PB Minutes 07-06-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 6, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:3= 0 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dada= k, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Ken Dunn= e, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Tom Collins

NEW BUSINESS

Map 22 Lot 8-30 Bernhardt – Atwood Road Extension – Site = Plan Review to operate a General Auto Repair Business

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. Bruce Bernhardt met with the Board to discuss his Site Plan. Mr. Gowan said the applicant was s= eeking to open an auto repair shop in an existing building. He said the applicant had provided information outlining the type of work/hours of operation etc. Mr. Bernhardt said he was seeking a general auto repair specializing in diagnostic and general repair. The hours of operation would be op= en to the public from 8am-6-pm, six days per week. There woul= d be marked parking spots. There w= as one sensor light that would come on. Mr. Berhnardt said he had worked for over twenty years in the busine= ss and was currently working in Town and had worked at different businesses in Town. There would be no other employees.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the applicant would take over 2500SF of the 5000SF available in the existing building. He confirmed that nothing would be done to the outside of the building. He asked if there w= ould be any signage. Mr. Bernhardt= said there was an existing sign he would cover over. Mr. Scanzani said if there was any change to the sign, Mr. Bernhardt would have to meet with the Planning Dire= ctor to make sure he met the regulations. Mr. Bernhardt noted that no junk cars would be stored on site.

Ms. Ouellette asked how many vehicles would be taken care of at one time. Mr. Bernhardt said four or five pe= ople would have appointments; there would possibly be seven or eight cars parked during the day. At night ther= e may be three or four cars parked. Ms. Ouellette asked what type of flooring was in the building. Mr. Bernhardt said there was a 14’x14’ office and the remaining was open with a concrete floor. Ms. Ouellette asked ho= w the concrete floor would be protected from lubricants (i.e. oil, gas) from being absorbed. Mr. Bernhardt said = he had been researching options; the state of New Hampshire has a pamphlet of information. He said there were double containe= rs that he would probably use. T= here were also spill kits that aided in absorption. Mr. Bernhardt didn’t know if= the floor had any kind of sealant to stop absorption.

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant had an existing auto repair business in Town. Mr. Bernhardt answered no. He said he was an employe= e at Salem 66 and wouldn’t be taking that business back to the proposed site.

Mr. McManus wanted to know if the conditions shown on the plan (dated from 1989) were the same as today. He al= so felt the motion sensor light should be located near the building so passing cars didn’t set it off and it wouldn’t shine on the abutting properties. Mr. Bernhardt sai= d the existing sensor light was located over the door; passing cars didn’t trigger it to turn on. Mr. Sc= anzani noted that the plan being reviewed by the Board was the plan from when the = building was originally built.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Carolyn Law, Atwood Road said she was a direct abutter to the property and it had been a nuisance for quite awhile. She noted the l= ot was under an acre and also contained a duplex.= She was concerned regarding the tree barrier. She said every time cars went by s= he had lights. Ms. Law discussed the problems with the previous business. She wanted to know if junk cars would be left on site. Mr. Scanzani noted that the applic= ant stated there would be no junk cars on the property. He said there was nothing in the application indicating that any trees would be taken down. Ms. Law said she was concerned abo= ut the noise and asked if cars would be cut up.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani reiterated the business hours and said the applicant wo= uld only be doing repairs; no auto body work on site. Mr. Bernhardt said if there were a= ny problems to contact him.

Mr. Al Brunelle, 40 Old Gage H= ill Road didn’t have a problem with the proposed garage. He only asked that no trees be cut= .

Ms. Ouellette asked what modification would need to be done to the building to = make it the applicant’s garage. Mr. Bernhardt said he would have to put some lifts and shelving. Nothing would be done to the outside.

Mr. Scanzani felt that as a condition for approval it should state that there a= re no site changes outside. He s= aid the site should be inspected by the Fire Department before the final permit= is given to operate. Mr. Gowan s= aid the applicant would need an occupancy permit. Mr. Scanzani said he would like to= hold the owner to the hours of operation. Ms. Ouellette wanted to add that no junk cars and only registered ca= rs would be worked on. Mr. Bernh= ardt said he may work on an unregistered car for a customer (used car dealer) that was preparing the vehicle.

Mr. Scanzani informed that Mr. Dadak and Mr. McManus would vote for the evening’s proceedings.

Mr. McNamara made the following motion: To approve the limited site plan conditioned upon: 1) no storage of unregistered vehicles and no sales of registered or unregistered vehicles from the premises; 2) obtain necessary permits; 3) hours of operation from 8am-6pm, six days per week; 4) no chang= es to the present landscaping or exterior of the property; 5) inspection by the Fire Chief regarding hazardous materials, storage and disposal of waste. Mr. Domenico seconded. Mr. Gowan recommended that the Boa= rd leave leeway for improvements to the landscaping. Mr. McNamara amended his motion. Mr. Domenico amended his second.

MOTION:

(McNamara/)To approve t= he limited site plan conditioned upon: 1) no storage of unregistered vehicles and no sales of registered or unregistered vehicles from the premises; 2)= obtain necessary permits; 3) hours of operation from 8am-6pm, six days per week;= 4) no cutting of the exterior buffer; 5) inspection by the Fire Chief regarding hazardous materials, storage and disposal of waste.

VOTE:

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

The Board had inadvertent= ly approved the plan prior to accepting it for consideration, therefore the following motion was made.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico)To a= ccept the plan for consideration. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

The Board then reiterated= its motion to approve the plan with the stated conditions.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the Board had received the Town’s engineering review and the traffic impa= ct report. Mr. Gowan said the Bo= ard had not yet received the review by Craig Wood of the Louis-Berger Group. Mr. Scanzani summarized the traffic study and said it showed no adverse effects and plenty of sight distance (stopping and intersection). = He asked to discuss the issues that Stantec (Town’s engineer) had identi= fied. Mr. Gowan didn’t believe tha= t the applicant had not yet responded to Stantec’s report.

Mr. Roger Parsons, engine= er with Cuoco & Cormier said they had not yet responded to the second review fr= om Stantec. He began by discussing the drainage and peak discharge of water; a formal response woul= d be forwarded to Stantec. He cont= inued the review of Stantec’s comments and noted with regard to the traffic report that they would comply with all the necessary standards.

Mr. Scanzani discussed th= e width of Webster Avenue along the Girl Scout camp (off Webster Avenue) and would like to have the land identi= fied to widen Webster Avenue to the proper width; be deeded to the Town versus as part of an easement. There was no objection by the Boar= d to have the land deeded to the property.

Ms. Ouellette noted that = Stantec indicated that the radii for some of the wells extended the side and rear setback lines. She wanted to = know if the applicant believed they could adjust such. Mr. Parsons believed it was approp= riate because they did not exceed or encroach into the setbacks. Ms. Ouellette wanted to make sure = that the applicant understood they would have to ‘hit it’ dead on. Mr. Parsons understood such and sa= id the well locations would have to be staked out in the field.

Mr. Scanzani said the oth= er item before the Board was the resolution of open space. Mr. Parsons said when the plan was= first public the applicant had sought to comply with the Town and state regulatio= ns for open space by providing a strip (75ft wide) and believed the consensus = of the Board was concern that the open space methodology (and the slope of the land) wouldn’t do too much for the general public or the people moving into the development. He said= the applicant didn’t pursue taking additional land from the Girl Scouts.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> However, they had since gone back = to the property owners to explore any possibilities of any land that might be usef= ul to use as open space in the area; they received a negative response. Mr. Parsons said their proposal to address open space was to donate funds either directly in the form of a cash payment (at a certain point of development) or a combination of ‘sweat’ equity (i.e. work, materials) or other considerations t= hat would be able to be valued/reviewed by the Board (or other committee). He reviewed how they calculated th= e per lot amount; they suggested that $58,500 per lot be paid upon the conveyance= of the house. In summary, the ap= plicant had pursued the open space as a piece of land and/or a facility and was una= ble to secure and create that situation.

The Board was not comfort= able with the calculations provided. Ms. Bousa asked how many acres were contained in the subdivision. Mr. Parsons said there were approximately 12.3 acres. Ms.= Bousa reviewed the Subdivision Regulations which call for 15% of the total land a= rea of the subdivision and said an acre of land could not be purchased (in Pelh= am) for $58,000. She felt open sp= ace was more valuable than cash and felt the applicant could achieve open space= by losing a lot, they were choosing not to.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the proposal and confirmed that there would not be a buffer on the back end of = the subdivision. Mr. Parsons said= they didn’t propose a buffer. Mr. McNamara had a problem with the plan having no buffer. He felt it was a mistake for using= the number from Tina Avenue because some parcels are much more valuable than others.

Mr. Domenico asked if the= Tina Avenue= parcel was in current use. Mr. Scanz= ani said it wasn’t in current use at the time. He agreed that the Tina Avenue numbers couldn’t = be used because there were other extenuating circumstances.

Mr. McManus saw problems = with the suggested time for the (voluntary) contribution being at the time of convey= ance versus being at the time the building permit was issued.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd didn’t have an alternative for open space and wanted the applicant to come back to the Board with such. Mr. Parsons emphasized the fact that the owner of the parcel didn= 217;t want further incursion. He sa= id since conception they had provided a little over an acre for drainage easem= ent based on Stantec’s review and the Town’s preference for drainage improvement which necessitated further incursion to the property. He discussed the proposal and said= they could revisit the issue. He a= sked if the Board would consider work in lieu of cost, or if they would have to provide some sort of physical open space.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani discussed a = section of the parcel that he believed may be fairly dry and flat and could possibl= y be used as open space. There was further discussion regarding where open space could be put so if other port= ions came forward for development they could be tied together. Mr. McNamara asked if the applican= t had control of the land. Mr. Pars= ons said the applicant had no further control than what was provided in the application to the Planning Board. <= /span>He said as far as they knew, the remaining land was in a form of land use that looked like open space. He sa= id with the purchase & sales agreement they had been asked to not alter the parent parcel.

The Board wanted to revie= w open space options. Mr. Gowan said= he was awaiting the environmental study.

Mr. Domenico noted that t= he Town was concerned about the parcel and the overall development. He said one concern was that it wa= s a non-profit that was a beneficiary of Town services for many years. He said the (contracted) assessor = and legal council had been asked for their opinion on entering into negotiations with Spar & Spindle to potentially enter into a payment in lieu of taxes agreement.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Gowan noted that the = Highway Safety Committee had requested that two additional speed limit signs be add= ed along Webster Avenue. He also informed that he advised t= he applicant of the newly passed (March, 2006) enabling ordinance that gave the Board the authority to accept work ‘in lieu of’.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the August 7, 200= 6 meeting.

Map 28 Lot 7-144-1 & 2 Martone – Corner of Marsh Road & Willow Street – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision and Lot Line Adjustment=

Mr. Steve Michaud of Duce= tte Surveying said at the last meeting comments were generated; they have since submitted revised plans that addressed the concerns.

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he verification of 35,000SF was on the plan.&= nbsp; The only issue with well radius placement was on two lots; they were within the property boundary, but not within the setbacks. Mr. Gowan noted the Board accepted= a waiver for such at the last meeting. Mr. Scanzani said the last item was (per the recommendation of the Highway Safety Committee) to move the last driveway (lot 7-144-3) as far so= uth toward the stone wall as possible. Mr. Gowan said the other concern was to get good sight distance as f= ar back as possible due to traffic ‘stacking’ at Willow Street.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McManus asked if the = sight distance would still be achieved if the driveway was moved. Mr. Scanzani said they would still= have over 200ft. and was confident they would still have sight distance for the driveway; the sharp bend in the road was further up.

Mr. McNamara said the Hig= hway Safety Committee also recommended that the driveway have a level platform on the street and questioned if it was reflected on the plan. Mr. Scanzani answered yes, and sai= d it should also be a condition for approval.&n= bsp; Mr. Michaud said he could add a note stating such.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico)To a= pprove the well radius waivers noting that the applicant should understand that = the wells had to be placed exactly; if it turns out that there has been a mis= take made, the Board in the past, had not been receptive to such.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Michaud noted that th= e NHDES application was still pending.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette)To = approve the waiver to Section 10.04,b-0.=

VOTE:

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

Ms. Ouellette noted that = a waiver request dated May= 3, 2006 asking the Board to consider waiving the subdivision fee for lots 7-144-1 &= amp; 2. The Board briefly discusse= d the request. Mr. Gowan felt that reduced fee from $1000 per lot to $250 per lot was reasonable and would cov= er the administrative costs.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette)To = reduce the application fees per lot (for lots 7-144-1 & 2) to $250.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa and Mr. Domenico voted= no.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Bousa)To appr= ove the subdivision conditioned that: 1) the plan reflect on lot 7-144-3 a flat platform at the end of the driveway in order to enter/exit and ease sight= distance; 2) the well radii (on the two lots waivered) be staked out prior to drilling.

VOTE:

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

ADMINISTRATIVE

JR Gauthier – Request for Release of Gravel Bonds

Mr. Gowan said that Mr. J= R Gauthier remembered he had two gravel bonds in place since the 1970’s. As of December 31, 2005 the total amount was $2086. Mr. Gowan said he revi= ewed and the areas had long since stabilized.&n= bsp;

MOTION:

(Domenico/Ouellette)To = release Mr. J.R. Gauthier’s gravel bonds (from the 1970’s) for Tenney Road and Tallant Road.

VOTE:

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

Map 39 Lot 6-179 Marchand – Moonshadow Drive – Request fo= r Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said the Board = declined to grant Mr. Marchand’s previous request for a partial bond reduction= . Since that time, the applicant had= done a significant amount of work; Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer) had provided a new recommendation. The current bond amount is $410,152.44; recommendation that there is $184,521 of work remaining (plus 30% contingency $123,045.73). The reduction would be 102,582.71,= which would retain $307,566.73.

Mr. Scanzani asked for th= e length of the road. Mr. Paul Marchan= d said with the cul-de-sac the road was approximately 1700-feet. Mr. Scanzani didn’t recall granting a bond release prior to the base coat being laid down (the road is still gravel). He was also not comfortable with some of Stantec’s (Town’s engineer) calculations. He said per Mr. Gowan’s request, he asked that (the Board discuss in September) addin= g a one-sentence line to the Subdivision Regulations stating that no bond will = be reduced until such time as it comes to gravel base (which is what the Board= had practiced).

Mr. McNamara agreed that something should be added to the regulations, but there was nothing in the regulations now to address it. He said he previously voted to deny the request because the Board had nothing = in front of them; however, the Board now had a recommendation from Stantec with definite numbers. He said it = seemed that the Board would be retroactively enforcing a regulation they didn̵= 7;t have. Mr. Scanzani said he wa= s not comfortable until such time the road is up to base coat because there was a= lot of work still to be done.

Mr. Marchand explained th= at the bulk of costs for the road were in the first 500ft (to get through wetlands). He said if the Boa= rd waited for the road to be up to base coat 90% of the work would be done, but the Town would still be holding the entire bond (plus 30%).

Attorney David Groff (representing Mr. Marchand) pointed out that the road was still in place af= ter the torrential rain last month. He said pre-construction meetings are held (with the Town’s engineer and Planning Director) where bond reductions are discussed; there is nothing in= the regulations giving a limit for the amount of times an applicant can request reductions. Mr. Scanzani said= he would like to enforce what had always been in effect for twenty years.

Mr. Marchand said he was = not a big developer and this could possibly impact the progress.

Mr. McNamara recalled wal= king the site (a number of years ago) and believed it was obvious that most of the c= ost was to bridge the wetlands. H= e was unsure what firm ground the Board had since the Town’s engineer had recommended a reduction.

Mr. McManus questioned ho= w much of the road was complete. Mr. Marchand said the road (including the cul-de-sac) was up to sub grade and t= hey would bring the base coat gravel by next week.

Mr. Domenico was uneasy w= ith the comment that if the bond wasn’t reduced it could slow progress. He said there seemed to be the pot= ential that the Town would need to utilize the bond was greater. Mr. Marchand said he was not a developer; he had owned the property for twenty-three years. He said he would keep the project = moving however he could, but didn’t feel he should be put into the burden.

Mr. Scanzani asked what t= ype of bond was being held. Mr. Gowan believed it was a letter of credit. He felt the Board should listen to the hired experts. He noted that the applicant had pa= id the Town’s engineer twice to have the calculations done. He said the Town had the most conservative contingency fees in the state. He felt that the Board should base= their judgment on the recommendations and discussed what work was remaining. Mr. McManus believed the work was probably 50% complete. Mr. Sc= anzani said the past practice of the Board was that they had not granted a reducti= on prior to this and was uncomfortable setting a precedent.

Mr. Domenico asked if Mr. Marchand (if the reduction was granted) if he anticipated coming back to the Board with an addition reduction request prior to the bituminous coat being= put down. Mr. Marchand answered no. He said he would not be b= ack until they were complete. Att= orney Groff noted that as soon as the road was further along there would be a num= ber of sales that would occur. The recent rain had held up the process.

Mr. McManus noted that the figures were for material and didn’t see a dollar figure for putting = it in place with equipment. Atto= rney Groff pointed out that the figures were provided by the Town’s Engine= er and questioned why the applicant was paying them if the Board wasn’t going to listen to them. Mr. Scanzani believed Stantec was using a figure that was not up to date.

Mr. McNamara was unsure w= hat legal basis the Board had to deny the request since the numbers before the Board were from the Town’s engineer.=

Mr. Gowan reiterated that= Stantec was infamous for their conservative figures.

Mr. McNamara made a motio= n to reduce the current bond and retain $307,566.73.&n= bsp; Mr. Domenico seconded the motion and wanted to reiterate that the Bo= ard needed to revisit the regulations and provide the Board with some discretion over the releases moving forward. He said he was willing to support the current request based upon the applicant’s assertion that they would not be back until the base coat= was complete. Mr. Scanzani said t= he Board would discuss at the September meeting.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Domenico)To a= pprove the bond reduction from its current amount of $410,152.44 and to reduce it by= an amount of $102,585.71 thereby retaining as a bond $307,566.73.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani voted no.

Discussion of Zoning Subcommittee Membership and Schedule

Mr. Gowan said the Board = sent out a call to get some people interested to join up on a zoning subcommittee to= put together some candidate language for the Planning Board’s review. The specific areas to be reviewed = are: 1) development of a conservation development ordinance; 2) Town center ordinance (i.e. Historical District); and 3) non-residential guidelines. Mr. Gowan asked the Chair to appoi= nt Mr. Robert Lamoureaux and Mr. Paul Gagnon.&nbs= p; There were no objections by the Board members regarding the appointm= ents. Mr. Gowan was hopeful that additio= nal people would come forward to be appointed.=

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he Board would discuss zoning in September for the March ballot. Any items members want to discuss = should be forwarded to Mr. Gowan to be added to the discussion list.

Mr. Scanzani appointed Mr. Lamoureaux and Mr. Gagnon to the Zoning Sub-committee.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS R= 11; August 7, 2006

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

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

June 19,= 2006 –

MOTION:

(Domenico/Ouellette)To = approve the June 19, 2= 006 Planning Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa a= nd Mr. Dadak abstained. <= /u>

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Scanzani read aloud a= draft letter regarding the construction of the soccer fields at Raymond Park which would be sent to the Selectmen if the Board agreed. There was no objection; Mr. Domeni= co will bring the letter to the Selectmen.&nb= sp;

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Bousa)To adjo= urn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:12 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