PB Minutes 07.07.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 7, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Gael Ou= ellette, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alte= rnate Selectmen Representative Hal Lynde

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Ken Dunne, Planning Director Wi= ll D’Andrea

Mr. McNamara informed that Mr. Yarmo would be a voting member for the proceedings.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 39 Lot 6-185 Breault – 9 N= oela Avenue – Proposed 2-Lot subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration

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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d the total acreage of the existing parcel was 8.4 acres (+ or -); one parcel would b= e 3.1 acres and the remaining would be 5.3 acres (containing an existing house).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said both lots complied with bo= th the zoning and subdivision requirements except one item required a waiver to Section 11.04, c, 1 (dimensions of 100x150SF). He noted that Gove Environmental h= ad done the soil and wetland mapping. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara noted that the Planning Director = had several acceptance items that were not listed on the plan. He read the items aloud. Mr. Zohdi had no problem adding the items to the plan, except that he didn’t know the location of the neighbor’s septic location but would do their best to determine it for the plan submitted for signature.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Yarmo) To accept the pla= n for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert said he didn’t have a problem with the waiver being requested because it was in the location of the exist= ing house.

Mr. McNamara said the parcel had been before t= he Board in the year 2000-2001, at which point it was denied. He asked Mr. Zohdi to comment on w= hat had changed since that time. = Mr. Zohdi couldn’t recall the exact language for denial, but believed it = was due to the road construction on Honey Lane and Robin Road. He believed the problems had since been rectified and Honey Lane was now a Town accepted = road. Mr. McNamara said acceptance of th= e road as a ‘Town’ road was one issue, but the other issue was a quest= ion of drainage. He read the deci= sion notice aloud. Mr. Zohdi reite= rated that the ‘drainage’ was the drainage on the road; the lots did = not have a drainage problem. He s= aid at the time, the catch basins, pipes and treatment swales needed cleaning and believed when the Selectmen accepted the road, they accepted the drainage on the road. Mr. McNamara asked = if it was Mr. Zohdi’s position that in terms of the properties that the drainage issue was not an issue. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the compliance items fla= gged by Mr. D’Andrea: 1) Section 10.04,c; 2) 11.04,c,1; 3) 11.01,b; 4) 11.11,c,2; 5) note # 9 – revised to delete ‘where required’. Mr. Zohdi said with regard to Arti= cle K, both test beds were reviewed by the Town Health Agent and have an approved septic design (approved by the Health Agent). He said the test beds were approved prior to requiring two test beds. He said they could dig another test bed.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Tim Fraize, Noela Avenue, pointed out that the abutter notification stated the property was located on Irene Drive (Map 40 Lot 6-185) and questioned if the abutters could be re-notified if there would be another meeting. He said a lot of peo= ple didn’t realize this was Honey Lane because the notice said Irene Drive. He said there were a few people th= at would have wanted to attend the meeting, but didn’t realize the locat= ion being discussed.

Mr. Zohdi said the plan and list of abutters w= ere sent to the Planning Department; the advertising is not done by him. He felt Mr. Fraize was correct and suggested that the abutters be re-notified by the Planning Department. Mr. McNamara said if notice was defective, than nothing discussed had any meaning. He felt it was prudent to re-notify abutters.

The application was tentatively rescheduled to= the August 15, 2005<= /st1:date> meeting with the expectation/assumption that the Planning Department could = redo the abutter notifications properly. Mr. Zohdi had no objection.

Mr. McNamara didn’t feel the Board should take any additional testimony due to defective notification.

Mr. Lynde asked if the lot would comply with Article K. Mr. Zohdi believed= it would, to the best of his knowledge.

Ma= p 17 Lot 12-245 Duquette/Carroll – 24 Old Gage Hill Road North – Proposed 2-Lot subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration<= /p>

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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d the parcel previously obtained a variance for frontage from the Board of Adjust= ment. He said they appeared before the Planning Board and the subdivision was approved. Since that time, there had been a boundary dispute between the neighbors, and the attorney used the plan of record from the Registry when appearing before the Board of Adjustment. When the boundary was being laid o= ut on the ground, there was shortage of frontage. Mr. Zohdi said the dispute between= the abutters had been rectified; they both agreed with the plan and indicated s= uch by signing the plan. A new va= riance had been applied for and granted (Case #2315). In summary the application was for= a minor change to a previously approved subdivision. He reviewed the sheets of the plan= .

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the transfer of the five-foot property to the abutter had been accomplished. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if the existing shed = had been removed. Mr. Zohdi answe= red no.

Mr. McNamara said there were previous conditio= ns that were supposed to be done. 1) removal of the existing shed; 2) adequate site distance for driveway; 3) no= te to be added to the plan stipulating no further subdivision of the lot per t= he Board of Adjustment variance approval, 4) state subdivision approval numbe= r to be added to the plan and 5) no-cut zone signs to be posted along the WCD bo= rder Mr. Zohdi said the driveway = site distance was adequate, they added a note stipulating no further subdivision= and the state subdivision approval. He said there was a note on the plan indicating the placement of the WCD signs, but they still had to physically be done.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara said the only remaining issue was the removal of the existing shed. Mr. Zohdi sugg= esting adding an approval stipulation that the shed be removed within a certain am= ount of time, or prior to the plan being signed.

= Mr. Zohdi discussed the land transfer.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Yarmo) To accept the pla= n for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Lynde questioned why the Planning Board had previously wanted the shed removed. He wanted to know how the Board could guarantee that the shed would = be removed. Mr. McNamara said the Board could add a time limit for removal.&= nbsp;

There was no public input.

Mr. Culbert questioned if the shed was functional. Mr. Dennis Duquet= te (applicant) came forward and informed the Board that the shed was two walls with a roof that he used as a storage area. He said one homeowner didn’t= like the view therefore, at the time he said he would take it down if the plan w= as approved. Mr. Zohdi said if t= he Board decided to approve the plan, a condition could be added that certification had to be provided that the shed was removed before the plan = went to the registry.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Yarmo) To approve the pl= an conditioned upon the existing shed being removed by August 15, 2005.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. Mr. Fred St. Louis, 97 Dutton Road said he purchased his property from the applicant four months ago and was not notified by the Tow= n of the meeting. He said he was w= ithin 200-feet of the property. Mr. Ouellette said Mr. St. Louis’ name was not on the original list. It was determined that Mr. St. Lou= is owned lot 11-92.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, withdrew the application without prejudice. The abutters would be re-notified.=

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 3 Lot 5-169-4 Buonarosa, Peter – 45 Dogwood Circle – Modification= to an Approved Subdivision Plan – Allow a driveway within a ‘no-cut zone – protected area for Bird’s Foot Violets’=

Mr. McNamara informed that a letter had been received from Grainger Engineering asking that the matter be postponed to t= he August 1, 2005 m= eeting because of new information and field work that would be necessary.

The application was continued to the August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-95 Pelham Plaza Corp. – Jose Hotdog – Pelham Plaza/Route 38 – Modification to a Site Plan – Proposed hot dog stand

Mr. McNamara said Mr. Danevich had informed the Board that there had been some correspondence with the Selectmen and legal counsel regarding the status of the site and felt it would help clarify the Board’s understanding if the Board had the information. He said Mr. Danevich was going to provide the Board with a summary or information, but had not yet done so. He asked Mr. Lynde if the issue ha= d been discussed. Mr. Lynde said he = didn’t have the information. He prov= ided the Board with his recollection of the situation. Mr. McNamara wanted to see the information (from the Selectmen) prior to making a decision. Ms. Ouellette questioned how the B= oard could review a site plan and apply the requirements to something that the Selectmen had classified as an itinerant vendor (or temporary business). She said she wouldn’t be abl= e to vote on it. She said the appl= icant had to decide whether they wanted to be considered as permanent or itinerant. Mr. Culbert said t= he Board was being asked to approve an itinerant area; the area was not define= d on the plan presented. He said i= f the same plan was presented, he would vote against it because it only showed Jo= se Hot Dog and picnic tables.

Mr. McNamara said because the Board hadn’= ;t received information necessary to proceed, he preferred to continue the discussion to the August 1, 2005 meeting. Mr.= Lynde said he would contact the Town Administrator to get the information to the Board.

Mr. Zohdi said the plan had already been submitted, and had not changed. He would like to work with the Board rather than the Board being upset that the plan had not changed. Mr. Cul= bert said the plan was submitted requesting that Jose Hot Dog be approved. He said the Planning Board was a l= and use board, not an itinerant/hawkers/peddlers license approval board. He said his issue was that the plan didn’t contain an itinerant area identified.

There was no public input.

The application was continued to the August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

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

Mr. McNamara believed a variance was needed and the matter was on the Board of Adjustment agenda for this month.

The application was continued to the August 1, 2005 m= eeting.

Ma= p 41 Lot 10-346 Armstrong, Kevin – Bridge Street – Site Plan Rev= iew – Proposed storage of logs in relation to a logging business

Mr. McNamara believed a variance was needed but the matter was not currently scheduled with the Board of Adjustment.

The application was continued to the August 1, 2005.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

DI= SCUSSION

Windham Subdivision – Connection to= Shelly Drive

Mr. Culbert said he would like to continue the discussion until the Planning Director was present. There was no objection. The discussion was continued to th= e July 18, 2005 m= eeting.

NR= PC Projects for 2005

There was a brief discussion. Mr. Culbert said he would like NRP= C to help the Board with codifying the regulations and writing a section regardi= ng performance bonding. Mr. Yarm= o said he would like the Town’s mapping consolidated.

The discussion was continued to the next meeting.

MINUTES

June 20, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Yarmo) To approve the June 20, 2005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Bousa and Mr. Lynde abstaine= d.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

August 1, 2005=

Map 3 Lot 5-169-4 Buonarosa, Peter – 45 Dogwood Circle – Modification to an Approved Subdivision Plan – Allow a driveway within a ‘no-cut zone – protected area for Bird’s Foot Violets’

Map 29 Lot 7-95 Pelham Plaza Corp. ̵= 1; Jose Hotdog – Pelham Plaza/Route 38 – Modification to a Site Pl= an – Proposed hot dog stand

Map 30 Lot 11-97-2 Dallaire, Frances & Lever, Jim & Dawn – Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot subdivision

Map 41 Lot = 10-346 Armstrong, Kevin – B= ridge Street – Site Plan Review – Propos= ed storage of logs in relation to a logging business

August 15, 2005

Map 39 Lot 6-185 Breault – 9 Noela Avenue – Proposed 2-Lot subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adj= ourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; 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