PB Minutes 09-07-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

= September 7, 2006

The Vice Chairman Peter McNamara called the meeting to= order at 7:30 pm. (Mr.= Scanzani was seated in the public to present the CIP plan)

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Ken D= unne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Sel= ectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Collins and Mr. McManus were appointed to = vote for the evening’s proceedings.

PU= BLIC HEARING(S)

Ad= option of 2007-2013 Capital Improvement Plan

CIP Chairman Bill Scanzani said in the Spring = both the Planning Board and the Selectmen had been approached in regard to putti= ng together a ‘fast-track’ on the CIP. The CIP being presented reflected = such, by showing an update in the numbers and very little in the CIP plan itself = as well as action taken by the CIP sub-committee (comprised of two members each from the Selectmen, Budget Committee, School Board and CIP) to make recommendations. The main rec= ommendations from the sub-committee were to place all vehicles in the operating budgets = and the three main priorities: 1) Central Fire Station, 2) land purchase for School District; and 3) major road improvements. Mr. Scanzani noted that the items = in the CIP from last year (that weren’t done) escalated in cost by approxima= tely nine million dollars.

Mr. Domenico noted that the Selectmen had revi= ewed the findings of the sub-committee and voted to accept the findings and move forward as recommended.

There was a brief discussion regarding some of= the items contained in the plan. = Mr. McNamara asked if the other boards represented on the sub-committee had vot= ed on the particular items. Mr. Scanzani was aware of the Selectmen voting, but didn’t believe the ot= her boards had met to discuss yet.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan discussed the CIP process and the fa= ct that it was the Planning Board who had the authority to accept/approve the CIP.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Dunne/Ouellette)To accept/adopt the Capital Improve= ment Plan.

VOTE:

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

The members of the committee were thanked for their hard work.

Mr. Scanzani joined the Board.

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Map 35 Lot 10-352 New American Homes – Cara Estates Phase I & II – Req= uest for Bond Reduction

This was not heard.

Map 20 Lot 3-130 A.G.A.N. Realty – Oak Hill Estates – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said since information had been forwarded to= the Board member, a revised recommendation had been received from Stantec and confirmed that the entire punch list was complete; the only outstanding item was a letter from the engineer confirming that the granite bounds were in p= lace (which would occur in the next couple days). He recommended that the Board foll= ow Stantec’s recommendation and any vote to reduce down to the maintenan= ce bond include the condition that the letter regarding the bounds be received= . Mr. Gowan discussed the Town’= ;s regulation that requires holding 10% of the original bond amount. He discussed the fact the this pro= ject had been reviewed by former Planning Directors and Town engineering firms a= nd further recommended that the Board (in consideration of the unusual circumstances surrounding the project) consider reducing the maintenance bo= nd to $10,000 (which was less than 10% of the original bond). The base coat over-wintered twice;= the top coat had extra shim. The existing bond is $78,539; the recommended reduction is $45,854; 10% of the original bond would be $32,685; however the recommendation is to reduce the bond by $68,539 leaving $10,000.

Mr. Scanzani said he had reviewed the site and noted t= hat there had been a couple issues on Mammoth Road that were being addressed and other than a small piece of pavement on one of the driveways (across the street) the job= was complete. The state’s w= ork in connection with the drainage on Mammoth was also done.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne)To reduce the bond amount retaining $10,000 as recommended by Mr. Gowan; reduction conditioned upon a letter being received by the engineer that the bounds are in place.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Map 8 Lot 9-64 Ivers, Phyllis – Ivers Lane – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said a letter had been received from the Town’s Engineer (Stantec). The existing bond was $168,773.11 the recommended reduction was $90,378.18 which would retain $78,394.93 (which includes the 30% of the original bond contingency fee) to complete the punch list.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dunne)To reduce the bond to $78,394.93 as indicated in the September 1, 2006 letter from Stantec and as outlined by Mr. Gowan.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

NEW BUSINE= SS

Map 30 Lot 10-362-1 McInierney, James, McInierney, Jaquelyn & Ninteau, Diane –= 66 Dutton Road – Seeking a Special Use Permit to convert a Duplex into a Condominium form of ownership

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.

Attorney Colin Jean, representing the applicant brough= t the Special Use Permit request to the Board.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan confirmed that the septic system /leach field location had been verified.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan noted that the Town had no regulations regar= ding type of ownership; the request was a formality.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico)To accept, for consideration, the= Special Use Permit request.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico)To approve the Special Use Permit= as allowed by state statute . =

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-= Unit Elderly Housing

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board. M= r. Scanzani asked who the abutter was at ML 1-156. Mr. Gospodarek said it was Ms. Ele= anor Burton. He said the Board had= seen the plan (with an 8-lot residential subdivision) and approved such approxim= ately 1.5 years ago. Approximately 8-months ago there was a modification to the plan to change the 8-lots to 5-lots. The proposed plan was= for a 40-unit senior housing development. Mr. Gospodarek described the units and noted that there were no slop= es on the property greater than 25%. The site had its own self contained septic system for the units and = the wells. The Town requires 30% = open space; the proposed plan showed 60% open space. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan had p= reviously been submitted under Site Plan Regulations, however, due to the new regulat= ions (connecting site plans to the subdivision regulations) a new application was submitted. He noted under Sit= e Plan there were no waivers, but under the Subdivision Regulations they would req= uest waivers. He went on to discus= sed the proposed plan. He asked f= or direction on two items on the waiver list.=

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was any chance to provide a trail easement (i.e. conservation/ walking/ snowmobile) on the right side of the lot from Sherburne Roa= d. Mr. Gospodarek said he would discu= ss with his client.

Mr. Gospodarek reviewed the waivers that were requeste= d: 1) Section 10.04j – road drainage; 2) Section 11.11d2 well radius in setback line; 3) Se= ction 12.02b – drainage analysis; 4) Section 12.03 – traffic impact study; 5) Section 12.04 – environmental impact analysis; and 6) roadw= ay design (various items). Mr. G= owan was not in favor of waiver the traffic impact or the environmental impact studies. Mr. Domenico was not= in favor of providing the applicant with any guidance until the Board had the opportunity to fully review the requested waivers.

Mr. McNamara asked if the lots had been merged. Mr. Gowan answered no. He said the project was originally before the Board and approved/recorded as an 8-lot subdivision on November 1, 2004; in July, 2005 there was a discussion regarding reconfiguring the proposed into a sen= ior project; in January, 2006 the plan was brought back as a 5-lot subdivision = to accommodate a senior project, but had never been recorded. He suggested that the Board accept= the proposed plan for consideration with the understanding that the lot be voluntarily merged into one lot.

Mr. McManus reviewed the topography and wanted to know= what would stop the water from coming forward if the topography was virtually the same. Mr. Gospodarek said the= water went through the Burton property and wetland. He said= there was a drainage area that went through the wetland and got picked up in the drainage of the roadway. Mr. McManus had a problem with the road being a single lane and recommended sid= ewalks since seniors liked to walk (especially if the mailboxes were at the end of= the road).

Mr. McNamara discussed the substantial number of proje= cts that would be coming forward for Sherburne Road, which would add a substantial amount of traffic. He said at some poin= t, with the incremental proposals, the Town would reach scattered and premature development under 674-36. Mr. Scanzani also suggested notifying the abutting communities regarding the proposed developments.

Mr. Dunne asked if there were any club house facilities proposed. Mr. Gospodarek said= they weren’t considering anything at this time.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/McManus)To accept the plan for considerati= on.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gowan said the Board had the ability to waive the requirement of a club house in lieu of another contribution, or resolving t= he issue another way. He believe= d a 1500 SF facility on-site fell short of what a programmed facility like the = Senior Center would provide to the residents. He felt it would be better planning to allow the applicant to make a contribut= ion to the Senior Center.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road, discussed the fact = that the current drainage overflowed the swale and went onto her property and in= to her garage. She wanted to kno= w how the traffic would be able to access Sherburne Road through the one egress. She said persons aged fifty-five w= ere not elderly and felt there may be the possibility of two vehicles per unit = and the impacts should be reviewed.

Mr. Webster Dennison, 92 Sherburne Road discussed the cur= rent traffic and was very concerned with the impacts of additional traffic. He felt the quality of life had al= ready deteriorated. He discussed th= e fact that traffic backs up on both ends of Sherburne Road during peak hours. He also discussed the drainage issues.

Mr. Scanzani felt with the amount of proposed subdivis= ions that the Board should review the intersections at both ends of Sherburne Road. He felt there should be more than = just a study, and believed the Town could raise a portion of the money, but the st= ate should be asked for money, or to put something on the state’s 10-year= plan. Mr. Gowan said currently the intersections were not on the 10-year plan and was leary of spending money = on studies or engineering because the state would want their own when it came = time to do something. He said he w= as working with the state to try to leverage getting it on the 10-year plan and what the Town could do with the funds.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani suggested asking the state what the engineering costs w= ould be on both ends (of Sherbu= rne Road) and then review all the projects coming forward in that area for a fair sha= re of those studies. Mr. Gowan s= aid it would be a big thing to get something on the 10-year plan and unlikely there would be a solution within ten years.

Mr. Scanzani understood that premature development didn’t include road transportation issues when the road the Town owne= d. Mr. McNamara reviewed 674:36,2,a a= nd believed the Town would come close, or exceed the threshold with the number= of units being proposed. Mr. Gow= an said he would seek a legal opinion regarding the subject.

Mr. Dadak asked how the information would be communica= ted to the state regarding the number of projects being proposed for Sherburne Road. Mr. Scanzani said the state saw the driveway permits. Mr. Gowan s= aid the situation was not unique to Pelham, however, the situation on Sherburne Road had unique qualities. Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gowan to find out (from the state) the costs for engineering.

Mr. Gospodarek confirmed that the Board didn’t w= ant to provide direction regarding traffic. Mr. Scanzani said he would rather see a traffic study for the whole area. Mr. Gospodarek question= ed if the Board already had a traffic study.&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan said the study the Board had was for signals. He suggested having each of the subdivisions do their own traffic plans (per the regulations) and then have Volmer (Town’s traffic engineer) review the studies as a group. Mr. Scanzani disagreed because the= re was still land to be developed. T= here was further discussion regarding the sensitivity of the area. Mr. Gospodarek said it sounded like there was a long-term planning and funding problem. He asked how the Board felt about = taking the money they would put toward traffic a engineer and instead giving a cer= tain dollar amount ($150 per lot) to start creating a funding source for either construction or regional planning. <= /span>Mr. Gowan said the approach could create money, however he was concerned with creating a plan in a timely fashion prior to voting on the projects. Mr. Scanzani said a traffic study = for this project alone wouldn’t be worth anything (because of being individual). Mr. McNamara sai= d a study could be done showing different levels (i.e. 200 units, 300 units) so= the Board could have data to base a decision.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani said Mr. Gowan should have the opportunit= y to research the issue of state roads versus premature development and see what could be done with the state (re: Sherburne Road). There was a brief discussion regarding the Environmental Impact Study. Mr. Gospodarek said a = small study was done for the 8-lot subdivision.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan cautioned the Board regarding the time clock of the project. He recommended that = the Board accept for consideration all the waivers except the drainage, traffic study and environmental study. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant, even though the plan was submitted for site pl= an, still had to meet subdivision regulations.= He didn’t want to accept waivers until there were more definit= ive answers. The Board preferred = to wait on accepting the waivers for consideration.

The plan was date specified to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K & K Equipment – = Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ftx60ft two story warehouse building

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented th= e proposed site plan to the Board. He sa= id the project was brought to the Board approximately seven months ago under conceptual review and at that time the Board didn’t provide input. Since that time, the project had g= one to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (‘ZBA’) and received an area var= iance for the property (Case #2341). Mr. Gospodarek said it was a simple site plan, they were putting in a rectangul= ar building for equipment rental. He reviewed the plans that were submitted.&nb= sp; He asked that the Board accept the plans and send out to the Town’s consultants for review.

Mr. Gowan asked that K&K’s business be explained. The applicant, Mr. Coskowski said the business would be used for equipment rental and sales and some of the bays will be used for rentals.= Mr. Scanzani asked if any automotive work would be done on the equip= ment. Mr. Coskowski said it would just be sales and rentals. Mr. Scanza= ni questioned if all the equipment would be in the building. Mr. Coskowski said out in front th= ere would be a display area, but all the rest of the equipment and anything for repair would be in the building.

Mr. McNamara said when the plan came before the ZBA th= ere had been some dialog between the applicant and one of the abutters and as a result of such a letter was generated (from the abutter’s attorney) c= ontaining conditions that were proposed and accepted by the applicant. He said the ZBA, when approving the variance, didn’t place any conditions only because they knew the plan would come before the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Gowan noted that the variance = was a dimensional variance. Ms. Oue= llette said the variance referenced a letter dated May 4,2006 to Attorney Paul DeCarolis = of Gottesman & Hollis from Flood & Hartigan PC confirming there had be= en a meeting and agreement to include certain conditions in decisions issued by Zoning and Planning Board; a copy of the letter was not in the file. Mr. Gowan wanted to know if the conditions were contained in the plan, or if they would be conditions for approval. Mr. Gospodarek said= the items contained in the covenance are not specifically on the plan set, but would add such.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico)To accept the plan for considerat= ion.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Gospodarek reviewed the conditions contained in the letter: 1) Oil/gas separator shall = be maintained at all times – the type of drainage system put in would take care of that (maintenance) issue; 2) property shall not use excess amounts of water or have high sewage demands.

Mr. Gowan said that the ZBA decision had no conditions leaving it to the Planning Board’s purview and the applicant to work = out. Mr. McNamara said there were discu= ssions at the ZBA and certain representations made (by the applicant’s engin= eer) that certain things would be done; the ZBA consciously decided not to inclu= de those conditions as part of their approval assuming that the Planning Board would do so in the Site Plan process.

Mr. Gospodarek continued his review of the letter: 3) = hours of operation shall be limited to= 7am-8pm; 4) the size of the building to = be constructed on the property shall not exceed 60ftx100ft; 5) there shall be one owner, and said own= er shall be allowed a maximum of three tenants; 6) the facility shall include insulated exhaust vents; 7) curbing shall be installed in the area located in the front of the building to prevent operation of any motor vehicles thereon; 8) machinery or equipment shall only be operated on the northwesterly side or rear of the building; 9) adequate measures for collection/disp= osal and treatment of all waste in order to protect the surface ground water and= aquifer shall be maintained at all times.

Mr. Scanzani questioned if the vortex system would fil= ter any gas or oil leaked from getting into the ground water system. Mr. Gospodarek said the system was designed to filter such. It w= ould need to be maintained similar to a catch basin. He offered to provide additional documentation to the Board. <= /p>

Ms. Ouellette pointed out that one of the conditions s= tated the building could be no more than 100ftx60ft. Mr. Gospodarek said he would modif= y the plan set. Mr. Gowan suggested= that the modifications be made prior to the Town’s engineering review.

Mr. Collins asked for the height of the building. Mr. Gospodarek said it would be 12= ft., the back of the lot dropped off and there would be a lower story. He provided a photo of the existing building. Mr. Scanzani said t= he Board would like to see a rendering of the façade since it would be located in a residential zone. Mr. Gowan recommended that the Board require a color rendering of the actual façade and proposed signage.

Mr. McNamara asked if repairs would be done on site. Mr. Coskowski said repairs would b= e done inside the building. Mr. Gosp= odarek pointed out that the building was in an industrial zone. Mr. Dadak reviewed the minutes fro= m the ZBA (May 8, 2006<= /st1:date>) and read aloud a portion: ‘Zo= hdi said the equipment would be brought to the sight, displayed and sold. They were not proposing to repair = the equipment. It would be a sales facility, not a rental facility.’&nb= sp;

<= /p>

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Paul DeCarolis representing the owners of Pro= -Lyn Apartments (on the opposite side of Pulpit Rock Road) said the apartments had been in the area for a number of years (prior to the zoning amendments where the indust= rial area was created). He said ov= er the years the industrial area had been expanding. He said they had to be protective = of the apartment complex because there was no water or sewer, its all private wells. With regard to the ZBA, Attorney DeCarolis said originally they requested conditions, and there was= a questions whether the ZBA had that authority. He said the owner of K & K Equ= ipment signed a declaration of restriction and covenance that had been recorded at= the Registry of Deeds. He said the Town’s engineer may have other suggestions/recommendations for restrictions. It was Attorney DeCarolis’ recollection that the representation at the ZBA meeting was there would be no repairs, which was inconsistent with what was being represented at the present meeting. He said they would ask for some conditions to protect the aesthetics= of the neighborhood. Attorney DeCarolis said the big issue was the protection of the aquifer. He believed the Board could impose= a condition that no repairs are to be done on the property.

Mr. Edward Lynch of Pro Lyn Corp. feared that the appl= icant planned to recondition heavy industrial equipment. He understood that there would be = no repairs or reconditioning per the testimony given at the ZBA. He believed those actions would cr= eate pollution and hazards to the area. <= /span>

Mr. McManus said the pictures that were circulated sho= wed the equipment behind the building; there were only a couple pieces near the front in an area being excavated. Mr. Scanzani said keeping equipment outside (given their condition) could still leach into the ground water. = Mr. Collins asked if the equipment would be stored inside the building. Mr. McManus questioned if the Boar= d had a right to limit what was kept outside.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani answered yes.

Mr. Dadak asked if the applicant was proposing to do r= epairs in the building. Mr. Scanzani understood that the answer was no. Mr. McNamara said the testimony was that repairs would be done. Mr. Coskowski said they would do r= epairs on the interior of the property. He noted that some of the equipment shown in the photographs was not theirs. Mr. Scanzani asked if one of the conditions in the letter (May 4, 2006) was that no repairs would be done. Mr. Gospodarek answered no. Mr. Coskowski said they agreed to = the conditions because the ZBA’s decision was appealed. He said repairs would be done insi= de the building. Mr. Scanzani asked = if they planned to recondition equipment.&nbs= p; Mr. Coskowski answered yes, they would repair. Mr. McNamara said that was not the= testimony given at the ZBA. Mr. Gowan f= elt it was appropriate for the Board to place any conditions on the project and believed it was also appropriate for the Board to get clarity regarding the rental units. He believed it = would be beneficial to obtain further information for the next meeting. Mr. Coskowski said they didn’= ;t have any such information at this time.&nb= sp; He said they hadn’t solicited for renters because they didn’t know what they would be doing. He said it would have to be approv= ed by the Town.

Mr. Dunne asked if there were any regulations regardin= g new sales and rentals. Mr. Gowan = said there was nothing in the regulations (for the industrial district preventin= g storage, use, rental or repair on industrial equipment. Mr. Dunne asked if there was anyth= ing in the state regulations. Mr. Go= wan answered no.

Mr. Scanzani felt the best approach would be to send t= he plan for engineering review and the Board could then make a decision regard= ing restrictions. Mr. Gowan said prospective tenants would require a limited Site Plan review for whatever business was anticipated.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was any wetland or Wetland Conservation District on the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Gospodarek answered no. <= /span>

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Gospodarek update the plan= s with the notes (including the building size) and provide a copy to Mr. Gowan so = they could be sent to engineering review.

The plan was date specified to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

OLD BUSINE= SS

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council – Webster Avenue – Proposed 10-= Lot Subdivision

Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuoco & Cormier Engineering, representing Webster LLC met with the Board to discuss the 10-lot subdivision. He reviewed the progress since the last meeting. He informed that they continued to work with Mr. Gowan and Stantec (Town’= ;s Engineer) to address each of the concerns; the latest revision date of the = plan set was September= 1, 2006. He discussed Stantec’s report regarding the design for storm events to which he had a verbal agreement fr= om Stantec regarding the latest plan set.&nbs= p; He said the issue was the discharge from the detention basin didn’t coincide with the peak discharge from the un-detained areas; w= hen reviewing the precise times when it occurred the flows didn’t increas= e. He said Stantec had taken the ‘worst case scenario’ and stated (in the report) that the resul= t is negligible and the concern is mostly that the flow was directed away from t= he road. With the latest (revise= d) plans, Mr. Parsons said Stantec now stated that the concern had been addressed. Mr. Dick Hertrich = of Stantec (who was seated in the audience) shook his head in the affirmative. The Board concur= red that this was no longer an issue.

Mr. Parsons then addressed the present roadway, which = was located on Girl Scout property. They considered and agreed to donate land for a right-of-way; they h= ad also allowed for the 30-foot setback of the proposed homes affected by this. Mr. Scanzani confirmed = that there would be a right-of-way deeded to the Town upon Subdivision approval. Mr. Parsons answere= d yes.

Mr. Parsons discussed the wells and noted that each we= ll would be placed on the individual lots with no overlap. However, they were placed on the l= ots and touched/almost touched the building setback lines. He said they agreed, because of the dimensional sensitivity of the radiuses, they would insist upon and assure = to the Town that a registered surveyor stake out the location of the wells to comply with the plans. He sai= d in the latest correspondence from Stantec it stated that waivers would be need= ed to allow the well locations. = He discussed the situation and said they may need one waiver. Mr. Scanzani said the reason the requirement was added to the Subdivision Regulations was because they couldn’t get wells within the lots.&= nbsp; He didn’t see where the waiver was necessary. There was a brief discussion to determine if the applicant needed a waiver for well radius. The Board didn’t feel a waiv= er was necessary.

Mr. Parsons said they tried to address an issue (not contained in the Subdivision Regulations) regarding loss of rain water infiltration. To mitigate, the applicant proposed to install infiltration units that accepted roof downspo= ut rainwater only. The applicant= has agreed to put notations on the plan and language would be introduced into d= eeds for the property transfer as well as for review of the Board.

Mr. Parsons informed that several special reports/stud= ies were required; the traffic study has been completed (including the analysis= of Webster Avenue/Route 38), Volmer (Town’s traffic engineer) has reviewed and agreed with the facts that there would not be an adverse impact on the operations on the road or Route 38. He said the other reports completed were the historic archeological study (which identified certain quarry operations) – site #13 if possible would be preserved, and the Environmental Study – which was still awaiting final comment from Louis-Berger.

Mr. Scanzani said there were no open engineering issue= s with the plan. He said as a condit= ion of approval, a note would need to be added to the plan (and in the deeds) for cleaning the closed-drainage systems. He felt the monumentation of the quarry should include signage to identify it as a protected area.

Mr. Scanzani said the only remaining item was the Board’s resolution of open space.&nb= sp; A letter was received from the Town’s attorney per the request= of the applicant’s attorney. Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed open space was the same as proposed in past meetings. Attorney Mark Johnson, representing the applicant, answered yes. Mr. McNamara said open space was referenced, not only in the Subdivision Regulations, but also in the Master Plan (section IV-37 – where it referenced the abutting property as one of the three most important propert= ies to preserve). He reviewed lan= guage regarding open space that is contained in the Subdivision Regulations (in Purposes and Sections 11.14 – in subdivision shall have open spaces o= f adequate proportions, Section 11.14f – types of areas and where/how they shoul= d be used) which pointed out the fact that open space is an important integral p= art of subdivision planning. He s= aid the Board had an obligation to assist applicants in planning and believed t= hey had been very clear in terms of what was wanted regarding open space. He believed the Board had requeste= d that some provision be made for open space, which had not been done (and was the= prerogative of the applicant). He said the parcel had significant value (over and above) any other subdivision; the Bo= ard had heard the history of the site. He felt the Board had been reasonable in their request and said if t= he applicant found it in them to provide some alternative proposal they would = help resolve a situation for them and would be providing guidance for future development. He reiterated that it was a p= arcel of special significance to the Town and felt per the regulations, the Board= was allowed to request some reasonable amount of open space.

Attorney Johnson said one of the problems they encount= ered (when reviewing the regulations and case law) was to try and determine what= the Board was looking for in terms of open space; if it is to be used just by t= he residents of the subdivision. In reviewing minutes from past meetings, he tried to determine what the Board = had required applicants to pay ‘in lieu of’ 15% open space, which appeared to be all over the place. <= /span>He said under the regulations, it appeared that open space would be for use so= lely by residents of the subdivision. He said they also tried to solve a problem the Town had in the area regarding drainage and felt they went further with the detention basin in solving any impact they might have by providing the drainage system to the roadway and = the properties. He said they trie= d to come to the Board with a package including a drainage system, a conveyance = of land to straighten out any right-of-way issues and a financial package of $= 6500 per lot in lieu of 15% open space. Attorney Johnson said if the Board wanted them to go back and trade those items for the 15% or come up with a combination of items, they would = go back and see what worked out.

Mr. Scanzani said his interpretation of the Town’= ;s attorney letter was not that the subdivision regulations didn’t provi= de the Board with enough choices, but rather, the Board had given choices (to the applicant) but hadn’t said how to ‘do’ it. He believed in this case the appli= cant had reviewed the regulations and chosen the one they felt was best. He said the Board had not been con= sistent in the past relative to what was wanted.&n= bsp; He wanted a shot at changing the subdivision regulations in the futu= re and using what the Town’s attorney has said as an acceptable compromi= se at this point. Mr. McNamara s= aid the Board had crafted different approaches to different subdivisions and said t= here had to be certain flexibility. To him, it made sense to try and have contiguous open space with adjacent parcels. He would like to see= the applicant come back to the Board with a different proposal for open space.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani noted that the new To= wn assessments would be coming out in one day; a new building lot would be wor= th approximately $250,000. Mr. McNamara said the Town would always need money, however, once a development= was done, land is gone forever. H= e felt until the Board made a firm commitment to try and incorporate some open spa= ce in every development, they were sacrificing the future for pennies on the dollar. Mr. Domenico agreed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He felt the approach the Board sho= uld take forward was a hybrid. He= said the Board needed to start thinking about expanding public spaces; in some c= ases the money made sense, but in others (such as the proposed) the Board should consider open space. There was further discussion regarding the meaning of open space. Mr. Gowan said the Board had advic= e from the Town’s attorney essentially that the Board’s ‘walk-away’ position is to require the applicant to put in park with recreational improvements. He said the Board may want to consider an agreement with the Girl Scout organization in asking for first rights of refusal on the remaining parcel.=

Attorney Johnson asked if the Board would be having a = work session so they could discuss (brainstorm) ideas outside a normal hearing n= ight. He understood anything discussed w= ould have to come back to the full Board. There was further discussion regarding Attorney Johnson’s suggestion. Mr. Domenico said= if the Board were to meet, he wanted to be involved as a member of the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Scanzani belie= ved this was the only issue of significance remaining with the plan. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Domenico and Mr.= Gowan will meet with the applicant to discuss suggestions.

Attorney Johnson said he provided the Board with a cop= y of the homeowners association and a draft deed which addressed the grantee maintaining the filtration system. <= /span>Mr. Gowan said the documents were being reviewed by Legal Counsel.

The plan was date specified to the September 18, 2006 meeting. <= /p>

Map 28 Lot 7-175-1 Sweren, John – Marsh Road – Special Permit f= or WCD Crossing for driveway to connect dwelling to garage/barn=

This was withdrawn.

Map 42 Lot 10-18 & 31= Advanced Investments, LLC – 31 Hillcrest Lane – Proposed 24-Unit Senior Housing

At the request of the developer, the hearing was conti= nued to the September= 18, 2006 meeting.

Map 16 Lot 13-84 New England Pentecostal Ministries – Gage Hill Road/Route 38 – Prop= osed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Dunne said he had a discussion with Mr. Culbert pr= ior to the meeting. Mr. Culbert, who= was unable to attend the present meeting wanted to further discuss the minutes = of January 13^th,spec= ifically the conversation about not having further development of the land. He said Mr. Culbert asked that the= Board consider waiting to hear the plan until the next meeting. After a brief discussion, the Board decided to continue with the discussion.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposed 2-lot subdivision to the Board.&n= bsp; He said last time they had come before the Board the request was mad= e to place the wells and septic systems on the map; this has been done. However, they were unable to locat= e the well for lot 13-95 so they placed the well radius at the very corner of the= lot showing the worst case scenario. The plan showed they are able to comply with the septic system and well radius requirements. Mr. Gospodarek = then reviewed the comments submitted by Stantec (Town’s engineer). It was noted that a waiver for the= well radius wouldn’t be needed. Mr. Gospodarek circulated photographs of the area containing a drain= age ditch put in by DPW. He said = there may be other solutions than to dig a drainage ditch; such as having a pipe under the side of the roadway and adding a catch basin. He wanted to keep the options open= for the DPW and asked that a conditional approval be granted so they could deci= de what the best solution would be. Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec said they were trying to point out that there was drainage infrastructure that would possibly be interrupted by the driveway and it should be taken into account when the driveway was put in.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani felt the water should= be caught a different way and taken along the edge of the road. He said the sheet drainage was not adequate for the road. Mr. Gospodarek said he was being asked to correct a DPW problem in front of the= ir lot only. Mr. Scanzani said something had to be done with the drainage swale. Mr. Gospodarek discussed the drain= age and said if there was already a pipe under the stone, they could drop a cat= ch basin. Mr. Scanzani said Mr. = Gowan could get together with Mr. Gospodarek and Stantec to come up with a solution. He said there shoul= d be something in writing stating that the Road Agent and Stantec agrees with wh= at should be done so the condition isn’t made worse.

Mr. Gospodarek continued his review of Stantec’s comments. He circulated a ske= tch of what the sight line would look like from the driveway with 200-foot sight distance in both directions. = He believed all the comments had been addressed, with the exception of the drainage swale.

Mr. Gowan said he would set up a meeting with Stantec,= Mr. Gospodarek, Town’s Road Agent to see what made sense.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board wanted to review the minut= es from the meeting when the daycare was put in. He didn’t think the Board co= uld take proper action unless they review such minutes. He believed the minutes could be provided in the member packets for the next meeting.

The plan was date specified to the September 18, 2006 meeting.

ADMINISTRA= TIVE

Discussion= of updated Surety Unit Prices, Milestone approach for Bond Reductions, Surety = on Senior Housing Projects

Mr. Gowan said at this stage he didn’t have anyt= hing new.

= DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

= September 18, 2006 – <= o:p>

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Coun= cil – Webster Avenue – Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

Map 42 Lot 10-18 &a= mp; 31 Advanced Investments, LLC – 31 Hillcrest Lane<= /st1:address> – Proposed 24-Unit Senior Housing

Map 16 Lot 13-84 New England Pentecostal Ministries – Gage Hill Road/Route 38 – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

= October 16, 2006 – <= o:p>

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mo= par Construction – Sherb= urne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Elderly Housing<= /p>

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K & K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ftx60ft two story warehouse building

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

August 7, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette)To approve the August 7, 2006 Planning Boar= d minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 pm.

&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