PB Minutes 7-19-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 19, 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, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Vic= tor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Henry De= Luca, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

PRESENTATION

GIS Demonstration, = Nashua Regional Planning Commission

Mr. Ryan Friedman of the = Nashua Regional Planning Commission met with the Board and gave a presentation of = the Geographical Information System (‘GIS’) and what benefits it wo= uld provide to the Town. He revie= wed the type of data inventory that GIS currently included, and how it could be expanded to include specific information important to the Town. He also reviewed the componen= ts of GIS. GIS is broken up into ‘layers’ – 1) reality; 2) lines (streets, rivers, utility lines); 3) polygons;= 4) points (locaters that can be anything). Data sets for municipal use can inc= lude: Assessing, Community development and planning, public works, environmental, emergency management and Town information.= Mr. Friedman outlined the detailed features for each of the data set= s.

The Board discussed the b= enefits that GIS could bring the Town. Mr. Danevich reviewed the aspects needed to maintain the system. He also discussed the practical as= pects of GIS that would be applicable to specific departments.

Mr. Culbert thanked Mr. F= riedman for the presentation.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Applicants Gary and Johnn= ah Demone (17 Turtle Rock Roa= d, Windham, NH) met with the Board to discuss their application. Ms. Demone noted that updated plan= s, outlining the exact specifications of the lot (including the parking spaces) had been submitted to the Town. Mr. De= mone noted that the parking spaces in the wetland had been removed; the dumpster= was also moved. Mr. Demone said he spoke with the Town Health Officer Paul Zarnowski and Fire Chief E. David Fisher.

Mr. D’Andrea said no correspondence was received from either the Health Officer or the Fire Chief. However he had spoken = with Paul Zarnowski who confirmed that a revised septic design had been approved (but not received). He said a condition for approval (receipt of the septic design) would be appropriate.= He said he had not heard from the = Fire Chief.

Mr. Demone said the under= standing they had with the Fire Chief was that once the plan was approved they would meet with him, walk the grounds, and comply with whatever he wanted. Ms. Demone pointed out that they h= ad received a check list from the Fire Chief of requirement that would have to= be met (i.e. gas burning installation, sprinklers, pipe controls). Mr. Culbert said as part of the Board’s approval they would want a letter stating that everything met with the Fire Chief’s approval.

Mr. Yarmo asked if the pl= an showed the existing conditions, or improvements on the existing conditions. Mr. Demone said t= he plan showed the existing conditions.

Mr. Danevich understood t= hat there was a question regarding the pavement. Mr. Demone explained how the pavem= ent was currently configured that was an existing condition. Mr. Danevich discussed the items t= hat would be conditions for approval (1. receipt of letter from Health Officer,= 2. receipt of letter from Fire Chief).

Ms. Bousa noted that a pa= rking waiver would be needed because the required parking spaces were not met. The plan showed twenty-two (22) sp= aces; the requirement is twenty-nine (29) spaces. Mr. Demone said they were reducing= the amount needed if the building were to be solely retail. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the waiver. Ms. Bousa said she would be satisfied if a waiver was submitted.

There was no public comme= nt.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Bousa) To acc= ept, for consideration, a waiver request for Regulation 248-32 to reduce the numbe= r of parking spaces from twenty-nine (29) spaces to twenty-two (22) spaces, as long as the condition was with the restaurant.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Bousa) To app= rove the waiver request for Regulation 248-32 to reduce the number of parking spac= es from twenty-nine (29) spaces to twenty-two (22) spaces, as long as the condition was with the restaurant.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the plan conditioned upon: 1) receipt of approved septic plan; 2) receipt= of written comment from the Fire Chief.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich noted that t= he conditions would have to be met before a Certificate of Occupancy was issue= d.

Ms. Demone thanked the Pl= anning Director and staff for their professionalism and assistance.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Sit e Plan Revie= w to re-open pre-existing variety store

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.

Attorney Mike Demers (fro= m the office of Attorney David Groff), representing the applicant, met with the B= oard to review the plan. Also pres= ent was applicant Carl Melanson. Attorney Demers said the applicant would like a waiver for: 1) topographical map; 2) vicinity sketch; 3) site specific soil map; 4) pave o= nly a portion of parking lot (not entire); these waivers, which are allowed und= er the regulations, would allow the operation of the store without a lot of changes. Mr. Culbert noted th= at the applicant would still need to adhere to the other Town codes. Attorney Demers answered yes.

Mr. Yarmo had an issue wi= th the safety of the entrance being in close proximity to = Mammoth Road and he felt it was dangerous. He also had an iss= ue with deliveries being made to the store, and believed there needed to be ei= ther a separate entrance for deliveries, or a tractor-trailer access plan for su= ch deliveries. He believed the entrance to the store should be in a different location (i.e. center of the store) so customers didn’t park their cars (to run into the store) wi= th their headlights shining into on-coming traffic. Attorney Demers said the applicant= had already contemplated moving the entrance and would explore the option if the Board wanted.

Mr. Danevich agreed with = the parking and delivery concerns brought up by Mr. Yarmo. He felt there should be a visual a= nd physical break (i.e. landscaping island) if the entrance to the store was to remain in the location shown on the plan.&= nbsp;

Mr. Yarmo said he would l= ike a lighting plan to ensure that light was directed and make sure there was no overflow into the neighbor’s windows and yard. Attorney Demers said there was an existing light in the island, on the corner of Bowley Drive and Mammoth Road and two (2) proposed l= ights on the island on the far side of the parking lot which were intended to be directed to the parking lot. = Mr. Danevich discussed the lighting that had been requested from other business= es and wanted to maintain consistency.

Mr. Danevich asked why th= e back half of the parking was proposed to be unpaved. Mr. Melanson said there were wetla= nds in the back, but had no reason for keeping it unpaved. Mr. Danevich said he was intereste= d in having the back area paved to make deliveries (of tractor-trailer trucks) easier and take the trucks off Mammoth Road. He said gravel didn’t hold up well and would be less mess and maintenance in the future. He= asked if the applicant objected to paving the 3308 square foot area. Mr. Melanson didn’t object to paving the area. Mr. Danevich requested that the area be paved to maintain consistency.

Mr. McNamara pointed out = that the entrance from Mammoth Road= was close to Bowley Drive<= /st1:address> and wanted to know if it was too close.&nb= sp; Attorney Demers said the entrance was existing and the applicant was attempting to maintain consistency with what was previously operated. Mr. McNamara said when the store w= as previously in operation, there was a lot of traffic entering and exiting wh= ich created a hazard particularly during rush hours. Mr. Melanson said they could close= the entrance from Mammoth Road= and only use the access from Bowley Drive.

Ms. Bousa asked the size = of the largest delivery truck. Mr. Melanson believed the Budweiser truck would be the largest. Ms. Bousa was concerned with truck access on an off the site and was unsure how trucks would circulate and turn around. She preferred to have= one driveway on and off Bowley= Drive. She suggested designating a loadin= g area for delivery trucks. She had = some concern with the handicap space and the potential for a van backing up into= the state right-of-way that could cause a problem with a customer entering. She suggested narrowing the drivew= ay to prevent anyone from exiting onto Mammoth Road. Ms. Bousa ended by saying she would like to see a landscaping plan because of the store being in a residential area. Attorney Demers said there were designated areas that were proposed to be lawn. Ms. Bousa asked if there would be = any shrubs. Mr. Yarmo was also in= favor of shrubs or a planning plan.

Mr. D’Andrea believ= ed most of his issues had been covered. He said the site plan regulations seem to address larger site plans. He questioned where the runoff wou= ld flow if the entire area was paved and asked that it be addressed. Mr. Melanson said the area was fla= t and didn’t feel drainage would be an issue. He said they had considered shrubb= ery and didn’t want to obstruct view.&nb= sp; Ms. Bousa said low-lying shrubs (three feet or less) wouldn’t obstruct view. Mr. Culbert be= lieved that the paving could be sloped to run off toward the back of the parcel.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Elaine Medieros, Bowley Drive, was concerned with trash, since it had been a problem when the store was previo= usly operating. She also noted that there was no outlet from Bowley other than onto Mammoth Road.

Ms. Svetlana Beloritsky, = 50 Mammoth Road, said the applicant was granted a Variance on March 10, 2003 (Case #2249), and questioned if it wa= s now expired because it was over a year old.&nb= sp; Mr. D’Andrea answered yes.&nb= sp; Ms. Beloritsky said the applicant would need to return to the Board = of Adjustment to seek another variance because they didn’t have a varian= ce to do the store. She said rem= oving the entrance from Mammoth = Road was contained in the variance, however she had seen updates to the signs, s= tore and lighting. She didn’= t like the fact that the entrance of the store would be in front of her dining room windows. She said shrubs had previously been discussed and the fact that the applicants didn’t have state approval for an entrance off Mammoth Road. Ms. Beloritsky said the area had changed over the last four or five years which she felt should be considered.=

Mr. Danevich questioned w= hat jurisdiction the Board of Adjustment had regarding landscaping. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe = that the Board of Adjustment placed a restriction regarding landscaping. Ms. Ouellette reviewed the Board of Adjustment meeting minutes from March 10, 2003 and believed that landscaping was an issue brought up and individual opinions were expressed. She then read aloud the Variance t= hat was granted on March 10, 2003 (Case #2249) which only made stipulations regarding building footprint not to be exceeded, no storage trailers, all building codes to be met and building to be brought up to code. Mr. Danevich said the Planning Boa= rd had the authority to continue discussion regarding landscaping. Ms. Ouellette said the only refere= nce to the entrance (for the Board of Adjustment vote) was one member gave a stipulation that there be one entrance onto Bowley Drive. Attorney Demers noted that the des= ign consideration (from the engineer) depicted on the plan showed the entrance = from Mammoth Road= and the exit onto Bowley D= rive. He said the owners (as indicated) = had always desired to have the entrance from Bowley Drive only.

Mr. Wayne Medieros, Bowley Drive said there were problems when the store was previously being operated with alcoh= ol being purchased and then consumed near the brook and the trash being thrown down the stream. He said he a= nd his wife would pick up the trash, which seemed to be more of a problem when the store was open. He questioned= what the hours of operation would be. He said there was a rumor that the owners were going to open the store and sub= let it to someone else to operate. He was unsure if someone else operating the store would have the same consider= ations for the neighborhood.

The Board discussed their preference for entrance and access; there was a there was a consensus to ha= ve a narrowed entrance from Mam= moth Road with an exit onto Bowley Drive. Mr. McNamara disagreed with such a configuration.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the following items that were discussed that would need to be updated: 1) proposed landscaping (to prevent customers from parking on the side of the building with lights shining into oncoming traffic); 2) detail for down-lighting (not to shine on abutters); = 3) because of being a commercial property - written comment/recommendations fr= om the Fire Chief; 4) store entrance noted on plan; 5) notes on plan for signa= ge (entrance/exit) including arrow indication (traffic flow) on pavement; 6) written comment from Health Inspector regarding adequacy of septic; 7) note= on plan for two entrances that have been narrowed; 8) notation of hours of operation; 9) pave the entire parking lot; 10) note on plan showing truck loading and unloading area; 11) request renewal of variance from Board of Adjustment; 12) receipt of Department of Transportation driveway permit.

Ms. Ouellette said the re= quested waivers would need to be submitted in writing. Attorney Demers believed the waive= rs had already been submitted, but would resubmit if necessary.

Attorney Demers asked for clarification regarding the Bowley Drive access.= He wanted to know if the Board wanted it to be and entrance/exit, or only an exit. Mr. Danevich sa= id there would only be an exit onto Bowley Drive.

There was a brief discuss= ion to clarify if the Board could accept the plan for consideration knowing that t= he applicant needed a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The following motion was made:

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara abstained.

The applicant requested an extension and the Board agreed. The plan was date specified to the September 9, 2004 meeting. =

MINUTES

July = 8, 2004 – deferred.

DATE SPECIFIED APPLICATIONS to September 9, 2004

Map 33 Lot 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Si= t e Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= 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