PB Minutes 11-20-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 20, 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, Gael O= uellette, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa, Ken Dunne, Alternate James McManus, Alt= ernate Bob Yarmo

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

PU= BLIC HEARING

Su= bdivision Regulations – Appendix I – Roadway Design, Section L. Driveways and Other Accesses ̵= 1; To change driveway specifications and the authority for issuing driveway permi= ts which would be issued by the Fire Chief with recommendation of the Highway Safety Committee

Mr. Scanzani informed that the Board had discu= ssed the language previously and gave a brief description of what the changes were. Mr. Gowan informed that= he provided Town Counsel (Atty. John Rattigan) with a copy of the proposed amendments. Counsel felt there would be no negative impact on the Regulations (regarding its legality). Stantec (Town Engineer) also had no specific recommendations.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To adopt the Subdivision Regulati= on amendments (as presented).

VOTE:

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

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Profes= sional Center, LLC/ RONNING, Donald – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review of Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written corresponde= nce from abutters. It was noted t= hat the owner of Lot 10-318-1 was unknown pe= r the Town Assessor office.

Mr. John Gallant representing Sun Bridge Professional Center= , LLC, Mr. Kurt Meisner and Mr. Martin Finch of Meisner Brem met with the Boa= rd to discuss the site plan. Mr. Gallant said they were seeking to construct a 6240SF commercial building (w= ith 5 commercial units) at the location of 5 Old Bridge Street South. He said the plan conformed with Zoning. He noted that the pro= posed plan contained 63 parking spaces. Private well and septic was proposed. Access would be obtained from Old Bridge Street South<= /st1:Street>. All lighting and signage would com= ply with Zoning. Three variation waivers will be requested: 1) parking – plan shows 63 parking spaces – they would like to reduce the proposed 41 spaces. A proposed plan showing the reduct= ion of spaces was circulated. Mr. Ga= llant said if granted, they would like to reserve the right to add the parking if= the site needed such in the future. 2) Existing well sits 10-feet from the side set back – they are proposin= g to have it be 30-feet making it less non-conforming; however a waiver would be needed because the requirement is a 70-foot setback. 3) location of septic system propo= sed to be under the pavement.

Mr. Culbert asked how big the lot was. Mr. Meisner said the lot was 1.39 = acres. Mr. Culbert questioned what well r= adius was requested. Mr. Meisner sa= id the well radius was 100-feet; the distance from the property line would be 30-feet. The well was placed = in a location outside of the wetland, Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) and parking area. Mr. Scanzani had a problem with the well based on the fact that the Board had been strict with well placement (for residential lots); in this c= ase it was 70-feet over.

Mr. Scanzani noted that the abutting lot had b= een approved in the past few months. He discussed the sensitivity of the area and behind Chagnon Lane. He didn’t feel the lot was suitable for the proposed parking. Mr. Culbert asked how the parking was calculated. Mr. Meisner said they could meet t= he parking requirements (as shown on the proposed plan); however, they were requesting to reduce the number of parking spaces but wanted to ensure if, = over time, parking became an issue, they could build the remaining (without furt= her approval). Mr. Culbert questi= oned what types of businesses were being proposed. Mr. Meisner said, at this time, the intention was to have real estate, accounting/professional offices; there h= ad been a discussion about having a hair salon. He said it was intended to be a professional park.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Domenico asked if the septic area on lot 35-6-113 currently existed. M= r. Meisner said the septic system was constructed now and was a recent design. Mr. Domenico asked if= it was in the WCD. Mr. Meisner a= nswered no; not according to the septic design plan.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the drainage and the fa= ct that an abutting parcel had a similar proposal that the Board deemed not suitable. That parcel came ba= ck as a house lot. Mr. Meisner unde= rstood the concerns. He said they ha= d done a drainage study and design taking into consideration the downstream and abutting properties. He said = all drainage on the site would be taken care of through the basin at the rear.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Culbert questioned the septic. Mr. Meisner said he previously dis= cussed the abutting property’s septic. For this site, the septic design included professional uses and a ha= ir dresser’s salon. The de= sign had been reviewed and approved by the Health Officer Paul Zarnowski, but not forwarded to the state until the Board reviewed the proposed plan. Mr. Culbert asked if it me the Town’s regulations. Mr. Meisner said the septic system met the Town’s regulations; it was the well radius they were requesting a waiver for. Mr. Culbert questioned what hair chemicals did to the bacteria in a septic system. Mr. Meisner said the system had be= en designed to both the Town and state regulations. Mr. Gallant said they didn’t= have a commitment for a hair salon at this location. The only tenant at the present tim= e was a real estate office use; they don’t think they are going to have a hair dresser at this site. Mr. Cul= bert asked what having a hair dresser on the site would do to the septic and how= it was to suppose to work. Mr. M= eisner said he was a septic system designer and went by the book; he couldn’t say specifically what each chemical would do to the system. He believed a chemist or biologist= could answer that type of question.

Mr. Dadak wanted to know if the detention basin was designed to handle all the parking spots. Mr. Meisner said the basin was des= igned to take the drainage from the entire site.=

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Barbara Gindy, 3 Chagnon Lane said she had spent t= ime speaking to the EPA over the past few years beginning when the dry goods bu= ilding was proposed. She said in 198= 7 John Lyons wrote a letter expressing concern regarding the culvert and the wetlands. She said the projec= t with KLN was able to occupy without meeting some of the requirements spelled out= on the plan. She said KLN also s= tated that they wouldn’t cut any trees, but obviously they were. She said with all the properties on Route 38 being built up the drainage flows to the abutters. Ms. Gindy said her water was not usable. She was also informed= no blasting would occur, but it did. She felt that the residents in the area were being ‘screwed over’ by the proposals/buildings being allowed on Route 38. Ms. Gindy said approximately two m= onths ago she received a phone call from Blaise Huro of the EPA who tested for ph= lechloride, which was known to cause health problems. She believed someone else br= ought up the issue of the property being contaminated. She said there was a high rate of c= ancer in the neighborhood and went on to discuss the problems that had occurred.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Gindy said she had a hard time believing what was being said. She said the issue was not of boundaries or aesthetically pleasing buildings, it was an issue of surviving. She wanted the same rights as everyone else; she had to purchase bottled water. She didn’t under= stand why the issues were being ignored. She reviewed the items that were supposed to be corrected as of Apri= l, 2005. She said she would prov= ide the Board with a copy of her water tests.&= nbsp; Ms. Gindy said catch basins didn’t work; she had never been in= a flood zone until now.

Ms. Jan Fournier, 9 Chagnon Lane said she had lived i= n Town for thirty-nine years and for thirty-two years had tried to make the Town understand the water situation in the area. She provided a brief history of th= e area and the effects from the building. She said prior to the late 1980’s the area was residential property not commercial. She = said when the KLN building went in the abutters looked for the definition of ‘dry goods’ and questioned what would be put into the proposed building. Ms. Fournier said s= he reviewed what happened in May during the flooding to the drainage and the abutting homes. She said she = had photos of her property and the area. She discussed what the area was like years ago. She then informed that there was a control dam in Dracut, MA that could be opened to alleviate t= he water in Pelham. She called t= he Fire Department prior to the rains in May, 2006 and requested that the dam = be opened but was (incorrectly) informed that it was a holding dam only. She said it appeared that no one c= ared about the flooding.

Mr. Chad Sidlowski, 5 Chagnon Lane wanted to know if th= ere would be a fence or anything dividing the residential and commercial properties. He commented that= his property was directly behind the lot and was in favor of the parking waiver being granted so he didn’t have to look at a parking lot. He also thought it would be good t= o have dumpsters on pavement. He then summarized that he was in favor of granting the waiver for parking to be out front, keep the back grassed and put up a screening fence.

Mr. Gowan was interested in having Stantec (Town’s engineer) review the plan/calculations. He noted since the applicant had t= he plan set up identifying a real estate office being the only tenant; any oth= er tenant coming into the parcel would have to come before the Board. Mr. Scanzani informed that there w= ould be a joint meeting with Conservation which they could define another area a= s a Prime Wetland area (Southern Beaver Brook water shed area – behind Chagnon Lane); four areas had been defined.

Mr. Scanzani questioned said he would not vote= for the well radius because it would set an extremely dangerous precedent. He didn’t want to have that = much asphalt. He discussed the pro= blem with granting the parking waiver and the fact that a lot of the site would = be paved the small drainage if the parking requirements were needed in rear of= the building in the future. He th= en discussed the fact that there wasn’t room for landscaping in the back= of the property. He said if the = Board wasn’t going to grant the waiver, the Board shouldn’t waste the applicant’s money by sending the plan to Stantec.

Mr. Culbert said he wouldn’t vote to app= rove the well radius waiver. He sa= id the whole lot was covered with asphalt. He had concerns regarding the septic and what a hair salon would do = to it.

Mr. McNamara said he had a concern of whether = the proposed use was too intensive for the land. He would like to hear what Stantec= would say about the plan. Mr. Scanz= ani agreed that the proposed was too intensive.

Mr. Meisner said the applicant was willing to comply with conditions of approval placed on the plan and construct things = as discussed. He appreciated the= Board looking out for the applicant, but welcomed Stantec’s review of the plan. He said the plan met the requirements in the regulations and showed that there was open space and plantings near the boarder on the property. Mr. Meisner was concern with the discussion centering on problems that had occurred in the past with a diffe= rent project. Mr. Gallant said they believed that the drainage calculations would improve the situation to the = area and neighborhood.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the buffer/plantings and discussed the areas he would like to see planted. Mr. Dadak discussed Section 248-45= in the regulations that outlines plantings.&n= bsp; He said the plan didn’t appear to show a buffer/fencing. Mr. Scanzani said if the plantings= were done along the property lines and the parking was needed in the future, they wouldn’t be able to have it to buffer the property. Mr. Gowan said he didn’t wan= t to hear the term ‘dry goods’ since it was not a type of business c= alled out in the Site Plan regulations. He said there had been issues with that term in the past and hoped it didn’t work for the Board moving forward. Mr. Gallant pointed out that the B= oard would have the opportunity to review the businesses going in the building in the future in terms of parking. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel the lot was suitable for a businesses and was mo= re suitable for residential.

Mr. Culbert wanted additional information regarding the retaining wall. Mr. Finch discussed the retaining wall and noted they would finalize once the B= oard made a decision regarding the proposed building and its placement. Mr. Scanzani said the retaining wa= ll allowed them to fill the lot so the building and parking would fit. He said the paved surface would be = plowed everything else would end up against the wall and eventually in the wetland= and Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) just south the lot.

Mr. Gowan advised the Board to obtain informat= ion from Stantec prior to making a decision.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani wanted the applicant to understand that having Stantec = was at their own risk, there was no guaranty that the Board would approve the plan. The applicant understood.

There was a brief discussion regarding having = an environmental review and soils test. Mr. Meisner indicated that soils testing had been done and they could provide the information to Stantec.

The plan was date specified to January 4, 2007.=

Ma= p 41 Lot 10-280 MTM Flooring LLC (Applicant) / Nicolopoulas, Vanessa (Owner) – 30 Bridge Street – Change of Occupancy

Mr. Michael Comtois, MTM Flooring LLC discussed the request. He said it would= be a flooring retail shop.

Mr. Scanzani said the only question remaining = for him was the tree stump needing to be landscaped that had not yet been done.= Mr. Gowan believed that there coul= d be a conditional approval that the work is to be done.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani proposed that an approval be conditioned upon removal of the tree stump and landscaping (on the left sid= e of the lot) as originally proposed; an occupancy permit will not be granted un= til this is complete.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the change-of-use conditioned upon removal of the tree stump and landscaping (on the left s= ide of the lot); and occupancy permit will not be granted until this is complete.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan asked if there were any waiver requests. Mr. Comtois answered no.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Scanzani said the Board hadn’t recei= ved the one item needed to approve the plan.&n= bsp; The applicant was back to propose a small change to the plan relativ= e to the Girl Scout camp access road.

Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuco & Cormier said during the time Stantec (Town’s engineer) was reviewing the plan (and moving the access to the camp) there was a concern raised through Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Council. H= e said even though Stantec agreed that the design was sufficient and wouldn’t damage the access road, they agreed to move the access road from being down stream from the detention basin to a point upstream. There would be no change in the am= ount of water flow. Mr. Parsons re= viewed the plan for the Board; as previously shown, there would be improvements to= Webster Avenue, swales, cross culverts under the driveways which would flow to a treatment swale. None of the proposal w= ould be altered by movement of the access road.= Mr. Parsons believed the latest design included all of the original concerns and the latest concerns raised; the Girl Scouts also approved the changes.

Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel that the Board = had to take any action; the developer was making a minor change. Stantec submitted a letter indicat= ing that they were okay with the change as well. He questioned when the plan would = be able to be rescheduled. Mr. G= owan said he had been in close communication with the attorney for the applicant= and Spar & Spindle. He said i= f Spar & Spindle voted in the affirmative the next step would be to have the Selectmen review the documents; if both sign the documents it would be brou= ght back to the Board.

Mr. Domenico said the Selectmen had been brief= ed at length regarding the proposal and if the material facts didn’t cha= nge, he didn’t envision any issue at all.=

There was a question if a decision would be ne= eded from Town Meeting. Mr. Gowan = said the issue was addressed in the documents and went on to explain the wording.

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

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d he walked the site with some of the Board members. He said his understanding was that= the Board wanted to access the development from Spaulding Hill Road, have a loop ro= ad and a cul-de-sac at the end of Marie Avenue. There would be a 50-foot right-of-way left at the end of the cul-de-= sac on Marie Avenue. He said the erosion was also revie= wed from the Scenic View Drive= side of the development. It w= as Mr. Zohdi understanding that the Highway Safety Committee didn’t have a problem having a cul-de-sac at the end of Marie Avenue. He noted that his client also didn= ’t have a problem with it as long as the Board understood that a waiver would = be requested if the ‘loop’ road was going to be called a cul-de-sac. He discussed the = area and noted that there was some flown topography (he would have to get) that showed a road could be put off the loop road into the Town parcel as well a= s a possible connection from the loop road to Green Meadow. He said his client wanted to know = if the Board wanted the cul-de-sac at the end of Marie Avenue. There was no Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) permit requested; there would be minor WCD permit.

Mr. Domenico discussed waivers. He said in this case the parcel was decent and if the connection was made through Marie Avenue the neighbors would be adversely affected. He felt s= ince there was a potential connection to Green Meadow and to the Town parcel it solved problems and was the reason why waivers should be granted.

Mr. Scanzani informed that the consensus of the Highway Safety Committee was that there was no benefit for a connection thr= ough Marie Avenue= ; however, they recommended connections to Green Meadow and an additional acc= ess to the Town property. Mr. Gow= an said he had been speaking to the owners of the Green Meadow parcel who plan= ned to have a small second phase; the connection would be part of a third phase.

Mr. McNamara said he wouldn’t vote in fa= vor of the proposal unless both connections could be done. He said the Board went to great le= ngths when setting the cul-de-sac regulation.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi said he would provide the information and let the Board ma= ke the decision. He noted that the right-of-way would remain at Marie Avenue. Mr. McNamara wanted clarification that if the proposed plan were approved, no work would be done on Marie Avenue because the applicant believed that the drainage wasn’t being affected. Mr. Zohdi said he would take care of all the problems on Spaulding Hill Road that the Highway Road Agent (Don Foss) had.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board needed to review t= he topography. Mr. Culbert said = he wanted to review a conceptual plan showing how a connection could be made.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi between the site walk an= d the meeting he didn’t have enough time to gather the information, but he would have it at the next meeting. <= /span>Mr. Culbert said as the was currently proposed, he would not vote in favor of a waiver.

There was no public input.

Mr. Scanzani said even if the connection throu= gh Marie Avenue wasn’t built, it should remain. Mr. Zohdi said they had no objection to such it would remain as a right-of-way. There was a bri= ef discussion regarding the buffers from the proposed to the abutting parcels.

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

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 for Driveway

There was no objection by the Board or the applicant to hear the this plan with the following plan.

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

Mr. Scanzani understood that a major plan revi= sion had been done and asked Mr. Zohdi to explain the proposal.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the two plans for review by the Board.&nbs= p; He said a subdivision had been done; each lot was approximately 10-12 acres. They wanted to do two = site plans for adult communities (55+ years).&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi explained how the subdivision had been done and the fact t= hat one lot had been donated to the Town and another (single-family) lot would = be taken out of the equation to later be added either to the conservation land= or to the proposed development. = During the hearings there was discussion regarding crossing the wetland (10,000SF); the dredge and fill permit had been granted by the state and the applicant could have the four-lot subdivision. Since this time, Mr. Zohdi told the applicant to see if the abutting parcel of land was for sale. = The owner of the abutting parcel agreed to sell and the land was now under agreement. Mr. Zohdi showed t= he Board the plan that had previously been before them and went on to show a conceptual plan depicting how it could be altered/combined with the abutting parcel. He showed that there = would be 400-feet frontage and how the lots would be situated. He said the remainder of the land = could go to conservation or however the Town wanted to take title to it. He said the wetland impact (dredge= & fill) for the two driveways would only be approximately 1500SF. He didn’t feel that a waiver= was needed because each parcel had its own driveway, however, he would request a waiver to be on the safe side. He also noted if they followed the topography they could provide access to the= Pelham Veterans Memorial Park (‘PVMP’).

Mr. McNamara asked how the parcels would gain access to the lots. Mr. Zohdi= showed that each parcel would have frontage. Mr. McNamara asked what would happen to the remainder of acreage on = lot 1-54. Mr. Zohdi said there we= re no immediate plans for such.

With the knowledge that there would probably be Zoning changes coming forward, Mr. Zohdi informed the Board that he was not withdrawing the original application but would be requesting that the Board table it for 60-days so he would have the opportunity to bring the other pl= an forward for review. He said a= lso wanted to review the plan against the Town’s Zoning.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board would discuss when= to have a zoning workshop. He sa= id the new proposal would be considered a change to the original. He asked the Board if they agreed = to have one access. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the proposed would be the same plan (not a separate one), ju= st revised. Mr. Scanzani said it would. Mr. McNamara agreed th= at one driveway would be better than two. He wanted to know what would happen to lot 1-54 and if it would come back and be tied into the other lots. He said lot 1-54 could be used to lessen the density of the proposed project. Mr. Culbert didnR= 17;t feel someone could come back with a third revision. Mr. Scanzani discussed the possibilities. There was furt= her discussion regarding the use of the additional parcel. Mr. Scanzani questioned if the Boa= rd was still looking for a something to come back in March with regard to a road connecting to PVMP. Mr. Zohdi= said a right-of-way would be left to PVMP. Mr. Scanzani reviewed the parking area at the driveway that looped between the two parcels and questioned if a road (from Sherburne Road) should be built to = PVMP as access. Mr. Domenico and M= s. Ouellette believed it would become an unsafe cut through. Mr. Zohdi said if it became a road= , the Town would have to take jurisdiction. Mr. Scanzani wasn’t proposing the driveway for the driveway to= be a road. He showed (on the pla= n) where a road could be placed (at the back of the parcel) to gain access. Mr. Domenico’s concern was connecting to Sherburne Ro= ad. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposal. Mr. Gowan discu= ssed the developer’s incentives and the alternatives.

Mr. Domenico noted that the Board should be cognizant that the 10-acre parcel could be coming forward; the Board should consider the impact of the area as a whole. Mr. Scanzani reminded the Board th= at (from a planning standpoint) there was a problem with the Sherburne Road intersection and fur= ther, it was not on the state’s 10-year plan to correct. He said he asked Mr. Gowan to find= out from the state how much it would cost to fix the end of Sherburne Road. He suggested that the money being collected from developers be used to fix the problem, rather than for traff= ic studies. He said part of the problem was that the state was issuing driveway permits. Mr. Gowan said he would ask the question. Mr. Scanzani wanted= the Board to understand that under the Zoning and state statutes, they had broad powers with what could be done with impact fees. He suggested that the Board consid= er waiving the impact fees for the subdivisions and use that money toward fixi= ng the road because it was more important.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan noted that the only impacts fees collected are for fire; t= here are no impact fees being collected for schools. He agreed with using the money tow= ard a solution versus a study. He s= aid when he was standing at the intersection with the Department of Transportat= ion (‘DOT’) they commented that they had never seen a situation so prepared for a roundabout because of the openness and visibility.

Mr. Zohdi discussed his proposal. He said he wanted the latitude to = work with the plan and come back with a preliminary. He said because of the rain, the o= nly work they had done was to do enough topography to make sure they could gain access and they had the wetlands in that area marked.

Mr. McNamara said he would have no problem continuing if there was development on lot 1-54 it would be separate (and n= ot tie into the proposed) and have to comply with any changes to zoning that s= ubsequently passes with elderly housing. = He also was concerned with the existing home on lot 1-53-1 and wanted to know = if it would remain with the new proposal.&nbs= p; He understood that the house was non-conforming. Mr. Scanzani said the lot was bein= g used for the road then the house had to come down; however, the lot was not changing. Mr. McNamara said he would like to review the record because if the lot configuration was approv= ed and as a condition it not be given an occupancy permit (or it be pulled) he was= not sure what route it would be to allow the home to continue. Mr. Gowan said the configuration o= f the prior proposal was not yet recorded. Mr. Scanzani said it wasn’t part of the subdivision. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the lot would not become more non-conforming by approving the proposed. Mr. Scanzani answered no. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposal. Mr. Zohdi said = they understood that lot 1-154 was not part of the package and what was done with that parcel would depend on zoning.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that the Board was conside= ring the proposal an alteration to the existing application even though it invol= ves an entirely new piece of property. There was a general consensus of the Board in the affirmative.

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant was propos= ing to do anything to the new area on either side of the new driveway. Mr. Zohdi answered no, there maybe= a sign and some lights. He was = not proposing any development.

Mr. Culbert said he was viewing it as an amend= ed plan.

The plan was date specified to the January 4, 2007 meeting.

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS

December 4, 2006 –

Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148 & 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/ Montbleau, Roger – M= arie Avenue& Spaulding Hill Road – Propos= ed 24-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

January 4, 2007 –

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Professional Center, LL= C/ RONNING, Donald – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review = of Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

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

MI= NUTES

November 6, 2006

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Culbert)To approve the November 6, 2006 Planning B= oard minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Domenico and Mr. Collins abstaining.

Miscellane= ous Discussion

Mr. Gowan said the Board discussed the interpretation = he made regarding the Lawrenc= e Corner Road notice of condition. He summary by saying the notice of condition stated that the existing portion of Lawrence Corner Road be impro= ved per the plan and that the proposed new section and widened section be broug= ht up to base coat before any new construction take place which he considered = to be prior to any building permits being issues. Mr. Gowan said he had given the applicant indication that he could complete both sections of road in the sa= me time frame and paved up to base coat. He wanted the Board’s opinion on public record. The Board discussed Mr. Gowan̵= 7;s interpretation. There was a consensus by the Board that there were to be no building permits until the = road was brought up to base coat; Mr. Gowan’s interpretation was correct; = the Board reinforced it’s original decision.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Domenico) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30pm.

&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