PB Minutes 05.16.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 16, 2005

The Chairman, Bill Scanzani called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Chris= tine Medeiros, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate = Ken Dunne, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa

DI= SCUSSION

Jo= int Planning Board / Board of Adjustment Discussion

The following Board of Adjustment members join= ed the Planning Board: Mr. Dave Hennessey, Ms. Svetlana Paliy and Mr. Kevin O’Sullivan. Mr. McNamar= a (who is a Planning Board member as well as the Chairman for the Board of Adjustm= ent) began the discussion by explaining the differences between the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board and their responsibilities.

Mr. Hennessey commented regarding the types of requests that had been coming before the Board of Adjustment, specifically regarding wetland issues. He = felt that a note regarding Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) sign placement on lots should be added to the deeds. Mr. D’Andrea said signage wa= s part of the approval notes on plans (as of recently) however it had not been enforced. The Planning Depart= ment didn’t review deeds. To ensure deeds contained such language would require it to be a condition of = the subdivision approval; the deeds would then need to be reviewed prior to the= recording of the individual plans (by coordinating with the surveyor and the developer). Mr. D’Andre= a said that notes contained on the subdivision plan were more enforceable on his e= nd than language on a deed. Ms. Ouellette confirmed that if language was recorded on an original deed it wo= uld be transferred. Mr. Hennessey sa= id it would then be the legal description of the property. Mr. Hennessey questioned if WCD si= gns were being installed. Mr. D’Andrea said the signs were being checked prior to building permits being issued (as of October, 2003). He said post-certificate of occupancy was difficult to monitor due to the staffing constraints of having part-time employees.

Mr. Hennessey said the Zoning Ordinance, Site Regulations and Subdivision Regulations were so entwined that it was diffic= ult to determine where each ended and the others began. He felt each document should be reviewed. Mr. Scanzani said t= he Planning Board had been spending time reviewing the documents; last year the Planning Board reviewed the Subdivision Regulations and had scheduled the S= ite Regulations for review this year. The Selectmen were in the process of completing a codification proje= ct (within the next few months) that reviewed all the Town’s ordinances; certain items may need Planning Board review and Town Meeting vote. Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Boa= rd was aware of certain conflicts between the Site Regulations and Subdivision Regulations and would make determinations of such. He welcomed any suggestions from t= he Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Hennessey said he was concerned regarding = the flood protection section under the Site Plan review and believed there were regulations that were in direct conflict with zoning laws such as 248:37 and language regarding signs in 248:38. He felt the language regarding when a variance could be requested of= the Board of Adjustment and when a variation (waiver) could be requested of the Planning Board. Mr. Scanzani = said a waiver could be requested of the Planning Board for anything contained in t= he Site Regulations and the Subdivision Regulations. He said he didn’t recall a developer requesting a waiver to anything that was specifically in zoning.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the Planning Board would r= eview the sections discussed by Mr. Hennessey and welcomed any suggestions to suc= h.

Mr. Hennessey said he felt the Town Center needed to be re-zoned based upon state opinions on zoning. He said there were so many uses wi= thin the area that it would be difficult for the Town to uphold anything. He suggested the creation of a Historical District for the Town Center. Mr. McNamara said the area was zon= ed one way, but in practical effect was something different; the zoning doesn̵= 7;t reflect what’s there. M= r. Scanzani said if there was a proposal it could be reviewed. Mr. Hennessey said he would like t= o see a mixed–use professional zone, which could justify some of the deviat= ions from the residential zone currently there.= Mr. McNamara said further study was required, but agreed that someth= ing probably needed to be done. A historical district would allow the control over the facades of buildings.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Hennessey felt the regulations regarding h= ome occupations should be reviewed and made clear. Mr. McNamara said some of the rece= nt cases have been difficult and believed the clearer the process the better.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. O’Sullivan agreed with Mr. Hennessey’s comments to clarify any ‘blurred’ issues betw= een the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board.

Mr. McNamara used a case (elderly development)= as an example of the two boards working well together in interpreting the regulations. He discussed 307= :40 (wetland impacts) and said the boards may want to consider having the burden on applicants to show reasons for wetland impacts.

Mr. Scanzani found it troubling that with the cost/value of land more and more developers were willing to take the decisi= ons of the boards to court. He said = it forced the Town to then defend their position, which cost money. In some cases, the Town went to co= urt several times for one case. M= r. McNamara said with the Board of Adjustment, there were some cases that woul= d be appealed no matter which course was taken.=

Mr. Scanzani thanked the Boards for meeting. He asked that the Board of Adjustm= ent to come up with a recommendation regarding the Town Center and bring it to the Planning Board.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 6 Lot 4-174-2 &= nbsp; Flanagan, Frank & Judith – 50 Valley Hill Road – Special Permit to allow a driveway within the Wetland Conservation District for consideration

Mr. Yarmo and Mr. Dunne voted in Mr. Culbert a= nd Ms. Bousa’s absence.

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

Mr. Frank Flanagan, 15 Valley Hill Road presented the p= lan to the Board. He explained that = he lived in a non-conforming house that sat 2-feet into the road right-of-way = and proposed to move the house back and add an extension. He said the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) was not typical; it was land around a drainage= ditch. He said the driveway could be put = in without crossing the WCD, but would end up being approximately 10-feet wide= . The request before the Board was t= o put the driveway across WCD land.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Ouellette) To accept th= e plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani asked for the location of the WCD. Mr. Flanagan said the fi= rst portion (coming from the road) was covered (culvert) and it then went to an uncovered portion part way onto his property that lead to a settling pond t= hat fed the wetlands. Mr. Scanzani asked if the culvert came across the road.= Mr. Flanagan answered yes. He noted that the driveway location and design would enable a gentle slope.

Mr. Danevich felt this would be an improvement= but wanted a timeframe of when the building would come down. Mr. Scanzani wanted the Highway Ro= ad Agent (Don Foss) to review the culvert.&nb= sp; Mr. Flanagan said he had spoken to Mr. Foss. Mr. D’Andrea noted that ther= e was a closed pipe underground, not a culvert.

Mr. Yarmo questioned why the driveway couldn’t be located on the other side of the house. Mr. Flanagan said there was a 300-= year old Maple tree on the other side of the house that he didn’t want to = cut down. He said as a second por= tion to the project he would be to put an extension on the existing garage.

Mr. Scanzani questioned if the non-conforming garage in the right-of-way would remain, or be moved. Mr. Flanagan said the non-conformi= ng garage would remain, he would only be moving the house. Eventually there would be two driveways. Mr. D’Andrea= noted that a variance was granted for the existing garage to remain with an addit= ion being 19-feet from the property line.

There was no public input.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Danevich noted that the Highway Road Agent= should conduct a pre-and post-construction inspection of the pipe’s integrit= y; the applicant would be responsible to ensure that the pipe remained functio= nal in its current state. Also, t= he applicant would be responsible if the pipe was crushed during the move process. There was no objecti= on by the Board.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if there should be a = time limit. Mr. Danevich didn̵= 7;t feel a time limit was needed.

Mr. Scanzani believed the Town would have the right to maintain the drainage in the event it was damaged/silted. Mr. D’Andrea said he didn= 217;t recall seeing an easement on the plans, but would check. Mr. Flanagan said there was an eas= ement for the ditch and the underground pipe and understood the ramifications of = such (i.e. if the Town had to tear up the driveway to maintain). He said there was an easement beca= use he signed it a couple years ago.

Mr. Yarmo asked how much of the WCD would be disturbed, or eliminated. Mr. Flanagan said approximately 10ft. – 30ft. Mr. Yarmo asked if a stipulation c= ould be included to limit the disturbance. Mr. Scanzani understood that there was no wetland on the site, but w= hen the drainage easement was put in, it created some wetland type soils. This was not a functioning wetland= .

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/) To approve the Special Permit request to allow a driveway within the Wetland Conservation Distri= ct.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-26 &nbs= p; Laliberty, Lorrie – 5 Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision= for acceptance

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the plan to the Board. Ms. Lorrie Laliberty said she resi= ded in Town for eighteen years and was seeking to subdivide because her family dynamics had changed. Her mot= her (who was disabled) had moved in with her and her two children. Because of the structure of her fa= mily, she needed to provide different living arrangements and could not financial= ly do it without subdividing her lot.

Mr. Gospodarek discussed the subdivision. He said the property contained app= roximately 6 acres, which would be divided into two lots, one containing 3.3 acres (existing parcel) and the proposed lot would contain 2.75 acres. Each lot would contain over 200 fe= et of frontage. The property contai= ned a substantial amount of wetlands mainly in the back with some portions of high and dry in the back as well. = Mr. Gospodarek said there were three waiver requests, two regarding the 15KSF a= rea (one for size, one for shape) and one for the well radius (the old regulati= on was met). He said Mr. D’Andrea had provided comments, they addressed/complied with what they could and requested waivers for the remaining. Ms. Ouellette confirmed that the t= hree waiver requests were contained in the file; 1) Lot 7-26 does not have 15KSF= (it contains 11,247); 2) Lot 7-26-1 is not rectangular s= hape; 3) the well radius being located within the 15ft. building setbacks.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

= Mr. Danevich said there was zero room for error in the placement of the house a= nd well. He was concerned with t= he natural expansion of the area. Mr. D’Andrea questioned the minimum lot sizing calculations for the propo= sed lot based upon the soil types and was unsure if lot had the required non-wetland area. After furth= er review it appeared the calculations added up to 35005.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Manuel Souza, 10 Dutton Road, questioned if the T= own still required one acre for a lot and if there was enough acreage for the t= wo lots proposed. Mr. Scanzani s= aid the Town still required one acre and confirmed there was enough acreage for= two lots. Mr. Souza said if the l= ot was not in water and if there was enough land the plan was alright. He simply wanted to know what woul= d be placed across the street from him. <= /span>

Mr. Danevich reiterated his concern with the exactness of the lot and placement of the house, septic, well, setbacks etc. and the fact that there was no room for error. He felt it was justified to reques= t a site specific plan. He said he would not grant a waiver for placement of items. He also wanted to stipulate ‘= ;no further subdivision’. M= r. Scanzani agreed that a site specific plan should be done. He also suggested that an as-build= plan be submitted.

Mr. Scanzani said that the plan showed two loc= us maps to show the area better. He suggested that the Board consider (at a later meeting) amending the regulat= ions regarding locus maps to be 1”=3D200ft. rather than the current 1”=3D400ft.

Mr. D’Andrea said he calculated the soils types again and requested more specific calculations for compliance with the 35,000SF.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the waiver requests for consideration as follows: 1) L= ot 7-26 will have 11,247SF of buildable area versus the 15KSF as required; 2= )

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani asked that a more site specific p= lan be submitted for the next meeting which would include the calculations addi= ng up to 35,000SF. He said it wa= s the Board’s intention to grant the waivers at the next meeting. He said it was also the Board̵= 7;s intention on the site specific to ensure that no mistakes are made regarding the wells being drilled and lot lines; understanding there will be no varia= nce requested for the as-built (the well would have to be re-drilled). Mr. Gospodarek confirmed that the site plan would be similar to that done for a commercial plan.

Mr. McNamara wanted to ensure that there was sufficient land and the use was not encroaching on the WCD. Mr. Scanzani said the parcel shape= was unique and suggested placing a condition that there would be no additional building and the new lot would have the 15KSF area. Mr. McNamara asked if more frequen= t site inspections could occur to ensure the construction was done per the plan. Mr. D’Andrea said the buildi= ng permits were issued in two phases, 1) foundation and 2) remainder of house. He said a note clarify= ing the location of the well could be added once installed.

Mr. Scanzani said one of the requirements shou= ld be the installation of WCD signs along the back of each of the lots. Mr. Yarmo questioned if there were= any existing encroachments to the WCD for lot 7-26. He asked if the land for the lot w= as functioning lawn area. Ms. Laliberty said the house had been in existence since the 1950’s or 1960’s. Mr. Scanzani sa= id the house was in existence prior to there being a WCD. He said the new home had no WCD encroachments anticipated. Mr. D’Andrea suggested that the applicant delineate on the plan the exist= ing limits of the lawn area and show the treed area to alleviate any future questions.

The plan was date specified to the June 6, 2005 mee= ting.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 13 Lot 4-139-22 = Pennichuck Water Works – Collin’s Way – Site Plan Review of Proposed 350,000 Gallon Storage Tank

Mr. Don Ware, Pennichuck Water Works presented= the plan to the Board. He said th= e plan before the Board was the same one presented to the Board at the last meeting (which at that time was awaiting comments from Town Engineer Dufresne-Henry). He said ther= e were some initial concerns regarding the drainage calculations (as contained in = the April 26, 2005 = letter by Dufresne-Henry), however they agree that the 50-year post-development runoff from the site will be less than the pre-development runoff peak from the 25-year storm. Mr. Ware revie= wed the Dufresne-Henry letter dated May 12, 2005 and addressed the comments contained therein. He said there was a concern brough= t up at the last meeting regarding the drainage rate. He said they would neck the 4̶= 1; drain down to 2” for the last thirty feet which would drop the potent= ial flow rate to under 350 gallons per minute and would note such on the plan t= o be submitted later in the week. = He noted the tank would be drained every five years, but would not be if the detention basin (down below) was full.&nbs= p; He said there was also a concern brought up relative to the discharge from the lower detention basin being constructed as part of the Collins Way development. He said they fel= t it was out of their jurisdiction. He ended by saying they intended on submitting revised plans later in the week.

Mr. Scanzani said clarification should be made regarding parcel 4-146 (on the original approval of Collins Way) because two items came up: 1) is the road proposed by Pennichuck actually the walking easement noted in the Collins Way development; and 2) driveway to the back = of the tank seemed as if it would be used as sort of a shared driveway also for the house that would end up on lot 4-139-22 (per the Board minutes for Coll= ins Way). Mr. Ware said they woul= d have no objections to adding a (4ft. or 5ft wide) walkway around the gate to make access easy from the back of the cul-de-sac along the driveway to access the state forest land. Relative t= o the shared use, Mr. Ware said when Pennichuck acquired the easement from the developer, the developer requested that the easement (down below) not be mutually exclusive. He said t= he developer wanted to use a portion of the access road as part of his drivewa= y; however Mr. Ware had not seen any plans.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich recalled there was a request for a 50ft. easement as ac= cess to the state park and believed the Board minutes of June 3, 2002 reflected such, however, = he was unsure if the recorded plan included it.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said the plan was recorded with the 50ft. wide walking path easement shown, but was unsure if the actual easement was recorded. Mr. Scanzani said it appeared there was 50ft., but the driveway would only be 20ft. across. Mr. Ware said their easement was 2= 0ft. wide plus a 5ft. construction easement.&nb= sp; He said the entire 50ft. easement was contained on lot 4-139-22. Mr. Danevich said the easement was expanded to 50ft. (to maintain consistency with other easements) and was intended to be used for walking access.&nb= sp; He didn’t believe there was any intention/consideration for sh= ared driveway use. He said lot 4-1= 39-22 should have its own access. <= /p>

Mr. Scanzani asked for clarification regarding= the fence distance from the tank. Mr. Ware said the fence would be 6ft. high construction fence that went around = the edge of the site with a 16ft. wide double-leaf gate at the top of the access road.

Mr. Scanzani said a condition of approval shou= ld be that the tank should not be drained if the Town was experiencing a 25-ye= ar storm event or more. He also = agreed with Mr. Ware that the tank shouldn’t be drained if the catch basin (= at the bottom of the hill) is full.

Mr. McNamara asked that Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry inform the Board if the prior questions that were raised were now satisfied. Mr. Hertrich believed the system as proposed would work as Pennichuck has indicated. He said the only real issue was the grading, however Mr. Ware had indicated that the new plans (being submitted later this week) would show the revisions discussed.

Mr. D’Andrea questioned if consideration= had been given to providing energy dissipation at the outlet of the 6” dr= ain line (as noted in the Dufresne-Henry letter of May 12, 2005). Mr. Ware said in the ten years he = had worked for Pennichuck and with managing twenty-two tanks, there had only be= en one overflow. He said if an overflow ever occurred, the worst case scenario would be someone from Nashua would have = to come and shut it off; he was unsure if the energy created would create any problems. He said they could = work something out, such as add a plate so that the jet that came out would hit = the plate and disperse.

Mr. D’Andrea requested that the following changes be made: 1) note on the plan that references a rural zone should be= changed to residential zone; 2) assessing notes #1 & 2 that reference assessing records should be deleted.

There were two waivers requested and accepted = for consideration at a previous meeting: 1) approval block; 2) scale.

It was noted that the changes to the drainage pipes (for the last 30ft.) would be reflected on the plan to be submitted l= ater in the week.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Sullivan, 34 Longview Circle said he previous= ly submitted a letter to the Board, most of the items appeared to be addressed, but there were a couple remaining items.&n= bsp; He asked what would be required of Pennichuck in the event of a volu= me change. Mr. Ware said there w= ere two separate items: 1) tank overflow, and 2) tank drainage. He discussed the drainage and expl= ained that the 4” pipe would be necked down to 2” to have the flow reduced to 350 gallons per minute. With reference to the tank overflow, Mr. Ware said the current maxim= um fill rate into the tank is 300 gallons per minute (with no usage in Pelham)= ; in the future at full build-out based on a forty-year analysis, 700 gallons per minute would be the maximum fill rate (with no demand in the system).

Mr. Sullivan asked if the assessment of the ro= ad drainage system being capable of handling the volume was in reference to the current construction state. He wanted to know if it would require an application to design/maintenance schedules for the detention ponds or drainage swales. Mr. Scanzani said that Dufresne-He= nry indicated that it met the requirement and the catch basin could handle it b= ased upon the overflow that occurred.

Mr. Sullivan asked if both Dufresne-Henry and Pennichuck took into consideration only what was available on approved plans versus site based assessment; he felt it was all based on paper review. His main concern was the current s= tatus of the drainage swale on his property.&nbs= p; He wanted to make sure the swale was in the state it should be in so= it could properly handle the discharge from the Pennichuck tank. Mr. Scanzani said it would be the = responsibility of the Town Engineer to ensure the drainage swale was being built per the plan. Mr. D’Andrea said= the swale was currently in development, but he had contacted the Dufresne-Henry inspectors to review the status of Mr. Sullivan’s swale. Mr. Scanzani said he was less conc= erned with the construction of the swale, and said the maintenance would have to = be kept up. Mr. Sullivan asked w= hat could be done to have the swale brought up to the approved design prior to = the Pennichuck tank being able to discharge water into it. Mr. Scanzani said it would be the responsibility of the Planning Director and Town’s Engineer to ensure= the swale was done per the design specifications. Mr. Sullivan said Mr. Bob Peterson= had every intention to work on the swale, he just had to wait for the water to clear out of the pond before he could clear it out and reshape the swale. He didn’t want to delay Pennichuck, but he wanted something in place prior to the tank being put in operation. Mr. Scanzani said a condition for approval could be added.&nbs= p; Mr. Ware said if a condition of approval was added he needed the rig= ht to do the work, and to get the bond to complete the work since it wasn̵= 7;t Pennichuck's responsibility to link Mr. Sullivan’s drainage swale to the Pennichuck project. Mr. Scanzani said Mr. Peterson should be asked to complete the swale as soon as possible. Mr. Hertrich suggested that the wh= ole system is functional before the tank came on line, he was unsure if the swa= le could be linked to the tank. = There was further discussion regarding the drainage swales and pointed out if the sys= tem was necessary to handle the overflow, then the system should be functioning. Mr. Ware said hopefully, if it came to it the Town would help Pennichuck ‘lean̵= 7; on the developer to complete the work.&nbs= p; He said they had deadlines to meet because of state financing. He reiterated that Pennichuck shouldn’t pick up the cost for the work.

Mr. Sullivan asked if there were any safeguard= s on the timing in which he tank could be drained. Mr. Ware said they had no problems adding safeguards. The tank w= ould only be put to drain once every five years when the detention basin at the bottom of the hill was dry, however there will be an inspection one year af= ter the tank was completed. Mr. Scanzani noted that drainage would not occur if the Town was in the middle = of a 25 year storm event.

Mr. Scanzani said the following amendments sho= uld be made to the plan: 1) include landscaping; 2) show lower gate; 3) show 50-foot walking easement; 4) add a note indicating that the tank would not = be drained if the drainage swale at the bottom of the hill (on lot 4-139-8) was full or if the Town was experiencing a 25-year storm event; 5) the Tax Asse= ssment maps notes #1 & #2 should be removed; 6) note #1 to read ‘residential’ district rather than ‘rural’ district; and 7) indicate that the drainage pipe will be 2” for the last 30ft.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. D’Andrea said the remain= ing Dufresne-Henry comments (contained in letter of May 12, 2005) should also be addressed= .

Mr. Ware said for the state to consider the ta= nk to be functional the tank would have to be filled, but assured that no over= flow would occur. Mr. Danevich con= firmed that Mr. Ware would like to be allowed to fill the tank in order to complete state testing and state certification, but not brought into service.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the list of conditions as follows: 1) add note to the plan that no drainage of the tank would occur whenever the retention basin was full and/or there is a 25-year or higher s= torm event occurring; 2) note #1 to read ‘residential’ district rath= er than ‘rural’ district; 3) Tax Assessment map notes #1 & #2 shall be eliminated; 4) comments contained in Dufresne-Henry letter dated M= ay 12, 2005 shall be met; 5) indicate that the drainage pipe will be 2” = for the last 30ft; 6) tank will not be brought on-line until the drainage swale= on lot 4-139-8 is complete.

The Board addressed the waivers: 1) contents on final recordable plan - plan approval block shall be on lower right (plan w= as amended); and 2) contents on final recordable plan – scale 1”= =3D20 feet. Mr. Ware said the plans had change= d; the Board indicated both waiver requests could be withdrawn.

Mr. McNamara questioned if the pre-blast survey letters had been sent to those living within 1500feet of the project. Mr. Ware said the letters had been= sent, some of which went to people beyond the 1500 feet and would be honored. They would be hiring an independent pre-blast survey company from the actual blasting company. Mr. Ware said the surveys would be completed and the blast would be able to begin by mid-June. Mr. McNamara asked if the people notified were aware of the timetable. Mr. Ware answered yes.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve th= e plan conditioned upon: 1) add note to the plan that no drainage of the tank wo= uld occur whenever the retention basin was full and/or there is a 25-year or higher storm event occurring; 2) note #1 to read ‘residential’ district rather than ‘rural’ district; 3) Tax Assessment map = notes #1 & #2 shall be eliminated; 4) comments contained in Dufresne-Henry letter dated May 12, 2005 shall be met; 5) indicate that the drainage pipe will be 2” for the last 30ft; 6) tank will not be brought on-line u= ntil the drainage swale on lot 4-139-8 is complete.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

DI= SCUSSION

NR= PC Projects for 2005

Mr. Scanzani informed that NRPC had hired a new Assistant Director and would like to meet with the Board to discuss the Board’s priorities for the year. He said a meeting had been schedule= d for the June 20, 200= 5 meeting and asked that members think about projects they would like NRPC’s help with.

En= gineering Plan Review

Mr. Scanzani said developers had complained to the Planning Department that fee= s were too high and asked

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry to review = the fees charged. Mr. D’And= rea handed out a chart showing a random sampling of projects reviewed by former Town Engineers to show the Board cost comparison for such review. Mr. Hertrich circulated a worksheet showing Pelham’s project review status as of May 9, 2005 with an attachment dated <= st1:date Month=3D"1" Day=3D"20" Year=3D"2005" w:st=3D"on">January 20, 2005 that provided a cost scheduled for plan review.= After reviewing the information, the Board felt the fees charged by Dufresne-Henry were in line with the fees charged by surrounding communities.

MINUTES

May 2, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve t= he May 2, 2005 me= eting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Yarmo abstained.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

June 6, 2005:

Map 29 Lot 7-26 Laliberty, Lorrie – 5 Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for acceptance

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danev= ich/Yarmo) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:25 p.m.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary