PB Minutes 12.05.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

December 5, 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, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternat= e Ken Dunne

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Plan Review of proposed 120’ 60’ Ware= house Building for Heavy Equipment Rental

Mr. Scanzani informed that the application was date specified to the January 5, 2006 = meeting.

Map 28 & 34 Lot 2-12 Glance, Mary Ann Stys – Burns Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision <= /o:p>

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the case. He reviewed the proposed plan, whi= ch was to subdivide a parcel of approximately 137 acres into two lots (approximate= ly 9.7 acres; and 124.3 acres). = The wetlands have been flagged by Jim Gove of Gove Environmental. Mr. Gospodarek said right now the subdivision proposed no roadways; there was one driveway coming off Burns Road.= A variance for the driveway locati= on (due to ‘frontage’ access) was granted on August 8, 2005 (Case #2324).= There was further review of the submitted plan.

Mr. Scanzani asked where the frontage to the property was located. Mr. Gospodarek said the frontage was located on Marsh Road, but the driveway was lo= cated on Burns Road. Mr. Scanzani asked if the applicant would agree to ‘no further subdivision’ for the 9.7 lot. Mr. Gospodarek said he would have = to ask the applicant.

Mr. Yarmo asked if the lot was originally prop= osed and eliminated (during the time Clay Mitchell was the Planning Director). He wanted to know if a lot was eliminated it was ‘gone’ forever. Mr. Gowan said he was unsure, but = would research. Mr. Yarmo recalled = that the lot was part of the subdivision that divided the lots off Burns Road = and had been eliminated.

Mr. Scanzani asked what width the driveway easement would be off of B= urns Road. Mr. Gospodarek said the easement currently existed (from the original subdivision off Glance) and was currently 15-feet wide.

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich said he wanted to better understa= nd the history of the lot. Mr. Scanzani agreed. He wanted the Safety Committee and the Fire Department to review/comment.

Ms. Ouellette said she would have a problem wi= th the proposed if it were to be further subdivided.

Mr. Scanzani informed that Mr. Yarmo would vote regarding the applications. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan asked if there would be any waivers. Mr. Gospodarek said = they were unsure if the Board needed a waiver for the driveway; they believed the variance cleared up the issue. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would take the waiver request because it was a waiv= er of the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Gospodarek submitted the waiver request.

The application was date specified to the January 5, 2006 meeting.

Ma= p 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Currier Road, Peabody Lane & Rte 38 Bridge S= treet – Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. The file did = not contain any written correspondence from abutters. Mr. Robert Montbleau, 9 Peabody lane had a= problem with notification. Mr. Scanza= ni asked if Mr. Montbleau had any objection to the Board continuing with the hearing. Mr. Montbleau answer= ed no.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates, presented the proposed plan to the Board. He said the parcel contained sixty= -three acres; they proposed to subdivide one lot of fifty-seven acres and the remaining would be broken out to six, one acre lots. He said they were requesting a wai= ver to reduce the plan scale. He wen= t on to discuss the proposed plan. He said there were two waivers; 1) plan scale; and 2) well radius – encroachment of the setback line.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver requests for the plan scale and the well radius.

VOTE:

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

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Denise Snelders, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">24 Loretta Avenue, said the propose= d was for six lots, but assumed there would be more in the future and was concern= ed with the current water problems in the entire area. She said no matter how the parcel = was graded, someone would be affected. Mr. Scanzani said engineering would be done and reviewed by the Town’s engineer to make sure that there was no additional water flowi= ng to abutter properties.

Mr. Bill Radzelovage, 1 Meadow Knoll, said the large map had some irregularities such as not including his property and contained road (Seavy Drive) that was no longer in existence. Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Radzelovage= if he was notified as part of the abutter list.&= nbsp; Mr. Radzelovage answered yes. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would asked the applicant’s engine= er to review.

Mr. Joe Norkiewicz, 14 Island Pond Road, was concerned regarding the water. He said = any time it rained the water drainage looked like a river. He provided the Board with photogr= aphs showing the drainage. He want= ed to know what concerns would be considered and if something would be looked at regarding the problem. Mr. Sc= anzani noted that near the corner of Peabody Road there were two small culvert pipes that c= ame under Currier Road and through a stone wall across Mr. Norkiewicz’s back yard; ultimately the water ended up at the corner of Dutton Road and Atwood Road. He said when the Cara Estates subdivision was done the Board knew at= the point the proposed parcel was done the drainage would need to be looked at = to be solved. Mr. Norkiewicz said usually the area would dry out in July; however, during the past year the l= and never did.

Mr. Paul Diamantopaoulos, 1 Peabody Lane, was concerned about= the water coming off the side of the hill when the subdivision grew into a full development. He wanted to con= firm that the current direction of the water flow would continue and be controll= ed to not run off his property down to Bridge Street. He asked if the abutters would have some recourse about their wells. Mr. Scanzani didn̵= 7;t feel that there should be too much concern with the wells because of the abutters being on the south of the aquifer. He said if blasting became a probl= em for the abutting wells it would be a civil matter. It was noted that each plan (when = and if brought forward for development) would have separate review.

Mr. Kurt Bucchio, 37 Currier Road, said there was cur= rently a lot of water in the area; his cellar filled every year. He didn’t feel that the culv= erts could handle the water. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would have to wait for the Town’s engineer to review to better understand the drainage in the area.

Mr. Bruce Jewett, 4 Peabody Lane, was concerned for h= is, and his neighbor’s well because of the amount of water that ran down = the area.

Mr. Robert Montbleau, = 9 Peabody Lane, discussed the area = and noted he had two catch basins at the corner of his property. He was concerned for future develo= pment regarding the drainage getting worse.

Mr. Scanzani believed the Board would agree th= at whatever drainage was done would have to take into account future development. Mr. Yarmo said he would like to see the entire parcel studied. Mr. Scanzani felt everything shoul= d be reviewed because the water ended up at the bottom of Dutton Road.

Mr. Gospodarek said they could be date specifi= ed to the January 5,= 2006 meeting and defer at that time if needed.&= nbsp;

The application was date specified to the January 5, 2006 = meeting.

Map 20 Lot 2-131 Steckiewicz, Iren= e – Bush Hill Road – Proposed 2 <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot Subdivision

Mr. Yarmo stepped down fr= om the case because he was an abutter.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates made= a presentation to the Board. He= said the subdivision project in front of the Board was previously approved Janua= ry, 2002. It essentially cut one = lot (two acres) out of the 17.7 acre parcel.&n= bsp; Mr. Gospodarek said the plan was currently not recorded and they were requesting a re-approval of the plan with the conditions of approval receiv= ed in January 2002. He discussed= the items on the plan that had been corrected.= Essentially nothing had changed, other than corrections based upon t= he conditions placed on the plan.

Mr. Danevich questioned why the plan had not b= een recorded. Mr. Gowan said ther= e was some sort of issue/misunderstanding about paying an invoice and therefore t= he work was not produced; the only deficiency was the mylar not being recorded. He said there was n= ot really any difference in the plan other than a couple minor deficiencies th= at were original conditions for approval.&nbs= p; Mr. Danevich asked if the plan/waivers previously approved were consistent and on the plan being presented. Mr. Gowan answered yes. Mr. McNamara noted that the regula= tions had changed since 2002 and asked if the plan was in compliance with the cur= rent regulations. Mr. Gowan believ= ed it was.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept the plan for consideration. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 6 (B), 13 – scale.

VOTE:

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

There was not public input.

Mr. Danevich was not opposed to approving the = plan based on the fact that it had previously been through the approval process.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the waiver to Section 6 (B), 13 – scale and the plan (with the orig= inal approval conditions and same criteria) as requested.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Yarmo returned to the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Dave Brouillet, Project Manager with Keach, Nordstrom Associates reviewed t= he proposed subdivision with the Board. He said the last issue according to their records was reviewing the sight distance. He believed t= hat the Town’s Engineer Dufresne-Henry had submitted a report.

Mr. Gowan said Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry went to the site at the requ= est of the Board and submitted comments. Mr. Hertrich said he reviewed the site with Mr. Brouillet on November 17, 2005. He submitted photographs for the Board’s review. He disc= ussed the sight distance and what would need to be removed to obtain such. The impression was once the big tr= ees were removed there wouldn’t be a lot of maintenance. Mr. Danevich asked if a hazard con= dition was created at the bottom of Hayden Road if the trees were removed. Mr. Hertrich answered no. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the st= ate cut the brush. Mr. Ivers had informed Mr. Hertrich that the state cut along the road in the area; it was= assumed they would continue. Mr. McNa= mara asked if the Town would incur any responsibility to do any maintenance once= the brush was cut. Mr. Hertrich s= aid maybe at some point in the future. He said the AASHTO sight distance could be obtained if the trees were cut and the brush/wetlands were maintained.

Mr. Gowan said a letter was received from Dan Cyr of Baystate Forestry Service. Mr. Cyr was very ple= ased that Mr. Ivers had given him the opportunity to do some selective harvesting.

Mr. Scanzani said there had been a question about what would happen to the remaining parcel after the subdivision.&nb= sp; Mr. Brouillet said they didn’t have anything close to an application. Mr. Gowan believ= ed the access would be from a different point than currently proposed. Mr. Scanzani believed the only open issue was the AASHTO requirements on Windham Road. The remainder of the plan met the requirements of Dufresne-Henry. There were no waivers requested, j= ust a special permit.

Mr. McNamara said there was a question if tree stumps would be disposed of on, = or off site. Mr. Brouillet said = he was informed that they would be either removed, or chipped and reused for use as erosion control on site. The stumps would not be buried on site; a note wil= l be added to the plan.

Mr. Hertrich said another issue was the status of the NHDOT driveway permit. Mr. Brouillet said he spoke with t= he engineer for district 5 who wanted a clarification of which trees were to be removed. He informed the engi= neer that once a final inventory (after discussion with the Board) it would be s= ubmitted.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Medeiros) To = approve the Special Permit to meet sight distance requirements.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Danevich said he would like to see the NH DOT Driveway Permit number and a standardized note regarding the stumps being properly disposed of, and not buried on site.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Medeiros) To = approve the plan subject to the NH DOT Driveway Permit number being added and a n= ote indicating that the stumps will be properly disposed of and not buried on site.

VOTE:

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

Map 29 Lot<= /st1:place> 7-44-1 KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road – Site Plan – Proposed 20-uni= t, 55 years of age and older Adult Community

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates met with the Boar= d to present the plan. Mr. Zohdi s= aid the plan had been before the Board numerous times and believed had obtained approval (in 2002) for forty units. Since that time they had worked with DES and changed the design and provided the revised plan to the Board.&nb= sp; They would not be requesting a waiver for the number of units. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan sheet = with the Board.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed was the same as outlined in Police Chief Evan Haglund’s letter of October 31, 2005. Mr. Gow= an said the only thing that was different was the offset to the road. He came to the conclusion that it = was unnecessary and would be further explained by the engineer.

Mr. Zohdi noted that the Health Officer had reviewed/approved and the state approved a sub-surface disposal system for twenty units. He then discussed the proposed lighting.

Mr. Danevich believed the concern (brought up during the site walk) regarding t= he visual barrier/break had been satisfied.&n= bsp; He discussed the landscaping schedule and confirmed that it was not = the intent to clear-cut the parcel, or the tree line along (across from) Dutton Road= . Mr. Zohdi answered no. He said the existing tree line was= shown on the plan and they would add to it. Mr. Scanzani said there was an oak tree that impeded the view and wo= uld be removed. Mr. McNamara note= d that the brush along the stone wall would be ‘cleaned up’.

Mr. Zohdi noted they would be requesting waivers to: 1) Site Plan 248-22 L R= 11; scale; and 2) paving within twenty-five feet of leach bed (on northwest).

Mr. Scanzani said the recommendation of the Safety Committee was to offset the = road 50-feet. He felt that the pro= posed plan had provided for the entrance to break away and not appear as a continuance of Dutton Road= . The Board was in agreement to leav= e the plan as submitted. Mr. Scanza= ni continued review of the issues. The crosswalks, landscaping plan, architectural rendering and lighting plan were all acceptable. Mr. Gowan sai= d the Safety Committee felt strongly that no traffic/flashing light was needed at Dutton Road; however they felt a crosswalk (across Atwood Road) (lit with a lamp mounted to an existing telephone pole) near Livingston Road would be needed. He recommended if the= Board was going to make a motion regarding the plan, that it be done to allow the specifics with the off-site cross walks etc. to be overseen by the Planning Department as well as the Safety Committee.

Mr. Scanzani said if the Board recommended the lighting, he felt the applicant should have a note on the plan indicating that they would be responsible for the cost of the lights and the maintenance of the sidewalks.

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the Safety Committee didn’t feel it necessary that there be any additional traffic control signals at the Dutton Road intersection. Mr. Gowan answered yes, with the exception of a flashing yellow light (at eye level) at the cross walk. Ms. Medeiros asked if safe crossing could be achieved. Mr. Gowan = said he and the Safety Committee agreed that a well-lit, very clearly marked crossing with flashing light should be relatively safe. Mr. Scanzani questioned if a cross= walk should be requested from the proposed housing across Atwood Road to the Cross Roads Church. Mr. Gowan said the Church had expr= essed some interest in putting a cross walk as part of an expansion project they = were considering. Ms. Bousa wanted clarification about where cross walks would be located. There was a proposal for a cross w= alk to be from the site to Rite Aid = and a cross walk from the Rite Aid side across the road to the doctor’s off= ice (as recommended during the site walk).&nbs= p; Ms. Bousa had concerns with a sidewalk on the Rite Aid side of the r= oad due to the grading. She was a= lso concerned with crossings in a place where they are not expected to be. She felt the ADA regulations should be reviewed beca= use she didn’t think the minimal grade could be achieved. Mr. Scanzani asked if Ms. Bousa ha= d a recommendation. Ms. Bousa sai= d the visible lighting on the light pole was a start. Mr. Scanzani said he wasn’t comfortable not providing for some kind of off-road walking to the Pelham Plaza. He said the issue being faced by t= he Board was that the plan was approved under the older regulations and had go= ne through the site development process and the Board was now trying to approv= e as 55+ instead of what was originally proposed and at the same time trying to = make it as safe a possible (with the intersection). He didn’t feel the Board cou= ld have the applicant change the slopes. Ms. Bousa questioned if there was an area between the Rite Aid drive= way to the Plaza because it was well lit. There was further discussion regarding where a cross walk could be located. Mr. McNamara didn= 217;t think it was wise to approve a plan (for elderly housing) that was not ADA compliant. The Board discussed the plan and t= he cross walk further. Mr. Gowan= said he hadn’t seen an application, but noted there may be an expansion project at the physician’s office (at Livingst= on). It was noted that signs would also= be posted indicating the cross walk. Mr. Gowan noted that the only proposed sidewalk would go from the proposed housing to Rite Aid and just a cross walk to cross the road.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Board was okay regarding the lighting and signage wit= h a note on the plan indicating that the applicant would be responsible for the cost of such. There was no objection from either the Board or Mr. Zohdi.

Mr. Scanzani believed the only remaining item was the access to the back of the building by the fire trucks. = He said rather than asphalt/impervious surface next to a wetland, there was an alternative. Mr. Gowan discus= sed a grass pavement technology system that could be used. He said the technology was current= ly used at Pelham Terrace and the Municipal Building; the Fire = Chief was happy with the product. M= r. Zohdi had no objection to the suggestion.&= nbsp;

Mr. Yarmo asked if temporary protection (hay bales) of the wetland buffer could= be laid out along during construction. Mr. Scanzani agreed about having protection, but would rather have w= ood chippings instead of hay bales. Mr. Yarmo said he wasn’t looking for erosion control, simply a denotation= of the buffer (such as an orange construction fence).

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Dave Hennessey, 71 Dutton = Road, believed that the road around the building had to be a pervious surface, du= e to the required calculations under the Open Space Ordinance. He said the terms adult, senior and elderly housing have been interchanged; under HUD guidelines sixty-two year= s or older housing is restricted to people sixty-two years or older. He noted this was a fifty-five yea= r old project, which could include people under fifty-five as well as children. Mr. Hennessey then addressed the f= act that there was awful traffic and dangerous situations between the site and = the shopping center as well as the school across the street. He reviewed RSA 307-53 and felt un= der the current situation should turn the plan down. Mr. Hennessey said on October 22, 2005 there was a site walk/public hearing at which the developer forbade his wife from goi= ng onto the site and threatened litigation.&n= bsp; He noted that he and Mr. Gowan attended a conference (in New Market) where a booklet was handed out regarding ethics for land use / board members. He reviewed a sectio= n of the handout which indicated that an applicant needed to understand that the full board had a right to participate in a site walk and if the full board = was meeting, it had to be done in public and did not have the right to exclude = the public. He said he sent some e-mails reviewing some of these issues and because more than three board members responded, it constituted a meeting under New Hampshire state rules, all respons= es would be entered into record. He said he received several responses that said the board never intended to wa= lk on site, and they only wanted to see cross walks and traffic; however, the notice for the public hearing didn’t indicate such; even the applicant thought the site would be walked. Mr. Hennessey said the Board needed to go onto the site and review s= ome of the issues bought up during the hearing. He said the Board didn’t abi= de by the public’s right to know and did not follow due process because the public was not allowed to go on the site walk.

Mr. Scanzani said there was nothing in the Regulations that required a whole si= te to be walked. He believed in = this case the Board made it clear that they wanted to see the road access and si= ght distance. Ms. Bousa asked wha= t the Town attorney’s opinion was. Mr. Gowan said he didn’t have the opinion in writing; it was a telephone call with Attorney Rattigan.&nbs= p; He said respectfully Attorney Rattigan disagreed with Mr. Hennessey’s concern that there had been an inadequate opportunity for public input. He reminded the= Board that there were site walks when the plan was originally submitted and not m= uch had changed. He said with reg= ard to issue of the lack of a site walk on the site, there had been numerous opportunities for public input. Mr. Gowan believed the Board could decide to approve the plan and/or conduct additional site walks.

Mr. Danevich said he didn’t have the need to do another site walk given t= he fact that he had been on site at least two times. Mr. McNamara said both boards (Boa= rd of Adjustment and Planning) have been inconsistent regarding what happens when= a landowner didn’t want a board member or all of the public on their property; he believed the proper procedure is outlined in the booklets rece= ived from the meeting in New Castle= . He felt a landowner could say they didn’t want the public, but it would incumbent for the board to say t= hey would not conduct the walk and would be grounds to deny a plan. He believed in this case, the Board outlined at the prior meeting that they wanted to check where the entrance/= exit would be as well as to look at a possible sidewalk crossing.

Mr. Scanzani believed the issue was would it be better to have another site wal= k to clear up any possible defect that tied attorneys up and waste taxpayer mone= y on a legal proceeding. Ms. Ouell= ette asked if Attorney Rattigan was willing to put his discussion with Mr. Gowan= in writing. Mr. Gowan believed he would be able to have Attorney Rattigan do it. The Board discussed whether or not= they would conduct a site walk.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the Board had a policy to not do site walks when there = was snow on the ground. Mr. Scanz= ani said if the Board was looking at topography and wetlands (which were all delineated/defined on the previous site plan) he would agree, however, in t= his case it didn’t matter.

Mr. Danevich asked what the Board would be reviewing during the site walk. Mr. Scanzani said he would set a s= ite walk for the Board to specifically review the cross walks.

Mr. Hennessey said public hearings were not just about the Board; a site walk w= as a public hearing with the idea to hear from the public. He said the public was not given t= he opportunity to give an opinion at the Board’s site walk.

Mr. Danevich said he was in attendance at the site walk and said there was more than one opportunity to present the opportunity for public input; multiple different public input was provided and none was provided by the particular individual. He said there wer= e also multiple public hearings for both this application and the last. He said he didn’t have a nee= d to do an additional site walk. <= /p>

A site walk was scheduled for December 10, 2005 at 9:00a= m; the Board would start at the Rite Aid parking lot.

Mr. Gowan recommended that the purpose of the site walk be specific and posted = as such. It was clarified that t= he notice would state ‘site walk’.

The plan was date specified to the December 19, 2005 meeting.

Mr. Scanzani indicated that the Board agreed that the applicant could leave the grassed area in the back (non-pervious surface), where the sidewalks would = be put and the road realignment would stay as it was. He asked that notes be added to th= e plan (for the December 19, 2005 meeting ) as follows: 1) NHDES site specific approval; 2) grass pavers used for fire lanes in the back of the buildings;= 3) cross walks, pedestrian signage, blinking lights etc. will be completed in accordance with the recommendations previously discussed; 4) per the Safety Committee recommendations - two lights (on the pole) added and note indicat= ing that applicant will pay for such; 5) applicant responsible for maintaining areas off the road (i.e. plowed for snow maintenance); 6) standard cross wa= lk signage installed as required; and 7) large Oak tree (on Atwood Road) that = the Board, on the last site walk, indicated was part of the visibility issue of= the sight distance, would be cut down; 8) placement of additional construction fencing at the edge of the 100-foot setback. Mr. Gowan asked that leeway be giv= en in the event additional items were seen in the field (during the site walk).

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the pla= n to the Board. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d the plan was last before the Board in August; at which the Board provided a lis= t of items for completion. One of = the remaining items was the Wetlands Permit.&n= bsp; Mr. Gospodarek said Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) had made a sixth review of the project based upon the plan set being presented; the st= ate DES has also reviewed and approved the plan. He went on to review the items con= tained in the Defresne-Henry review letter. He began by discussing the bio-retention area. In their review/design and discuss= ion with the technology, they didn’t need to be two feet above the season= al high water table nor four feet above such for treatment. The bio-retention area provides treatment within the two feet of soil; details are shown. There was further explanation abou= t how the retention area worked and was capable of doing so year round. Mr. Gospodarek then reviewed the technical review comments. He discussed the sheet flow coming off the lots, the sight distance and sight = line easements. He noted that waiv= ers were requested for lots not meeting the 15K area. He said a concern had been raised = as to if the bio retention area, being placed in the right-of-way, would create a problem when the roadway was put in. Mr. Gospodarek said the right-of-way (for the Gendron’s proper= ty) had been moved over approximately 250-feet and would require a sight line easement (being 35-feet from the edge).&nb= sp; They also added a 10-foot slope easement for the Bergeron property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He went on reviewing the comments = and addressed the drainage, cross sections.&nb= sp; He ended by saying based on their test pit results, they didn’t feel under drains were needed.

Mr. Scanzani had a video tape containing information regarding preserving open space with conservation subdivisions and bio retention areas that he wanted= the Board members to view. He sai= d the issue to be determined by the Board was if the drainage was what they wanted. Mr. Yarmo believed it= was the new technology coming. He wanted to know what the maintenance costs would be. Mr. Scanzani said the goal was for= zero maintenance. Mr. McNamara agr= eed that the system should be tried given proper safeguards. He was bothered by the comments pr= ovided by Dufresne-Henry. He underst= ood if the system broke down, it would break down completely. Mr. Gowan reviewed a portion of a = letter forwarded to Mr. Gospodarek from NHDES on August 31, 2005 which read they w= ere pleased to see that low impact design (i.e. bio retention areas) were being incorporated.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) said the issues were with the details of the proposed bio retention system and wanted certain is= sues further addressed. Mr. Scanza= ni noted that all the retention areas handled the 50-year storm event, except one. Mr. Gospodarek corrected the state= ment and said it met the 50-year storm event; however, he was using 100% of the storage between the seasonal high water table and the surface, if it has to= be moved up two feet, he wouldn’t meet the 50-year storm event. There was further discussion and i= t was suggested to add an additional retention system. Mr. Gospodarek said an additional system could be added. Mr. Hertrich said it would address the need if the specific criteria could be met. There was no objection by the Board to add an addition system (being two feet above seasonal). Mr. Hertrich said = the distance off the roadway was more of a site specific item. After discussing, the Board and Mr. Hertrich agreed that soil types would be confirmed for the rain garden. Mr. Hertrich said another issue wa= s the slopes (which would require additional maintenance because of sediment).

Mr. Scanzani believed that the swales had to be off and below the road so that = they didn’t come back onto the road. He wanted to know how sand used during the winter would not affect t= he rain garden. Mr. Gospodarek s= aid the drain swales were designed to sit off the road and were approximately two-feet deep; the sand used doesn’t have a lot of silt. Mr. Hertrich was concerned with the velocity, and the side ditches would be slow enough for sand to fill up over time. Mr. Gospodarek said they tried to blend the swales in to the house lot; however, they are grassed sw= ales. He said the beginning of the swale= is on Town right-of-way and the actual ditch was on the edge of the right-of-way. The Town would = have an easement for access. There= were pipes proposed to go under driveways, which would also need maintenance. The Board understood that the swal= es would have some maintenance issues to be addressed over time.

The Board then discussed the rain gardens.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara wanted to know how the Town would ensure that the prope= rty owners took ownership of the gardens and maintained as landscaping features= . Mr. Hertrich believed they were contained with easements that the Town controlled. Mr. Scanzani said the issue with t= he rain garden was that they had certain plantings within it that aided with t= he absorption of water. He quest= ioned how the Town protected the specific plantings within the rain garden. Mr. Gospodarek said they could wri= te a covenant with the deeds to inform the property owners. Mr. Gowan suggested having a marke= r of the rain garden so people know not to ‘mess’ with the area. Mr. Hertrich said rain gardens were generally the first step in a system that included a pipe and a discharge beyond such. If there was a p= ipe that was put into the stone, it was thought to alleviate overflow (for each= of the eight swales). The Board requested that the engineer put a pipe into each of the swales, as recommen= ded by Dufresne-Henry; Mr. Gospodarek said he would pass the recommendation by = the state.

The Board would discuss the technical issues at the next meeting.

Mr. McNamara asked if comment had been received from Louis-Berger regarding the revised Environmental Impact Assessment.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan was unable to answer at this time. Mr. McNamara questioned if open sp= ace had been addressed. Mr. Scanz= ani believed the applicant had offered a voluntary (monetary) contribution towa= rd Park & Recreation. Mr. Mc= Namara asked if the existing wooded areas were shown on the plan. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. With regard to lot 6-13, 14 & = 15, Mr. McNamara wanted to know if they each contained 35k minimum and if they = are in the 100-year flood plain. = Mr. Gospodarek said lot area summaries were shown on the plan that contained the information. Mr. McNamara ask= ed if there was compliance with Article K. Mr. Zohdi said they sent information to the Town Health Officer and believed he had signed off. M= r. Gowan said it was in the file. Mr. Yarmo said in the previous clearing operation, some of the buffer to the pr= ime wetland was cleared and wanted to know if it was contained in the EIA. Mr. Gospodarek said there was a landscaping plan contained in the plan set that showed additional plantings. Mr. Scanzani clari= fied that the plan showed an additional buffer to the prime wetland in the back. Mr. Gospodarek answered= yes; there was detail regarding the plantings and a schedule contained on the pl= an. Mr. McNamara said the abutter, Mr. Gendron had concerns regarding the 10-foot slope easement and drainage. With that, Mr. Scanzani opened the discussion up to the public.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Pat Gendron, 35 Wood Road<= /st1:address> (lot 8-85), wanted to know, in the future, if the plans could be provided p= rior to the meeting. Mr. Gospodare= k said the plans had been submitted on September 15, 2005. Mr. Gen= dron asked if the right-of-way location had changed. It was noted that the plans handed= out to the Board at the meeting were the same plans submitted September 15, 2005.

Mr. Gowan said there was a member of the public who was unable to attend the meeting, but had forwarded a fax. He read the fax aloud, which was received December 5, 2005 and incorporated into= the file. The Board would discuss= the issues contained therein at the next meeting. A copy would be provided to the engineer.

The plan was date specified to the January 5, 2006 meeting. =

Map 39 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-53 & 55 = LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5 lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani informed that the applicat= ion was date specified to the January 5, 2006 meeting.

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

Mr. Scanzani informed that the applicat= ion was date specified to the January 5, 2006 meeting. =

A member of the public questioned why the case would not be heard. Mr. Gowan said at the last Board m= eeting direction had been given for him to have a meeting with Peter Zohdi (engine= er from Herbert Associates), Craig Wood (Louis Berger Group) and Jim Gove (Gove Environmental) to discuss some of the environmental issues on the parcel. With the holiday, the meeting did = not take place. Mr. Gowan said th= ey would meet next week and the case would come back before the Board. The Board’s agenda will be p= osted and the public was welcome to contact the Planning Department to find out if the case would be heard.

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 applicat= ion was date specified to the January 5, 2006 meeting.

DISCUSSION

Map 6 Lot 4-166 Boucher, Nicole &a= mp; Barbara – 55 Gibson Road – Request for Informal Discussion of Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Weeks of Cuoco & Cormier, representing Nicole & Barbara Boucher. He said the Bouchers= owned approximately thirty-four acres in Pelham and were proposing at the end of = Gibson Road= to subdivide a five-acre lot. He= said a variance was granted in October, 2004 (and extended this year) to have frontage on a Class VI road. = He said they had done topography for part of the lot and would be requesting a waiver for the remaining; he also would be requesting a waiver for HISS mapping. The proposed drivewa= y was proposed to come off Gibso= n Road to the five acre lot; the five acr= e lot will grant an easement to access the remaining parcel.

Mr. Gowan asked if abutters were notified of the meeting. Mr. Weeks answered no.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the purpose of the plan was to build a single-family hous= e on the end of a Class VI road. M= r. Weeks answered yes.

Mr. Weeks asked for input regarding what the Board would be proposing for slopes. Mr. Gowan said the Bo= ard had not reviewed in detail, but was contemplating 5% maximum slope where driveways meet roads and the remainder of the driveways not be in excess of 10%; driveway set back from roads in excess of 100 feet would require an emergency vehicle (i.e. fire truck) turn around. Mr. Scanzani said once the Board h= ad proposed a regulation or zoning change, any plans submitted from that point would have to incorporate the changes being proposed.

Mr. McNamara asked if the slopes were the only reason the plan was brought befo= re the Board. Mr. Weeks answered yes. Mr. Scanzani said the Bo= ard was not given much to look at. He said on the surface a one-lot subdivision wasn’t much; however, if th= ere were plans to further subdivide the Board would want to review the entire parcel. Mr. Weeks said he wou= ld like to be placed on the next agenda. Once the applicant submits an application they will be placed on an agenda.

MINUTES

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; November 7, 2005 - deferred

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; November 21, 2005 - deferred = ;

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

December = 19, 2005:

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

January 5,= 2006:

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Plan Review of proposed 120’ 60’ Warehouse Building<= /st1:PlaceType> for Heavy Equipment Rental

Map 28 & 34 Lot 2-12 Glance, Mary Ann Stys – Burns Road – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision

Map 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, P= amela Fineman – Currier Ro= ad, Peabody Lane & Rte 38 Bridge Street – Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision

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

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

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

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

SITE WALK

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 12:00am =

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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