PB Minutes 12-20-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

December 20, 2004

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

The acting Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:<= /p>

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Bill Scanzani, Alternate Bob Yarmo, = Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Henry DeLuca, Robin B= ousa, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

Mr. Yarmo voted in Ms. Ouellette’s absen= ce.

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Map 9 Lot 9-9 – First Realty Trust – Golden Brook Estates – Request= for Bond Release

Mr. Scanzani reviewed a letter submitted by TFMoran (former Town engineer) that stated they reviewed the as-built dated November, 2003 and received by the Town November 12, 2004 and found the followi= ng: 1) drainage system on the drawing is missing; and 2) as-build data including pipe line, slopes, invert elevation of the outlet pipe to the treatment swale. TFMoran indicated once the certifi= ed as-built had been revised, submitted and accepted by the Town the remaining bond for the project may be reduced. At this time TFMoran is not recommending a bond reduction.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Danevich) To deny the r= equest for Bond Release.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Map 36 Lot<= /st1:place> 10-110 & 361 V&G Development – Appletree Estates – Requ= est for Bond Reduction

Mr. D’Andrea said at the last meeting the Board had invited the engineer to come in and comment on the design regardi= ng an intersection.

Attorney Bernard Campbell representing the app= licant approached the Board to discuss the bond reduction request. He believed at the last meeting the Town’s engineer had recommended a bond reduction; there were some iss= ues discussed and a meeting held on site (with review engineer, Planning Direct= or and the applicant’s engineer representatives). He said there was one issue regard= ing grading property on Garlan= d Drive; his client has submitted an agreement (as requested by the Planning Department).

Mr. D’Andrea said an agreement had been entered into by the applicant and the homeowner; the applicant will fix the lawn area that was disturbed as part of the road reconstruction. Mr. Scanzani reviewed the agreement (received Decem= ber 16, 2004) that dealt with an abutter to the property that needed some rework done to = the loam and seed in the front of their property. He noted that the agreement had be= en signed by Woodview Development but did not see documentation that the abutt= er had accepted. Mr. D’And= rea said he had no knowledge if the abutter had accepted the agreement.

Mr. Scanzani read aloud a letter submitted by Andrew and Lois Landry, abutters to the property that had been assured by t= he developer that the ten to fifteen foot disturbed area along the front of th= eir property would be restored in a comparable fashion to that pre-development. The letter s= tated there were problems with the loam setting lower that the undisturbed area because it had not been rolled. They also noted a problem with the area not growing properly and roc= ks were now coming up through. M= r. Scanzani said when they were on-site the Landry property was not reviewed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said it seemed that the concerns would not be of a large financial nature and that the remaining bond could cover the work (if it were to be reduced to $60,614.06). Attorney Campbell noted that the agreement covered the Landry, Bryant and DeLuca properties and that Woodview Development was committed to re-landscape the properties, fine grading, loaming, adding loam as needed, roll and seed strip further defined as up to ten feet distance, the area will be finished such that the grade will match= the elevation at the top of the adjoining berm. Mr. Scanzani said the agreement al= so stated that the work would be completed by May 30, 2005.

Mr. Danevich believed that the $61,000 that wo= uld remain in the bond (based upon the engineer’s recommendation) would c= over any outstanding work.

Mr. McNamara questioned the drainage issue. Mr. Scanzani believed those that w= ere on the site would agree that the drainage would have to over-winter and be rev= iew and make a decision in the spring. He said there was some sheet drainage because of the roads and flow.

Mr. Danevich confirmed that the file contained= the backup documentation to reduce the bond to $61,000. Mr. Scanzani said there was a lett= er in the file that indicated their recommendation was to hold 10% which equaled = the $61,614.06).

There was no public input.

Mr. Yarmo recalled early in the process there = was an issue with a wetland violation or culvert being put in toward the southw= est end of the property that they had committed to repair. He asked for verification that it = was done. Attorney Campbell said his client indicated it h= ad been done a year and a half ago. Mr. McNamara questioned if anything had been filed with the Town. Attorney Campbell said his client indicated that= a wetland scientist and the former Planning Director had reviewed and the iss= ue was taken care of. Mr. Yarmo = said when the road was being cut into on Dutton there had been some wash outs and gravel and silt ended up in the wetland and questioned if there was any recourse. Mr. Danevich said a= road bond was specific. Mr. Yarmo = felt a road bond should cover any damage that was done due to road construction. At this point it was not determine= d if any damage had been done, but it was known that a significant amount of silt was in the wetlands. There wa= s a discussion regarding how a road bond could be used.

&= nbsp;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danev= ich/Scanzani) To reduce the current $181,842.19 bond by $121,228.13 retaining $61,000.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

PU= BLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS

Mr. McNamara opened the public hearing.

Item #1 – Amend Article IX Elderly Housing Sections 307-50, 51, 52, 53 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify/provide for/modify standards/etc.

Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, who is a member of = the Zoning Board of Adjustment, but was speaking as a resident commented on the proposed changes to the Elderly Housing ordinance. He suggested that the Board check = with the Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’) regarding the = underlying legal structure to allow for elderly housing. He said there were two Federal Regulations issued by Housing and Urban Development (‘HUD’), the first which the Town had adopted that states 62+ (which is a firm and rigid requirement that everyone in the house is over the age of 62); the second is 55+ which calls for up to 20% of the housing units to be inhabited by perso= ns below the age of fifty-five. = He didn’t feel that the Elderly Housing Sections could simply substitute= age 62 for 55. Mr. Hennessey then addressed the apartment/dwelling unit size and suggested that a ‘cap’ be placed on the square footage. He reviewed the proposed changes f= or Section 307-51,E (number of units) and suggested rather than 75% of the uni= ts allowed to be two-bedroom to compromise and allow 50% of the units to be two-bedroom. Mr. Hennessey sa= id he didn’t know what 307-52, C meant and suggested that 307-53,B (site pl= an) regarding open space felt the language should be tightened. He said the definitions (i.e. open space, passive recreation) should be better defined.

Item #2 - Amend Section 307-88.A of the Zoni= ng Ordinance to provide a more detailed description of the criteria necessary = to meet the ‘hardship’ criterion.

There was no public input.

Item #3 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that no lot= s of record, not just lots approved by the Planning Board, as of January 1, 1975 = shall be deemed undersized non-conforming lots. (or that lots of record that existed prior to planning board approval shall be allowed to build in compliance wi= th regulations)     <= /span>

Mr. Hennessey understood the purpose of the proposed language, but felt there had to be a minimum lot size, such as ½ acre. He felt abutte= rs should be given the opportunity to speak their feelings at a public meeting regarding the creation of a lot.

Item #4 – Amend Section 307-74.B of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size= of accessory dwelling units from a maximum of 500 square feet to 750 square fe= et.

There was no public input.

Item #5 – Amend Section 307-76.II of the Zoning Ordinance to define that the = sale of three (3) or more vehicles per year shall be considered a home occupation and shall not be permitted.

There was no public input.

Item #6 – Amend Section 307-90 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount= of fines imposed from not more than $100.00 to not more than $550.00 for each = day violations may exist.

There was no public input.

Item #7 – Amend Section 307-40.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to also allow well= s to be located within the Wetland Conservation District by the granting of a special permit.

Mr. Hennessey felt the WCD was the weakest par= t of the Zoning Ordinance and questioned why wells be added to a lengthy list of items that applicants no longer had to seek variances or special permits for.

Item #8 – Amend Section 307-69.LL of the Zoning Ordinance to limit temporary signs to specific lengths of time, require it be for special events, and require a permit for each sign.

Mr. Hennessey questioned if real estate signs = were included. Mr. D’Andrea = said real estate signs were not included in the definition of a temporary sign.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Hennessey suggested adding a t= ime limit that the temporary signs could be posted.

Item #9 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that areas within a WCD setback may be counted toward the minimum lot size.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Hennessey said the erosion of the WCD was ongoing. Mr. Danevich said the proposed language was to clarify; it was the opinion of a majority of the B= oard that the WCD was included as the minimum lot size. Mr. McNamara said the question was= if it should continue and believed it was a valid point. Mr. Hennessey suggested going to N= RPC for insight since the original WCD Ordinance was drafted with their help.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said he = was not aware of a surrounding town that didn’t allow the WCD to part of = the minimum lot size.

&= nbsp;

Item #10 – Amend Sections 307-28 and 307-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the removal from the Town’s above ground water resources or below gro= und aquifers more than 1000 gallons of water per day, unless said water is for = the purpose of redistributing that water to the landowners of Pelham.

Mr. Hennessey suggested if a protective posture was going to be taken toward the Town’s aquifer that the Subdivision Regulations also be changed to require new subdivisions to access/tie in to Pennichuck .

DI= SCUSSION(S)

Zo= ning Amendments

The Board decided to begin their review of the proposed changes starting with item #2.

Item #2 - Amend Section 307-88.A of the Zoni= ng Ordinance to provide a more detailed description of the criteria necessary = to meet the ‘hardship’ criterion. It was Mr. McNamara’s understanding that because the law had changed the Town was trying to make = its language consistent. There we= re no objections by the Board regarding the proposed language.

Item #3 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that no lot= s of record, not just lots approved by the Planning Board, as of January 1, 1975 shall be dee= med undersized non-conforming lots. (or that lots of record that existed prior = to planning board approval shall be allowed to build in compliance with regulations) Mr. Scanzani reviewed a portion of the Health Ordinance an= d in summary was not in favor of the proposed change so that people would have to have a public hearing for any proposed changes. Mr. Yarmo questioned if the wording allowed the public hearing to be avoided.&= nbsp; Mr. D’Andrea answered yes.&nb= sp; He said the question was what variance would be granted when an applicant went to the Board of Adjustment with a non-conforming lot since t= he ‘use’ conformed to all the criteria. There was further discussion and t= he Board decided to continue their discussion until more members of the Board = were present.

Item #4 – Amend Section 307-74.B of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size= of accessory dwelling units from a maximum of 500 square feet to 750 square fe= et. The Board discussed the proposed change, with no resolution, it will be further discussed at the next meeting.

Item #5 – Amend Section 307-76.II of the Zoning Ordinance to define that the = sale of three (3) or more vehicles per year shall be considered a home occupation and shall not be permitted. <= /i>Mr. D’Andrea suggested that the Board consider restricting auto related t= ype uses as home occupations. It = was noted that the state distinguished the sale of five cars as needing a licen= se to sell.

Item #6 – Amend Section 307-90 of the Zoning Ordinance to increase the amount= of fines imposed from not more than $100.00 to not more than $550.00 for each = day violations may exist. Mr. D’Andrea said it was brought to the Town’s attention by Counsel that there had been a change in statute; the current allowance is $250 per = day (to which the Town was not current). = The $550 is per the state statutes.= Mr. D’Andrea said there was a detailed process that would need= to be done to collect any fines.

Item #7 – Amend Section 307-40.A.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to also allow well= s to be located within the Wetland Conservation District by the granting of a special permit. Mr. D’Andrea said this first came up during a discussion with the Health Officer about wells and well radiuses.&nbs= p; In the Health Officer’s opinion the WCD would be a good place = to locate a well for its protection. He said some WCDs don’t have trees; on the other hand, the Boa= rd should consider that some areas have trees and cutting would occur to locat= e a well.

Item #8 – Amend Section 307-69.LL of the Zoning Ordinance to limit temporary signs to specific lengths of time, require it be for special events, and require a permit for each sign. Mr. D’Andrea said this was intended to go toward business signs. There was a brief discussion and M= r. D’Andrea was asked to draft language that would further describe the = type of sign and the length it could be posted.= The Board would further discuss at the next meeting.

Item #9 – Amend Section 307-13 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify that areas within a WCD setback may be counted toward the minimum lot size. Mr. D’Andrea said the qu= estion originally came up for him when reviewing the ‘usable land area’= ; in accordance with the WCD setback as counting toward the 35,000SF minimum. He said one side effect is that lo= ts are being created that show a 35,000SF area with a possible wetland that runs parallel through it so the building envelope area would be limited. Mr. Hennessey questioned how a per= son purchasing a home could be property notified that their lot would be limited with regard to expansion (such as a deck or pool etc.). Mr. Zohdi believed the WCD note on= the plan should be adequate notification; he was in favor of the proposed change. Mr. Scanzani said the= soil types/percentages would need to tie in to the proposed language. He noted the older requirements fo= rmerly in Article K were not there anymore. He said the intent/protection contained in the zoning and Article K = has been lost over the past few years. Mr. Yarmo felt the current wording put an undue pressure on the WCD = to be cleared. Mr. Scanzani beli= eved the language would clarify what was being done; and the Board would need to= go back to the Subdivision Regulations and put language back that was inadvertently removed, but thought to still be in place. Mr. Yarmo was concerned with impra= ctical lots being created.

&= nbsp;

Item #10 – Amend Sections 307-28 and 307-41 of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit the removal from the Town’s above ground water resources or below gro= und aquifers more than 1000 gallons of water per day, unless said water is for = the purpose of redistributing that water to the landowners of Pelham. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that = the Public Utility Commission (‘PUC’) ruled that Nashua, as part of their purchase of Pennichuck’ could not purchase the subsidies outside of the city (whi= ch included the wells servicing Pelham). He said if Nashua is successful in purchasing Pennichuck, the smaller pieces would not be included. He didn’t think the Town wou= ld want to force the connection to Pennichuck at this time.

Item #1 – Amend Article IX Elderly Housing Sections 307-50, 51, 52, 53 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify/provide for/modify standards/etc. The Board decided to hold off discussing until more Board members were present. Any proposed changes should be for= warded to Mr. Scanzani.

Mr. D’Andrea said the Board would need to have the final language for review by the next Public Hearing December 27, 2004.

Te= mporary Uses - deferred

Su= bdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access and Road Design - deferred

Ro= ads to be accepted at Annual Town Meeting

=

Mr. D’Andrea compiled a list of eligible= roads that had over-wintered that the Board should consider for acceptance. He said Honey Lane and Robin Road were also for considerat= ion, but were not included on the list.

Mr. McNamara read the list aloud: Golden Brook Drive, Benoit Avenue Extension, Hancock Lane, Priscilla Way Extension, Gaut= hier Road, Jonathan Road, Kopers Lane, Dodge Road, Herrick Circle and Arlene Dri= ve; Honey Lane and Robin Road were added. Mr. Danevich said the Selectmen understood that Honey & Robin wo= uld be added based on the work. <= /p>

Mr. D’Andrea said correspondence from Dufresne-Henry and TFMoran had been provided to the Board.

There was no public comment regarding Golden Brook Drive and Benoit Avenue Extension. =

Mr. J.R. Gauthier met with the Board to discus= s Gauthier Road, Hancock Lane, Kopers Lane= , Dodge Road,= Herrick Circle and Priscilla Way Extension. He b= egan by discussing Gauthier Roa= d and showed the Board a copy of the cross-section; there appeared to be a conflict between what had been done and what he was being asked to do. He was seeking the opinion of the = Board on how to proceed. Loam had b= een put down to the end of the road. Mr. Danevich didn’t have a problem with the loam being to the end of the road. He reviewed the additio= nal comments contained in a letter from Dufresne-Henry.

Mr. Gauthier said he was at a stale-mate betwe= en the work that was done and what was being suggested by the new Town’s engineer.

With regard to Gauthier Road, there was no objecti= on by the Board for the loam being to the end of the road; Mr. D’Andrea will verify that the submission/completion of: 1) as-build plans, 2) certified p= lot plan, 3) property bound right-of-way and 4) all silt fence removed.

Mr. Danevich addressed Priscilla Way and said the big issu= e was the guardrail and what was built (2-1 slope) versus what was on the plan (3= -1 slope). Mr. Gauthier said it = was 2.5-1. He noted that in the p= rocess of building the road, that portion was signed off on (by the former Town engineer), but now that the finish pavement was done the Town’s new engineer had comments. He sai= d they couldn’t correct it because they no longer owned the slope easement.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The area being discussed was 137ft. which would cost approximately $3500-$5500 to add a guardrail. Without homeowner consent, the slo= pe could not be altered.   M= r. Danevich suggested that the site be reviewed. Mr. D’Andrea said the Board = took action last year regarding roads during the first meeting in January. Mr. Danevich reviewed the other is= sues: 1) tree within the right of way; 2) silt fence; 3) man hole (noted that it = had been exposed); 4) letter from licensed surveyor that the right of way/prope= rty boundaries have been set; 5) as-built drawing; 6) guardrail.

Dodge Road, Kopers Lane and Herrick Circle were addressed. Dufresne-Henry noted that the wear course pavement must be removed and intersection overlaid at the intersecti= on of Koper and Youngs Road. Mr. Gauthier said there was a sect= ion of road that delaminated and they agreed to do the work with hopes they would = be able to recoup from CLD Engineers; the job was signed off on and now there = was a deficiency that was already signed off on. Mr. D’Andrea noted that ther= e was a history to the project and provided the Board with correspondence dating = back to October 22, = 2003; some of the issues were outstanding from that time. Mr. Danevich said the Selectmen ha= d been briefed regarding this from both Mr. D’Andrea and the Town Administra= tor; he suggested that the Board discuss at the next meeting. He reviewed the other issues as fo= llows: 2) loam and mulch subject to roadway centerline; 3) two overlay pavement pa= tches poorly matched slight depression – rubberized crack sealant has been added at the recommendation of the Town’s engineer; 4) fix driveway j= oint – Mr. Gauthier noted that this had been inspected. Mr. Danevich said he would work wi= th Mr. Gaydos regarding this point and would report back. 5) at intersection of Herrick and = Koper there is a puddle along the curb line, the pavement must be removed and rep= aved to prevent puddling. Mr. Gaut= hier said this was inspected and approved. 6) approved letter from licensed surveyor for right or way for all t= hree roads. Mr. Peter Zohdi of Her= bert Associates said he would provide. 7) as built. Mr. Zohdi said he h= ad already provided. 8) as-built= site distance at Kopers and Youngs deficient.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said when the subdivision was done approximately eight-ten years ago the Board reviewed the site distance before the subdivision was started. He said the Board was satisfied before the plan was approved.&nb= sp; He said the road placement location was reviewed by the Board and ag= reed to do the subdivision with the road in that location. He questioned if the Board was now asking him to certify the sight distance.&= nbsp; Mr. Danevich answered no. He said the request was to duly note the sight distance is deficient; it doesn’t say to fix it. = Mr. D’Andrea said there was one drainage issue with approximately 150ft. = in the area where the new section meets the old section with two abutting properties being affected. Mr. Gauthier said that issue had been addressed by the Town’s previous engineer; they constructed what they were told to and now the next engineer= ing firm says it’s deficient. He said the section of drainage was in an existing Town road (within the right-of-way) off the subdivision. He noted that Mr. D’Andrea has been working with Dufresne-Henr= y on what could be done to correct it. Mr. D’Andrea said soil samples and test pits had been done to determine what type of design would be adequate. Mr. Gauthier said even though this= is considered off-site, Mr. Herrick was willing to do the work and ‘wrestle’ with CLD (Town’s former engineer) later, howeve= r he would like the road approved.

Mr. Scanzani noted that some of the items went beyond maintenance bonds. Mr. Danevich asked that the Board allow him to work further with the Town Administrator over the next week.

The last road to be discussed was Hancock Lane. Mr. Danevich was unsure why the fi= rst comment ‘remove loam pile from edge of road’ was listed since it was a homeowner’s pile; the developer shouldn’t be held account= able. He then reviewed the other items: = 2) removal of sediment from treatment (station 700) permitted by notification – required application was attached. Mr. Gauthier disagreed. He said the ditch lines were built per stand= ard practice, there was a driveway put in too low and another driveway put in t= oo high (both were signed off by Town’s inspector); he said there was no= w a puddle in a driveway (inside the right-of-way) that now became his problem.= He said there was at standstill ab= out who owned the driveway. Mr. Danevich said he would review the issue.&n= bsp; 3) clean the 15inch pipe between left catch basin and station 700 to= the treatment swale. Mr. Gauthier= said all the pipes had been jet cleaned. 4) remove silt fence. = Mr. Gauthier said it was being done. 5) provide gravel from the driveway to the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gauthier said that was a homeo= wner issue that had been done. 6) = stone line ditch constructed along the property line between lots 16 & 17. Mr. Gauthier said it had been addressed. 7) letter from lic= ensed land surveyor that the right-of-way bounds had been installed. Mr. Zohdi said it would be done. 8) clean catch basin sumps. 9) as-built. Mr. Zohdi will provide. 10) address pavement problem on lo= t 17 driveway. Mr. Gauthier said t= hat was the puddle issue already discussed.&nb= sp; Mr. D’Andrea noted that there was another document dated December 14, 2004 regarding the as-built and the elevation.&= nbsp; He said Dufresne-Henry met on site and had a concern with one of the pipes. Mr. Gauthier explained= that when the gas line went through they were in the middle of building the proj= ect, everything got picked up, and so the road and drainage came up. The drain pipe between the two cat= ch basins didn’t get raised and it was okayed through the Planning Department; now that the finish coat of hot top has been done there is a problem. Mr. D’Andrea r= ead aloud the comments submitted by Dufresne-Henry. Mr. Gauthier said during last wint= er (which had record temperatures) there were no problems with freezing. Mr. D’Andrea said another co= mment was that the ditch line should be more defined.

Mr. Danevich said he would take the issues to = the Town Administrator (who had been active on these efforts). It was noted that the Board would discuss further at the December 27, 2004 meeting.

MI= NUTES

December 6, 2004- def= erred.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danev= ich/Yarmo) To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00p.m.

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Respectfully submitted,

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Charity A. L. Willis

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary