PB Minutes 01-03-2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 3, 2005

The Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Henry DeLuca, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Raymond Brunelle

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-119 – Asored Realty Trust – 7 Main Street – Proposed Parking Lot and Internal Expansion of Office Space

Mr. Chris DeRosa, Trustee for Asored Realty Tr= ust provided the Board with revised plans.&nbs= p; He said he was asked by the Town if it was possible to re-route the parking to make it easier for fire apparatus to access the rear of the building. In an attempt to do= so, he began working, but was told by the Town to stop until Planning Board review. Mr. DeRosa said the occupant of the Town’s property was concerned about further impacts to the property (regarding water in the basement). His engineer reviewed the concern = and reported that the slope of the property went away from the Town property and therefore would not further impact drainage. He said there was also some concern regarding screening the parking lot to the First Congregational Church; he = said he didn’t want to do so and noted he was only trying to do what he had originally been requested to do. Mr. DeRosa said he was not expanding the parking but was looking to replace an equal amount of parking spaces with those taken out.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the second floor tenant= had designated parking. Mr. DeRosa answered no. He said there wa= s a single person occupying the second floor whose schedule was opposite to the hours of the business. Ms. Ouellette questioned if there would be an impact if the tenant changed to h= ave two vehicles and was home during business hours. Mr. DeRosa said it would be uncomm= on for a real estate office to have everyone present at the same time. He reiterated that he was not seek= ing to expand the parking, but rather to ease the traffic flow. He didn’t feel that addition= al parking was needed, if it was, he would have presented an expansion plan si= nce there was room on the lot to additional space.

Mr. Culbert reviewed Mr. D’Andrea’= s concerns beginning with the access/circulation concern at the entrance area (6 spaces along property line). Mr. DeR= osa said the spaces had been reduced to three spaces to allow for clear access = from Main Street<= /st1:Street> along the building – there would be 18 parking spaces. Mr. Culbert asked if a waiver woul= d be submitted for the parking requirements (30 spaces). Mr. DeRosa said the building was pre-existing and was only shifting the parking spaces to accommodate emerge= ncy access. Mr. Culbert asked if = the Fire Department’s 18foot fire lane had been accommodated. Mr. DeRosa answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea understood it h= ad been accommodated. Mr. Culber= t said clarification was needed regarding square footage of front office space. Mr. D’Andrea believed the no= te on the plan had been clarified. =

Mr. D’Andrea said a question had been ra= ised regarding the existing leach field and if it was located in the area of the proposed parking. Mr. DeRosa = said the leach field was located in the back area and he had found the clean out. He said he contacted the person who installed it, but they did not know the exact location. He said he tried to build around t= he clean out area. Mr. Culbert questioned where the leach would be located if the current one failed. Mr. DeRosa said he would put it in= the building setback. Mr. Culbert= said the 4K area should be shown. =

Mr. Culbert said there was a question regarding lighting. Mr. DeRosa said he = had not changed the lighting and was not proposing any additional lighting.

Mr. Culbert had issue with the fact that the l= each field (or alternate area) was not shown.&n= bsp; It was noted that the plan was a modification of the site (commercial use), not a change-of-use. Mr. D’Andrea said the previous plan called out the landscaping requiremen= ts for screening, but the new plan did not.&n= bsp; Mr. DeRosa said there was no previous screening and was going to gra= ss the area. Mr. D’Andrea = said with a new paved parking area the site plan regulations would need to be me= t, which required screening.

Ms. Bousa had a concern with the perpendicular parking spaces at the west corner of the building and felt one should be removed. Mr. DeRosa said those parking spaces were pre-existing with no problems. He said he had spent approximately $30,000 and felt at this point, the building should go back to how it previously was.

Mr. Danevich was okay with the plan and had th= ree comments: 1) show approximate location of leach field on the plan; 2) writt= en waiver request for parking Section 248-32 of Site Plan to reduce from 30 to= 18 spaces; 3) third parallel parking spot in front should be removed. Mr. DeRosa asked if the Board woul= d hold it against him if he removed one of the spots in front because it would the= n have one less parking space than the previously existing area. Mr. Danevich said the parking waiv= er would take care of it and the Board would not hold it against him.

Mr. McNamara said drainage was discussed at the last meeting and curbing was suggested.&nb= sp; He questioned if it had been further reviewed. Mr. D’Andrea said the existi= ng condition (slopes) were not being proposed to change. He still felt screening for the new section would be a good thing. Mr. McNamara agreed (especially because Steepletop Nursery/Kindergarten was loc= ated beside the parking area). He = also felt landscaping in the front of the building should be addressed and wante= d to see the location of the septic shown on the plan.

There was no public input.

Mr. DeRosa addressed the screening and said he wasn’t planning on screening the side, other than landscaping and add= ing sod. He said at the front of = the building he ran a sprinkler system and added sod. He said he would be satisfied with= a conditional approval and would show the approximate location of the leach field; would submit a written waiver for the number of parking spaces; and would remove the third parking space in the front of the building (so the parking spaces would total seventeen spaces). A majority of the Board members wa= nted the back area buffered to Steepletop. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the regulations provided a choice for screening, either a fence, or planting. Mr. Culbert said the Board was requesting a buffer between the back parking to the church. There was further discussion regar= ding the Board’s request for screening.&n= bsp; It was clarified that the screening area was the back portion of the parcel between the parking lot and the church (shown on the original plan as twelve dots) which would need approximately ten bushes.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve the plan with the fol= lowing conditions: 1) plan updated to show the approximate location of the leach field (based upon the applicant’s recollection); 2) waiver request submitted to Section 248-32 to reduce the parking spaces from 30 spaces t= o 17 spaces; 3) remove and update plan so show the third parking space (in the front) removed; and 4) add landscaping for the ten/twelve designated ‘dots’ on the plan only between the church playground and the parking lot.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

= Map 33 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-46 – Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Si= te Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

Ms. Cheri Driscoll and Mr. Carl Melanson met w= ith the Board to discuss their proposed site plan. Ms. Driscoll said they had address= ed a few items as discussed in the past by the Planning Board. She said the first item was to hav= e the Variance re-granted, which was done November 8, 2004.&n= bsp; The next step was to have the Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer Roland Soucy review the property; after speaking with him they weren’t sure if they could take the existing building down and rebuild within the existing footprint. Mr. D’Andrea said if they wanted to rebuild in the existing location, it would require a variance because it didn’t meet the setbacks and beli= eved that the original variance required that the building be brought up to code. Mr. Melanson said the conversation to build a new structure centered more on the construction of = the existing building (not the cost to build a new structure). He said the concern was the materi= al under the flooring and it would be easier to meet the codes with a new structure. Mr. Culbert said t= he Board was only to review the submitted plans and determine if they meet the regulations.

Ms. Driscoll informed that they were in the process of having the plan redone with regard to the Board’s past recommendations (which were put on hold until the Variance was re-granted in November). She said the Depar= tment of Transportation was contacted and questioned if a permit was needed for t= he ingress/egress to Mammoth = Road. She was informed if there was not = change in the access configuration that no permit would be required; however if the configuration of the on-site traffic changed, a permit would be required. Mr. Culbert said the traffic would= be changing.

Mr. Danevich didn’t feel the Board had anything to discuss until the site plan was updated and the comments from t= he last meeting were incorporated into the plan. Mr. Culbert said the applicant sho= uld submit an extension. There wa= s a brief discussion and the applicant was informed they had an option to either date specify the plan, or withdraw it without prejudice (fees would need to= be paid).

Mr. Culbert said if the plan was date specifie= d it was understood that the applicant would come in with an updated plan that addressed all the concerns. M= r. Danevich said if the applicant decided to change the plan they should stay = in communication with Mr. D’Andrea on the Board’s behalf.

The plan was date specified to April 4, 2005.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 8-89 – Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road<= /st1:Street> – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for acceptance review

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. She noted that one abutter’s address was incorrect and did not physically receive notification, however = they were present for the hearing. Mr. Patrick Gendron of 35 Wood= Road agreed that he was present, aware of the meeting and what it entailed and t= he Board may go forward even though he was not properly notified.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented th= e plan to the Board. He said approxi= mately six months ago the Board received a conceptual design and provided comment;= the applicant was now coming before the Board with the official subdivision plan and requesting that the Board take jurisdiction. He reviewed the plan and noted tha= t two waivers had been requested: 1) traffic study; and 2) 75 foot details of existing condition. In summar= y he said it was a simple subdivision with an extension of a roadway. He said there would be a wetland crossing for which they have applied for a special exception, but not yet h= ad the opportunity to meet with the Conservation Commission. He said comments had been received= from Mr. D’Andrea as well as Dufresne-Henry (Town engineer) and had no iss= ue with the comments and would be prepared to address such at a later submitta= l.

Ms. Ouellette questioned the small squares off lots 8-= 86-12 & 13, 62 & 69 that didn’t appear to be connected to anything. Mr. Gospodarek said= in order to get to Balcom Roa= d (and to add a right-of-way) lots 62 &69 would have to be acquired land (which was already part of the submitted application).

The Board had not yet received the comments from Dufre= sne-Henry (Town engineer). Mr. Gospodar= ek said their comments were quickly ‘turned-around’ and received o= n December 31, 2004.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Jaswant Moorjani, = 18 Balcom Road, was against the connection to Balcom Road<= /st1:address> and submitted a letter written by Ms. Marie Kania who was also against the connection. He said his neigh= bors Mr. Cliff Hayes and Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Dias were also against the connec= tion to Balcom Road. Mr. Moorjani said they purchased t= heir home in 1983 specifically because it was on a dead end street.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud the letter submitted = by Ms. Marie Kania, 13 Balcom= Road who was against the connection to Balcom Road. <= /span>

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue said there were conce= rns regarding wetlands that had been filled on the property. He said there was a small paved ar= ea in front of his house off Rita Avenue that in the past was used to truck sand = out; he didn’t want it used for a second access and noted that the state o= wned it (and only he had permission to use such). He questioned if the existing hous= e on page four (lot 8-89) (that had some of the land merged into the subdivision) fell under the regulation of a single family home. He said several families resided i= n the existing home which was an on-going enforcement issue. Mr. McManus continued his referenc= e of page 4, near lot 8-89 (a ‘pie-shaped/triangle’ piece of land) w= hich referenced in its deed that the bounds went with Tina Avenue; however the deed to the property that goes with the Town does not incorporate the ‘triangle’. He sa= id the applicant was using it without a deed.&nbs= p; Mr. D’Andrea said he brought it to the Board’s attention that lot 8-87 was owned by the Town. He believed the piece being referenced by Mr. McManus was a part of = lot 8-20. Mr. McManus said he wou= ld like a stipulation on the plan that the developer was not allowed to remove= the sand out (because in the past when sand has been taken demolition materials have been brought in as a replacement).&nb= sp;

Ms. Trisha & Paul Pellerin, 5 Tina Avenue, said their concern w= as the area behind Tina Avenue that had previously been cleared and was an issue with the state. She asked if anything could be done regarding the status. Mr. Cul= bert said if it was not part of the subdivision, nothing could be done. Mr. D’Andrea said the Depart= ment of Environmental Services (‘DES’) had been in contact with Mr. Ploof. Mr. Culbert suggested = that the Pellerins contact DES and request to be copied on correspondence. Ms. Pellerin asked what the traffic study would entail such as Tina, Rita and Balcom. Mr. Culbert said those streets wou= ld be included and doubted that the traffic study would be waived by the Board. <= /p>

Mr. Jon Rickards, 8 Tina Avenue asked if the develope= r had permission to go under the power lines.&nb= sp; He said they were currently using the area to access the existing ho= use; there was a gate (on Tina = Avenue) that remained open. He noted = that power had been brought to the back. Mr. D’Andrea noted that lot 8-88 was private property to which= the power company had an easement; confirmation (of any restrictions) of the easement (in terms of putting a road in) would be needed.

Mr. Scott Bowden, 42 Balcom Road, understood that the= re was concern that lot 8-87 was a conservation area purchased by the Town and que= stioned if there had been resolution. Mr. D’Andrea said lot 8-87 was owned by the Town, however, the Assessing records show the ownership to be Mr. Ploof. He said a long time ago the land w= as dedicated to the Town; somehow Mr. Ploof purchased the property a couple ye= ars ago from some people; the Town’s attorney has been in contact with the Title Attorney. As far as Mr. D’Andrea knew, the Town= owned the property. Mr. Bowden said= past Tina Avenue= there was an area that was heavily filled in with stumps and said the location should be determined to avoid the = area for construction and future problems.

Mr. Pat Gendron, 35 Wood Road said if the subdivisio= n went forward he requested a right-of-way to his property (lot 8-85). He said the property had frontage = onto Route 38, but was sectioned (separated) by a wetland making it so there was= no way to access the back. The p= arcel contained approximately thirty-one acres; with approximately ten of which b= eing swamp land.

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, = 71 Dutton Road asked if the wetland= being shown was Golden Brook, which was prime and would therefore be an adjacency issue that DES would have to review. Mr. Gospodarek shook his head yes.&= nbsp; She said there may be a problem if Mr. Gendron wanted to cross the wetland. She ended by bringin= g it to the Board’s attention that there was a problem with agendas being posted since the area for posting was not enclosed.

Mr. Carl Carpult, 2 Lynwood Circle= questioned how the abutters list was determined. Mr. D’Andrea said an abutter= s list is determined by State statute and within 200 feet of the proposed subdivis= ion.

Mr. D’Andrea said there were some items = that were minor in nature (with the exception of the waiver of the traffic repor= t); the plan is ready to be accepted for consideration.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Danevich said if the Board didn’t ob= ject he asked the Chairman to request a formal traffic study. He said there were no traffic stud= ies on file from the area. He asked = the applicant to update the abutters list with respect to lot 8-85 (Mr. Patrick Gendron). He said access need= ed to be provided to lot 8-85, which is a fairly large parcel. He said lot 8-211 was discussed du= ring the Board’s July 8, 2004 meeting and noted that it was a land-locked Town owned property that should have some type of access provided. Mr. Danevich believed Conservation Commission review was important and comment should be forwarded to the Board due to the prime wetland aspect. He felt the applicant should have the opportunity to respond to Dufresne-Henry’s comments before the Board went any further.

Mr. McNamara noted that the applicant was proposing to donate $750 in lieu of open space but felt the Board would ‘miss the boat’ if the Board didn’t consider some sort of open space with the project. = He said once the land was developed it would be gone forever and suggested possibly a buffer to the wetland or some sort of open space. Mr. Danevich said there was an opportunity for open space with lots 14 & 15 which were in the 100-year flood plane and would be a nice contribution to the Golden Brook conservati= on area.

Ms. Ouellette said she would like to see physi= cal proof of ownership on all of the questions raised. Mr. Culbert said any contested own= ership had to be fixed before an approval was granted.

Ms. Bousa reviewed lot 8-88 (with the existing house) and didn’t feel that it had 200ft. of frontage. Mr. Gospodarek said she was correct. Mr. Culbert asked if= lot 8-88 was an approved lot. Mr. Gospodarek was unsure. Mr. D’Andrea said lot 8-89 and 8-88 was being combined into one (7 acre) parcel.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request regarding 75 feet of existing conditions.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver for the traffic study.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To deny the waiver request for t= he traffic study.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ms. Bousa suggested, and the Board agreed, tha= t the extent of the traffic study should include both ends of Balcom Road and Rit= a Avenue as they intersect Route 38; the intersections at Rita Avenue. Tina Avenue= and the newly created as they intersect Balcom Road; levels of service; traffic counts and si= ght distances.

The ‘time clock’ of the application was discussed. Mr. Gospodarek believed they could meet the March 7, 2005 deadline. He said lot 8-87 had nothing to do with the subdivision; he clarified that the applicant was Pelham Estates, Inc. and Mr. Ploof was not involved in the subdivision.

The plan was date specified to the March 7, 2005 me= eting. At which time the plans/concerns s= hould be reviewed by both the Planning Director and Dufresne-Henry and the applic= ant is to meet with the Conservation Commission who in turn has to provide comm= ents to the Board prior to the March 7, 2004 meeting. =

Ma= p 36 Lot 10-110 – Gerald Gagnon, Sr. , Woodview Development Corp. – = Garland Drive – Site Plan for Proposed Lot Development Plan for Appletree Estates

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

Mr. DeLuca stepped down.

Attorney Bernard Campbell of Beaumont & Campbell Professional Service (Salem, NH), representing the appli= cant, met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan. He said when the Appletree Estates subdivision was first approved, a dispute arose about the land in question = with regard to a required dedication for open space; a court action (appeal to Superior Court) was brought (in 2002) and settled in the fall of 2002. The settlement stipulation was att= ached to information provided to the Board. He reviewed paragraph 2 of the settlement that reads that a revised = subdivision plan (including the agreed upon wildlife corridor) shall be recorded at the= Registry of Deeds (#32416 – May, 2003). The next paragraph of the settlement says that lot 10-361-01 shall n= ot be buildable until site specific approval granted by the Planning Board. Attorney Campbell said there were some stipulati= ons to the settlement, such as the deed for lot 10-361-01 shall make provisions for no-cut zones/wildlife corridors; the wildlife corridor is to be marked ever= y 25 feet and not be open for public use. He said subsequent to the stipulation, in April, 2004, Woodview Development filed a request to divide lot 36-10-110 into two parcels which was denied = by the Board on May 17, 2004; the denial was appealed by Woodview and currently pending in the Hillsborough County Superior Court. He said pursuant to an agreement w= ith the attorney for Woodview and Town Counsel, the appeal was put on hold pend= ing the return to the Board for site specific approval (of proposed plan); Woodview= has agreed if the approval was obtained, the pending appeal for the two lots wo= uld be dropped and they would not pursue subdividing the premises. Attorney Campbell said there was a meeting with = the Planning Director to determine how the paragraph contained in the stipulati= on could be implemented; the suggestion was to do a site plan application for = the specific items on the plan; Mr. D’Andrea has reviewed and the draft w= as changed based upon the comments. The applicant was seeking approval of the house, septic and well locations so a permit could be issued and the appeal for the subdivision co= uld be withdrawn with prejudice. = Attorney Campbell ended by suggesting that the Board may want to incorporate the stipulations that:= 1) the deed for the lot includes easement provisions and prior to a certificat= e of occupancy being issued that the wildlife corridor be marked.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Bousa) To accept the plan for consideration.

=

VOTE:

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

After an earlier conversation with Mr. D’Andrea, Mr. Danevich understood that the site plan was in order and there were no outstanding issues. Mr. D’Andrea asked that the stipulations of the original agree= ment (Exhibit B) be reviewed. Atto= rney Campbell had no information regarding the design other than the conversation of the Board w= hen the bond was release a couple weeks ago.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert said there were issues with the loam and seed. Mr. D’Andrea said it would h= ave to be included in a stipulation (and Exhibit B). Attorney Campbell said there was a supplementary signed agreement that Woodview would be going back out to some of the house= s and doing additional work; the agreement committed that it was subject to the b= ond still being held.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Andrew Landry, 19 Garland Drive opposed the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He discussed the location of the proposed driveway. Over the thirty-five years of residing in his home there had been a number accidents= in the area of the proposed driveway and the telephone pole to its left; sever= al times the injured parties were taken into his home for assistance. He said traffic speed was an issue= . He said he also opposed the plan b= ecause of the location of the septic being in close proximity to his property line. Mr. Landry asked the applicant to provide five reasons why a developer would build a house near a swamp. Mr. Culbert said if th= e land was owned and the lot was buildable the owner was allowed. Mr. Landry felt the Board should re-think allowing houses near swamps. Attorney Campbell noted that the Town required a 50foot wetland conservation setback from any mapped lines. He said the dri= veway location was maintaining compliance with the Town’s regulations to ma= ke sure it didn’t cut through the WCD.&= nbsp; Mr. Landry requested that the driveway and septic be moved. Attorney Campbell explained that Woodview, the T= own and a judge previously imposed no-cut areas on the lot making it impossible= to move the septic and driveway.

Mr. Culbert asked if the first part of the driveway was crossing a WCD. Attorney Campbell answered no. Mr. D’Andr= ea said it was beyond; on the prior plan it was an issue, but it has been corr= ected. Attorney Campbell scaled the driveway at approxi= mately 63 feet from the wetland.

Mr. Henry DeLuca, 16 Garland Drive said he knew an agreement was made to re-grade and lower the street approximately three yea= rs ago. He discussed the speed l= imit and recalled that if the road wasn’t lowered the speed limit would ha= ve been decreased; however, since the road was lowered the reasoning was that = the 35mph speed limit would remain. He informed that the lawns had not been taken care of, but the developer said = they would take care of them. Mr. = DeLuca reviewed the stipulation (#4) and liked the wording ‘no permits shall= be issued until the Petitioner has resolved the issues and completed work in accordance with Petitioner’s agreements with the individual land owne= rs Exhibit B.’ Mr. Danevich said t= he Board had no jurisdiction to overrule a judge and said #4 (no permit issued until the work is completed) would be part of any approval; per court order, action could not be taken until work completed.

Mr. McNamara asked if the house location was specific to the area. Attorne= y Campbell understo= od from the stipulation that the house location had to be shown; site specific. Mr. McNamara asked if the driveway location had been reviewed by the Police or Fire Departments. Mr. Culbert answered no. Mr. McNamara questioned the grade = of the lot (driveway location). Mr. D’Andrea said it followed the contour line. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the se= ptic location was site specific with enough clearance from the side lot. Mr. D’Andrea said the state required a 10 foot setback.

Mr. Danevich made a motion to conditionally approve the plan as follows: 1) (stipulation #4) No permits shall be issued until Petitioner has resolved the issues on Garland Drive relating to the slope, 35 mph design, sight distance, and has completed work in accordance = with Petitioner’s agreements with the individual landowners on Garland Drive. Those individual agree= ments are attached hereto as Exhibit B; 2) The deed for Lot 10-361-01 will make provisions for the no cut zones/wildlife corridors; 3) The wildlife corrido= r on Lot 10-361-01 will be marked every 25 feet to be sure there is no disturban= ce of the corridor, and not to open these areas for public use.

Mr. McNamara seconded the motion and said he unfortunately had to vote in favor of the plan; he felt the developer took advantage of the Board and Town when he developed the property. He didn’t feel that the Boar= d was left with a lot of choice and the work that had not been done over the past three/four years showed the lack of good faith by the developer.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve the plan with= the following conditions: 1) (stipulation #4) No permits shall be issued until Petitioner has resolved the issues on Garland Drive relating to the slope= , 35 mph design, sight distance, and has completed work in accordance with Petitioner’s agreements with the individual landowners on Garland Drive. Those individual agr= eements are attached hereto as Exhibit B;

2) (stipulation #5) The deed for Lot 10-361-= 01 will make provisions for the no cut zones/wildlife corridors; 3) (note #1= 4 on plan) Prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy, the wildlife corridor = on Lot 10-361-01 will be marked every 25 feet to be sure there is no disturb= ance of the corridor, and not to open these areas for public use.

=

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich made a formal request to Mr. D’Andrea to submit a request that the Selectmen re-review the 35mph; = to provide notice of judgment to the Selectmen and Town Council.

Mr. DeLuca returned to the Board.

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-97-2 – Dallaire, Frances &= amp; Lever, Jim & Dawn – Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposed two-lot subdivision to the Board. He noted that a wetland went throu= gh the center of the parcel and in order to avoid the wetland there was a high/dry area to the east which is where the house, 4K and well would be located. The driveway would access through = Campbell Road. He believed the comments from the Town’s engineer were minor in nature.

Mr. D’Andrea believed there was a zoning issue with the frontage; the property had 200ft onto Dutton Road and the driveway (due t= o the wetland location) was being provided via an easement accessing a private ro= ad. He said per the definition of fron= tage in the ordinance, the frontage on Dutton Road was not providing ‘access’ to= the lot. Mr. Culbert said the Boa= rd had addressed situations such as this in the past and weighed in favor of ‘what made sense’, however he could not remember coming off a private road. Mr. Gospodarek = referenced a subdivision plan that was reviewed in 2002 where an easement was left (by Maynard & Paquette) specifically to access the lots currently being reviewed. He provided the Boa= rd with a copy of the warranty deed which described the easement. He said they could bring a drivewa= y in and cross the wetland. Mr. D’Andrea reviewed the deed. Mr. McNamara said the proposed conflicted with the Zoning. Mr. Danevich said the Board had no= t been consistent with its application of this section of zoning. Mr. McNamara was concerned that the Board would be approving a non-conforming lot. There was a brief discussion to determine if the proposed lot should be sent to the Zoning Board. Mr. Danevich questioned if the plan needed Conservation Commission review for any wetland crossings, adjacency = or prime issues. Mr. D’And= rea said there were no such issues with this plan. He said if the proposed plan was s= ent to the Zoning Board then any similar plans would need to be sent as well to consistently interpret the Zoning Ordinance. The Board agreed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, = 71 Dutton Road was happy that the B= oard was going to send the plan to the Zoning Board due to the 100ft. frontage.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She didn’t think Conservation review should be precluded since the slope of the land lead to the Little Island Pond Watershed area. M= r. Danevich said the total frontage was 202+ feet; so the only action by Zoning Board would be the driveway access. Mr. Culbert said he would be in favor of the driveway access coming = off Campbell Road, rather than crossing the wetland.

Ms. Ouellette referred to the deed and questio= ned if a shared driveway was being proposed.&n= bsp; Mr. Gospodarek answered yes, based upon the original approval and to avoid crossing the wetland. M= r. D’Andrea said a waiver request and indemnification would be needed.

It was Mr. Gospodarek’s understanding th= at the Board was requesting him to go to the Zoning Board regarding the drivew= ay access then come back to the Board to address Mr. D’Andrea’s is= sues bringing a waiver request for the driveway. Mr. Culbert answered yes. The applicant was willing to provi= de an extension to the = April 4, 2005 meeting.

The plan was date specified to the April 4, 2005 me= eting.

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-62 – Draco Homes, Inc. – Rear lan= d to 1560 Mammoth Road in Dracut – Proposed 4-Lots to be situated in Pelham rear land to subdivision in Dracut, MA

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abut= ters.

Mr. Jerry Lussierre of Draco Homes, Inc. met w= ith the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision. He said the subdivision being revi= ewed was already approved in Dracut= , Massachusetts. He said it abutted the Pelham bord= er for approximately 1100 feet. He s= aid the proposed subdivision showed a sliver of land from lots 21,22 & 23 a= nd a piece of opens space land as being in New Hampshire.

Mr. McNamara asked if the development would be accessed from Mammoth Road= . Mr. Lussierre said the development= would be built and accessed solely from Massachusetts. Mr. McNamara noted there was a rig= ht-of-way. Mr. Lussierre said the right-of-way showed up on the Town tax maps, but when the title was searched it appeared= to be owned ‘fee-simple’ by Mr. Coravos.

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich confirmed that there would be no driveway access or improvements on the Pelham side. Mr. Lussierre answered no. He said it would just be backland.= Mr. Danevich asked if they would a= miable to a stipulation added to the plan that specified no improvements would be = made on the Pelham side. Mr. Lussi= erre believed there was already a note that specified such; he said if there wasn’t already, a note could be added that stated all construction and improvements to the lot would be done in Massachusetts. Mr. Danevich asked if an as-built = could be provided to the Town prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Lussierre answered yes. Mr. Danevich also wanted to ensure= that lots 21,22 & 23 would not be deemed separable, buildable lots. Mr. Lussierre said he understood.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara asked if taxes were paid (to Pelh= am) on the portion of properties located in Pelham. Mr. Danevich answered yes.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Danevich made a motion conditioned upon: 1) note #37 amended to include that the access and improvements to the subdivi= sion will be solely on the Massachusetts side, not in Pelham; 2) an as-built is to be pr= ovided to the Town of Pelham prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy= to demonstrate that that all the improvements remain in Dracut, Massachusetts;= 3) the areas of lots 21, 22 & 23 that are situated in Pelham, New Hampshire sh= all not be deemed separable, buildable lots.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara seconded the motion.&n= bsp;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara)= 1) note #37 amended to include that the access and improvements to= the subdivision will be solely on the Massachusetts side, not in Pelham; 2) an as-built is to be provided to the Town of Pelham prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to demonstrate that that all the improvements remain in Dracut, Massachusetts; 3) the areas of lots 21, 22 & 23 that are situated in Pelham, New Hampshire shall not be deemed separable, buildable lots.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.



PU= BLIC HEARING

Pl= anning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to place the follo= wing roads on the Warrant to be accepted as Town roads: Golden Brook Drive, Beno= it Avenue Extension, Hancock Lane, Priscilla Way Extension, Gauthier Road, Jonathan Road, Kopers Lane, Dodge Road, Herrick Circle, Arlene Drive, Honey Lane, Robin Road

Mr. Danevich reviewed the roads and provided a brief status. He said there w= ere no outstanding issues with Go= lden Brook Drive, Benoit Avenue Extension, Gauthier Road, Jonathan Road, Honey Lane = and Robin Road.= He said that Arlene Drive had been pulled becaus= e the final pavement had not been completed.&nbs= p;

Hancock Lane had an engineering oversight (one end of = the drainage pipe was higher than the other end); a verbal agreement had been entered into with the developer to correct the situation. Mr. Danevich said if the Board was willing, it could be placed on the ballot; if by Deliberative Session there= was no signed (fully executed) agreement and bond in place, it could be removed from ballot.

Kopers Lane, Dodge Road and Herrick Circle had known drainage issues; the owner had verbally agreed to complete the work. Mr. Danevich said these roads could also be placed on the ballot; if= a signed (fully executed) agreement was not done by Deliberative Session, the roads could be removed from the ballot.

Mr. Danevich discussed the outstanding issues = with Priscilla Way Extension and noted there was no verbal agreement for the improvements; mainly regarding a guard rail and specifically what was built= and what was on the plan. He did = not support placing this road on the ballot until the safety concern was corrected. If there is no agr= eement in place by the Deliberative Session, it would come off the list.

Mr. McNamara questioned who would ensure that = the agreements/bonds were in place. Mr. Danevich said Mr. D’Andrea and Town Administrator Tom Gaydos would be tasked with ensuring agreements were in place. He said with the transition of Pla= nning Directors and Engineering firms, the Selectmen (this year) had intervened w= ith the status.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To recommend the following road= s for placement on the ballot: Golden Brook Drive, Benoit Avenue Extension, Gauthier Road, Jonathan Road, Honey Lane and Robin Road and also including Hancock Lane, Kopers Lane, Dodge Road, Herrick Circle and Priscilla Way E= xtension provided a signed/executed agreement/bond is in place by the Deliberative Session, or these shall be removed from the ballot.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DI= SCUSSION

Te= mporary Uses – deferred to Work Session

Mr. Danevich informed the Board that they would need to address the point at which fees were collected for items such as engineering review. Mr. D’Andrea discussed the current process.

MI= NUTES

December 20, 2004 - deferred.

December 27, 2004 - deferred.

DATE SPECI= FIED APPLICATIONS

March 7, 2005

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 8-89 R= 11; Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for acceptance review

April 4, 2005:

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

Map 30 Lot = 11-97-2 – Dallaire, <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Frances & Lever, Jim &= ; Dawn – Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30p.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