February 8, 2001


The Chairman, Victor Danevich, called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.


The Secretary, Bill Scanzani, called the roll:



Victor Danevich, Bill Scanzani, Jeff Gowan, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Henry DeLuca, Alternate Gael Ouellette,  Selectmen’s Representative Deb Casey (arrived at approximately 9:00pm), Interim Planning Director Clay Mitchell



Alternate Carl Huether, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Michael Soby


Mr. Danevich noted that the agenda to be followed would be the February 5, 2001 agenda.




ML 5-Lots 166-169 - Rosewood Estates - Bond Reduction


Mr. Mitchell said CLD had been asked to calculate the estimated amount to complete the costs.  He said CLD estimated a reduction from $500,000 to $197,800. 


Mr. Danevich noted that the contingency amount was 10%.



(Culbert/Scanzani)  To reduce the bond amount from $500,000 to $197,800.



(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


Arlene Drive - Bond Discussion


Mr. Mitchell said that after following several inquiries of the status of the roadway, and after research of the status of the bond, he found that the two-year bond/development agreement had expired in August, 2000.  He inquired of Dave Brouillet of CLD about the status and completion of the road.  He and Mr. Brouillet went to the site and noted that the final coat of pavement had not been completed.  He said there was also a barn or garage, which was approximately 2’ from the roadway, which still needs to be removed.  Mr. Mitchell said Mr. Brouillet believes the amount of money necessary to complete the project would be $140,000, which didn’t include the cost of removing the garage.  He said that they also noticed a slope, which did not comply with the approval.  He said there was a potential that the slope would slump onto the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Mitchell said that Mr. Brouillet suggested that a geo-technical engineer look at the slope to determine whether and when the soil would be subject to something.  He said the Board might like to review the possibility of adding a head wall in the Town right-of-way.  Mr. Mitchell said there were two avenues the Board could take 1) work with the developer to correct the problems giving specific dates for completion and if he didn’t comply, pull the bond, or 2) pull the bond right now. 


Mr. Culbert asked who the company was and the amount of the bond.  Mr. Mitchell said the bond amount was currently $221,000, with Nationwide Construction.


There was no public input.


Mr. Scanzani felt that there should be a discussion with Nationwide Construction giving them a firm deadline.  He didn’t feel that giving 30 days from April 1, 2001 was unreasonable.  Mr. Danevich clarified that they would have 60-days prep, then 30-days to resolve and if not, the bond would be pulled. 


There was a brief discussion regarding the head wall and where it should be placed.  Mr. Mitchell said he could speak with Mr. Brouillet for further clarification.



(Scanzani/Culbert) To send a letter to the developer informing of the expectation of compliance within 90-days (60-days to inform of the actions to be taken and 30-days from April 1, 2001 to complete the work to the Board’s satisfaction) or the bond would be pulled.



(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


Eannarino - Shared Driveway Discussion


Mr. Mitchell explained that a few years ago Mr. & Mrs. Fauvel did a subdivision.  From what he could determine, after reviewing the minutes and the file, was that the Planning Board had settled on two driveways, next to each other within the right-of-way.  He said there was then a transfer of a portion of the subdivision to a bonafide buyer, whose plan showed a driveway and a section of undeveloped land.   He went on to say that in 1999 there was a lot-line adjustment of the remaining subdivision lots.  Mr. Mitchell’s understanding was there was a site walk and several discussions regarding how the access to the parcel would work.  He said the Planning Board's intent of two driveways (not shared) remained.  He said his theory was supported by the fact that there would have to be some indication of a driveway easement, which was not shown on the recent subdivision.


Mr. Danevich confirmed that the driveway from the parcel recently subdivided should be contained solely on it’s own property and not shared.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes. 


Mr. Mitchell went on to say that the reason for the discussion was that there had not been a recorded agreement between the abutting landowners.  He concluded that the Board should reiterate it’s intent to allow the landowners to resolve.  He said the potential resolutions were 1) to draft an agreement for a shared three-way driveway with a maintenance plan, or 2) have two separate driveways with a physical separation. 


Mr. Scanzani referred to the Planning Board minutes of September 18, 2000 and read a portion of which into the record.  ATTACHMENT #1. 


Mr. Mitchell felt that the Board intended the driveways to be two adjoining, but separate, driveways because the Board didn’t ensure that agreements were in place (with the abutters) for a shared driveway. 


Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel that two driveways side-by-side were a good idea due to the uneven slope or level that could occur if one were paved and the other wasn't and they became different slopes, there could be a safety issue.  Mr. Culbert believed that in 1994 the intent was that the two driveways were to be level.




Mr. Jeff Eannarino, 17 Spring Street said their intent had always been to clarify the title to show that they had their own driveway. 


Ms. Cindy Eannarino, 17 Spring Street noted that there was 500’ from Spring Street to their home, so the 15’ of pavement would only be between Mr. Fauvel’s two lots. 


Mr. Roland Soucy, Town Code Enforcement Officer said that the two driveways were currently level and running a fence between the two driveways may alleviate the separation problem.  Mr. Scanzani asked who would be responsible for adding the separation.  Mr. Soucy believed Mr. Fauvel would be responsible. 


Mr. Don Fauvel had no comment, but felt that having a separation of two driveways was an acceptable solution. 


Mr. Danevich noted that the culvert should be extended an additional 10’ for the driveway to cross over the top.  Mr. Mitchell felt that would be fine, unless a wetlands were to be crossed.  He said he would review the existing permit with Mr. Fauvel.  He said the original plan showed a culvert further than 25’.  He felt a conditional use permit had already been granted by virtue of the plan from 1994.  Mr. Scanzani agreed. 


Mr. Eannarino believed that the permit had expired 1998, but felt the main issue was wildlife crossings.  He was concerned with the type of boundary separation that would be put in place.  Mr. Scanzani gave suggestions for separating the driveways.  He also said that either owner could move their driveway over slightly to give a separation.  Ms. Ouellette felt that it should be noted who would be the responsible person for separating the driveways.  Mr. Scanzani agreed with the earlier comment by Mr. Soucy, where he said Mr. Fauvel should be responsible for separating the driveways.


Mr. Mitchell said because the issue was confusing, the Board should state it's intent and set performance standards.  He said it should be added that improvements or construction to one driveway should not negatively impact or interfere with the maintenance with the other driveway. 


Mr. Eannarino recommended that the following be included in the motion 1) the original driveway be restored to it’s condition prior to the permit being issued, and 2) grant a non-conforming for both properties so that they could each expand the median onto the non-wet area.  Mr. Scanzani felt that his first recommendation was part of the approval, but didn’t mind adding to the motion.  Mr. Mitchell felt that Mr. Eannarino’s second recommendation was already included in the approval as well. 


Mr. Fauvel wasn’t aware that construction vehicles had been on Mr. Eannarino’s property.  Mr. Eannarino noted that he had pictures as backup.



(Scanzani/Gowan) As separate driveways, some form of delineation is to be added between the two separate driveways which delineation is to exist on the property line.  Mr. Fauvel  is responsible for such delineation, and has 30-days to resolve the issue.  The delineation shall not have a negative impact on either driveways, from a life-safety standpoint or grading issue.  The Eannarino's original driveway is to be restored back to it’s condition prior to the construction equipment started at the site and the ruts should be repaired.



(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


Mr. Mitchell would record the approval and send a letter to both parties as well as the Code Enforcement Officer informing of the decision.  Mr. Mitchell clarified that ‘resolve’ did not mean construction, but that a plan would be in place.  Mr. Danevich answered yes. 




ML 9-136-2 SDK Land Holdings, LLC/May Lane - Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for Approval


Mr. Steve Haight, Edward Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision for approval.  He said there were twelve lots total, four lots on Simpson Road and eight lots proposed for an extension on an existing cul-de-sac.  He said they had met with CLD and the Planning Director and revised the plans accordingly. 


Mr. Danevich asked if he had met with Conservation.  Mr. Haight said the plan had been submitted to the Town for Conservation to review, but they had not received a response.  He said the subdivision didn’t impact any wetlands or buffer zones and they complied with the regulations.  Mr. Danevich informed that Conservation had formally requested to review the plan because of the close proximity of Beaver Brook.  Mr. Haight said that Gove Environmental had done an impact statement and presented copies to the Board.


Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services who reviewed the environmental impact analysis.  He said there were two wetland areas and Beaver Brook.  He pointed out a potential vernal pool, which could not be determined until Spring.  He informed that there were no impacts to wetlands and felt that there was some protection along Beaver Brook for the wildlife.  He recommended that the buffer areas be well posted.


Mr. Danevich noted the following recommendations: 1) placement of silt fence along areas of disturbance; 2) no wetland impact; 3) placement of WCD signs every 100’; 4) placement of homes and driveways to avoid wetlands and WCD crossings; 5) 50’ no-cut zone designation.  He said the plans already incorporated the recommendations.


Mr. Danevich said Conservation also requested site specific consideration for the four lots on the left of the plan. 


Ms. Ouellette recalled there was an abutter concerned with the cul-de-sac.  She said that Mr. Peter Zohdi (also of Edward Herbert Associates) had previously agreed to move it.  Mr. Haight said there would not be a problem splitting the difference of the lot to provide for a larger back yard.  Mr. Danevich pointed out for Mr. Haight of the area Mr. Zohdi had previously drawn the line to split the lot providing the larger area.   Mr. Haight said he did not have a problem with the line Mr. Danevich pointed out and said he would note it on his plans. 


Mr. Danevich then asked about the trail noted on the plan and inquired if the public could access.  Mr. Haight said it was not officially a public access way. 


Mr. Haight then discussed the cul-de-sac and said it had been regraded.  He said from the right-of-way to the stone wall was approximately 75’.  Ms. Ouellette believed the abutter’s concern was a buffer of trees.  Mr. Haight said they would leave a no-cut zone buffer and add some trees.  Mr. Danevich asked if there was a reason for not bringing the cul-de-sac back 20’.  Mr. Haight felt it would impact the frontage.  Mr. Mitchell informed that a condition of the cul-de-sac waiver would be that a substantial buffer would have to be in place.  He said it they didn’t, they would have to pull the cul-de-sac back and then they would lose lots.  He felt it was in the best interest of the applicant to add the buffer. 


Mr. Gowan recalled a previous discussion regarding bringing a road to Simpson Road instead of having a long cul-de-sac.  Mr. Culbert disagreed with adding an additional intersection on Simpson Road.  Mr. Danevich was also not inclined to add the intersection.  Mr. Scanzani added that the abutters also felt strongly about keeping the cul-de-sac.  Mr. Mitchell informed that neither the Fire Chief or Police Chief had concerns. 


Mr. Scanzani asked if any cisterns would be added.  Mr. Danevich said that would be part of the approval.  Mr. Scanzani also brought up Ms. Deb Casey’s prior inquiry of reserving an access to Beaver Brook.  Mr. Dave Mendes said the access from Beaver Brook, which the Town owned was across the Brook.  Mr. Scanzani said the point was to have additional access.  Mr. Mendes asked who would be liable for the area.  Mr. Gove noted that the last page of the environmental impact study noted the Town owned areas. 




Mr. Jim Langlois, 11 May Lane would like to see the cul-de-sac remain.


Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission asked if the plan would go before Conservation.  He would like to review the plan due to the close proximately of Beaver Brook.  He didn’t feel comfortable reviewing the plan after the Planning Board.  He didn’t feel the developer would address Conservation’s concerns if already approved by Planning.  He said based on what he had heard, he would request an additional 50’ buffer along Beaver Brook. 


Mr. Clem Newborn was also in favor of keeping the cul-de-sac.


Mr. Mitchell said the Police Chief’s concern was proper signage and the Fire Chief did not respond. 


Mr. Danevich asked that the plan be reviewed by Conservation at their next available meeting.  He then advised that the following should be revised: 1) WCD buffer connection on ML 9-136-48; 2) notation of fire and cistern at acceptable locations; 3) buffer notation at the end of the cul-de-sac; 4) lots 45, 46, 47, 48 are to be site specific.  Mr. Scanzani added that the fiscal impact should be updated using the current tax rate and the demographic multiplier for students should be 1.5 (which should be in the new census)



(Scanzani/Culbert) To accept for consideration the waiver request to accept the 1200’ cul-de-sac with the condition that an additional  buffer be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac.



(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries.


Mr. Culbert asked what the time line was for the plan.  Mr. Scanzani noted that it had been accepted for consideration on January 4, 2001.  Mr. Yarmo noted that Conservation’s next meeting would be February 14, 2001.  He said he would speak with Mr. Mitchell.


There was a brief discussion regarding the policy followed for plans to be reviewed by Conservation.  Mr. Mitchell  informed that he had forwarded the plans to Conservation for comment, and was unaware of the policy that the applicant needed to attend the meeting.


Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Mitchell follow up with the Fire Chief for his comments.


Mr. Haight wanted to clarify that the reason the plan was to be reviewed by Conservation was solely at the request of the Planning Board, and not because there were any impacts requiring Conservation to review.  Mr. Danevich answered yes. 


The plan was date specified for the Planning Board’s March 5, 2001 meeting so that Conservation would have the opportunity to review and provide comments/recommendations.


ML 3-101 Cecile B. Gauthier Revocable Trust/Tenney Road - Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision for Approval


Mr. Steve Haight, Edward Herbert Associates appeared before the Board to present the proposed subdivision for approval.  He said the proposed was a 6-Lot subdivision and each of the lots were the appropriate size.  He said they had met with CLD and the Planning Director and felt they had addressed the concerns discussed. 


Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission asked that Conservation have a chance to review before approved by the Planning Board.  He felt there were environmentally sensitive issues, which needed review by Conservation. 


Ms. Casey arrived.


There was a brief discussion regarding the policy followed for plans to be reviewed by Conservation.  Mr. Mitchell  informed that he had forwarded the plans to Conservation for comment, and was unaware of the policy that the applicant needed to attend the meeting. 


Mr. Gowan and Mr. Culbert both felt that Conservation could make recommendations on plans without the applicant doing a formal presentation. 


Ms. Casey informed that there had been a formal presentation to accept a 2-3 acre parcel on ML 3-101-10, which the Board of Selectmen voted to accept.  She said the parcel was accepted as a passive recreational parcel courtesy of Mr. J.R. Gauthier.  Mr. Danevich noted that the parcel had nothing to do with the subdivision except for access. 




Mr. J.R. Gauthier, Tenney Road didn’t believe that Conservation should have purview on the plan.  He said they did not elect to meet with Conservation because there were no issues.


Mr. Yarmo said that a formal invitation was given to the applicant who chose not to attend Conservation’s meeting.  Mr. Gowan asked if they discussed the plan.  Mr. Yarmo answered no.  Mr. Gauthier said he was not aware of a set meeting with Conservation.  Mr. DeLuca asked if there was a problem, since this was the second plan that had not gone before Conservation.  Mr. Mitchell explained that he was unaware of the Town policy for applicants to appear at Conservation, versus Conservation providing comments on plans submitted to them.   Mr. Haight said if they had proposed a WCD crossing or wetland impact they would have gone before Conservation, but since they were not proposing any impacts, they did not go to the meeting.  Mr. Gowan recommended that the plan be reviewed by Conservation. 


There was a brief discussion regarding when a plan should go before Conservation and what guidelines should be followed.  The Board would set guidelines at a later date since the plan before them clearly had a conservation easement which should be reviewed by Conservation. 


Mr. Phil Currier, informed that his wife Pricilla was trustee for a parcel under discussion.  He was concerned with jurisdiction issues and when plans should be reviewed by Conservation if there were no conservation impacts.  He felt that the plans could have been reviewed and commented on by Conservation when they received them from Mr. Mitchell.  He felt waiting until March to meet with Conservation would be an unreasonable amount of time since there were no conservation issues. 


Mr. Gowan would like to have Conservation review in a reasonable amount of time.  He was unsure if one meeting per month would be sufficient if Conservation were to review all plans.  Mr. Danevich said in this case there was a conservation easement which should be reviewed by Conservation.


Mr. Gauthier said the easement was voluntary and if he were to take it back there would be no reason to meet with Conservation.  He felt the act of donating the land was pro-active, but now felt penalized.  He said if there was something Conservation wanted within the easement, they would be more than happy to accommodate them.  Mr. Scanzani said that without the easement, the subdivision would be land-locked.  Mr. Gauthier informed that the land was currently land-locked and 300’ of wetland would have to be crossed for access.  Mr. Haight said there was no requirement to provide access to the property.  Mr. Yarmo said he would review the items on the next agenda for availability.  He didn’t understand why Conservation wouldn’t review.  His understanding was the donation of land was part of a resolution for illegal filling of wetland and the removal of a beaver damn.  He said there was also a reference to an agreement with Conservation, which had not taken place. 


Mr. Gowan felt that comment was needed by Conservation and recommended that this plan (and the previous) and the previous be date specified for the Planning Board’s March 5, 2001 meeting.  He felt the plans should be reviewed by Conservation, either with a presentation or without.  He recommended that Mr. Mitchell establish a clear definition of which plans should be reviewed by Conservation. 


There was a consensus by the Planning Board to send the plan to Conservation for comment and recommendations.  Mr. Danevich requested that Edward Herbert Associates attend the next available Conservation meeting for review of the plans. 




ML 10-10-2 Benchmark Engineering, Inc./Dutton Road - Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for Preliminary Conceptual Review


Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There was no abutter present who did not have his or her name read aloud. 


Mr. Jack Simplenski, Benchmark Engineering presented the conceptual plan for review.  He said the property consisted of 9.1 residential acres with approximately 463’ of frontage on Dutton Road.  He said the property was large with a lot of wetland.  He said all the buffers shown were 75’ (as proposed for Town Meeting).  He pointed out the buildable areas and informed that to access those areas, one driveway would have to be approximately 900’ and the other driveway would have to be approximately 300’.  He said there would have to be a WCD crossing of approximately 500’ as well as a small dredge and fill of which approximately 2000 square feet of wetland would be affected.    He said the properties would have individual water and sewer.  He informed that the water would drain in the opposite direction from Little Island Pond. 


Ms. Casey asked if a culvert would be needed.  Mr. Simplenski said they would need a driveway culvert. 


Mr. Danevich asked for clarification of the type of discussion the Board should have in connection with the conceptual review before them.  Mr. Mitchell read a section of the NH RSA 676:4 II(b) which stated the discussion should be non-binding.  Mr. Mitchell cautioned that the Board should simply point out issues (i.e. design, layout, where roads would go) and not state there feelings either favorably or otherwise.  Mr. Danevich noted that section 5 in the subdivision regulations should be updated to include abutter notification. 


Ms. Casey was very concerned with the length of the driveway, the wetland crossing and the amount of wetland crossing.  She asked what delineation was used for the wetland.  Mr. Simplenski said poorly drained soil.  Ms. Casey asked if it was over an acre.  Mr. Simplenski answered yes.  Ms. Casey felt both Conservation and Safety should review it.




Mr. David Owens, 122 Dutton Road said he was concerned with the stream and the possible sewage and septic drainage and possible MtBE contamination from runoff.  He said the stream was the major tributary for a pond, which was used for swimming, fishing and watering livestock. 


Ms. Casey pointed out that the setbacks in the new ordinance were different for poorly drained soil versus streams.  Mr. Simplenski informed that they were scheduled to appear before Conservation at their February 14, 2001 meeting. 


Mr. Don Crossley South Shore Drive asked if the Board would conduct a site walk.  Mr. Danevich answered yes. 


Mr. Dave Hennessey 71 Dutton Road who was not an abutter, wanted to know if the proposed ordinance didn’t pass, if the 125’ setback would be changed to 50’.  Mr. Scanzani informed that the septic setback would remain 125’. 


Mr. Culbert informed that site walks were not performed with more than 4” of snow on the ground. 


Mr. Rich Romeo, 118 Dutton Road asked what additional concerns the Board had, other than the wetlands and the driveway lengths.  Mr. Danevich said the Fire and Police Chief as well as the Safety Committee would review and provide comments and requirements.


Mr. Danevich read his list of guidance issues:


1) driveway distance;

2) WCD crossing;

3)500’ crossing;

4) driveway dredge and fill and the component where the culvert would need to go in;

5) review by Conservation;

6) setback updating to 125’

7) proper wetland delineation by certified wetland scientist;

8) erosion and drainage;

9) possibly speak with engineer before changing plans;

10) site specific would be required.



Mr. Ron Smith 118 Dutton Road asked how they would set a meeting with Safety and Conservation.  Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Mitchell could set the meetings up. 


Mr. Danevich asked if the abutters would be renotified.  Mr. Mitchell answered yes.


Mr. Owens asked why the large escavating equipment was parked on the parcel.  Mr. Smith said he bought the equipment, but it couldn’t be parked at his house, so he parked it on his land for future development.


ML 11-254 Benchmark Engineering, Inc./Dutton Road - Proposed 16-Lot Subdivision for Preliminary Conceptual Review


Mr. Scanzani read the list of abutters aloud.  There was no abutter present who did not have his or her name read aloud. 


Mr. Jack Simplenski, Benchmark Engineering presented the conceptual plan for review.  He said the proposed consisted of 86 acres, which could only be accessed by a 50’ stub on Dutton Road located between two existing house lots.  He said the property was located South of Little Island Pond and contained a substantial amount of wetlands.  He informed that a portion of the drainage basin was south, but the rest would drain toward the North.  Mr. Simplenski presented both conventional and open space plans.  He noted that the road wouldn’t be more than a 4% grade, but it would require wetland and WCD crossings.  He said the bulk of the buildable area was toward the back of the parcel, so the road would require a waiver due to its length being 2100’.  He said they would provide a 50’ stub that could be connected to Blueberry Circle in the future.  He noted the wetland impacts in two areas, one being approximately 4000 square feet and the other being approximately 2000’-3000’ square feet.  He ended by pointing out the six drainage areas and said their strategy would be to construct detention ponds and treatment swales.  Mr. Simplenski asked the Board which plan they might prefer. 


Mr. Culbert asked how the open space concept fit the spirit of the ordinance.  Mr. Simplenski pointed out the ‘good’ land and said on the open space plan they were able to save approximately 100’ on the road.  He felt the test pits would be fine. 


Ms. Casey reiterated her feeling regarding the cul-de-sac lengths.  She felt that the plan should keep with the rules and regulations of the community and be designed with a shorter cul-de-sac length. 


Mr. Gowan said he appreciated both plans being presented, but didn’t feel the open space plan meet the spirit of the ordinance.  Mr. Simplenski said the property wasn’t a good example of open space due to the useable land being at the rear of the parcel. 


Mr. Scanzani wanted to make sure that no part of the wetlands were used in the open space calculations.  He noted that the wetland in the center of the property would most likely require septic setbacks of 125', which would change the lot configurations.  He also questioned if 30% of the land was high and dry.


Ms. Ouellette said she would like to see lots squared. 




Ms. Shirley Wakefield 38 South Shore Drive said she walked the land on Saturday and noted that from the top of Dutton Road to the pond was a 60’ drop.  She stated that her presentation was no reflection on the Picards.  Ms. Wakefield then read a prepared statement.  ATTACHMENT #2.  She also provided a hand-drawn map.  ATTACHMENT #3.  Ms. Wakefield then provided the Board with photographs of the area.


Ms. Ruth Gravel, a trustee of the road (who felt she should have been notified) was against the number of houses being proposed.  She provided a list of questions she wanted answered.  ATTACHMENT #4.


Mr. Danevich went through the list and answered her questions as follows:


1) No, a perk test would not be conducted until the plan was accepted for consideration;

2) No, soil typing would not be done until the application was submitted;

3) No, wetland impact study wouldn’t be required until probably the first meeting;

4) Water diversion would be determined by the Town engineer who would not be engaged until the plan was accepted for consideration;

5) Erosion control would also come from the Town engineer after the plan was accepted for consideration;

6) Yes; a site walk would be scheduled during the first meeting;

7) Yes, consistently traffic studies are requested for subdivision larger than 10 lots.



Mr. Scanzani added that additional reviews would be done, such as economic impact study as well as being reviewed by Conservation.


Mr. Chris Murphy, Blueberry Circle said he was an abutter to the proposed stub connection to Blueberry Circle and noted that it had been previously denied.  He said that the paper road was actually a water road (an intermittent stream).  He asked if there had been any studies performed and if there had been any changes since it’s previous denial.  Mr. Danevich said generally 50’ easements were granted.  Mr. Gowan added that if a 50’ right-of-way were to be granted, it would need to be able to go somewhere.  Mr. Murphy confirmed that the stub couldn’t be utilized until they came before the Board.  Mr. Danevich answered yes.


Ms. Danielle Downes, 20 South Shore Drive summarized a prepared statement she handed to the Board.  ATTACHMENT #5.  Her main concern was the affect the subdivision would have on the pond.  Mr. Danevich said the water drainage issues would be handled by the Town engineer.  He then asked Mr. Mitchell if there was a program in place for recording water quality issues before blasting took place.  Mr. Mitchell answered no.  He said the subdivision regulation could be revised. 


Ms. Barbara Doucet, a trustee on the road said a retention pond had been added on Armand Drive, which turned her property to slush.  She said that she spoke with Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates who said he had designed a wonderful pond, and the Town was to maintain.  Mr. Danevich didn’t believe that a retention pond was being proposed.  Mr. Simplenski explained the difference between a retention pond, which would hold water indefinitely versus a detention pond, which holds water for a limited amount of time. 


Ms. Casey left the meeting.


Mr. Ed Fuccrielle, 109 Dutton Road was concerned with additional water in his yard.  He asked what the width of the right-of-way would be.  Mr. Simplenski said in total it would be 50’, with the paved area being approximately 24’-28’.  Mr. Fuccrielle wanted to know the recourse if the subdivision wasn’t done properly.  Mr. Danevich informed that CLD (Town engineer) would review and give a final recommendations as well as site inspection and engineering.  Mr. Fuccrielle informed that the road would be approximately 10’ from his gazebo. 


Ms. Andrea Fucrielle, 109 Dutton Road said the area next to her property remained wet year round.


Ms. Julia Steedmossen, 17 South Shore Drive asked what type of wetlands were contained on the property.  Mr. Simplenski said the soil scientist could be available at the next meeting.  Ms. Steedmossen asked if vernal pools were part of the delineation.  Mr. Danevich said the certified wetland scientist would delineate on the plan and Conservation would also review.  Ms. Steedmossen asked how the Board viewed public safety with large groups of people living in one area.  Mr. Gowan said it wasn’t figured into a plan.  He went on to say that traffic impacts were performed with lots of 10 or more as well as complete environmental impact and fiscal impacts.  Mr. Scanzani said the CIP Committee would review for future fire and police protection needs. 


Ms. Lisa Lafontaine, 18 South Shore Drive said she was downhill from the proposed and was concerned with the affects on her well as well as the affect on the pond. 


Mr. Bob Lameroux, Blueberry Circle pointed out his and his mother’s property (which directly abutted the length of the subdivision from Dutton Road to the pond).  he said the right-of-way on Blueberry Circle drained the entire area into the proposed subdivision.  He felt his and his mother’s parcels would be the backyard to the new subdivision.  He was concerned with the wells feeding off of the same vein of water and the contamination that could possibly occur.  Mr. Lameroux noted the area was a major wildlife corridor and was concerned with the affect the subdivision would have.  He ended by requesting a copy of the plan.  Mr. Danevich said he could speak with Mr. Mitchell for a copy. 


Mr. Scanzani asked if there was any other area, which could be used to access the property other than the right-of-way.  Mr. Simplenski was not aware of an alternate access point.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the open space ordinance would provide for community wells and septics to leave the sensitivity areas open.  Mr. Simplenski felt that dispersing the septic systems was a better alternative than one large community loading the ground. 


Mr. Fucrielle objected to the length of the cul-de-sac.


Ms. Gravel noted that the only other way to access the property would be through South Shore Drive, which was a private road. 


Mr. Stephen Morin, 36 South Shore Drive confirmed that there was a lot of water in the area as well as a wildlife corridor.  He asked that the abutters be kept up to date with the engineering. 


Mr. Bob Yarmo, Chairman, Conservation Commission informed that the plan would be reviewed at the next Conservation meeting scheduled for February 14, 2001 at 7:30pm.  He also said Conservation was in need of volunteers if anyone was interested. 


Mr. Danevich noted that the Board had not yet taken jurisdiction on the plan, but would provide feedback as follows:


1) Conservation should review;

2) Waiver requests would probably be needed for WCD crossings etc.;

3) Septic setbacks revisions;

4) Waiver would be needed for the cul-de-sac length;

5) 50’ right-of-way should be reviewed and ready for discussion;

6) Interested in conventional plan (unless open space reconfigured);

7) Drainage, traffic, fiscal, wildlife and environmental studies;

8) Site walk would be performed;

9) High and dry calculations.



ML 10-323 Lakeside Development, LLC/90 Bridge Street - Proposed Daycare Conceptual Discussion


Mr. Tony Marcott of Design Consultants presented the proposed daycare.  He said the property was approximately 1 3/4 acres.  He said they were proposing an addition to be used as a childcare facility, which would be approximately 1200 square feet.  He said there would be 75 students.  He said there was a small wetland at the rear of the property, which would be properly delineated on the plan by Gove Environmental.  Mr. Marcott said they would also be proposing a loop driveway, which would be checked out with the State.  He said the water and sewer would be private. 


Mr. Scanzani noted that all the setbacks would need to be met, such as for the septic.


Mr. Danevich suggested that Mr. Marcott review the Planning Board minutes, which discussed the Pentecostal Church daycare.  He said the issues surrounding the Pentecostal Church were the number of parking spaces, square feet per child, lighting, hours of operation and proper signage.  He said an artist rendition of the addition would also be helpful.  He said that the Board is concerned with improving Route 38, and said that buffer zones with trees and landscaping would be well received.


Mr. Scanzani noted that Route 38 was a limited access highway and the state may not grant the driveway. 


Mr. Gowan noted that the Fire Chief generally requests access to three sides of the building and suggested speaking with him. 




Shelly and Joseph German the owners of the property said they currently (and for the past 13 years) had a daycare center in Pelham.  They would like to have the additional area for cross-referencing families. 




NRPC on Master Plan Discussion


Mr. Mark Archembault appeared before the Board and discussed his suggestions regarding the Master Plan.  He was in favor of reviewing the Master Plan during worksessions.  He asked if the entire Board would be involved or if there would be a sub-committee.  Mr. Gowan said there would be a sub-committee, but would like to begin discussions with a public forum and meeting for input.  He said at the end of the process he would like to have a poster or booklet, which clearly points out the main points. 


Mr. Scanzani wanted to clarify how actions would be carried out, once included on the Master Plan.  He used the example of adding an intersection to Route 38 and Jericho Road.  Mr. Gowan said that the CIP Committee would be the group to meet the criteria.  Mr. Danevich said that should be a discussion for the Master Plan Committee. 


Mr. Gowan and Mr. Archembault would work on gathering people and setting meeting times and dates. 


Mr. Danevich thanked Mr. Archembault for the contribution to the WCD discussions.




November 6, 2000





(Scanzani/Gowan)  To approve the minutes as amended.



(5 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. DeLuca abstained.


January 3, 2001





(Gowan/Culbert)   To approve the minutes as amended.



(6 - 0 - 0) The motion carries


January 4, 2001





(Gowan/Culbert)   To approve the minutes as amended.



(6 - 0 - 0)   The motion carries.  Mr. DeLuca abstained.


January 16, 2001





(Gowan/Culbert) To approve the minutes as amended.



(6 - 0 -0)  The motion carries.




 A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting.


The motion was adjourned at approximately 11:48pm.


                                                                                                Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                                Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                                Recording Secretary