PB Minutes 10.17.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 17, 2005

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Vice Chairman, Peter = McNamara called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Ken Dunne (arrived af= ter the meeting commenced), Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Gael Ouellette, Alterna= te Bob Yarmo

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-20 & 22-9 Fireside Homesteads, LLC – Heather Lee Lane – Request fo= r Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani said the Board walked the site and was seeking engineering recommendations, which had come forward.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said there was a sight distance problem and after the site was walked, there was= a general consensus that additional topography and elevation shots were needed. The information was a= dded to the plan (showing three points of elevation). Mr. Zohdi met with Mr. Gowan and w= anted to know what the Board would allow. Mr. Zohdi said they may be able to obtain 250-foot sight distance. He discussed how he obtained line-of-sight elevation.

Mr. Gowan said he spoke with (engineer) representatives of both Granite State Electric and Verizon regarding utility poles. He said it was made cl= ear (during his discussions) that no cutting could occur within the vicinity of= the poles given the fact that the surface had already been reduced by a couple = feet (or more) (poles are only buried approximately six feet). He said he would meet with the engineers, Mr. Zohdi, and perhaps the Town Engineer to review in field. He said the abutter’s land t= hat would be cut had already been through it once, and wanted the next step to = be the final interruption of his property (done by the end of October). This would not be possible, given = the information from Verizon that moving poles was a six-eight week process. The cutting would most likely occu= r in the spring; Mr. Gowan wanted to know with regard to a bond reduction, what = the Board would feel comfortable with at this stage.

Mr. Renee LaBranche of Dufresene-Henry said he reviewed the sight line of the roadway and said per AASHTO, it would not be appropriate to lose such. He = said the current issue was the ‘hump’ in the road.

Mr. Culbert asked if there was an estimated pr= ice to fix the road. Mr. LaBranch= e said he discussed the issue with Mr. Gowan.&nbs= p; The price was broken into two sections: 1) shoulder sight line (approximately $14,000); and 2) roadway ($20,000); the one thing not consid= ered was ledge. A $5000 contingenc= y was added for the ledge on the roadwork and a $1500 contingency was added for l= edge on the shoulder.

Mr. Scanzani asked if sight distance could be achieved if the ‘hump’ was taken down, but the side work was not done. Mr. LaBranche believed = there would be less impact to the property (shoulder area) if the driver’s = eye point (14feet) were pushed forward. Mr. Scanzani believed the Board had resigned itself that the road wo= uld not be fixed (completely) to the way they wanted, and said the remaining question remained how the sight distance could be accomplished to the best = that it could be to the corner and at the same time have little impact to the resident on the corner. He was sensitive to the fact that the developer had gone through three engineering firms and had his plan signed off on. He suggested that the ‘hump’ in the road be cut down (ra= ther than moving the poles). Mr. G= owan said the estimate to move the poles was $4000-$5000 per pole. Mr. Culbert said in the past, when utility poles were moved (at the request of the Town) it was done at the expense of the utility company.

Mr. Culbert suggested that signs be considered= . Mr. Danevich agreed and suggested = also reducing the speed limit.

Mr. McNamara wanted to know what the sight distance would be if the roadwork was done. Mr. LaBranche said if a combinatio= n of roadwork was done the sight distance may be extended beyond the 250-feet and might be 300-feet.

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich asked if the work could be done t= his year. Mr. Gowan said the deve= loper was interested in completing the work.&nbs= p; He wanted to know what the signage would entail. Mr. Danevich suggested the followi= ng signs ‘caution turn’, ‘reduce speed’ and ‘bli= nd drive/turn’.

The sight distance calculations were discussed. Mr. Zohdi understo= od that the Board was considering a little work on the shoulder, not moving the poles, reviewing the pavement; if there were any problems they would discuss with Mr. Gowan and come back before the Board if needed. He wanted to know if the suggestio= n was 250-foot sight distance. He w= anted an agreement with the Board regarding the amount of sight distance they wan= ted to obtain, so it could be designed and built. He wanted to set a benchmark of 25= 0-foot sight distance and if they were able to get more, they would be glad to do so. Mr. Scanzani said that was fine. There was no objection = by the Board. Mr. Zohdi said the dev= eloper wanted to complete the work as soon as possible and asked if consideration would be given to accepting the road at Town Meeting (in March 2006).

Mr. Scanzani said the Board’s experience with accepting roads (that had bonds) and not fully completed, had not work= ed out as anticipated; the Board would like the applicant to try and get the w= ork done this year. It was highly unlikely that the Board would accept a road that had not been completed ful= ly.

The roadwork estimate provided by Mr. LaBranche was $31,000. Mr. Culbert made= a motion to approve the work to be done with a stopping sight distance of at least 250 feet on the road, add appropriate signage (2 turning traffic sign= s), and retain $31,000 in bond money. Mr. Danevich seconded the motion and confirmed the motion to be: 1) reduce the bond to $31,000; 2) minimum stopping sight distance 250 feet; an= d 3) signage on both sides. Mr. Mc= Namara asked if the $31,000 included the shoulder work. Mr. LaBranche answered yes. Ms. Bousa asked if the $31,000 also included the inspection fee for Dufresne-Henry. Mr. LaBranche answered yes.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the= work to be done; reduce the bond to $31,000; have a minimum stopping sight dis= tance of 250-feet; add signage (traffic turning) on both sides.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-254 Century Builders – Nature’s Way – Request for Bond Reduction/Scheduling of Site Walk

Mr. Gowan said there were a few minor issues on site, but the big issue was sight distance. He said that the applicant request= ed that the Board walk the site.

A site walk was scheduled for October 22, 2005 – 8am – beginning on sit= e.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 14 Lot 4-177 Tanner, David – 321 Mammoth Road – Site Plan Review of propo= sed Roof Overhang and Walkway

Mr. McNamara read the lis= t 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. David Tanner, 321 Mammoth Road discussed t= he submitted proposal with the Board which was to add a six-foot wide sidewalk (along the front and right side of the existing store) with an overhang over the sidewalk. The fire lanes = would not be negatively affected. <= /p>

Mr. Gowan said when the first plan was brought= to the Highway Safety Committee, it didn’t reflect closely enough what w= as happening on site to the recollection of the Police and Fire Chiefs. There was a recommendation that a = new plan be brought back. Mr. Gow= an noted that the new plan had not yet been signed off on by the Highway Safety Committee.

&= nbsp;

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich asked that there be written correspondence with the Highway Safety Committee considering it was a commercial building. Mr. Gowa= n said he would also recommend such. Mr. Scanzani said it appeared that the Board could approve the plan subject to = the Highway Safety Committee submitting a letter indicating they had no objecti= ons to the plan.

Mr. Bousa noted that thirty-eight parking spac= es were required, however there were only twenty-eight shown on the plan. Mr. Tanner said the parking spaces= were eliminated when the fire line was added to the rear of the building. Mr. Scanzani said the fire lane wa= s at the request of the Highway Safety Committee. Mr. Culbert asked if there was a w= aiver on file for the parking spaces. Mr. Gowan said he was not aware of a waiver being submitted. Mr. Danevich asked who was request= ing the waiver; the applicant, or the Town.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani said the plan was approved and done with the proper parking; the Town in its last review requested the fire lanes based on the Highway Safety Committee’s review.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert said the use still called for thirty-eight parking spaces. The applicant was ask= ed to submit a written waiver request. Mr. Danevich made a motion to accept for consideration the waiver request for the reduction of parking spaces (from thirty-eight to twenty-ei= ght) at the request of the Highway Safety Committee review. Mr. McNamara seconded the motion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was further discussion and t= he wording for the following motion was stated by Mr. Scanzani:

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) Mr. David Tan= ner will write a written request of waiver for the parking spaces that were removed based on the request of the (Highway) Safety Committee; the Board= is going to approve the six-foot sidewalk and overhang that he’s requested, subject to a letter from the (Highway) Safety Committee saying they have no other further problems with the site.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To accept, for consideration, the waiver for the nine parking spaces as shown.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To approve the= waiver for the nine parking spaces as shown.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Tanner submitted a written waiver request = to the Board.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8 <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates indicated that the plan (for an eight-lot subdivision) had been previously approved by the Planning Board on November 1, 2004. He said = per the Town’s regulation, if a plan is not recorded within six months of approval, the plan had to come back in front of the Board for re-approval.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the plan was back in front= of the Board for re-approval because it didn’t make to be recorded.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any changes to the existing plan. Mr. Zohdi = said there had been no changes to the plan since it had been approved by the Boa= rd (November 1, 2004). Mr. Danevich clarified that the re= quest was strictly administrative due to construction not beginning within the specified timeframe which made the plan null/void thereby requiring the applicant to come back before the Board.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said that was the only reason.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan noted that there were a number of waivers (existing at the time of approval). Mr. Scanzani read aloud the waiver= s that were requested/approved at the November 1, 2004 Planning Board meeting.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver requests as they are all related to design standards the Board requested in the road design, which then resulted in needed waivers: 1) to Appendix I, BB – Street Construction Standards – 16 -minimum center line curve radii 430ft required; and Appendix = IX – Application Completion Checklist – Roadway: minimum curve radius 200ft – 150ft.requested .;&= nbsp; 2) to Appendix I, BB – Street Construction Standards, 29 - Required Sight Distance of 455ft. – 520ft. - 425ft. requested along Sherburne Road; and 3) to Section 11.04, (C) Design Standards – 100ftx150ft. for various shapes on the plan for lots 1-155, 1-155-3, 1-15= 5-4.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan said as of lately, the Board when accepting waivers would consider approval at subsequent meetings. In this case, due to the administr= ative nature (re-approval), Mr. Gowan felt it would be worth consideration to fin= ish tonight.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= pprove the waiver requests as originally granted November 1, 2004 as follows: as they are all related to design standards the Board requested in the road design, which then resulted in needed waivers: 1) to Appendix I, BB ̵= 1; Street Construction Standards – 16 -minimum center line curve radii 430ft required; and Appendix IX – Application Completion Checklist – Roadway: minimum curve radius 200ft – 150ft.requested .; 2) to Appendix I, BB – Str= eet Construction Standards, 29 - Required Sight Distance of 455ft. – 52= 0ft. - 425ft. requested along Sherburne Road; and 3) to Section 11.04, (C) Des= ign Standards – 100ftx150ft. for various shapes on the plan for lots 1-= 155, 1-155-3, 1-155-4.=

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich reviewed the approval conditions = as specified at the November 1, 2004, which remained as follows with the addition of an open sp= ace contribution of $750 per lot in lieu of the Open Space Regulation (because = the notation was agreed to by the applicant and was contained on the final set = of plans from November 1,= 2004) :

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the plan subject to: 1) applicant agrees to the 4ft. Arborvitaes at the e= nd of the cul-de-sac; 2) addition of note on plan showing the Sherburne Road study amount will be $500 per lot; 3) receipt of DOT driveway permit, sta= te subdivision approval, state site specific; 4) soil report (plan re-stamped with certification as required); 5) deed conveyance prior to plan being recorded at Registry of Deeds; 6) all Dufresne-Henry technical comments b= eing adhered to; and 7) (as agreed to by the applicant) $750 per lot open space contribution in lieu of the Open Space Regulations.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan noted that the applicant had to come back before the Board because they had six months to address conditions pla= ced on the plan; otherwise, the applicant would have had one year.

Ma= p 21 Lot 3-102 Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust – Tenney Road – Conceptual R= 11; Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d the applicant was combining two lots to create the subdivision. He reviewed the pages of the plan = and noted that the wetlands had been flagged by Gove Environmental Services (in= the past). Site specific mapping = of the soils and test beds (reviewed by the Town’s Health Officer) had also = been done and shown on the plan. T= he total road length from Ten= ney Road (center line) around the cul-de-sac is 1124.03 feet. The road grade will be approximate= ly 1% – 1.5%. The small amoun= t of very poorly drained soil in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac, therefore the cul-de= -sac would be pulled northwesterly side and pulled out of the poorly drained soil. Mr. Zohdi said when he = came back with the plan there would be waiver requests (i.e. dimension of 100ft.x150ft. – = but the lots would meet the 15,000SF) but he was still working on the specific lots.

Understanding this was conceptual review and t= hat any statements were non-binding, Mr. Danevich asked what opportunity there = was to put an easement on lot 3-107 and pull the cul-de-sac to reach the back boundary. Mr. Zohdi said he m= et with the owners of the parcel and was hopeful when the plan was finalized t= hat there would be an agreement. =

Mr. McNamara asked if there was any open space provision on the plan. Mr. Zo= hdi said it had not been volunteered. He said it would be discussed during the approval process.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the only waiver request would be for the 15,000SF area. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Gowan asked how the sight distance was for= the site. Mr. Zohdi believed ther= e was 425feet of sight distance onto Tenney Road (depending on where a car stopped at the = edge of the pavement).

Mr. McNamara asked if there would be any wetla= nd crossings for any of the driveways. Mr. Zohdi answered no. He said he would cross the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) i= f, cul-de-sac was moved, and access was left at the end of the cul-de-sac.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Ian Donaghey, 65 Tenney Road wanted to know if th= ere would be any problems for septics or wells because his well was just past o= ne of the stone walls and possibly went over his lot line. Mr. Zohdi said he would review/loc= ate the well and make sure that that the proposed septic system was not within 75feet of such well. Mr. Dona= ghey asked for an explanation for the term line of sight. Mr. Scanzani explained line of sig= ht was the distance a vehicle could see when at an intersection.

Mr. Dunne arrived.

Mr. Zaki Azzaoui, 12 Partridgeberry Lane, wanted to understand what the proposed plan would mean to his lot. Mr. Zohdi showed Mr. Azzaoui the p= lan and pointed out where his lot was located in connection to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Scanzani exp= lained the abutter notification process.

Mr. Jim Dolliver, 67 Tenney Road, said his lot abutte= d four or five of the proposed lots and two of the proposed septic systems appeare= d to be within 15feet of his back yard. He was concerned with the septic systems failing (in the future) and affecting his lot. Mr. Scanza= ni said they were allowed to be within 15feet from the property line and asked Mr. Dolliver at what distance his house was located. Mr. Dolliver said his house and was located. Mr. Dolliver said hi= s well was located a good distance away, but was concerned with future expansion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He noted his concern regarding bla= sting (during construction) and drainage given the fact that the area behind his = home was ledge. He discussed the s= ight distance from Tenney Road<= /st1:address> and was unsure if there was actually 400feet. Mr. Dolliver understood the plan w= as preliminary, but wanted to know if there would be any wetland crossings. Mr. Zohdi said it would depend on = his discussions with the abutter. Mr. Dolliver asked if a detention pond was being proposed for the runoff of the project. Mr. Scanzani answered no. He noted that the road didn’t have much of a slope (as proposed) and assumed that the road w= ould have sheet drainage (from the crown of the road on each side toward the lots). There would be approxi= mately 280feet lot depth from the road to Mr. Dolliver’s property. Mr. Scanzani discussed the 4000SF = area of the proposed septic systems and said it appeared that lot 3-102-1 was approximately 35ft.-40ft. from Mr. Dolliver’s boundary line. He said lot 46 appeared to be with= in 15ft of the boundary (which was still legitimate). Mr. Culbert explained that of the = 4000SF only approximately 400SF was used for the leach field. The 4000SF area provided available= space in the event a new septic was needed. Mr. Danevich said the Board could request that Mr. Dolliver’s = well was located to ensure the radius didn’t overlap. Mr. Dolliver said he well was fart= her away, but felt his concern should be brought up now. He was concerned with a septic bei= ng elevated higher than his property in the event there was a break-out and fl= ow into his yard in the future. = Mr. Scanzani said the way septics were designed; they basically had problems on= the bottom (which had to be dug up) versus having affluent flowing out. Mr. Zohdi said he would locate Mr. Dolliver’s septic and well and said if he could locate the 4000SF are= a (on the proposed lot) toward the proposed road, he would. Mr. Dolliver asked if there were a= ny waivers for the well or septic on lot 3-102-1. Mr. Zohdi said the plan was prelim= inary and he didn’t have the detail. Mr. Dolliver said it appeared a waiver may be needed.

There was no further discussion.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street<= /st1:address> – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n would not be heard, the applicant had requested a continuance to the November 7, 2005 meeting.

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road= – Site Plan – Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older Adult Com= munity

Mr. McNamara provided a b= rief history of the plan and what the Board had previously requested.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the plan with the Board. He said he had met with the former Planning Director as well as Mr. Gowan (the new Planning Director) and beli= eved the plan set in front of the Board practically complied with a majority of = the Board’s concerns. He said the origina= l site plan showed the proposed driveway to be across from Dutton Road, however, after being reviewed by the Highway Safety Committee they recommended that the access (= of the proposed) be moved across from the access to the church (Crossroad Baptist). He then discussed t= he building units per building (previously 8,6 & 6 – previously accepted, but not approved). = He said if the Board didn’t like the set up and unit configuration had t= o be changed, he could change them to 6,2,6,6; however he preferred the original design and asked that the Board make a final decision. Mr. Zohdi discussed the waivers th= at were being requested: 1) number of units maximum six – there were eig= ht requested; 2) Site Plan regulation 248-20 scale of plan 1in.=3D20 – r= equest for 1in.=3D40; 3) Site Plan regulation 248-32,d to allow paving within 25ft= . of leach bed.

Mr. Scanzani asked what w= ould be included in the community building. Mr. Zohdi said the building would be used for gathering and would be approximately 24ft.x30ft and contain a restroom. He will show the details when the = plan came back to the Board.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = proposed units would be handicap accessible. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

The Board discussed the n= umber of units and the following motion was made:

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To support/mai= ntain the revised drawing showing the unit configuration as 6-2-6-6.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Dunne said there appe= ared to be a lot of wetlands (previously a cranberry bog) and he didn’t see h= ow the proposed could be constructed without building up the land. Mr. Scanzani said when reviewing t= he topography, the fire lane was at approximately 136 – 137 and still outside of the 100foot offset to the prime wetland. Mr. Dunne asked if the property ha= d been walked. A few of the members = had walked the property and were familiar with Dr. Frank Richardson of NH Department of Environmental Services being involved with a potential state adjacency issue; a public hearing was held; it was ruled (by Dr. Richardson) not to be an adjacency issue. Mr. Scanzani said the buildings were located more toward the front of the prope= rty, not the back being discussed by Mr. Dunne.=

The Board then discussed = the intersection and the proposed shifting of the site access. Ms. Bousa didn’t feel that t= he site would generate a lot of traffic, but understood the concern that there would be more movement at the intersection. She said if the sight distance was better across from the church, the Board may want to explore that possibili= ty. She said the concern would be to h= ave the access lined up with something (i.e. church access or Dutton Road); a third intersection shouldn’t be added. The= Board would prefer/accept the recommendation to move the site access across from = the church, pending sight distance verification. Mr. Gowan said the concern was the amount of traffic coming down from Dutton Road. <= /span>

Mr. Scanzani recommended = that the Board review the site on October 22, 2005 since the Board would be conducting a site walk on Dutton Road= .

Mr. Culbert questioned th= e reason for lining up with the church access. Ms. Bousa said in terms of access management an access point should either be lined up, or completely separated. Mr. McNamara noted that there was daycare at the church. Mr. Zo= hdi said he would check the sight distances and have it available on October 22, 2005 (on site) for the Board to review.

A site walk was scheduled= for October 22, 2005 at 8:30am.

The safety issues were ad= dressed, such as adding a stop sign from the proposed site. It was assumed that Mr. Zohdi would correct the administrative issues. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. Danevich reviewed the safety issues. The Board had a discussion regarding a cross walk accessing the Pelham Plaza and Rite Aid. The Board will = review at the site walk. Mr. Danevich asked that the Police Chief (or his designee) attend the site walk.

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = Board act on the waivers. He withdr= ew the waiver (to Section 307-53-2,C,2) that requested eight units and would submit the withdrawal in writing. &nbs= p;

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver for the plan scale being 1in.=3D40 versus the required 1in.=3D20.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to allow paving over 25-feet of leach field.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd would like a rendering of the building. Mr. Zohdi said it would be provided at the next meeting. Mr. Scanzani questioned if the stone wall would be rebuilt once the site was constructed. Mr. Zohdi said a= note would be added to the plan to rebuild if anything was damaged or moved for sight distance. He said the applicant would like to maintain the character of the area. Mr. Scanzani said there was a note regarding AM and PM traffic and to possibly do an analysis of such. Ms. Bousa said the Board wanted to identify the issues of the Dutton Road/Atwood Road intersection, but the issue w= ould change if the site access was moved.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= units would be rental or condo. Mr.= Zohdi said the applicant didn’t know at this time and didn’t want to = tie to one kind or another. Mr. G= owan said it may be worth the Board’s consideration to be sure that there = were some covenants placed on the deeds so that if the units became condo units = they would be bound to the type of restrictions intended for this type of subdivision. Mr. Zohdi said b= ecause there were more than fifteen units, the applicant would need the state̵= 7;s approval and through the Planning Board.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said he wanted the site to have a nice outward appearan= ce and be nicely landscaped. Mr. Scanzani said because the site abutted the residential district there shoul= d be low-level lighting that would be non-obtrusive. Mr. Zohdi said there were currently notes on the plan, but he would address further when the plan came back for review. Mr. Gowan would have Dufresne-Henry review the proposed lighting.

Mr. Dunne asked why the a= pplicant hadn’t decided if the units would be rental or condo. Mr. Zohdi didn’t have an ans= wer.

In regard to open space, = there had been a question if the provision in the Elderly Ordinance had been comp= lied with. Mr. Zohdi said they wer= e in compliance with the provision and placed a note on the plan.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the Board’s actions. The sa= fety issues and waivers had been addressed/resolved. He asked that the façade, landscaping plan and lighting be reviewed by Dufresne-Henry (Town Engineer)= .

Mr. Dunne wanted to know = from the owner if the units would be rental or condo. Mr. Culbert said that was not in t= he purview of the Board. Mr. Dun= ne felt the public should know the type of unit that was being proposed (i.e. rental or condo). Mr. Scanzan= i said the plan had to show single units and when approved it would show either 55= +, or condominium; this didn’t preclude the applicant from coming back a= nd requesting that it be changed. Mr. Danev= ich said form of ownership is protected by law and should not have bearing on t= he decision process.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Alicia Hennessey, 71 Dutton Road was not a direct abutter, but drove down Dutton Road everyday. She reviewed the suggestions made = by Dr. Richardson from 2000 such as maintaining as many trees on the property as w= ell as having a forester review. = She felt there should be reasonable use of open space and noted that there was a lack of a walking trail. She = then reviewed/addressed the overall landscaping and lack of screening on the site. Mr. Scanzani said the B= oard would be reviewing the landscaping plan at the November 21, 2005 meeting.

Ms. Sheila Marcoux, Brandy Lane= said she drove down Dutton Road= multiple times per day and didn’t want to view a large building with = no trees left. She agreed with m= oving the access toward the church. She questioned the suggestion of a cross walk to the plaza. Mr. Scanzani reviewed the suggesti= on. Ms. Marcoux asked if the stone wal= ls would be preserved. Mr. Scanz= ani said if the stone walls were disturbed, they would be put back in.

There will be a site walk= on October 22, 2005. The plan was date specified to the= November 21, 2005 meeting.

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 89 Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates updated the Board by informing that the plan was pending at the = New Hampshire Wetland Bureau. He = said a public hearing had been held and the decision was pending regarding the wet= land violation. He didn’t be= lieve there was a problem with the (minor) dredge and fill permit on the site, however two sites were being tied together. He said Mr. Gowan had question/con= cern regarding the location of the stump dump on the site. He said they went to the area (tha= t was regarded) and dug a test bed. The edge of the stump dump was located approximately 8f.t-12ft. down (and outsi= de the edge of the right-of-way).

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = plan be rescheduled to the December 5, 2005 meeting. =

Mr. Scanzani asked that M= r. Zohdi be provided with comments submitted by Dufresne-Henry (Town Engineer –= ; October 17, 2005) so he could work on the issues. Mr.= Zohdi said he had received a copy already.

Mr. Gowan said a letter h= ad been received outlining a concern regarding sight distance (from the Gendron right-of-way) which should be reviewed by the Board. He said after speaking with the To= wn Administrator, it would be advisable for the Board to leave the adjacent pa= rcels (i.e. stump dump, potential gift of land) to the Board of Selectmen and deal with the subdivision exclusively of those items (to the extent possible).

The plan was date specifi= ed to the December 5, = 2005 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said he was advised by Mr. Gowan to update the Board regarding t= he plan. He said they were in the process of addressing a letter from an abutter and the (answer regarding the dredge and fill permit) New Hampshire Wetland Bureau. He asked that the plan be schedule= d for the December 5, = 2005 meeting.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= plan provided complied with Zoning. Mr. Zohdi said he had to take a lot line out.&= nbsp; The plan would be provided for December 5, 2005.&n= bsp;

The plan was date specifi= ed to the December 5, = 2005 meeting.

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

Mr. Jonathan Ring, Jones = & Beach Engineers and Mr. Mark West of West Environmental met with the Board = to present the plans which had been reviewed by Dufresne-Henry (Town Engineer)= and Louis-Berger (Town Environmental Consultant). Mr. Ring believed all the environm= ental concerns had been addressed and also believed that the final/outstanding it= ems of Dufresne-Henry related to waivers and granting of a special permit (to a= llow work to take place in the Wetland Conservation District ‘WCD’). He discus= sed what changes had been done to the plan.&nb= sp;

Mr. West said Craig Wood = of Louis-Berger had requested that a deed restriction be put in place for lots= 5 & 6) to protect the vernal pool, which had been done. He said other details were protect= ion measures that had been put in place. He said the easement/right-of-ways were reviewed and tied directly i= nto existing trail systems on the land proposed for conservation. He reviewed the changes made to the plan.

Mr. Scanzani said a lette= r had been received by Louis-Berger regarding the environmental impact and appear= ed that the applicant had taken the comments into consideration.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry spoke with the Board regarding the comments that were issued (the latest being dated October 17, 2005) regarding the plan.&= nbsp; He said they had not yet reviewed the drainage calculations. The original drainage study showed= there was a possibility of flooding at Dutton Road, however, in review of the response letter, it was no longer the case and the calculations were revised (this would be further reviewed). Mr. Hertrich said the following waivers should be considered: 1) sev= eral building envelopes that had irregular shapes; 2) lot 9 not rectangular; 3) radius of the existing right-of-way at the end of <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Bandy Lane extended 150ft. center l= ine radius; 4) several areas along roadway 2-1 slopes, versus the required 3-1; 5) radi= us for cul-de-sac 100feet; 6) plan done under new regulations that require sur= vey be done on USGS; 7) Frontier Drive road width reduction from the required 2= 6ft. to 22ft.; and 8) vertical curve at the end of Brandy doesn’t meet the Town’s requirement.

Mr. Hertrich said there w= ere several technical issues: 1) culverts (across road) with slope of areas of 2-1with drop of 3ft.-5ft. should have guard rails; 2) some questions regard= ing amphibian tunnel; 3) past practice to show test pit logs (not contained in set); 4) traffic impact assessment (reviewed/compared with Vanessa & As= soc. assessment) project generated trips are not expected to result in operation= al or safety deficiencies.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd needed to consider the waivers for the 2-1 slopes and culverts (and guard rails). Mr. Ring reviewed the AASHTO Standards (figure 5.1) which indicated with 2-1 side slopes (and gre= ater than 6ft. elevation difference) there should be a barrier. He believed half the areas in ques= tion were 3ft.-4ft. in elevation (and 2-1 slope to try and minimize the footprin= t of the wetland) and would not require a guard rail; however he believed in are= as where there was 6ft.-8ft. of elevation they would want to add a guard rail. They were trying to min= imize the wetland impacts. Mr. Dane= vich preferred to side with public safety. H= e felt Brandy (in its entirety) should be paved at 26ft., but was okay with the reduction of paving (22ft) for the new road with a 4ft. buffer and 2-1 slop= e in the areas only where needed. = He suggested having an off-site bond for items such as to remove paving on Bra= ndy where the cul-de-sac currently was and restore the parcel.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding modifying and doing lot line adjustments to existing homes would not have structures directly behind them. Mr. Ring said until a survey was completed, they would not be able to provide the square footage for the lots.&n= bsp; He was hopeful that the Board would approve the subdivision (move forward with the recording of such) and come back at a subsequent meeting to adjust the lot lines of the four lots.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd should discuss the waiver requests. Mr. Culbert was not in favor of approval until Dufresne-Henry had the opportunity to review the drainage information. Mr. McNamara noted what the submit= ted waivers were in connection with as follows: 1) lot shape; 2) lot nine non-rectangul= ar shape; 3) minimum center line curve radii; 4) side slopes; 5) minimum pavem= ent width; 6) minimum cul-de-sac pavement width; and 7) K factor. Mr. Scanzani noted that there was = a missing waiver for the USGS data.

Mr. Ring said because the topography was done by Eric Mitchell Associates in 1998, they had put an equation on the drawing that indicated elevation 100 on the plan correspond= ed to approximately 60 meter USGS elevation.&= nbsp; There was a brief discussion regarding the equation. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the equation could ever be brought to USGS.&nb= sp; Mr. Hertrich said at each invert the equation could be added to get = the USGS elevation data. Mr. Scanzani = said he would be more concerned (from the conversion standpoint) if there was go= ing to be further subdivision. He= said based on the conservation land around the property, the subdivision appeare= d to stand on its own. He said as = long as the original site work could be certified (which it could be), and a for= mula could be used, there wouldn’t be an issue with future subdivisions. Mr. Culbert asked if the informati= on was ground topography. Mr. Ring answered yes.

Mr. Culbert asked the wel= l radius of lot 17 went over the lot line. Mr. Ring said on his plan it was completely on its own lot (but a li= ttle bit in the side setback). He = said lot 15 had a well radius that extended a little portion into open space c behind it. He believed the two radiuses that went off their property were lots 8 and 15; in both cases tho= se were extending into conservation land behind them.

Mr. Scanzani said the app= licant had submitted waivers and asked that waivers also be submitted for: 1) 75ft. well radiuses that went over the lot lines (into the conservation area to be deeded to the Town) and 2) instead of having USGS the data was done as a formula using 1998 topography.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Medeiros) To accept, for consideration, the waiver of the 75-foot well radius for the approximate 5 lots that extended into the conservation parcel that will be deeded to the Town.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To accept the waiver, for consideration of the ground topography done in 1998 and using= the formula to convert.

VOTE:

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

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Tom Milne, 29 Brandy Lane, said the extension = would be along his property and noted he was one of the abutters involved in one = of the possible land swaps. He s= aid the applicant had been very agreeable and had worked with them. He was concerned regarding the dep= letion of ground water and wanted to know if there was anything to be done to understand what may happen. M= r. Scanzani said the Board had no jurisdiction; it would be up to the develope= r, who normally had insurance to cover such issues. He didn’t think it would be a concern for this particular area. He believed, like most developers, they would be willing to take water test (f= low rates) before and after. Mr. = West said in the information given to Louis-Berger there was report that address= ed the area aquifers. Mr. Milne = said there was also a concern regarding the curve and wanted to know if signs co= uld be added (i.e. slow, children). Mr. Scanzani said typically signs are added for turning traffic; the turning ra= dius (from the proposed road) didn’t have a reverse curve that would typic= ally warrant sign. Mr. Ring said t= hey could add ‘slow’ ‘children ahead’ signs on Brandy Lane= . Mr. Milne asked if something could= be provided in writing regarding the selective tree cutting (as discussed at t= he Conservation Commission meetings). Mr. Scanzani said the cutting would be around the wetland areas and would be a note on the final plan. Mr. Milne said the discussion was in reference to different area on = the lot. Mr. Mike Garrabe of Falls Brook LLC, (applicant) who had been working with several abutters on Brandy Lane= regarding buffer issues, and felt that the lot line adjustment would go a long way to solve the visual buffer issues. Their standard operating procedure was to try and minimize tree clearing of individual lots. He said Mr. = Dan Cyr would oversee the cutting on the individual lots (and right-of-way) and ensure that the WCD was protected. Mr. Milne wanted to know if his verbal agreement with the applicant (regarding no cut zone) should be on a final plan. Mr. Scanzani said any substantial changes to lot lines had to come back before the Board. Mr. Garrabe said when they come ba= ck before the Board with the lot line adjustment plan (for the lot shared with= the Milne’s) they would have an agreement with the Milnes regarding the no-cut/no-disturb on the new line. <= /span>Mr. Danevich said if it wasn’t on the plan (or recorded at the Registry of Deeds), it wouldn’t exist and was not enforceable. Mr. Garrabe said it would be part = of the lot line adjustment and noted on the plan as a no-cut/no-disturb buffer. Mr. Milne said he could live with = it being on the final plan.

Mr. Dunne asked what powe= rs the Board had should a developer cut more than what was shown on a plan. Mr. Scanzani said at that point the Planning Director (the Board’s agent) would take control of what he’s supposed to do for code enforcement. Mr. Dunne asked if the Town charge= d a fee. Mr. Gowan said there wer= e a couple avenues: 1) file complaint with NH DES; and/or 2) state could do mon= ey fines as well as restoration.

Ms. Sheila Marcoux, 30 Brandy Lane, asked if the site was walked. Mr. Danevich said he had been in the area multiple times a few years ago. Mr. Scanzani said the Board, at th= is time, had decided a site walk was not necessary. Ms. Marcoux said she was impressed= with the way the forester proceeded at the Conservation Commission meeting. She questioned if any trees, other= than birch, would remain. Mr. Dan = Cyr, the forester of the project, discussed birch trees which were not tolerant = of sunlight. He said they would = try to leave the birches, but he believed they would eventually die. Ms. Marcoux asked if the staging a= rea (for the logging operation) had been determined. Mr. Cyr said he had not determined= the location. Mr. Garrabe said the staging area would not be off Brandy Lane, it would be off = Dutton Road. Ms. Marcoux asked that it be put in writing. Mr. Garrabe said it = could be noted on the plan. Ms. Mar= coux asked if there were set construction hours. Mr. Danevich answered no. Ms. Marcoux asked if the sight dis= tance on Dutton Road was adequate. Mr. Ring said t= here was 400ft of sight distance in both directions at the intersection of Front= ier and Dutton Road. Ms. Marcoux discussed her concern = with traffic. Mr. Scanzani said th= e road had to be built per AASHTO standards.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the= waiver requests. The following motio= ns were made:

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Section 11.04, C 1 (lot being 100ft.x150ft. in dimension)

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------

There was due considerati= on and given the amount of land donated for conservation land the applicant was le= ft with no other opportunity except to had some odd shaped lots. The boundaries remained manageable.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Section 11.04, B, 3 (non-rectangular shape of lots).

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------

There was a consensus fro= m the Board to accept the waiver request.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 17 (minimum curve radii)

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------------

In order to mitigate and compensate and not have a huge environmental impact. It was believed that the waiver wo= uld accommodate safety concerns with the guard rail, minimized the wetland impa= ct (with 2-1 slope) and become environmentally friendly with reduced road widt= h of 22-foot. Any side slopes 2-1 = that exceed 5 feet, guard rails will be required.

MOTION:

<= /u>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Appendix I, P (side slopes); to allow a 2-1 slope (road width w= ill be 22feet with a 4foot berm in those areas and a guard rail). Any area that has a steepness of= five feet or more shall have a guard rail.&nb= sp;

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------

The new road currently de= signated as Frontier would be reduced to 22 feet, but Brandy Lane, to maintain consistency would continue to be paved at 26 feet.&nbs= p;

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 2 (minimum pavement width) Frontier only to be = reduced from 26 feet to 22 feet.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------

To remain consistent with pavement width of Frontier, the cul-de-sac width will also be reduced. It was noted that a fire truck wou= ld be able to access around a 22 foot paved area cul-de-sac.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 11,d (minimum cul-de-sac pavement width) to be reduced from 24 feet to 22 feet. <= /span>

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------

Based on Dufresne-Henry&#= 8217;s review/comment to recommend. Mr. Ring said t= hey would be happy to add a ‘stop ahead’ sign on the right side of = Brandy Lane= (heading down).

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 15 (K factor).= A ‘stop ahead’ sign will be added on Brandy Lane (heading down) as wel= l as indicating such on the plan.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich said drainag= e was the major outstanding issue that needed review by Dufresne-Henry. He said construction sequencing sh= ould be added to the plan. He also= said there should be a discussion regarding an off-site bond for Brandy Lane. He said the Board should seek inpu= t from the Highway Safety Committee regarding any additional signage that may be needed.

Mr. Ring asked that the B= oard take action regarding the special permit request letter. Mr. West said Craig Wood of Louis-= Berger had received the information and mentioned it in his review. There was no copy in the file. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to address the special permit request letter at a later date to pro= vide time to review.

Mr. Ring then addressed a= comment contained in the Dufresne-Henry letter regarding an easement for the 35,000= SF area for lot 1. He wanted to = point out that there was an easement (for the developable area) contained on the abutting land; a note will be provided in the deed for that abutting land (= owned by the applicant’s daughter). He said a driveway access easement had also been added for the exist= ing driveway to the Comeau house.

To clarify, Mr. Culbert questioned if lot 1 had 35,000SF contiguous. Mr. Ring said a wetland bisected (= front to back) the lot therefore they didn’t have 35,000SF contiguous. He said they were proposing and ea= sement for the developable area of lot 1 in the amount of 22,036SF. Mr. Scanzani noted that the Board = had not granted a waiver for such and didn’t’ t believe that they w= ould in the future. Mr. Garrabe sa= id the reason it was unique was because it was the existing homestead, septic and well. He said it was difficul= t to minimize the wetland crossing and provide the 35,000SF contiguous at the sa= me time. Mr. Ring said a lot line adjustment could be done with lot 36-10-5 and convey the easement area to f= rom the applicant’s daughter to the applicant. Mr. Culbert would rather see addit= ional survey rather than an easement.

Mr. Ring asked if the Boa= rd would want street lights; underground utilities were proposed. Mr. Scanzani said the Board typica= lly had not required street lights. M= r. Culbert questioned if intersections wouldn’t be lit, or just Frontier Road. Ms. Bousa suggested that the Board consider lighting the Dutt= on Road intersection. Mr. Dunne sugge= sted installing a solar powered light. There was further discussion and the Board decided to defer to the subject to the Highway Safety Committee for recommendation.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the November 7, = 2005 meeting.

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

November = 7, 2005:

Map 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank &#= 8211; 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

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

November= 21, 2005:

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

December= 5, 2005:

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86,= 8-88 & 89 Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for rev= iew

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development= of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

SITE WALK – October 22, 2005 beginning at 8:00am (on site at Nature’s Way)<= o:p>

Map 30 Lot 11-254 Century Builders – Nature= 217;s Way

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC &#= 8211; Atwood Road=

MINUTES

September 19, 2005 – deferred to the n= ext scheduled meeting.

October 3, 2005 - deferred to the next scheduled meet= ing.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:37 pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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