PB Minutes 10-16-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 16, 2006

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

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Alter= nate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenic= o, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Tom Collins

Mr. McManus and Mr. Dadak were appointed to vo= te for the evening’s proceedings.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Profes= sional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site P= lan Review of Proposed 640SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building=

Due to a problem with notification, the hearing was date specified to the November 6, 2006 meeting. =

OLD BUSINESS

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

Attorney Bill Mason and Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the plan. Mr. Zohdi explained that the parce= l consisted of a combination of three lots of record with acres totaling approximately = 98 acres and would be subdivided into 24 buildable lots. He said there was an existing hous= e, garage and pool. He noted tha= t an area at the end of the turnabout that went through the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’), which he wanted to discuss with the Board and would be submitting a waiver for. Mr. Zohdi said the proposed lots would all face the proposed road, except lot 1-146-7 that would have frontage on Spaulding Hill Road. He went on to review the plan set = with the Board. He indicated that = the soil classification had been done by Gove Environmental Services. He showed the grading plan for the road. The test beds had been reviewed by Town Health Officer Paul Zarnowski. Mr. Zohdi said they were proposing= a pump house, which had been approved by the Department of Environmental Serv= ices (‘DES’). The water system would be built under the supervision of the Pennichuck Water Company= and would be deeded to them. Mr. = Zohdi said he met with the Planning Director and the Town Administrator to discuss the road. He said they were proposing a road profile of 4% and discussed the fact there were two houses situated close to the proposed road. He said when the subdivision was done for Marie Avenue a 50-foot right of way= was left (to Tamposi’s land) and also at the time a 30-foot slope easement was left for shoulder work on the road.&nb= sp; He said the abutters allowed him to locate the existing structures on their lots (i.e. well, septic). Mr. Zohdi said one of the best scenarios was to have 4% (for the first 120ft) t= hen go to 10%; also with a 2-1 slope versus 3-1 slope. He provided the Board with a plan comparing a 2-1 slope to a 3-1 slope. He discussed the differences between the two options. He also noted he would work with t= he Board to determine where access would be (Spaulding Hill or Marie Avenue) for the development. =

Mr. Scanzani asked if the existing well (on the south) could be relocated. Mr. Zohdi said that was Mr. CaraDonna’s existing well. Mr. Scanzani believed the Board wo= uld want the road connectivity in the area.&nb= sp; He said with a 2-1 slope more runoff from the road would end up on t= he lots. He questioned if the two existing lots could be tied into the proposed water system. Mr. Zohdi said he would have to re= view capacity and discuss it with the abutter.&= nbsp; He went back to discussing the slope and noted if they went to Marie Avenue they would put a ditch line (with treatment swale) and closed drain drainage sys= tem if they went to 2-1 slope. Mr. Gowan said the proposed was reviewed and it appeared to be a reasonable way= to minimize the impact to the existing lots.&= nbsp; He hadn’t taken the specific plan to the Highway Safety Commit= tee, but would bring it to the next meeting on October 23, 2006. He suggested that the Board conduc= t a site walk.

Mr. McNamara asked if the water system was self contained with no other connectivity to another Pennichuck operation. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

It was noted that lot 1-147 will have legal frontage on the proposed road even though it wasn’t part of the subdivision. Mr. McNamara ask= ed if any variances or waivers would be needed with the proposed plan. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t nee= d any variances. There would be waiver requests for: 1) 2-1 grading, 2) 4% slope, = and 3) WCD crossing on the loop road.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was a purpose for = lot 1-146-6 being 2.00 acres. Mr.= Zohdi said it was two lots but he couldn’t get four test beds so they were combined.

There was further discussion regarding the proposed slope. Mr. Dadak questioned how they proposed to stabilize the 2-1 slope. Mr. Zohdi said there were many opt= ions and would glad to work with the Town engineer.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Soby, 9 Marie Avenue, lot 150-13 provided the Board with a letter outlining his concerns as well = as photographs of the area. He w= as opposed to the road proposed to go between lots 150-13 & 14. He said if the road went in he wou= ld lose approximately 8500SF of property.&nbs= p; He reviewed the photographs and explained what impacts the proposed slope easement would have on his and Mr. CaraDonna’s property. He said that he and Mr. CaraDonna = had spoken to Mr. Zohdi and Mr. Manukian and the Police Chief regarding an alternative (that was met positively).&nbs= p; He said the small area where Sky View came into the area could be gi= ven to the Town to allow access to Town property and other areas that may be developed. This proposal may = help some of the water issues coming into their homes as well.

Mr. John CaraDonna, 11 Marie Avenue, lot 150-14 provide= d the Board with copies of letters dated April 20, 2006 and October 16, 2006. He said the concerns contained in = the April 20^th letter still stood and asked that the October 16^=
th letter be entered into the minutes (see ATTACHMENT). He went on to read the October 16<= sup>th letter aloud. He recommended = approval of the plan without the interconnection to Marie Avenue and showed the Board w= here the road could terminate with a cul-de-sac. This would alleviate the building setback problem so his lot would meet the Zoning and Subdivision Regulation= s. Mr. CaraDonna said currently there= were three ingresses to the parcel; two from Spaulding Hill Road, the third from= Marie Avenue. Mr. Zohdi discussed where access c= ould be obtained through the loop road. He said there was no objection to adding a cul-de-sac at Marie Avenue. It was noted that the Cul-de-sac Regulations don’t allow more than 36 houses and a road could be no lo= nger than 2400-feet.

Mr. Scanzani asked if lot 1-146-15 was propose= d as a building lot. Mr. Zohdi sai= d he would put a right-of-way between lots 14 & 15 to access the Town land.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said he would show such on the = next plan. Mr. Domenico noted that= the parcel was already accessible off Spaulding Hill Road.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani noted there were two other parcels 2-69-3 & 2-65 that he didn̵= 7;t know where they went. He said= a stub would allow future connectivity and it the Town wanted to use the lot = for something.

Mr. Jim Fischer, 19 Scenic View Drive, who spoke at a previous meeting (and submitted a letter and photographs) reiterated his (a= nd his neighbor’s) concerns regarding erosion and drainage given the excessive amounts of ledge and its steep slopes. There was also concern with the applicant possibly clear-cutting mature trees to gain access to a view which would cause more erosion and water runoff.= Mr. Scanzani said the Board should possibly address tree plantings on the back of lot 146 to try and protect he area. Mr. Fischer asked the Board to con= sider a 50ft-75ft no-cut buffer zone between his property and the applicant’= ;s property which would provide a source of retention and to protect the erosi= on further. Mr. Zohdi said he wo= uld like the Board to review during the site walk. He said the architect would also r= eview. Mr. Scanzani said it was important= to have plantings that stabilize the soil.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani noted that the plan had not gone = to the Town Engineer for review. He said he wanted the Board to provide the applicant direction regarding eithe= r a proposed cut through to Ma= rie Avenue, or a cul-de-sac in that location. Mr. McNamara said he wanted to hea= r from the Safety Committee. Mr. Gow= an said he would take the plan to the Safety Committee for review.

The plan was date specified to the November 20, 2006 meeting. A site walk was sche= duled for November 18= , 2006 at 8am.

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

Mr. David Jordan of SFC Engineering and Mr. Sh= awn Harrington for Advanced Investments met with the Board to discuss the propo= sed Senior Housing project. Mr. J= ordon said they had received the second round of review comments from Stantec (Town’s Engineer) in connection with the plan review and drainage des= ign/calculation. He said they concur with all the recommendations/requests and believed there were only minor items remaining. He said the Board = needed to address certain questions and hoped to leave the meeting with a conditio= nal approval.

The Board reviewed the Stantec letter dated October 13, 2006:

1a) The Board asked for a light scheme for the entrance that would meet the criteri= a of being slightly more lit than a residential neighborhood. Mr. Jordan said he would provide = such to the Board;

1b) Mr. Jordan will review the radius= for the community well.

1c) The Board asked that the applicant review = the location of the pump house and possibly move it out of the Wetland Conserva= tion District (‘WCD’). Mr. Jordan said there was an area closer to Hillcrest Lane (within 150ft) they would have to review.

1d) Mr. Scanzani said a waiver would have to be submitted for the ‘maximum curve radiuses. Mr. Jordan said they would reques= t a waiver.

1e) Waiver has already been requested for Appe= ndix I, ‘K’ value for two vertical curves.

1f) Waiver has already been requested for Cross Sections.

1g) Mr. Jordan= said they were not required (per ADA) to have handicap spaces; however, they would provide such if the Board requested such. There was a consensus of the Board to keep the plan as proposed.

1h) It was noted that each unit had a single or double garage and the capability to have one or two cars in their driveway. There was a consens= us of the Board that the parking was adequate.

2a) Mr. Jordan said they received the= well permit, but were awaiting the wetlands and site specific permit.

2c,1) Mr. Jordan said they had an initial meet= ing with the Fire Department and would follow up/confirm with them regarding cisterns, sprinklers for the units and adequacy of access. Mr. Scanzani noted that the Board = wanted written comments from the Fire Chief. Mr. Domenico suggested that the applicant install a cistern for the benefit of the entire neighborhood. He asked if there were fire stops between the units. Mr. Gowan will check with the Fire Chief.

2c,3) Mr. Jordan said he would have the= Fire Department respond regarding the adequacy of the turning area for emergency vehicles.

2c,4) Sprinklers/cistern will be discussed with the Fire Chief.

2e,5) Mr. Jordan said once the well was= drilled, the water system and the pump house would be designed.

2i,1) Mr. Scanzani noted that the Town didn’t allow stumps to be buried, they could either be taken off site= , or ground up for use as burms. M= r. Jordan said he would note such on the plan.

2m,4) Mr. Jordan will provide informati= on regarding the water system and what would occur in the event of a power failure.

2m,6) Mr. Jordan said he would provide a clarification on the plan regarding water and sewer management.

The Board then reviewed Stantec’s commen= ts (in a letter dated October 16, 2006) regarding Storm Water Management.

1b) The Board wanted a schedule on the plan indicating that the Homeowner’s Association would be responsible for = the maintenance of the porous pavement. Mr. Gowan suggested that a note on the plan reference the maintenance schedule because it may be lengthy.

1c) The Board agrees that Dr. Roseen of UNH wi= ll be involved in all aspects of the installation of the porous pavement.

It was noted that all technical drainage comme= nts had been satisfactorily addressed. <= /span>

The following comments were made regarding the plans (Sheet 8):

1a) There was a discussion to determine if the entire length of the driveway accessing the development should be installed with porous pavement, or if the first portion (Town’s right-of-way) should be standard pavement. There was a consensus of the Board= to have the entire length be done with porous pavement.

1b) The Board accepted having a short-term bond for the materials.

1c) The Board felt it was acceptable to provid= e a basic description of the testing for the porous pavement.

1d) Mr. Jordan said they would provid= e a gap in the berm on the edge of the road if it gets clogged, the flow would = be allowed to go off the edge of the road into a swale at the end of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Dick Hertrich= of Stantec said that would be fine. Mr. = Gowan asked that a maintenance schedule was submitted; the Board concurred.

The remaining items were also agreed upon.

Mr. Gowan read aloud the letter submitted by Vollmer Associates (Town’s traffic consultant) dated October 12, 2006. He felt the applicant’s traf= fic engineer still needed to provide information regarding: 1) trip generation – directional distribution; 2) trip distribution – at Hillcrest Lane/Jericho Road in graphical form with backup; and 3) sight distance R= 11; stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance.

Mr. Gowan noted, to date, information had not been returned = from the Louis-Berger Group.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Board wanted to addr= ess some of the waivers. Ms. Ouel= lette said the waiver to section 10.03,f made her nervous because of the proximit= y of the homes to the proposed housing. &n= bsp;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To deny the waiver to Section 10= .03,f – Plan Requirements – Wells and septic fields.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed. (By a vote in the affirmative, t= he waiver to Section 10.03,f w= as denied)

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Section 11= .06 – Sidewalks and bikeways.<= u>

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Section 11.07,e – Landscape design and plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Appendix I= , p – Roadway Design – Cut and fill and street construction (requesting 3-1 versus 4-1).<= o:p>

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Appendix I= ,t – Roadway Design – Drainage.=

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Appendi= x I, bb,1 – Roadway Design – Street Construction Standards - minim= um right-of-way width.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Appendi= x I,bb,3 – Roadway Design - Minimum Shoulder Width 4-feet (2-foot shoulder proposed).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Appendix I= ,bb,6 – Roadway Design - Base Course Depth 12” gravel/ 6” cru= shed gravel (since porous gravel proposed a special base coarse section of 4” crushed gravel, 8” bank run gravel and 4” crushed gr= avel proposed)<= /p>

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb,7 – Roadway Design - paving (porous paving single 4” coat proposed).=

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb,11 – 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 accommodate all truck and emergency vehicle turning movements).

VOTE:

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

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

Mr. Scanzani said in the past, the Board has g= iven the leeway of having the radius to the boundary, however, if it went over, = it would have to be re-drilled. = Mr. Jordan informed that the well location would be staked out by a licensed land surv= eyor prior to drilling.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Section= 11.11,b (water wells, on-site sewage, hydrological study).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb, 12 & 15 – Roadway Design – street construction standards, minimum tangent length between horizontal curves.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, dd – Cross Sections.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani noted there were two other waivers for the Board to consider based on Stantec’s letter of October 13, 2006. Appendix I, bb,13 – horizont= al curve.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, bb,13 – horizontal curve.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said the only waiver not approved= was to Section 10.03,f estimated location and use of all existing structures on site and within 75-feet of the site. <= /p>

Mr. Gowan noted that a site walk had been conducted and there was some discussion regarding a back up generator for t= he pump house in the event of a power failure. He said this was not part of the c= urrent plan and the applicant may want to speak regarding such. He said another discussion was tha= t an adjacent subdivision (referred to as Golden Brook) may have included this parcel of land had covenants on it that only allowed single-family homes. He said he didn’t have the opportunity to research and felt it should be verified. Mr. Gowan said the other issue was= the fact that the proposed was an Active Adult Community and under the TownR= 17;s Zoning it is designed for persons fifty-five and older. Which meant the project could only= have persons fifty-five years old and older (including spouses); this was an interpretation given by Attorney John Rattigan (Town’s attorney). There was a brief discussion regar= ding age limitations; Mr. Gowan wanted further discussion because it may mean the only relief could come from the Board of Adjustment.

Mr. Scanzani said two engineering reviews were outstanding; the traffic study and the environmental study.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Donna Shanahan, Hillcrest Lane questioned the width= of the proposed driveway. Mr. Sc= anzani said it was proposed at 24-feet. Ms. Shanahan said that was wider than Hillcrest Lane. She wanted to know if there would = be a problem with emergency vehicles turning into the proposed development. Mr. Scanzani said the issue was wi= th Hillcrest and the Board couldn’t widen it. Ms. Shanahan was concerned with the increased traffic on Hillc= rest Lane because of its narrow width. Mr. Scanzani said the Selectmen co= uld be petitioned to widen the road.

Mr. Domenico questioned when Hillcrest Lane was built. Ms. Iris Therriault, Hillcrest Lane informed that her father-in-law owned Golden Brook Construction and put the road through (app= roximately 40 years ago) up to the Foley’s and Brunelle’s property; later,= her husband pushed the road through to the end approximately 37 years ago. Mr. Domenico said because of the a= ge of the development, there probably weren’t road easements beyond the 16-= foot paved width which would mean the property owners on either side voluntarily giving easements.

Ms. Therriault wanted to know how the developm= ent fit with the neighborhood. Mr. McNamara felt the developers had gone beyond what they were required to do. He discussed what the alternatives could have been. He believed the issue was the screening of the abutting property. Mr. Scanzani said the state wanted higher densities on lots with more open space. Ms. Therriault said the developmen= t may fit in other areas of the Town, but it didn’t belong where it was proposed due to the character of the neighborhood and proximity of abutting homes.

Mr. Tony and Beth Philip, Hillcrest Lane discussed their conc= erns with the Board. Ms. Philip sa= id they would like the buffer issue added as a condition of approval. She said they were in the process = of contacting the applicant to try and work something out privately regarding = the buffer as well. She wanted to= know if trees were added to her back yard if would become a prescriptive easement. Mr. McNamara didn&#= 8217;t believe so. Mr. Scanzani said= the only thing the Board could address were the items on the applicant’s = land. However, it didn’t preclude = the applicant from working with an abutter and submitting a written document containing the agreement. Mr.= Philip said they met with the applicant’s representative and noted it was pa= rt of the discussion. Mr. Scanza= ni said in the past if the applicant and a developer had worked together the B= oard would be happy to listen to it. Ms. Philip discussed a trail on the property and wanted to know if the Board fe= lt any issues would arise from such. She also wanted to know if people would continue to have the right to use portions of it. Mr. Phili= p said he heard from people regarding their use of the trail and believed it may b= e access to a broader green space. Mr. Scanzani said there was a trails map in the Town office, but was unaware th= at the trail was part of it. Mr.= Gowan didn’t know if the trails viewed during the site walk were part of To= wn trails. Mr. Domenico said it = was believed that the trail was spur that lead to a larger trail system. Mr. Philip said he had done resear= ch regarding the porous pavement and asked that it not be within 100-feet of h= is well. Mr. Scanzani said the B= oard wanted to know where the septics and wells were on the property as well. Mr. Philip asked if the plan inclu= ded contingency plans in the event of a power outage with regard to the waste w= ater management facility. Mr. Scan= zani said that issue was part of Stantec’s review, but until the applicant submitted the design it was unknown. Mr. Gowan said he would want the suppression system to continue work= ing in the event of an outage. Mr. Dadak believed because of the type and size of the system he believed the s= tate would require a backup system. Mr. Philip said he didn’t appreciate experimental pavement and waste water management in the location. M= r. Scanzani said the systems weren’t new, they were being used throughout the state.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the applicant needed any further direction from the Board. Mr. Jordan believed they were clear regarding what needed to be provided. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = like to view what was proposed for buffering and if possible, work out something with the abutter.

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

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

There were items being reviewed by legal; the = plan was date specified to the October 23, 2006 meeting.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-= Unit Senior Housing Complex

The plan was continued to the November 6, 2006 meeting.

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. David Aho, Patriot Land Surveying, representing the applicant, distributed revised plans to the Board. H= e said one note had been added to the plan and the Board wanted to review the prop= osed driveway location in case = Baldwin Hill Road was ever developed. The driveway has been shifted approximately 40ft-50ft to the west.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Paul DeCarolis representing J. Albert Lynch, Jr. who owns a large parcel ab= utting the applicant’s property discussed the drainage of the parcel. He said there was an existing culv= ert that captured the drainage from his client’s property and flowed down toward the applicant’s parcel. He asked that a note be included on the plan indicating that the drainage flow would continue as it currently was.

Mr. Scanzani said the existing culvert was the Town’s responsibility to maintain. He said the slope o= f the land took the drainage down. = He suggested that the applicant possibly add a note on the plan that they don’t grade the land and back up the culvert. Mr. Aho said the situation was alr= eady existing and believed there was statute protection (RSA 236:19) for it already.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to the well r= adius (with the understanding that the Board had commonly provided that the wel= l be drilled in the position located, if it were to go over the lot line, it w= ould have to come back to the Board). <= /span>

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said the only other note was the relocation of the driveway. Mr. Aho said the driveway had been= moved to the west approximately 40ft-50ft due to the concern for if Baldwin Hill Road was developed. He said the lo= cation shown was believed to be the safest location of the driveway.

Mr. McNamara questioned a comment made during the last meeting regarding the driveway and ‘cutting’. Mr. Gowan said the location was a question as well as the sight distance. Mr. Scanzani felt t= he applicant provided a compromise for sight distance in the event of future development.

Mr. McNamara made a motion to approve the plan. Mr. Domenico seconded the motion.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara asked if there should= be further discussion regarding the culvert.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said the existing culvert was Town owned and at times h= ad water flowing over it because it wasn’t large enough. He suggested providing that inform= ation to the Highway Road Agent. Mr. McManus said currently the culvert needed to be cleaned out. Mr. Gowan suggested adding a note indicating that that no alteration of the ‘assumed’ drainage easement would take place. Mr= . Aho said once he confirmed the statute (regarding no interruption of drainage) = he could reference such on the plan. The Board didn’t object to adding a note to the plan.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico) To approve the plan subject to a= note on the plan citing the RSA regarding the existing culvert.

VOTE:

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

Map 38 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-155 Mopar Construction R= 11; Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Elderly Housing

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

Map 17 Lot<= /st1:place> 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC –= ; Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland a= nd WCD Crossing

The plan was continued and date specified to the October 23, 2006 meeting.

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ftx60ft two-story Warehouse Building<= /st1:PlaceType>

The plan was continued and date specified to the October 23, 2006 meeting.

= SITE WALK – November 18, 2006 8am<= /o:p>

Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148 & 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Ro= ger Montbleau – Marie Av= enue & Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 24-= Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

= DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – =

= October 23, 2006

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

Map 17 Lot 12-253 JRS Realty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland a= nd WCD Crossing

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ftx60ft two-sto= ry Warehouse Building

= November 6, 2006

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Revi= ew of Proposed 640SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, L= LC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex

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

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

= November 20, 2006

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

September 7, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Ouellette/Domenico)To approve the September 7, 2006 Planning= Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

September 18, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/Ouellette)To approve the September 18, 2006 Planni= ng Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

October 2, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Domenico)To approve the October 2, 2006 Planning B= oard minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

MISCELLANE= OUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Scanzani said the Board approved Quail Run and as a condition of approval, the applicant was responsible to pave a 4-foot wide = area to the right of Burns Road= (toward the High School), which had been done except for approximately 100-= feet of Burns Road. It wasn’t done because that particular area had a wetland and would require a retaining wall. Mr. Scanzani said one of the stipulations was that the bond would be held in its entirety until the work= was complete. Even though the roa= d had over-wintered three times, the bond was still being held. Mr. Scanzani said he walked the si= te with the Highway Road Agent Don Foss, Mr. Gowan, the engineer and the applicant, who was willing to put the header walls in and obtain the permit= s to do the work in the WCD. He sa= id Mr. Foss didn’t want work being done while school was in session and want= ed to wait until next summer. He no= ted that the entire bond was being held and wanted to know if the Board was agreeable to have Mr. Gowan get an updated estimate for the work (from Mr. Foss) and hold and additional 30% stipulating if the work was not done by n= ext fall the Town would pull the bond and get the work done itself. Ms. Ouellette asked who would prov= ide the quote. Mr. Scanzani said = Mr. Foss would provide a quote. M= s. Ouellette questioned if the number should be certified. Mr. Gowan said the site was walked= last spring with the Town’s engineer who came up with a plan for the work = to be completed. Mr. McNamara as= ked if there was an agreement in writing. <= /span>Mr. Scanzani said it would be. Mr. McManus said he spoke to the developer and wanted the Board to know that he= had tried to do the work for several years but had been held up due to circumstances with the Town changing employees. It was noted that the work could t= ake approximately one and a half weeks.

Mr. Gowan said if there was a consensus of the Board, = the information (agreement) would be put together and brought back to the Board= for a request for bond reduction. There was a consensus of the Board to have Mr. Gowan put the information together.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Domenico/McNamara) 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