Grid was conducting to cut limbs or trees that may be problem= atic and cause power outages. He provided the Board with a copy of the RSA.= He said once pubic comment was taken, if the Board gave him permissi= on, he would write a letter on behalf of the Board indicating that the hearing = took place and that the Board approved the plan.

There was no public input= . The Board discussed the project. There was no objection by the Boar= d to authorize Mr. Gowan to inform National Grid to proceed.

Mr. Culbert arrived.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Lake Mary of Pelham, LLC – ‘The Woodlands’ Subdivision off Dutton Road – Request for rel= ease of surety bond and project permits be held in abeyance. Prior to work resuming, a new bond= be posted.

Attorney David Groff, representing the owner, said the project was approved over a year ago and h= ad a large bond posted with no reductions to date. No work had been done on the proje= ct for over a year and the owner didn’t intend on doing any development at t= he location at least for the foreseeable future. Attorney Groff explained that the substantial work previously done seemed to satisfy the state statute. He said the applicant didn’t= want to continue with the bond since they weren’t planning on doing anythi= ng. He said they proposed in lieu= of the completion bond they would post a small $5,000-$10,000 restoration bond that could be confirmed by Stantec. Attorney Groff said he provided information to Mr. Gowan regarding t= he work Gove Environmental had done and noted that the site would be stabilized (based on recommendations of Gove). He said the owner would then leave the site as it was and at the poi= nt they were ready to continue work, they would come back before the Board and= ask for a recalculation and post another bond.=

Mr. Gowan felt the reques= t was reasonable. He said the proje= ct entailed a substantial piece of land being given to the Town; that has been executed and the Town held the deed. He said the applicant had Gove Environmental review the site for what they felt the property needed in terms of stabilization. He recommended having Stantec revi= ew the proposal and add what they felt was necessary to stabilize the site; in addition, to provide the Board with an amount for a restoration bond that w= ould be exercised if nothing happened at the site for a number of years. He believed establishing a restora= tion bond would protect the Town. = He said no permits would be issued until a new bond (and new escrow) based on = the scope of work was established.

Mr. McNamara asked what h= ad already been done on the site. Mr. Gowan said all the basic roadwork had been done. Attorney Groff discussed the work = that had been done on the road including some of the sub-grade; the connection h= ad not been done. He said no bui= lding permits had been issued.

Mr. Montbleau asked if an= y of the lots were cleared. Attorney G= roff answered no. Mr. Montbleau as= ked if it was just the road that was cleared.&nbs= p; Attorney Groff said it was just the road.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the request/recommendation was for the Board to release the surety bond. Mr. Gowan said he wasn’t ask= ing for any action to be taken, but rather would like the Board’s directi= on so he would know how to proceed. He said Stantec would need to review both of Gove’s recommendations and = to provide an estimate for the restoration bond.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the request and when the four-year exemption would expire. Attorney Groff said there were eig= hteen lots in the subdivision; the start of construction was June 27, 2006. The Board had no objection directi= ng Mr. Gowan to contact Stantec to find out what the cost would be and bringing a recommendation back to the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & 221&nb= sp; George Jr., George III & John Harris – Ledge Road & Po= plar Hill Road – Proposed 36 Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland &= WCD Crossing.

Mr. Gowan said he had a v= ery productive meeting with the applicant and their engineer. They went through Stantec’s = review letter with Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates; there will be many chang= es to the plans. Mr. Gowan said = he suggested that they date specify out a bit. Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associa= tes requested that they date specify for 60-days. This would be adequate time to mak= e the changes and have Stantec review again.

The plan was date specifi= ed for the December 17= , 2007 meeting.

Map 24 Lot 12-202 Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman Lane – Proposed 2-L= ot Subdivision

Mr. Dadak began by review= ing the minutes from the site walk. <= /p>

Mr. Mike Grainger of Grai= nger Engineering, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the requested subdivision. He sai= d he looked into the question of a cistern and met with the Lieutenant John Hodg= e of the Fire Department said he would issue a letter indicating that a cistern = was not necessary. Mr. Gowan said= he didn’t have a letter yet, but was present for the meeting when Lt. Ho= dge said the rule used for cisterns was three-lot subdivisions or greater. Mr. McNamara asked if Lt. Hodge was familiar with the property. M= r. Gowan said familiarity with the property wasn’t relevant, it was more= an issue if the proposal was three or more lots.

Mr. Grainger provided the= Board with new plans that he had made changes on. He highlighted the Wetland Conserv= ation District (‘WCD’) and showed where the existing septic system and tank were located.

Mr. Culbert questioned if= the proposed well was going outside the boundary of the land. Mr. Grainger explained that the lo= t was 150-feet wide and there was a 75-foot radius, so it would be tight. Mr. Culbert asked if the well was = in the setbacks. Mr. Grainger said h= e had requested a waiver for such. = Mr. McNamara discussed problems the Board had in the past with well radiuses extending into the setbacks and over the boundaries. Mr. Gowan noted that there was a l= ittle bit of flexibility on the plan shown.

Mr. Dadak said during the= October 1^st there was a suggestion that the WCD be more clearly marked on the plan, but it didn’t appear to be better defined. Mr. Grainger said it was on lot 20= 2, but forgot to put it on lot 202-1.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Dadak asked if they w= ould have difficulty accessing the back of the lot. Mr. Grainger said test pits had be= en dug in the event someone purchased the lot and wanted to construct a different house. He said the existing h= ouse had an existing well, septic tank and leach field that were working. Mr. McGlynn asked if the existing = well needed an easement for the radius. Mr. Gowan said it was not needed because it was an existing conditio= n.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= letter dated September = 25, 2007 from Roland Bergeron who was opposed to changes to the property in question. The letter explained flooding/runoff problems that he experienced. Mr. McNamara said there was discus= sion during the site walk about the water drainage problems in the area that were probably caused from a prior development behind the property. He said the existing problems were= not the responsibility of the applicant, except they could not increase the flow off the property. He said the drainage problem would be properly addressed through the Town’s Highw= ay Department. Mr. McNamara said= there was some conversation during the site walk regarding the wetlands and the measures that could be done to mitigate the flow. Mr. Grainger discussed the problem= s with going into the area because it may do more harm than good because of the sensitive nature. There was f= urther discussion regarding the concerns raised during the site walk regarding drainage.

Mr. Culbert asked how the existing drainage issues would be addressed after the construction. Mr. Grainger said the work on the = site would not help out the existing drainage problem; the runoff would be kept = on the new lot. He said a small retention pond could be added. Mr. Culbert asked if the pre-and post-drainage would remain the same. Mr. Grainger said he would make su= re that the drainage stayed on the lot. He said it would not go towards 4 Foreman Lane and into the pipe th= at causes the problems. Mr. Culb= ert asked if that was shown on the plan. Mr. Grainger said the plan didn’t show drainage because it was= a subdivision plan. Mr. Culbert= asked for clarification regarding the water problem. Mr. Grainger said he wasn’t = proposing to fix the existing water problem. He said if a house was proposed for lot 202-1 he would make sure that the drainage would stay on that lot by sloping the land and driveway. Mr. Culbert asked if the pre- and post-development runoff the same. Mr. Grainger said he hadn’t designed a drainage plan or done a drainage study because he was requesting a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Montbleau understood that the drainage problems were contained on the lot next to the proposed new lot. He said the applicant had informed= the Board that the drainage from the new lot would be contained on the lot and = not add to the existing drainage issues. Mr. Montbleau suggested that the drainage problems mentioned in Mr. Bergeron’s letter may be due to the increased rain in the Spring over= the past couple seasons.

Mr. Gowan said the plan c= ould be conditioned upon the addition of a detention pond to hold the water on the site. He said if it was a condition, he would make sure it was completed. Mr. McNamara said tree removal wou= ld also affect drainage on the site; the Board could also place restrictions on the building envelope. Mr. Dadak = said there were simple ways to slow the water down for a single house, such as h= ave the roof drainage directed into a dry well. Mr. Culbert noted that the plans didn’t show an indication how the water would be directed.

Mr. McGlynn was confused = by the plan showing a proposed well and septic in a WCD area. Mr. Gowan asked for clarification = of what was being proposed. Mr. = Grainger said the proposed well was shown for the plan if they put a house, well and septic system in the back. He= said at this point the applicant was planning on keeping the existing well. He said he was trying to show both= the existing conditions as well as where things would go if a new house was pla= ced out back. He said it was two separate issues. Mr. McNamara= said the only thing the Board was discussing was the subdivision. Mr. Gowan believed the applicant w= as trying to show that the lot could be built upon. Changes would require the applican= t to come back before the Board.

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= at the 4K area was in the upper left corner. He asked if the plans could be transposed to be two separate plans.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Grainger explained what he was= requesting. He said he was showing the Board t= he subdivision plan and was showing the state (for state subdivision approval)= where a new well and septic could be located.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert was concerned with approving the plan because it showed proposed areas for a well and septic. Mr. Grainger said he probably should have shown the Board the present conditions only. Mr. Montbleau asked if the Board approved the plan in front of them, they would be approv= ing what was being shown. Mr. McN= amara said the Board should be focusing on lot 12-202-1 the proposed new house. Mr. Montbleau wanted to know if the Board approved the plan they would be approving what was being shown (well design etc.). Mr. Culbert ans= wered yes. Mr. Gowan said if the Bo= ard approved the plan with conditions such as: 1) the addition of a detention b= asin adequately sized being placed on lot 202-1; 2) removal of 4K area and propo= sed well radius from lot 12-202; and 3) any removal or rebuilding of the existi= ng family home would require coming back before the Board (for wetlands crossings). He said the Board= could approve the plan with the stipulations, or they could have the applicant am= end the plan.

Mr. Culbert preferred tha= t the applicant amend the plan and show it to the Board.

Mr. McGlynn asked that th= e WCD line be clearly delineated. <= /p>

There was a consensus of = the Board to have the applicant return with a revised plan as discussed: 1) rem= oval of the proposed well; 2) removal of the proposed 4K; 3) greater delineation= of the WCD: 4) detention area; and 5) show the building envelope (150ft.x100ft= .) for lot 1 encompassing the home and 4K area.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the November 5, = 2007 meeting.

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 272&nbs= p; John Alosso – Main Street & Route 38 – Seeking re-approval of Site Plan that was originally approved in 1989 for 25,000SF Retail Building

Mr. Gowan said this item = had inadvertently been left off the agenda.&nb= sp; The applicant didn’t have the new plan to present. Mr. Gowan said the abutters would = be re-notified at the Planning Department’s expense and an agenda item w= ould be added under old business when the engineer had a plan ready for the Boar= d.

DISCUSSION

Discussion on Draft Zoning Articles

Mr. Gowan informed that t= he Zoning Sub-Committee had been meeting to draft zoning articles. He planned to distribute copies of= the draft so the Board could begin reviewing the information. He said they were also drafting a companion subdivision chapter that was critical to understand the zoning. He said the draft would also be se= nt out for independent review with Stantec, DES and others to obtain the benefit of broad opinion.

Mr. Doherty informed the = Board that a fire cistern had been installed on Webster Avenue on a blind corner. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He questioned if there were regulat= ions for the placement of cisterns. Mr. Gowan said the Board had handled cistern placement through the Fire Departm= ent who had separate jurisdiction from the Board (after approval of the plan).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He would like to have the Fire Department weigh in regarding cistern placement prior to final approval by = the Board so they would be site specific. Mr. Doherty said the location he was referring to was becoming a spot for U-turns and parking.

SITE WALK – October 6, 2007

Mr. Gowan informed that t= he Board of Adjustment had scheduled a site walk for Sunday, October 21, 2007 at 391 Gage Hill Road. He said the applicant was requesti= ng a General Home Occupation to permit the sale of firewood from their property. He said there may be value to the Planning Board members attending the site walk since the plan would be coming to the Board for Site Plan review if the Special Exception = was approved.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

November 5, 2007 –

Map 24 Lot 12-202 Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

December 17, 2007 –

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & = 221 George Jr., George III & John = Harris – Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road – Proposed 36 Lot Subdivisi= on with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Spe= cial Permit for Wetland & WCD Crossing.

MINUTES

Octobe= r 1, 2007

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = approve the October 1,= 2007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Haverty/Montbleau) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 8:05 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