PB Minutes 11-06-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 6, 2006

The Chairman Bill Scanzani called the meeting to order= at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert (arrived after the meeting commenced), Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate Bob Yarm= o, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico

Mr. Dadak and Mr. McManus were appointed to vo= te for the evening’s proceedings. (When Mr. Culbert arrived, Mr. Dadak w= as asked to abstain from voting).

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 22 Lot 8-126 & 129 Fagundes = & Edwards – 7 &9 M= ossey Lane – Proposed L= ot Line Adjustment

Mr. David Aho of Patriot Land Surveying, repre= senting the applicant, discussed the proposed lot line adjustment. He said the proposed plan adjusted= the lot line to increase the parcel from approximately 50,000SF to 1.6 acres and the frontage would be increased to 200ft. on Mossey Lane. The remaining parcel (2.295 acres)= was reviewed and would meet the zoning requirements. Mr. Aho said the existing parcel&#= 8217;s frontage was on a private way and had a long standing variance.

It was Mr. Gowan’s opinion that the plan= met the specifications for acceptance. He had issues to review once the Board accepted such.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Bousa) To accept the plan for consideratio= n.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said even though the lot may be of the correct sizing for a building lot, it didn’t make it so because it hasn’t been shown to have 35,000SF contiguous (high and dry land), the location of the well , septic etc. Mr. Aho said there were no wetlands on the parcel, but at this point= he had been asked to move a lot line. He said in the event the applicant decided to apply for a building permit, they could provide additional information.

Mr. Gowan said the plan was not as simple as m= ost lot line adjustments; however after reviewing the plan and the information = in the file he had come the conclusion that the proposed was a lot line adjust= ment and not a subdivision. He sai= d his original concern was the proposal to take frontage from the original lot thereby making it more non-conforming, but he didn’t believe this to = be true because there was a variance to build on a private, unimproved road. The small amount that has since be= en paved and publicly maintained, came after the variance was granted. It was Mr. Gowan’s opinion t= hat the plan met Zoning. He expla= ined to the applicant that the Board and the Planning Department was very concer= ned when land is being cut to create a remaining parcel that the existing would remain conforming. He said th= ere was a note on the plan indicating such.&nb= sp; He said the lot line re-location didn’t mean that the lot (bei= ng made larger) was buildable and had made it clear evidence would have to be provided showing it had 35,000SF (contiguous high and dry) prior to a build= ing permit being issued. He said because the proposed was not a subdivision it wouldn’t need to follow= the well rules (for new subdivisions), but would still have to go to New Hampshire for approvals.

Mr. Scanzani said the original lot would not e= ver have been a building lot, but with the lot line change provided a 200-foot frontage and enough land to make the proposed a subdivision creating a lot = that could be used. He felt an app= roval should be conditioned upon satisfactorily showing the Planning Department t= he 35,000SF (contiguous) and the well radius meets the current setbacks (15-fe= et from the lot line) and also shows the locations of the driveway, septic and house (an as-built).

Mr. McManus discussed the variance and believe= d it had been eliminated based on frontage being taken away from the existing lot. Mr. Gowan, being the Zon= ing Administrator, said he makes the decision, and explained that the variance was for Mossey Lane= – to build a house on a private road. Mr. Scanzani noted when the variance was granted it was a dirt road; since that time the Town had paved Mossey Lane and what was being created was a valid To= wn lot with 200-foot frontage onto a valid Town road. Mr. McManus questioned if parcel ‘B’ was made legal when the road was paved. Mr. Scanzani said the variance was approved for a house on a private road; it made no difference whether or no= t it was paved. Mr. Gowan said not= e #13 on the plan explained the variance.

There was no public input.

It was noted that there was a waiver request to Section 10.03,d,1 of the Subdivision Regulations.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver to Section 10.03,d,1 (site condition).

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara wanted to know the rational for t= he proposed request. Mr. Aho said the pla= n would be filed at the Registry of Deeds rather than filing a topographical plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> If the waiver was accepted, Mr. Mc= Namara wanted to be sure that a building permit wouldn’t be granted unless it was determined that there was 35,000 (contiguous high and dry) and where the well, septic etc. were located.

Mr. Scanzani said if the lot line was approved= he wanted it subject to ‘no building permit being issued’ on lot 22-8-126 until the well radiuses being verified to the setback lines, the driveway access would be located and where the well, septic etc. would be located. Mr. Aho believed that would probably be shown on a separate plan.

In the lot’s current configuration, Mr. Gowan was not convinced that a 75-foot well protective radius would fit wit= hin the setbacks. He wanted it cl= ear if a subsequent waiver was required, it would have to come back to the Board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. Aho wasn’t sure what the Board’s interpretation would be since the lot previously existed. He said they would try to keep the existing lot (being made smaller) fit the guideline. He said they could submit a waiver request for the 15-foot setback for lot 22-8-126.

Mr. Culbert arrived.

Mr. Gowan said another option would be for the Board to allow the well, as long as it was confined within the property bou= ndaries. The Board didn’t have a prob= lem with the suggestion, as long as it remained within the property boundaries. Ms. Bousa said th= ere was only one location it would fit; but wanted to know what would happen if they weren’t able to draw water.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani anticipated that the plan would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Culbert asked if a= well location was shown. Mr. Scanz= ani said nothing was shown. Mr. C= ulbert asked if an additional lot was being created. Mr. Scanzani said the lot already = existed. He said when the lot line change w= as done, the lot would be more conforming than it previously was.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Section 10.03,d,1 (site condition). <= o:p>

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert abstained.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Dadak) To approve the lot line adjustment, subject to the following conditions: 1) before a building permit is issued there is to be verification of the location of the well and the well radi= us is to fit within the property boundaries; 2) the location of the driveway and access to Mossey Lane is to be determined; 3) the location of the well and septic system is to be determined; and 4) there is 35,000 contiguous squa= re feet.

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert abstained.

Mr. Aho didn’t have a problem meeting the conditions.

Mr. Dadak was asked to abstain from voting sin= ce Mr. Culbert had arrived.

Ma= p 4 Lot 9-138 Stadtmiller (Portner), Marie – Tallant Road – Pre-Design Rev= iew of Proposed 8-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Mr. Bill Keating of Cuoco & Cormier met wi= th the Board to discuss the pre-design review of a subdivision being proposed. He said the entire = site contained approximately 29 acres with eight lots being proposed; one curren= tly existing and one non-buildable lot comprised mainly of wetland. He said in a separate future proje= ct a 10-acre parcel may be subdivided into four additional lots. The current project was six lots.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> One of the applicant’s main = interests was the entrance road where it crossed the existing wetlands; it essentially went over the existing drive, but was a lot smaller than the proposed roadway. Mr. Keating said the= re were two alternates for the Board to consider regarding the wetland crossin= g: 1) filling in the east side of the wetlands to put the road in and on the w= est side install a retaining wall (so the brook wouldn’t be impacted) = 211; 7200SF wetland impact; or 2) put a retaining wall on both sides of the entr= ance road to minimize the wetland impact to the maximum extent possible – 3900SF wetland impact.

Mr. Scanzani asked for the location of the possible future development. = Mr. Keating said there may be four lots in a future subdivision. He said they would leave an entran= ce drive for the proposed future development.= Mr. Scanzani asked what the maximum length the proposed, and future cul-de-sacs would be. The pro= posed cul-de-sac would be approximately 1200-feet; the future road would be approximately 1450-feet.

Mr. Culbert asked where the brook was located. Mr. Keating showed t= he location of the brook and noted it was previously a cut drainage ditch that= was now flowing water.

Mr. Dadak asked what the total wetland and Wet= land Conservation District (‘WCD’) impact would be. Mr. Keating said the plan was preliminary in nature at this time.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the alternatives being presented. He asked how high = the retaining wall was and what length it ran.= Mr. Keating said the retaining wall was approximately 5-feet and wou= ld run between 240ft – 250ft. Mr. Scanzani asked if the wetland impact being discussed was actually the WCD or the water. Mr. Kea= ting said it was a wetland impact, not water.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani asked if it was wetlands or wetland-type soil that they proposed filling.

Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco & Cormier then addressed the Board. He said essentially they were looking at the wetlands, not the buffer. Mr. Scanzani questioned how it wou= ld be mitigated. Mr. Roy said they = wanted to know from the Board if they could modify the Town’s cross-section = for a public roadway. After which= they would speak with the Conservation Commission and then New Hampshire Departm= ent of Environmental Services (‘DES’). With regard to mitigation, Mr. Roy= said the total project may be small enough that DES may not require mitigation; = they would then determine what was required locally. He said on the non-building lot (e= ast of the roadway) they were proposing storm water management (and maybe mitigati= on, if necessary). Because of the driveway configuration, and the wetlands across the front of the property t= hey felt it was most appropriate to come up the driveway with the proposed road= and minimize the impacts.

Mr. Culbert asked what square footage the wetl= and impact would be. Mr. Keating reviewed the areas of impact. Mr. Roy believed the approximate im= pact from option 1 would be 8000SF and option 2 would be approximately 4700SF. Mr. Culbert asked what the WCD imp= act would be. Mr. Roy said the WC= D impact wasn’t calculated. Essentially, the only dry area was the driveway. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that the = WCD would be filled to put the road in. Mr. Roy said everything flowed down toward <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Tallant Road. They were looking for a place to do water management; the only area out of the WCD was at the bottom of the road. They could excavate and= create a reasonable amount of treatment. They were looking to place the stub for future subdivision where it would have the least wetland impact (but it would impact the WCD); there wo= uld be no wetland impact for the future road.&= nbsp; Mr. Culbert wanted to know how they knew the proposed water quality/treatment area would be large enough if engineering had not been done. Mr. Roy said they had d= one some basic preliminary work. = He explained that for detention and treatment the area would need to be excavated.

Mr. Roy wanted to know how the Board felt about the lower end of the road not receiving treatment. The other option was to move the treatment area further up, north of the wetlands.

Mr. McNamara said he needed a calculation on W= CD impacts and more information regarding slopes. He said the parcel was very diffic= ult and wanted to hear from Conservation. Mr. Dadak discussed the fact that the only access was through poorly/very poorly drained soil, WCD or wetland. Mr. Roy said they were willing to = put more work into the plan. He w= anted to know if the Board was willing to reduce the public road cross-section to minimize wetland impacts. Mr. Scanzani said there would still be a 50-foot right-of-way. He said on smaller subdivisions the Board may have approved a reduction in the pavement width, but was unsure if that would be allowed given the fact that there would be two developments.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He felt the 50-foot right-of-way a= nd regular paved width would be important.&nb= sp; He said it would be difficult to give direction with the absence of = an environmental study. He could= n’t recall the Board allowing wetlands to be filled to put a road in. Mr. Culbert couldn’t recall = the Board allowing such. Mr. Roy explained that the surrounding areas had been developed and the only way in= to the parcel was from Tallan= t Road. He believed given the circumstance= s, that the state would allow wetland crossings of this nature to access the land. Mr. Culbert believed wi= th the Town’s regulations being more stringent that’s how the ruling w= ould go. Mr. Roy agreed that there= were local considerations.

Mr. Culbert said in order for him to provide direction with the plan he would need to see engineering and a lot more wor= k. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that ther= e had not been an environmental study on the wetland yet. Mr. Culbert said lot site specific= would be required. Mr. Roy understo= od there were concerns. Mr. Scan= zani questioned if the entrance was moved to the west if it would be less of an impact. Mr. Roy couldn’t answer at this time but they would try to balance the wetland impacts and t= he storm water treatment.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara said he would like further information and also input from Conservation and a WCD calculation. He would like more detail regardin= g an alternative into the parcel and the site conditions in the area.

Mr. Keating said he believed the Board was indicating that they preferred to minimize wetland impacts at all costs. Mr. Scanzani said he couldn’t recall the Board allowing a road to be built by filling in wetlands. He didn’t believe the Board = would allow it in this case either. Mr. Roy discussed how they would proceed. They will get further information before pushing forward.

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-126 Keating Materials/Redimix Companies, Inc. – Bridge Street (Route 38) – Pre-Design Review of Conceptual Site Plan for a Proposed Concrete Batch Pla= nt for Public Discussion

Mr. Dave Bissonnette, President of Redimix Companies, read aloud a brief statement that introduced Redimix to the Board and explained they were requesting permission to locate a concrete batch pl= ant on the property with the existing Keating Materials company. The plant would service the Town a= nd surrounding communities.

Mr. Dan Blais of TF Moran reviewed the proposal given to the Board. He said t= he plant would have silos for aggregate storage and dust collection storage. Some of the components would have a height of 70-feet. Mr. Blais = said a concrete batch plant was consistent with the ongoing operations on the Keat= ing Materials parcel. They propos= ed to tuck the plant (in a previously quarried area) in behind an earthen berm th= at ran along Route 38 and Cob= urn Road. The berm is approximately 20-feet = high when measured from the Bri= dge Street side; photographs were circulated. The berm and trees together were relatively the same height as any of the silos. Mr. Blais said the subject parcel = was approximately 3.5 acres with 519-feet of frontage with a setback of 131 feet. They are scheduled to s= eek relief (in the form of a variance) for the frontage and side setback later = in the month from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Blais said on October 3, 2006 a representa= tive from Ensar Environmental visited the site and noted there were no wetlands on the subject parcel. He said a por= table office trailer would be used on site. They anticipated the use of 6-8 trucks and showed parking for seven. There would be two (da= ily) trips delivering the cement; there was space to accommodate trailers for storage. Water would be store= d in a water tank boiler configuration and would operate as a water heater in the winter, and storage tank in the summer.&nb= sp; They were not proposing to bring any sewer/septic, it was already available on the Keating site. Mr. Blais said the anticipated hours of operation were Monday-Friday 6:30am-8pm and Saturday from 6:30am-2pm as needed (depending upon t= he building season). Each of the= 6-8 trucks will make approximately five roundtrips per day (totaling 30-40 trips plus cement and other aggregates). The storage bins will house short-term storage of aggregates. The electrical service is three-ph= ase installed through the local utility company. <= /span>Mr. Blais said there would be add-mixtures stored on site and were not consider= ed hazardous materials.

Mr. Scanzani asked if concrete could be done year-round. Mr. Bissonnette s= aid they were proposing a 12-month season.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani said dust was always a problem at the site and wanted to know what dust would be created in the area from the concrete. Mr. Bissonnette said the product wouldn’t add to the dust; the powder is nomadically inserted into the silo and tightly sealed.

Mr. Culbert questioned how high the storage bl= ocks would be. Mr. Bissonnette sai= d they stacked three-four blocks high (approximately 12-feet). Mr. Culbert confirmed that the Portland (cement) wouldn’t enter the atmosphere. Mr. Bissonnette answered yes. Mr. Culbert asked how heavy a full truck would be. Mr. Bissonnette said fully loaded,= a truck would be 73,000 pounds. Mr. Culbert asked if any study had been done regarding what the weight did to roads. Mr. Bissonnette answer= ed no. They operate in various o= ther locations and had not had issues with any of the roads. Mr. Culbert wanted to know at what= time equipment was turned on and/or loaded.&nbs= p; Mr. Bissonnette said the truck would be loaded and ready to leave the site at 6:30am. Mr. Culbert wanted to know what ti= me the machines would begin running and if it would be prior to 6:30am.&= nbsp; Mr. Bissonnette said they would do whatever they were allowed; occas= ionally they would be running prior to 6:30am.

Mr. Culbert questioned why the Board was heari= ng the plan prior to it going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (‘ZBA’). Mr. Gowa= n said the reason the plan was going to the ZBA due to the height of the container= s; at the time the plan was submitted the applicant was unsure what size containers they would use.

Mr. Culbert addressed the landscaping and info= rmed last time Keating had been before the Board they said they would do somethi= ng about it, and it was never done. Mr. Bissonnette said he would be happy to convey specifics back to Keating. He was directed to contact the Pla= nning Director. Mr. Scanzani confir= med that landscaping and reducing the dust were two items not completed from the last time Keating was in front of the Board. He said the site kept being expand= ed with no restoration plan. It = was his opinion if there was going to be further expansion that a site restorat= ion plan be submitted.

Mr. Scanzani was concerned regarding the amoun= t of water that would be necessary 15,000 gallons per day (90,000 – 100,000 gallons per week). Mr. Bisson= nette said they were reviewing two sources; 1) some drilled wells on site; and 2) recycling storm water. There = was further discussion regarding the current storm water that had collected and= if it would be an adequate amount. Mr. Culbert said he wouldn’t support the plan if they were going to drawi= ng out from the wells because of the amount that would be pulled from the aqui= fer. Mr. Scanzani said he would like to investigate where the storm water came from that went into the quarry. He wanted to know the flow rate. Mr. Dadak believed that some scien= ce could be used to determine if there was adequate water.

Mr. McNamara asked how much noise or odor woul= d be generated from the plant. Mr.= Bissonnette said the loudest noise would come from a front loader or a truck revving. No odors would come from the plant= . Mr. McNama= ra questioned what direction (south or north) the trucks would go. Mr. Bissonnette said the direction= would depend on the work. Mr. Scanz= ani believed the traffic flow should be reviewed and suggested that the entrances be paved. Mr. Blais said the ent= rance was currently paved; there was also a paved loop on the property. A small portion would be relocated= to accommodate the trucks.

Mr. Scanzani asked what type of materials woul= d be put into the block bins and if they would be covered. Mr. Bissonnette said the bins would contain sand and stone. The b= ins wouldn’t be covered, but they would be tucked in behind the berm. The same bins were used at other locations; there weren’t problems with the contents being blown away = by wind.

Mr. McNamara said the Board would need to see proof that the storm water would be capable of sustaining the operation for= an extended period of time. He a= sked if the water would need to be treated.&nbs= p; Mr. Bissonnette said the only requirement was that the water be potable. Mr. McNamara said th= e City of Dracut, MA should be notified if the plan went further because it is a project that would impact Drac= ut. Mr. Gowan agreed and made a note.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McManus suggested having some sort of sound screening. He also suggested installing some sort of grating in the ground between the driveway and entr= ance to Route 38 to catch dirt and stone from the tires of the trucks. Mr. Bissonnette noted their standa= rd procedure was to rinse trucks down prior to leaving a site.

Mr. Dadak questioned if the proposed plant wou= ld run 12-months per year. Mr. B= issonnette answered yes. Mr. Dadak quest= ioned when the other operations (on the site) ran. Mr. Bissonnette was only familiar = with the concrete plan, but if the Board wanted would inquire about the other operations.

Ms. Bousa asked if the Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) driveway permit had been applied for. Mr. Bissonnette believed that ther= e was an existing driveway onto Route 38. Ms. Bousa said a new operation would require state review. She then inquired what the require= ment was for the walking distance was from the plant to the existing facilities. Mr. Gowan said he= would obtain the information.

There was no public input.

Mr. Scanzani summarized the conversation betwe= en the Board and the applicant: 1) submission of a restoration plan on the sit= e as part of the applicant’s submission to expand the site; 2) completion = of conditions of approval from prior plan (Mr. Gowan will research) – i.e. landscap= ing; 3) review alternatives to capture materials from truck tires as they exit t= he site; 4) water usage concerns – better understanding of use of storm water, if its adequate, where it comes from etc.; 5) limitation of hours of operation that Keating is currently under; 6) Highway Safety Committee revi= ew of signage and additional traffic (after submission of plan); 7) review of current dust on site and reduction of such (possibly part of restoration pl= an) and 8) DOT driveway permit.

Mr. Dadak questioned if the applicant needed a= ny permits from the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. Bissonnette said a storm water= plan was standard practice; they would get it at the time they became operational. He asked for fur= ther clarification regarding a restoration plan. Mr. Scanzani said the restoration = should be for the entire site, not just for Pelham. It was noted that Dracut should have been notified. Mr. Gowan said when the plan came = in with a formal application he would make sure notification was given. Mr. Blais clarified that Dracut was not a d= irect abutter to the parcel. Mr. Mc= Namara said under state law the Board would proceed at their own risk if surroundi= ng abutters weren’t notified regarding a project of regional impact.

Mr. Culbert asked if the applicant intended to= use the existing wells if the storm water turned out to be non-potable. Mr. Bissonnette said if they didn’t use the storm water, they would have to review other options.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert had a major problem ta= king 90,000 gallons (per week) out of the aquifer.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani asked how many parcels were owned by Keating. Mr. Blais said Keating owned four = parcels in Pelham, but was unsure how many parcels there were in Dracut. Mr. Scanzani felt even though there were separate parcels, they shou= ld be considered one because the whole parcel was all the same use.

There was no further discussion.

Ma= p 38 Lot 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. Mr. Gowan confirmed that the Town = of Hudson had been notified. Ms. Ouellette answe= red yes.

Mr. Scanzani said the plan had been delayed due to a notification problem. He said since that time, Stantec (Town’s engineer) first review had been received. He asked that the applicant presen= t the plan and listen to the abutters and at the next hearing address Stantec’s comments. Mr. Gowan asked to = be notified when the applicant would meet with Stantec; he wanted to be involv= ed to work through a lot of the issues.

Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco & Cormier and Proje= ct Manager Tim Watson met with the Board to discuss the proposed senior housing development. Mr. Roy said the= re were two items that Stantec had directed back to the Board and wanted the Board’s input regarding such. He said Stantec asked that final septic and water design be provided= to the Board; however, they submitted preliminary information because of the status of the project. Mr. Sc= anzani said the other issues could be worked on and then address the two items once other items had been addressed.

Mr. Gowan believed it would be appropriate to re-accept the plan for consideration since the applicant re-notified abutters.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Roy believed everyone was familiar with the presentation, so he asked to provide a re-cap of the proposed so they could listen to abutter comments. M= r. Scanzani asked him to proceed.

Mr. Watson said they were proposing a 40-unit senior housing project that bordered Tyngsboro and Hudson. There was one (split) entrance dri= ve off Sherburne Road that split into three sections accessing different areas of the parcel. There were a few wetland and Wetla= nd Conservation District (‘WCD’) impacts indicated on the plan. An emergency access road was provi= ded exiting onto Litchfield Circle Extension.&= nbsp; The site will be serviced by community septic systems and a community well. A water design firm wil= l be sub-contracted to do a plan. = Mr. Watson discussed the proposed drainage that would be captured into catch ba= sins into two detention basins and discharged into the wetlands. Passive recreation (walking trails= ) were proposed.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any snowmobile trails on the existing site. = Mr. Watson said it wasn’t defined, but at one point either snowmobiles or ATV’s may have accessed the property. Mr. Scanzani asked if the applicant would provide an easement along the back property line going into Tyngsboro. Mr. Roy questioned= what sort of easement was being requested. Mr. Scanzani said if there were any continual trails, an easement wo= uld provide the opportunity to continue them to Hudson. Mr. Roy said the Magarians wanted to keep the parcel private, but th= ey would review further. Mr. Sca= nzani said if there were existing trails, they should be defined. To Mr. Roy’s knowledge, ther= e was nothing defined. He believed = the property had been posted and not allowed for use as public access. Mr. Ken Magarian (of Westfield, MA), the owner of the property, wanted to know what was being requested. Mr. Scanzani noted that the Town currently had more miles of snowmobile trails than roads. He said when large parcels were subdivided, large gaps were left in the trails. He said if there were any trails o= n the property they would like them continued.&n= bsp; Typically if trails are on a property, the Board asks that the trail= s be continued on the property lines so the development wasn’t negatively affected. Mr. Magarian knew o= f one area that had been used which circled in the property. He asked if the snowmobiles had ac= cess to the land. Mr. Scanzani sai= d in the winter they would have access where ever it was marked. He said they tried to keep the con= tinuity of keeping the trails going. = Mr. Magarian believed there was an area being used without permission, but was unsure how often it was used. Mr. Scanzani said they would review the Town trails map. Mr. Gowan left the room to review = the trails map.

Mr. Watson mentioned there were a few wetlands= on the site, one of which dissected the property and another that ‘fingered’ off near the Litchfield Circle Extension area. He pointed out an area that would = be left undeveloped, other than the emergency access (to Litchfield Circle) and walking trails.

Mr. Culbert confirmed that the emergency acces= s to Litchfield Circle would remain as just that, not a regular access. Mr. Watson said they spoke to the = Fire Department who asked that the access be gated (on the applicant’s property) so if they needed to access it would be the responsibility of the Homeowner’s Association to repair such. Mr. Scanzani didn’t recall w= hy the Board didn’t have the roads connect.= Mr. Roy said the proposed roadway would be private; the burden of maintenance would fall on the homeowners.&= nbsp; He said there was no advantage to connecting since the proposed exit= ed to Sherburne Road. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the app= licant didn’t have a problem contributing to a Sherburne Road study. Mr. Roy said they didn’t hav= e a problem with such.

Mr. Gowan returned and reported that there wer= e no existing trails on the applicant’s property indicated on the Town map.

Mr. McNamara asked if sidewalks were being pro= posed. Mr. Roy said sidewalks were being shown.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Clement, 125 Sherburne Road said his major c= oncern was the number of units surrounding the property. He said if the proposed was a stan= dard housing development, there would only be two, maybe three houses. He wanted to keep as many of the u= nits off his property line as possible. Mr. Scanzani said the plan met zoning. Mr. Clement said he discussed the feasibility of obtaining a right-of-way to Long Pond. His parents had an agreement with = Mr. Magarian, Sr. Mr. Clement sai= d he was concerned with the value of his property and asked that the applicant consider moving some of the units from his property line. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant sh= owed a treed buffer along the property line.

Mr. McNamara questioned if the Board would con= duct a site walk. There was further discussion and it was noted that a site walk would be scheduled for November 18, 2006.

Mr. David Silva, 120 Sherburne Road (also 8 Sherburne Road, Hudson, NH), said he received a l= etter in the mail indicating that the applicant submitted a request for a Dredge & Fill application. He as= ked where such would occur. Mr. W= atson said they proposed 3500SF (across the street from Mr. Silva) to install culverts that would maintain the drainage flow. Mr. Silva confirmed the areas that= would be filled. Mr. Scanzani said = the only thing happening was culverts, header walls and a crossing would occur. Mr. Silva said the pip= ing that crossed the road from his property came from housing behind him onto the applicants parcel. Mr. Scanza= ni confirmed that a 15” culvert was on Mr. Silva’s property. Mr. Silva explained how his proper= ty was configured with the pipe. He = said he wouldn’t address traffic because Sherburne Road was a state road and= not included on the state’s 10-year plan. He noted that there were a total o= f 146 units, just of 55+ housing proposed for Sherburne Road (not including the Spaulding Hill development). = He was very concerned regarding the sight distance turning into the development du= e to the curvature in the road. Mr. Scanzani said the sight distance was fine; it was more of an issue of vehic= le speed. Mr. Silva said with al= l the development, he didn’t see any relief or recourse for the existing homeowners. Mr. Scanzani said= he would like to ask the Department of Transportation to make a recommendation= for either signage or reduced speeds based on the additional driveway cuts that= had been approved.

Mr. Gowan believed the plan went to the Fire Department for review. Mr. Ro= y said they met with the Fire Department regarding site access and fire suppression. Mr. Gowan sugges= ted the applicant meet with the Fire Department again. Mr. Roy said they were still waiti= ng for the Safety Committee notes. M= r. Gowan wanted to make sure the Fire Department was okay with the access to individ= ual buildings and the fire access road. He said he could arrange a meeting.

Mr. George Saurman, 6 Scenic View Drive, was in opposit= ion to the fact that a 50-foot right-of-way was given to Mr. Magarian at the time = Litchfield Circle was going in; part of the agreement (with Mr. Magarian) was the drainage swale = going through. He said there were 18” pipes that connected to 24” pipe under the road connecting = Litchfield Circle to the proposed development. = In the plan Mr. Saurman reviewed, the applicant showed head walls with 15” p= ipes. The agreement in exchange for havi= ng the access, was that the applicant would pick the drainage up and put it onto t= heir property. Mr. Scanzani said S= tantec (Town’s engineer) would review. He said if the drainage was to continue it would have to be sized. Mr. Roy said the area was already identified by Stantec and they would work with them. Mr. Saurman was also concerned wit= h what the gate would look like and the signage.&= nbsp; He suggested gating the access at both sides so people don’t b= ack down it. Mr. Scanzani said it= may make sense to gate the emergency access further down. Mr. Roy said they would discuss fu= rther with the Fire Department. The= options were briefly discussed; Mr. Gowan said the gate location would be revisited= by the Fire Department.

Mr. Tony DiRocco, 55 Litchfield Circle said the land directly behind him was currently undeveloped and wanted to know if it coul= d be developed in the future. Mr. Scanzani said the site (based on Zoning) only allowed 40 units. Mr. DiRocco asked if anything else= could be put on that portion (i.e. swimming pool, tennis court, park). Mr. Scanzani answered yes, although there wasn’t anything proposed at this time. Mr. DiRocco questioned if wetlands= would be filled to gain access. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant wouldn’t be filling wetlands; they would = be crossing the wetlands with a dredge and fill. Ms. Bousa asked if the property be= hind Mr. DiRocco was wooded. Mr. D= iRocco answered yes. Ms. Bousa said = if it wasn’t heavily wooded, the Board could look at additional landscaping. Mr. Gowan said t= he Board had the purview to restrict cutting and protecting certain areas.

Mr. Scanzani said the applicant should work on= the list provided by Stantec and work with the Fire Department and Highway Safe= ty Committee with Mr. Gowan.

A site walk was scheduled for November 18, 2006.

The plan was date specified to the December 4, 2006 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Culbert left the room momentarily.

Mr. Mark Jennings of Herbert Associates discus= sed the proposed 2-lot subdivision with the Board. He provided a couple different pla= ns showing the driveway layout. He said = the Conservation Commission felt it was better to have a shared driveway. He reviewed the plan showing such = which wouldn’t impact the wetland or Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). With sep= arate driveways, there would be a WCD impact.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani said less driveway cuts onto Mammoth Road (a state road) made sense.

Ms. Bousa left the room momentarily.

Mr. McNamara said based on the site walk, and = WCD impacts, it made sense to have a shared driveway.

Mr. Dadak was asked to vote because two Board members had stepped out of the room.

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Ouellette) To accept, for consideration, t= he Special Permit for the Wetland Conservation District crossing.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

Ms. Bousa returned to the Board.

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Ouellette) To approve the Special Permit. =

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Bousa) To approve the plan in the configur= ation of a shared driveway coming off Mammoth Road.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. Culbert returned and resumed voting.

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

There was additional data not yet received. The plan was date specified to the= November 20, 2006.

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

Mr. Scanzani provided a summary of what had transpired at past meetings and the status of the plan and outstanding waivers. It was confirmed tha= t in addition to sprinkler system, the applicant would place cisterns in the locations specified by the Fire Department. There was a letter in the file indicating such. Mr. Gowan sa= id the applicant may want to slightly reduce the square footage of some of the uni= ts; the fire inspector will size the cistern based on the square footage, minus= what the sprinklers were doing. He believed the applicant would like to discuss the issue of possibly doing multiple cisterns instead of sprinklers.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gowan summarized the letter received by the traffic engineer. The letter = stated that the applicant met all the concerns, but they requested that the subseq= uent information from the actual traffic study be compiled into one document. Mr. Dave Jordan SFC Engineering (r= epresenting the applicant) said they would do so.

Mr. Culbert asked if the well location would be certified. Mr. Scanzani said = the wells would be located (and staked) by an engineer so they are drilled in t= he correct place. Mr. Gowan said= they can be shown on an as-built and reviewed by Stantec (Town’s engineer).

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Beth Filip, 29 Hillcrest Lane thanked the Board= and the applicant for paying attention to her and her husband’s concerns. Mr. Scanzani asked = if a letter of agreement (between the applicant and the abutter) had been submit= ted to the file. Mr. Jordan said the final plan set would reflect the agreement with the abutters.

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Culbert)&= nbsp; To approve the waiver to Appendix I, dd (cross-sections).

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Culbert)&= nbsp; To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb, 12 & 15 (horizontal curve).

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Culbert)&= nbsp; To accept, for consideration, the Special Permit application to wo= rk within the Wetland Conservation District.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

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

MOTION:=

(McNamara/Culbert)&= nbsp; To approve the Special Permit.&nb= sp;

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the list of items that t= he Board wanted included as conditions of approval: 1) porous pavement installation closely monitored (applicant has agreed to continue to engage = Dr. Roseen to provide oversight); 2) traffic report as referenced will be submi= tted and included as final approval as indicated in Vollmer Associates letter da= ted November 6, 2006; 3) all related condominium documents (including maintenan= ce items) are subject to a favorable letter from Town Counsel – if appropriate the documents be reviewed by the Planning Board as a separate action based on counsel’s recommendation; 4) conditional approval bas= ed on Fire Chief’s approval of placement of cisterns, sprinklers, or a combination of both. Mr. Scan= zani suggested that the plan be approved as is (cistern & sprinklers) and if there is a change, the applicant would need to go back to the Board. He said the approval should also be subject to the applicant receiving New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services approvals. He noted = the final documents need to reflect the agreement with the abutter.

Mr. Gowan said at the last meeting there had b= een some discussion regarding the definition and intent of the criteria that sh= ould be followed regarding the type of units.&n= bsp; He wanted it clear that the zoning to be applied would be the more lenient regarding the age limitation (Adult Community).

The applicant was commended for their work on = the plan, going above and beyond the Town’s rules and complying with the requests.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud the wording of the mo= tion as follows:

MOTION:=

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan subject to the conditions as follows: 1) porous pavement installation be closely monitor= ed by Dr. Robert Roseen; 2) traffic report be submitted in one full document= and included with the final plan; 3) all condominium documents (including all maintenance schedules) be subject to a favorable letter from Town Counsel= and be included in the final plan; 4) based on the Fire Chief’s approva= l of cisterns plus sprinklers as proposed; 5) all Department of Environmental Services permits and approvals be included; and 6) final documents to ref= lect the abutter agreement regarding buffering.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. Shawn Harrington for Advanced Investments = said the project had been a treat to design and work with the Planning Director.= He thanked the Board.

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

Per the recommendation of the Planning Directo= r, the plan was date specified to the December 4, 2006.

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

The plan was date specified to the November 20, 2006.

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

The plan was date specified to the November 20, 2006.

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32-Unit Senior Housing a= nd Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing and Driveway

The plan was date specified to December 4, 2006.

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment &= #8211; Pulpit Rock Road – Sit e Review of Proposed 120’x60’ two-story Warehouse Building

= The plan was date specified to December 4, 2006.

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS

November 20, 2006 -

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

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 and Driveway

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

December 4, 2006 –

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

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 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction R= 11; Sherburne Road – Proposed 32-Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing and Driveway

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit R= ock Road – Sit e Review of Proposed 120’x60’ two-story Wareho= use Building

SI= TE WALK – No= vember 18, 2006

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

MI= NUTES

October 14, 2006 (site walk)

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette)To approve the October 14, 2006 Planning = Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(3-0-3) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Scanzani, Mr. Culbert, and M= s. Bousa abstained.

October 16, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette)To approve the October 16, 2006 Planning = Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert and Ms. Bousa abstai= ned.

October 23, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette)To approve the October 23, 2006 Planning = Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:=

Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, e (regarding legal matters)

ROLL CALL:<= /b>

Mr. Scanzani- Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Mr. Culbert-Yes= ; Ms. Ouellette-Yes; Ms. Bousa-Yes; Mr. McManus-Yes

Mr. Scanzani indicated that the Board would take no fu= rther action once the non-public session was over. The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 11:= 00 pm.

The public meeting was adjourned.

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Respe= ctfully submitted,

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. L. Willis

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary