PB Minutes 5-03-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 3, 2004

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

The acting Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Bill Sc= anzani, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternat= e Raymond Brunelle

It was noted that Mr. Yar= mo would vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 24 Lot 12-63-1 – Maureen & Eloise Meissner –= Shephard Road Extension – 7 Lot Subdivision for consideration

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said that the presented plan had previously been approved by the= Board approximately one year ago. H= e said at that time the plan was a seven lot subdivision, with six buildable lots,= and the seventh being deeded to the Town. He said at the time of approval, the connection of Shephard Road to Spring Street had = been a concern of the Board. He said= the owner had built and paved a loop last year, but now wanted to extend Shepha= rd Road Extension. To do so, a s= tate subdivision approval and dredge and fill permit were needed. The reason the plan was being revi= ewed was per the Board’s requirement (if a plan was not signed within six = [6] months, the plan had to come back before the Board for re-approval. Mr. Zohdi said the conditions of approval had been added to the plan and it was his belief that those condit= ions had been met.

Mr. Danevich asked for verification by the Planning Director that the conditions had been met. Mr. D’Andrea said he reviewe= d all the conditions, and it appeared they had been met.

Mr. Scanzani said the plan appeared to be the same plan that the Board approved a year ago, and theref= ore, had no remaining issues. Mr. McNamara asked if the plan was identical to the plan previously approved by= the Board. Mr. Zohdi said the pla= n was identical, with the exception that the approval conditions had been added.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. D’Andrea clarif= ied that one of the conditions was that there be a note regarding guardrails. He said there had been a response = by Mr. Zohdi’s office saying that guardrails weren’t necessary given t= he slopes. Mr. Zohdi said there = had been a concern that the slope requirements could not be met, but per the pl= an the dredge and fill permit had been met and a guardrail would not be needed. He said they had work= ed with the former planning director. Mr. D’Andrea said he was not clear what the ‘super elevated’ provision discussion had been based upon the meeting minutes. He asked that Mr. Zo= hdi address to the Board that the condition had been satisfied. Mr. Zohdi said the Board wanted to= make the cul-de-sac area super elevated because a dredge and fill may not be abl= e to be obtained, but since that discussion, the plan was presented to the state= and approved, therefore they didn’t need to super elevate, or install a guardrail.

Ms. Ouellette noted that = the file contained a waiver request in connection with the application fees and additional review and other costs. Mr. Zohdi said the waiver was being requested based upon the sequence conditional approval.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the waiver request for the application fees based upon the fact that the Board had previously approved the plan and it was being brought back due = to sequencing issues.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the waiver request of the application fees.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan as submitted since it meets all the conditions originally reques= ted in March, 2003.

VOTE:

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

Map 21 Lot 3-102-3 – Joseph Gauthier Jr. & Suzanne Gauthier – Tenney Road – 2 Lot Subdivision for consideration

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan and noted it had previously been approved by = the Board on November 6, 2000 with no conditions accept to obtain a state appro= val number. He said his client had difficulty obtaining an excavator. He noted that the state subdivision approval was noted on the plan a= nd requested that the Board approve the plan and waive the fees. He reiterated that the plan was identical to that which was previously approved by the Board.

Mr. Danevich confirmed th= at no work had been performed on the lot and the applicant was back before the Bo= ard for re-approval because of time lines.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input= .

Ms. Ouellette read the fe= e waiver request aloud (lot review fee $1000 and tax map revision fee $100).

Mr. D’Andrea said relocation of the driveway was part of the original discussion; it was currently on an adjoining property with no easement granted. He believed there was a question of where the driveway would be located. He noted there was also a discussion (but not a condition) regarding= a note for the one hundred year flood plain.= He read aloud a portion of the Board minutes of November 6, 2000. Mr. D’Andrea said the plan s= hould show (or have a note showing the location) that there was an easement on the property (lot 38) that contained the driveway. Mr. Zohdi asked if it was acceptab= le by the Board to add an easement. Mr. Danevich said he preferred to add an easement, which appeared to be less of= an impact to the WCD and because the driveway had existed over ten (10) years. Mr. Zohdi noted that t= he driveway had been in place for nineteen (19) years. Mr. Danevich recommended that the easement be included as part of the notations on the plan.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the frontage for ML3-102-3 would fall under the old, or new zoning. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan and confirmed that the lot contained adequate frontage.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich)To a= pprove the waiver request for the application fees based upon the fact that the Board had previously approved the plan and it was being brought back due = to sequencing issues.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan.

VOTE:

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

Map 38 Lot 1-116 – Kendall & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurm= an Building, LLC – Sherburne Road- 12 Lot Subdivision for consideration

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan, which was a twelve (12) lot subdivision off = Sherburne Road. He said a waiver request had been submitted in connection with generating a traffic study since there would o= nly be eleven (11) new lots created (one lot was existing). Mr. Gospodarek said the plan would= need review by the Conservation Commission due to grading in the wetland setbacks (but there would be no wetland impacts).&n= bsp; He noted that the plan had been submitted to the Town on April 12, 2004,= but comments had not yet been received by the Town’s consultant.

Mr. McNamara believed the= Board had previously conducted a conceptual discussion. Mr. Gospodarek said during the conceptual discussion there was discussion regarding connecting the roadway= , or adding a cul-de-sac; it was decided to connect the roadway.

It was noted that he plan= had not been sent for formal engineering review because it had not yet been accepted for consideration.

Mr. D’Andrea said d= uring the conceptual discussions, one of the considerations for doing a cul-de-sac was to avoid wetland impacts for the extension of Litchfield. He questioned why the wetlands didn’t appear on the presented plan.= Mr. Gospodarek said they had a letter from Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Enviro= nmental who performed an investigation of the site and determined that there were no wetlands at the end of the cul-de-sac.&nbs= p;

Mr. DeLuca asked if in th= e past, a traffic study had been done in the area showing the impacts to Sherburne Road. Mr. Scanzani recalled that a traff= ic study had been done for nearby subdivisions. He said Sherburne Road was a major connecto= r road which was built and designed for the traffic.

Mr. Scanzani said he woul= d like to have an Environmental Impact Assessment done because the area is wet and should be identified.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re were open space provisions. Mr. Gospodarek said open space provisions had not been included because they had submitted a conventional subdivision. Mr. McNamara said the regulations included open space provisions, wh= ich would be one of his concerns. He said the Planning Director provided comments regarding compliance issues on= the plan which include: 1) test pits 4k area location; 2) fire cisterns; 3) wai= ver request to create lot that requires driveway crossing; 4) missing WCD boundaries; 5) no test pits shown for lots 1,2,4,5,7; lots 3, 8, 9 – one test pit s= hown; lots 6 & 10 – test pits not separated by 50ft.

Ms. Bousa asked if the si= te distance had been measured for the new road. Mr. Gospodarek said the site dista= nce had been measured per state requirements (the application has not yet been submitted to the state). He s= aid there was no problem with the site distance and believed it was four hundred (400) feet in both directions. Ms. Bousa asked if the centerline of the road been marked. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Danevich requested th= at each lot be site specific. Mr. Zoh= di said he would be glad to submit site specific for each lot, but noted the e= xact septic area may be changed. He explained the differences between complying with the state versus complying with the Town. He wanted it understood that site specific would be submitted in the next couple days, b= ut the 4K area would not be exact. Mr. Danevich understood and believed they were open to providing latitude, but wanted the exact envelope on the final set of plans when approved. He formally requested site specific plans. Mr. Danevich said the Town’s regulations call for open space and there was interest in maki= ng improvements in the area. He = said at this point the plan was not in compliance with the regulations and asked that consideration be given to doing something in the area for open space.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi said he could discuss op= tions with his client. He said that= he would also work with the Planning Director.

Mr. Yarmo questioned the = site specific request. Mr. Zohdi s= aid they were requesting latitude to work with the Planning Director. Mr. Danevich said a site specific = plan providing exact locations of the house, septic, etc., prior to the plan bei= ng signed, would ensure that the drainage calculations would work.

Mr. Danevich reminded the= Board that the Economic Impact update, traffic study and engineering review shoul= d be addressed.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. D’Andrea if the plan met the requirements of accepting the plan for consideration. Mr. D’An= drea felt the applicant had provided enough information for the Board to make a decis= ion.

Mr. Danevich said within = the pages of the plan certain numbers were overriding each other and asked that they be corrected. Mr. Zohdi = said the plan would be corrected. =

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Yarmo) To acc= ept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Dianne Hunt, 27 Litchfield Circle, who resided on the current cul-de-sac, questioned the purpose of having a through road since there was no access or outlet on the other side of the neighborhood. She said the understanding, at the time she purchased the property was that the right-of= -way was for emergency vehicles. M= r. McNamara said typically when a right-of-way was added to a plan, it was don= e to provide the option for future connectivity. He believed during the conceptual discussion it was the Board’s opinion to connect, rather than have two separate cul-de-sacs. Ms. Hun= t said there were several young children that resided on the cul-de-sac and didn’t see the benefit to take the cul-de-sac away, which may depreci= ate property values. She asked if= there was any flexibility with the plan. Mr. McNamara said the developer designed the plan in response to the comments provided during the conceptual meeting.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd had a stated purpose to design and connect roads. Ms. Hunt understood that the owner= had the right to develop their property, but questioned what benefit the Town w= ould have to connect the road. Mr. Scanzani said the connection would provide benefits such as emergency vehic= les with two egresses and road plowing would be easier for the Road Agent. Ms. Hunt asked what would happen t= o the existing cul-de-sac. Mr. Scan= zani assumed that the cul-de-sac would be dug up and would eventually go back to= its natural state.

Mr. Danevich suggested th= at the notes on the plan show a separate bond for completion of off-site work for = the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Marc Wilga, Litchfield Circle (lot 4) asked how the cul-de-sac would be completed (extension of driveways etc.). Mr. Zohdi said when th= e road was designed the Board wanted the new extension to the connected to the cul-de-sac. He said they woul= d redesign the plan at the direction of the Board.&nb= sp; Mr. Danevich said he would like the cul-de-sac to be removed. Mr. Wilga asked if the developer w= ould consult with the owners of lots four and five regarding the design if the cul-de-sac were removed. Mr. = Zohdi said they would work with the owners of lots four and five. Mr. Danevich said on Benoit Avenue= /Diamond Hill the existing lot lines were not changed and a right-of-way was maintai= ned by the Town, so that deeds were not affected.= Mr. Scanzani said one problem was in some cases the cul-de-sac was u= sed for frontage calculations. He= said the ‘key’ would be the off-site improvement bond to guarantee t= he improvements and drainage.

Ms. Hunt wanted to unders= tand that the Town would still own the right-of-way, but the lot owners would be responsible for maintenance. = She said her front yard would be extended, and her home would be tipped at an o= dd angle, which she felt would affect the property value. Mr. McNamara noted that this was t= he first meeting and there would be additional meetings to discuss engineering, economic studies, etc. Ms. Hu= nt wanted to know when her property could be discussed. Mr. McNamara said there would be opportunities to discuss the abutter’s property, including on-site wh= en the engineer had a crew at the property.&n= bsp; Ms. Hunt said they would like the tree buffer between her neighborho= od and the proposed development to remain.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara suggested that the Board walk the site.

Mr. Scanzani believed the following should occur: 1) Economic Impact study; 2) Environmental study; 3) Town engineer review; 4) address the traffic waiver request; 5) open space review.

Ms. Bousa addressed the traffic. She didn’t fee= l that a twelve lot subdivision would generate enough traffic to show an impact. She said <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road itself was not overcapacity, but the two ends had problems because they became the funnel. She noted that a sing= le residential home equated to one trip during the AM and PM peak hours and didn’t feel that the level of service to the road would be reflected. Mr. DeLuca suggest= ed reviewing a study in the area and possibly collecting impact fees for the future. He asked if a build-o= ut of the area could be provided. M= r. Zohdi said he would provide a build-out of the area for the next meeting.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To= accept, for consideration, the waiver request of the regulations regarding a traf= fic study being provided to the Board for an eleven lot subdivision.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept the waiver request of the regulations regarding a traffic study (the applicant will not be required to submit a traffic study).

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara informed the applicant that the Board would like the following: 1) Economic Impact study= ; 2) Environmental Impact; 3) site specific plan; 4) consideration of open space.

A site walk will be sched= uled once the Environmental study and engineering comments are received. Mr. Scanzani said the numbers in t= he Economic Impact would be updated and provided to Mr. D’Andrea.

The application was date specified to the = June 7, 2004 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC = 211; Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeki= ng Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration<= /u>

Mr. McNamara said the app= licant had requested (in writing) a continuance to the May 17, 2004 meeting; the applicant also= waived the statutory time limits.

Ms. Shirley Wakefield (South Shore Drive), President of the Little Island Pond Watershed Association disagreed with the manner in which the meeting was cancelled.= She said it was difficult to contact the members of the Association = as well as those interested in the proceedings. She said the Association’s attorney was contacted late in the afternoon (by the applicant’s atto= rney) regarding the meeting being cancelled.&nbs= p; Ms. Wakefield said the Association was also upset with the amount of meetings cancelled and said they had never requested a cancellation. She asked that the AssociationR= 17;s attorney be given the same courtesies provided to the applicant’s attorney. She asked if it were possible to have a meeting on an alternate evening. Mr. McNamara said the Board met on= the first and third Monday of the month. He informed that the Board received a facsimile late in the afternoon requesting the continuance.  &nb= sp;

The application was conti= nued to the May 17, 2004= meeting.

Map 29 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood R= oad – Site Plan Application to construct a 30x40 garage within the Wetland Conservation District adjacent to a Prime Wetland

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the proposed was a limited= site plan and went on to show the Board the location of the existing house, exis= ting garage, approximate leaching area, septic tank and the existing driveway. He said his applicant had gone to = the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance (which was granted) to place a ga= rage within the WCD. Since that ti= me the applicant had gone to the NH Wetland Bureau and hired wetland and soil scientists who flagged the wetlands. Mr. Zohdi said that the wetland flags were shown on the plan. He also noted that his client had an approval (with conditions) from the Wetland Bureau; the applicant is willin= g to comply with all the conditions for the site. Mr. Zohdi said the applicant had a container business and would like to place some of his trucks and containers inside of the garage. He expl= ained that the garage would be pitched so if there was any spill it would stay wi= thin the garage. He said the eleva= tion of the garage would be above flood zone elevation. He said they were also proposing to widen the driveway a little bit for better access to the garage.

Mr. Yarmo asked why the s= eptic and leach bed location were approximate.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said ‘approximate’ meant within four or five feet. Mr. Yarmo was concerned= about the parcel based upon the recent weather which flooded the area. He believed there was room in the = front of the lot for a garage. Mr. = Zohdi said his client wanted to place the garage out of site; also the elevation = of the slab was proposed to be four feet.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani asked about = the topography of the area and wanted to know if the garage would be under wate= r if there was a major rain storm. Mr. Zohdi said the garage would be raised and fill would be added. Mr. Yarmo said in essence, flood w= ater would be displaced. Mr. Scanz= ani asked how the lot was zoned. = Mr. Zohdi believed the lot was zoned commercial, but would check. Mr. Scanzani said any fill to the = lot would create a ‘fish bowl’ affect with the abutting lots. He asked where the one hundred year flood plain was located. Mr. = Zohdi said the flood plain was located at station 131. He asked if the plan could be sent= to the Town engineer for review and advise if the wetland could be mitigated.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He discussed ways in which the lot= could possibly be mitigated. Mr. Zo= hdi said the reason the applicant went to the Wetland Bureau was due to a prime wetland issue, not filling the wetland.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani discussed the problems with water displacement and abut= ting parcels. Mr. Zohdi said the p= lan could be reviewed, and possibly shift the garage closer toward the house. Mr. McNamara asked if the possibil= ity of locating the garage in front, closer to Atwood Road. Mr. Zohdi said his client was conc= erned about his neighbor and didn’t want them bothered. Mr. Yarmo felt an environmental is= sue should be above an aesthetic issue.

Mr. Danevich said under n= ormal circumstances building a 30ft.x40ft. garage would be as simple as getting a building permit from the Planning Department, however, in this case the building would be within the WCD. He was not in favor of the proposed plan and felt there were other possible locations on the property for the use. Photos were circulated that showed= flooding during a recent storm. Mr. Da= nevich believed that the business had outgrown the lot. Mr. McNamara said the building and business were currently at the location.&n= bsp; He said the question was whether the trucks would continue to be sto= red in the open next to the prime wetland, or in a garage somewhere on the property.

Mr. Scanzani said he was = very concerned about the wetland area. Mr. McNamara said the Board of Adjustment (BOA) was also concerned a= bout the wetland, which was the reason that the approval was conditioned upon ha= ving a full hearing before the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Scanzani believed if the BOA h= ad the same photograph that the Planning Board had, the decision may have been different.

Ms. Ouellette was not in = favor of the garage being located in the proposed location.

Mr. Scanzani said he want= ed to know what the lot was zoned as. Mr. D’Andrea recalled that the lot was zoned for business. He said he could reconfirm for the Board.

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = plan be deferred/tabled until the next meeting.&nb= sp; He would like the opportunity to consult with his client regarding t= he garage and come back to the Board. <= /span>

The application was date specified to the = June 7, 2004 meeting.

Map 24 Lot 12-224 – Anastasia Wickwire – 43 Ledge Road – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision for continued consideration

Mr. Matt Hamor of Meisner= Brem, along with Mr. Cody Metcalf, both representing Anastasia Wickwire, presented the = plan to the Board. Mr. Hamor said = the Board had previously requested that the applicant obtain full septic approval. He said the applica= nt had obtained state approval for the subdivision as well as septic approval. He went on to say that they would = be utilizing a driveway easement for access to the existing lot; a waiver for = such was submitted to the Board. M= r. Hamor said the main issue during the previous hearing was to make sure the = well radiuses were completely within the lot lines. He said the septic system had been= redesigned so there was no grading onto the adjacent lot; tests had been done and the septic has been moved. Mr. Ha= mor explained the reason a waiver was requested in connection with Subdivision Regulations 11.05C (driveway access and road design); the waiver would allow them to not further encroach on the two wetlands on either side of the driveway.

Mr. Danevich asked if Mr. D’Andrea if his questions regarding site distance and slope easement = had been answered. Mr. D’An= drea answered no. Mr. Danevich rev= iewed Mr. D’Andrea’s list of concerns: 1) adequate site distance measurement – Mr. Hamor indicated that they had adequate site distanc= e (in excess of 400 linear feet) in each direction; 2) no slope easement being sh= own – Mr. Hamor said the slope easement had been removed because the sept= ic system was moved out of the area adjacent to the property line.

Mr. Scanzani said his con= cerns from the previous meeting had been addressed.

Mr. Yarmo asked if the ex= isting house would have a new septic system. Mr. Hamor answered yes.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request for the driveway easement as shown = on the plan.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the waiver request for the driveway easement as presented.

VOTE:

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

Mr. S= canzani made a motion to approve the plan subject to all state approvals and the driveway easement documents being executed and submitted to the Town. Mr. Danevich seconded the motion a= nd asked that the following be added in accordance with a note Mr. D’And= rea submitted in connection with Subdivision Regulations Section 11.11(A), 2; M= r. D’Andrea suggesting that a note be added to the plan indicating that = the well test be provided prior to a building permit being issued, and that the= WCD be posted prior to a building permit being issued. Mr. Scanzani amended his motion. Mr. Danevich amended his second.

=

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = approve the plan subject to: 1) the proper execution of the driveway easement documentation and submittal to the Town; 2) compliance issues of the 4K a= rea being shown [per 11.11 (A), 2] on the plan and provided to the Town prior= to the building permit being issued; 3) WCD posted (and shown on the plan) p= rior to a building permit being issued.

VOTE:

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

Map 41 Lot 10-310 – Cer= ullo – Route 38 – Modification to Approved Site Plan =

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the site plan was approved= in 2001; at which time a note on the plan read certain buildings were to be removed, however during the night of the meeting it was noted that one of t= he buildings would eventually be removed, but in the meantime was used for sto= rage during construction. He said = the building was built, and a revision was requested to remove two parking spots and add a lamp; Building Inspector Roland Soucy and the former Planning Director decided since parking would be removed, the plan would have to go = back to the Board. At the same tim= e, the former Planning Director asked about the retaining wall and said if 3-1 slo= pes could be obtained, the retaining wall did not have to be constructed. Mr. Zohdi said that the builder re= moved the retaining wall and created the 3-1 slope based upon the understanding t= hat the Planning Director had the authority to grant such permission. He said when the Certificate of Occupancy was requested the new Planning Director reviewed the plan and saw that the building had not been removed and the retaining wall had not been constructed. He said the Plan= ning Director ordered that an as-built plan of the site be submitted. He said a temporary Occupancy Perm= it had been issued.   Mr. Zohdi = noted that everything, within reason matched the proposed plan. He said they were in the WCD and h= ad done some work within that area as well.&n= bsp; He ended by saying that the retaining wall had not been taken down without the permission of a Town official.= He said Mr. Mike Gospodarek (Herbert Associates) discussed the issue with Mr. Soucy and had documentation of the conversations. It was understood that the Planning Director at the time had some jurisdiction/latitude.

Mr. Danevich said he pref= erred to have the 3-1 slope and supported the request.

Mr. Yarmo asked what purp= ose the retaining wall had, such as to hold the grade back for the parking lot. He asked if the parking lot grade = had changed. Mr. Zohdi said the p= arking lot grade was lower (0.8) than the original and had not been raised. Mr. Yarmo said instead of spending= money to put a retaining wall in, it should be spent restoring the buffer. Mr. Zohdi said he could work with = the Board. Mr. Scanzani said orig= inally the retaining wall was in place because of concerns regarding the steepness= of the slope, siltation in the wetland area and issues with the parking lot. He said someone would have to show= him that there was something that would grow and stabilize on the slope to prot= ect the WCD. Mr. Zohdi suggested = that the Board walk the site. He s= aid he would be glad to work with Town staff to restore the area of the WCD and en= sure that the slope becomes vegetated. He asked that direction be given to the Planning Director and Buildi= ng Inspector to not revoke the Occupancy Permit. Mr. Scanzani felt the Occupancy Pe= rmit could be extended while the applicant worked toward a solution. He said there was another concern regarding a ‘pass-around’ lane that was not indicated on the pl= an, but was important. Mr. Zohdi = said he would review. Mr. Zohdi sa= id he would do an as-built of edge of pavement (on Route 38) by the next meeting. Ms. Bousa said she believed a by-pass shoulder had been done, but was unsure of the footage.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd did not want to see the Occupancy Permit revoked. The plan was to meet on site with = Mr. Yarmo to work on the slope, as well as to do an as-built of the driveway ar= ea (Route 38). Mr. Scanzani beli= eved that the Board needed to review the edge of pavement on the right of the building (possibly install a guardrail for traffic protection).

A site walk was scheduled= for May 17, 2004 at= 6:30pm.

The application was date specified to the May 17, 2004 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 6-179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the project had been before the Board numerous times; one issue was the location of the driveway, which was now complete. The current proposed plan showed t= he final driveway location as well as the culvert crossing and cul-de-sac. Mr. Gospodarek said they had recei= ved a report approximately two weeks ago from TFMoran (prior Town engineer). He said they had met with TFMoran regarding the drainage and how it would be approached. He noted that the Wetland Crossing= had been received by the state. He wanted to know if the Board had any additional comments regarding the plan before it was revised in relation to the TFMoran comments.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Go= spodarek had received a copy of Mr. Craig Wood’s (Louis-Berger) letter dated <= st1:date Month=3D"4" Day=3D"26" Year=3D"2004" w:st=3D"on">April 26, 2004.= Mr. Gospodarek said the letter had= been received and believed that the items contained therein had also been addres= sed by TFMoran. Mr. McNamara said= there were certain points (under conclusions and recommendations) that should be addressed.

Mr. Gospodarek said the f= irst point was compensatory storage. He said they addressed the issue with TFMoran and discussed an easement area toward Dracut, MA in which they would cut out and are= a in the WCD that would replicate the amount of area that would be filled in the flood plain. He said they wou= ld provide cross-sections for the area they would be filling and would also provide cross-sections and details for how the area would be restored. He agreed that the details/erosion control measures should be shown and noted that they already had standardiz= ed berm mulch in the plan set and would add more details on how to provide the erosion control. Mr. Gospodar= ek agreed with the comments in connection with culverts and said that TFMoran = had the same comments. He said th= ey were intending on adding a second culvert (36 inches) around station three.=

Ms. Ouellette read aloud = the language contained in Mr. Wood’s letter regarding culverts and wildli= fe passage. Mr. Gospodarek said = the culvert was designed primarily for the flood plain issues. He said he would defer the animal crossing issues to Gove Environmental for a report at the next hearing.

Mr. Yarmo asked what the = process would be for restoration of the flood plain mitigation area and wanted to k= now if the restoration would be included in the bond for the road. Mr. Gospodarek assumed the restora= tion would be included in the bond for the road because it was all related.

Ms. Bousa asked if the Town’s environmental consultant had reviewed the agreement made with TFMoran. Mr. Gospodarek answe= red no. Ms. Bousa felt the Town&#= 8217;s environmental consultant should review the agreement. Mr. Gospodarek said the issues were mainly related to engineering issues and didn’t find it necessary to = have an environmental consultant present for discussions regarding drainage calculations. Ms. Bousa quest= ioned if the environmental consultant should review the mitigation plan to ensure= it was exactly what the Board wanted. She asked what the ratio of mitigation was. Mr. Gospodarek said currently it w= as 1.5 to 1.

Mr. Danevich asked if the cul-de-sac was paved, or green space. Mr. Gospodarek said the cul-de-sac was paved. Mr. Danevich questioned why it was= paved and asked if a waiver request would be submitted. Mr. Gospodarek didn’t feel a waiver request was necessary. Mr. Danevich then questioned if the cul-de-sac should have green space center to help with siltation. Mr. Scan= zani asked if the road would have any berms, or be sheet drained. Mr. Gospodarek said the road would= have sheet drainage. Mr. Scanzani suggested that the Board review reducing the amount of pavement to have less impervious surface. Mr. Peter= Zohdi of Herbert Associates said there was information regarding the parcel and w= ould provide such at the next hearing for review.

Mr. Zohdi went on to disc= uss the center island of the cul-de-sac on Gauthier Drive and said he would bring additional information to the next meeting. He said he would work with the Board regarding the cul-de-sac and pointed out = that the Town’s Highway Road Agent had not been in favor of having a small= cul-de-sac with a middle section. Mr. Da= nevich was not in favor of reducing the road width in the event of further extension. He said he was awa= re of reducing road width in three locations for wetland mitigation. He said based upon review of the s= ite, the Board should plan for potential extension. Mr. Zohdi asked Mr. Danevich if he wanted the cul-de-sac moved closer to the property line. He wanted to know what radius was preferred for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Danevich preferred a 75ft. radius with it pulled to the property line in the event of future extension.

Mr. Craig Wood of Louis-B= erger (Town’s environmental consultant) reviewed his report previously submitted to the Board. He sa= id the mitigation had been address, but was unclear what the mitigation proposal was. He said there was some v= ery important conservation easement land (lots 6 & 7) that should be protected. He addressed the c= ulvert and said to accommodate the banks of the brook; a culvert approximately twe= lve feet wide may be needed in some locations.= He said because of the environmental sensitivity and wetland depende= nt species, they felt a culvert sized not only for engineering and flood stora= ge, but to better promote the safe passage of wildlife, should be considered. He discussed how culverts designed= for wildlife were constructed. He= said they recommended either enlarging the currently proposed culvert for the Gu= mpas Pond Brook, or something larger (substantially oversized) for the second st= ream crossing (providing a dry shelf).

Mr. Scanzani asked how hi= gh the culvert should be, and for what kind of animal. Mr. Wood said there was a potentia= l for large mammals (coyote or smaller). <= /span>He said an ideal crossing was one that wouldn’t disturb the existing str= eam bed with an arch providing five foot bank on each side. He said the culvert was worth considering based upon the sensitivity of the area and the wetland impact. = Mr. Scanzani asked if the culvert c= ould be done without a bridge. Mr.= Wood answered yes.

Mr. Yarmo said that Gove Environmental explained to the Conservation Commission that the flood plain mitigation would be to plant and restore the area to essentially act like additional wetland. He was in= favor of the culvert proposed by Mr. Wood.

Mr. Scanzani asked if it = was possible to put side by side culverts, where one would be dry for wildlife crossing. Mr. Wood said side = by side culverts was a concept commonly done.   He noted that the culvert sh= ould be back filled, and not left as concrete, since concrete could desecrate so= me amphibians and some animals were deterred by concrete.

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = plan be scheduled on the next meeting so they would have the opportunity to work wi= th TFMoran. He said they could send a copy of = the plan to Mr. Wood. Mr. McNamara asked that the plan be sent to Mr. Wood and in conjunction with the Planning Director. Mr. Zohdi said he w= ould forward plans to both Mr. Wood and the Planning Director.

The application was date specified to the = June 7, 2004 meeting.

Map 20 Lot 3-130-4 – A.G.A.N. Realty Corp. – Bearhill Road – 2 Lot Subdivision for continued consideration

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd received a letter (dated May 3, 2004) from Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates requesting = that the application be removed from the current agenda and be rescheduled for t= he next meeting.

The application was date specified to the = June 7, 2004 meeting.

DISCUSSION

Subdivision Regulations – Set items to go to Public Hearin= g: General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access and Road Design, (other)

Mr. Scanzani said he had = reviewed the subdivision regulations and found that many things had been deleted, and recent changes (amendments) had not been added. He lead the discussion by reviewin= g the items that had inadvertently been either deleted, or omitted from the subdivision regulations.

After a discussion of the= items, the Board decided to review the language presented and return comments as s= oon as possible so that a public hearing could be posted on May 6, 2004 for a hearing date of May 17, 2004 and possible adoption on June 7, 2004.

MINUTES

April 5= , 2004

MOTION:

(Danevich/DeLuca) To ap= prove the April 19, = 2004 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Yarmo a= bstained.

DATE SPECIFIED APPLICATIONS

May 17,= 2004

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Ro= ad – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Spec= ial Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration.

Map 41 Lot 10-= 310 – Cerullo – Route 38 – Modification to Approved Site Plan

June = 7, 2004

Map 38 Lot 1-116 – <= st1:PlaceName w:st=3D"on">Kendall & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Sherburne Road- 12 Lot Subdivision for consideration

Map 29 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood Road – Site Plan Application= to construct a 30x40 garage within the Wetland Conservation District adja= cent to a Prime Wetland

Map 39 Lot 6-1= 79 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed = 9-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for contin= ued consideration

Map 20 Lot 3-1= 30-4 – A.G.A.N. Realty Corp. – Bearhill Road – 2 Lot Subdivision for continued consideration

SITE WALK

May 1= 7, 2004

6:30pm on site - Map 41 Lot 10-310 – Cerullo &= #8211; Route 38 – Modification to Approved Site Plan

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/Ouellette) To= adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:10pm.

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

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A. L. Willis

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