PB Minutes 07.18.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

July 18, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Ouelle= tte called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Gael Ou= ellette, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Selectmen Representative = Victor Danevich (arrived near the end of the meeting), Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, , Altern= ate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Ken Dunne

Mr. McNamara discussed the abutter notification process and explained that the applicant was responsible for the list, not = the Planning Department or Planning Board.&nbs= p; He also noted that the Town Assessor’s Office had the most rec= ent information, not the Town website. <= /span>

NEW BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot 1-118 – Maga= rian, Kenneth – Sherburne = Road – Conceptual – Proposed Senior Housing Residential Development<= o:p>

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. Ken Magarian Luellen Drive, Westfall, MA provided a conceptual presentation. He said his fam= ily had owned the property for approximately forty years. He told the Board that his parents= had built a home on the Pelham side of their property in the late 1980’s. He went on to p= rovide the Board with a brief history of the property and its ownership. He said the idea was to keep the a= rea as natural and wooded as possible. He said the property was both in Pelham and Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. He said a large conservation area = had been set aside in Tyngsboro and in doing so helped make the decision as to = what they wanted to do. Mr. Magari= an said the proposed plan was for a 55+ village that would have nature areas a= nd trails. He said they viewed t= he wetland on the property as a positive that would enhance the area. He said they would have walking tr= ails throughout that would lead to Long Pond.&n= bsp; Mr. Magarian said he owned four of the thirty plus acres his family owned and the Pelham people in the proposed village would always have access through this land down to the conservation land. He said they would like to create = an 1850’s village. He went= on to discuss their vision of the proposed development (i.e. look, type). He noted that Cuoco & Cormier = was hired for the development.

Mr. McNamara noted to the public that the plan= was before the Board as ‘conceptual’, which meant it was non-bindin= g at this time. He said typically = this type of plan was brought forth for guidance purposes.

Mr. Culbert discussed the number of units that would be allowed. The plan didn’t seem to reflect such. Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco & Cormier said it was their understanding through discussions with the Planning Director that as long as each lot contained a minimum of five acres (high and dry) they would be allowed forty units on each. He said they h= ad twenty-six acres with twenty-two being dry and proposed to subdivide into t= wo pieces with forty units on one half, and thirty units on the other.

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the entire develop= ment would be located entirely in Pelham. Mr. Magarian answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked if there were any plans to connect the parcel in Pelham with that in Tyngsboro. Mr. Magarian said he didn’t know between his family and his brother what would happen there. However, = he reiterated there would be four acres that he owned would connect to conservation land. Mr. D’Andrea said there was no discussion at this time regarding road con= nections to the two parcels, it would just be pedestrian access. Mr. Culbert questioned if that wou= ld be for Tyngsboro or Hudson. Mr. D’Andrea said there was no road access to either.

Mr. Roy provided a brief overview of the conceptual plan. He said they= were proposing one main access road from Sherburne Road which would be aligned directly across fr= om Spruce Street. He said there would be two cul-de-= sacs (1100ft. and 1200ft). He said= they were seeking guidance from the Board regarding the one access to the project versus trying to gain a loop outside the project. Mr. Roy said they were looking for= a total of seventy units, which would consist of twenty apartments, attached houses (duplex/quad), and single family.&n= bsp; He said they would also like the Board’s opinion regarding the proposed units. On the left s= ide of the development they were proposing twenty apartments, eight units in the q= uad section and then one duplex. = On the other side they were proposing ten singles, five quads and five duplexes. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Roy said they were proposing community wells, central water distribution system and scattered community septic systems throughout the development (maintained by the community/association). He discussed the drainage direction for the property and showed where they wou= ld provide storm water treatments to anticipate the needs of the project. He then discussed the open space, = which was approximately 80% with the proposed concept.

He reiterated their request for the Board̵= 7;s input regarding the proposed access and the apartments and any questions/comments on the overall layout.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara said a variance would be needed f= or the elderly ordinance and wanted to know if any waivers would be needed from the Site Plan or Subdivision Regulations.&= nbsp; Mr. Roy said they hadn’t reviewed in detail as to what they mi= ght be missing. He said there wou= ld be one wetland crossing (culvert).

Mr. Culbert said the Elderly Regulations call = for six units or less per building and asked if the applicant would require a w= aiver. Mr. Roy said answered yes because = of the number of units in the apartments. Mr. Culbert asked if the access road would be private. Mr. Roy answered yes; it would be = part of the homeowner’s association. Mr. Culbert confirmed that there currently wasn’t access being granted to Hudson or Tyngsboro. Mr. Roy said that was not the intent; once developed (and turned into a homeowner’s association) there would be no way to tie-in. Mr. Culbert asked if ‘units&= #8217; were being counted as ‘dwelling units’. Mr. Roy answered yes. Mr. Culbert asked what the length = of the cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Roy = said (following the center line) to the end of the main loop would be 1100ft. and to the ot= her side would be 1200ft. Mr. Cul= bert asked the number of community wells. Mr. Roy said it could be one or two= based on what they needed to supply the total project based on the yield and fire suppression. Mr. Culbert disc= ussed the septic. Mr. Roy said they= had sized the systems as well as the down-grading setbacks (per the state). Mr. Culbert said he would have a p= roblem with the club house and septic systems being in the open space area (open s= pace as required). He asked if the= sight distance was met on Sherburne. Mr. Roy said they had over 400feet of sight distance on Sherburne Road. Mr. Culbert asked if wet space wou= ld be utilized as the open space criteria. Mr. Roy said for open space, the total he provided included the wetlands. Mr. D’Andrea = said 30% was required for open space, with only 10% of such area was allowed to = be wet.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. David Silva, 120 Sherburne Road said he had mult= iple concerns. He discussed the dr= ainage and explained that there was a 12-inch drainage pipe that went across the road. He said he had a view o= f the trees across the street, which was also a concern. He questioned if the area across f= rom his house was going to be clear-cut. Mr. Culbert said the Board discouraged clear-cutting lots. Mr. Magarian explained if there wa= s a way to have a walking area in the section across from Mr. Silva’s hou= se they would. He said other tha= n a walking area, nothing would happen to the area. Mr. Silva discussed the current pr= oblem with the traffic situation on Sherburne Road and vehicles passing each other in front = of his home. He said motorcycles= also traveled the road and did ‘wheelies’ in front of his home. He said speeding needed to be take= n care of and was concerned with additional traffic due to developments not only in Pelham, but also on the Tyngsboro side.&nb= sp; Mr. Silva let the Board know that Sherburne Road curved at Spruce Street. He said he had no problem with the concept of affordable housing but wanted the neighbors and overall impacts = to be considered. He offered to = meet with the owner to discuss his concerns and show him his side of the street.

Mr. McNamara believed most of the Board and the public were aware of the traffic situation on Sherburne Road. He believed that a traffic study h= ad been commissioned on Sherb= urne Road to assess the affects of the development going on.

Mr. Ouellette asked Mr. Silva how his current water pressure and quantity was. Mr. Silva said he had adequate pressure (with the well being in the front). He said the house was built in 197= 5 and was told it would not have been built because of the wetlands. He said his front yard was very wet. He didn’t want any= thing to happen that would make the water increase.

Mr. Culbert didn’t have a problem with t= he single ingress. He said he wo= uld request traffic, environmental, economic studies. He wanted to ensure that the drain= age calculations were correct so the abutters wouldn’t be negatively affected. He suggested contac= ting all the developers in the = Sherburne Road area to discuss what could happen for off-site improvements.

Ms. Ouellette had a problem with a single acce= ss at the proposed location due to number of vehicles accessing the proposed as well as the close proximity of a major intersection. Mr. Culbert said that was the reas= on he suggested discussing off-site improvements. Mr. McNamara said the Fire and Pol= ice Departments would also review. Mr. D’Andrea noted that it was a state road.

Ms. Ouellette questioned how the Subdivision Regulations applied to single egress access, 2400feet and 36 homes. Mr. D’Andrea said the subdiv= ision would just be to create the two lots; the development would be under the Si= te Plan Regulations, which didn’t contain cul-de-sac regulations. He said for Sherburne Road impacts, a DOT drive= way permit would be needed so any traffic report, off-site improvements, turn l= anes etc. would be dictated by the state. Mr. Culbert believed the applicant came to the Board for a two lot subdivision with a proposal for elderly housing and felt the Board had to l= ook at it using the Subdivision Regulations.&n= bsp; He said he was not comfortable with apartments units with more than = six units.

Ms. Bousa liked the concept of a residential/retirement community, but felt the plan was too intense. She said if the roads remained pri= vate, she didn’t think the Subdivision Regulations (pertaining to cul-de-sa= c) applied. Mr. D’Andrea agreed. He questioned if the = plan would be better with forty detached units as allowed under the elderly provisions.

Mr. McNamara believed the Board had expressed a general concern regarding the number of apartments being sought. He said it was a large increase in= terms of what was allowed. He also = had concerns with the number of apartments.&nb= sp; He was bothered by the single access, however it would be fine if it could be shown to be safe and the Police and Fire Departments sign off on it. He felt it was a plus hav= ing a private road with regard to Town maintenance. He said the number of units would = be a significant impact to the intersections.

Mr. Roy asked how the Board felt about the uni= ts being two-story, which would make the building look smaller. Mr. Culbert said he was uncomforta= ble with the number of units being more than six. He said because of the density, he= would expect that there were some off-site improvements.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the well radius requirements applied to the community well. Mr. D’Andrea said the specif= ic well radius requirement came from the Subdivision Regulations with the crea= tion of a new lot. Ms. Ouellette s= aid that one of the lots had a well radius that went over to the other lot. Mr. D’Andrea said it would h= ave to be reviewed.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction Inc. – <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road/Chardonnay Road – Conceptual – Proposed Elderly Housing Residential Development=

Mr. McNamara confirmed with Mr. D’Andrea that there was no abutter notification.&nb= sp; The discussion would remain very general.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the conceptual development to the Board. He said the existing subdivision p= lan (approved approx. six or seven months ago) was included in the information submitted to the Planning Department. He said they were proposing to take the cul-de-sac on the original approval and push it back approximately 490-feet, which would create one la= rge lot in the back containing just over five acres. He said on the five acres they were proposing three units (buildings) with eight units each. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan was circular, allowing for open space in the middle for septic and drainage. The buildings were kept approximat= ely forty-feet from the property lines in the back. He said the cul-de-sac was planned= to be the same as the original Mopar subdivision. He said two of the lots would have= a little bit of an adjustment, which would make it so the well radius would n= ot meet the regulations by approximately five feet. He said the street would be one-way.

Mr. McNamara asked if the original subdivision= was eight lots. Mr. Gospodarek an= swered yes. He discussed the drainag= e and said they were proposing to contain it on the site and not send it through = the wetlands. He said they were t= rying to keep the subdivision exactly the same.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara asked how close the units on the right were to the wetland/wetland conservation district (‘WCD’). Mr. Gospodarek said the WCD was ap= proximately ten feet. Mr. McNamara questi= oned if that was the back door to the properties. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked if there were a= ny yards/outside recreation planned. Mr. Gospodarek said the center of the proposed development would take care of t= he open space. He understood they would have to go back to the state for a driveway permit because of the modification.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed would lengt= hen the proposed road significantly. Mr. Gospodarek said the road would be pulled back approximately 490f= t. Mr. McNamara questioned what type = of building and number of units was being proposed. Mr. Gospodarek said there would be= three buildings with eight units a piece; all would be attached. Mr. McNamara asked if they would require and variances or waivers. Mr. Gospodarek said a waiver would= be needed for the eight units and the lot line changes for the wells.

Mr. Culbert said the eight units would need to= be reduced to six. He said he wo= uld want traffic, economic and environmental studies as well as off-site improvements. He suggested me= eting with other developers and coming up with a master off-site improvement plan. He asked how much of th= e open space was considered wetlands. Mr. Gospodarek said approximately two acres was wetlands. Mr. Culbert asked if there was pro= per sight distance. Mr. Gospodare= k said they currently had an approved driveway permit.

Mr. Gospodarek asked if the Board was comforta= ble with the new lot lines with respect to the wells (which met the old subdivi= sion regulations from the original subdivision approval). He said one lot they were within t= he setbacks approximately five feet, and the other lot was within the setbacks approximately three on one side and five on the other.

Ms. Ouellette said the area was notorious for water problems. Mr. Gospodare= k said they would comply with the original subdivision, which had a stipulation th= at the wells had to be tested prior to a building permit being issued. He said there would be two communi= ty wells; there would also be four wells for the single family residences.

Mr. McNamara said based on the proposed number= of units, traffic would increase from the prior proposal. Mr. Gospodarek said it might in vo= lume, however was unsure with regard to peak a.m. and p.m. hours.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. David Silva, 120 Sherburne Road questioned where= the proposed development would be located.&nbs= p; Mr. Gospodarek said it would be on the Pelham side of the Sherburne Road/Blackstone Circle intersection. Mr. Silva asked= if there was a difference between this proposal being elderly and the previous (Magarian) being senior. Mr. D’Andrea said there was a slight restriction, with one there was an a= ge restriction of 62, the other went down to 55. Mr. Gospodarek said the developer intended the age to be 55. Mr. Silva observed that the number of units being proposed this evening as well= as the eleven homes currently being built would increase the overall traffic picture. Mr. McNamara said al= l the developments were a concern to the Board, which was why studies would be required. Mr. Silva said he w= as also concerned regarding emergency response times to his home.

Ms. Jan Urban, 148 Dracut Road, Hudson, NH, owned a five acre par= cel was concerned with the wetlands and wildlife. It was determined that Ms. Urban w= as addressing the incorrect application. She should have come forward for the previous application.

Mr. Gospodarek believed the Board had been cle= ar with their direction. <= /p>

Ma= p 8 Lot 9-64 – Ivers, Timothy & Phyllis ̵= 1; Windham Road – Conceptual – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision

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

Mr. Dave Lucenan of Keach-Nordstrom Associates said they were proposing a five-lot subdivision on = Windham Road (200feet south of Hayden Road= ). There would be four new lots with = one remaining lot. Mr. Lucenan sa= id there were wetlands located on the property which would be infringed approximately 900SF. He asked for the Board’s opinion regarding the subdivision layout. He noted that each lot would have individual wells and septic system. His biggest concern was the location of the intersection as it relat= ed to the Hayden Road intersection. He said there w= as a small area of the wetlands that would have to be filled; a dredge and fill would be needed to bring in the street.&nb= sp; He said the only way to avoid the wetlands was to move the road approximately twenty feet, however, they wouldn’t meet the 200foot in= tersection to intersection distance; a waiver would be needed.

Mr. Culbert asked if it was a wetlands or wetl= and conservation district (‘WCD’) that would be filled. Mr. Lucenan said it was a smaller/isolated wetlands. Mr. Culbert said they would need to go to the Conservation Commission. He said he would not be in favor of moving the road. He asked wha= t area would remain undeveloped and questioned if another subdivision would come a= t a later time. Mr. Lucenan said = he expected that they would come in at a later time, but didn’t know when. He said the area had no= t been studied. He said they only wa= nted to work on the southern portion.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there was adequate sight distance as currently proposed. Mr. Lucenan said he did a profile and believed there was adequate sight distanc= e if some clearing (of bushes and trees) was done. There would be an easement provided along the right-of-way to keep the area clear. Ms. Ouellette questioned if there = was Town forest behind the parcel. Mr. Lucenan answered yes. Ms. Oue= llette said for future planning, she would like to see a 50-foot usable (for school busses, fire trucks etc) right-of-way retained into the Town land. Mr. Lucenan said that would involv= e a major wetland crossing. Ms. Ouellette questioned if there was any of the back pieces that would allow a 50-foot right-of-way without crossing a wetland. Mr. Lucenan answered no; the only = access they had would be from Route 111A. <= /span>Ms. Ouellette asked if a usable 50-foot right-of-way could be provided from the back of the cul-de-sac. Mr. L= ucenan said they could provide an easement (slope easement) but it would involve crossing the major wetlands area. Mr. Culbert asked if it could be done off lot C. Mr. Tim Ivers, 96 Windham Road (applicant) said the wetland was a natural barrier. Mr. Lucenan referred to the plan and showed the type of WCD crossing that would= be needed. He said they could pr= ovide the easement, but didn’t want to be responsible for filling the wetland. Mr. D’Andrea p= ointed out that the grading on the map showed 25%. Mr. Culbert asked what the slope o= f the proposed road would be. Mr. L= ucenan said the road would be 2% sloped.

Mr. McNamara questioned if any variance or wai= ver requests would be needed, other than the dredge and fill (for wetland crossing). Mr. Lucenan said t= hey would need a driveway permit from the state (because Windham Road is a state road). Mr. McNamara questioned if the plan complied with all of the Town’s subdivision regulations. Mr. Lucenan said to the best of his knowledge, it complied.

Mr. Culbert said it appeared that the area bei= ng proposed for clearing (for sight distance) was in a wetland/WCD. Mr. D’Andrea said a small ar= ea would be within a WCD. Mr. Lu= cenan answered yes, it may be necessary for clearing.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Holly Daigle, 40 Sycamore Street, had several concerns. She questioned if t= he applicant was proposing single family houses and wanted to know the size. Mr. Lucenan said they would be sin= gle family houses. Ms. Daigle was concerned with 1) the displacement of the area wildlife, and 2) the impact = on her well.

Ms. Justine Carmody, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">49 Woodlawn Drive, was concerned wi= th the impacts to the water table in her back yard with certain filling. She was also concerned with her we= ll and sediment due to the land being disturbed.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara said when the application officially came in the Board would submit it to the Town’s engineer for review. He said the water flow coming off = the property would be no greater, or worse after the subdivision as before. He said if there were to be a fill= of the wetland, it would be studied to ensure it wouldn’t impact the proposed property, or other properties.&nb= sp;

Ms. Daigle was also concerned with the amount = of clearing and its impact regarding sound and traffic coming from Route 111A. Mr. Lucenan assumed the= only clearing that would occur would be for the road area and the houses. He went on to discuss the drainage= and didn’t see that there would be any effects downstream from the filling.

Mr. Culbert said he would expect some type of = mitigation plan for the 800 feet of active wetland that would be filled. Also because of the sensitivity of= the lot, he would like to have a full environmental study done. Mr. Lucenan said a soil scientist = had already flagged the wetlands. Mr. Culbert suggested that the applicant discuss the wetland study with the Planning Director. Mr. D’Andrea noted that the Conservation Commission would have to review = due to the special permit for the fill within the WCD and the wetland. He thought the Board should determ= ine if a full environmental review was necessary for the 5-lot subdivision and 800= SF wetland fill. Mr. Culbert sai= d he was requesting the environmental review due to the sensitivity of the lot, = the wetland and the whole project. Mr. D’Andrea wanted it clear for the applicant if the study would be requ= ired for acceptance of the application. Mr. McNamara asked if obtaining feedback from the Conservation Commission for the conceptual plan would help Mr. Culbert’s decision. Mr. Culbert answered no.

Ms. Bousa strongly recommended that the applic= ant do intersection and stopping sight distance measurements based on AASHTO standards for the new intersection as proposed. She would be happy sending the app= licant to the Conservation Commission.

Ms. Ouellette was concerned that the wetland (= being proposed to be filled) was a feed to a pond, which in turn fed Beaver Brook= . She felt that was serious enough to support the need for an environmental study.

Ms. Medeiros supported an environmental study.=

Mr. McNamara said it would probably be in the = best interest of the applicant to meet with the Conservation Commission requesti= ng their opinion. Mr. Lucenan sa= id they planned to meet with them informally.=

Ma= p 7 Lot 5-39 / Map 3 Lot 5-37-4 – Jarek, Nicholas & Paula – 378 Mammoth Road / 8 Mercury Lane – Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. David Aho of Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the lot line adjustment. He said the appli= cant wanted to adjust the lot line at the rear of their property. He reviewed the plan. He submitted a waiver requested for Section 10.03 d-I, m & n.

Ms. Ouellette read the waiver request aloud for the existing site conditions. Mr. Aho explained that the applicant was not looking to add an additional build= able lot. Mr. McNamara questioned = how the proposed plan deviated from the regulations. Mr. D’Andrea said the waiver= was from certain plan requirements (i.e. topography, contours, utilities) and existing natural conditions, which would normally be reviewed for a subdivision.

Mr. McNamara questioned the purpose of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Aho said= the applicant saw the opportunity to control the property in the back of their = lot and decided to purchase the additional property to make their lot larger. Mr. McNamara asked if the applican= t had plans to subdivide or develop the lot.&nbs= p; Mr. Aho answered no.

Mr. Culbert asked if the parcel was ‘hilly’ and wanted to know if topography would be met per Secti= on 3-5-37-4 for the duplex. Mr. = Aho said the area where the duplex was located was fairly flat. He said there wouldn’t be any changes because the applicant wasn’t looking to build any houses. Mr. Culbert wanted to ensure that = the Board was not creating a non-conforming lot. Mr. D’Andrea answered no. Mr. McNamara confirmed that both l= ots, after the line adjustment, would be conforming. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes. Mr. Culbert wanted to ensure that = there was enough usable acreage for the duplex lot because the plan didn’t = show topography. Mr. D’Andrea asked Mr. Aho if there were 25% slopes on the existing lot 37-4. Mr. Aho said the slope was steep c= oming up from the road, but was unsure of the %; the lot was flat from the crest = of the driveway up. He reiterate= d that the applicant was not seeking to add any additional building lots.

Mr. Culbert wanted to ensure that the Board was not creating a non-conforming lot. He said without certain information, he didn’t know. Mr. Aho said the lot being added wouldn’t be an issue. H= e said the existing lot rose up from Mercury Lane, but contained two acres of land. Mr. D’Andrea said the lot wo= uld need a minimum of 35,000SF non-25% slope; the area containing the duplex se= emed like it was in excess of the 35,000SF.&nbs= p;

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Gary Borak, Sr. 382 Mammoth Roa= d asked if the parcel would be increased to two acres. Mr. Aho said the parcel would be 2= .16 acres from 1.17 acres. He sai= d the lot was an existing non-conforming lot that didn’t meet the frontage. Mr. Borak asked if the side line w= ould change. Mr. Aho answered no.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert noted that the applica= nt could go to the Board of Adjustment and request a variance to make the lot = into a duplex lot.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Medeiros) To accept the = plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To accept the waiver for consideration (10.03 d-I, m & n).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Culbert wanted to know what usable acreage= lot 3-5-37-4 showing 2.004 acres actually contained. He wanted to ensure that it contai= ned 35,000SF. Mr. D’Andrea = said the applicant could provide proof of such as a condition of approval. He noted that the waiver simply wa= ived the requirement to show topography on the plan, however the condition on the approval would ensure that there was 35,000SF of usable land.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To approve the waiver (10.03 d-I, m & = n).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Medeiros) To approve the= plan conditioned upon it being proven that Lot 3-5-37-4 contains 35,000SF contiguous usable feet.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Aho confirmed that the Board was requesting that something be submitted (with a minimum amount of detail) showing the slopes. Mr. D’Andrea sa= id it would have to show that there weren’t 25% slopes. Mr. Culbert said the applicant cou= ld not create a non-conforming lot. =

Ms. Ouellette left the meeting.

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-138 – K & K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Discussion – Proposed 60ft.x120ft. warehouse building for hea= vy equipment rental

Mr. McNamara noted that there were no abutters notified, so the Board would simply discuss the proposal submitted.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates pres= ented the proposed to the Board. He= said they were proposing to remove the two existing buildings and the driveway a= nd construct a 120ft.x60ft. building. He said there would be access and green space on all four sides of t= he building. There were two driv= eways proposed for Pulpit Rock R= oad. The use would be for warehousing.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The building would be square, bays= in back, doors in front, with parking.

Mr. McNamara questioned why the proposal was b= efore the Board. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d they wanted to make sure that the Board reviewed the proposal. Mr. McNamara asked if there were i= ssues that the Board needed to address. Mr. Gospodarek said the wanted the Board to review and provide any comments with the general area. Mr. McNamara asked what traffic was anticipated. Mr. Gospodarek said they anticipat= ed typical warehouse traffic; only a portion would be used by the tenant, the other space would be rented out. Mr. McNamara asked if the building would be used for storage too. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Culbert asked if the building would be commercial use. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. He noted it was= in the industrial zone. Mr. D’Andrea said industrial would be 87,120SF, commercial would be 60,000SF. Mr. D’Andrea believed the building was to be a heavy equipment rental place. Mr. Gospodarek said the owner was = not present to discuss the type of use for the building. Mr. D’Andrea asked if it wou= ld be an industrial/commercial mixed use. Mr. Gospodarek said if the building was used for rental, they would = have to keep with the zoning regulations to keep it rental for industrial. Mr. D’Andrea said 87,120SF w= ould be needed. Mr. McNamara quest= ioned if a variance would be needed. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes; to redevelop on a non-conforming lot.

There was no public input.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand (APPLICATION WITHDRAWN)

Mr. McNamara informed that the application had been withdrawn and would not be heard.&nbs= p;

DI= SCUSSION

Su= bdivision Regulations – Section 12 (Additional Information & Studies) ̵= 1; Fiscal Impact Analysis

Mr. McNamara said the discussion would be defe= rred until Mr. Scanzani was present, since he had strong views regarding such.

Windham Subdivision – Connection to= Shelly Drive

Mr. McNamara said the agenda item was a result= of a letter received from the planning office in Windham= regarding a proposed development being considered in Windham. Windham was seeking comment regarding a possible connector road to Shelly Drive in Pelham.

Mr. Danevich arrived.

Mr. Culbert said he would have to view the subdivision plan, but believed a right-of-way was retained when Shelly Drive was done. Mr. Danevich said there= were general questions that were difficult to answer based on what was provided. He said roadway connections were serious because they changed the characteristics of a curr= ent right. He said the Board gene= rally granted such with reason, but the reason for the request was unknown. Mr. McNamara said the Board may ha= ve to review to find out if it would be advantageous to the Town and if so, wheth= er it was financially feasible to accomplish.= Mr. Danevich was concerned with off-site improvement and removing the cul-de-sac loop. Mr. D’= Andrea reviewed the provided plan and noted there would be some topography issues.

There was a consensus of the Board to respond = to Windham that Pelham would remain open to the possibi= lity to a connector road, but would like to see the development when it was officially introduced and accepted by Windham. Mr. McNamara asked Mr. D’And= rea to convey such to Windham.

NR= PC Projects for 2005

Mr. McNamara said this item had been on the ag= enda for the Board to discuss what they wanted NRPC look at. Mr. Danevich said questioned what = was in the budget. Mr. D’Andre= a said NRPC had discussed some projects they would be funding, but couldn’t recall if some of it would be funded through the Town’s dues, or additional funds. Mr. Danevic= h said due to the Town working under a default budget this year, if it wasn’t free, it would have to be deferred to next year. Mr. D’Andrea suggested that = the Board discuss what projects they would have NRPC review, if there were funds. Mr. Danevich said the Selectmen were already engaged with NRPC to work on the Town Center, Park &= amp; Recreation 7-year plan, storm water, GIS, tax map update etc. Mr. Culbert said he wanted help codifying the regulations and take out any discrepancies between each.

MINUTES

July 7, 2005

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the = July 7, 2005 meeting minutes as amended, subject to any amendments by Ms. Ouellette.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:50 p.m.

&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