PB Minutes 03-20-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 20, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:3= 0 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Ken Dunne, Planning Direc= tor Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Alternate Bob Yarmo, Se= lectmen Representative Victor Danevich

Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Board and Board= of Adjustment were seeking members; anyone interested should fill out a Volunt= eer Form and submit to the Selectmen’s Office.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the agenda and made note= of the cases that would be continued to subsequent meetings.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian, Kenneth & Jane – Sherburne Road – Preliminary Discussion of Proposed Senior Housing Complex

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

Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco & Cormier presented= the plan to the Board. He said th= e plan was a continuation of what was presented last summer; Mr. Magarian had been diligently working through the different processes. An architect had been hired to rev= iew the project and the development has been reworked to be more in tune with w= hat the Board was looking for. Mr= . Roy said the footprints are larger and they tried to create a village feel (mor= e upscale) by having similar buildings (unified look). Following the Board’s recommendation they have tried to work through the studies (e.g. traffic, s= oil testing, wetlands, HISS, subsurface disposal). It was being reviewed to provide w= ater; the next step was to drill the well and test. The hydro-geologic and Environment= al Impact Study (‘EIA’) were in the process of being completed and would be finalized once the final configuration of the project was completed.

Mr. Roy provided the Board with a copy of the = new layout and reviewed such with the Board.&n= bsp; There would be one main access to the property from Sherburne Road which would require = a curb cut (driveway permit) from the state. They were still proposing a two-lot subdivision with the lot line running straight down the wetland bisecting such. The total number of units was redu= ced from 70 down to 50 units and would be mainly single family with some duplex= (31 single family / 18 duplexes). The units would be between 1400SF to 2000SF.&n= bsp; The larger two-family units will have a two-car garage the others wi= ll have a single car garage. The= road configuration will remain essentially the same having a 1200-foot cul-de-sac running toward the West; the main loop is approximately 1100-feet deep to t= he back of the cul-de-sac. The utilities would also remain essentially the same; a community water system = was being reviewed. They were pro= posing a centralized sewage treatment plant working with a company to provide a product that would provide a greater treatment in a smaller package; the le= ach fields could be reduced by 25% and also with a smaller bed size they could = put a product called D-nite which would reduce the nitrate loading and improve = the water quality coming out of the system.&nb= sp; The open space remains the same (there are no individual lots); all = of the land around the units will be common (shared) land. 80% of the lot remains as open space. Passive recreation is encouraged and a club house/meeting room is provided, but the majority of recreation will be passive (e.g. walking trails).

Mr. Roy said they were aware of the wording of Article #4 (Zoning Ordinance that passed during Town Meeting March 14, 2006= ) and wanted to know how it would affect 55+ plans such as the proposed. They also wanted input regarding h= ow the review and procedural process would be with the new ordinance. Mr. Scanzani said the zoning change dealt with a conflict in the regulations relative to the way the Board revi= ewed 55+ housing under both subdivision and site review. He said from now on, 55+ would onl= y be looked at through the subdivision regulations.

Mr. Roy discussed the potential waivers that w= ould be requested. The roadway (pr= oposed private road) under the subdivision regulations required a 50-foot right-of= -way the applicant wanted to know if the elements would be waived or if guidelines/techniques would be developed.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said the Board would consider the roadway to be a priva= te driveway, not a Town road, which would give the Board leeway regarding the width. Mr. Roy asked if a wai= ver would need to be filed. Mr. G= owan answered yes.

Mr. McNamara questioned if a variance would be requested for 307-51 (Elderly Housing Zoning) which states no one complex m= ay contain in excess of 40 dwelling units.&nb= sp; Mr. Roy answered no. H= e said they were subdividing the parcel into two lots; one lot would contain 11 un= its, the other would contain 39 units. He said they would both be treated as the same condominium, but woul= d be two lots as permitted under the zoning.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked if services would be duplicated on each lot. Mr. Roy answered no; both lots wou= ld be contained within the same home owner’s association and have the same rights to both parcels. Mr. McNamara said he would have a problem with that suggestion until the Board obtained legal clarification. He believed a variance was needed because it was one complex. Ms. Bousa noted that there was one driveway and it was one development.

Ms. Bousa noted that the ratio of parking spac= es was almost 4 to 1 per unit, which seemed to be extremely high for the devel= opment. Mr. Roy said part of the spaces ca= me from having two-car garages with two parking spaces in front of each. It had been their experience to ex= ceed the normal 2 to 1 parking for guests.

Mr. McNamara asked for an explanation of the waiver request to Section 11.05,a,1,b - proximity of driveways to intersect= ions reduced from 100feet to zero. Mr. Roy said this would be a private road more than 100 feet from the Sherburne Road intersection, however internally the driveways were at, or around the intersection. Mr. McNamara al= so questioned the waiver for 11.11,b – water well radius which extended = into an adjacent parcel in Massach= usetts (with the same owner). Mr. Ro= y said they were showing the secondary area as a ‘stand-by’ area; when= the wells are drilled and tested if there was adequate yield at the first well<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> site, there would be a second well= and pump installed in the same general area; if the yield is lower, they would = move to the alternate site. Mr. Mc= Namara said the Board had problems in the past with people coming in and asking for easements on well radii; no one had ever come in requesting one that went o= ver a state line. Mr. Roy underst= ood they would have to work something out with the state and reiterated that the landowner owned the land and would grant an easement. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = have to find out Massachusetts regulations. Mr. Gowan said b= ecause the plan was brought in as two separate lots, the other primary well would = have to be entirely within parcel b.

Mr. Dunne questioned why the street pavement w= ould be reduced from 26-feet to 24-feet. Mr. Roy said they were looking to have a narrower road and bring the sidewalk in closer scaling down to give a village feel. He said it would be more than adeq= uate for two-way traffic and emergency access.&= nbsp; Mr. Dunne questioned why they proposed a ‘T’ instead of a turnaround. Mr. Roy said it w= ould be a low traffic dead-end street and felt it was adequate for the number of units. Mr. Scanzani said the = Board would probably rely on the Fire Chief for direction as to whether or not he could turn a fire truck around and for cistern locations.

Mr. Gowan asked for explanation (for the Board) about the pump house being moved because it would require a wetland crossing. Mr. Roy said they w= ere working with Louis Company (Litchfield) on the water system design; everyth= ing hinged on the pump test yield. He said the second well location was an alternate and they would like to avoid= the wetland crossing, if they had to go in that location there would be a small access for maintenance. He sa= id in all likelihood they would like to move the pump house (8’x10’sh= ed) closer to the development if not eliminate it completely; all of this had to wait until the final design. = Mr. Gowan said there also appeared to be wetland and Wetland Conservation Distr= ict (‘WCD’) crossings/encroachments and wanted to know if anything = had been considered (pervious pavement) for those areas. Mr. Roy said they were open to the Board’s ideas on pervious pavement, but had some issues with winter maintenance on a lot of elements that were available. He discussed some of the possibilities. Mr. Gowan said= Mr. Gildersleeve (Cuoco & Cormier) met with the Fire Chief to discuss access for Fire Department apparatus and the options for cisterns and/or sprinkling systems for the units. He didn’t see cistern locations on the plan. Mr. Roy said they met with Fire Inspector John Hodge and were still discussing the issues; it depended on w= hat came from the water system. H= e said if the decision was to have cisterns, there was adequate room near the road; they would be buried, just the dry hydrant would show on the surface. Mr. Roy said there was some discus= sion regarding emergency access, but it was not resolved. He said it seemed the Fire Departm= ent was looking for input from the Board. He said to get out to the subdivision to the East (Litchfield Circle Ext.) a paper street had been left and they would have to go through a wetland. He said the developer would like to try to limit the traffic through the site and didn’t fe= el it was necessary. He said if = it became necessary, they would like to review a 14-foot access possibly gated= so as to not promote through traffic. <= /span>Mr. Gowan said another discussion was the access to the buildings on three-sides and asked if grassed pavers had been considered. Mr. Roy was unsure if the Board wa= nted grass-crete because a lot of concrete would be visible. He said there were other alternati= ves (e.g. plastic grid). He said = they were open to discussion and understood that they had to meet further with t= he Fire Department.

Mr. Scanzani said (during preliminary discussi= on) the Board couldn’t discuss whether or not they would accept waivers b= ut believed the Board would entertain reducing the scale of the plan. He believed the Board would work w= ith the applicant regarding the driveway issues. There was further discussion regar= ding the possible waivers to be requested.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Gowan reviewed the p= lan to determine if it met the open space requirements. Mr. Gowan said he had been assured= by the engineer that they had met it, but wanted to have an explanation of how (for the Board). Mr. Roy disc= ussed open space and said the amount of development would equal 20%; 80% would re= main open. It was understood that = there were wetlands in and around t= he open spaces but they had the 50-buffer around them that was dry. Mr. Scanzani asked if the 80% incl= uded the road. Mr. Roy said the ro= ad and the houses were taken out. Mr= . McNamara said when the plan came back to the Board, they would need the calculation. Mr. Roy said the= y had four acres of wetlands, 22 acres of dry.&n= bsp;

Mr. Culbert asked how much of parcel B was considered open. Mr. Roy said parcel B was just over 8 acres dry; parcel A was just over 18 acres dry. He said there was considerably more development on parcel A and was more than confident they were well in exces= s of 70%. Mr. Culbert said parcel B appeared to be busy and wanted to see the calculation. He questioned if they wanted one w= ell with a provision for a second well. Mr. Roy said they were proposing one community water system. As a requirement of the system (be= cause of the size) the applicant was requesting two wells (one being a backup). The location of the wells will dep= end on the pump test and the yield. = If there is a high yield, both wells will be in the same general area, if ther= e is a low yield, the alternate site or the secondary well will be used. Mr. Culbert understood that a well= would be needed for each parcel. Mr= . Roy said they would go for a variance if that was the interpretation. The applicant wanted the project t= o be under one master control (shared resources) so it would be cost effective f= or the residents. Mr. Culbert questioned why not keep one lot. Mr. Roy said zoning allows up to 40 units per lot and the lot must b= e 5 acres dry; also, during the process they had been told/encouraged to subdiv= ide the parcel. He said in subdiv= iding, the percentage of units was able to be built up and reduce the overall burd= en of utilities on the homeowners. He said if it was cut into two subdivisions, he would need four wells. Mr. Culbert confirmed that for den= sity consideration the applicant wanted two lots, but for all other consideratio= ns they would treat it as one lot. Mr. Roy said it would be treated as a common homeowner’s association shar= ing the responsibility/cost for services; under the zoning regulations it is st= ill a two-lot subdivision. Mr. Bo= usa said it appeared they were looking to draw a line down the middle of the property to cheat zoning and get ten more lots. Mr. Roy said they were encouraged = by the previous Planning Director to do so because it was permitted. He said if the Board had a problem= with such he would seek the opinion of the Zoning Administrator and if necessary, request a variance. Mr. McNam= ara said it seemed that the applicant couldn’t have it both ways, either = it is one parcel (one entire development), or its two parcel (two separate developments).

Mr. Gowan, being the Zoning Administrator, believed that the way the ordinance established density was having forty-un= its per lot. He felt the applicant should propose/design for meeting zoning on each lot individually and reque= st variances on those items that couldn’t be designed around.

Mr. Culbert wanted additional information regarding the sewage. Mr. Roy= said the company providing the system was Septi-tech. The system is essentially an on-si= te treatment system, a licensed operator is required to operate the system and perform routine maintenance. The syst= em relies on pumps to transport material and push it through the system. The beds only have to be 25% the s= ize of a normal septic system because there was no treatment, it’s just to g= et the water back into the ground. Mr. Roy said the state treated the system like a conventional septic system permitted by waiver. He said = one of the systems had a fairly large nitrate setback under the conventional requirements; they will use a technology called D-Nite that will go under t= he beds, reacts with the effluent and reduces the nitrates that leach into the ground. Mr. Culbert said he w= ould be in favor of a second access as well as three-sided access to the dwellin= gs (unless the Fire Chief says he doesn’t need them). He said he wanted to make sure the= Fire Chief was okay with the ‘T’ so emergency vehicles were able to = turn around.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Janet Urban, Sherburne Road wanted to know how c= lose the proposed units would be to her lot.&nb= sp; She was concerned with her property value decreasing. She noted that there were current = water problems in the area and believed that the proposed would make it worse. She read aloud a prepared statement which outlined her reasons for not being in favor of the proposed plan. In summary the concerns she had we= re: 1) water flow; 2) increased traffic; 3) wetland/groundwater contamination due = to increased cars; 4) wildlife and 5) not enough parking for complex. Mr. Scanzani said the Board antici= pated that the subdivision would pay its fair share for the study that needed to = be done on both ends of Sherb= urne Road. Ms. Urban will provide the Board with a copy of her prepared statement.

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road said she wasn’t aware of the project until a couple days ago. She wanted to know if some of the = land abutted into Hudson and Tyngsboro. Mr. Gowan said it was very near both. He said as a courtesy if the plan = came back as a formal application they would be notified. Ms. Burton questioned if the abutt= ers from the other towns had been notified.&nb= sp; Ms. Ouellette said the abutters in Hudson were notified. Ms. Burton sai= d she was interested in the traffic study. She believed the additional traffic would make the Sherburne Road intersections more dangerous than they currently were. She said she was also concerned about what the environmental study w= ould reveal. She said the area had= a wildlife corridor because there were different species there. Mr. Scanzani said the Sherburne Road intersection was approximately 800ft.-1000ft. from the proposed access. Ms. Burton noted historically, a l= ot of private roads eventually became public and provisions should be put into pl= ace.

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, = Sherburne Road, wanted to know what= the results were from the traffic study. Mr. Scanzani said the Board had not yet seen the study because the proposed was still preliminary. He said it would be submitted with the formal plan submission. Ms. Balzotti discussed the traffic volume was noted by NRPC on the Hudson side, and felt the Sherburne/Mammoth intersection should be reviewed becaus= e it is the busiest in Town. Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Board was in the process of putting together an = RFP through the Planning Director to study both intersections. Ms. Balzotti had concerns with the increased traffic based on the proposed as well as other proposed developme= nt on Sherburne Road.

Mr. David Silva, 120 Sherburne Road, had a major con= cern regarding the location of the proposed well because his well was located in= the front of his property and he currently had low water pressure. He wanted to know what recourse he= had when his well dried up. He sa= id prior to him purchasing his home the well was dug down approximately 800feet. He said he wanted to= see the exact placement for the wells and the cisterns. Mr. Silva liked his view and was n= ot happy with a 2-story building being constructed across from his house. He said it had been stated that th= ere was 400-foot sight distance on Sherburne Road, however, he disagreed and would measure = the distance himself. He was conc= erned with the added traffic to the current traffic problem. Mr. Silva also wanted to know wher= e the septic system would be placed. He wanted to better understand what open space meant compared to having the ar= ea treed. He agreed that the 4 ratio for par= king was steep. He asked how many = units would have 2-car garages. Mr. Scanzani said the Board was reviewing a preliminary plan and the applicant = had the right make modifications prior to submitting a final plan. Mr. Roy showed Mr. Silva the locat= ion of the currently proposed well. = Mr. Silva reiterated his concerns and pointed out that there were other proposed developments for the area.

Mr. John Clement, 125 Sherburne Road, said he was con= cerned with property values and what would happen to his well. He said the proposed appeared to be close to his property/house. = Mr. Scanzani said the Board would have to look at the water draw once the flow testing was done. Mr. Clement= said his well was put in at 650-feet and he got approximately 1.5 gallons per minute.

Ms. Janet Urban didn’t feel her question= was answered regarding the number of units that would be located along the bord= er of her property, which she felt would depreciate the value of her lot. Mr. Gowan explained that the plan = was still preliminary and the location could still move. He noted if the project were to co= me in as a conventional development there could still be a number of housing lots constructed. Ms. Urban said t= here was a lot of wildlife in the area that wouldn’t have anyplace to go.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She felt the proposed was a bad idea.

Mr. Culbert asked if the applicant was going to drill a well to see what they could get for a flow. Mr. Roy answered yes. Mr. Culbert asked if the flow coul= d be tested at peak times. Mr. Roy= said the test was normalized over a period of time.

Mr. Silva asked what recourse he had when his = well dried up. Mr. Scanzani said it would be a private matter and the applicant had the right to the water aqui= fer under his property. Mr. Culbe= rt said Mr. Silva had the right to have his well flow certified and if after t= he development went in and there was a major difference, it would be a civil matter.

Mr. Scanzani said the next step was for the applicant to submit a completed application and once it was accepted it wou= ld need to be submitted to the Town’s engineer for review. He said a traffic study and Environ= mental Impact Analysis would also be needed.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 2 Lot 5-57 Tynco Realty, LLC &#= 8211; 409 Mammoth Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Tim Levell of Levell Associates, represent= ing Tynco Realty, met with the Board to provide an update. He said the proposal had been revi= sed to be a 2-lot subdivision; one lot (to the south) will need a variance for fro= ntage (has 126.10feet). He said the reason the lot to the south was chosen to have shorter frontage was because= a shared driveway was needed per the state.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the state required a shared driveway. Mr. Levell answered yes. Mr. Gowan said the driveway locati= on of the existing house would provide the best sight distance. He said the applicant understood w= ith this layout a variance would need to be requested for the short frontage. He said if a variance was granted = the applicant would need to seek a waiver for the shared driveway.

Mr. Culbert asked if the applicant had been to= the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Gowan answered no. The Board was not asked to take any action at this time other than to continue the plan. Mr. Culbert asked if the house for= lot one on lot two. Mr. Levell sa= id the house shown on the plan would be razed; there would be two new dwellings th= at would meet all setbacks.

There was no public input.

The plan was date specified to the April 17, 2006 = meeting.

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. Scanzani said the propose= d plan had been before the Board for awhile. The Board was waiting for the environmental engineers to meet and re= turn comments to the Board.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis of Gottesman & Hol= lis (Nashua NH), representing the applicants provided the Board with a brief history of the site. He said the plan was ap= proved by the Board last year and since that time there had been two Town Meetings where there had been zoning amendments relating to the site. He said they were asking approval = of the original plan; the bedroom size had not been increased. They intend to comply with all of = the conditions from the 2005 amendments with respect to open areas and the declarations and covenants that need to be prepared. Attorney DeCarolis noted again tha= t the plan had been approved over a year ago and said the abutters appealed the c= ase to Superior Court, the Superior Court remanded the case to the Board for the applicant to request certain waivers of the Site Plan requirements. He said with the amendment at Town Meeting (March 1= 4, 2006) he wasn’t sure if it was necessary, but they asked the Board to vote = on the waivers. Also, since the = plan was last before the Board, the applicant and their engineers were asked to = sit down with Mr. Jim Gove (Gove Environmental) and Town’s Engineer (Loui= s-Berger) with respect to the landscaping and design issues (a copy of the report had been provided to the Board from Louis-Berger). He said the applicant was requesti= ng final approval, reconfirming the approval issued over a year ago.

Attorney DeCarolis said in February, 2005 he drafted a conservation easement to preserve the northerly section of the property. He said they had of= fered to restrict the property and have no further development or building on the site. In order to ensure such= , the easement would need to be recorded. He said a declaration of the property was drafted and sent to the To= wn over a year ago; there will be some changes in light of the zoning amendmen= ts. The applicant asked for approval conditioned upon any documents necessary for preserving the conservation la= nd (easements) required under RSA 307-53,2 be reviewed by Town Counsel at the applicant’s expense. At= torney DeCarolis said he would draft the documents and send to the Town for review= .

Attorney DeCarolis believed they were in compliance with the revised ordinance since the project was last approved.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The northerly portion of the prope= rty will be preserved basically (other than an alternative leach field location= ) in its natural state. There may = also be walking trails and possibly a small gardening area. He said there was adequate green a= rea to comply with the ordinance. The waivers for wetlands and/or Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’= ;) are relatively minor.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the Site Plan waivers previously submitted and the areas they were being requested for:

1. = Section 248-31,c - setback from 50-foot buffer zone

2. = Section 248-34,c – drainage

3. = Section 248-35,c – landscaping

4. = Section 248-49 – wetlands (NH Wetland Bureau has approved the dredge and fill permit)

5. = Section 248-40, a – fire prevention and protection (Fire Chief has approved/signed the plan)

6. = Section 248-41,e – sewage disposal system.&n= bsp; (NH DES and Town Health Ordinance requires sewer line to be 10ft from property line)

Mr. Scanzani asked for the Board’s direc= tion regarding the proposal for pervious asphalt. Mr. Gowan said another thing for t= he Board to consider was planting in a swale.= Mr. Zohdi said he had a discussion with Mike Gospodarek (Herbert Associates), Mr. Gowan, Mr. Gove and the Town’s consultant regarding pervious pavement and what would need to be done. Some areas it couldn’t be done. Mr. Scanzani said there= had to be some procedure put in place to ensure that the pervious surface would= be maintained. Mr. Culbert asked= what the advantage was to have pervious versus impervious asphalt. Mr. Scanzani said the water, in so= me sections, would go through the road instead of run off. Mr. Gowan said the changes to the = plan indicated pervious pavement in the areas where the road crossed wetland and WCD. He said it was a new app= roach to mitigate the problems non-pervious pavement had. Mr. Scanzani said there was no his= tory, but reiterated there would have to be a procedure in place. Mr. Culbert asked if the pervious = pavement was used anywhere else. Mr. Z= ohdi didn’t know of other areas using it.= Mr. Gowan said this was not proposed to be a Town road, so if it fai= led, it would have to be replaced. He said as a condition of approval a maintenance schedule (and liability) coul= d be identified to continually correct any problems. Mr. Culbert said he wanted to put = a time limit and have the Highway Road Agent inspect, so if it was not holding up = it could be replaced. Attorney D= eCarolis said they could include a maintenance schedule in the covenants (to be revi= ewed by Town Counsel).

Mr. Zohdi discussed the plantings. He said the location of the planti= ng had been corrected per the agreement between Gove Environmental and Louis-Berger Group.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had been adamant t= hat the applicant’s and the Town’s environmental engineers had conveyed/discussed the issues. Mr. Gowan said the last time the hearing was before the Board it was decided th= at the applicant needed their environmental engineer (Gove Environmental) meet with the Town’s environmental review consultant (Craig Wood of Louis-Berger Group) as well as himself.&nb= sp; There was a meeting several months ago and it took some time to rece= ive a report from Gove that answered many issues raised in the project by Louis Berger, the Little Island Pond Watershed Association and the Board.

The Gove Environmental letter dated March 2, 2006 an= d the Louis Berger Group letter dated March 15, 2006 was read into the record. (see ATTACHMENTS)

Mr. Scanzani said there were a couple items no= ted in both of the reviews: 1) porous pavement should be kept in good repair; 2= ) no sand should be used on the porous pavement during the winter months; 3) an alternate salt system is recommended; 4) any fertilizers to be used on the = lawn areas should be applied by a licensed applicator; and 5) possible larger culvert (with a natural bottom) under the roadway. He said there was also a note that= the trees to be cut should be identified, which he felt the Town Forester shoul= d be used. Mr. McNamara said there= was a suggestion to build a small bridge from buildings 3 & 4 to the trail system.

Attorney DeCarolis understood that the issue w= ith having a larger culvert was to allow wildlife. He said if the culvert size was increased it would increase the encroachment because the slopes would be increased; creating a ‘catch 22’. Mr. Zohdi showed the location of t= he culverts (one being 24in. the other being 12in.). He didn’t see a problem with changing the 12in. culvert to 24in round culvert. Mr. Culbert asked if the was culvert suggested to have a natural bottom. Mr. Gowan answered yes. Mr. Scanzani asked if there was anything to prevent filling 1/3 of the culvert = with rock and soil on the bottom. = There was further discussion about Mr. Scanzani’s suggestion; there were no objections. Attorney DeCarolis believed the development agreement had to include the maintenance provisions for all the landscaping and swale areas.&n= bsp;

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Michael Donovan, representing the Lit= tle Island Pond Watershed Association, Smith Trust and several neighbors, asked= if it was the Board’s ruling that the Site Plan Regulations were applica= ble to the application. Mr. Scanz= ani said based on the fact that the application came in before the defect in the Site Development Regulations was fixed by the voters (March 14, 2006); the Board would proceed as if it was still in existence and accept the waivers = from the applicant for the site development issues and vote on them as the Board normally would. He said any n= ew plan that came in would not be considered under site development. Attorney Donovan wanted it on the = record that they believed the zoning amendment wasn’t lawful; it was a matte= r of equal protection. He didnR= 17;t believe it was lawful to ‘carve out’ a narrower jurisdiction for site plan review than the state statues had enabled.

Attorney Donovan said the applicant reviewed s= ix waivers, however there were eight waivers identified (and accepted for consideration) in the Board’s minutes from the November 7, 2005 meeting. He said two of the waivers were submitted during the meeting and the Board did not have the two mandatory meetings. Mr. McNamara read t= he motions aloud (as contained in the November 7, 2005 meeting minutes) in connection with= the submitted waivers as follows:

1. = Section 248-31,c - setback from 50-foot buffer zone

2. = Section 248-34,c – drainage

3. = Section 248-35,c – landscaping

4. = Section 248-39 – wetlands

5. = Section 248-40, a – fire prevention and protection

6. = Section 248-41,e – sewage disposal system

7. = Pelham Site Plan Regulation 248-29, a.

8. = Site Plan, Section 248-31, a & b

9. = Special Permit (Zoning 307-40 for wetland crossing).

Attorney Donovan said the requested waivers for setbacks that were submitted on the night of November 7, 2005 weren’t noticed= for that meeting. He said that ev= ening, one of the Board members (Alternate Bob Yarmo) pointed out that the waiver requests had been written up generically not specifying each location being waived. He said Mr. Zohdi sai= d he would provide information on the specific locations, but they had not been noted on the plan. He said the basic reason for the waivers is over-intensification of the site, which was consistent with Mr. Craig Wood’s (Louis-Berger) original findings. He said Mr. Jim Gove (Gove Environ= mental) said that fragmentation was the issue and the relationship of the fragmented wetland and upland systems on the site that causes the need for most of the waivers. He said the real justification was a landowner wanting to max out the site. Attorney Donovan said the fire acc= ess was bothersome and noted that the regulations clearly call for access by fi= re trucks on four sides. He disc= ussed the problems with having access on only three-sides.

Attorney Donovan said he thought he had reques= ted, and everyone had agreed at the last meeting that all information had to be = in within ten days of a hearing so everyone would have an ample opportunity to review. He said the Louis Ber= ger recommendations were just submitted on March 15, 2006.&nbs= p; He didn’t feel his letter of December 2, 2005 was appropriate for L= ouis Berger to review; he felt the thing to address was the chronology (of the comments made regarding environmental impact) he provided on August 1, 2005. He said two years ago Mr. Wood tol= d the Board that the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) didn’= ;t address the potential for long-term adverse effects on Little Island Pond.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said in the March 15, 2006 letter, Mr. = Wood said reducing the number of housing units was what was needed. He said it would be hard to back a= way from the earlier recommendations. Attorney Donovan gave the Board with a plan (that he had also provided four months a= go) that he considered to be a better proposal showing eleven units with less impact to the wetlands. Mr. Scanzani informed Attorney Donovan that the Board didn’t have the rig= ht to tell applicants what kind of plan to bring forward. He said the main issues the Board = had (tonight) was to make sure that the environmental issues addressed by the applicant’s and Town’s engineers were addressed to the Board’s satisfaction. H= e was comfortable that Louis Berger had done that for the Board. Attorney Donovan said the issue on= all the variances (variations) and the environmental impact is over-intensifica= tion. He said the Board had the right to= deny the application and the site plan is too intense for the environmental characteristics of the site. = He said there was also a special permit to deal with and if the WCD crossings = were necessary to the productive use of the land and whether the proposal had considered all alternatives for mitigating the impacts. Mr. Scanzani said the environmental engineers on both sides seem to agree and clearly indicate that there is no overloading of the site. He s= aid the Board typically took the advice of their expert opinion. Attorney Donovan said he was refer= ring to an over-intensification of building development such as surface drainage/runoff from the site and the building development from the site and its relationship to the eco-system. He said the plan had been before the Board for three years and the experts were basically conflicting themselves.

Attorney Donovan summarized that they believed= the justification for the waivers had not been provided; the Board wouldn’= ;t be able to decide the case because two of the waivers had only been heard o= nce, and the special permit should be denied because the requirements had not be= en met.

&= nbsp;

Ms. Bousa noted that the Louis Berger letter o= f March 15, 2006 = stated that the overall encroachment into the wetlands and the WCD appeared to be a reasonable balance between minimizing impacts and allowing access to otherw= ise developable uplands. In summa= ry (the letter states), Louis Berger believed the issues previously raised by Berger had been adequately addressed.

Ms. Julia Steed-Mawson, 17 South Shore Drive who is a homeo= wner and a biologist circulated photographs to the Board of the area. She said there were some considera= tions about incremental impacts of development, which was not just water flowing,= but rather water flowing from one point to another and moving whatever is betwe= en it to the other point. She sa= id another point was septic failure. Ms. Steed-Mawson then discussed the issue of fragmentation of habitat and the effect on conservation land nearby. She asked the Board to consider the suggestion of reducing units so the septic system was less (without pavement over it) in the event of failure. It would also give that section a more natural aspect which would re= duce the issue of fragmentation of habitat.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani said the applicant had reserved t= he right in the upland area to be used as a secondary source if the septic failed.

Ms. Candy Picard, 5 South Shore Drive (and whose moth= er owned property at 23 South= Shore Drive) said the land had been in her family for five generations. She said wh= at is conceived in the mind and what was written on paper did not always translate into what happens. She said t= he same assurances were given to property owners on South Shore Drive when Armand Road was constructed and sin= ce that development the property on South Shore Drive floods every Spring. After trying to have the problem rectified and having nothing done, the owner gave up. Ms. Picard said she loves Little I= sland Pond and didn’t want anything to happen to it.

Ms. Carol Beattie, South Shore Drive, representing her= self and her parents, said her family owned the property since 1942. She said there were a few concerns, especially with the road. She discussed the problems with a (septic) stench at the entrance to South Shore. She said the water level had risen= and taken out a culvert and created a freezing hazard in the winter. Ms. Beattie was concerned regardin= g the long-term adverse affects for the pond as well as for existing septics, wel= ls, and basements. She said in the Berger Group letter dated December 30, 2003 (review of EIA) noted there were two cellar holes and asked about historic assessment. She said they should be researched before they were buried. Ms. Beattie noted that the proposed parcel adjoined recently acquired (with LCHP) conservation land. She said the EIA reported that ver= nal pool species could not be verified until spring. She said no one had verified the v= ernal pool species. She said fairy = shrimp were common in the area and noted they were federally protected. She spoke with numerous state agen= cies in the past week, several today and informed that the reason wetlands weren’t noted on maps was because they had not been identified or recorded. She was very concer= ned about the vernal pools and was against not taking precautions and the neces= sary steps to preserve and maintain such. Ms. Beattie said a volunteer program had been started to test the po= nd three times per year.

No one else from the public requested to speak= .

Mr. McNamara noted that there were two additio= nal waivers submitted and accepted for consideration on November 7, 2005. The waivers were: 1) Site Plan Regulation 248-29,= a (lot sizing for multi-family unit dwellings); and 2) Site Plan, Section 248= -31, a & b (front, side and rear setbacks).= Mr. Zohdi said he had requested the waiver and noted that they had already been to the Board of Adjustment regarding lot sizing and multi-fami= ly and didn’t feel that the waiver was needed. He said they believed that Elderly Housing was not considered multi-family.&n= bsp; He said in reference to the second waiver, the regulations calls for= a 30-foot setback from all sides of the building, which they complied with, b= ut the waiver was requested. Mr. DeCarolis said they were requesting the waiver to 248-29,a, since it had been accepted for jurisdiction on November 7, 2005 even though it applied to all sites with t= hree or more family unit multiple dwelling buildings and the applicant was reque= sting 55+. With respect to the wetl= and crossing, Attorney DeCarolis said the Special Permit was a waiver that coul= d be granted by the Planning Board, was not required to be in writing and could = be done in one meeting. He noted= that ‘productive use’ was not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. He said Webster’s Dictionary defined ‘productive’ as to be able to produce in abundance. He said there was an argument to b= e made that the applicant should be entitled to (under this section) a waiver in a= ble to cross the last wetland to occupy the northerly section of the property to meet the definition; however, the applicant was not seeking to do so.

Mr. Culbert asked how many units were initially requested three years ago. At= torney DeCarolis said there were twenty-seven.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert asked if some of them had been in the northern area. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes. Mr. Culbert noted that the current proposal was for fifteen units. Attorney DeCarolis said they would restrict that so it could never be developed. Mr. Culbert noted = that the fifteen units would contain a total of eighteen bedrooms which was a density of two bedrooms per acre. He didn’t see the plan as being an overabundance of dwellings = on the property. He then reviewe= d the issues that had been discussed. He said the waiver locations had been addressed many times over the last three years and was aware of where they were. Regarding four-sided access, he said if the Fire Chief was okay with= the plan (and historically he had gone with three-sided access) he had the jurisdiction. Mr. Culbert bel= ieved productive use of the land was being adequately addressed. He said the Berger letter from two= and a half years ago addressed the plan when it had all the units versus the pared down site plan being proposed. He said Gove Environmental and Louis Berger had reviewed and neither brought up fairy shrimp. He said septic failure was brought up; however, he was more concerned about septic failure occurring closer to the pond that were 50-60 years old versus the new septic system being proposed. He not= ed that a Special Permit didn’t need a waiver and the Board could grant = it in one hearing. Mr. Culbert s= aid over the last three years the plan had been reviewed and he couldn’t think of anything new that the Board would hear that they hadn’t alre= ady.

Mr. McNamara said under the Site Plan regulati= ons 248-63 it says the variations from the regulations and requirements may be permitted when, in the opinion of the Board, topography, or other considerations warrant. It go= es on to say that the written requests shall list the reasons which (in the applicant’s view) justify the granting of a variation. Mr. McNamara asked if that had bee= n done with the last two waivers requested (Site Plan Regulation 248-29, a –= lot sizing for multi-family unit dwellings; and 2) Site Plan, Section 248-31, a & b -front, side and rear setbacks).&n= bsp; Attorney DeCarolis asked if the waivers had been hand-delivered at t= he meeting of Novem= ber 7, 2006. Mr. McNamara answered yes; they weren’t as specific as the previous six. He asked if the applicant was comfortable with specificity on those.&nbs= p; Attorney DeCarolis answered yes.&nb= sp; He didn’t feel that 248-29a applied and said they complied with 248-31 a& b. He pointed o= ut that the zoning case had been resolved in the applicant’s favor. Mr. McNamara asked if they were comfortable that they had identified those waivers (with enough specificity= ) in regard to the wetland crossings. Attorney DeCarolis said with the plans previously submitted and the color coded plan= Mr. Zohdi used earlier (which would be submitted), they were sufficiently identified. Mr. McNamara aske= d if there were any other areas of wetland crossings, other than what was identified. Mr. Zohdi answered no.

Mr. Gowan informed that he and the Board would like to receive information 10-days in advance of meetings. He said when he received the e-mai= l from Mr. Craig Wood of Louis Berger, he immediately forwarded it to every Planni= ng Board member and to Shirley Wakefield who is not only a member of the Conservation Commission, but also a member of the Little Island Pond Waters= hed Association. He said Ms. Wake= field was the person he had provided information to be shared with the associatio= n as a matter of courtesy.

Ms. Bousa wanted Attorney DeCarolis to address= the statement made by Attorney Donovan that waivers should be requested for each individual incident that a waiver was needed. Attorney DeCarolis said that was n= ot how he read the regulation. He sa= id between the written requests and submitted plans there was sufficient writt= en documentation of where and why waivers were being requested. Mr. Gowan didn’t feel that i= t was the intention of the Board (when the ordinance was put forth) to have both = the Site Plan and Subdivision Regulations addressed. He believed this was clearly an is= sue to be reviewed under the Subdivision Regulations. He felt the defect (of having both regulations cited) in the ordinance had been dealt with as well as possible= by the applicant by waiving the non-pertinent Site Plan Regulations.

Mr. Scanzani informed that Mr. Dunne would vot= e in place of Ms. Ouellette (who had stepped down from the case).

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the Sp= ecial Permit (Zoning 307-40 for wetland crossing).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the wa= iver to Section 248-31,c (setbacks).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the wa= iver to Section 248-34,c (drainage)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the wa= iver to Section 248-35,c (landscaping).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To approve the wai= ver to Section 248-39 (wetlands).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To approve the wai= ver to Section 248-40,a (fire prevention and protection).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To approve the wai= ver to Section 248-41,e,1 & 2 (sewage disposal systems.

VOTE:

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

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

Ms. Bousa confirmed that the Board could vote = on the waiver. Mr. Scanzani said= it had previously been submitted and accepted; this was the second meeting.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To approve the wai= ver from the provisions of Pelham Site Plan Regulation 248-29, a (lot sizing = for multi-family unit dwellings).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To approve the wai= ver the provision of Site Plan, Section 248-31, a & b (front, side and re= ar setbacks).

VOTE:

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

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

Mr. Scanzani said the plan had been before the Board for a long time on a court remand.&n= bsp; He said the Board had the engineering review and at the last meeting= the Board wanted to make sure that the applicant’s engineer and the Town’s environmental engineer were in agreement relative to mitigating the impacts on the parcel in light of where it was to Little Island Pond. He felt the information received f= rom the Berger Group and the recommendations from Gove Environmental should be incorporated as part of any approval process (as notes on the plan). Also included with the notes on th= e plan should be: 1) porous pavement to be used and should be kept in good repair;= 2) no sand use on the section of porous pavement; 3) to minimize cutting the T= own Forester should be used to identify the trees (so overhead growth not over = cut, especially the oaks); 4) the 12inch culvert is to be 24inches (instead of o= pen bottom) with one-third being a gravel sandy base; 5) instead of creating a wetland crossing there = will be a travel bridge between buildings 3 and 4 in order to not have anymore impact to the wetland and to access the walking trails; 6) application of a= ny chemicals to the lawn will have to be done by a licensed applicator; 7) sep= tic system will be maintained and serviced every two years as suggested by the = New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES); 8) per the recommendation of NHDES and Gove Environmental the applicant is requested to not use salt and sodium chloride and instead to use the new New Hampshire i= ce melt (e.g. magic salt) – this will be included as part of the condo agreement.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that the Fire Chief signed= off on the plan. Mr. Zohdi said h= e had a plan signed by the Fire Chief; he will provide additional copies for the file. Mr. Gowan recommended w= hen the conditions were placed on the plan that they reference the specific let= ter in which they were recommended.

Mr. Scanzani said there was another issue about vernal pools (and identifying species) that was brought up. He said the Subdivision Regulation= s look at the protection of vernal pools completely regardless of the species insi= de it. He said the Town didnR= 17;t allow vernal pools to be filled.

Mr. Culbert questioned if a bond could be put = in place in the event that the road failed. Mr. Gowan believed it would be problematic to request a bond for a private road. He believed the condition (on the plan) for maintenance could be used as an argument. Mr. Dunne said a note should be ad= ded that the pavement is to be cleaned two times per year with a vacuum sweeper. Mr. Scanzani said it= would be added as part of the approval.

Mr. McNamara said notes should be added for the following: 1) sign off of clearing limits (in the field) prior to clearing being done; 2) no-cut signage required following site development; and 3) documents are to be followed regarding the conservation easement and preservation of the land. Att= orney DeCarolis said all of Craig Wood’s comments would be incorporated into the draft. Mr. Scanzani said = the legal documents would have to be reviewed/accepted by the Town’s atto= rney (at the applicant’s expense).

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan subje= ct to: 1) porous pavement to be used and should be kept in good repair; 2) no sand use on the section of porous pavement; 3) to minimize cutting the To= wn Forester should be used to identify the trees (so overhead growth not ove= r-cut, especially the oaks); 4) the 12inch culvert is to be 24inches (instead of open bottom) with one-third being a gravel sandy base; 5) instead of creating a wetland crossing ther= e will be a travel bridge between buildings 3 and 4 in order to not have anymore impact to the wetland and to access the walking trails; 6) application of= any chemicals to the lawn will have to be done by a licensed applicator; 7) septic system will be maintained and serviced every two years as suggeste= d by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES); 8) per the recommendation of NHDES and Gove Environmental the applicant is requested= to not use salt and sodium chloride and instead to use the new New Hampshire= ice melt (e.g. magic salt) – this will be included as part of the condo agreement; 9) sign off of clearing limits (in the field) prior to clearing being done; 10) no-cut signage required following site development; 11) documents are to be followed regarding the conservation easement and preservation of the land; and 12) legal documents to be reviewed/accepted= by the Town’s attorney (at the applicant’s expense).

VOTE:

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

Ms. Ouellette returned to the Board.

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Je= nna Auto Sales – 563 Mam= moth Road – Site Plan Review of vehicle stora= ge and sales

Per the request of the applicant the applicati= on was date specified to the April 17, 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 of Herbert Associates presente= d the plan to the Board. He said at= the last meeting he had been asked to work with the Town engineer to resolve the drainage problem. He said the= ir engineer met with the Town engineer and Mr. Gowan. He believed they came to the solut= ion that the drainage calculation on the revised plan would be satisfactory. He said they would have to find the catch basin (that was found three or four years ago) and if not located, th= ey would have to construct a new catch basin and connect to an existing pipe t= hat was there. Since that time, a= nother meeting was held and Mr. Gowan said the landscaping should be installed on = the remaining land instead of on = the back of the proposed lots. Mr. Zohdi said he had added a sheet to the plan showing where the landscaping w= as moved to. He said they had al= l the state subdivision approvals as well as the approvals for the individual sep= tic design.

Mr. Scanzani understood the issue of the catch basin and asked if a ditch line could be added to the southerly side if Pea= body Lane to take the water from ML 10-351, bring it down to the corner (of Peabody/Island Pond) and continue to channel to the catch basin. It was noted that there would be a= ditch line on Currier as well.

With regard to the planting area, Mr. Gowan was concerned with the jeopardy of the trees if they were put on the back of the lots being subdivided. Mr. Di= ck Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry said the treed area had been discussed. He said it was important the trees remain because they are an integral part of the storm water management system. He said the argument = was if the trees were planted on someone’s lot, they may be tempted to change it. He understood that the pl= anting would occur on the remaining (larger) portion of the lot, which was believe= d to be a good solution. Mr. Hertr= ich said they felt the bigger issue was picking up the water before it got to <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Currier Road, which had been done. He said the ot= her key point to pick up runoff (off the lots) was the catch basin at the corne= r of Cara Lane and Currier Road. He discussed a couple of the points brought up in his letter dated February 22, 2006 regarding drainage.&n= bsp; Ultimately Mr. Hertrich felt the runoff from the proposed lots (and = that portion of the parcel) would end up in the catch basin (at Cara Lane). He said it was designed to hold wa= ter and then release it, but currently it was filled with water and didn’t release it.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Kim Jewett, Peabody Lane asked if there wasn= 217;t going to be a retention pond at the corner of Peabody and Currier as sugges= ted at an earlier meeting. Mr. Sc= anzani said there was never a retention pond planned for that location, but there = was a low spot in existence and they were trying to force the water from Peabody into the c= orner and catch it under the driveways of the proposed lots. He said they would have a ditch li= ne to catch the water and bring it to the catch basin. Ms. Jewett was concerned if the dr= ainage was changed, that would end up in her front lawn. She said they didn’t want a retaining pond (like Cara = Lane) on their site because it would be a hazard to the neighborhood. Mr. Scanzani said there was no new retaining/retention pond planned at the current time for the proposed lots.= He said if further development wer= e to occur on ML 10-351 it would be up to the engineer. Ms. Jewett believed the ‘whole’ picture was going to be reviewed. Mr. Gowan said Dufresne-Henry defi= ned the ridge line and determined that the impact of the conceivable second pha= se could be dealt with at that time. He said the higher view provided some answers regarding where the drainage flowed. He said he a= nd the Highway Safety Committee was comfortable with the precautions taken for the proposed lots.

Mr. Bruce Jewett, Peabody Lane noted that the overvie= w of the property was preliminary in nature and additional study and design woul= d be necessary to finalize any recommendations.= The key factor in the future disposition of the runoff would be the manner in which the remainder of the Fineman property was developed. Mr. Scanzani discussed how the dra= inage was supposed to flow. Mr. Her= trich said the layout of the road was not yet known until the piece of land was developed. He said when they = wanted to develop the land, it would have to come back before the Board. Mr. Jewett showed where the current water flowed. Mr. Hertrich sa= id when a plan was brought forward, they would make sure that the water coming= off from the land (at the divide of the drainage area) would be picked up so it didn’t create more of a problem and correct the problem there now. Mr. Scanzani said the Board, at th= is point, could address the proposed lots.&nb= sp; Mr. Jewett asked how big the ditch would be. Mr. Scanzani believed the ditch wo= uld be narrow (and grassed) to carry the water.&n= bsp; There was a brief discussion regarding what improvements may need to= be done during a later phase of development.&= nbsp;

Mr. Bob Montbleau, 9 Peabody Lane noted that the buffe= r zone was 50-foot wide and could potentially go away with the next phase. Mr. Scanzani said that wasn’= t a concern of the Board at this time. Mr. Montbleau recalled there had been an agreement to have an overall conceptual drawing. Mr. Scanz= ani said there was a discussion to having an overall with regard to drainage wh= ich the Board currently had. Mr. = Gowan said the buffer could be made part of a future plan. He said it was difficult to get pe= ople to not cut trees on their land, but the Board would take every precaution to try and do that. Mr. Montbleau asked for clarification of the ditch line.= He said there was currently standing water that flowed into catch ba= sins on the front of his land and didn’t see it getting any better moving forward. Mr. Scanzani said the Board couldn’t discuss these points at this time. He said the applicant had a parcel= that was zoned two different ways (residential and business); the only thing the applicant brought to the Board at this time was a six-lot subdivision on an existing Town road. He said t= he Board could only address the drainage problems up to the crown on Peabody. Mr. Montbleau reiterated his belie= f that there was supposed to be a conceptual plan for review to better understand = what would be done in the future. = Mr. Culbert believed that a full conceptual plan was to be brought in the next time, not considering these lots.

Mr. Paul Diamantopaoulos, Peabody Lane was also under the impression that there would be a conceptual plan to have an idea of drainag= e so the problems could be addressed from the beginning. Mr. McNamara said the Board didn&#= 8217;t have the authority to force an applicant to submit a conceptual plan. He said the Board’s jurisdic= tion was for the six lots. Mr. Diamantopaoulos said his concern was to make sure that the drainage put in = was done properly so the abutters don’t end up with a problem. Mr. Scanzani said the proposed six= lots wouldn’t create additional drainage issues on = Peabody. Mr. Diamantopaoulos felt it would be in the best interest for the To= wn and other developers to have other ways of controlling water flow; standing water is creating a breeding ground for insects.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud the requested waivers that had previously been accepted for consideration: 1) Section 10.04,a (scale); and 2) 11.11,b,2 (well radius of lot 10-351-19 to be located within 15ft. setback).

Mr. Dunne was appointed to vote in the absence= of a missing Board member.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the waiver to Section 10.04,a (scale).

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the waiver to Section 11.11,b,2 (well radius of lot 10-351-19 to be locat= ed within 15ft. setback).

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert McNamara)To ap= prove the plan conditioned on: 1) ditch line for Peabody Lane; 2) catch basin; and= 3) recordable plans with new sheet.

VOTE:

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

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

The plan was date specified to the April 3, 2006 me= eting.

DI= SCUSSION

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development – Sherburne Road – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult community<= o:p>

Per the applicant’s request, the discussion was continued to the April 3, 2006 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

April 3,= 2006:

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

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development – Sherburne Road – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult community<= /p>

April 17, = 2006:

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Jenna Auto Sales – 563 Mammoth Road – Site Plan = Review of vehicle storage and sales

Map 2 Lot 5-57 Tynco Realty, LLC – 409 Mammoth Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

March 6, 2= 006 – deferred.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara)To adjo= urn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:43 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