PB Minutes 04-17-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

April 17, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Paddy Culbert (arrived after the meeting commenced), Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Alternate Bob Yarmo

PR= ESENTATION

Pa= rk and Recreation Director Darren McCarthy – Presentation of 7-Year Master P= lan

Park & Recreation Director Darren McCarthy= and Nashua Regional Planning Commission (‘NRPC’) Regional Planner Danielle Fillis met with the Board to review the Park & Recreation Mast= er Plan. A power point presentat= ion was given that outlined plan. The plan contained the following: community description, recreational facilities inventory, recreational program inventory, budget, needs assessment and an action plan.

EL= ECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To no= minate Mr. Bill Scanzani as Planning Board Chairman.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzani abstained.=

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette)To n= ominate Mr. Peter McNamara as Planning Board Vice Chairman.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara abstained.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Bousa)To nomin= ate Ms. Gael Ouellette as Planning Board Secretary.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Ms. Ouellet= te abstained.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 14 Lot 4-85 To= wn of Pelham – Muldoon Park – 304 Mammoth Road – Pelham Little League to discuss proposal of adding a new field area= to park

Mr. Gowan said the plan was before the Board, not for approval, but for discuss= ion.

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

Mr. Ed Gleason, speaking as a private citizen, representing the Pelham Little League as the Player Agent, and Mr. George Saurman, representing Pelham Lit= tle League met with the Board to discuss a proposal for adding a new field area= to Muldoon Park. Mr. Gleason said there were 812 ch= ildren registered for the upcoming year and the proposal of a new field area would= be needed to continue the growth of the program; the Town would able to use the fields when not in use by the program.&nbs= p; Mr. Saurman discussed where the proposed field would be constructed. He said Town For= ester Dan Cyr would review the timber to be cut.= The current roadways would be able to be used for emergency access.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Saurman said the current trail system would remain. They wou= ld stay 50-feet from all wetlands; however, one dredge and fill would be needed for the access. There would b= e a 50-foot buffer zone between the park and the back neighbors. An area for additional parking was= shown on the plan. There may also b= e a donation to the Town that would enable there to be a second egress onto Nashua Road= (and into the park). The proposed lighting would be ‘down lighting’. There was a proposed foot path fro= m the field to the club house/bathroom facility.=

Mr. Gowan said he walked the site with Mr. Saurman, Mr. Cyr and Park & Recreation Director Darren McCarthy; everyone seemed to agree that the plan accurately depicted the site. He said at the site there was an agreement to eliminate the path to the vernal pool due to erosion. Mr. Saur= man said there was a vernal pool (classified as a pond) near the playground. The new plan showed a path to the = gravel access road providing a buffer to the vernal pool; the trail system would be re-diverted by 10ft.-15ft to better/higher land. Mr. Gowan discussed the timber and= noted that Mr. Cyr would review what would be removed. Mr. Saurman noted that the fields = would be used for girl’s softball. He said no trees would be removed within 50-feet of the wetlands; however there were some trees near the playground that Mr. Cyr recommended = to be removed.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the ‘down lighting’ would be on the same timer as the other field lights and that there was no plan to light the fie= lds at night. Mr. Saurman answered yes. Mr. Scanzani asked if th= ere was an ability to water the fields. Mr. Saurman said they planned on running a line from the existing wa= ter well (on the Babe Ruth field).

Mr. Domenico asked if the additional parking would help alleviate the parking o= n Mammoth Road. Mr. Saurman answered yes. Mr. Gleason said there should be no parking on Mammoth Road because it was a safety hazard state highway.

Mr. Culbert asked if plantings would be added near the vernal pool to discourage entering in the area. Mr. Sau= rman said something similar to what was currently there would be added. They weren’t planning on cut= ting any grass in the area.

Mr. McNamara asked what timeframe was being reviewed for construction. Mr. Saurman said they hoped to beg= in this spring so the fields could be ready for next year. He said they would work with the P= ark & Recreation Director.

Mr. Scanzani believed in the past, the Selectmen had reviewed having a second egress into the park. Mr. Sau= rman said the plan left a provision for a second egress open; it would need to b= e a separate plan. He said it was brought forward to the Selectmen at the time the gas line was being put in,= but due to the proposed cost (by Tennessee Gas) the discussion was deferred. Mr. Saurman said early in the proc= ess some people didn’t want to see any more development of Muldoon. He noted that he pulled a copy of = the deed (from the Registry) that contained language indicating that the park’s purpose was to have recreation areas. Mr. Scanzani asked if the proposed= plan maximized the park out. Mr. S= aurman said the plan would infringe on some of the walking trails, but there would still be a lot of land. He sa= id this was the highest, driest part of the land. Mr. Scanzani asked if there would = still be more room for additional fields. Mr. Saurman said the engineering hadn’t been done, but believed there was still room. Mr. Gle= ason said as the League grew/expanded, it would be one of his priorities (as a Selectman) would be to review other access to the park.

Mr. Gowan said there had been a conversation on site about the value on some of= the sand coming out of the site and possibly ‘bartering’ for materi= als to come back into the site. H= e said the Selectmen would need to be involved.&n= bsp; Mr. Saurman said no one knew the exact process but they were trying = to be pro-active by coming before the Board.&= nbsp; He said they would pull any necessary permits.

Mr. Dunne asked if there would be treed buffer between fields one and two. Mr. Saurman answered no, the area = would be cleared. Mr. Dunne asked if there would be stadium seating. Mr. Saurman answered no; the most important thing was to clear and grade the fi= elds and install a fence. Mr. Dunne confirmed that the project would be 100% financed by Little League. Mr. Saurman answered yes.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there was any other potential egress. Mr. Saurman said the best egress w= ould be behind the field, but someone would have to donate a section land because there was no Town owned land; the only person that had come forward (with a possible donation) was Mr. Phil Currier.

Mr. Culbert asked what the square footage of the fields would be. Mr. Saurman said the total square footage (including parking) was approximately 300ft.x700ft.

There was a consensus of the Board that the plan was good. There were no objections.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Doug Masson, 2 Mt. Vernon = Drive said he liked the plan, but was concerned regarding the parking; other surrounding abutters shared this concern.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said the Board had no say in the plan; it would be a decision for the Selectmen. M= r. Culbert said no new functionality would be added. Mr. Masson said he had no problem = with new fields, but noted that parking was a real problem and wanted it address= ed better than it was. Mr. Domen= ico asked that Mr. Masson’s concern be brought to the Selectmen. He said at that time the Selectmen= could possibly determine if there was additional area to accommodate additional parking. Mr. Gleason said by = adding the fields, the capacity would not be increased; the fields would provide additional facilities (and sustain the current numbers).

Mr. Dunne asked when Little League would go to the Selectmen for final approval. Mr. Gleason said it= was not yet scheduled. He said th= ey would request to be added to their agenda at the next Selectmen meeting.

Mr. Scanzani suggested that there be a bus shuttle from the Municipal Building<= /st1:PlaceType> on Opening Day.

Ms. Eleanor Burton felt it was a wise proposal to utilize the land and increase= the activities for youngsters. She commended the Little League for all they did in the community with no incre= ases to tax payers. She asked if t= he nature trails would remain. M= r. Saurman showed the existing trail and where the proposed new access would be located. He said they would be moving the access trail and incorporating it into the new trail and put a better buffer to the vernal pool.

Map 29 Lot 7-98 Rene-James Realty LLC (owner) R= 11; Hai Pham (applicant) – 122 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review of prop= osed Nail Salon

Mr. Gowan explained that = the applicant came in front of the Board because the proposed nail salon would = be a change-of-use. He then steppe= d down because he was an abutter.

The applicant was introdu= ced to the Board by Ann Livermore, their accountant for the past eleven years. Mr. Jim Scanlon (the owner of plaz= a) said he had received a permit to take everything out of the space formerly The M= alt Shoppe. He said the applicant= would put up three short walls, and add limited electrical and plumbing.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the Planning Director’s comments that indicated the Town’s Health Officer had reviewed and felt that the new business would have less demand = on the septic system than the old business.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani asked what t= he hours of operation would be and what signage would be installed. The applicant said the hours would= be Monday – Saturday from = 9am-6:30pm. Mr. Scanlon said there would be a lighted sign above the doorway and there would also be space on the sign ne= ar the road.

Mr. Culbert asked if ther= e would be any chemicals going into the septic that would be counter-productive to a septic. The applicant said th= ey would use a separate container for acetone used.

Mr. Dunne asked how many = patrons would be in the salon at one time. The applicant said they would have four nail tables and two pedicure stations; the maximum would be six patrons. Mr. Dunne asked why the applicant = wanted to come to Pelham instead of staying in Nashua (where their previous business was located). The applicant said there were too = many businesses in Nashua, so they came to Pelham, which had no nail salons.

Mr. Domenico asked where = the dedicated parking would be for the establishment. Mr. Scanlon said the applicant wou= ld have dedicated parking behind the building.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To ac= cept, for consideration, the limited site plan review.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Gowan, speaking as a = resident, was in favor of the business.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the limited site plan.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Gowan returned to the= Board.

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Coun= cil – Webster Avenue – Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n had previously come before the Board in a preliminary status and was now submit= ted as a full plan.

Mr. Paul Gildersleeve of = Cuoco & Cormier Engineering, representing Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Counc= il, met with the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision. He said the existing site was 305 = acres with steep and flat terrain and well drained soils. He said the site presently drained= to the middle where Island Pond Brook was located. The proposed subdivision (of approximately 12.14 acres) would be on the eastern side of the parcel towar= d Webster Avenue. He continued his discussion regard= ing the site, the individual lots and the drainage. An analysis was done for the 305 a= cres existing acres versus the 305 acres with the proposed development and it was found that both parcels came out with approximately 194 cfs; the impervious= ness didn’t really affect the drainage in overall Girl Scout camp when the nine lots were added. He said= the drainage put in would be for rooftop infiltration.

Mr. Gildersleeve said the= re were five waivers needed: 1) landscaping; 2) existing topography / wetlands R= 11; only did portion that affected the proposed lots (USGS maps and National wetlands maps used); 3) property boundary – they didn’t survey entire boundary line the tax map was used; 4) drawing scale; and 5) locus m= ap scale.

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he plan still had to be reviewed by the Town’s engineer.

Mr. Culbert asked for further explanation of the third waiver being request= ed (property boundary). Mr. Gild= ersleeve said they did a traverse that would isolate the property lines. He said the tax map was used as a = guide to show the overall surrounding area. Mr. Culbert asked if it was a ground topo. Mr. Gildersleeve said there was a = ground topo within a section of the parcel; the USGS was also used.

Mr. Scanzani asked that t= he waivers be submitted in writing because they were not found in the file.

Mr. Dunne asked for clari= fication regarding the number of lots being subdivided. There would be nine house lots; th= ere was one existing lot shown on the plan.&nb= sp;

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Eleanor Burton said s= he was unaware that the plan was coming before the Board and knew of other people = that would have liked to speak on the issue.&nb= sp; She said she was a member of the Spar & Spindle Council and also noted she was a member of the Friends of Runnels (who oppose selling any of= the property to the public). She = said in the 1970’s an additional 16 acres had been purchased to buffer the campers from the public area and they were disappointed there wasn’t = more creative ways for the Council to maintain open space. Ms. Burton asked if an environment= al study had been done. Mr. Gildersleeve said they did a study of the endangered species. Ms. Burton said there was concern = regarding impacts and the endangered species in the area.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding notification. Ms. B= urton said the Friends of Runnels should be notified.

Mr. Gowan suggested accep= ting the waivers for consideration and date specifying the plan for one month in ord= er to give time for engineering review.

Mr. Culbert asked if ther= e were any issues with sight distance. Mr. Gildersleeve answered no. Mr. Culbert asked if there was 35,000SF of contiguous high and dry for each lot. Mr. Gildersleeve answered yes. Mr. Culbert said he woul= d like to see the information regarding the 35KSF (usable area) on the plan.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara noted that t= he plan contained no open space. Mr. Gildersleeve said there had been a previous discussion, and it was left up = in the open, therefore the applicant was leaving it up to the Board to decide about open space. Mr. McNamar= a said it wasn’t the Board’s function to design a plan. Mr. Gildersleeve said he was hopin= g that during engineering review, they may come up with an option.

There was a consensus of = the Board to request and Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’). It was understood that the plan ne= eded to be reviewed by the Town’s engineer. Mr. Scanzani believed open space s= hould be discussed after receipt of the EIA and engineering review comments.

Mr. Domenico noted that i= n the past, the parcel was in current use and at some point went out of current u= se and became essentially a non-profit; no taxes are collected for the parcel.= He said the Town would get no curr= ent use revenues; essentially it was a non-profit entity developing for profit. He said he wanted to = obtain feedback from legal regarding how to handle the proposed.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re were any rights-of-way or other means of access to the remaining parcel. Mr. Scanzani said there was access= from other areas. Mr. McNamara didn’t want to close off any options for future access. Ms. Bousa agreed and suggested obt= aining feedback from the Town’s engineer.&n= bsp;

Ms. Pam McCarthy, Webster Avenue, wanted to know if a study had been done regarding the traffic impacts for <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Webster Avenue. Mr. Gildersleeve said a study had = been done. He said there would be = an increase of approximately 100 vehicles for peak hours, but they remained un= der the capacity level for Web= ster Avenue. Mr. Scanzani said the traffic study would be forwarded to the Town engineer for review.

Mr. Gowan asked if the Bo= ard would consider the waivers. M= r. Scanzani said he would do what the Board wanted, but personally would like = to wait until after engineering review.

Mr. Culbert asked when th= e parcel went out of current use. Mr. = Domenico said it would be researched. =

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 15, 2006= meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Jenna Auto Sa= les – 563 Mammoth Road – Site Plan Review of vehicle storage and sales

Mr. Scanzani said the app= licant had been before the Board, but there were some issues that came forward that did not allow the applicant to meet the setback requirement to a state road. There had been a verbal request for withdrawal; a written request will be submitted. Mr. Gowan said Mammoth Road was a Class II road, w= hich have a required setback of 660 feet from the road. The property was not that deep, so= the applicant had no recourse.

Mr. Gowan felt it was app= ropriate for the Board to consider the application closed.

Map 2 Lot 5-57 Tynco Realty, LLC – 409 Mammoth Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani provided a b= rief history of the plan. A varian= ce (Case #2344) has been granted for frontage.

Mr. Jim Lavelle met with = the Board to discuss the subdivision. He said the subdivision created a 2.22 acre lot with 126-feet fronta= ge and a 2.96 acres with 200-feet. He said originally = they were told they could only get one driveway, but in speaking with District 5 Department of Transportation (‘DOT’), they may be able to get t= wo driveways. He said the lots w= ould be served by their own septic and well.&nb= sp; Mr. Lavelle said they had to re-submit to the state for a two-lot subdivision, but had not yet received approval.

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n showed an existing building and confirmed that it would be removed. Mr. Lavelle said the house would be razed. The lots would be dupl= ex lots. Mr. Culbert said he wou= ld like two driveways. Mr. Lavel= le said they would also like two driveways.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara asked if there was adequate sight distance. Mr. Lavelle said they had the requ= ired sight distance. Mr. McNamara = noted that the Highway Safety Committee preferred a shared driveway and wanted to know if it was a strongly held thought.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan didn’t feel there would be a bid issue with separate driveways.

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n had already been accepted for consideration, and wasn’t against approving= the plan with a few conditions as follows: 1) two driveways; 2) Department of Environmental Services approval numbers; 3) existing building razed; 4) 35,000SF contiguous dry land for each lot noted on plan. Mr. McNamara asked if the driveway placement would be left up to the state.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani answered yes, because the state controlled the right-of-way.

There was no public input= .

There was a discussion re= garding how the applicant should proceed and what the Board would require for approval. Mr. Gowan asked if specific driveway locations were submitted with the DOT driveway permit application. Mr. Lavelle said= they didn’t submit a full plan yet because they just received a variance l= ast week.

Mr. Culbert made a motion= to approve the plan with the following conditions: 1) plan to reflect two state approved driveways, one for each lot; 2) existing building on lot 5-57 to be razed; 3) Department of Environmental Services subdivision approval number = be put on the plan; 4) favorable letter of consensus from Town Highway Safety Committee to two driveways versus one driveway ; and 5) note on plan showin= g that each lot contains 35,000SF. M= r. Domenico seconded the motion.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Domenico)To ap= prove the plan conditioned on the following: 1) plan to reflect two state appro= ved driveways, one for each lot; 2) existing building on lot 5-57 to be razed= ; 3) Department of Environmental Services subdivision approval number be put on the plan; 4) favorable letter of consensus from Town Highway Safety Commi= ttee to two driveways versus one driveway ; and 5) note on plan showing that e= ach lot contains 35,000SF.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Ms. Ouellette v= oted no.

Map 21 Lot 3-102 Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust &#= 8211; Tenney Road= – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani said the app= lication would be continued to the May 1, 2006 meeting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 1, 2006 meeting.

CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 & 149= Manoukian – Spaulding Hill Road – Conceptual Plan for Discussion of Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani said the dis= cussion would be continued to the May 1, 2006 meeting.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 1, 2006 meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 6 & 13 Lot 4-139 Collins Way LLC – Longview Circle/Collin’s Way – Request for Bond Reduction=

Mr. Gowan said he had a r= ecent conversation with Dufresne-Henry regarding contingency fees and asked that = the Board discuss such. He said currently the contingency is 30% of the original bond and our Town’s engineer had recommended that the amount was a bit extreme and suggested the following approach – 15% of the remaining work contained on the punch list and 5% of the original bond.

Mr. Gowan said the origin= al bond amount was $385,000; currently $190,918.05; based on change in contingency amount, the recommendation by Dufresne-Henry was to reduce the bond to $84,697.71

The Board discussed the contingency amount and the reasons for putting 30% in place. There was a consensus of the Board= to keep the existing calculation. Mr. Gowan will confer with Dufresne-Henry and have the information for the Boar= d at the next meeting.

Map 13 & 14 Lot 4-137 G & M Jeremy Hill Land Development &#= 8211; Meadowview Estates – Request for Bond Reduction

This will be addressed at= the next meeting based on the conversation regarding bond amounts above.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

May 1, 2006:

Map 21 Lot 3-102 Cynthia Currier 2000 Re= v. Trust – Tenney Road<= /st1:address> – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 &am= p; 149 Manoukian – Spauldi= ng Hill Road – Conceptual Plan for Discussion of Proposed 23-Lot Subdivi= sion

May 15, = 2006:

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl = Scout Council – Webster Av= enue – Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

April 3, 2= 006 –

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette)To = approve the April 3, 20= 06 Planning Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:00 pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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