APPROVED
TOWN OF PELHAM
PLANNING BOARD MEETING
April 18, 2011
Chairman Peter McNamara c= alled the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
The Secretary Paul Dadak = called roll:
Planning Board:
|
P= RESENT: |
P= eter McNamara, Roger Montbleau, Paul Dadak, Paddy Culbert, Tim Doherty, Jason Croteau, Selectmen Representative William McDevitt, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Planning Director Jeff Gowan |
|
<= o:p> ABSENT: |
<= o:p> None. |
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoning Board of Adjustment:
|
P= RESENT: ABSENT: |
David Hennessey, Peter McNamara, Robert Molloy, Kevin O'Sullivan, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gow= an Svetlana Paliy, Alternate Bill Ke= arney, Alternate Lance Ouellette |
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT CASE (Planning Board, Zoning Board= of Adjustment)
Mr. McNamara explained the process to be taken during the joint meeting. He read aloud a letter submitted b= y the Conservation Commission dated April 14, 2011, which indicated they voted th= ree in favor and two against supporting the proposal. The deciding factor influencing th= ose voting in support was the outstanding engineering behind the proposal. The concerns of those voting in opposition were primarily the construction within the 100-year flood plain = and the Wetland Conservation District ('WCD') disturbance along the shore of Be= aver Brook (a fourth order stream). Members voting in opposition felt strongly that the proposal was too intensive for the site. Compensatory flood storage was provided, should the brook water level rise to an elevation of 128ft., but above that level flood storage will have been lost. Many believe the flood of 2006 rose above the 128ft. elevation. A= ll Conservation Commission members, whether voting in support or in opposition, are concerned with the oversight of the project during construction.
Mr. McNamara read aloud a= n e-mail (dated April 1, 2011) forwarded from Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He indicated the receipt of the re= vised plan in connection with the Sewage Disposal Design. There are waivers required to the = Pelham Site Plan Regulations that had been noted on that plan. The plan meets the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services ('DES') requirements and no waivers are requested to them. Mr. Zarnowski had no objection to waiving the Town requirements to the less restrictive State Regulations.
Mr. McNamara then read al= oud an e-mail (dated April 6, 2011) forwarded from Fire Inspector John Hodge. The Fire Department will have adeq= uate access to all sides of the building also a 15,000 gallon water cistern shal= l be installed to meet the Fire Department water supply requirements.
Mr. McNamara read aloud t= he conclusions of Mr. John Lavigne of the H.L. Turner Group based on the revie= w of the project plans and the hydraulic analysis.
1)&n= bsp; No impact to the Beaver Brook 100-year flood elevat= ion;
2)&n= bsp; Proposed project is not located in the flood ways z= one of the flood plain;
3)&n= bsp; No impact to Beaver Brook flood flow rates as resul= t of the net gain of compensatory flood plain storage mitigation.
Mr. McNamara ended by rea= ding aloud an e-mail (dated March 10, 2011) received by Mr. Mike Sherman, an abu= tter to the project. He wanted to = be aware of what really happens (in the area) and not what was shown on the FE= MA maps. He found that some of t= he testimony given during the plan review hearings was troubling and not corre= ct, such as elevation information, data and flood model. He wrote that anyone living along = Beaver Brook knows that the 100-year flood elevations are grossly inaccurate and to use them as a basis was troubling and misleading. Though it might be more expensive = for the applicant, it was suggested that they consider obtaining a second opini= on from another engineer. Mr. Sh= erman was not against building and making Pelham a better community, but would do what he could to that other residents didn't flood worse than they already were. He believed if actual elevations were used (and as seen) from that location the project could be = done without any impact to any areas. It was noted at the Conservation Commission meeting that the stated impact of = the project in the flood plain was understated; it was felt that the applicant nee= ded to correct this by possibly adding a third flood storage pipe. The question should be investigate= d by Keach-Nordstrom (Planning Board's engineering review firm).
The Board of Adjustment w= as asked to convene their hearing. The Planning Board members stepped down to allow = the Board of Adjustment to conduct their hearing.
BOA Case #ZO2011-00005
Map 29 Lot 7-118 – VMD COMPANIES, LLC – 135-139 Brid=
ge
Street – Seeking a Variance concerning Article III Section 307-12 of =
the
Zoning Ordinance to permit construction of a bank with a front setback of 41
feet and a side setback of 34 feet and a Variance concerning Article VII
Section 307-39 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the erection of a structure
and filling within the Wetland Conservation District
AND
PB Case # PL 2011-00004
- VMD COMPANIES, LLC – 135-139 Bridge Street – Seeking S=
ite
Plan Review from the Planning Board of a Proposed 3326SF bank and a Special
Permit for construction of an access road and parking lot within the Wetland
Conservation District
The Board of Adjustment convened at approximately 7:18pm. Mr. Molloy called roll. Mr. Hennessey appointed Mr. LaFran= ce as a voting member in the absence of Ms. Paliy who was unable to attend due to a religious holiday.
Mr. Hennessey stated that the letters read aloud by Planning Board Chairman Pet= er McNamara would also be included in the Zoning Board of Adjustment's records.
Mr. Hennessey informed that the meeting would be conducted as a regular Zoning Board meeting. He explained t= he procedure and stated that the abutter's list would not be read because it w= as previously read into the record. &nbs= p;
Attorney J. Bradford Westgate of Winer and Bennett,LLP, Mr. Jim Vitas of VMD Compani= es, LLC, Mr. Robert Clarke of Allen & Major Associates, Inc. and Mr. John L= avigne of H.L. Turner Group, Inc. came forward to discuss the requested Variance.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney Westgate stated that VMD Companies had submitted a Variance and Site Plan application for a proposed bank at 135-139 Bridge Street. He noted there had been an initial joint meeting between the Planning Board, Zoning Board and Conservation Commission on February 24, 2011 and subsequent independent meetings afterward culminating in the Conservation Commission's meeting of April 13, 2011. He provided a brief overview of the site's history. The requested variances were: 1) f= ront yard setback requirement, 2) side yard setback requirement; and 3) allowed = uses within the WCD.
Mr.
Clarke discussed the setbacks of the buildable area. He stated that the area was approx=
imately
3500SF and showed the location of the side yard and front yard setbacks as well as=
the
WCD area. He said they took t=
he
envelope of the bank and showed that it didn't fit within the buildable area
and in that location would encroach into the WCD. He then showed the proposed locati=
on of
the building, which provided for the proper site circulation for fire trucks and explained that by =
doing
so they tried to minimize the impact to the WCD. They removed front parking and sho=
wed it
as being to the side and back of the structure and had requested a waiver f=
rom
the Planning Board to reduce the number of required parking spaces. A wall would be constructed at the=
rear
of the lot to minimize (WCD) impact and were pulling off the Shore Land
Protection. Mr. Clarke said o=
ne of
the state's requirements was to leave a 50ft. buffer along the river in tact
and natural; he showed the location and noted they had received the Shore L=
and
Permit from DES. He then revi=
ewed
the compensatory flood storage plan, which was designed to be a square conc=
rete
structure. The total fill for=
the
project will be 18,000 cubic feet; they will gain approximately 5000cubic f=
eet
outside of the wall, and inside the chambers will gain 13,500 cubic feet.
Mr. John Lavigne, a Civil Hydraulic Engineer with H.L. Turner Group, told the B= oard that he was retained by VMD Companies to examine their proposed project plan and render an opinion as to the impacts to the 100-year flood plain. He said they were selected due to = their involvement in the examination of the Walgreen's site during the last sever= al years. He explained they obta= ined the river hydraulic model for Beaver Brook from FEMA. In that model they went in the area where Walgreen's was located and changed the topography in the model to ref= lect what was being proposed. Anal= ysis were run to see what would happen with and without the project and the conclusion they drew was there would be no impact with the Walgreen's proje= ct in place. Mr. Lavigne said wh= en they originally looked at the FEMA model they corrected its geometry, which= was incorrect around Old Bridge Street. Based on the Town's approval the FEMA proposal to change the maps was submitted by the applicant. F= EMA looked at the model that was done and re-examined it with two other engineers. More survey work w= as done to gather information around Old Bridge Street; the model was enhanced again. The results remained t= he same; the Walgreen's project did not cause an impact to the 100-year elevation.
Mr. Lavigne said when asked to review the proposed project he told them the most effective way they could examine an impact was to take the updated model (reviewed by FEMA) and insert their project into that model. He stated that his charge was three fold, 1) determine the 100-year elevation at the site; 2) is the project in= the flood way zone; and 3) examine the proposal for compensatory flood storage = and what impact it would have on the flood plain. Mr. Lavigne explained that they lo= oked the updated FEMA model &n= bsp; at the proposed project site (the plan for which was displayed for review); the FEMA model had a cross section just below the site and a cross section through the Walgreen's site. The FEMA model didn't describe the edge of the flood plain at the proposed site. He stated that= they added five additional cross sections across the flood plain and through the project site to make sure the geometry in the model matched exactly to the site. They inserted the FEMA = 100-year discharge to be sure that the elevation 128 was the same, and it was; it di= dn't change the 100-year elevations above the site. They inserted the finished grading= of the proposed site into the model, gave it the 100-year discharge and looked= at the impact of what would happen when the encroachment into the flood plain would take place. With that m= odel (including Walgreen's in the model) they ran the analysis and found there w= as not enough encroachment in the flood plain to cause a rise in the 100-year = flood.
Mr.
Lavigne noted that the loss of storage in the flood plain was approximately=
.4
acre feet, which was half of the loss of flood storage accounted for in the
Walgreen's project. He discus=
sed
some of the differences between the Walgreen's project and the proposed
project. They were able to co=
nfirm
that there would be no impact with the proposed project. Mr. Lavigne said even though the p=
roject
within the location did not affect the elevations, consensus was there shou=
ld
not be a loss in storage that takes place; common sense was if they could
maintain the status of the storage they would not affect the discharges.
Mr. Hennessey asked if the storage chambers mimicked soil and wetlands that ret= ains moisture after a flood. Mr. L= avigne said they mimicked the surface storage that took place above it. Mr. Hennessey questioned if there = was any difference (in flow) between the receding waters of a flood on soil ver= sus in the tanks. Mr. Lavigne ans= wered no.
Mr. Clarke discussed additional points, such that they had removed the dumpsters and would have shredding done inside the bank, applicant will pay for the w= all to be installed (at the rear of the site), there will be no wetland filling= on the site they will work within the WCD and last, of the 11,000SF WCD being impacted only 3000SF will be impervious the remainder will turn back into g= reen space outside the wall. He al= so noted that none of the building footprint would be in the WCD, the variance= was being requested for the proposed canopy to be in the WCD (on the side yard setback). Attorney Westgate s= aid the back access way and the parking would also be in the WCD.
Mr. Hennessey explained that the Board had to judge the application according to State Regulations. The five criteria acted as an approval check list for variance requests. Attorney Westgate addressed each o= f the five criteria and reviewed the information that had been submitted to the B= oard in the application package. He ensured that the Board's record included a copies of the Shore La= nd Protection Permit, Department of Transportation Curb Cut, Conservation Commission letter and a letter from Keach-Nordstrom (dated April 11, 2011). Mr. Hennessey said the= Board had copies of the referenced items.
Attorney Westgate told the Board that he had made a Requests for Findings and Rulings document. He provided each Bo= ard member with a copy and submitted a copy for the record (see Attached).
Mr. O'Sullivan reviewed the compensatory storage plan and questioned if the chambers would be staggered. = Mr. Clarke explained that the chambers would be interconnected, each holding approximately 500cubic feet. = Mr. O'Sullivan asked if the chambers functioned together or if some would funct= ion more as water levels rose. Mr= . Clarke said water would seek the same elevation; as flooding occurred they would f= ill up at elevation 124, 125, 126 etc. Mr. O'Sullivan questioned if there was a typical time frame for the system to drain in the event of a heavy rain scenario such as a ten year ev= ent. Mr. Clarke stated they had downloaded the USGS gauge and = during the March 9, 2011 rain event (with snow/ice melt) that was higher than a ten year flood event took approximately three to four days for the water to subside. He believed the prop= osed chamber system would only take a couple days (in that scenario).
Mr.
Hennessey commented that the request was for an 'area' variance and if gran=
ted
the use of the property would have no restrictions. Attorney Westgate said anything th=
at
would have a different back driveway configuration, parking configuration,
canopy or retaining wall would have to come back before the Board. He said in effect, they were seeki=
ng use
variances because it was to allow those uses within the elements of the site
that fell in the WCD. Mr. Hen=
nessey
concurred, but because of testimony of how lightly the bank would fall on t=
he
land he wanted it to be clear that the Board was not addressing a 'bank'
building; they were addressing a building of the proposed configuration.
PUBLIC INPUT
Ms. Lisa Landry, Chairwoman – Pelham Economic Development Committee, came forward to say she felt the design engineer had thought 'outside the box' w= hen creating the proposed plan. S= he was aware that there were residents opposed to the project because they felt th= ey understood the 100-year flood elevations more so than the certified enginee= rs and Town engineer working on the project did. She understood the (resident's) concerns, but felt the storage chambers would address the issue of flood storage that would come up. S= he assured people that they weren't overlooking a bad plan in order to gain an economic benefit; they felt it was a case of a fantastic plan that would clearly not have a negative impact on flooding and would be a positive sign= al for Pelham's economic development. <= /span>
Mr. Pat Gendron, 579 Bridge Street was in favor of the plan. He felt with all the new engineeri= ng marvels implemented that the proposal wouldn't cause any additional issues = as far as down stream flooding. = He noted there had already been a building at the location in the past that caused no issues, having a building there now wouldn't cause problems.
Ms. Glennie Edwards, Tenney Road, speaking as a long-time resident discussed the economic status of the Town. = She believed the answer was to attract more businesses, which was not easy given there was no Town water and sewage. She commented that water and sewage was not needed in this case and = the proposal would be an opportunity for the Town. The architectural plans and constr= uction of the site have more than satisfied the Board's needs for seeing what is proposed. The applicant has t= he endorsement from John Lavigne (well respected engineer with the State) and Steve Keach (Planning Board's review engineer) as well as having a building plan that would compliment the community.&= nbsp; Ms. Edwards believed voting no and preventing the site from being developed would get the Town nothing but frustration and would add to the existing stagnation. She felt supporting the site would be a boost to the community. She believed the applicant had gon= e over and above the type of plans the Town had seen in the past and granting an approval would encourage them to consider other developments within Pelham. In closing Ms. Edwards hoped that the Board would support the development.
Mr. Alrick Hammar, resident and business owner on Bridge Street, discussed the problems with Route 38 of having water on one side and ledge on the other.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said if they didn't allow peopl= e to come into Town and use their expertise to do engineering they would be deni= ed an opportunity to see what could be done&n= bsp; with various properties. He commented that all the good land was gone and communities were faced with having to be creative. Mr. Hammar would like to see the applicant be able to move forward and strongly supported the plan.
Mr.
Hennessey said he came to the meeting uncertain how he was going to vote.
Mr.
McNamara felt Attorney Westgate laid out the constraints on the property.
Mr. Molloy stated that the public input was important. He also appreciated Mr. Lavigne's presentation.
Mr. Hennessey felt the Board should vote regarding all three Variances together because the presentation didn't separate them out. The Board members agreed. There was no objection by the applicant.
|
BALLOT VOTE: |
M= r. Hennessey – Yes to all criteria Ms. McNamara – Ye= s to all criteria – for all three variances requested Mr. Molloy – Yes to all criteri=
a Mr. O'Sullivan – = Yes to all criteria Mr. LaFrance – Ye= s to all criteria |
|
|
&n=
bsp;
VOTE: |
<= o:p> (5= -0-0) The motion carried. |
|
VARIANCES
GRANTED
The Board of Adjustment adjourned at approximately 8:23pm.
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. Landry Willis
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary
PLANNING= BOARD MEETING/April 18, 2011 = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Page 40 = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; =
= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Page 35