PB Minutes 08.15.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 15, 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, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Ken Dunne

Mr. Yarmo was appointed to vote in Mr. Scanzani’s absence.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-97-2 Dallaire, Frances & Lever, Jim & Dawn – Dutton road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d the plan had previously been before the Board.= He said there had been a problem with the access to lot 11-97-2; Attorney David Groff brought the plan to the Board of Adjustment and was granted a variance (Case #2317) to have a driveway from Campbell Road to lot 11-97-2. He noted there was an existing hou= se located on lot 1= 1-7-5. He said the soil specifications ha= d been done by Wetland/Soil Scientist Jim Gove of Gove Environmental. He reviewed the pages of the plan = with the Board. The test beds had = been dug and inspected by the Town Health Officer. Mr. Zohdi didn’t believe tha= t the former Planning Director (Will D’Andrea) had any problems with the plans.

Mr. McNamara said the former Planning Director= had submitted a note dated January 3, 2005 to the Board containing a series of issues (some administrative). He then prov= ided the Board with a summary of the Board of Adjustment meeting. He noted when the variance was gra= nted it was done so with two conditions: 1) in reference to lot numbers, they we= re inadvertently transposes - lot 11-97-2 was formally known as lot 11-97-5 on= the original application; and 2) petitioners agree to stipulate that they will = be building a single family home on the lot (not a duplex).

Mr. Danevich said per the January 3, 2005 letter (from= the former Planning Director) the plan appeared to lack a lot of the standard notes. Mr. Zohdi said he didn= ’t have a problem adding the notes to the plan. Mr. Danevich asked if the Board of Adjustment made any comments regarding a ‘shared’ driveway. Mr. McNamara said they were aware = of it, but left it to the Planning Board. <= /span>Mr. Danevich asked if the Board of Adjustment discussed ‘no further subdivision’ of the parcel. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe so; he believed based on the amoun= t of wetlands it would be difficult to further subdivide as a practical matter.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi said they would be glad = to add a note to the plan indicating there would not be any further subdivision of= lot 11-97-2. There was a brief discussion regarding the lot numbering on the plans being reviewed by the Board. It was clarified that = lot 11-97-2 contained 2.119 acres; Mr. Danevich wanted there to be a note on the plan that indicated ‘no further subdivision’ of this lot. Mr. Zohdi said he would add a note= to the plan for lot 11-97-2.

Mr. Yarmo said the standard verbiage for Wetla= nd Conservation District (‘WCD’) signs was missing from the plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He also asked that the WCD signs be installed prior construction. Mr. Zohdi agreed that a note would be added to the recordable plan and that his client would be notified that the WCD signs had to be installed prior to co= nstruction. The signs would be installed every 50feet.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Erik Fehmel, 3 Campbell Road (lot 11-97-4) whose driveway was being used as the easement discussed his concerns as follows: 1) lot was conforming, variance made lot non-conforming; 2) shared driveway; 3) appears a driveway from Dutton Road would actually be through poorly drained soil, not wetland condition; 4) appears that a driveway coul= d be placed next to lot 11-97-2 for access; 5) original easement granted access = to the one lot – not understood how access could e granted to a new lot.=

Mr. McNamara said the plan went before the Conservation Commission who unanimously recommended that access to the lot = be through the driveway. He said= the easement was already in place. Mr. Fehmel said the easement was to access the one (original) lot and not to ke= ep expanding the lot. He said he signed the easement with that understanding. He discussed the financial aspects= and discussed his concerns with heavy equipment using the driveway. He noted that the utilities ran underground (parallel to his driveway) and wanted to know who would pay for it. He wanted to know how tax= es worked for the easement if someone else would be using such. Mr. McNamara said maintenance was a civil matter between Mr. Fehmel and the landowner. He suggested that Mr. Fehmel docum= ent the utilities and the condition of the road. Mr. Fehmel said he swapped land to= have his own driveway; his parents had lived in front of him, and if he was goin= g to share a driveway he would have done so with them. Mr. Zohdi discussed the easement a= nd the purpose he believed it was granted. Mr. Fehmel said he never questioned the use of the land and had assu= med that the easement was simply to access the lot, not to put another house in.

Ms. Ouellette wanted to know in the granting o= f a variance if a shared driveway was granted.= Mr. McNamara answered no. Ms. Ouellette wanted to know where the variance was left if the Board didn’t allow a shared driveway. Mr. McNamara said the variance would still be in place because the l= ot could be accessed through the easement.&nb= sp; Ms. Ouellette asked if a waiver was needed for a shared driveway. Mr. McNamara answered yes, if a sh= ared driveway was being proposed. = Mr. Culbert asked if the Town’s regulations specifically state a lot could not have a shared driveway. M= r. McNamara believed a waiver was needed for a shared driveway. Mr. Zohdi said a waiver had been submitted.

Mr. McNamara questioned what wetland crossing there would be per note #10 on the plan which indicated such. Mr. Zohdi said there was going to = be a crossing if the driveway came from Dutton Road; the note would be removed. Mr. McNamara said the former Plann= ing Director’s comments (#1-13) needed to be addressed. Mr. Zohdi said the comments would = be addressed and added prior to the plan being signed.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To accept the (shared driveway) waiver for consideration.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the (shared driveway) = waiver.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette voted no.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the subdivision subject to standard notes (#2,4,8,9,10,11,12,& 13) being added to the plan; WCD signage added to the plan and installed every 50-f= eet prior to construction; no further subdivision of lot 11-97-2

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette voted no.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 17 Lot 12-253 Concordia Homes – Kennedy Drive – Conceptual – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision

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. McNamara informed tha= t the plan was conceptual and therefore a non-binding matter at this time; the applicant was seeking direction from the Board/abutters. He said the applicant would eventu= ally come back and would have to notify abutter again at such time.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the conceptual plan to the Board. He said they would be subdividing = five lots; the fifth lot would be 0.467 acres and part of the road system deeded= to the Town. He reviewed the plan sheets; the soil mapping and wetland flags were done by Gove Environmental.= He said they would be requesting a Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) and wetland crossing. Mr. Zohdi discussed the items loca= ted on each lot. He said an existing= trail was also shown on the plan. He discussed the grading of the road, which was being proposed at 2% for 125ft. with an increase to 10%, which would minimize the cut at the beginning of t= he road and in the area of WCD. = He said he normally would like 2% to 7% to 10% and asked for the Board’s direction regarding the grade. Mr. Zohdi discussed the drainage system and said it would end with underground storage. He said all the lots complied with the 15,000SF area except for the lot with the existing house; this lot had more than the 15,000SF area, but needed a waiver for the 100ft= x150ft. box shape.

Mr. McNamara asked if any= other waivers/variances would be needed. Mr. Zohdi didn’t believe so.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara asked if the main reason the plan was being reviewed wa= s due to the road profile. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Danevich felt the pla= n met the regulations but was interested in more detailed information regarding t= he driveway profiles for lots 1, 2 & 3 specifically where they intersect w= ith the graded road.

Mr. Yarmo asked if the ex= isting trail would be maintained for use. Mr. Zohdi said the existing trail would be shown on the definitive plan. Mr. Yarmo wanted to kno= w if the trail could continue to be used by the public and snowmobile club. Mr. Zohdi said he would like to di= scuss it with his client and respond at the next meeting; he noted that he was do= ing a subdivision to the northwest of the proposed parcel and didn’t thin= k an easement would be granted for a trail.&nbs= p;

Mr. Culbert said he would= be interested in see the lots ‘site specific’ due to the slope and= wetness. Mr. Zohdi said he would. Mr. Zohdi discussed the slope and = said he would rather have a transition from 3% to 7% to 9% creating a gradual change. Mr. Yarmo didn’= t see the need for site specific lots because the land was basically flat. Mr. Culbert said Mr. Zohdi could d= iscuss it with his client. He asked = if there was a possibility in the future to connect to Old Gage Hill Road. Mr. Zohdi said there was an extens= ive wetland and would present the information at the next meeting.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Robert Fletcher of Jeremy Hill Road informed the Board that he did not live on Ledge Road; it was his daughter Kim= berly Kerepka that lived on Ledg= e Road and the record should be corrected. He didn’t feel that the Board should think of approving the pl= an until a new Planning Director was hired.&n= bsp; He also didn’t feel that the Board (other than Mr. Danevich) w= as qualified to review the plan.

Mr. Gerard Martin, 7 Kennedy Drive questioned where the road was intended to go. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan with M= r. Gerard. Mr. Gerard was concer= ned with increased traffic and was unsure if the road could handle such. He was also concerned with water d= rainage. He said the culvert that went unde= r Kennedy Drive was undersized and water often ran over the roadway. He was also concerned with safety.= Mr. McNamara said when the plan was submitted for acceptance, it would be sent out to Town Engineers who would review the drainage to be sure that the same amount of water that currently went off the property would be equal to what occurs after the subdivision w= as complete.

Ms. Joanne Tredeau, 12 Kennedy Drive was concerned with drainage onto Kennedy Drive, specifically that in her back yard. She said a variance was granted in= 1980 to do an above-ground leach field (because there were three systems within = ten years of the house being built). She was concerned that additional building with drainage not directed properly would give her problems with her leach field. She said the variance also allowed= her well to be within the leach field radius which also concerned her in connec= tion with drainage. Mr. McNamara u= rged Ms. Tredeau to attend any future meetings.&nbs= p;

Mr. Zohdi said he would t= ake the abutter’s comments under advisement, review and hopefully have answers when they returned.

Map 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Prop= osed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

Ms. Ouellette stepped dow= n from the Board.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis of Gottesman & Hollis, Nashua= , NH representing the applica= nt met with the Board. He provided t= he Board with a brief history; there were two cases that went to Superior Court from the project 1) appeal by the neighbors challenging the zoning opinion;= and 2) appeal by the neighbors of the Planning Board decision. He said the remand was on the Plan= ning Board decision case. He said = some inconsistencies were pointed out in connection with the regulations in the Town; such as in zoning the project was not considered multi-family dwellin= g/housing for purposes of the Zoning Ordinance, but for purposes of the Site Plan Reg= ulations it was considered a non-residential site.&= nbsp; Attorney DeCarolis said the court, in regard to the Planning Board c= ase, said that the project was required to comply with the Site Plan Regulations= , or the Planning Board was required to follow the proper procedures spelled out= in the regulations to waive those regulations. He said most, if not all of the regulations they were seeking a waiver from were reviewed during the Planni= ng Board stage, however, some of them didn’t have formal written waiver requests submitted; the ordinance for site plan also requires waivers to be heard at two separate meetings. He reviewed some of the waivers such as Section 248:31 (Site Plan setback requirements); drainage requirement; 248:35, c; wetland crossing; 248:40 (f= ire prevention inspection). Attor= ney DeCarolis pointed out even though the plan was not being submitted under the new Elderly Housing Ordinance (adopted 2005), the applicant proposed to sub= mit the original plan submitted to and approved by the Planning Board. He wanted the Board to recall that= the number of units was reduced from twenty-five units to fifteen units. Mr. McNamara believed the Board re= ceived the written waiver; however, the reasons for the waivers would also need to= be submitted in writing.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates submitted a package to the Board that included information such = as a letter submitted to the Planning Director and court order documents. He reviewed the following waivers = that were submitted on Jun= e 15, 2005: 1) 248:31, c; 2) 248:34, c; 3) 248:35, c; 4) 248:39; 5) 248:40; and 6) 248:= 41, e. He said to the best of his knowledge they were complying with all items/rules of zoning, Board of Heal= th and New Hampshire Wetland Bureau Regulations.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= plan currently being reviewed by the Board was the same plan previously approved= by the Board. Mr. Zohdi answered= yes. Mr. McNamara said Attorney Donovan= had submitted a letter, in which he raised the purchase price of the property as being a significant component to considering one of the zoning requirements= ; he asked if the applicant’s position had changed. Attorney DeCarolis believed the ar= gument with the value of the property was in relation to the zoning regulation, not the site plan. He said that i= ssue had been resolved because the Superior Court affirmed the zoning opinions of the Board. Mr. McNamara asked= if it was the applicant’s position that the zoning questions were not ̵= 6;in play’, only the site plan regulations. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes and noted that the abutters had appealed the zoning to the Supreme Court, which= was still pending. He said the zo= ning issues were not before the Board, just the waivers from the site plan regulations.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Michael Donovan,= Concord, NH, representing the Little Island Pond Watershed Association and many neighbor= s to the project, said the court order clearly vacated both the Special Use Perm= it and the Site Plan Review. He = felt until the burden of proof had been met for re-establishing the Special Use Permit and Site Plan it was still before the Board. Mr. McNamara agreed that the court remanded the decision, however much of what was done, didn’t need to = be re-done. Attorney Donovan arg= ued differently and said the court found/ruled that the Planning Board committe= d an error of law failing to apply the Site Plan Regulations and vacated the Board’s decision in total and remanded the case. He said they were in attendance to= speak against the waivers, and asked that the Board clarify their belief of the Special Use Permit prior to the next hearing. He said the extent of the number of waivers required were greater than those in Mr. Zohdi’s letter of June 15, 2005.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said there were actually twelve different instances where waivers were required; there were three separate locations where the wetland setback requirements were not met, drainage, landscaping, two wetlands locations setbacks and four instances building si= des not accessible to fire trucks. He said each time a setback was waived, there had to be a justification. He said there was an indication th= at the site plan was too intense for the site, from the fact that so many waivers = were being requested. He didn̵= 7;t believe that the Board had the justification to approve the plan.

Attorney Donovan handed t= he Board members a chronology that summarized all of the evidence to the adverse wetlands impacts; he highlighted some of the information contained therein. He in light of the w= aivers being needed, as a minimum, the Board should refer the plan back to the Town’s Environmental Consultant for further review. He said there were Site Plan Regul= ations on setbacks for multi-family buildings having to be three-times the height,= and the area for multi-family buildings being three-acres per building. He said even the new Elderly Housi= ng provision didn’t ‘trump’ the Site Plan Review regulations. He said the conf= licts cause in the Elderly Housing (old and new) only dealt with conflicts in the Zoning Ordinance and says nothing about Site Plan Review. He said the Board also needed waiv= er requests for the Site Plan Review regulations. He said he wanted to address the S= pecial Use Permit. Mr. McNamara said Attorney Donovan would have the opportunity later to address the Special Use Permit.

Mr. Danevich believed the= Board should accept the plan for consideration prior to beginning any deliberation.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich understood t= hat the applicant was requesting waivers to Sections 248:31, c (setbacks) and 248:3= 5, c (landscaping). Mr. Zohdi answ= ered yes. Mr. Danevich made a moti= on to accept the waiver requests for consideration. Mr. Culbert seconded the motion. Attorney Donovan believed the Board should reject all the waivers for being incomplete and for not having writt= en justification. Mr. McNamara s= aid per the Site Plan Regulations the Board would need the reasons (in writing)= for the waivers. He said perhaps = the Board should defer accepting. Mr. Danevich was uncomfortable discussing the waivers without accepting for consideration. Mr. McNamara r= ead aloud a portion of the Site Plan Regulations that discuss waivers.

Attorney DeCarolis said t= hey would withdraw the letter request for waiver and prepare an itemized request for waiver complying with the section; at the same time they address the Special Use Permit. He though= t they were applying under the court’s order; the court’s order on the Planning Board section of the case was final and had not gone to Supreme Court. He said the court orde= r said they needed to comply with the Site Plan Regulations, or request a waiver.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He didn’t understand why they needed to come back for a Special Use Permit. Mr. McNamara said the court vacate= d the decision in full. He believed= the Board had to review and vote as if the plan was new. Attorney DeCarolis believed the Bo= ard could rely on and consider the engineering, environmental etc. reports that had been submitted. He said he didn’t realize Mr. Yarmo was going to vote and noted one of the issues that came up a year (or= so) ago was if Mr. Yarmo needed to recuse himself; it was his understanding tha= t he was required to step down. Mr. McNamara said the Board could take a non-binding vote and advise someone to step down; however the Board could not require anyone to step down. There had been a perception that M= r. Yarmo may have been working with the Little Island Pond Watershed. Attorney DeCarolis said there had = been some advertising that the Little Island Pond Watershed Association was work= ing in partnership with the Conservation Commission (which Mr. Yarmo is the Chairman). Mr. Yarmo said the letter was not put out by the Little Island Pond Watershed Association; and couldn’t remember the source. He said it was his duty as a Conservation Chair; he said his answer remained the same from two years ago; he would not step down. Mr. McNamara believed Attorney DeC= arolis was referring to a website off the Town website that identified the Little Island Pond Watershed Association working in conjunction with the Conservat= ion Commission attempting to purchase land nearby. Attorney Donovan said the at the b= eginning of the meeting, the Planning Board Chairman made it clear that Mr. Yarmo wo= uld be participating, and the applicant should have raised the point. It was clarified that under the Town’s rules, the Board could conduct a meeting (without taking actio= n) with four members; however, five members would be needed to take action. Mr. Danevich read aloud a portion = of Section 673:14 (disqualification of a member). He felt it was clear that only a B= oard member could request someone to step down.= There was no request from a Board member to ask Mr. Yarmo to step do= wn at this point.

Attorney DeCarolis believ= ed some of the comments were legitimate, and they would come back with a specific itemization of the request and resubmit.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich withdrew his motion (to accept the waivers for consideration); Mr. Culbert withdrew his second. Mr. Danevich said he was hopeful t= hat moving forward all the Town boards would be consistent with requirements for accepting waivers.

Mr. McNamara confirmed wi= th Attorney DeCarolis that they were going to withdraw and resubmit. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes. Attorney Donovan asked that the Bo= ard think about the numerous setback instances and further requested that the B= oard send the plan to the Town’s Environmental Consultant for review. Mr. McNamara questioned why the Bo= ard should not give more ‘weight’ to zoning. Attorney Donovan said the Board= 217;s task was to look at a site plan and determine if it is too intense to be built.

Mr. Danevich said he beli= eved the whole package was vacated, per his reading of the court agreement (including the Special Permit). He belie= ved the Board needed to rehear and apply the Site Plan criteria. Mr. McNamara believed the Board co= uld agree that many of the items had already been done. Mr. Danevich didn’t disagree= .

There was a brief discuss= ion, it was decided that documentation would need to be submitted (by the applicant= ) by September 8, 2005= and the plan would be date specified to the September 19, 2005 meeting.

Ms. Ouellette returned to= the Board.

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road= – Site Plan – Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older adult communi= ty for acceptance

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said three or four years ago he= came before the Board for a site plan for an adult community (55+) and obtained = an approval for forty units. He = said the current plan before the Board was a request for twenty units. He said everything was staying the= same except that they reconfigured the units and were bringing the plan in under= the new Elderly Housing Ordinance. They were requesting one waiver for the number of units in one of the buildings (which would have 8 units). In Summary, Mr. Zohdi said the request was for the approval of a previously ap= proved site plan with a reduced number of units.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara asked if, in= Mr. Zohdi’s opinion, the plan met all the requirements for acceptance for consideration as submitted. M= r. Zohdi answered yes; he said he had received a letter from the former Planni= ng Director (Will D’Andrea). Mr. McNamara reviewed the letter that had been submitted by the former Planning Director which appeared to comment regarding elderly zoning and site plan regulation issues. Mr. Zohdi = said they sat with Mr. D’Andrea, revised the plan and did what was requested. Mr. McNamara confi= rmed that all the concerns listed had been provided on the plan. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Culbert was not willi= ng to allow the eight units.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed plan materially changed what was previously approved (other than w= hat was outlined). Mr. Zohdi answ= ered no, but noted that the leach bed was smaller.

Mr. Danevich said one of = his concerns was parking and wanted to know what could be done to increase park= ing density. Mr. Zohdi explained = that each unit would have a garage; a vehicle could also park beside the garage and/or in front of the garage. He said he didn’t have a problem adding an additional 8-10 spaces. He said an area could be designate= d for future parking if needed. Mr. Danevich asked what the square footage would be per unit. Mr. Zohdi said the units were 26ft.x54ft. (1404SF). Mr. Dan= evich said he was supportive of the original plan and still thought the location = was ideal. He wanted to ensure th= at the cross-walk would be painted. = Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. McNam= ara asked if there would be sidewalks within the community. Mr. Danevich couldn’t recall= but noted there was a fire path around the buildings. He said he would struggle with the waiver for the number of units. He also wanted an updated artist’s rendition of what the front facade; he said they didn’t want ‘rubber-stamp’ look to the building= . Mr. Zohdi said he would provide an artist rendition.

Mr. Yarmo felt lighting w= as important. He also wanted to = know if there would be more landscaping that what was shown. He questioned if the 18-foot fire = lane was paved. Mr. Zohdi said he = met with the Fire Chief who wanted the 18-foot fire lane. He said for the next meeting they = would ‘blow-up’ the landscaping and present it at the next meeting. Mr. Danevich said because it was a commercial property, the Fire Chief should review. He felt the configuration was less intrusive and the Board should review if the fire path needed to be paved or gravel. Mr. McNamara said the= Board could ask for Safety Committee input regarding the fire path being pavement= or gravel.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= units were rentals with an on-site landlord. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t know, but would answer at the next meeting.

Ms. Bousa asked for consi= deration to incorporate the current rock wall into the landscaping. Mr. Zohdi said he would. Ms. Bousa said the driveway was sh= ort going into the property and asked that consideration be given to stop bars = and stop signs (so people entering would have the right-of-way and people exiti= ng would yield to them). Mr. Zoh= di answered yes.

Mr. Danevich asked for an explanation of note #17 (senior center impact fee) the Town didn’t currently have such. Mr. Zohd= i would review.

Mr. Yarmo asked if there = were any specific issues (i.e. protections, adjacencies) brought up by the Departmen= t of Environmental Service (‘DES’) given that the site was next to a prime wetland. Mr. Zohdi said= there was a site walk with Dr. Richardson, who didn’t have a problem with t= he site. He believed both the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board approved. Mr. Danevich recalled that it was ultimately ruled as a non-adjacency issue.=

Mr. Culbert said if the t= wo units were removed from the eight units it would provide a nice space for visitor parking. Mr. Zohdi said they = wanted to have twenty units. Mr. Cul= bert believed there had been two other applications before the Board that reques= ted more than six units and the Board requested that they reduce the number to six. Mr. Zohdi believed the B= oard took each application at its own merits.&n= bsp; Mr. Danevich discussed the reasons that the Board decided upon the number of units for the ordinance.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Sheila Marcoux, 30 Brandy Lane, who was not an abutter but wanted to know where the driveway was in relation to= Dutton Road= . Mr. Zohdi said the driveway would = be across from Dutton Road. Ms. Marcoux questioned if there wo= uld be a four-way stop at the intersection. Mr. McNamara said the Board could request input from the Safety Committee.

Mr. Larry Major, 101 Dutton Road, asked if there would be a sidewalk running from the complex to Rite Aid and cross walk delineated to the Pelham Plaza. Mr. McNamara said he believed it w= ould be considered and the Board would ask that the Safety Committee review. Mr. Major said the major issue was= the increased traffic onto Atw= ood Road and asked if there would be road improvements to add a left-turn lane. He felt this was a great opportuni= ty to get off-site improvements to the Town didn’t have to face additional million dollar projects like the one currently in the Town Center.

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road, asked if the proposed project was closer to the prime wetland than the original. Mr. Zohdi answered no. He reviewed the plan and = showed the buffer zone to the prime wetland. He said the plan showed a distance of at least 100-feet from the pri= me wetland. Ms. Hennessey felt t= he Board should review Dr. Richardson’s issues discussed at the site walk (i.e. landscape). She also fe= lt the Board should address the amount of open space being provided. She felt if the project abutted Ri= te Aid that a buffer should be added.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= open space requirements were complied with.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said he would calculate.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara said the file contained noted from the former Planning Director and questioned if they had been incorporated. Mr. Zohdi said he would review the= notes and determine what had been done. He said he would bring a highlighted plan to the next meeting.

Mr. McNamara said the pla= n would be referred to the Safety Committee. Ms. Bousa said she would like to have a formal traffic analysis beca= use it was a high volume intersection and there were certain criteria that had = to be met. She said she would li= ke to wait until school was in session to obtain the traffic counts. Mr. Zohdi said he would do the ana= lysis after school was in session. = He reminded the Board that he was involved when Rite Aid was constructed and w= ould bring the plans to the next meeting so the Board could review what road cha= nges were made.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 19= , 2005 meeting.

MOTION:

(Bousa/Ouellette) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 307-53-2.c.2 to allow one building to have eight dwelling units.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Culbert and Mr. Danevich voted no.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 19= , 2005 meeting.

Map 28 Lot 2-6 Bogush/Trapanier – 40 Burns Road – Site Plan for a Home Occupation – Proposed Logging Operation<= o:p>

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove informed the Board that neither she nor Ms. Kathleen Cummings received notification of the hearing and they were both abutters to the property.

Mr. McNamara asked the applicants, Mr. Edward Bogush and Mr. Albert Trepanier if they had done the abutter notifications. Mr. Trepanier said he took the exact list from the first Board of Adjustment meeting, made copies and brought them back in. Ms. Ouellette said from the hand w= ritten list in the file, all addresses on Pond View had been crossed off as well a= s 20 Sawmill Road. Mr. McNamara said legally, for the= Board to consider the application, abutters had to be notified; if all the abutte= rs were not notified and the hearing went forth, an abutter could challenge the legality of the hearing. Mr. Trepanier said it wasn’t him that didn’t provide notification, = it was the Town; he provided the money and the same list (from the Board of Adjustment case #2309). Mr. McNamara said the problem was that the applicant had the final responsibili= ty to make sure that every current abutter is listed and notified.

Mr. Trepanier questioned = why he gave the Town the money to notify the abutter and they didn’t. He said he would take the issue up= with the Town. He wanted his money refunded, the hearing continued and he would notify abutters himself next time. Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Trepanier if he was withdrawing the application. Mr. Trepanier said good then quest= ioned what withdrawing meant. Mr. McNamara said the application had to start over; reapply for the site plan = and notify abutters. Mr. Trepanie= r said he would do it himself and left the meeting. Mr. Bogush also left the meeting.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Comeau, John & Olivia &#= 8211; Dutton Road= – Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters. Ms. Lee St. Louis o= f 97 Dutton Road said her name was not read. It was= noted that Mr. Alfred St. Louis of 97 Dutton Road (Lee’s husband) had received notification. Ms. Ouellette n= oted that the notification for Mr. Robert Stone 15 Hickory Hill, Pelham was returned, unable to forward, address not on file.

Mr. Jonathan Ring, Jones = & Beach Engineers and Mr. Mark West of West Environmental met with the Board = to present the plan. He said the parcel was 70.12 acres; the survey was completed by Erik Mitchell, Bedford, NH. He said they had met with the Board twice last year to discuss the conceptual plan and incorporated the comments from the Board; they had also met with the Conservation Commission in the w= inter. He said the Environmental Impact statement was partly a result of the meetings. He said a formal application had b= een made for a 21-single family residential lot subdivision, with four areas of proposed conservation land (comprising of 38 acres). He said there was approximately 40= 00 feet of roadway (3150 feet to the beginning of cul-de-sac) and 400 feet to = Brandy Lane= for a connection. Mr. Ring said all= of the lots met the Zoning criteria; each lot would have on-site wells and lea= ch fields. He said the drainage = would be open drainage swales and treatment swales in accordance on Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) regulations as well as by commen= ts/recommendations from Craig Wood (Louis-Berger, Town Environmental Consultant). He said they had identified one wa= iver for the road being 22-feet wide. He ended by discussing the connection to Brandy Lane; the pavement would be removed and the la= nd would be restored to the house lot in that vicinity. He said they would work with the property owner regarding the change.

Mr. West understood that = the plan would be forwarded to Mr. Wood for review.= He discussed the impacts and showed the conservation areas. He provided an overview of the dra= inage system and connectivity of the parcel.&nbs= p; He said there were a significant number of wetland crossings but utilized the old wood roads to minimize the impacts. There were eight wetland crossings proposed. Mr. Ring said when = the project began they started with twenty-five lots on the property, but had e= liminated some to increase the open space area and now had twenty-one lots. He said they also reduced the wetl= and impact from 20,000SF down to 13,000SF.&nbs= p; He understood that the Town Engineer would review the plan and provi= de comments, which they would in turn incorporate into the next revisions of t= he plan.

Mr. Yarmo said the Conser= vation Commission had brought up the concern regarding the number of driveway crossings into the WCD and questioned how many there would be. Mr. Ring said there would be five = driveways that crossed into the WCD; lots 3,4,6,7 & 12; shared driveways were separated and the easement for lot 11 was eliminated.

Mr. McNamara asked if in = Mr. Ring’s opinion the plan met all the Town’s requirements for acceptance for consideration. Mr. Ring answered yes, to the best of his knowledge. He said they had a preliminary mee= ting with the former Planning Director (Will D’Andrea) and Craig Wood of Louis-Berger and made the submission based on the comments from the meeting.

Mr. Culbert asked how many waivers would be requested. M= r. Ring said the only waiver they had identified was the 22-foot road width. There would be special use permits= for the wetland crossings and for the driveways within the WCD.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Bousa) To accept the pla= n for consideration.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Alfred St. Louis, Dutton Road= , wanted to know more about the run off from the road because the front of his prope= rty was already wet. Mr. McNamara= said the Town’s Engineers would review the plan and provide comments back = to the Board and the applicant. = Mr. St. Louis was also concerned with the traffic. Mr. Ring noted that a traffic impa= ct analysis had been done and submitted and would be reviewed by the Town̵= 7;s Engineer. Mr. Ring discussed = the drainage and said it would flow across to the wetland. Mr. St. Louis was very concerns wi= th the potential impacts. Ms. Lee St. Louis said they had asked if the land around their house would be developed, and were informed it wouldn’t.

Ms. Lisa Milne, 29 Brandy Lane, asked if a study had been done in connection with the impacts to Brandy Lane= . Mr. Ring said information regardin= g Brandy Lane= was included in the traffic analysis submitted. He said it should also be reviewed= when the Planning Board walked the site. Mr. McNamara discussed the reasons the Board requested the cut-through. Mr. McNamara sug= gested that Ms. Milne watch the listings for Planning Board meetings.

Mr. Tom Milne, 29 Brandy Lane, discussed his annoy= ance with the fact that surveyors were clearly on his property; they came back a= t a later time with corrected plans. He was concerned with the fact that the surveyor’s plans were incorrect.= Mr. Ring said he would investigate= . Mr. McNamara said once engineering reviewed the plans and when the site was reviewed by the Board, they should= be able to determine where everything was.

Ms. Sheila Marcoux, 30 Brandy Lane, wanted to know why this was the first notification the abutters had regarding a pl= an that would impact their neighborhood. Mr. McNamara said the Board had reviewed under ‘conceptualR= 17; review, which was non-binding and abutter notification was not required. Ms. Marcoux discussed the traffic = and didn’t feel that a connection was needed based on the current road configuration. Mr. McNamara s= aid part of the consideration was the access in and out of the property. Ms. Marcoux asked if the property = owner at 34 Brandy Lane would be able to determine if the cul-de-sac area remain as a circle, or if= it had to revert to grass. Mr. R= ing said the Brandy Lane subdivision (1990) plan indicated that the cul-de-sac was actually on an easement on the property. He = said there was a note on the plan that stated if the road were to be extended; t= he cul-de-sac would revert to the property owners. He said it was his understanding t= hat the Planning Board could change conditions of prior approvals with consent = of the owner. Ms. Marcoux asked = if the determination would be up to the property owners. Mr. McNamara said the final ‘call’ would be up to the Board. Ms. Marcoux wanted to know if it w= as possible that the abutter’s water supply would be affected. Mr. McNamara said anything was pos= sible, but it was not supposed to be affected.&nb= sp; He suggested that the abutters stay in connection with the process a= nd document the current conditions. Ms. Marcoux asked if the conservation land would be donated to the Town. Mr. Ring said there wer= e four areas (totaling 38.77 acres) that were being proposed to be donated to the Town. Mr. McNamara said a lot= of the information was new to the Board and would be forwarded to engineering = for review; the site would also be reviewed.&n= bsp; Ms. Marcoux agreed with Ms. Milne’s thought about Brandy Lane= being altered. She pointed out that= there was a note on the plan that stated Brandy Lane would not be used for construction traffic throughout the whole project and wanted to know how it would be enforced. Mr. Ring believed if there was a problem, the Planning Department would come down hard on the developer. Mr. McNamara said either the engin= eers (doing spot checks), or the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer would ask that the developer make corrections. Mr. Danevich believed construction vehicles would be on Brandy Lane= based on the fact that the cul-de-sac would be taken out. There was further discussion regar= ding traffic accessing the roads for construction based upon unknown circumstances. Ms. Marcoux suggested incorporating jersey barriers on the plan to ensure no traffic accessed Brandy Lane during construction. She also= asked if there would be any blasting during construction. Mr. Ring said they didn’t fi= nd any ledge when the test pits were done, but they hadn’t done test pits in= the Brandy Lane<= /st1:Street> vicinity.

Mr. West asked if it was appropriate for him to ship the plan directly to Craig Wood. Mr. Danevich said everything had t= o go directly through the Planning Office.

Mr. McNamara summarized t= he action to be taken at this time: 1) forward the Environmental Impact Analys= is to Craig Wood of Louis-Berger; 2) need second opinion on the traffic study (possibly Volmer); 3) sent to Safety Committee for input; 4) to Conservation Commission for comments; and 5) to Dufresne-Henry for engineering review. The site walk would be deferred un= til further information received.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 3, 2= 005 meeting.

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

September 19, 2005

Map 30 Lot 11-93 Cormier & Saurman Buildi= ng, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Revi= ew and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC &#= 8211; Atwood Road= – Site Plan – Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older adult communi= ty for acceptance

October 3, 2005

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Comeau, John &= ; Olivia – Dutton Road – Proposed 21-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES

July 18= , 2005

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To = approve the July 18, 2= 005 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5 - = 0 - 1) The motion carried. Mr. Yar= mo abstained.

August 1, 2005 = 211;deferred until there were enough members who were present at that meeting to vote.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:00pm.

&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