PB Minutes 01-07-2008

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BO= ARD MEETING

MINUTES

January 7, 2008

PRESENT:

Mr. Peter McNamara, Mr. Paul Dadak, Mr. Roger Montbl= eau, Mr. Tim Doherty, Mr. Jason Croteau, Alternate Jim McManus, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Mr. Paddy Culbert, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alte= rnate Edward McGlynn

&nbs= p;

The Chairman, Peter McNamara, opened the meeting at approximately 7:00 pm. He appointed Mr. McManus to vote i= n Mr. Culbert’s absence.

SCHEDULING= OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR PETITION WARRANT ARTICLE

In accorda= nce with RSA 675:4,II the Planning Board shall set the date of the public hearing fo= r a Petition Warrant Article to amend the Zoning Ordinance.<= /p>

Mr. McNamara said the Selectmen had established that t= his would not be place on the ballot, therefore the item was not before the Board.

2^{nd
PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS – =
the
full text of all proposed amendments is available from the Planning Departm=
ent
at the Town Hall, 6 Village Green during normal business hours. Also refer to the Legal Notice for=
brief
explanations.}

Item #1: A= dd a new article (Article XV) to Pelham’s Zoning Ordinance to allow Conservati= on Subdivision

Mr. McNamara read aloud Article XV (as previously amen= ded by the Board). He explained that because this was the second public hearing, the language could not be chang= ed, with the exception of typographical errors or minor administrative details.= He welcomed comments from the Boar= d and the public.

Mr. Gowan asked the Board to consider a minor (non-sub= stantive) amendment under the definition of Viewshed. There were no objections to make t= he suggested changes. Mr. Gowan = asked the Board if they wanted to consider removing the third sentence under Sect= ion 307-100 (Parcel Requirements). The Board was not in favor of making the deletion to Section 307-100.

Mr. Doug Shaver, 65 Heather Lee Lane and Mr. David Hennessey (a me= mber of committee that drafted the new ordinance) came forward to address the Board. Mr. Shaver had questio= ns that were clarified by Mr. Gowan and the Board.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve Article XV as a warra= nt article for the March, 2008 ballot.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Item #2: A= mend Article XII Special Exceptions, Section 307-76 II, Minor Home Occupation

Mr. McNamara read aloud the pertinent part of the Arti= cle that would be changed. There = was a question regarding the words ‘home office uses’ which the Board= had discussed removing at the previous meeting. Because the language could not be amended, it would remain as written.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Dadak) To accept the changes to Article X= II – Special Exception to place it on the March (2008) ballot.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty and Mr. Croteau voted no.

Item #3: A= mend Article XI sign Definitions and Restrictions, Section 307-69 CC, Political Signs.

Mr. McNamara read aloud Article XI. It was noted that the article read= aloud was the language previously reviewed, before being revised. Mr. Gowan indicated that the copy = in front of the Board was incorrect; however, the correct (amended) copy met t= he obligations and was at the Planning Department.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Haverty/Montbleau) To approve the changes to Articl= e XI – Signs.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty voted no.

NEW BUSINE= SS

Map 37 Lot 10-373 OWENS, David & Caroline – 122 Dutton Road – Proposed 2-= Lot Subdivision

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud.&nbs= p; Mr. Ronald Smith of 116 Dutton Road stepped forward and informed the B= oard that he did not receive notification.

Mr. David Aho of Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, reviewed t= he proposed 2-Lot Subdivision. He noted that the parcel was approximately 13 acres and had been used as a ‘hobby’ farm. The applicant was seeking to subdivide a one acre parcel with the remaining land staying in current use. Mr. A= ho said the applicant had tried to market the property with the house and the land, but were having difficulty selling.&= nbsp; The remaining lot would use an existing gravel driveway. A waiver would be required to cros= s the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) to service the remaining parcel.

Mr. Gowan said the application met the requirement for acceptance for consideration.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked how much of the WCD would be impact= ed by the crossing. Mr. Aho said the width was approximately 10ft.-12ft wide and would run approximately 200ft. = at the most. The applicant didn’t have an immediate plan to build on the property. Mr. Aho said the existing gravel d= rive would be used by the current gravel driveway. He said the subdivision was design= ed so there wouldn’t be additional impacts. Mr. McNamara asked if the remaining parcel was wet. Mr. Aho said = it had quite a bit of wetland, but contained approximately 6.78 contiguous (dry) acres.

Mr. Montbleau questioned what the unmarked buildings were. Mr. Aho said they were accessory buildings, such as a green house and an open shelter. Mr. Montbleau asked if those build= ings were for the livestock. Mr. A= ho said there were some farm accessory buildings. Mr. Montbleau asked if the livesto= ck would remain on the lot. Mr. = Aho said the livestock would leave the parcel.=

Mr. Dadak reviewed the waiver request for Section 11.0= 4, C, 7 – remainder of lot 37-10-373 building envelope be accessed through existing WCD crossing.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Haverty/Montbleau) To accept the waiver request to Section 11.04,C,7 for consideration.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. McNamara asked if the existing gravel drive would = need to be extended to access the remaining property. Mr. Aho said the existing drive al= ready went though the WCD and at the dashed lines on the plan went off in a diffe= rent direction.

Mr. Gowan saw no difficulties with the subdivision request. He was surprised tha= t no one had discussed if there were future plans for development. Mr. Aho said the applicant was awa= re of the requirements for any future development.

It was noted that once the land was subdivided, the remaining property would stay in current use.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the waiver for the ac= cess to the parcel over the WCD on the gravel drive.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the subdivision as proposed. =

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gowan noted that the abutter who didn’t rece= ive notification had been sent notification of the meeting to the address in the Assessor’s records.

Map 4 Lot 9-138 STADTMILLER, Marie – Tallant Road – Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision & Seeking Special Permits for 6 Wetland Conservation District Crossings<= /o:p>

Mr. Dadak 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.

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchmark Engineering, representing= the applicant, discussed the requested subdivision and special permit. He said they had discussed the pro= perty with the Board in August, 2007 to discuss bringing the plan forward as an o= pen space subdivision. He said be= cause they had been denied by the Zoning Board of Adjustment, they had proceeded = with a conventional plan. Mr. Mayn= ard then reviewed the proposed plan with the Board.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had a letter from the Conservation Commission that indicated the applicant met with them on October 10, 2007 and walked the site on October 6, 2007. He asked= if the plan currently before the Board was the same plan reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Maynard said it was. He then = noted that it was also the same plan that had been before the Board for conceptual review. He said they would be meeting with the Conservation Commission on January 9, 2008 to review all of the dredge and fill applications that were filed in early December, 2007. Mr. McNamara said the Board had re= ceived a letter from the Conservation Commission which laid out a number of their recommendations. He asked if = those recommendations had been incorporated into the plan. Mr. Maynard said he incorporated t= heir recommendations into the plan set as the design was completed. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the on= ly waiver was the one recommended by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Maynard said through a convers= ation with Mr. Gowan, he became aware of four instances where the 100ft.x150ft. b= ox encroached into the setback. = He reviewed such with the Board.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To accept the subdivision reques= t for consideration.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gowan said the subdivision would now be submitted = to Stantec for review.

Mr. Maynard requested date specifying the plan to a me= eting in March, 2008 after Town Meeting. He said the applicant would ‘re-vamp’ the plan if the Op= en Space Ordinance passed.

The plan was date specified to the March 17, 2008 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-118 MAGARIAN DEVELOPMENT, LLC – Sherburne Road – Seeking 6-mo= nth extension of approval of a 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District Crossing

Mr. Dadak 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.

Mr. Doherty and Mr. Dadak recused themselves from the discussion.

Mr. Gowan said the project had been approved by the Pl= anning Board on March 8,= 2007. He said what the applicant didn= 217;t know was that if a plan (once approved by the Board) had been signed and recorded within six months the plan would become null and void. He asked the Board to consider ext= ending the timeframe to one year. He recommended that the Board re-approve the plan subject to all the condition= s of March 8, 2007. He said he had asked the applicant= to provide the Board with an update/status report of where they were regarding= the approval conditions. He sugge= sted that the Board grant a six-month extension based on the entire list of conditions from the March 8, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Tim Watson of Cuoco & Cormier and Mr. Ken Maga= rian met with the Board to discuss the extension request.

Mr. McNamara asked for the status of the state approva= l for the community water supply system. Mr. Watson said they were currently working with their water enginee= r to have the system fully designed. He said they were working on the state portion of such. They had submitted to the state and received preliminary well approval (September, 2006). A sustained yield test was perform= ed (during a 48 hour period – starting at 9am August 29, 2006 through = 9am August 31, 2006<= /st1:date>)- abutters within 1000ft. had been notified.= Mr. Watson said quite a few of the abutters had allowed them to place monitoring devices in their wells. Copies of the report were provided to the Board.

Mr. Watson provided the Board with an update regarding= the status of the pending permits. Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Watson had an idea of the timeframe to get the approv= als back. Mr. Watson guessed that= they could get the permits back and submitted back to the Town within the six-mo= nth timeframe, barring anything unforeseen.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Dennis Casavant, 15 Blackstone Circle who was within= the 2000ft. area of the development. He discussed the water situation of the area.= He said the concern was with the magnitude of proposed homes and the continued supply of water to the area.&nbs= p; He noted there were other subdivisions in the area as well which wou= ld make over one hundred potential families drawing off the ground water. Mr. Casavant said he was speaking = for several residents and was sure if he and Mr. Dadak expanded upon the information in the area they could get quite a committee together for conce= rns regarding the well situation. Mr. McNamara said the Board was aware of the difficulties in certain area of th= e Sherburne Road area. He asked Mr. Casavant i= f he was aware of any of the problems that existed during the water test. Mr. Casavant said during the August-September dry spell he ran his well dry using a reasonable amount of water. He said it recovered t= he next day. He said several nei= ghbors had experienced water outages throughout the last several years, but didn’t know if it was an impact from what was done in August. He said well water was a very subj= ective process. He said they may not= have an impact now, but after several years’ use of community water systems from developments in the area would take ground water away from the area.

Mr. McNamara said in front of the Board at this time w= as a plan that was already approved; they were simply waiting for approval from = the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’). He said if there were problems to = be documented the abutters may be better served to direct them directly to DES= .

Mr. Paul Dadak, Sherburne Road asked for the status of= the DES approval for the community well. Mr. Watson believed they had received conceptual approval. The draw down test was done in Aug= ust, 2006. People within 1000 feet= were given notification some of whom had data loggers in their wells; information from such was contained in the report submitted to the Board. Mr. Watson said there were only a = few houses that experienced a drop, but they were significant.

Mr. Gowan addressed the overall issues in the area and= the monitoring that occurs.

Mr. Dadak noted that when he took the zone of influenc= e from the proposed project and the Mopar project, they criss-crossed right over h= is house. He said there was a lo= t of water that would be drawn out of the ground and he would like to have some = when the community wells were done.

Mr. Casavant questioned his recourse if in the future,= once the wells were drawing, if there was an impact. Mr. McNamara said if there were pr= oblems in the future it would be a civil matter.&= nbsp; He said it would be question of proof. He said the applicant was acting w= ithin all the conditions laid out by the Board and the state.

There was further discussion regarding the type of guidelines the applicant would need to follow. Mr. McNamara said it appeared that= the applicant had made a good faith effort to comply with the conditions of approval.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To grant a six-month extension f= or the Virginia Woods Senior Housing Project pursuant to the conditions that were attached to the Planning Board approval on March 8, 2007 and which have b= een summarized in an attached letter to the Board dated December 14, 2007 from Cuoco and Cormier.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Doherty and Mr. Dadak returned to the Board.

Map 40 Lot 6-185-12 & 14 NIETUPSKI, Franklin & NIETUPSKI, Frederick & Deborah – Irene Drive – Proposed Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. Dadak 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.

Mr. Haverty informed the Board that he was not an abut= ter, but resided on Irene Drive= . There were no objections to Mr. Ha= verty remaining seated with the Board. He indicated that he had no monetary interest in the proposal.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herbert Associates, representing = the applicant, discussed the proposed lot line adjustment. He said the applicant would like to build a duplex on lot 12, which had the required 200ft. of frontage, but was just under the required two acre lot size.= By the lot line adjustment the applicant was looking to transfer 956= SF from lot 14 to lot 12. Mr. Aspinwall said they had cited the original state subdivision plan. Lot 14 had been submitted for an updated approval, which had been granted in 2007. Mr. Aspinwall showed the Board the location of the lot line adjustment. He said lot 12 would be 2.00 acres= and lot 14 would= be left with 1.83 acres. He noted there were three waivers being requested: 1) Section 10.04 – site specific soil mapping; 2) Section 10.03,g – wetland delineation; and = 3) Section 11.11, 2 – radius within 15ft. building setback.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Dadak) To accept the plan for considerati= on.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that the duplex lot being created = would contain an excess of 55,000SF of contiguous high and dry buildable area. Mr. Aspinwall said it would. Mr. McNamara asked if the property= had been subject to any prior variances, land use restrictions or easements. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes; there = was a 20-foot drainage easement within lot 12 that ran on the northwest line (bet= ween lots 10 and 12). He believed = there was a culvert that went down the center of the easement. Mr. McNamara confirmed that by app= roving the lot line adjustment, the lots would be in conformity with all zoning requirements. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.04 – site specific soil mapping.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Section= 10.04 – site specific soil mapping.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

-------------------------------------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03, g – wetland delineation.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To approve the waiver to Section 10.03,g – wetland delineation.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

--------------------------------------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Dadak) To accept, for consideration, the wa= iver to Section 11.11, 2 – well radius to extend into the 15ft. setback.=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Section 11.= 11,2 – well radius to extend into the 15ft. setback.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

------------------------------------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To approve the Lot Line Adjustme= nt.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DISCUSSION=

Roads to be considered for acceptance at Annual Town Meeting: Bear Hill Road, Bluejay Drive, Arl= ene Drive (Extension), Kathleen Drive, Irene Drive (Extension), Litchfield Circle (Extension), Susan Drive, Fineview Drive, Diamond Hill (Extension)

Mr. McNamara explained to the Board members that the Planning Board was given a list every year of roads that had ‘over-wintered’, which was one of the Town’s requirements= for acceptance of a public road. = He said the Board recommends that roads be placed on the ballot for acceptance= as Town roads if they have ‘over-wintered’ to the satisfaction of = the Highway Road Agent and the Planning Director. He then read the list of roads aloud.

Mr. Gowan noted if the Board recommended the roads for placement on the ballot, the warrant would include a detail description suc= h as the inclusion of the map and lot numbers.&= nbsp; He said this was the discussion phase, the Board could make a motion= to accept the list of roads and make a final recommendation at the January 24, 2008 meeting. He said the Board co= uld also wait until the January 24, 2008 meeting to make a motion. He said he would be able to addres= s the specific roads at the next meeting. He didn’t foresee problems with any roads.

MINUTES RE= VIEW

December 17, 2007

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dadak/Montbleau) To approve the December 17, 2007 meeting = minutes as written.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty voted no.

DATE SPECIFIED PLAN – March 17, 2008

Map 4 Lot 9-138 STADTMILLER, Marie – Tallant Road – Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision & Seeking Special Permits for 6 Wet= land Conservation District Crossings

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Dad= ak) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:38pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. L. Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary