PB Minutes 10-02-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 2, 2006

The Vice Chairman Peter McNamara called the meeting to= order at 7:30 pm. He then called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Alternat= e Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Gael Ouellette, Ken Dunne, Alternate = Bob Yarmo

Mr. Dadak was appointed to vote in Mr. Scanzani’s absence. Mr. Collins was also appointed to vote for the evening’s proceedings.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 6 Lot 4-143 Stanley One Family Trust, Edward G. Sta= nley II & Carol M. Stanley, Trustees – Valley Hill Road & Baldwin Hill Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Domenico 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.

Mr. David Aho, Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, discussed the proposed 2-Lot subdivision. H= e said they were proposing a 1.5 acre subdivision to create a single family development. The new lot woul= d have a private well and septic. Th= e lot would fill all requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning.

Mr. Gowan told the Board that the plan was complete. He felt it was appropriate to acce= pt for consideration.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara asked if there were any waivers t= o be submitted. Mr. Aho answered n= o (not that he was aware of). Mr. Go= wan believed a waiver would be needed for the well setback requirements for the Subdivis= ion Regulations. He said the prop= osed well met the lot line but according to the regulations it would need to be 15-feet back from the lot line. Mr. Aho said they reflected it as a 30-foot setback from Baldwin Hill Road. He said if a waiver was needed, th= ey would submit such. There was further discussion regarding the setback.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara discussed a past case that the well was going to the boundary and the fact that the Board made it clear to the applicant that the well would have to be cited precisely because the Board wouldn’t view= it very well if they came back in. Mr. Aho said he didn’t have a problem having a professional survey done to lay the well out.

Mr. McManus said it appeared that the applicant had enough room to move the radius and house in a southeasterly direction to meet the requirements. Mr. Ah= o said they were constrained due to the location of the existing garage. He said they felt the proposed pos= ition was the best location. He sai= d they could submit a waiver request and add a note to the plan too.

Ms. Bousa asked what was currently up on Baldwin Hill Road. Mr. Aho said at one time there was= a home, but the Fire Department did a controlled burn. The nearest home would be the exis= ting home. Ms. Bousa was concerned= with the driveway location being on the corner of Baldwin Hill Road in the event that= it was ever upgraded/developed. = Mr. Aho said the driveway could be reconfigured. Ms. Bousa asked if there were any = future plans for the remaining parcel. Mr. Aho said the applicant planned on being there for a long time; they wanted = to keep the open land.

Mr. Culbert asked if the proposed could be mov= ed over so the well wouldn’t be infringing on the boundary. He also didn’t like the plac= ement of the driveway. There was fu= rther discussion regarding moving the well location.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan advised the applicant to submit a written waiver request for the well radius. Mr. Culbert discussed his understa= nding of why the setback requirement was created.&n= bsp; He wanted to know what the Board would allow with the waiver. Mr. Gowan believed the Board had described what would be appropriate. Mr. McNamara said as it stood, the radius extended to the rock wall. Mr. Aho submitted a wri= tten waiver request.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Bousa/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver for the well radius request. =

VOTE:

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

The waiver request will have to be heard at a second meeting.

Ms. Bousa noted that the Board was asking the applicant to resubmit the plan with the driveway relocated and add a note regarding citing the well location. Mr. Culbert asked if the Board would review sight distance. Mr. Aho believed it would have to = be dealt with when the development went in.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert said he wanted to deal with the sight distance on the ne= xt plan as well as being informed if any cutting would be necessary.

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

Map 1 Lot 5-124 Herbert, Kevin – = Mammoth Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Domenico 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.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the plan with the Board. He reviewed each of the pages and explained that one lot would be subdivided from lot 5-124. He said the wetland delineation wa= s done by Gove Environmental. He sai= d on the southerly side the plan showed a slope easement that had been done in t= he past. He said the lots were w= ithin the 100-year flood plan (which was shown on the plan). Mr. Zohdi said the original lot wo= uld retain 12.92 acres; the created lot would contain 2.014 acres (containing 1= .057 acres of high and dry land). = He noted that the soil and topography was done by Herbert Associates; both sit= es meet the Subdivision and Zoning requirements for high and dry contiguous land. He noted that the propo= sed driveway went through the Wetland Conservation District (not wetland); the driveway profile and sight distance had been presented. He ended by informing that all the= test beds had been inspected by the Town’s Health Agent.

Mr. McNamara asked if any waivers would be submitted. Mr. Zohdi answered no.

Mr. Gowan felt the plan was ready for acceptance.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/Culbert) To accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Domenico asked if the 100-year flood plane shown on the plan could possibly= be the revised 100-year flood plane given the flooding (a couple months ago) s= ince FEMA was going to revisit such. Mr. Gowan said FEMA had not yet revised the flood plane maps; there was no indication that the flood plain would be moved. Mr. Domenico was concerned by the = fact that the area was impassable during the flood event. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t know anything about FEMA’s fact finding.&= nbsp;

Ms. Bousa asked if they had applied for their Department of Transportation perm= it since there wasn’t a note on the plan. Mr. Zohdi said they applied for the permit. He said he would add a note. Ms. Bousa asked about t= he sight line clearing and wanted to know if there was any substantial clearin= g being done. Mr. Zohdi discussed the= area and said they would clear on the shoulder.= Ms. Bousa questioned if the Conservation Commission should review because it may be an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. McNamara believed in Mr. Gowan’s notes he advised a site walk or input from the Conservation Commission regarding the driveway placement. Ms. Bousa questioned, in this situ= ation, if the Board would consider a shared driveway a good thing to eliminate the= WCD impact. She also questioned h= ow the rest of the parcel would gain access if there was more subdivision. Mr. Zohdi said the applicant was retaining 12.7 acres and if he wanted to access such, a road would have to = be put in. He said with regard t= o the driveway, they would follow the Board’s desire.

Mr. Dadak suggested that the Board walk the site with the Conservation Commissi= on.

Mr. Gowan said he would like to meet with Mr. Zohdi to discuss some minor notes that needed to be put on the plan. <= /span>

A site walk was scheduled for October 14, 2006 beginning at 8am. Mr. Zohdi will flag the location o= f the proposed driveway.

There was no public input.

The plan was date specified to the November 6, 2006 meeting. =

Map 20 Lot<= /st1:place> 2-131 Steckiewicz & Boissonnealt – off B= ush Hill Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Domenico 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.

Mr. Matt Hamor of Polaris Engineering Corporation discussed the proposed 2-Lot subdivision. He said the parc= el was gently sloped and contained no wetlands.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gowan said the plan was ready for acceptance.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan said the plan was straight forward but requested that the following i= tems be added to the plan: 1) add note regarding exact amount of contiguous soils for the existing and proposed lots; 2) add a note indicating that all road = and drainage work will conform to the standard specifications for the construct= ion in the Town of Pelham; 3) put the title block in the bottom right corner; a= nd 4) waiver for the well radius not meeting 15-foot setback. Mr. Hamor said they would be able = to meet the setback and wouldn’t be requesting a waiver.

Mr. Domenico confirmed that no waiver would be requested for the well setbacks. Mr. Hamor said they would set the property line back to comply with the setback.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/Culbert) To approve the plan conditioned u= pon: 1) square footage of contiguous upland soils for each of the lots needs t= o be identified on the plans; 2) a note added to the plan indicating that all = road and drainage work must conform to the standard specifications for construction in the Town of Pelham; 3) relocate the title block on all pl= an sheets to the bottom right corner; and 4) a lot line adjustment that will resolve the 15-foot setback issue.

VOTE:

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

OLD BUSINESS

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

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

These two plans had been accepted for consideration at a previous meeting; howeve= r, there was no formal presentation, or abutter input. For purposes of discussion the pla= ns would be presented together, but it was understood they were two separate plans presented for the Board’s consideration.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the two plans to the Board. Mr. Zohdi= began by reviewing the plan set for parcel 1-53.= He noted that the soils had been done by Gove Environmental. The private driveway would be done almost to Town standards and would be maintained by the Homeowner’s Association. A copy of the Homeowner Association and covenants would be provided to the Town for revie= w by counsel. Mr. Zohdi said the t= est beds had been reviewed by Town Health Officer Paul Zarnowski. The plans included the standard construction sequence. The li= ghting plan was also included to keep the development looking residential; each ga= rage would have a flood light. The septic systems would be divided between the units being shared with two or three units each. Mr. Zohdi s= aid the plan set for the other development was basically the same. He informed that the plan had been= sent to the Town Engineer (Stantec) for review, they had provided a report, which was in the process of being worked on.&nbs= p; He wanted to obtain the Board’s comments so he could incorpora= te such when discussing with Stantec and the Planning Director.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services provided a summary of the Environme= ntal Impact Assessment (‘EIA’).&nbs= p; He said the first portion of the road was permitted with approximate= ly 8000SF of wetland impact. He showed = the two major areas of wetlands on the site.&n= bsp; He pointed out the marsh areas adjacent to Long Pond. Mr. Gove described the types of vegetation and wildlife habitat in the area. He then addressed the possible imp= acts of the proposed. He said the = dredge and fill permit had already been approved.= There may have to be some widening (where the road enters the area of the proposed buildings), which may require a fairly minor amendment to the dredge and fill permit. They = felt that the dredge and fill would still be under the 10,000SF of direct wetland impact. Mr. Gove said the are= a was forested and some wildlife habitat would be lost; the largest concern was to have no direct impacts on the downstream area of the forested wetlands, the emergent area and Long Pond. = He said they wanted to make sure that the site was well maintained so there we= re no issues with Long Pond. He = said they should use Best Management Practices to take care of water quality issues. He said from a wildli= fe habitat perspective, the site had moderate value, there wouldn’t be l= arge impacts. There were no endang= ered species identified on the parcel.

Mr. McNamara asked if they had met with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Zohdi said they had met with t= he Conservation Commission and walked the site (approximately 45 days ago). The center line of the roadways ha= d been staked. Mr. McNamara asked if= the potential disruption to the wildlife corridor was addressed during the site walk. Mr. Gove said a representative walked the site; he didn’t recall there being any issues.

Mr. Domenico questioned what the landscaping would be so as to not contribute t= o the pollution (of Long Pond). Mr.= Gove suggested within the EIA that it be addressed in detail; such as to keep fertilizers = and sand/salt to a minimum.

Mr. Dadak asked what percentage of each lot would be paved/roofed. Mr. Zohdi said he would provide the information. He informed that= the drainage study had been submitted for review. Mr. Dadak asked if the pavement wo= uld be all impervious. Mr. Zohdi sai= d they were reviewing different types of pavement and believed they would use regu= lar pavement for the site. Mr. Go= ve explained that there was a hard pan underneath the site which essentially m= eant there wasn’t a receiving layer. He said there were probably other mechanisms than to use porous pave= ment.

Mr. McNamara asked how close the 100-year flood plane was to the connecting roadway. Mr. Zohdi showed whe= re the 100-year flood plan was located on the plan.

Mr. Domenico asked how many parking spots had been allocated to each unit. Mr. Zohdi said each unit would hav= e a two-car garage and would have room in front of it for two vehicles. Mr. Domenico asked if sidewalks we= re proposed. Mr. Zohdi said side= walks were not proposed. He said th= ey were working with the landscape architect to put sidewalks/walking trail ar= ound the property. Mr. Domenico th= en questioned how many post lights would be used. Mr. Zohdi said there would be two = post lights. Mr. Domenico asked if= an additional post light should be added to the curve of the road. Mr. Zohdi noted that the distance between the two proposed lights was 800 feet. Ms. Bousa didn’t feel there = should be too many lights through the wetland area. Mr. McNamara asked if the lighting= could be minimized by having ‘down’ lighting. Mr. Zohdi said at the next meeting= he would provide a sample of different lighting for the Board to review.

Mr. McManus asked what the width of the paved area was on the driveway from the unit to the street. Mr. Zohdi= said the driveway pavement was 24-feet. <= /span>He said the width of the street was 50-foot right-of-way with 26-feet paved.

Mr. Gowan questioned what amount of open space would be provided for each plan. Mr. Zohdi said he would calculate and have the information at the next meeting.

Mr. Stephen Pernaw of Pernaw & Company provided an overview of the Traffic Impact Assessment (‘TIA’) for the Board. He said the study area included th= e subdivision intersection as well as the Sherburne Road/128 intersection. They conducted manual counts which allowed them to develop future traffic projections (2007-2017) with and wit= hout the proposed development. The= y also conducted a technical analysis. Mr. Pernaw further discussed the information contained in the TIA. In conclusion the proposed develop= ment would generate approximately 30 trips during the pm peak hour (which would = be half the trips that a conventional subdivision would generate because there= was an age restriction in place). Mr. Pernaw said based on what they observed the level of service at the Sherbur= ne Road/128 intersection would stay the same, with or without the proposed development. He said their an= alysis showed that a simple ‘T’ intersection for the proposed developm= ent would operate fine for the existing and the projected (through the year 2017 and = beyond) traffic volumes. He said a st= andard stop sign would be appropriate for the proposed intersection. He ended by reporting that the sit= e had excellent sight distance, they stopped measuring at 500 feet.

Ms. Bousa commented about the statement that the proposed would have less of an impact that single family homes. She pointed out that sixty, single family homes wouldn’t be ab= le to be built at the proposed (they would be lucky to have five); it was more reasonable to say that the impact of the project would be more than if sing= le family homes were put in. She= said if the Board were to move forward and approve the proposed, they would be looking for a contribution toward a study done on <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road.

Mr. Dadak, who lives on Sherbu= rne Road, said NRPC had done a study on Sherburne Road and found the during two am and two pm (peak) hours to have 25= 00 vehicles. He said he had seen traffic back up (during high traffic periods) approximately 40-50 cars almo= st to the proposed development. = Mr. Pernaw said on a daily basis (24 hours) the estimated vehicles would be 8000.

Mr. McManus agreed with the statements regarding the current traffic conditions being congested. He was also concer= ned with the pollution of Long Pond and wanted to know what assurances would be= put in place so there wouldn’t be more damage. Mr. McNamara said the Board needed= input from Stantec regarding drainage. He said the Conservation Commission hadn’t submitted comments. He said the Board should also walk= the site.

Mr. Gowan provided the Board with an update regarding the state’s 10-year plan based on findings from various meetings he had attended. He said he was working with the CT= AP and DOT to try and figure out how to best leverage the funds collected and would collect to figure out the best use of the money to get a solution on the 10-year plan and then advance up the plan.= He believed (in the past) the gift had been approximately $500 per unit.

Ms. Bousa asked if accidents were reviewed at the intersection of Mammoth Road/Sherburne Road. Mr. Pernaw said they reviewed the = period between 2001-2003 and there were fifteen accidents.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec (Town’s engineer) said there were a number of necessary waivers (under the Subdivision Regulations) for the roadway. He said there were other smaller i= ssues they had asked to be clarified. He noted that the drainage was designed for 25 years and the Subdivision Regulations require 50-years. Mr. McNamara confirmed that they were waiting for response from Mr. Zohdi. Mr. Hertrich answered yes.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that grass pavers would be used in between the buildings for Fire Department access. Mr. Z= ohdi answered yes. Mr. Gowan asked= if the units would be ‘sprinkled’ or if cisterns would be used. Mr. Zohdi said they hadn’t decided, they would work with the Fire Department.

Mr. Zohdi asked if the Board would consider having a joint driveway and would l= ike to show the situation to the Board during the site walk. Mr. Culbert questioned why the cul-de-sac would be kept. Mr.= Gowan said the cul-de-sac was approved when the lots were created; that portion (= 1000 feet) was a Town road and the Highway Department needed a way to turn their equipment around.

Ms. Bousa asked if each lot would have a separate community well system. Mr. Zohdi said they were going to install a water system and work with Pennichuck Water to take ownership.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Joanne Powers, Sherburne R= oad understood that the original subdivision was approved for four lots and that the occupancy permit from the existing home would be taken and it would no longer be a single family dwelling. Mr. Gowan said if the proposed plans were to be approved in its curr= ent form, the occupancy permit would either be surrendered or it could conceivably be some sort of a club house associated with the proposed units. Ms. Powers said her lot shared a l= arge boundary with the applicant’s property and went on to discuss her concerns that were submitted to the Board in writing. She wanted to know how she would be buffered from the proposed development.&nb= sp; She asked if the EIA was done for the specific project or the application for the 5-unit subdivision.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi said the EIA was done specifically for the 64-unit development. Ms. Powers quest= ioned if a new dredge and fill would have to be applied for. Mr. Gowan said the road was propos= ed in essentially the same configuration; the dredge and fill was done for the wetland impacts of the original subdivision. Ms. Powers asked if records were k= ept from site walks. Mr. Dadak (Conservation Commission Represent= ative) said he didn’t attend the site walk, but would check to see what was done. Mr. Gowan said there mu= st be minutes from the site walk and suggested inviting the Conservation Commissi= on when the Board walked the site. Ms. Powers discussed the problems Long Pond had regarding contaminates in the p= ast and said it appeared the proposed would clear cut the two large lots which would seem to increase run-off. She also questioned if the traffic situation warranted an independent traffic study. She discussed the poss= ible access through Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Park (‘PVMP’) and wanted to know if it would be better to approve the plan once the issue of access was resolved. Mr. Gowan answered no. He said the prop= erty owner had the right to bring forth an application that met zoning. He said despite the fact that ther= e were many issues to resolve with the plan. He felt access through PVMP was an option that should be further investigated. He said the Boa= rd members shouldn’t make a decision/approval of the plan with any assum= ption that access would happen. Ms. Powers reviewed the Rules and Regulations and wondered how the proposed fit with such. Mr. McNamara said = the proposed development complied with (a majority of) the Town’s rules a= nd regulations. He said they tri= ed to ensure that the general purposes were honored, but if the plan met all the specifics the board didn’t have a lot of choice, but to approve such. Mr. Gowan said zoning w= as the platform for which the subdivision regulations were applied. He believed the plan met zoning, e= ven though there were many issues to be worked out at the Planning Board stage. Ms. Powers questioned = if the walking trails were shown on the plans.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan said he had discussed with Mr. Zohdi about showing the existing and proposed trails. Ms. Powers read a portion of the regulations regarding adverse impacts and questioned what impacts there would be (to her property and the surrounding) due to the proposed development. She noted that the development didn’t seem to have any open la= nd and the developer was offering land on a separate lot to meet the requireme= nt that appeared to be mostly wetland. She said the developer was proposing to have wells in the wetland and wanted to know why the Board would be in favor of it. Mr. Gowan said the Board would hav= e to discuss further. Earlier in t= he meeting he asked Mr. Zohdi to provide the Board with open space calculations. Ms. Powers said= the open space now contained the wells, which she thought was interesting. Mr. Gowan said the plan met zoning= for a well to be on a separate parcel of land.&n= bsp; He said in order to have a community water system owned/serviced by Pennichuck, it would have to be on a separate parcel or each of the two lots would have to have their own separate systems on them. He said the Board couldn’t w= aive zoning and if a situation were to rise with open space being on a separate = lot, it would require the applicant to go before the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Powers questioned if the regul= ations regarding well radiuses easements covering neighboring parcels. Mr. Gowan said it didn’t app= ly in this case because a separate system was being proposed (that was only for individual wells). He said th= ey had special well radius guidelines they had to adhere to for this kind of propo= sed well (there’s a higher standard for a community well). Ms. Powers questioned what the road length requirements were for a dead end road. Mr. McNamara said the requirements= were 2400feet for a public road; however, the proposed was a private road. He said the road layout/design wou= ld be reviewed/signed off on by the Fire Chief to ensure emergency vehicles could access. Ms. Powers discussed = the parking which she didn’t feel was adequate for guests. She wanted to know how parking on = the road would affect emergency access. She was hopeful that the project would provide access to the Town parks. Ms. Powers ended by discussing the traffic and based on statistics for drivers over the age of = fifty-five felt there would be more of an impact in terms of safety with this type of development.

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, 5 Sherburne Road questioned if the plan had already gone before the Conservation Commission because she understood that abutters wou= ld be notified. Mr. McNamara said abutters are notified when a plan comes before the Planning Board, but when= a plan is referred to the Conservation Commission abutters aren’t notif= ied. Ms. Balzotti said she was notified= when the plan for the first four or five lots went to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Gove said the original Dredge & Fill application required that abutters be notified (= the original application for the subdivision).= He said they hadn’t gone back to the state yet regarding the roadway, therefore, abutters had not been notified. He said if the permit was amended = the abutters wouldn’t be notified, but if there was a new permit, the abutters would be notified. M= s. Balzotti discussed the traffic and believed the numbers were low in compari= son to the NRPC study numbers. Mr. Gowan invited Ms. Balzotti to review the submitted traffic study against the NRPC study done. Ms. Balzotti= was also concerned with the traffic backup from the Mammoth Road intersection and the t= raffic from vehicles accessing Sh= erburne Road from the proposed. She then addressed the drainage. She wanted to know how the wetlands would be affected if the drainage was proposed to flow to the east since sh= e owned part of those wetlands. Mr. McNamara said the Board didn’t have the calculations. Ms. Balzotti was concerned for her property regarding the impacts from drainage. She said the wetlands were shared = with the applicant’s property and wanted to know if the drainage would be considered to drain on her property since it was shared. Ms. Balzotti had concerns regardin= g Long Pond and the effects of fertilizer being used in the proposed development.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She questioned if the units would = be purchased or rental. Mr. Gowa= n said the applicant indicated that the units would be owned with the appropriate contractual agreements/covenants. Ms. Balzotti asked if property containing the existing house would be deeded to= the Town (as conservation land) as originally planned. Mr. Gowan said the engineer was sh= aking his head yes. Mr. Zohdi said = the six-acre lot would be deeded to the Town.&= nbsp; Ms. Balzotti asked what space would be between the access road and t= he property deeded to the Town. = Mr. Zohdi said there was no buffer, the deeded land would be next to the road.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Balzotti questioned if a buffe= r was required between residential and non-residential property. Mr. Gowan said the land would rema= in zoned residential whether it was given to the Town or not; the zoning wouldn̵= 7;t change with the donation.

A site walk was scheduled for October 14, 2006, rain or shine. Mr. Gowan asked if the road would be staked. Mr. Zohdi said the road and the pr= oposed driveways would be staked. He= said he could also stake the buildings. Mr. Gowan said he would make sure the Conservation Commission was informed. Mr. McNamara also informed abutters they were invited to the site walk.

The plan was date specified to the November 6, 2006 meeting. <= /span>

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

Mr. David Jordon of SFC Engineering provided the Board with an update of the status. He said they had been working on their responses to the Stantec (Town’s Engineer) review. Revised plans were submitted to St= antec and the Planning Department on Friday (September 29, 2006) addressing the plan review porti= on; a meeting was set to speak with Stantec regarding the porous pavement and the storm water management systems. Mr. Jordon said there were questions raised at the last meeting regarding buffe= ring and impacts to the abutters; they were continuing to work with those abutters.

Mr. Greg Smith, Architect with GFC Associates provided a summary of the site and discussed the design of the buildings.&nbs= p; He showed the Board the proposed floor plan of the units and an arti= st rendering showing the proposed in a three-dimensional aspect. He said the buildings would be set= back behind a buffer of trees off Hillcrest so the development wouldn’t be seen except for the first units.

Landscape Architect, Mr. Bill Burbank, discussed the plantings and setting of the con= do units that would be sold. He = said there would be exercise stations along paths throughout the property. He said there would be a meeting a= rea in a gazebo where people picked up their mail. Mr. Burbank said there was a quest= ion regarding how the existing buffer would be enhanced for the abutters. He discussed the drainage pipe that would be used along the area where a line of evergreens were proposed. He said the pipe was perforated an= d placed three-feet underground; this would act as root irrigation of the trees to h= elp sustain the plantings.

Dr. Robert Rosen, Director of the UNH Storm Water Center said while t= here were some questions regarding the use of a new/innovative BMP, and noted th= at standard of practice for storm water management was creating some major issues within the country. He said the prop= osed system could be very effective in areas where they wanted to prevent further degradation and protect certain waters.&nb= sp; He said at this point they had a very good understanding of the desi= gn and its limitations.

Mr. McManus asked if the under-drain would be used for leaching, or drainage. Mr. Jordon showed the location whe= re the under-drain was within the swale. He said it acted as a conveyance system taking the ground water and providing a means of bringing it into the project site and flow to the culv= ert on Hillcrest Lane. He said there was room between the= under drain and the property line to do plantings. Mr. McManus was concerned with the= root base choking the drainage off because it was a perforated drain. Mr. Jordon said the intention was = for the pipe to remain open, it was perforated so water from the ground could c= ome up into it and flow into the wetland area (within their property boundary). Mr. Burbank said t= he pipe was a straight line from where it was released and would be established prior to the plantings being done. He said the trees would intercept some of the water for their own benefit.

Mr. McNamara asked if Stantec had any issues.&= nbsp; Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec informed there were several waivers the Board would need to consider. He also noted that the community well radius would extend to the property line= of the adjacent property (to the east) as well as to the property line on Hillcrest Lane. He said one issue was the appearan= ce that the units were close to the road and difficult to have a vehicle park = in front of such. He said they w= ould be meeting with the applicant to discuss the porous pavement and the grass pavers. He said they had a be= tter comfort level with the proposed because he had been to UNH to obtain further information. There were also = some technical items to be worked out.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Donna Shanahan, 38 Hillcre= st Lane wanted to know if the proposed development were built if it could be later re-classified and sold as regular housing.= Mr. McNamara understood with the covenance (and requirements) in pla= ce, it would be difficult and believed it would have to come back to the Town a= s an entire parcel. Ms. Shanahan w= as concerned that the units would be sold off if they had difficulty selling as elderly units. Mr. Gowan said= there was tremendous interest in units such as the proposed. He said the roads wouldn’t b= e put on the ballot because they weren’t being built per Town standards. Ms. Shanahan asked what the process would be if the units were to change. Mr. Gowan said once the project was approved (contingent upon the associated condominium documents) it would be virtually impossible to build= it and have it to come back as conventional housing. Mr. Domenico asked Mr. Gowan to re= quest an opinion from Town Counsel how the Town would be safe-guarded from such action. Mr. Gowan said he wou= ld ask for a general opinion regarding classifying developments.

Ms. Iris Therriault, 36 Hillcrest wanted to know when the reports would be heard regarding ground water and drainage. She said the area was currently wet and some abutters had water in t= heir basement. Mr. Gowan said ther= e were two aspects; Stantec was reviewing the drainage analysis, and with regard to the environmental impact, Louis-Berger (Town environmental consultant) was = reviewing and would provide information. Mr. Rosen discussed the runoff and said it was specifically what was being discussed for some of use and selection of the systems. He said the question to answer was= if there would be runoff (off site) that would affect homes. Ms. Therriault wanted to know how = much excess water (from the septic) would be added to the property. She wanted to know where the water= from the septic would go once released if the ground couldn’t absorb anymo= re because it was already wetland. Mr. Rosen said the water was being taken out of the ground into the well and wo= uld be put back into the ground (through the septic) where it came from.

A site walk was scheduled for October 14, 2006. The pub= ic was invited to attend.

The Board then addressed the following waivers:

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the= waiver to Section 11.11 (water wells, on-site sewage, hydrological study); and 1= 1.11b well radius placement.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,bb, 12 – Roadway Design – street construction standards, minimum tangent length between horizontal curves.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Collins) To accept, for consideration, the = waiver to Appendix I, bb, 15a & b – K Factor crest and sag.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Collins) To accept, for consideration, the = waiver to Appendix I, dd – Cross Sections.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03,f – Plan Requirements – Wells and sep= tic fields.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.06 – Sidewalks and bikeways.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.07,e – Landscape design and plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, p – Roadway Design – Cut and fill and street construction (requesting 3-1 versus 4-1).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,t – Roadway Design – Drainage.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, bb – Roadway Design – Street Constructi= on Standards - minimum right-of-way width.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I – Roadway Design - Minimum pavement width 26-f= eet (24-feet proposed).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I – Roadway Design - Minimum Shoulder Width 4-fe= et (2-foot shoulder proposed). <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I – Roadway Design - Base Course Depth 12” gravel/ 6” crushed gravel (since porous gravel proposed a special b= ase coarse section of 4” crushed gravel, 8” bank run gravel and 4” crushed gravel proposed)

VOTE:

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------------<= /p>

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I – Roadway Design - paving (porous paving single 4” coat proposed).=

=

VOTE:

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix II,c,2 – Cul-de-sac Design. (no right-of way proposed due to private driveway; cul-de-sac with 50’ outside radius and 20’inside radius proposed to minimize encroach into WCD and accommo= date all truck and emergency vehicle turning movements).

=

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan said most of the waivers were to standard road specifications and were appropriate because the proposed is a private road system. He asked Mr. Hertrich to comment o= n any at the next meeting if they had cause for concern.

The plan was date specified to the October 16, 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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant requested that the plan be date specified to the next agenda.

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

= SITE WALK – October 14, 2006 beginning at 8am

Map 1 Lot 5-124 Herbert, Kevin – Mammoth Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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

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 Drivewa= y

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

= DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

= October 16, 2006

Map 6 Lot 4-143 Stanley One Family Trust, Edward G. Stanley II & Carol M. Stanley, Trustees = 211; Valley Hill Road & Bal= dwin Hill Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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

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

= November 6, 2006

Map 1 Lot 5-124 Herbert, Kevin – Mammoth Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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

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 Drivewa= y

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

September 7, = 2006 – deferred to the October 16, 2006 meeting.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/Collins) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:55 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