PB Minutes 6-21-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 21, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Henry De= Luca, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

ABSENT:

Peter McNamara, Bill Sc= anzani, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

CONTINUED NEW BUSINESS for Public Hearing

Map 17 Lot 13-37-33 – Songini, Robert – He= rrick Circle – Modification to an approved Subdivision –Proposed revision to a Wetland Conservation District boundary

Mr. Tim Ferwerda, Meridia= n Land Services, Inc., presented the plan to the Board that showed a reclassificat= ion of the wetland. He informed t= he Board that he was the Wetland Scientist who re-delineated the wetlands on t= he lot. He circulated a letter (= dated June 16, 2004) = from Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services which stated his agreement with the wet= land delineation on the plan. Mr. Ferwerda read Jim Gove’s letter aloud.

Mr. Danevich confirmed th= at the re-delineation would change the usable land from 1.0 acres to 1.21, which w= ould open up the area for the homeowner to be able to build. Mr. Ferwerda believed that the set= back would be changed. Mr. Danevich wanted the record to reflect that two NH Wetland Scientists signed off on t= he re-delineation of the lot.

There was no public input= , either in favor of, or in opposition to the plan.

Ms. Ouellette said there = was a waiver request in the file for all fees associated with application for subdivision approval (abutter fees would be paid). Mr. Danevich said the Board had ne= ver granted a 100% fee reduction, not even to non-charitable organizations. He said the Board had always maint= ained a $250 minimum.

MOTION:

(Danevich/DeLuca) To ac= cept for consideration, the waiver request for the reduction of application fees to zero.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/DeLuca) To de= ny the waiver request, as written, for the reduction of application fees to zero= .

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= reduce the application fees to $250, which would cover administrative costs.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= approve the plan for Map 17 Lot 13-37-33 for wetlands re-delineation request as submitted.

VOTE:

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

Map 35 Lot 10-328 – Kid= s N. Cribs/Heather Murphy – 100 Bridge Street – Change of Use – Proposed Daycare facility

Ms. Heather Murphy, 10 Loretta Avenue and Mr. Shawn Murphy, 4 Ch= agnon Lane, seeking a change of use (from a chiropra= ctor to a daycare) met with the Board to discuss their application.

Mr. Culbert asked if they= had received licensing from the state. Ms. Murphy said the Planning Board was their first step.

Mr. Danevich said traditi= onally a site plan depicted where items would be placed, such as layout, playground, fencing, traffic flow etc. Mr. Murphy reviewed the plan and said the traffic flow and playground would be = in the rear of the building. Mr. Danevich requested that the Board ask the applicant to update the site plan= to include the layout and address the Planning Director’s comments. At this point he didn’t feel= that the plan met the site plan requirements.&n= bsp; He reviewed some of the items on site plans addressed by the Board i= n the past regarding daycares. He suggested that the applicant discuss the items (safety items, traffic flow, playground etc.) with the Planning Director. Ms. Murphy said they handed the pa= cket into the Board a while ago and was told by the Planning Director that everything was in order and that they would receive an answer. Mr. Danevich said there were two portions to an application, one being the paperwork and making sure everyth= ing was in order to accept the plan for consideration, the second being a public hearing, which may bring out changes and other requirements. He reiterated to maintain consiste= ncy with other daycares, the site plan would need to be updated to include the topics of concern.

Mr. Murphy asked if the change-of-use would be decided during the present meeting. Mr. Danevich answered no. Mr. Murphy confirmed that Mr. D’Andrea would convey the issues.&nb= sp; Ms. Murphy said she was informed that everything was in order and th= ey didn’t need to bring anything more to the meeting since it would only= be a question and answer session. She was upset that the plan was being delayed since they had already been delayed. She said they should= have previously been informed that they needed more information.

Mr. DeLuca asked if the q= uestions could be answered. Mr. Murphy= said Ms. Murphy currently owned a daycare (with twelve children) 200ft. from the property, which would be increased to thirty-five children when they moved. The traffic flow was varied. Mr. DeLuca asked if t= he applicants had received the Planning Director’s comments/concerns. Mr. Murphy answered no. Mr. DeLuca provided the applicant = with a copy of the Planning Director’s concerns. Ms. Murphy questioned why they had= not been informed of the Planning Director’s concerns prior to the meeting. Mr. Culbert said he = would question the Planning Director. Mr. Murphy discussed his frustration that they were first informed that they didn’t need a change-of-use, and then they were delayed because they weren’t heard at the last meeting.&n= bsp; He said if they were aware of the concerns they would have had the opportunity to prepare.

Mr. Danevich said he woul= d like the site plan to be updated with the following information: 1) traffic flow= for in and out traffic that addresses the concerns of the Planning Director; 2) statement regarding parking and number of dedicated spaces; 3) playground n= eeds to be marked with the appropriate setbacks and distance limitations; 4) saf= ety review – ensuring that the site is free of any obstructions of safety. Mr. Culbert asked tha= t the lighting/wattage be addressed and to ensure that the septic is adequate for= the number of children. He said o= nce the information was obtained, the applicant should speak with Mr. D’Andrea to reschedule. Mr. Murphy noted that the lighting was already in place because there was alrea= dy an established business.

Ms. Bousa asked how long = the existing building had been in place. Mr. Murphy believed the building was in place since 1986

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Titus Plomaritis, 100 Bridge Street had owned the property since 1958. He informed that there were three access= es onto Route 38 and said the new building (had been there since 1983) was presently zoned for business and commercial. He said the designated recreation = area was already mapped out in the back landscaped area and protected by hemlock trees. He said they currently= had lighting. It was suggested th= at the applicant make a note on a plan that outlined the recreation area and lighting.

Ms. Bousa said the curb c= ut may need to be updated with the DOT if the driveway permit was written out for a specific use.

Mr. Murphy asked if there= were any other questions that would be asked.&n= bsp; Ms. Ouellette asked if the applicant had discussed with the state the specifications/guidelines for a daycare.&n= bsp; Ms. Murphy said she was familiar with the licensing and registration process since she currently ran a daycare and had previously been a daycare= director.

Mr. Culbert said once the information was gathered the applicant should contact Mr. D’Andrea for placement on an upcoming agenda.

Mr. Murphy said she asked= the Planning Director what questions would be asked and if the plan was sufficient. The applicants sa= id they were told the plan was sufficient.&nb= sp;

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Map 41 Lot 10-280 – Micolupoulos, Peter/Gary & Johnnah Demone dba Pizzaman – 30 Bridge Street – Change of Use – Proposed Pizza/Sub Restaurant<= /b>

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Applicants Gary and Johnn= ah Demone met with the Board to discuss their change-of-use application. Ms. Demone reviewed the plan and discussed that they were proposing a pizza place with a gourmet twist. She noted that there were other Pi= zzaman restaurants in the surrounding area. She discussed the proposed seating and noted with regard to parking, they used the Town guidelines. In total they would need nine parking spaces.= Ms. Demone noted that the parking spots were not previously defined = but the intention was to keep the spots in an orderly manner. She said per a conversation with t= he Town Health Officer, if the plan was approved, they were prepared to upgrade the septic according to what code dictates. The septic has been engineered, but would not be done unless the plan was to move forward. Ms. Demone then addressed the traf= fic and didn’t believe the flow would be changed, other than a possible reduction because there was a proposed bridal shop for the building. She said they would have a huge em= phasis on take-out/delivery.

Mr. Danevich confirmed th= at the current well would be used (and not changed). He said the well radius (75ft.) was outside the current parcel. M= r. Demone said the well would not change.&nbs= p; He noted that the shed to the left of the garage would be taken down= . Mr. Danevich asked if there were a= ny hazardous materials in the garage or the shed. Mr. Demone answered no. Mr. Danevich asked if the dumpster= would be in the location marked on the plan.&nbs= p; Mr. Demone answered yes. Mr. Danevich noted that the dumpster’s proposed location was within the WCD. Mr. Demone said the dump= ster could move, it was simply depicted in the area it previously was in. Mr. Danevich said the dumpster wou= ld need to be outside the protected WCD area.= He asked if there would be any changes to the lighting. Ms. Demone said there may be chang= es to lighting, but it would be contingent upon what went into the building.

Ms. Bousa wanted to know = if there were designated parking spots for the proposed businesses. Ms. Demone said the parking would = be contingent upon the tenants. = Ms. Bousa was concerned that there would not be adequate parking in the front of the building and didn’t think the parking spots in back were usable.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Demone said the parking in the= back could be used for employees. = He said since the plan was submitted, the parking lot had been redone and added approximately ten parking spots to the left of the building. Ms. Demone said the landscaping ha= d been revised. Ms. Bousa said the improvements should be added to the plan.&= nbsp;

Mr. Culbert asked if the = tattoo parlor and variety store were still in the building. Mr. Demone said the tattoo parlor = was gone and said there was only a cigarette shop. He discussed the parking and expla= ined that their business would require few parking spots with the proposed chang= e, even though ten extra spots were added.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert said the parking spots were not reflected on the plan.

There was no public input= , either in favor of, or in opposition to the plan.

Mr. Danevich said he woul= d like to see the following changes to the plan: 1) note regarding down lighting (speak with Planning Director for specifics); 2) dumpster location must be outside of WCD area ; 3) statement that there is no hazardous materials sto= red on property (or in storage sheds); 4) Health Officer review of septic for increased usage and make a recommendation if it needed replacement; 5) Fire Chief review and comment of property; 6) designate employee parking in back= of the building; 7) parking calculation note on plan that gets recorded; 8) pa= ved parking area outside of WCD; 9) update&nbs= p; landscaping and paved area to reflect actual site. Ms. Demone reviewed the list of it= ems to ensure she had each of them. = There was a review of what areas had been recently paved.

There were no waiver requests.

MOTION:

(Danevich/DeLuca) To ac= cept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich asked if a conditional approval would be entertained.= Three of the five Board members were not in favor of granting a conditional approval. The applicants were told once their plan was updated, they could request placem= ent on an upcoming agenda.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 9 Lot 9-2 – Jakon D= evelopment – Carlisle Lane – Request for bond reduction

Mr. John Swinarski of Jak= on Development noted that the owner of the property was Shannon Development. <= /p>

Ms. Ouellette said there = was a letter in the file that indicated that the original bond amount was $99,000; the current bond amount was $49,060; the Town engineer recommendation for reduction was $39,160; Planning Department recommendation for release was $= 39,160; total to be retained $9,900. =

Mr. Culbert asked if the = road had been accepted. Mr. Swinarski = said the pavement had just been put down and would need to go for one year. Ms. Ouellette read a letter a alou= d from TFMoran that indicated $9,900 represented 10% of the total project bond amo= unt that was to be held for one year. Mr. Swinarski said the road was paved in May, 2004.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Bousa) To red= uce the bond for Map 9 Lot 9-2 to $9900 based upon the recommendation of TFMoran = and the Planning Director – consistent with Section 15:03,c.

VOTE:

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

NEW BUSINESS

Map 16 Lot 13-84 – New England Pentecostal Ministries – 328 Gage Hill Road (Route 38) ̵= 1; Change of Use – Proposed Daycare

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Bishop Stanley Choate, New England Pentecostal Pastor, Pastor Ruth Choate New England Pentecostal Ministries, Pelham, New Hampshire met with the Board to discuss their application. Bishop Choate sa= id in 1999 they had made a request for an addition onto the church and in that request they made it known about their intention for a daycare. He said they had all the inspector= s come in, inspect and sign-off on the building.&= nbsp; There are a couple items remaining (window treatment cord and water temperature) that needed to be corrected before they received final sign-off. There is an area designated for a playground, which would need to be fenced in before it cou= ld be used; however, until such time, the Health Inspector said the gymnasium could be used for the play area because it contained adequate space. The traffic will flow in one direc= tion around the building for drop off and pick up.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud = a waiver request for the $200 used to cover the costs of the site plan application fees.

Mr. DeLuca asked if the p= lay area was scheduled to have a fence put in. Bishop Choate said the fence had not yet been scheduled. They had been informed that the gymnasium could be used as a play area until the fence was put in. Mr. DeLuca said before he voted, he would want a fence installed. Bishop Choate said they would like to seek approval based upon the g= ym area. Mr. Danevich noted that= the applicant met the current regulation with the space for the playground with= the gym.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the applicant would be certified by the state.= Bishop Choate answered yes. Ms. Ouellette asked if the state had reviewed the site and provided = an opinion on indoor versus outdoor. Bishop Choate said the Town’s Health Inspector had reviewed the site. Mr. Mark Choate, Manage= r, King’s Kids Daycare, informed the Board that they were currently in contact with the state and had received the appropriate forms and requireme= nts. He said the Health Inspector had reviewed and signed off on the gym (which was double the size of Sherburne Hall). He said to receive sig= n-off from the state, they didn’t have to worry about the outdoor play area. All the forms had been = filled out, the applicant was now seeking all the appropriate sign-offs.

Ms. Ouellette asked how m= any children would use the facility. Bishop Choate said they were working toward fifty children.

Ms. Bousa asked for an explanation of the traffic flow (one-way around the building). Bishop Choate said the building wa= s fire ready. He showed the layout o= f the building and explained that the parking lot behind the building was large enough for a turn-around; the fire lane could also be used for drop-off and pick up. It was noted that th= e fire lane was gravel and would be difficult to maintain for passenger vehicles.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert said the traffic flow = would need to be noted on the plan.

Mr. Culbert said the prop= osed playground was not shown on the plan. Bishop Choate showed the area of the playground, which was not denot= ed on the plan being reviewed by the Board.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert reiterated that the traffic flow (drop off and pick up) would need to be shown on the plan. The Fire Chief would need to review the design and approve the building. Mr. DeLuca said he = wanted to see where the playground area would be located. Ms. Ouellette wanted the plans that would show the areas used by the daycare and letter from the Fire Chief indicating he reviewed and was satisfied with the set up.

Mr. DeLuca clarified that= the Town’s Health Inspector had reviewed the building, but the state still needed to review. Bishop Choa= te answered yes.

There was no public input= , either in favor of, or in opposition to the plan.

Bishop Choate informed th= e Board that once the daycare was set up and going, they wanted to review the possibility of an after-school drop-off in the gym. It was noted that the applicant sh= ould make a note the plan. Once approved, the applicant would be able to use their property per the state parameters/criteria.

Ms. Carlisa Choate, who w= as certified by the state to be the director of the child care facility, quest= ioned the stipulation placed on them (that was against state law) regarding the number of children they could have at the facility. She said per the past notes/minute= s they were being stipulated to only have fifty children. She said they would like to have t= he number of children that the building could safely occupy in the future. Mr. Danevich was not aware of a stipulation being placed on the applicant by the Planning Board. It was noted that the discussion regarding the number of children had occurred at a Board of Adjustment meet= ing.

Ms. Choate said the dayca= re facility was not just daycare, but would also be a pre-school and kindergar= ten.

Mr. Danevich addressed the question regarding the number of children.= He said that the Board had no jurisdiction to place a limitation; the Town ordinance states up to the state maximum. He said he was glad that the inten= tion of a daycare was followed through (from five years ago). He understood that the Health Insp= ector and Fire Chief were ‘in the loop’.

Ms. Choate confirmed that= the remaining items needed for approval were 1) a revised site plan including traffic flow; and 2) fenced area for the outside facility. Mr. Danevich said he would also li= ke to receive a written statement from the Fire Chief stating that he had reviewed the plans and had no remaining issues.&nbs= p; It was noted that the state fire inspection form was not what the Bo= ard wanted. Pastor Choate asked i= f the Planning Board was the final board they had to address. Mr. Culbert answered yes.

Mr. Danevich said as soon= as the issues were addressed the applicant should contact the Planning Director to= be placed on an agenda.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= accept for consideration, the waiver request to waive the $200 cost for the site plan application fees.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/DeLuca) To de= ny the waiver request to waive the $200 cost for the site plan application fees.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried to deny the waiver request.

Map 35 Lot 10-318 – Acr= es Edge – 76 Bridge Str= eet – Modification to an approved plan – expansion of landscape business

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Mr. Ron Therriault, 31 Hobbs Road, met with the Board to discuss the modifications to the approved plan.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the= file and indicated that the applicant was meeting with the Board due to a violat= ion cited for unauthorized expansion of a site plan. The updates had been documented on= the site plan and circulated to the Board.&nbs= p; Mr. Danevich confirmed that everything was self-contained on the par= cel. Mr. Therriault answered yes.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Joe German, 90 Pelham Road (Bridge Street), co-owner of Dynamic Foundations, spoke in favor of the application. He said the beautification of the = site was enhancing the look at that section of Route 38.

Mr. Culbert said he would= like to walk the site. Ms. Ouellette agreed. Mr. Culbert asked if = there were any wet areas. Mr. Therr= iault said in the back of the property there was a small pond. He was unsure if it was a retention pond. Mr. Culbert asked who d= rew the plan. Mr. Therriault was unsure, but believed the previous owner may have drawn the plan. He added to the plan the changes t= hat had occurred. Mr. Culbert ask= ed how the Board could be sure the edge of wet depicted was correct. Mr. Therriault showed on the plan,= the location of the pond.

Mr. Danevich understood, = after speaking with the Planning Director, that the site plan was from the previo= us owner and the use is consistent with what Mr. Therriault is currently doing= , but it represents an expansion based upon a violation. He agreed with walking the site to ensure that the expansion didn’t encroach on the WCD area.

Mr. Culbert asked where fertilizers were stored. Mr. Therriault said he had grass fertilizers that were stored in a storage trailer. Mr. Culbert asked if= the Fire Chief had reviewed the site. Mr. Therriault said when he first opened, the site was reviewed to obtain a building permit; since that time the site had not been reviewed. Mr. Culbert said some fertilizers = were explosive and questioned if those on site were. Mr. Therriault said they had lawn fertilizer and believed they conta= ined approximately 3% nitrate. Mr. Danevich said it was the prerogative of the Chairman to request that the Fi= re Chief comment about a commercial site; also for preventative measures the o= wner should understand the amount of chemicals on site and be able to provide a written statement to such.

Mr. DeLuca confirmed what= changes had occurred to the building. Mr. Therriault reviewed his plan and explained they had cleaned the area up and= the sheds may have been pushed back.

Mr. Culbert said the jers= ey barriers looked awful. He sai= d the Board had in the past requested that applicants do landscaping. Mr. Danevich suggested reviewing t= he area during the site walk.

Ms. Ouellette questioned = if a certified plan should be submitted. Mr. Culbert said they would review during the site walk.

A site walk was scheduled= for July 8, 2004 at = 6:45pm.

Mr. Culbert said if a cer= tified plan showing the edge of wet could not be found, the plan would need to be certified. He said Mr. Therri= ault could ask the Planning Director if there was a plan on file.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Danevich) To= accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

DISCUSSION

Subdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access an= d Road Design

Discussion was deferred t= o a later meeting.

MINUTES

May 7, = 2004 - deferred to the next meeting.

SITE WALK – July 8, 2004 – 6:45pm

Map 35 Lot 10-318 – Acres Edge – 76 Bridge Street – Modification to an appro= ved plan – expansion of landscape business

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SE= SSION

MOTION:

Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (Consideration or negotiation of pending clai= ms or litigation)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Culbert – Yes= ; Mr. DeLuca – Yes; Ms. Ouellette – Yes; Ms. Bousa – Yes; Mr. Danevich – Yes

It was noted that when th= e Board returned, after the non-public session (and the non-public minutes were sea= led), the Board would not take any other public action.

The Board entered into a non-public session and adjourned the public meeting at approximately 9:30pm.

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

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A. L. Willis

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