PB Minutes 11.07.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 7, 2005

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

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert (left the meeting at 10:30pm), Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alt= ernate Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Je= ff Gowan

ABSENT:

None.

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Ma= p 9 Lot 9-2 Jakon Development – Hidden Pond Way (Carlisle Lane) - Request for Bond Release

Mr. Gowan said a letter had been received from Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer) recommending a final bond release. The road had the final coat and had ‘over-wintered’. = The maintenance bond (reseeding/grass) was the only thing remaining.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To return the= 10% maintenance bond to the developer and place the road on the ballot for Ma= rch, 2006.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-254 Century Builders – Nature’s = Way – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan provided the Board with a summary of= the discussion from the October 22, 2005 site walk. It had been determined that sight distance could not be achieved (to a desirab= le level) based on the current field conditions of the site. He recommended that the bond be re= duced except for $1000 which would be enough to ensure that 1) the bushes on Dutton Road would be trimmed back; 2) intersection warning and speeding signs (be place= d on Dutton Road); 3) culvert near cul-de-sac will be freed of grass dam (partia= lly blocking water flow); 4) hydro seeding be done per specifications; and 5) Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) signs be posted along the wetland. Mr. Gowan said he ha= d the Highway Road Agent’s (Don Foss) signature making the same recommendation.

The Safety Committee had submitted comments stating that the addition of a street light was not necessary.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To reduce the= bond, except for $1000, per the recommendation of the Planning Director to make sure that the five remaining items (1) the bushes on Dutton Road would be trimmed back; 2) intersection warning and speeding signs (be placed on Du= tton Road); 3) culvert near cul-de-sac will be freed of grass dam (partially blocking water flow); 4) hydro seeding be done per specifications; and 5) Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) signs be posted along t= he wetland) would be met.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 36 Lot 10-110 & 361 V & G Development – Appletree Estates – Request for Bond Release

In a letter from TF Moran dated October 24, 2005 it indicated that all items they were following up on had been met; their revi= ew has been completed. Mr. Gowan= said TF Moran had done final review because they had been with the project from = the beginning and the maintaining continuity would be good.

Mr. Scanzani said the Highway Road Agent (Don Foss) had submitted a note indicating that the catch basins needed to be cleaned out. Mr. Gowan said M= r. Foss recommended that cleaning catch basins and culverts be a condition for= any final bond release.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To release the final bond ($61,000) subject to the developer cleaning out all the catch basins and water ways.

VOTE:

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

NE= W BUSI NESS

Ma= p 35 – Lot 7-106 McDon= alds Corporation – 113 Bridge Street – Site Review of proposed upgra= des to the McDonald’s Restaurant (Replacement of roof lighting, painting, roof and fascia, replacement of wood siding w/vinyl siding – wood was stipulation in original approval)

Mr. Roger Dejardin, representing the Napoli Gr= oup and McDonalds Corporation met with the Board to discuss the plan.

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. Dejardin said McDonalds would like to repl= ace the siding because of weather/rotting.&nbs= p; Because the original decision specified ‘wood’, they were coming back before the Board. Mr. Dejardin said McDonalds would also like to change the color of the building= and replace the roof beams and lights. Mr. Culbert asked what color was being considered. Mr. Dejardin provided the Board wi= th sample colors. Mr. Culbert be= lieved the original approval called for the building to be ‘colonial’ = in nature, however, the building ended up with a red roof. He said the Planning Director (at = that time) sent McDonalds a letter (regarding the roof) asking them to stop and bring the building back to the originally approved condition. Mr. Dejardin was not aware of this circumstance. He said the red= roof would be gone and painted the darker of the two color samples provided.

Mr. Gowan said the reason the applicant came before the Board because the original approval stipulated that the building remain colonial in nature - wood. He said the Board may want to consider the vinyl material with regar= d to maintenance. He said another = thing to consider was the roof lighting, which had not been discussed during the original approval.

Mr. Danevich asked if there were any other McDonald’s in the area that had similar coloring. Mr. Dejardin said Wakefield, MA had similar colors. Mr. Danev= ich discussed the fact that the Board had been specifically requesting ‘down’ lighting from other applications and was not sure if he would support any kind of ‘up’ lighting. Mr. Culbert believed (during the original approval) there was a discussion regarding ‘down’ ligh= ting and didn’t recall any discussion regarding roof lighting. Mr. Yarmo asked if the current roof lighting fixtures reflected downward. Mr. Dejardin believed the roof lighting reflected on the roof. The proposed fixture was a new sty= le for McDonalds and was being replaced because of the cost of maintenance.

The Board discussed the proposal.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich didn’t have an issue with t= he vinyl siding or the proposed soffit lights, however he could not support the roof lighting. Mr. Culbert as= ked how many soffit lights would be put in.&nb= sp; Mr. Dejardin said there were seven.= Mr. Culbert didn’t have a problem with the color scheme, or the vinyl siding, but would have a problem with any kind of roof lighting.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve the request, subject to the vinyl siding as presented, and the seven soffit lighting as presented; however the ‘up-lighting’ shall not be done, and the existing lighting (on the roof) shall be removed. (see below for rephrased motion)

VOTE:

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

Mr. Dejardin confirmed that the Board had requested that the existing roof lighting was to be removed. Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. Culbert said it was not part o= f the original plan. Mr. Danevich didn’t feel that the existing lighting was intrusive and didn’t= see a reason to make McDonalds remove it. Mr. Scanzani asked that the Board clarify the motion. Mr. Culbert believed the Board (du= ring the original approval) said no to a red roof and roof lights, but somehow t= he building ended up with them. = He said there were no notes on the plan regarding such. Mr. Danevich reviewed the Board mi= nutes from 1995 which had no mention regarding lighting on the roof. Mr. Gowan said there was also no m= ention regarding roof lighting on the plan (including the sheet governing lighting).

Mr. Danevich rephrased his motion to approve o= nly include vinyl siding and soffit lighting.&= nbsp; Ms. Bousa seconded the motion. Mr. Scanzani clarified that the motion was to keep the existing lighting, the soffit lighting was to be replaced as well as the vinyl siding (according to color scheme provided). Ms. Ouellette questioned if the roof lighting was being granted by allowing the existing lighting. Mr. Danevich answered no. Mr. Dej= ardin asked if the Town had a copy of the original permit set. Mr. Gowan said the Town had all the documents and was confident that the documentation was not in the file and didn’t appear to have ever existed and was not part of the discussion during the original approval. Mr. Dunne suggesting wording the motion to state that the roof lighting shall o= nly reflect on the roof itself. Therefore if the lighting needed to be replaced in the future, it co= uld only be done with the type and style available at that time. Mr. Danevich believed in that even= t, the applicant would need to come back before the Board if the context of the si= te were being changed.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Bousa) To approve the v= inyl siding (according to color scheme provided) and the soffit lighting.

VOTE:

(5-1-1) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Culbert abstained. Mr. Scanzani voted no.

Mr. Scanzani indicated to Mr. Dejardin that the motion was solely approving the vinyl siding and soffit lighting; but the existing lighting on the roof didn’t meet with the Board’s satisfaction because it was not part of the original approval. At this point, the Board would not= take any action regarding the roof lighting and would not allow the applicant to replace such.

Ma= p 21 Lot 3-102 & 102-1 Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust &#= 8211; Tenney Road= – Conceptual – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the plan. Mr. Scanzani asked how the plan had changed since originally reviewed by the Board on October 17, 2005. Mr. Zohdi said when the plan was reviewed on October 17, 2005 some of the Board members wanted to know the possibility of connecting the proposed parcel with the abutting parcel. At that time there were discussion= s with the abutter to see what could be done.&nbs= p; He showed the vicinity of wetlands on the abutting parcel and said he suggested to the abutter if they wanted a right-of-way they should have the= ir wetlands flagged.

Mr. J.R. Gauthier (a member of the applicant’s family), came forward and addressed the Board. He said he met with the abutter, M= r. Doug Hirsch, who had informed they had no plans on developing their property and didn’t see a reason for accessing his property. He said he had done work on other developments in the area, which would have made more sense for a connection. He asked the Boar= d for direction.

Mr. Danevich said the Board previously was questioning if a connection were possible and was not providing direction s= ince the discussion was conceptual.

Mr. Scanzani understood that at the current ti= me the abutter saw no need for connection or access to their parcel, but noted circumstances could change in the future.&= nbsp; He questioned if the Board should still require a 50-foot right-of-way.

Mr. Culbert asked if the wetland on the Hirsch property had been defined. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have the authority to flag an abutter’s wetland. He said he advised t= he applicant and the abutter to flag the wetland so a right-of-way could be pu= t in a reasonable place. Mr. Culbe= rt agreed with Mr. Scanzani that a right-of-way should be retained for the future.

Mr. Gauthier said during his tenure on the Boa= rd there were similar situations and didn’t feel that a connection shoul= d be pointed at a wetland. He said= the abutter’s property was reviewed (with the owner) and it was not felt = that there was potential for further development and didn’t make sense to = put a connection based on the amount of wetlands. It was noted that the proposed development covered approximately fifteen acres and the Hirsch property contained approximately thirty acres. Mr. Gauthier pointed out that the entire rear of the (Hirsch) proper= ty had either wetlands or brooks.

Mr. Yarmo said another way to determine the ex= tent of the wetland could be through the aerial photography recently ordered by = the Conservation Commission. He s= aid an environmental scientist could determine the configuration and amount of wet= land based on the photography. The= re was further discussion. Mr. Gowan suggested that the aerial photography (for the proposed area) be reviewed b= y an environmental scientist and then brought back before the Board. Mr. Zohdi said he and the applicant could work with the Planning Director and create a full-scale plan to be brought back to the Board.

Mr. Scanzani believed if the wet area was determined the Board would be able to provide direction regarding connectivity.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Ms. Ouellette stepped down (Mr. Dunne was appointed to be a voting member for this case). Mr. McNamara asked if the abutter = list had to be read aloud. Mr. Sca= nzani believed the abutter list had already been read since the plan was listed u= nder old business.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis and Mr. Peter Zohdi (of Herbert Associates), representing the applicants, met with the Board to dis= cuss the plan. Attorney DeCarolis = said they were seeking site plan approval for fifteen elderly housing units that were permitted under the Elderly Housing Ordinance. He said they were also seeking a w= etland crossing (per Section 40). He= said previously they had been asked to address if a wetland crossing was necessa= ry for the productive use of the land and reminded the Board that because of t= he objection to the site (when over twenty units were being proposed), one wet= land crossing was reduced and the number of units was reduced to fifteen. He said the Pelham Zoning Ordinance didn’t have a definition for ‘productive use of land’. He said if the Town wanted a restr= iction for some minimal/reasonable use, it could have been added to the ordinance. Attorney DeCarolis= asked the Board to keep in mind the amount of the wetland crossing (approximately= 750 feet), which was minimal. He = said wetland crossings were specifically identified/permitted through Special Permit. He believed they met = the criteria for the Special Permit. He then addressed the development and noted that they had the required five ac= res; they met all the dimensional requirements; they had the required frontage o= n Dutton Road= ; also the setback requirements were met. Attorney DeCarolis said Attorney Michael Donovan (attorney represent= ing the abutters) raised a question in a letter (over the summer) as to whether= a waiver request should be submitted to the site plan regulations 248:29 &= ; 31 (setbacks). It was Attorney D= eCarolis’ opinion that the site was not a non-residential development, but to err on = the side of caution, he would submit written waivers for the two additional zon= ing sections. He noted there was a conflict between the site plan regulations (non-residential requirements) a= nd the Elderly Ordinance.

Attorney DeCarolis said there were a lot of interesting developments regarding the ordinance since the case was first submitted to the Board, particularly the changes to the zoning ordinance. He said they were still complying = with the older version of the ordinance even though the new ordinance was less restrictive. The original ord= inance had a condition that the site produces some viable open space to meet the n= eeds of the residents; the language has since been amended and the new ordinance= recommends that open space be used for walking trails etc. Attorney DeCarolis said the applic= ant hadn’t committed on the plan regarding open space and went on to disc= uss the options for such with the Board. He said they had committed to having the rear portion of the property being restricted land; they would never come back seeking additional units = or other development on the land. He said if it was not deeded outright to the Town then a conservation easement would be put on, or some sort of declaration to restrict the use. Attorney DeCarolis submitted to the Board written waiver requests for the setback requirements of non-residenti= al buildings.

Attorney DeCarolis said they had received appr= oval from the Fire Department (signature on the plan); Health Officer has review= ed; Building Inspector/Code Officer (Roland Soucy) has issued his opinion; plan= has gone before the Conservation Commission; Town Consultants have reviewed the drainage calculations and engineering.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara discussed the discrepancies with = two sets of ordinances and the site plan regulations and wanted to know how the applicant would reconcile them. Attorney DeCarolis said Elderly Housing was a Town ordinance as oppo= sed to the Site Plan Regulation which could be waivered. He said they didn’t need any variances from the Zoning Ordinance, but there were some conflicts with the site plan regulations. Mr. Sc= anzani said the Board was aware that there were some conflicts and that the Board = had the right to change or waiver subdivision and site plan regulations. He said the zoning issues had alre= ady been determined in court.

Mr. McNamara said he voted for the proposal the first time around, but was still bothered by the ‘productive use of land’ provision (307-40) and how it was interpreted. He understood that the applicant believed that the plan minimized uses.&nbs= p; Attorney DeCarolis said the roadway meandered through the site as mu= ch as possible to avoid as much as possible any construction in the wetlands.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara questioned if it woul= d be a ‘productive use of land’ to build one ‘something’ up front and leave the rest of the property vacant, looking at the property as= a whole and given the purchase price. Attorney DeCarolis said he would agree if the ordinance said ‘= if necessary for the reasonable use of land’ however the ordinance speci= fically says ‘for the productive use of land’; productive is to produce= in abundance. He said the applic= ant had gone to great lengths to eliminate construction in the wetland. He pointed out that there was 2.5 = (high and dry) acres that they were giving up because it would require an additio= nal wetland crossing; in exchange, they were requesting an encroachment of appr= oximately 700-800 SF.

With regard to procedure, Mr. Yarmo pointed out that he was an alternate to the Board and had been involved with the project since day one (attending the site walk and every hearing). Given this information, he was uns= ure how appropriate it was to appoint Mr. Dunne as a voting member. Mr. Scanzani said the project had already been approved by the Board and at this point waivers (to the site development regulations) were being discussed and therefore he decided to appoint Mr. Dunne. Mr. Yarmo = then addressed the wetland crossing and said what was being proposed was the placement of a road in the buffer of a vernal pool, which had not been done= by the Board in the past and the Conservation Commission felt was excessive.

Mr. Zohdi said a copy of all the waiver reques= ts to the Board members and went on to review them:

1) (Section 248-31,c - setback from 50-foot bu= ffer zone; 2) Section 248-34,c – drainage; 3) Section 248-35,c – landscaping; 4) Section 248-49 – wetlands; 5) Section 248-40, a ̵= 1; fire prevention and protection; and 6) Section 248-41,e – sewage disp= osal system. Mr. Scanzani said the= re were two other waivers presented by Attorney DeCarolis: 1) Section 248-29,a= and 2) Section 248-31,a &b because the Site Plan Regulations conflict with = the Elderly Housing Ordinance.

Mr. Culbert asked if there was a proposal for = a walking bridge to access the back of the parcel (high and dry area). Attorney DeCarolis said they could either have a foot bridge over the wetland, or access from Smith Road; they would need to come= back once abutters provided comments. It was agreed that the land would be useless unless there was access to it. Mr. Culbert asked if the construct= ion of the units would be handicapped accessible.= Attorney DeCarolis answered yes there were Town and Federal regulati= ons they had to comply with.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Michael Donovan, representing the Lit= tle Island Pond Watershed Association and the neighbors noted that the court or= der vacated the decision of the Board in approving both the Special Use Permit = and Site Plan, therefore such decision was null and void. He believed that the Board had to = vote on the entire application again once more after the waiver process was completed. He provided the Bo= ard with two handouts, one of which was identical to a letter he submitted to t= he Board June 30, 2= 005 (regarding mostly the wetlands special permit). He discussed the requirements of a Special Permit and laid out some of the argument he made in court (as outli= ned in the June 30, = 2005 letter). He said the TownR= 17;s ordinance provided for Special Permits based on a demonstration that there = is essential productive use of land so that the ordinance was not confiscatory. Attorney Donova= n said the best court decision that had reviewed this point was the U.S. Supreme C= ourt decision of Lucas v. South Carolina Council. He said in deciding the issue (wet= lands taking case), the court must consider the landowner’s property as a whole. He suggested to the Bo= ard that the analysis of the productive use of the land must be based on the pa= rcel as a whole, not just the back parcel that is accessed by a particular cross= ing. He also felt the Board must make a determination for each of the wetland crossings for which the applicant was seeking a special permit. He pointed out that there were two crossings.= He discussed the second handout (dated August 1, 2005) given to the Board tha= t was a sketch plan showing an alternative of eleven units and less wetlands impact. Attorney Donovan addr= essed the original conceptual proposal that showed additional units. He said the units were dropped rig= ht away and noted that the alternative leach field had to be sited in that are= a. He also said that a state wetlands permit would have been needed for the crossing to that section of the parcel. Attorney Donovan felt= the purchase price should be considered and felt it was relevant in any type of takings analysis. He said one= could argue that one or two lots (or a duplex) would be a productive use of the land.

Attorney Donovan went on to discuss the waivers. He believed the Board should find out the number of waivers that are required, not just which sections of the Ordinance would need to be waivered. He believed there would be approxi= mately twelve waivers required. He s= aid at the August 15, 2= 005 meeting he provided a chronological synopsis of statements provided for the record and asked that the Board review it again. Attorney Donovan said the applican= t had to show the Board something about the land that warranted a waiver, not just the fact that they wanted fifteen units.&n= bsp; He reviewed some of the information contained in the synopsis. He urged the Board to send the pla= n back to the Town’s Consultant to review the waivers and demand that the applicant justify such, other than just the fact that they wanted fifteen units.

Mr. McNamara discussed the argument regarding = the purchase price brought up by Attorney Donovan. He said if the argument was brough= t to its logical conclusion, the argument would be that anyone who purchased property at a bargain price couldn’t possibly get a wetland permit crossing, which in his opinion seemed to be a bit extreme. Attorney Donovan believed that the= court was saying (in takings analysis) that purchase price was one factor to be looked at along with what could be done on a parcel without the crossing, o= r, in this case, the first crossing. Mr. McNamara felt the discussion should be exact regarding Mr. Donovan’s use of the word ‘variance’ the correct term was ‘variation’ as used in Section 248-63. There was wording regarding ‘variations’ and may be permitted when it is the opinion of the Board that topography or other considerations warrant. Attorney Donovan said he didn̵= 7;t think that any variance provision intended economic profit to be the factor; the special circumstances of the site should be reviewed. Mr. McNamara asked how Attorney Do= novan responded to Attorney DeCarolis citing the dictionary definition of ‘productive’. Att= orney Donovan suggested that the Board instead look at the Lucas case and review = the entire site. Mr. McNamara bel= ieved that the Town Safety Committee had already ‘okayed’ the approac= hes and three-sided configuration. He said if the Fire Chief gave his okay and given the fact that in order to achieve the site plan requirement, four sides would have to be paved in an already sensitive area; he questioned if it was a perfect setting to grant a waiver. Attorney Donovan said= there had to be a reason for the regulation that required access from all sides o= f a multi-family building. He sai= d the Board should determine if there was something on the land that justified a waiver, or the Board should change the regulation. Mr. McNamara questioned why the pl= an should be sent back to the Town’s&nb= sp; Environmental Consultant since all the analyses had been done and it= was the same plan that had come before them in the past. Attorney Donovan said the Board ma= y not have realized that all the waivers were required during the first round of review, which he felt was another rational for sending the plan back.

Mr. Scanzani said in the past the Board had lo= oked at waiver requests regarding the site plan itself. He said the Board specifically dis= cussed waivers with regard to the plan, not individual buildings on the plan. He didn’t feel that purchase= price criteria could be used. There= were many developments where the original owner had owned a parcel for generatio= ns, and if purchased today would be worth far more. He said since the plan was first submitted it had gone through many engineering and environmental reviews. He said when reviewing the wetland impacts, soil types etc. were not much different typically from other lots subdivided. In response to the concern of the parcel being upland from Little Island Pond and what impact = it would have, Mr. Scanzani said it was the developer and engineer’s responsibility that pre-and post-development to ensure that the drainage fl= ow was the same. He said there w= as no development going onto the backland and believed that the Board wanted the = backland to remain in its natural state (providing a buffer to Little Island Pond) r= ather than making it a grass area. Attorney Donovan suggested what may be atypical for this application= was that the Town, Little Island Pond Watershed Association, residents of South Shore Drive, and LCHP took a lot of time and expense to acquire and preserve a large par= t of the ecosystem to the east of the site which drains into Little Island Pond. He felt the amount of e= nergy that had gone into preserving the ecosystem would be at risk; the Town̵= 7;s consultant said more work on drainage had to be done. He had the people opposing the plan (that were seated in the audience) raise their hand to show the Board the number in attendance.

Mr. Yarmo wanted to know how many times a cert= ain instance a waiver occurred. He didn’t feel the plan was atypical of what the Board had reviewed. He said this was the first time th= at 75% of a roadway was inside the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’= ;) and felt at some point the Board had to say enough is enough and mitigate w= ith some other kind of development.

Mr. Dunne asked what would be the impact to Li= ttle Island Pond with the applicant’s proposal versus the sketch proposal discussed by Attorney Donovan. Attorney Donovan believed it would be less because there would be fe= wer units, less impervious coverage and runoff. He said they were suggesting to pu= ll the roadway out which would leave one of the wetlands area generally free from drainage runoff.

Mr. Frank Froton, 45 South Shore Drive, (retired Fire= Chief of Lowell Fire Department) said there had been a lot of discussion regarding fire departments/protection. = He said every fire chief wanted access to four sides of a building. He hoped that the Board would seri= ously consider the requested waiver given the fact that the building would be for elderly/handicapped persons.

Ms. Julia Steed-Mawson, 17 South Shore Drive (resident and biologist) said her property was at the base of the proposed on Little Isla= nd Pond. She said one of the key= ideas was the concept of making sure that impact was minimized. Consideration for the watershed was important; the wetlands are important to maintain absorptive capacities of = the land and other wetland functions for wildlife. She also discussed forest cover an= d its importance. Ms. Steed-Mawson = said looking at incremental impacts of development were not easy, but very impor= tant because once negative impact had occurred it was difficult and expensive to mitigate the pollution effect. She said other concerns were the alteration of hydrology. She reminded the Board of a letter= she submitted during the summer that documented a situation on the pond due to a large water event (due to extreme rain); the flooding was substantial. She said she questioned why floodi= ng events were happening and the natural conclusion was when there was development, t= here would be an alteration of water flow. She said there should be some research regarding what was happening = with the hydrology of Little Island Pond. She felt in this day and age with development pressures more thought should be given to buyer beware and asked that the Board think about the concept of abundance for an individual versus consequences and impact on la= nd, watershed, wildlife and 200 individuals living in a shared resource. She ended by requesting that the B= oard deny the proposal, or give more consideration to more study and the minimization of the density of the proposal.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board needed to review t= he plan as a whole again not only from a waiver standpoint, but also approval = of the plan under the Site Development Regulations. He asked the Board for their direction.

Mr. Culbert thought the Board would only be addressing the waivers. Mr. McNamara said the court vacated the order, so the Board had to vote and consider the plan in its entirety. He said because the basic plan was essentially the same, if the Board agreed, they could accept some/all of the things that had previously been decided upon. Mr. Scanzani sa= id it would not hurt the Board to more due diligence to review the data they had.

Mr. Dunne asked if an environmental engineer h= ad looked at the wetlands. Mr. Scanzani said several had.

Mr. Yarmo wanted to know how many times each waiver needed to be applied to the site.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Zohdi, or Attorney DeCarolis to address the question. Attorney DeCarolis = said waivers were required to be heard at two public hearing and they would addr= ess each at the next hearing. Att= orney Donovan said they requested that the information be submitted one week/ten = days prior to the next meeting so it could be reviewed.

Mr. Culbert asked if the plans showed what the density would be for bedrooms and bathrooms. Mr. Zohdi said the number of bedro= oms was specified, but not the bathrooms. Mr. Culbert asked that the number of bathrooms be specified. Mr. Zohdi said he would at the next meeting.

Mr. McNamara asked if the Board wanted to take further review of the environmental impacts. Mr. Scanzani believed the Board wa= nted to review the environmental statements contained in the files. Mr. Gowan said typically the Board= had some outside guidance/expertise review and it would help if the Board was c= lear regarding such review. Mr. Mc= Namara reviewed some of the comments submitted to the Board from the environmental consultant (Craig Wood of The Louis Berger Group) such as the suggestion to take a closer look at the water flow volume and potential contaminants that= the water may contain due to the fairly steep slope, also there was an appearan= ce of a potential sensitive wetlands; Mr. Wood suggested that the environmental impact assessment should have addressed issues in further detail.

The Board discussed how they would proceed. Mr. Scanzani suggested (and there = was agreement by members of the Board) that the environmental engineers meet wi= th Mr. Gowan. Mr. Gowan will facilitate a meeting.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-31,c (setbacks).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-34,c (drainage)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-35,c (landscaping).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-39 (wetlands).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-40,a (fire prevention and protection.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried. <= /p>

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-41,e,1 & 2 (sewage disposal systems.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To accept, for consideration, the waiver from the provisions of Pelham Site Plan Regulat= ion 248-29, a.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To accept, for consideration, the waiver the provision of Site Plan, Section 248-31, a &= amp; b.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept, for= consideration, the Special Permit (Zoning 307-40 for wetland crossing).

VOTE:

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

The plan was date specified to the December 5, 2005 meeting.

Ms. Ouellette returned to the Board.

Ma= p 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phyllis / Ivers, Timothy – 96 Windham Road – Proposed 5-= Lot Subdivision

Mr. Dave Brouillet of Keach & Nordstrom Associates met with the Board to discuss the plan. He said since the plan was accepte= d (October 3, 2005= ), they had received review comments from Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) and met with Mr. Gowan to review/address the comments. He said they submitted plans to the Planning Department and to Dufresne-Henry addressing all the concerns. He said one of the biggest concern= s was compliance with sight distance requirements. Calculations have been re-done bas= ed on the AASHTO criteria and the sight distance easement has been re-done. Mr. Brouillet said they had also m= et with the Fire Chief and identified the location for a fire cistern which would b= e at the entrance. He continued the review of the plan.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town̵= 7;s Engineer) said they hadn’t seen the latest set of plans. However, they had issued a letter = (dated October 26, 200= 5) and believed they had addressed most of the comments, but could not confirm because he hadn’t reviewed the latest set of plans. Mr. Hertrich said in terms of drai= nage the peak discharge after development would be less than before development. He went on to re= view some of the comments provided to the applicant. He said easements (by the Town) we= re needed in the two locations that drainage facilities extended outside the right-of-way. He said the pla= n was pretty clean.

Mr. Scanzani asked what was planned for the remaining parcel. Mr. Brouill= et said there was no formal application, but there was a potential for a devel= opment, but given the topography it would be limited. He said they were focusing on the proposed development at this time. Mr. Scanzani said if there was development, he wanted to know if the cul-de-sac would be extended, or if it would include a new road off Windham Road. Mr. Brouillet said it would need a= new tie-in and driveway permit required off Windham Road.

Mr. McNamara asked how much land was entailed = for the sight line easements. Mr. Brouillet said the easement would go in approximately 10-feet. He said the road sat higher when l= ooking toward the road. Mr. McNamara= asked how frequently the easement would be required to be cut. Mr. Brouillet said it was difficul= t to determine what would physically need to be cut. Mr. McNamara said the Board would = want to know that what was being proposed would actually occur. Mr. Brouillet said they located the easement and it would just be a matter of flagging and ensuring that it complied with the plan. Mr. G= owan said Dufresne-Henry felt comfortable with the sight distance. He said as a guarantee to achieve = the sight distance, a note should be added to the plan. Mr. Brouillet said the sight dista= nce plan would be part of their package submitted for approval.

Mr. Yarmo said during conceptual review, the Conservation Commission had commented to keep the sight line clearing to a minimum. He asked if the sigh= t line had to be clear cut, or selectively cut.&n= bsp; Mr. Brouillet believed it could be selectively cut. Mr. Scanzani said sight distance w= as the number one concern and whatever had to be done should be. Mr. Brouillet said they would be w= illing to work with the Board. Mr. Y= armo also wanted to know if the wetlands were hydrologically connected and if the function would be changed by the insertion of the culvert. Mr. Brouillet didn’t feel it= would be changed. Mr. Yarmo asked if there would be an easement to the Town Forest. Mr. Brouillet believed it was being reviewed for the second phase of the project based on the location of the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Town Forest. He felt there would be better opportunities during the second phase.&nbs= p; Mr. Tim Ivers noted that there was already access to the Town Forest from a stub on Christopher= Lane, off Woodlawn. Mr. Scanzani sa= id the part of the parcel that abutted the Town Forest was not being developed. Mr. Ivers said the= re was also a stub off Irene Driv= e. Mr. Gowan said in reviewing the remaining parcel, it seemed to be a stronger more attractive option to gain access.

There was no public input.

Ms. Bousa asked if Mr. Hertrich reviewed the s= ight distance in the field. Mr. He= rtrich said he had been by the sight, but not into it. Ms. Bousa said she was looking for feedback as to how feasible the sight distance was. Mr. Hertrich said they could review it. Ms. Bousa said this was o= ne of her concerns; she also recalled the Board wanting a letter from the Departm= ent of Transportation (‘DOT’).&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan said there had not been a response yet. Ms. Bousa said she was having a ha= rd time supporting a proposal where the Town would have to maintain an easement. Mr. Ivers discussed= what would be cleared, which would be mostly brush; the area would be 10ft-15ft wide, and 60-feet long. Ms. B= ousa said she questioned the feasibility of achieving the sight distance. She noted that Dufresne-Henry had = not yet reviewed the latest set of plans. Mr. Hertrich said they would review and come back with comments. Mr. Gowan said if the sight distan= ce could not be achieved, the plan would have to come back before the Board. Mr. McNamara said the Board had tr= ied that in the past, and it didn’t work. Mr. Scanzani said it should be ver= ified ahead of time, versus finding it after-the-fact. Mr. McNamara said he didn’t = want to vote on the proposal until feedback was received stating that the sight distance was able to be achieved and maintained.

Mr. Scanzani asked that the Board address the special permit that had been accepted on October 3, 2005. The Board was unable to find a cop= y of the permit in the file; Mr. Broui= llet was asked to make a copy of the special permit request available to the Planning Department. Mr. Brou= illet said it would not be a problem.

The Board discussed how they wanted to proceed. Mr. Brouillet asked = if the Board would consider a conditional approval (letter from Dufresne-Henry regarding sight distance) since there were only minor issues, other than the sight distance. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to date specify the plan.

The plan was date specified to the December 5, 2005 meeting.

Mr. Culbert left the meeting.

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

Mr. Scanzani informed that the plan had been d= ate specified to the November 21, 2005 meeting.

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

Mr. Jonathan Ring of Jones & Beach Enginee= rs met with the Board to discuss the plan.&nb= sp; He said as a result of previous discussions with the Board, minor revisions had been made to the plan. One such revision was to slightly move the entrance road to the east= at Dutton Road= so that lot one would have the complete buildable area and remove the developable envelope easement on the adjacent lot.&nbs= p; A guardrail has been added and moved based on the comments received = by Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer).&nb= sp; To minimize the wetland impact, the side slope (on the shoulder outs= ide the guardrail) was adjusted to be 1.5 – 1; A waiver request letter ha= d been submitted for such. He provid= ed the Board with a letter that responded to Dufresne-Henry’s comments recei= ved November 4, 2005. Mr. Ring said there was a Special = Permit request (submitted October 13, 2005) for working within the Wetland Conserv= ation District (‘WCD’) and waiver request letters: 1) relative to the USGS plan elevations on the plan; 2) well radius placement (to allow into t= he setbacks and open space areas); and a waiver with respect to the 100-foot minimum tangent distance for reverse curves.

Mr. Scanzani said he was having a little difficulty regarding the waiver request for the slopes and felt in this case that the 2 to 1 slopes should be maintained. Mr. Ring said it had been suggeste= d by Dufresne-Henry where the slope would be considered to go to 1.5-1 it would = be designed by a geotechnical engineer; they were agreeable to the suggestion. He pointed out th= e area that would be affected. Mr. McNamara asked what the vertical drop would be. Mr. Ring said it varied from 5-fee= t to approximately 10-feet. Mr. Sc= anzani said it appeared to be steep. Mr. Danevich said he preferred to see the slopes at 2.0. Mr. Yarmo said the design team was= offered was a structural design that didn’t require maintenance and questioned how much wetland would be avoided by doing so. Mr. Ring said they estimated in or= der to go to 2 to 1 slope it would affect approximately 1000SF of additional wetland. Mr. Scanzani questio= ned if the 2 to 1 slope could be maintained if a retaining wall were added. Mr. Ring said they could, but it w= ould require 4-foot frost walls below the surface of the soil. There was further discussion; the = Board requested that the 2 to1 slope be maintained. Mr. Ring said they would do so in = the final revision of the plans and the wetland permit will be modified accordingly.

There was no public input.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town̵= 7;s Engineer) said they reviewed a set of plans received October 25, 2005 and reviewe= d the applicant’s handwritten response.&nb= sp; He reviewed the comments and what they had requested from the applicant.

Mr. Yarmo asked that the Conservation Commission’s comments be reviewed.&n= bsp; 1) consideration for the reduction of pavement/roadway width –= Mr. Ring said the roadway was 22-feet wide; Mr. Scanzani said where it intersec= ted into Brandy Lane, it would be the full width. 2) combination of driveways (at WCD impacts) for lots 3,4,6 &7 to reduce t= he impacts – Mr. Ring said the Board instructed them to made the drivewa= ys individual, not shared – Mr. Yarmo felt consideration should be given= to the impacts since the site was very sensitive. – Mr. Scanzani said the decision had already been made. – Mr. Yarmo felt the decision should = be reconsidered. – There w= as a brief discussion, the Board members were not in favor of changing their previous decision; 3) to have a wetland scientist present on site during construction of amphibian tunnel. – Mr. Ring said there was a note on= the detail for the amphibian tunnel indicating that West Environmental shall be= on site during construction; 4) additional protection of vernal pools with notation on deeds including references of protection for vernal pool buffer area – Mr. Scanzani said the Board had agreed that in those situations ‘no-cut’ signs would be installed.; 5) provide daily on-site management of the tree clearing work by a licensed forester – Mr. Ring said a note had been added indicating that the logging operation staging ar= ea would have direct access to Dutton Road and there would be limited tree cut= ting initially directed by a licensed forester.; 6) provide access to conservati= on areas with markings to eliminate confusion about having a trail – Mr. Ring said it had been shown; 7) blazing conservation land boundaries and installing conservation land signage – Mr. Dan Cyr (consulting forest= er) said he was doing work on the Town parcel adjacent to the proposed said mos= t of the property lines abutting the parcel (common boundary) had been blazed. – Mr. Yarmo felt it was important to have the new conservation land boundaries blazed. Mr. Ring s= aid they could do so as a condition of approval; 8) reuse of soils at +00 ̵= 1; 200 because of the invasive species. Mr. Ring said there was a note on the plan set that indicated the ar= ea to be removed (in accordance with Craig Wood’s Louis-Berger Group comments); 9) Conservation Commission will accept the acreage donated to the Town and will accept the stewardship responsibilities.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to the Pelham Subdivision Regulations Section 1= 3, Appendix I, bb, 12 (minimum tangent length between horizontal curves) = 211; requirement is 100 feet – the proposed shows 98.3 feet provided.

VOTE:

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

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the waiver to the Pelham Subdivision Regulations Section 13, Appendix I, bb, = 12 (minimum tangent length between horizontal curves).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the waiver to the Pelham Subdivision Regulations Section 10.03,d &10.04, b (USGS plan elevations.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the waiver to the Pelham Subdivision Regulations Section 11.04, b, 2 (well ra= dius placement) with respect to Lot 9,15,16,17 & 19.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To reaffirm t= he motion of granting the waiver (October 17, 2005) for 2 to 1 side slopes as origin= ally proposed (not the 1.5).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the request for Special Permit.

VOTE:

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

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

Mr. Scanzani said Dufresn= e-Henry had to review the final plan one last time to ensure all the comments had b= een addressed. He said he would a= ccept a motion to approve, subject to review by Dufresne-Henry.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the plan, subject to Dufresne-Henry’s review of the final plan and verification of sight distances being as proposed and reflected on the pl= ans. The blazing (of lot lines to par= cel being deeded to the Town) is also to be completed on the properties in the areas discussed.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette voted no (based on= sight distance not being confirmed).

MI= SCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Scanzani said a letter had been received f= rom a local attorney stating that it might be good for the Board to require a general release for any individual – giving up their right to sue the landowner for any personal injuries or damage when conducting a site walk.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was a brief discussion; the = Board agreed that Mr. Gowan should send a response letter stating that the Town w= ould not take responsibility for second party.&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

November 21, 2005 -

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

December= 5, 2005 –

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

Map 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phyllis / Ivers, Timothy – 96 Windham= Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES

September 19, 2005

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the minutes of Sep= tember 19, 2005 as written. =

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa abstained.

October 3, 2005

MOTION:

(McNamara/Yarmo) To approve the m= inutes of October 3, = 2005 as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 3) The motion carried. Mr. Scanzani, Ms. Medeiros and Mr. Danevich abstained.

October 17, 2005

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To approve the minutes of Oc= tober 17, 2005 as amended. =

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Ms. Ouellet= te and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

October 22, 2005 (site walk minutes) –deferred to next scheduled meeting

Mr. Scanzani said typical= ly when the Board conducted site walks, the entire Board may, or may not be present; for this reason, it had been the position that final decisions are not made during site walks, but rather during public forum. Mr. Gowan said minutes were requir= ed for any meeting and from this point forward, a small recording device would be brought to record the dialogue.

Mr. Dunne had a revision = to the minutes that would be amended by Mr. Gowan (since he submitted the minutes = for review).

MOTION:

(Danevich/Dunne) To approve the m= inutes of October 22= , 2005 as amended.

VOTE:

() Th= e motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.=

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:35 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