PB Minutes 01-19-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 19, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanzani called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Planning Director Jeff Gowan (arrived after the meeting had commenced – he had attended a meetin= g regarding the I93 widening project)

ABSENT:

Christine Medeiros, Alternate Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

NEW BUSINESS

None.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road<= /st1:Street> – Proposed 23 Lot Subdivision 8-88= & 89

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said at the last meeting there = were two items that the Board wanted to see: 1) traffic study; and 2) state Divi= sion 5 report; both of which had been submitted. He said another item requested was= a sample of the sign; which had also been submitted.

Mr. Scanzani said he had a copy of the sign and had discussed possible changes with Mr. Gowan; overall he felt the sign was= a good addition to those used for conservation. The changes were: 1) addition of a wording ‘do no remove’ and ‘do not remove per Pelham Plan= ning Board’. The Board discu= ssed the proposed changes. Mr. Yar= mo suggesting amending the sign to read ‘Do not remove per Town of Pelham’. Mr. Gospodarek explained where the= signs would be placed. The Board ag= reed to have the signs designed as recommended by Bob Yarmo.

Mr. Scanzani said there were two items the Boa= rd should discuss : 1) TEPP recommendation; and 2) widening of the bypass shou= lder on the east of Rt. 38 as recommend by NHDOT; the Board had no other discuss= ion regarding these items. Mr. Sc= anzani understood that there was a state driveway access of Rt. 38 that may be utilized during construction rather than utilizing = Rita Avenue or Tina Avenue. Mr. Zohdi said he was notified abo= ut the access which his client (and an abutter) had access to; a copy of the deed = was provided to the Board. He sho= wed where the access was located (from Rita Avenue). Mr. Scanzani said he would be concerned with the access’ condi= tion once construction was completed as well as safe stopping distance. Mr. Zohdi said they could document= the condition so there were no problems at a later date. It was noted that the access was currently gravel with a paved portion.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara noted that there had been a court case regarding access= ing developments and wanted it known that if there was a public road, the Board could not stop (ban) its use.

Mr. Scanzani said the only other issue was the issuance of the NHDES approval number; which had not been received yet. Mr. McNamara informed that the Boa= rd was also waiting for a follow up letter from Craig Wood of Louis-Berger (Town’s Environmental consultant) that had been received. He asked that the restoration of t= he wetland violation area measures (for lot 8-86-2) be shown on the subdivision plan (per the recommendation of Mr. Wood).= Mr. Gospodarek said it could be included on the plan. Mr. Yarmo asked if everything incl= uded in Mr. Wood’s letter would be included on the plan. Mr. Scanzani said Louis-Berger was= in agreement with the EIA, the modifications (made by the Board that enhanced = the long term protection of the natural resources) and the enhancement of the r= ain garden. Mr. Yarmo asked if the information was on the plan. = Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. Yarmo felt = the information regarding the two wetlands should be included. Mr. Culbert said the applicant sai= d the information would be added. <= /p>

Mr. Scanzani listed the items he felt would be conditions for approval: 1) subject to NHDES approval number; 2) addition of stop signs per the TEPP recommendation (in the traffic report); 3) note on = the plan NHDOT recommendation of by –pass shoulder on east side of Route = 38; 4) note that access to parcel for development would occur through state right-of-way (although it can’t be enforced)– if any access impacted Tina Avenue, Rita Avenue or Balcom Road the applicant will keep all roads clean and swept; 5) note per Mr. Zohdi’s conversation with the Board regarding the voluntary contribution for park and recreation. Mr. Zohdi had no objection to addi= ng a note, but wanted to know how it should be worded - $100,000 when plan signe= d, and the other $80,000 would be divided per lot with building permit. Mr. Scanzani said the note should indicate that the donation was in lieu of open space and subject to Board of Selectmen acceptance. Mr. Zoh= di said as soon as he received approval he would apply to the Selectmen. Mr. Scanzani said where the road c= ame in and abutted the Town parcel there should be something regarding restoration= of that area. He proposed either adding a guard rail or work with the Selectmen to slope the area. Mr. Zohdi showed the area being discussed and believed they could work to get a 3-1 slope or add a guard ra= il. Ms. Ouellette asked if the stumps = would be buried. Mr. Scanzani said = the decision would be up to the Selectmen.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said they had no objection and would work with the Selectm= en and the Building Inspector. 6= ) note on plan indicating that the applicant would work with the DES to clean up t= he abutting parcel discussed (DES approval number was subject to the parcel).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi had no objection. There was further discussion about= the parcel; it was noted that the applicant had no objection to deeding the par= cel to the Town (if accepted by Selectmen and cleared by DES). Mr. Zohdi said the NH Wetland Bure= au would review the property in February; all stumps will be located. He said when the property is clean= ed, and if the Selectmen agree to take the ten acres, he will have a deed for t= he ten acres (to the Town) when the plan is signed.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if a note should be a= dded to the sign regarding the rain garden signs. Mr. Zohdi said a note would be on = the plan.

Mr. Yarmo believed there was a previous agreem= ent for restoring the wetland buffer (that had been cleared during a previous operation) along lots 17, 18, 19 & 20 because there was less than 50-fe= et. After further discussion, Mr. Zohd= i said he would do similar plantings (along the 50-foot WCD buffer zone) as done at Discount Madness. Mr. Gospoda= rek asked that they be allowed to refer to Gove Environmental for a recommendat= ion regarding the type of plant. = The Board didn’t object.

Mr. McNamara asked if the letter submitted by Benchmark Engineering (on behalf of Mr. Pat Gendron) dated January 5, 2006 had been rea= d into the record as requested. It was n= oted that Mr. Scanzani had read the letter into the record at the last meeting.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

There was no public input.

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the plan subject to: 1) NHDES approval number being issues; 2) stop signs per TEPP; = 3) note on plan to place a by pass shoulder on Route 38 per NHDOT recommendati= on; 4) note access to parcel to be through state right-of-way – any access through Tina Avenue or Balcom Road to be minimal – roads to be mainta= ined (by sweeping or wetting down – whatever needs to be done) during construction; 5) voluntary contribution of $185,000 in lieu of open space ($100,000 when plan signed, $5000 per lot when building permits are issues) subject to the Board of Selectmen acceptance; 6) non-binding note indicating that the applicant will work with the Planning Director/Town Administrator/Selectmen for 3-1 slope or guard rail on Town owned parcel wh= ere road intersects under the power lines; 7) note regarding rain garden signage (and that it won’t be removed); 8) re-vegetate the 50-foot wetland Conservation District buffer on lots 8-86-17, 18, 19 & 20; and 9) note = that applicant would work with DES to clean up the abutting parcel. Ms. Bousa seconded the motion.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Bousa) To approve the plan subject to: 1) N= HDES approval number being issues; 2) stop signs per TEPP; 3) note on plan to place a by pass shoulder on Route 38 per NHDOT recommendation; 4) note ac= cess to parcel to be through state right-of-way – any access through Tin= a Avenue or Balcom Road to be minimal – roads to be maintained (by sweeping = or wetting down – whatever needs to be done) during construction; 5) voluntary contribution of $185,000 in lieu of open space ($100,000 when p= lan signed, $5000 per lot when building permits are issues) subject to the Bo= ard of Selectmen acceptance; 6) non-binding note indicating that the applicant will work with the Planning Director/Town Administrator/Selectmen for 3-1 slope or guard rail on Town owned parcel where road intersects under the power lines; 7) note regarding rain garden signage (and that it won’= ;t be removed); 8) re-vegetate the 50-foot wetland Conservation District buf= fer on lots 8-86-17, 18, 19 & 20; and 9) note that applicant would work w= ith DES to clean up the abutting parcel.&nbs= p;

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates met with the Board to discuss the plan.

Mr. Scanzani said at the last meeting the Board had requested an opinion from the Board’s Town Counsel on how to proc= eed since the Board of Adjustment had not granted a variance. He said a recommendation had been received. Mr. McNamara believ= ed if an approval was granted, the conditions (outlined by Counsel) should be add= ed to ensure that there was no zoning violation (when the plan was signed); if= the conditions are not met, the plan would not be signed. There were no objections. Mr. Scanzani said another issue wa= s open space and what would be done in lieu of such. He believed the Board had decided = that the issue would be addressed with a subsequent plan, not the proposed. He said the last issue to be discu= ssed was the Special Permit.

There was a brief discussion regarding the DES letter (containing conditions) and if the specific conditions should be lis= ted on the plan. Mr. Zohdi had no objection to adding the DES conditions to the plan. Mr. Scanzani said whatever happene= d in the NHDES approval process would probably change when the subsequent plan w= as brought forward because it would have to go back to DES for additional approvals. Mr. McNamara quest= ioned why the Board would approve all the conditions if they would change. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant wo= uld be allowed to become conforming with the second set of plans brought in. Mr. Yarmo asked why the Board was approving a four-lot subdivision with an 80,000SF WCD impact and a 9000SF wetlands impact when it was not going to be built. Mr. Scanzani noted that per the regulations the Board couldn’t create back-lots or land-lock parcels = as part of the approval process. He said the subdivision being proposed was brought forward in the proposed man= ner because the existing house had a zoning violation on it; in order to fix the ‘defect’ of the original parcel there had to be a process and sequencing that allowed the subdivision to be approved as such so a subsequ= ent plan could be brought before the Board.&nb= sp; There was further discussion regarding the impacts of the proposed p= lan and the subsequent plan. Mr. = Yarmo asked what restoration would be done and where. Mr. Gospodarek explained the resto= ration that would take place per the conditions of the DES approval. He said they worked with Gove Environmental who targeted the areas and advised how the vegetation could be restored. Mr. Yarmo noted tha= t the plan restored the wetlands previously violated by the logging operation, and there was no restoration for the loss of 9000SF of wetland and no mitigation for the 80,000SF of WCD.

Mr. Culbert asked what the total acreage was.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi said there were approxim= ately thirty-nine acres. Ms. Bousa = said the proposed was not a mitigation plan.&nb= sp; Mr. Yarmo said the dredge and fill application was for 9000SF of wet= land impact. Mr. Scanzani reviewed= the DES report. Mr. Yarmo said the mitigation was restoration of previous violations through test pits, logging etc. and didn’t restore the 9000SF that was being impacted and there = was no mitigation for 80,000SF being impacted.= Ms. Bousa agreed that it was not a mitigation of what the impacts of= the project would be, but rather a restoration of what was already violated in = the field. Mr. Scanzani said the = DES had reviewed two separated issues: 1) previous violations; and 2) permit application for the proposed subdivision.&= nbsp; He went on to review the two issues as outlined in the DES letters.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He asked the Board if they agreed = there were two separate issues. The= re was no comment.

Mr. Yarmo felt the proposed plan was excessive when there was an option available to allow reasonable use to the land. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that ther= e were thirty-four acres. Ms. Bousa = said it was the Board’s job to help applicants get through the Town’s process and meet the regulations. She counted seven waivers being requested and didn’t feel the applicant was entitled to the plan under the regulations. Mr. Zohdi said they were complying= with the laws regarding restoration. He said his client was doing everything they could to access his property with= minimum impacts to the wetland.

There was further discussion regarding the proposed plan. Mr. Scanzani a= sked what the chances were (on a subsequent plan) that the road was shortened and the remaining became a private driveway.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have a problem adding a note on the p= lan stating that lot 1-53-1 would be non-buildable, but wanted to reserve the r= ight to drill wells for drinking water. He said if the Board wanted 8000SF mitigation for the wetland, he wa= nted to ‘table’ the plan; but noted when he came back, the parcel wo= uld not be ‘non-buildable’. Mr. Yarmo said he was looking for minimum impact for the development= to allow the development. Mr. Sc= anzani discussed the parcel and how the wetland would be protected. He said it was the Board’s responsibility (per statute) to work with an applicant to meet the regulations. Mr. Yarmo believ= ed it could be feasible to get four or five houses on the parcel (with a private driveway) with much less of an impact.&nbs= p;

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, = 5 Sherburne Road was baffled that t= he plan was being considered based on what was said at the last meeting. She said she raised the question (= with the state) in October of how they could consider approval if they didn̵= 7;t have the final plan as to what the impacts would be to the environment. She shares the wetland with the applicant. She asked if the i= ssue of a shared driveway was addressed. Mr. Scanzani said the driveways would be separated with a small grass area between them. Ms. Balzot= ti was concerned with the percentage amount of impact to the wetlands. She said she wouldn’t be all= owed to impact her property by the same percent and felt it was an unfair advant= age for large landowners. She questioned if the abutters should have been re-notified since the plan had changed from five lots to four. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel that four homes would be built; when the plan ca= me back it would be three. He sa= id the Board didn’t re-notify abutters of changes unless a plan was denied a= nd the applicant submitted a new plan to the Board. Ms. Balzotti was concerned with the amount of land and the likelihood that there would be four houses. She said it appeared that the appl= icant was bypassing the need to have a safety and traffic study. Mr. Scanzani said if a subsequent = plan came forward with more than ten units would require a traffic study. Ms. Balzotti asked if studies woul= d be required if separate plans for five units at a time were submitted. Mr. Scanzani said it would not be requested at this time, but it would be the Board’s right if they chose. It was noted that an environmental study had nothing to do with the state, it was part of the Board’s regulations. Ms. Balzotti asked how work was being done in the right-of-way. Mr. Scanzani said the property wit= h the right-of-way was not in compliance with current zoning and part of the reas= on the Board was requiring the applicant to become compliant was the lot would= not have a house on it when the plan was finished. He said that was part of what had = to happen to sequence. He noted = that the violations were: 1) contiguous square feet; and 2) an addition (already= in existence) that was in the WCD. He said both of the violations would go away with the proposed plan and any subsequent plan. Ms. Balzotti= ended by discussing her concern with adding traffic to an already unsafe area. Mr. Scanzani said the subdivision = would be subject to (what the Board had done on all lots/approvals on Sherburne R= oad) paying their fair share for the exaction for the studies that needed to be = done to fix the intersection of Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road. He said per the state the intersec= tion was Class F (failed).

Mr. McNamara said the Board had a responsibili= ty to look out for the Town and the regulations and an obligation to follow the l= aw and facilitate applications to help developers (large and small). He said the Board had to have solid grounds on which to deny an application.&n= bsp; He said in this case, in terms of accessing the property, the applic= ant was saying that the plan had the least impact on the wetlands in order to r= each the high and dry area in the back. Ms. Balzotti asked if access from Veteran’s Memorial Park had = been considered. Mr. Culbert said = there was an ordinance that stated nothing could be done with the park. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposed. Ms. Balzotti fe= lt the impact of 75%-80% impact would be reason to deny.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the waivers and the spe= cial permit. He felt the Board nee= ded to carefully consider the procedural aspects regarding the non-conforming house per legal opinion and Town Counsel. Mr. McNamara read aloud the Town’s Zoning Ordinance 307-40 (Special Permit) and was unsure if a denial of the proposed could be defend= ed in court. Mr. Scanzani said different options were reviewed in connection with the access to the parcel= and didn’t see where else it could be accessed from. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposed plan. Ms. Bousa = reviewed Mr. Gowan’s pre-meeting packet and noted that he indicated there were three waivers: 1) shared driveway – this had been done away with; 2) = design standards; and 3) open space. Mr. Scanzani said he suggested that a note be added stating that the open space= be addressed by a subsequent plan. Ms. Bousa was not comfortable with the suggestion. Mr. Zohdi said he would be giving = six and a half acres to the Town but reserved the right to drill wells on it. It would be deeded to the Town wit= h an easement to drill wells. Mr. Scanzani reminded the Board that any donation of land had to be voted on by= the Selectmen.

Mr. Gowan arrived. He had been at a meeting regarding= the I93 widening (in Nashua).

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the Speci= al Permit. Mr. McNamara seconded the motion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani appointed Mr. Yarmo to vote in Ms. Medeiros’ absence.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the Special Permit (for wetland crossing).

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa and Mr. Yarmo voted no= .

Mr. Scanzani felt two conditions for approval should be: 1) the processing/sequencing of the project per Town CounselR= 17;s recommendation; 2) per Mr. Zohdi’s information that the (6.5 acre) pa= rcel would be deeded to the Town; and 3) NH DES requirements. Mr. McNamara read aloud the condit= ions precedent forwarded by Town Counsel (Jo= hn Rattigan) aloud: 1) residential use ceases prior to the Board’s final approval of the plan; 2) the applicant or the owner surrenders the Occupancy Permit for the residential lot; and 3) the approval is conditioned on the f= act that no residential use of this lot could resume unless it is in conjunction with an elderly use site plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan subje= ct to the conditions precedent as follows: 1) residential use (of lot 1-53-1) ceases prior to the Board’s final approval of the plan; 2) the applicant or the owner surrenders the Occupancy Permit for the residential lot; and 3) the approval is conditioned on the fact that no residential u= se of this lot could resume unless it is in conjunction with an elderly use = site plan reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. Approval is also conditioned upo= n: 4) plan must meet all Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’= ;) wetland permit conditions, restoration plan and reference must be placed = on the plan (DES wetland and non-site specific permit #2005-01149 – approval date 12/05/2005 containing twenty-two conditions; DES letter of December 5, 2005 containing eight findings; DES restoration plan December= 2, 2005). Note to be placed on= the plan open space donation of 6.5 acres of land with possible easement for = the drilling of wells. Applican= t will also pay their fair share toward the Sherburne Road study (Mr. Zohdi a= nd his client understood that any subsequent plan would require an additional contribution toward the study).

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa and Mr. Yarmo voted no= .

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

Mr. Paul Turbide, Ford Engineering Associates = Inc. met with the Board to discuss the proposed expansion. He said they had reviewed the plan= with the Town’s engineer (Dufresne-Henry) and went on to provide the Board with revised plan copies. He = showed the Board a plan that depicted the site as it currently was with comparison= to the plan depicting the proposed expansion.= He discussed the parking areas, traffic lanes and traffic flow. He said there were a couple trees = along the Bridge Street corridor that were proposed to be trimmed/removed which would require DOT approval. Mr. Turbide reviewe= d some of the comments/concerns of Dufresne-Henry specifically in connection with = the drainage information and the proposed system. He said the wetland buffer would f= ilter the drainage before it impacted Beaver Brook.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the siltation barrier co= uld be moved up the hill closer to where the construction would occur. He said there appeared to be some Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) impact as part of construction and wanted to know if there was a way to maintain the entire vegetation and not impact the WCD by pulling the siltation back. Mr. Turbide said there was one are= a of impact within the 50-foot offset (of the brook) where a graded slope was proposed; if the impact was deemed significant they would proposed to retre= at it back toward the parking area with a gravity block retaining wall which w= ould allow the siltation to be put back toward construction. He discussed the grading of the si= te which would allow the proposed tree line to be maintained. He said they were trying to minimi= ze the impact. Mr. Scanzani asked if= , at the lowest point of the back parking lot (far corner closest to Rt. 38), a couple of catch basins could be added for additional treatment and minimiza= tion of drainage flow into Beaver Brook. Mr. Turbide said a ‘leaching catch basin’ would probably work. Mr. Yarmo felt a draina= ge catch basin would push flow out at a faster rate versus allowing the flow to drain naturally across the site. Mr. Turbide discussed the options.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said he was suggesting that the north side near Beaver Brook remain as proposed (undisturbed with sheet drainage); the suggestion = was for a cape cod berm in a portion of the back area being developed. Mr. Culbert preferred to leave the= sheet drainage. Mr. Scanzani said if there was a way to mitigate the down-stream impact, he wanted Dufresne-Henr= y to review. Mr. Gowan said Dufresne-Henry didn’t have the opportunity to review yet and suggested allowing them to review and provide comment back to the Board. The Board agreed.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the proposed area betwe= en the parking spaces and the sidewalk was adequate. Ms. Bousa said she previously brou= ght that point up and would like to see a turning template for it. Mr. Turbide said the opening was eighteen feet and believed in a typical scenario a car would be able to back out and maneuver. Ms. Ouellet= te was concerned about a driver backing out of the parking space at the same time a driver was passing through the lane. Mr. Turbide believed it was adequate and noted that traffic would on= ly be coming from one direction.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there was a proposed lighting design since a couple lamp posts were shown on the plan. Mr. Turbide said there was existing lighting on the site, but they would provide.

Ms. Bousa noted that of the six trees to be removed, five appeared to be within the DOT right-of-way. She wanted to know the caliper of = the trees and potentially the replacement (mitigation) of such, if DOT allows t= heir removal. Mr. McNamara said he= was opposed to the removal of the trees if the purpose of such was for the bank= to be more visible.

Ms. Bousa asked if the plan had been reviewed = by the Safety Committee. Mr. Gow= an said the plan would be reviewed. Ms. Bousa said she would be interested if there was an accident hist= ory that should be addressed. She= ended by asking when they were looking to do the construction; she was concerned = for doing construction in early spring due to flooding.

Mr. McNamara asked what the width of the paved island would be. Mr. Turbide = said it was approximately five feet. Mr. McNamara asked if consideration had been given to doing plantings within it= to break up the lanes and give a better visual look. Mr. Turbide said the most they cou= ld do would be two or three shrubs, however, there may be problems with snow plow= ing.

Mr. Scanzani said he wanted Dufresne-Henry and= the applicant to review the safety of the entrance way as well as the drainage = in that area (coming down onto Old Bridge Street). He discussed the plantings and wan= ted them reviewed for sight distance due to safety.

There was no public input.

Mr. Scanzani said the latest submission of the plan would be submitted to Dufresne-Henry for review/comment and possible options regarding the drainage.

The plan was date specified to the February 23, 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 =

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said there was a course that was wrong on the previous plan given to the Board; they have since sent a crew, located an iron pipe (on lot 10-350-2) and corrected the plan. He said the remaining lots would s= tay the same. Mr. Gospodarek said= at the last meeting concerns were brought up regarding how drainage would be handled. He said they had don= e an existing analysis (based on a fifty-year storm event) and proposed three separate sub-catchment areas. He said they found a drainage increase of approximately 5% between the existing and the proposed; therefore they had chosen to manipulate the land to ‘take up’ the water and put up a wooded area.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had been concerned with the drainage pipe on the corner lot (on Peabody) and wanted to know how it had = been addressed. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d they addressed it by making sure there was not an increase in the flow to the culvert. Mr. Zohdi said he had requested that Mr. Gowan and Highway Road Agent Don Foss review the site wi= th him (but had not yet done so). He recalled (from the Cara Estates project) that there was not an excessive drainage problem existing on Currier Road. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara asked if Dufresne-Henry had reviewed. Mr. Gowan said if t= he Board wanted engineering review, he believed the applicant would be fine wi= th the request.

Mr. Scanzani said when the original plan for C= ara Estates was approved, the culvert (going across Island Pond Road) was misse= d; subsequently there were long discussions regarding the concern of the drain= age, erosion of property and flow to Dutton Road. He felt the Board needed to addres= s how the flow could be slowed down and how to protect the siltation at the wetla= nd on the bottom of Dutton Ro= ad; part of which dealt with the corner lot that was not being addressed in the proposed plan. He said when C= ara Estates was approved, one of the things the Board discussed was when the current parcel came in for development the Board would address the drainage= issues. Mr. Culbert asked if there was a l= arge retention pond at Cara Estates and if it was a buildable lot. It was noted that the lot on Cara Estates contained a retention pond, but it was not known if the lot was buildable. Mr. Culbert asked = if something could be done with the large lot to understand the drainage when = that lot was developed. The pre- a= nd post- calculations were included in the plan. Mr. Yarmo said he wanted Dufresne-= Henry to review. There was further discussion regarding what the Board would like to have done regarding drain= age as well as providing a conceptual plan for the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Zohdi said they would like Mr.= Gowan the Town’s engineer and the Road Agent to review the area and see if there was a problem or a negative impact on the existing condition. He said they could come back at th= e next meeting with the information.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was any part of the parcel that went onto Route 38. Mr. Zohdi said they had a right-of-way onto Route 38 through the commercial par= t of the parcel; the parcel went from residential to commercial. Mr. Scanzani asked how deep the pa= rcel was commercial from Route 38. Mr. Zohdi said he would have the information at the next meeting. Mr. Gowan said based on the review= of the site, it may be warranted to have a site walk. Mr. Scanzani noted that the applic= ant also owned lot 1= 0-3-12.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Paul Diamantopaoulos, 11 Peabody Lane, questioned the type vegetation that was proposed and who would be responsible for it. Mr. Scanzani said it was expected = to be pine trees and plantings that would absorb water coming off the hill. Mr. Diamantopaoulos said there was currently growth along Cur= rier Road that couldn’t sustain itself due to= the large amount of water, which was a problem. He didn’t feel that the prop= osed vegetation would take care of the situation. Mr. Scanzani believed the vegetati= on of natural occurrence would probably come out with grading and driveways. He noted that part of the water co= ming onto Currier Road was not just coming off the proposed lots, but also from the lots behind th= em (from the peak). He said the applicant was proposing to stop the water coming from the peak before it go= t to the road by planting a treed buffer (approximately 100feet). Mr. Diamantopaoulos wanted to know= where the right to left flow would be reverted to. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant= 217;s drainage plan indicated that there would be no more water at the base of the plan (corner of Peabody) than what was currently there; the Town’s engineer was still to verify. Mr. Diamantopaoulos a= sked if the applicant would show any drainage on the conceptual plan for the remaining parcel. Mr. Scanzan= i said the conceptual plan would only show road connectivity. Mr. Diamantopaoulos said the water problems should be dealt with before the proposed subdivision was done. Mr. Scanzani said the problems the= Board was trying to solve was the flow of the water from the proposed lot across = lot 7-60-4 and further down to Dutton Road. He said if there were water problems on Peabody Lane, there was nothing on = the proposed plan or a subsequent plan that would aid it. He said with any subsequent plan t= he flow would not change from pre- to post-development. Mr. Diamantopaoulos wanted clarifi= cation of where the water would flow and didn’t want a problem with such. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant wo= uld have to follow the regulations. He said if a conceptual plan came forward the applicant would not be required = to have detailed drainage. Mr. G= owan said a conceptual plan would show a little more than road connectivity; it would show potentially how many lots there could be.

Ms. Denise Snelders, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">24 Loretta Avenue asked when the dr= ainage was checked in the field. Mr. Scanzani noted that the Town’s engineer had not yet reviewed the plan (i.e. drainage). He said the = soil types would determine the size of the lots and whether they were buildable.= He discussed some of the requireme= nts for lots/land contained in the regulations. He noted that the proposed lots we= re on Currier Road; there was nothing proposed for P= eabody Lane. Ms. Snelders wanted the Board to address the water problems now, rat= her than after additional houses were built.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said to be able to get to the point of calculating drainage/runoff there would have to be a design that was specific. He didn’t believe that the B= oard had ever asked an applicant to go that far on a parcel they were not bringing f= orth for development. He said the = Board had requested a conceptual to give a view of what they were doing. Ms. Snelders asked if a stipulation could be added for the applicant to be responsible if they came forward at a later time with additional lots. Mr. Scanzani said the Board was controlled by state statutes. He said if there was a drainage pr= oblem on Peabody Lane, the applicant was not responsible to fix that problem as part of a subdivis= ion plan (for six lots) on Cur= rier Road. <= /span>He said at the time the applicant brings forth a detailed plan for any of the = back parcel the Board (and the Town’s engineer) would look at pre- and post-development for drainage. He wanted it clear that the Board, at this time was only reviewing the drainage on/across Currier Road down to the lower end of D= utton Road. <= /span>

Mr. Bob Montbleu, 9 Peabody Lane understood that the applicant was not responsible for the drainage on <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Peabody Lane, but wanted the Board = to review the effects to the surrounding properties. Mr. Scanzani said the water going = to the Route 38 side of the hill would be caught by state drainage/catch basins do= wn to Beaver Brook. He said when= a specific plan came forward the Board and the Town’s engineer would review. Mr. Montbleu said developing the parcel with a few lots at a time wouldn’t address the concern of the drainage for the entire parcel. The drainage was discussed; Mr. Sc= anzani said there were many ways that drainage could be addressed. Mr. Montbleu asked what the rules = were for building next the Tennessee Gas easement area. Mr. Scanzani said the gas line was nothing more than an easement across property.

Ms. Kim Jewett, 4 Peabody Lane said the time to wal= k the site was in the spring; at that time water goes across Currier Road, not into the drain. She also noted in the winter when = the water flowed and froze at the end of Peabody Lane it was dangerous because vehicles could n= ot stop. She asked who was respo= nsible for the drainage that came from the field.= Mr. Scanzani said if water was going across the road, there may be a catch basin that had to be maintained by the Town. He said it could be reviewed. Mr. Gowan said the Road Agent was = aware of drainage problems throughout the Town.&= nbsp; He said the abutters would be welcome during the Board’s site walk. Ms. Jewett wanted to kn= ow what would stop water from pooling on the field if trees were planted. She didn’t feel that a reten= tion pond was an acceptable solution because of mosquito born diseases. Mr. Scanzani said the plan didn= 217;t show a retention pond. Ms. Je= wett believed everyone was frustrated with the water situation and felt it neede= d to be addressed.

Mr. Kurt Bucchio, 37 Currier Road wanted the Board to= view the site when it was raining so the drainage could be accurately reviewed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani believed the plan should be sent = to the Town’s engineer. He understood that Mr. Gowan would like the Board to walk the site after he had the opportunity to review with the Road Agent and the Town’s engineer.

The p= lan was date specified to the February 6, 2006 meeting. =

DISCUSSION

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-191 DHB Homes – Preliminary Consultati= on and Review of proposed multi unit elderly housing development of an 18-acre par= cel located off Ballard Road

Mr. Scanzani informed that the discussion was = date specified to the = February 6, 2006 meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phylis / Ivers, Timothy – 96 Windham Road – Applicant is seeking a Waiver of Section 10.03(B)

Mr. Scanzani informed that the waiver request had been withdrawn. &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp;

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

= November 7, 2005=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Culbert) To approve the November 7, 2005 minutes a= s amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

= November 21, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the November 21, 2005 minutes= as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(4-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert and Mr. Yarmo abstained.

= December 5, 2005=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the December 5, 2005 minutes a= s amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert abstained.

= December 15, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the December 15, 2005 minutes= as written. <= /p>

VOTE:

(4-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert and Ms. Bousa abstained.

= December 19, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Culbert) To approve the December 19, 2005 minutes= as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Yarmo abstained.

= January 5, 2006=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Culbert) To approve the January 5, 2006 minutes as= amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Ouellette abstained.

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS:

February 6, 2006

Map 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Cur= rier Road, Peabody= Lane & Rte 38 Bridge Street= – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision

Map 24 Lot = 12-191 DHB Homes – Preliminary Consultation and Review of proposed multi uni= t elderly housing development of an 18-acre parcel located off Ballard Road

February 23, 2006

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

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:05 am.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

Charity A= . L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary