PB Minutes 09-18-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 18, 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, Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alterna= te Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Dadak was appointed to vote for the evening’s proceedings.

PU= BLIC HEARING(S)

Pr= oposed changes to Subdivision Regulations, Appendix I – Roadway Design, Sect= ion L. Driveways and Other Accesses for Single and Duplex Lots

Mr. Scanzani informed at least two public hear= ings would be required and asked that the proposed changes be read. Ms. Ouellette read aloud the propo= sed changes.   Mr. Gowan prov= ided a brief summary of the NFPA standards (which had been adopted by the Town). He said the language had been draf= ted after meeting with the Safety Committee and the Highway Road Agent. The language will make it clear wh= at driveway specifications are. = Mr. Gowan said he was waiting for comments from the Town Attorney and expected = it by the next meeting. Mr. Scan= zani said the language had already passed the Fire Chief and most of the Safety Committee; by the next Planning Board meeting (October 2, 2006) legal review will hav= e been done. He asked the Board to r= eview and provide comments by the next meeting.&= nbsp;

NEW BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 = Unit 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. (see Ms. Ouellette’s stateme= nt below pertaining to abutter notification)

Mr. Tim Watson of Cuoco & Cormier, representing the applicant (Ken Magarian= ) asked if the Board wanted to know if the hearing would be an application acceptan= ce hearing. He also wanted to kn= ow how much of presentation the Board wanted since the plan had come before the Bo= ard a couple times in the past. M= r. Scanzani asked if the presentation could be done in approximately twenty minutes. Mr. Watson then revi= ewed the plan. The number of units= was reduced to 40-units. Mr. Wats= on showed the location of the septic and well. He said the Fire Department asked = for emergency access to Litchf= ield Circle, which was proposed, but would require a wetland crossing (impacting an area= of approximately 2000SF). There = were two additional wetland impacts proposed.&n= bsp; Two passive recreation areas had been provided as well as a walking trail. A traffic report, ligh= ting plan and well report have been submitted.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani asked if public roads were being proposed. Mr. Watson said they would be priv= ate roads.

Mr. Gowan felt the plan was complete. He said if/when the Board took jurisdiction on the plan it would initiate review by the various review consultants and he would bring it to = the Highway Safety Committee.

Mr. Dunne asked why there was a ‘T’ at the end of the cul-de-sac instead of a circle. Mr. Wats= on said it worked out better. He= said they met with the Fire Department and they were okay with the ‘T’.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

=

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara said the traffic study didn’t identify several significant developments on Sherburne = Road. Mr. Watson said the report was don= e in December, 2005. Mr. McNamara = noted that there were approximately 200-300 units either recently approved, curre= ntly before the Board, or would be coming before the Board. Mr. Gowan noted that a plan the Bo= ard discussed at the last meeting would not be forthcoming. He was informed by Town Counsel (J= ohn Rattigan) that each traffic study on Sherburne Road with regard to the seni= or units, or other proposed developments that are currently in the pipeline ne= ed to take into effect their impact, and the impact of anything application fo= r a project prior to them. This o= pinion will be forwarded in writing. He said he would be speaking with Steve Williams at NRPC to try to figure out = the total impacts over the next ten years.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gowan to review the impact studies/analysis t= hat the Board had already received. He felt it was important that the Board review the impacts during peak hours a= nd have NRPC determine what it would do to the Sherburne Road intersections. Mr. Gowan said a traffic warrant analysis had been done for Mammoth and Sherburne Road which failed by a significant factor in several categories.&= nbsp; He said he was working with NRPC to get the traffic solutions onto t= he state’s 10-year plan. M= r. Gowan said if the traffic study didn’t already include information on= the LRL and Mopar developments (as proposed), it would need to be updated to include such.

Mr. Gowan said Attorney Rattigan reminded him that every time a project came be= fore the Board they should question if it had regional impacts. He said Tyngsboro and Hudson (who = were notified for this hearing) should be notified; the notification would come = from the Planning Department at the applicant’s expense. Additionally the relevant RPC shou= ld be notified. Mr. Scanzani asked = if there was something that could be done temporarily to ease traffic (i.e. turning lane); if it was something that could be done, it may be able to be funded with the proposed projects. <= /span>

Ms. Ouellette said there were five waivers requested that needed explanation/ju= stification as to why they would be needed so the Board could take them into considerat= ion.

The Board discussed which meeting the plan would be date specified to. Mr. Watson said they would have th= eir dredge and fill permit submitted in the next month and set up the process of meeting with Conservation Commission.

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

Ms. Ouellette announced if anyone felt they were not correctly notified they sh= ould contact Mr. Gowan so they would be notified for the subsequent meeting.

Map 20 Lot 3-133 William Coleman &= amp; Connie Scire – Bear = Hill Road & Mammoth Road – Pre-Design Rev= iew of Proposed 5 Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

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 file did not contain any written corresponde= nce from abutters.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates said= the five-lot subdivision was a work in progress and brought before the Board to= see if there were any issues/concerns. He said they proposed to extend Bear Hill Road approximately 600 fe= et giving a total distance from Mammoth Road to the tip of the cul-de-sac of 1800feet.= Each lot will be approximately 1.6= acres. They proposed to remove the existi= ng cul-de-sac and make it into a straight street.

Mr. Scanzani asked how steep the property was.= Mr. Gospodarek didn’t know, t= hey currently had a survey being conducted. He asked for direction regarding the existing cul-de-sac and drainage culvert = on Mammoth Road. Mr. Scanzani said if the cul-de-sa= c was going to be extended the wings on the existing cul-de-sac would have to come out and be grassed in; this is what the Board has required in the past. Mr. Gospodarek understood. He also understood there were some issues with slopes and drainage during construction of Bear Hill Road and wanted to know i= f there were any new concerns of the Board toward the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Scanzani said it appeared that= the lots at the end of the cul-de-sac didn’t have frontage on Mammoth Road and questioned where the driveways would be placed for those two lots. Mr. Gospodarek said the driveways = would come off Bear Hill Road.

Mr. Gowan said in a conversation with Mr. Gospodarek and Mr. Peter Zohdi (also of Herbert Associates) in his office, = he discussed if the road should connect to Mammoth Road. He believed Mr. Zohdi shared the f= act that there was an overall master plan for a couple more properties (to the north) that would eventually come in for development and the idea was to go= out to Mammoth Road at that juncture. He said that information may be helpful for the Board at this time. Mr. Gospodarek said he didn’= t have that plan with him, but confirmed that Mr. Zohdi said there was potential of driving the road further north and would have to be discussed at a later time. Mr. Gowan said there wa= s a very large retention pond and various drainage structures on Bear Hill Road and Mammoth Road and believed the Board= would be interested in insuring they had the capacity for any added drainage. Mr. Gospodarek said they would do = two different types of analysis; 1) take the roadway drainage down to the intersection to see if the existing detention basin had enough capacity; an= d 2) send down toward Mammoth R= oad and create a swale system to empty into the culvert.

Mr. McNamara said the notes had the standard r= eferences to ‘edge of wet’, ‘WCD’ and ‘WCD signs’, but there were no delineation on the plan of such. He asked if there was wetland on t= he property. Mr. Gospodarek said= there wasn’t any wetland there now.

Ms. Ouellette asked for the length of Bear Hill Road and Blue Jay Drive. Mr. Gospodarek said Bear Hill Road was currently 1275fe= et to the tip of the cul-de-sac; he didn’t know the length of Blue Jay Drive. Ms. Ouellette noted there wasnR= 17;t another egress. Mr. Gospodare= k said Blue Jay Drive stood on its own. Mr. Gowan s= aid it was a cascading cul-de-sac. <= /p>

Mr. Dunne noted there was a house shown on the plan past the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gospodarek said there was an existing house on the property and they would = be subdividing the land. Mr. Dad= ak questioned where the access to the existing house was located. Mr. Gospodarek said it had a snake driveway from Mammoth Road= .

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Jeanson, 239 Mammoth Road had a question reg= arding the elevation of the road coming in compared to where it met his property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said earlier in the afternoon he walked the property line. He = said from Mammoth Road to the center of the cul-de-sac there were property markers and wanted to s= ee the markers to the top of the property before the project went further. He said his property was surveyed 18-years ago and wanted to see where the lines would end up when the survey= was done. Mr. Scanzani said the d= iscussion was preliminary; the property would have to be completely surveyed in order= to determine the proper location of the cul-de-sac.&nbs= p; Mr. Jeanson wanted to make sure the Board understood what he was say= ing about the slope of the property. He said he was approached regarding the road being next to his property line a= nd was told it would be sloped either up or down. He wanted to know if the cul-de-sac could be moved away from his property, but still have the easement for futu= re use. Mr. Scanzani said he wou= ld need to see a plan that indicated the frontage. Mr. Gowan agreed that frontages sh= ould never be calculated around temporary cul-de-sacs because it caused problems= when the wings were taken out. He = also noted there was a recent plan showing a continuation of a road that wasn’t properly designed. He said he would be reminding applicants and the Board to have connections that work. Mr. Jeanson said he wou= ld like to have the proposed taken away from his lot line. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = know better once the plan had been reviewed by the Town’s engineer.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Gowan said the open space issue was being dealt with; there was meeting with members representing the applicant, Spar & Spindle and a couple Board members. They were looking at= a solution that involved a legal document that required scrutiny by several attorneys. The document will = be ready for review by the Board at the October 16, 2006 meeting.

The plan was extended to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

Map 16 Lot 13-84 New England Pente= costal Ministries – Webster= Avenue – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision =

Mr. Scanzani asked that the concern regarding septic and well distances be addressed.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates said at the last meeting the Board was given a plan set that showed the existing wells and septic systems in the a= rea to show that a septic system would be able to be placed on the proposed wit= hout encroaching on any well radiuses. They were unable to find the well on lot 13-95 but they placed a well radius at the very corner of the lot line, which would be the worse case scenario.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board was given the minutes from all the meetings involvi= ng the Pentecostal Church. He said the Board had asked Mr. Go= wan to research whether or not further development was considered on the lot. The only time Mr. Scanzani could r= ecall discussing such was during the time the parcel on Be= acon Hill was donated to the church (in the back) and there was no planned development for that particular lot. He didn’t find anything else= in the minutes. Mr. McNamara sai= d per a letter submitted by Bishop Choate, suggested that the meeting in question= was January 13, 2005= . Ms. Ouellette recalled Mr. Culbert asking the question if the lot would have further subdivision and believed = the former Planning Director (Will D’Andrea) cautioned the Board that if something was brought to the Board that met the Subdivision and Site Regulations etc. the Board shouldn’t put themselves in a position of denying something they had no right to deny. Mr. Gowan questioned if there was = notice of condition that specified ‘no further development’. Mr. Scanzani said he would like to review the minutes. Mr. Gospo= darek provided a copy of the minutes to the Board.

Mr. Domenico asked for further clarification regarding the well radius of the proposed lot. Mr. Gospodarek = said they couldn’t find the well for lot 13-95 so they showed what a ‘worst case scenario’ for well placement would be.

Mr. Gowan summarized a meeting he had on site with a representative of Stantec (Town’s engineer), the Highway Road Agent (Don Foss regarding how the drainage for the existing lot would work with the proposed lot. He said what appeared to make sens= e to all present was, 20-feet prior to the driveway location of the new lot to clean= out the swale, add rip rap, and put in a swale at the end of the driveway to continue down to the catch basin on the other side.

Ms. Ouellette wanted to know if the well radius would be within the lot line if= the intent was to put a home on the subdivided lot. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan set submitted showed the well radius within the front set back.

Mr. Scanzani asked if any thought had been given to moving the playground area = to the back. Bishop Choate said = they planned to move it to the back in the future, once they got the plans and o= kay from the Board.

Mr. McNamara, who reviewed the minutes from the January 13, 2005 meeting, said there was discussion only (regarding no further subdivision), but no condit= ions were listed.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Tarmey, 11 St. Margaret’s Drive said this was the third attempt in the last five yea= rs that the church had approached the Town Board to build on the property. First, through the Board of Adjust= ment was a land swap with Mr. Dooley from Beacon Hill Road, which was defeated unanimously. Second, the church appeared before= the Planning Board for permission to re-zone a parcel of land being sold by Mr. Dooley to the church, which was approved with the condition that they could= not build on it. Mr. Scanzani sai= d the land in question (from Mr. Dooley) is not part of the land being subdivided. Mr. Tarmey said w= ithin a month there were bulldozers on the property doing perk tests. He then discussed St. MargaretR= 17;s Drive and the fact that he had (during a previous hearing) asked the Board = to look at the width, which was 18-feet wide in front of his home. He discussed the problems with the= road having a dead end and questioned how emergency vehicles would access. He said the public safety had to be addressed. Mr. Tarmey also discussed the fact that the property was a wildlife corridor. He said as an abutter the project = raised substantial issues of local concern regarding: 1) health and safety; 2) density; 3) wetland; 4) drainage impact; and 5) aquifer/well water. Mr. Tarmey reiterated his concerns regarding the road and drainage issues.&nb= sp; He said if approved he would like a bond to be put in place to prote= ct the abutters from major water damage.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec (Town’s Engineer) to prov= ide information regarding the drainage issue and the outcome. Mr. Hertrich said there was a meet= ing on site in the past week. He exp= lained the original plans don’t show it, but there was a catch basin at the northerly corner of the property and one on Orchard Lane which connected the tw= o with a pipe. He said they discussed creating a better swale to capture any runoff into the ditch and conduct it= to the piping drainage system. M= r. Scanzani wanted to know if it would catch the water from going across the road. Mr. Hertrich said they = had improved the drainage for the first 90-feet of the lot and the rest should = be cleaned out.

Mr. McNamara said Mr. Tarmey raised some valid points. He said there was real concern of = the abutters (during the Board of Adjustment meeting) regarding the drainage of= the area and the water. He said i= f Mr. Hertrich was convinced that the proposed wouldn’t exasperate the prob= lem, the requirements would be met. Mr. Scanzani said the drainage and steepness of the road was the only thing oth= er than the minutes that the Board was concerned with. With regard to the width of St. Margaret’s Drive, Mr. Scanzani noted it was a Class VI road, paved by= the Town.

Mr. Domenico asked if there were plans to connect Surrey Lane to St. Maragret’s Drive. No one on the Board had heard of connecting the two. = Mr. Gowan said if a connection was done, the entire length of St. Margaret̵= 7;s would need to be upgraded. Mr. Scanzani asked if the Board should review an easement in the event St. Margaret’s Drive needed to be upgraded. There was further discussion regar= ding the suggestion. Ms. Bousa dis= cussed widening the road. She said o= n the church side there was a stone wall; however on the other side, if the plan = was surveyed to scale, there was width on the other side within the existing right-of-way without impacting the other properties.

Mr. McNamara said he would make a motion, with some hesitation because of Mr. Culbert’s concerns and past representations to the Board; however, he didn’t feel legally the Board had standing to base any kind of denial= on that criteria. His motion was= to approve the subdivision. Mr. Domenico seconded and asked if the Board could place a limitation on further subdivision. Mr. McNamara was unsure, unless it was volunteered. There was further discussion regarding what conditions the Board cou= ld place. Mr. Gowan said with the configuration of the current property he didn’t see how another piece could be subdivided; therefore, making a motion for ‘no further subdivision’ did no harm. He said if there were enough property there, he would argue that placing a condition of ‘no further development’ may be a ‘feel good’ condition that didn’t hold water. He said there clearly wasn’t anywhere else to go unless there was a donation of land. Bishop Choate said they planned to develop the land by adding a replacement shed that would compliment the cur= rent building. He wanted to make s= ure that it wouldn’t be inhibited. Mr. McNamara said that wouldn’t be a further subdivision, it would just b= e an improvement upon the land. Mr. Scanzani asked if Bishop Choate would have a problem to the Board stipulati= ng ‘no further subdivision’. Bishop Choate said he didn’t know what the future held for the parcel and the street going down further, but as the lot currently stood, he didn’t have a problem (with the stipulation).

Ms. Ouellette said there was a waiver that had been accepted for consideration = for the well radius being within the setback, but nothing had been received in writing. Mr. Gospodarek said = they didn’t need a waiver because they weren’t in the setback anymor= e. Mr. Gowan said they made a change.=

Mr. McNamara amended his motion to include a condition stating that there is no further subdivision of the property, with a notion that Reverend Choate had= no objection to such at this point in time.&n= bsp; Mr. Domenico amended his second.&nb= sp;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the subdivision condi= tioned upon no further subdivision of the (existing) property (with a note on the plan). Reverend Choate has = no objection at this point in time. <= /span>

=

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried.

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

Mr. Shawn Harrington for Advanced Investments provided an overview of the propo= sed plan. Mr. David Jordon, SFC Engineering said the total site area was just over 12 acres. He said the on-site wetlands had b= een flagged by Gove Environmental. He said the current storm water flowed either into the wetland (on site) or on= to a couple of the abutting properties (on Hillcrest Lane) however it all converged into an 18inch culvert under Hillcrest Lane. He said the proposal was to constr= uct a 24-unit senior housing project (with five buildings) done in accordance wit= h the Town’s Senior and Elderly Housing Ordinance. He said access would be obtained t= hrough a 24-foot wide private driveway/roadway.&n= bsp; The roadway, utilities and infrastructure will be maintained by an Association. There was a prop= osed cul-de-sac at the end of the proposed 900-foot roadway which was designed to accommodate a WB-50 as well as a fire truck. The proposal also included a 6-foo= t wide paved sidewalk on one side of the roadway.= There are also a series of trails planned for the open space portion= of the project. Mr. Jordon said = early in the proposal they had meetings with the Fire Department who requested ac= cess on three sides of the buildings. The way that will be achieved is by using a grassed/paver structural= system that is rated for fire trucks. Each unit will have residential sprinklers.&nbs= p; Mr. Jordon discussed the wetlands and informed that none of the residential buildings were located in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’), but the driveway entrance crossed the WCD to gain access. He said the only other places that there was pavement in the WCD was a portion of the cul-de-sac a= nd a couple of the grassed fire lanes. Mr. Jordon noted that there would be a community well; a small commu= nity water system was being designed per the requirement of the NHDES. Mr. Jordon explained the permittin= g of such which was a multi-stage process. He said they were proposing a community septic system using a ‘Clean Solutions’ system.   He said there was a question regarding the setback of the dispersal field from a wetland; in response, t= hey requested and were granted a variance from the Board of Adjustment (Case #2353). Mr. Jordon said one o= f the unique aspects of the project was the storm water management system using porous pavement systems and gutters/down spouts tied into the gravel under = the fire lanes. He ended by infor= ming that they had received comments from Stantec (Town’s engineer) and th= ey were currently addressing such and would revise the plans accordingly.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services discussed the site which was very wooded with wetlands dominating the eastern side. He said there were no rare, threat= ened or endangered species or vernal pools on the site. He said basically everything drain= ed down into the wetlands and headed down in a southerly direction. He said there was a utility right-= of-way a little bit off the site that provided a wildlife corridor. The prime wetlands are about 1800-= feet away to the north east.

Dr. Robert Rosen, Research Engineer at University of New Hampshire, Civil Engineer (specializing in water resources) and Director of the UNH Storm Water Center discussed the function of the storm water center where they monitor various systems. He began his discuss= ion by reviewing the porous pavement being proposed. A fact sheet was provided to the B= oard regarding porous asphalt, which were highlighted by Dr. Rosen.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the four inches of crushed stone brought the water throug= h to ground level. Dr. Rosen said = there were 20+ inches with the bottom four inches being put in to prevent wicking= and frost heaving. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that no sand would be used on the roads. Dr. Rosen answered yes. He said chloride application would= be fine, and recommended no salt, but if used it should be thinned. He said the roadway was considered= low use and should be swept two or three times per year. He said it wasn’t really the= sand that clogged the system it is the silt and clay. There was further discussion regar= ding the advantages of using the porous pavement in plans such as the proposed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Dunne wanted to know what would happen to the pavement after prolonged use = and it became clogged. Dr. Rosen = said it depended how it was clogged; it wouldn’t be beyond repair if clogg= ed from fines/sand, but would be gone if seal coated.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was point in which the system reached saturation. Dr. Rosen said it depended on how = it was designed. He said a one hundr= ed year event could be stored in the 20-inch profile before it would flood. He said it would work its way thro= ugh in about 12-18 hours. Mr. McNama= ra questioned if legal documents had been put in place regarding maintenance in other areas where the system was adopted.&= nbsp; Dr. Rosen said it would be built into the deed. Mr. McNamara confirmed that they k= new, with specificity, what percentages of materials would be put in and could g= uarantee that the mix would be achieved. Dr. Rosen answered yes. He said a= lot of research dollars (Federal money) had gone into the research.

Mr. Gowan felt it was important to remember that any risk would be borne by the homeowners of the proposed development and the documents would specify some kind of maintenance.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Anthony Philip and Ms. Beth Philip, 29 Hillcrest Lane asked they could address issues that hadn’t come up yet. Mr. Scanzani said they could address any issue they felt was pertinent. Mr. Philip thanked the applicant f= or the manner in which they dealt with them. Mr. Philip asked if there were exact specifications for the sweeping process. Mr. Scanzani said it= was contained in the document provided to the Board and was available to review. Ms. Philip reviewed a portion of Zoning Ordinance 307-53 and discussed her concern with the propo= sed building going in behind her house. She asked that consideration be given to a reduction in its size. She also asked that the Board also consider the following: 1) addition of signs indicating that the street is a dead end; 2) adding a cul-de-sac at the end of the street so people could properly turn around; 3) upgrade of utility infrastructure; and 4) access to the water in the development for fire suppression. Mr. Scanzani said the Board couldn’t control utility upgrades in the area; the existing would be tapped into, but as required would be underground. With regard to adding a cul-de-sac= , he said the development would have a private driveway and would only need to m= eet what the Fire Chief required for turn-arounds and cisterns. He also noted that the units would= have fire suppression systems. Ms. Philip asked if the residents on Hillcrest Lane would have access to the cistern. Mr. Scanzani said the Fire Chief w= ould have access to any water he needed for anything regardless of where it was. Ms. Philip reiterated her issue wi= th the cul-de-sac and the speed of traffic. Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gowan to research who owned what at the end of Hillcrest. Mr. Gowan said he = would also take the recommendation of signs to the Highway Safety Committee. Mr. Scanzani said they would resea= rch the ownership of the area at the end of Hillcrest Lane. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the buffer between the proposed development and the Philip’s property. Mr. Philip informed= that he had a college degree in Horticulture and had reviewed the landscape architectural plans and was disappointed in some of the plans, and would be more comfortable with a mounded soil area on the property line with plantin= gs on top. Mr. Scanzani said they would review/investigate the plan. <= /span>He said they would also investigate the possibility of dividing the six units = in three and three. Ms. Philip a= lso asked the Board to take into account that they don’t have trees in th= eir back yard; they would do what they could, understanding that it was also th= eir burden.

Ms. Donna Shanahan, 38 Hillcre= st Lane discussed her concerns with the effect the community well would have on her well. She wanted to know what= would happen if her well went dry. = Mr. Scanzani said it would be a private matter between her and the developer. Mr. Gowan said in a community wate= r well system there are specific tests they have to perform. Ms. Shanahan said with the added t= raffic there should be additional street lighting. She also felt there should be good lighting at the entrance of the development. She didn’t feel that the uni= ts fit in with the character of the neighborhood.=

Ms. Iris Therriault, 36 Hillcr= est Lane agreed with Ms. Shanahan that the condos didn’t fit with the characte= r of the neighborhood. She was also concerned with the water (wetland) and questioned where the water from the leach field and septic would go and how it would be absorbed. Mr. Scanzani said that was part of= the design that would be reviewed by the Town’s engineer. Ms. Therriault said the land was currently wet and questioned where the extra water would go from the additi= onal units being proposed. Mr. Sca= nzani said that issue would be part of the engineering review.

Mr. Bill Burbank, Burbank Group (Landscape Architect) showed an artist rendering that compared a conventional plan versus the proposed plan for water storage and runoff. He then discussed= the proposed lighting at the entrance and within the development. He also reviewed the proposed buff= er and noted they were prepared to work with the abutters on additional plantings. Mr. Scanzani said = the Board would want to review a planting schedule and what was proposed for a buffer. Mr. Burbank said it w= as included as part of the submission to the Board.

The plan was date specified to the October 2, 2006 meeting. =

Map 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC &= #8211; Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision and S= eeking Special Permit for Wetland an= d WCD Crossing

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates said the Board accepted the plan, but didn’t have new plans because they hadn’t received the Town’s consultant’s report.&nb= sp; He requested a continuation to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

Mr. Scanzani said a letter had been received from an abutter at 11 Kennedy Drive. He asked if there was any new info= rmation regarding the water on the roadway or the culvert on Old Gage Hill Road. It had been questioned if the culvert could be increased. Mr. Gospodarek said currently the proposal showed approximately 70% of the roadway drainage being collected i= nto a treatment swale (toward the center of the project) and then discharged in= to pipe culvert into the wetland. Mr. Scanzani said there was concern that eventually the water still had to come down to the end of Kennedy= Drive and the culvert at that location was too small to handle the current runoff. If the drainage was g= oing to be improved up above, something had to be figured out as to how to have = the flow under the road. He showe= d Mr. Gospodarek (on the plan) what he was referring to.

Mr. Gospodarek said they met with the Conservation Commission and got their input regarding the dredge and fill.=

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

Map 22 Lot 7-273 Michael = Dexter – 28 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site Plan Review to all= ow car sales on an existing commercially zoned lot - 25 spaces proposed <= /o:p>

Mr. Scanzani said this matter was before the Board of Adjustment. He said the applicant had requeste= d a continuation to the October 16, 2006 meeting.   The plan was date specified to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 1-55 LRL Development of Pelham/Leverone & Associates – Sherburne Road – Proposed 34=   Unit Senior Housing and Seeki= ng Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Date specified to the October 2, 2006 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David & Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Date specified to the October 2, 2006 meeting.

Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148 Spaulding H= ill Development, LLC/Roger Montbleau – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road – & 149 Proposed 24= Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drai= nage within the WCD

Date specified to the October 2, 2006 meeting.

=

= DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

=

= October 2, 2006

1) Map 39 Lot 1-55 LRL Development of Pelham/Le= verone & Associates – S= herburne Road – Proposed 34

unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

2) Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David & Lisa Gerniglia –= ; Sherburne Road –

Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

3) Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Roger Montbleau – = Marie Avenue &

Spaulding Hill Road<= /st1:address> – & 149 Proposed 24= Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drai= nage within the WCD

4) Map 42 Lot 10-18 & 31 Advanced Investmen= ts, LLC – 31 Hillcrest L= ane – Proposed 24 Unit Senior

Housing

=

= October 16, 2006

1) Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC &= #8211; Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Senior Housing

Complex

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

3) Map 22 Lot 7-273 Michael Dexter – 28 Old Gage Hill R= oad South – Limited Site Plan Review to allo= w

            &= nbsp;   car sales on an existing commercially zoned lot - 25 spaces proposed

= 4) Map 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision and Seeking

        &= nbsp;       Special Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossin= g

=

= MINUTES            =             &nb= sp;

September 7, 2006 – deferred to the October 2, 2006= minutes.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/McNamara) To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 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