PB Minutes 01-04-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 4, 2007

The Chairman Bill Scanzan= i called the meeting to order at 7:3= 0 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert (left at approximately 10:18pm), Gael Ouellette, Ken Dunne (arrived after the meeting commenced – approximately 7:41pm), Alternate Paul Dadak, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Pla= nning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Dadak was appointed to vote during the eve= ning’s proceedings.

PU= BLIC HEARING ON ADDITIONAL ZONING AMENDMENTS

Amend Article VIII, Pelham’s Flood Plain Development Ordinance to revise old definitions and add new definitions and references to NH RSAs to meet new requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Failure to adopt these changes will result in the Town being suspended from the program.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the proposed changes with the Board.

There was no public input. It was noted that the second hearing for zoning changes would be held January 16, 2007.

Mr. Dunne arrived.

ADMINISTRATIVE=

Map 38 Lot 1-116 Cormier & Saurman Building LLC – Litchfield Cir= cle – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said a number of the items called out in the letter from Stantec (Town’s engineer) had been done. He said there was a remaining drai= nage issue and Stantec had estimated a cost for such. The existing surety is $145,745.60= ; Stantec (Town’s engineer) recommended a reduction of $87,052.41which would re= tain $55,693.20.

Mr. Scanzani noted that the amount was determined using the old bond = calculations.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To r= educe the bond for Map 38 Lot 1-11= 6 Cormier & Saurman Building L= LC – Litchfield Circl= e as recommended by Stantec to retain $55,693.20.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 35 Lot 10-352 New American Homes = 211; Cara Estates Phase I, II & III – Request for Bond Reduction<= /o:p>

Mr. Gowan said a revised estimate had been received by Stantec. The current bond amount is $126,40= 6.50; Stantec recommends a reduction of $106,995 which would retain $19,411.50. Mr. Gowan provided the Board with a summary of the work that had been done.&nb= sp;

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To r= educe the bond for Map 35 Lot 10-352 New American Homes – Cara Estates Phase I, II & III as recommended by Stantec to retain $19,411.50.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 39 Lot 6-179 128 Realty Corp. –= ; Moonshadow Drive – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said Stantec (Town’s engineer) had provided an updated breakdown of the work to be done. The current bond amount is $307,566.73; Stantec recommends a reducti= on of $161,283.50 which would retain $146,283.23.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To redu= ce the bond for Map 39 Lot 6-179 1= 28 Realty Corp. – Moonshadow Drive as recommended by Stantec to retain $146,283.23.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 10 Lot 13-163 Bennett, Bruce & L= isa – 83 Pelham Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

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. Randy Donkers of Pembroke Land Surveying and Mr. William Messieri (one of the owners) met with the Board to discuss the proposal. Mr. Donkers said they were proposi= ng to create a subdivision with three lots. He said there was a building on the property that had recently been razed due to the dangerous situation of the building collapsing. Two single family lots would be cr= eated; they were seeking a waiver of the lot shape design standards (11.04,C,8) required for the larger parcel to a= llow the construction of a duplex. This requirement was contained in the Subdivision Regulations. The applicant proposed to put a bu= ilding on the portion of the lot that had slopes of 10% or less.

Mr. Gowan said the applicant had the required acreage and suggested t= hat the applicant explain the fact that the lot had contained a quarry in the past. He noted that the appli= cation pre-dated the new proposed zoning. <= /span>

Mr. Culbert asked if lot #3 contained 35,000SF contiguous high and dry land. Mr. Donkers answered ye= s and pointed out that there was only 690SF of wetland area on the entire three parcels; the remainder of lot (#3) was upland.

Mr. Donkers reviewed the waivers they were requesting: 1) Lot Shape Design Standards #8; and 2) Plan scale required 1in. =3D 50ft. requesting 1= in. =3D 40ft.

Mr. Culbert asked if the lot line for lot 3 could be made straighter. Mr. Donkers said = the lot was shown as such because of the well radius requirement.

Mr. Gowan said it was his opinion that the plan was complete and recommended that the Board accept it for consideration.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To a= ccept the plan for consideration. <= o:p>

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to the scale where the required is 1in.=3D50ft.= and the applicant is requesting 1in. =3D 40ft.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The Board then discussed the waiver request to Section 11.04,C,8. Mr. McNamara made a motion to acce= pt the waiver for consideration only; Mr. Dadak seconded the motion. Mr. McNamara said the reduction was significant (130 to 90) and wasn’t sure he would support such. He said he may want to see the lot= .

Mr. Culbert asked for further explanation of the stock pile cut ledge. Mr. Donkers explained = that there was a quarry located south of the property. He said the stock pile were all cut pieces laid on top of each other and had been left in the event they were carted away if someone wanted to buy them.= Mr. Culbert asked if the ledge was located in the wetland. Mr. Donkers said there was a small portion of ledge that abutted the wetland along the west side which was sho= wn on the plan. Mr. Culbert aske= d if the piled ledge was all in the wetland buffer. Mr. Donkers said a good portion of= it was and noted there was also stockpiled ledge located on the edge of the property where it abutted the Matthews property.

Mr. Scanzani said it appeared the Board had two choices: 1) grant the waiver which would indicate that the applicant could come forward with a two family; or 2) deny the waiver in which case the applicant may put a single-family home. Mr. Culbe= rt said it appeared that over half the lot couldn’t be used. Mr. Donkers said there were some s= evere slopes.

Mr. Scanzani said it appeared that the Board would have a problem granting a waiver for the lot sizing for a duplex. There was no further action taken regarding the motion made and seconded by Mr. McNamara and Mr. Dadak respectively.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Barbara Urbielonis = 14 Robinson Lane said she owned property below the proposed and received all the runoff from such. She explained she had 3= .5 acres that couldn’t be walked on during the rainy season. She was concerned of the proposed = duplex having a failed septic system. She explained that there were currently two culverts that drained onto her prop= erty and asked the Board to consider the problems she had with her land being un= usable. Ms. Urbielonis showed the Board wh= ere her property was located where the culverts drained. She suggested that the Board look = at the site.

Mr. Bruce Bennett (owner) explained that the structure that had been = on the property and was subsequently razed was located approximately eight feet from the street. He said the = (2.5 story) house was 30ft.x30ft. with a 15ft.x30ft. breezeway and a (4 story) 4= 0ft.x40ft barn. Mr. Bennett explained w= hen the property was purchased the neighbors said it was ten acres, the Town ma= ps indicated it was 6.5 acres and after spending thousands of dollars for surveying the parcel was found to be 4.39 acres. He discussed what their plans had previously been for the lot. = He said the proposed duplex would be smaller than the structure that had been = on the lot. He said if a large h= ouse were built on the lot it would end up being the same size septic as a stand= ard septic. He understood Ms. Urbielonis’ concerns, but explained that the state had strict guideli= nes that would be followed. He discussed the property and explained that he and his wife purchased the property and wanted to keep the back portion natural and maintain the beaut= y of the lot.

Mr. Messieri said they spoke with several of the neighbors who were concerned about the plans and keeping the area as natural as they could. He welcomed the Board to walk the = site and noted they wanted to leave as much of the lot as undisturbed as possible.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the current regulations for the sizing of a du= plex lot and noted that one of the proposed zoning changes would put this requirement in the Zoning Ordinances. He then discussed the test pit data and said if the Board were to consider the applicant request they should keep the test pit date in mind.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said he was willing t= o keep the motion to consider the wavier, but would like to see the property. Mr. Culbert asked how much of the = land was usable (high and dry). Mr. Donkers said the whole lot was usable except for 690SF of wetland. Mr. Scanzani discussed the slopes = and asked for clarification of the calculations. Mr. Donkers explained what was inc= luded in the calculations. Mr. Dunne seconded the motion, but asked that it be contingent on the Board walking t= he site. Mr. Culbert asked that = the lot be done as site specific.

Mr. Gowan asked what size the wetland was on lot 3. Mr. Donkers said it was 690SF. Mr. Gowan said the applicant need = not show any Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) because in order= to have a WCD the wetland area would have to be 2000SF or it was contiguous to surface waters. He also noted= that the title block should be moved to the right side of the page.

Mr. Culbert didn’t understand why a 600ft. wetland was in betwe= en two ledge stockpiles. Mr. Gow= an explained that the ledge was placed prior to zoning.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.04,C,8 Lot= Shape – Design Standards.

ROLL CALL V= OTE:

Mr. Scanzani-Yes; Mr. McNamara-Yes; Mr. Culbert-No; Mr. Dunne-Yes; Ms. Ouellette-No; Mr. Dadak-Yes &nbs= p; (4-2-0) The motion carried.

A site walk was scheduled for January 6, 2007 8:30a.m.

There was a consensus of the Board to show lot #3 as site specific.

The plan was date specified to the January 16, 2007 meeting.

Map 35 Lots 10-320, 321&a= mp; 322 Advanced Spa & Pool C= orp. – Bridge Street/NH R= oute 38 – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 12,400SF Mixed Use Commercial Building for Public Discussion

Mr. Collins stepped down.

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchmark Engineering discussed the proposal with = the Board. He showed the location= of the property and noted that it was currently zoned business. He discussed the soil types and no= ted that test pits were done; soils near the front of the property were well drained; there was ledge found near the rear of the property. At this time the proposal was to m= ove Advanced Spa & Pool to the location and construct a 12,400SF building.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There will be on-site well and sep= tic system. Mr. Maynard said they= felt they should discuss some of the waivers that would make the property builda= ble for what the applicant was looking for.&nb= sp; The waivers would be as follows:

1) = Parking spaces required approximately 169 – requesting approximately 58 spaces. Mr. Maynard discussed= how the parking spaces were determined.

2) = Parking space size required 300SF net parking area – proposing conventional spaces 10ft.x20ft. giving 200SF – handicap spaces would be ADA compliant;

3) = Reduction of green space setback in rear of property to approximately 3ft.

4) = Leach bed from lot line 50ft. required – proposing 12ft. from right-of-way line;

5) = Leach bed 25ft. from pavement – proposing 5ft.

Mr. Maynard discussed the comparison of Advanced Spa & Pool’= ;s current use versus what was being proposed. He showed how the three parcels we= re currently situated and their soils type.&n= bsp; The applicant proposed to create two driveway entrances onto Route 38. They have met with the Fi= re Department who wanted to have traffic circulation for emergency apparatus.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The entrance on the southerly side= was being proposed so in the future, if need be, there would be an easement/right-of-way for the owner to access their large tract of land in = the rear of the parcel being currently discussed. Mr. Maynard gave an overview of the drainage being proposed.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the applicant proposed to combine three l= ots. Mr. Maynard answered yes. He went on to discuss the use of t= he business as being ‘mixed’ because the business had some warehou= sing and some retail.

Mr. McNamara said he would defer the question of reducing parking spa= ces to Stantec (Town’s engineer) and Ms. Bousa (who was not present for t= he meeting). He said he had a pr= oblem with the request to reduce the planting strip footage and the reduction of = the leach bed setbacks from lot line and pavement. Mr. Scanzani said the planting str= ip reduction was proposed for the back of the lot, not the front. He then discussed the septic and s= aid it appeared that it would be placed west of the parking area. Mr. Maynard said he measured and f= ound it was approximately 45ft. from the edge of pavement to the edge of the lea= ching field.

Mr. Gowan said the applicant determined that the use would be limited= to the business being discussed. In his estimation, the business and its parking demands were a known quantity; data regarding the specific customers will be included in the formal application. Mr. Gowan said a rendering of the building would also be included in the application.

Mr. Dunne asked what purpose the future driveway to the abutting parc= el had given the fact that the a= rea had ledge. Mr. Maynard said t= he property behind the proposed parcel was a large tract of land; it was unknown what m= ay go into that property and the owner wanted to leave a provision for the fut= ure in the event he wanted to develop further.=

Mr. Dadak questioned where the drainage would flow. Mr. Maynard said the roof drainage= was proposed to flow into the detention pond.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan recommended when the applicant was ready they should seek = the input from the Conservation Commission.&nb= sp;

Ms. Ouellette questioned where the Town stood if the business was no longer there. Mr. Gowan said = any other tenant would come to the Board for review. There was further discussion regar= ding the proposed parking and if it would be adequate for another type of busine= ss. Ms. Ouellette was concerned with t= he requested reduction in parking spaces.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara asked what the height of the building was. Mr. Maynard said it had not been determined, but it would be a one-story building that would meet the setback requirements.

Mr. Scanzani said the proposal had trade offs that he was impressed with. He asked if they would = work in the WCD with the retaining wall. Mr. Maynard said the detention pond would be installed in the WCD wi= th a treatment swale, but the remainder of items would be outside. Mr. Scanzani asked how high the retaining wall would need to be. Mr. Maynard said it would be approximately 4ft.

Mr. McManus asked if the ledge in the rear would be removed to add parking. Mr. Maynard said the= re would be a ledge cut through the rear quarter of the property. Mr. McManus said there was a 14ft. difference from one side to the other and asked if it would be coming out.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Maynard said a chunk would come out. Mr. McManus questioned w= hy only one test pit was done in that area.&n= bsp; Mr. Maynard said the requirement was to do test pits in the 4K area. He said there were four= test pits done and witnessed by the Health Officer.

Mr. Culbert said he wanted to see what the septic system would look l= ike and wanted to make sure it was done carefully.

Mr. McNamara said he didn’t have a problem with the parking as = long as it was reviewed by Stantec and Ms. Bousa.

Mr. McManus noted that Advanced Spa & Pool had tent sales and wan= ted to know where customers would park. He said those sales drew a crowd.&n= bsp;

Mr. Maynard said he could add a note to the plan indicating any chang= e of use would require going back to the Planning Board.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board should give the applicant direction regar= ding where to place the leach. Mr. Culbert was concerned with the leach field and the effects of winter snow removal. Mr. Maynard explaine= d that the leach field would be slightly higher than Route 38 and they were propos= ing a wooden guard rail along the parking area to prevent any snow being deposi= ted on top of the field.

Mr. Scanzani suggested that the applicant put together a plan that co= uld be put out for engineering review. <= /span>

Mr. Collins returned to the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Revi= ew of Proposed 6420SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Date specified to the January 18, 2007 meeting.

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

Date specified to the January 18, 2007 meeting.

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

Date specified to the January 18, 2007 meeting.

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposal to t= he Board. He said the project consisted of a four lot subdivision with approximately 1700 feet of roadway with a cul-de-sac coming off Kennedy Drive. He said the Board had seen the project twice as conceptual and once = for application acceptance. He sa= id they had discussed the project (November 20, 2006) with Stantec (Town’s engine= er) and Mr. Gowan to discuss the various issues of the project such as the steep slopes, roadway and drainage. He said revised plans were submitted December 1, 2006 trying to address the issues that b= oth Stantec and Mr. Gowan had. He= said they included a small survey of Gage Hill Road as well as a soils map and USGS map = and drainage calculations. Photog= raphs were also submitted showing the intersection. Mr. Gospodarek said Stantec had a = chance to review the project and came back with a second set of comments of which there were four technical items mainly to add details to the project.

Mr. Scanzani believed at the last meeting the Board’s comment w= as to review the culvert that went across the street; the Board wanted to revi= ew the culvert (and increase such) because of the flow going over the road. Mr. Gospodarek said it wasn’= t in the plan, but it was in the comments of the submittal. He said at the meeting he suggeste= d that the culvert was not part of the drainage analysis and the water from the si= te didn’t cross Old Gag= e Hill Road. He said the plan (after the survey) showed this to be correct; the f= low was coming from Edie Lane<= /st1:address> to the Harris Pond. He didn&#= 8217;t do anything more regarding this because they weren’t adding to the fl= ow or affecting the drainage because the flow went in a different direction. This submission was done on December 1, 2006. Mr. Scanzani disagreed. He went on to discuss his understa= nding of how/where the water flowed in the area.= Mr. Gospodarek said there was a low point on Kennedy Drive to the north of the p= roject with a culvert crossing that sent the drainage into Harris’ Pond. This was the reason he submitted t= he USGS and soils maps. Mr. Gowa= n said Stantec had reviewed the plan twice and was in the process of reviewing add= itional information.

Mr. Scanzani believed the Board was adamant that the drainage culvert= had to be looked at. Mr. Dick Her= trich of Stantec said based on what they submitted, the drainage for the new subd= ivision/cul-de-sac ended up in the culvert approximately 100-feet from the new roadway; nothing went beyond that. Mr. Scanzani asked if it tied into the culverts on Kennedy Drive. Mr. Hertrich answered yes; the new drainage tied directly into the culvert. Mr. Scanzani asked w= here the (drainage in the) culvert on Kennedy Drive went.&n= bsp; Mr. Hertrich said the culvert on Kennedy Drive flowed over the bank = and into Harris Pond. Mr. Gospoda= rek reviewed the plan and discussed where the Kennedy Drive drainage flowed. Mr. Scanzani said some of the water still had to come down Ken= nedy Drive. He didn’t question what direction the water flowed, but rather= the slope of the road coming down Gage Hill Road because from Gage Hill Road, it had to go to Har= ris Pond. Mr. Gospodarek reiterat= ed the drainage plan and showed where water would flow.

Mr. Scanzani asked if Mr. Hertrich had any outstanding major comments. Mr. Hertrich said t= here were not a lot of technical items left, it was mostly waivers and other iss= ues the Board needed to review. <= /p>

Ms. Ouellette said the Board had already accepted for consideration (= August 7, 2006) = the following waivers:

Section 11.04,c,1 – building envelope;
Section = 11.11,b,2 – well radius;
Appendix= I, BB,1 & DD – intersection standards and cross sections.

Mr. Gowan noted that the applicant had not submitted a complete updat= ed plan set. Mr. Scanzani unders= tood that the Board needed to take action on the three waivers and the plan set = that would come forward would have the remaining minor changes as listed in the latest letter from Stantec. M= r. Hertrich said they had approximately eight waivers identified.

Ms. Ouellette said the Board had done nothing with regard to a Special Permit. She went on to review= the file to determine what waivers had been requested. Mr. Gospodarek said other waivers = had been submitted on December 1, 2006 when they addressed Stantec’s letter.

Ms. Ouellette then reviewed the additional waivers being requested as follows:

Section 10.03,F Specific Plan Information – Existing Site Conditions - to not show the location of existing structures, wells and septic systems within 75 feet of the site;
Section 12.02 Storm Water Management & Plan – to allow a small incre= ase in the post development greater than the pre-development flow;
Appendix I,BB,12 - Roadway Design/Street Construction Standards – minimum tangent length between horizontal curves – to allow adjacent horizontal curves in the roadway layout that are not separated by a tangent and a third horizontal curve being separated by less than 100ft minimum length;
Appendix I,BB,15a&b – Roadway Design/Street Construction Standards – ‘K’ factor for crest and ‘K’ factor for sag – to allow the vertical curve at station 1+25 to have a ‘K’ value of 25.00 and at station 7+75 to have a ‘K’ value of 20.04;
Appendix I,BB,30 – Roadway Design/Street Construction Standards – Required sight distance – to allow a sight distance of 320-feet = to the north.

Mr. Scanzani asked how many houses were to the north. Mr. Gospodarek said there were sev= en lots but was unsure if they were buildable. He explained that they were unable= to clear any more trees in that direction.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani asked how many lots were toward the south. Mr. Gospodarek said there were twe= lve lots, but they were able to meet the sight distance.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Hertrich to comment on the waiver request to Section 12.02 small increase in flow greater that pre-development. Mr. Hertrich said the post-develop= ment was 46cfs and the pre-development was 43cfs. He said they believed the initial = runoff (coming from the lower end of the road) would make it to the culvert before= the rest of the drainage (from the backside) made it to that point; therefore it wouldn’t cause a problem in the carrying capacity. Mr. Scanzani asked if the culvert = was designed for a 50-year storm event. Mr. Hertrich answered no; it was an existing culvert. Mr. Scanzani c= onfirmed that the drainage on the new subdivision would be done for a 50-year event = so it would be held back. Mr. Hertr= ich answered yes.

The Board then address the waivers as follows:

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the Special Permit required for a portion of the road = to be constructed in the Wetland Conservation District.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.04,B – Lot Shape (lot 12-253 existing house lot is ‘L’ shaped and lot 253-3 includes a long narrow section that extends from Kennedy Drive toward the cul-de-sac).

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,BB,12 - Roadway Design/Street Construction Standards – minimum tangent length between horizontal curves

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,BB, 15 a&b - Roadway Design/Street Construction Standards – ‘K’ factor for c= rest and ‘K’ factor for sag.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani noted that Stantec recommended that the Board not accept= the waiver for cross sections and

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To NOT accept the waiver to Append= ix I, DD – cross sections as recommended by Stantec.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried. By a vote i= n the affirmative, the Board DENIED the waiver for cross sections.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,BB,30 – Roadway Design/= Street Construction Standards.<= /o:p>

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03,F Specific Plan Information – Existing Site Conditions.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 12.02 Storm Water Management &am= p; Plan.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani continued the review of the comments submitted by Stantec. He asked if the Fire Department has submitted a letter regarding their preference for sprinklers. Ms. Ouellette didn’t find correspondence in the file. Mr. Scanzani said he would like clarification from the Fire Department indicating if they preferred sprinkl= ers or cisterns. There was further discussion regarding cisterns versus sprinklers and what the Board could request. Mr. Gowan said if ci= sterns were proposed, the final plan set should show their location.

The plan was date specified to the February 5, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Culbert left the meeting. Mr. McManus was appointed to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction R= 11; Sherburne Road – Proposed 40 Unit Elderly Housing

Date specified to the January 16, 2007 meeting.

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment ̵= 1; Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ft.x60ft. two story Warehouse Building<= /st1:PlaceType>

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates discussed the site review w= ith the Board.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the waivers for the well radius and site distan= ce had been submitted. Mr. Gospo= darek answered no; he provided the Board with a copy of the waiver to the Board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani asked where the well = would be located. Mr. Gospodarek sh= owed the location. Mr. Scanzani as= ked that the plan set be revised to show the well location. He then reviewed Stantec’s (Town’s engineer) comment regarding the well radius to the septic; the existing well will not be used a new well will be installed. Mr. Gospodarek said they didn̵= 7;t want to submit a brand new set of plans (so close to the meeting), so they = took the minor revisions on the plan set from Stantec and provided how they would correct the plan set in the event they received a conditional approval. Stantec didn’t have time to = review at this point.

Mr. Scanzani believed one of the stipulations the Board wanted noted = on the plan was that no repairs would be done on site. Mr. Gospodarek said they had a not= e on the plan that had inadvertently been taken off. He said all the discussions and co= mments indicated there would be no repairs done on site; there was no intention to change that. Mr. Scanzani sai= d the Board would want a note on the plan (first page) as a condition for approval. Mr. Scanzani said t= he plan should note that the existing well will be abandoned and the new well location should be shown. Mr. McNamara asked what they meant by ‘abandon’ the well; what physically happened. Mr. Gosp= odarek was not sure how the state abandoned a well; they would do so per the note = on the plan indicating it be done in accordance with the ‘Best Management Practices of the Department of Environmental Services’.

Mr. Scanzani said the Fire Department should review the plan due to t= he type of equipment in the building and potential for a spill. He was concerned what it would do = the area because there were residential lots surrounding the site. He said with the Prime Wetland designation of South Beaver Brook it put the development under a more strict review.

Mr. Dadak questioned how the storm water would be treated. Mr. Gospodarek said all the water = would be collected in catch basins and sent to a hydro-defender that would separa= te oils, grease, sediment etc. then it would go into a leaching system. He said it would be a two or three= phase attack. Mr. Dadak asked if th= ere would be any inspection of the man holes.&= nbsp; Mr. Gospodarek said they needed to be cleaned approximately twice per year to get a pattern of how often they should be cleaned. He said the long-term maintenance = plan could then be determined. Mr.= Scanzani felt a maintenance plan and inspections should be added to the plan. Mr. McNamara questioned who would = do the inspections. Mr. Scanzani didn’t know the answer, but discussed the problems that may occur. Mr. Dadak said the property owner = should keep proper documentation for the Fire Department to access. Mr. Scanzani discussed the importa= nce of maintenance and wanted to have some kind of maintenance and inspection proc= ess be included as a condition of approval.&nb= sp; Mr. Dadak asked if the manufacturer recommended any type of regular inspection. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id there was a guideline recommendation that would help determine how often it would require maintenance. Mr= . Dick Hertrich of Stantec said the manufacturer should inform how often the equip= ment should be inspected. He said = what they normally ask is for the owner to notify the town when an inspection had been done; the plan should include a provision for the Town to be notified. Mr. Scanzani said t= he applicant should come up with a plan and if it requires some kind of inspec= tion it should be provided to the Planning Office on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. Mr. Gowan said the Pla= nning Department wouldn’t track maintenance of any site. He felt it was appropriate to have= a discussion with the Fire Department. He said there shouldn’t be an expectation of policing such. Mr. Gospodarek said they could wor= k with Stantec.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Fire Department had provided any information regarding fire protection. Mr. Gowan was unsure if there was a definitive plan. Mr. Gospodarek said they would hav= e to pursue an answer whether they should have sprinklers or a cistern. Mr. Gowan said they would seek dir= ection from the Fire Chief.

Mr. Dadak said the hours of operation were noted, but not which days. This was not specified = during the previous meeting.

Mr. Scanzani said the construction detail of how the wall would be de= veloped should be specified. He revie= wed the remaining open issues that should be addressed. He then reviewed the waivers being requested.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248:41,E to allow the septic system = to be installed under the pavement.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani asked for information regarding the sight distance. Mr. Gospodarek explained the diffi= culty regarding the sight distance and provided photographs of the existing road. The Board discussed the= sight distance. It was felt that additional review would be needed. <= /span>

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver for a reduction of sight distance.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Gospodarek offered his opinion regarding what may be able to be d= one; they would review further. Mr. Scanzani said the Board may want to consider adding signage. Ms. Ouellette said her fear was ve= hicles trailing each other while coming around the corner. Mr. McNamara also wanted a recommendation from the Highway Safety Committee.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had addressed all the issues they could o= ther than the Fire Department issues.

Mr. Collins asked what the total square footage of the building was.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gospodarek said the footprint = of the building was proposed to be 100ft.x60ft. with a split first and second floo= r.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Paul DeCarolis representing Polin Apartments said they had t= he opportunity to review the plan and informed the Board that he and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the language for the approval conditi= on of ‘no repairs’. = He said it was fully acknowledged by the applicant to include such language as= one of the notes on the plan. He = wanted to further clarify (in the proposed language) that no motor vehicles or equipment shall be repaired, maintained, serviced, restored or refurbished = on the property. Attorney DeCaro= lis said there was a note regarding the lighting being at the ‘owner̵= 7;s discretion’ would comply with the Town’s regulations that he was uncomfortable with. He felt t= he wording should state it would comply with the Town’s regulations and = the lighting plan. Mr. Scanzani understood that the lighting was on the building and would be ‘down lighting’. Mr. Gospodar= ek discussed the location of the lighting and its wattage. He said all the lights were dark s= ky and were directed down. Mr. Scanz= ani agreed that the newly proposed pole lighting should be tied together with t= he lighting plan.

Attorney DeCarolis then discussed the fact that they had resolved the plan by preparing restrictive covenants that had been recorded at the Regis= try of Deeds. He asked that some reference (to the book and page) be made on the plan. He said with regard to the mainten= ance, perhaps the note or the plan should indicate that the owner consents to inspections by the Town as it deems appropriate at its sole discretion. Mr. Gowan confirmed that Attorney DeCarolis would provide the applicant with the specific references to the covenants. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes. Mr. Gowan said = the Board should determine if they want such as a condition of approval or a reference on the plan.

The plan was date specified to the February 5, 2007 meeting.

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 &am= p; 149 Spaulding Hill Developmen= t , LLC/Montbleau, Roger – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road – Propo= sed 24 Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special P= ermit for Drainage within the WCD

Date specified to the January 18, 2007 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, L= LC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit = for Wetland Crossing

Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco & Cormier, Mr. Tim Watson, Project Enginee= r of Cuoco & Cormier, Mr. Mark West of West Environmental and Mr. Tim Moore = of Exeter Environmental were present to discuss the proposed project. Mr. Roy said since the last meetin= g the Board had scheduled and conducted a site walk on November 18, 2006. He said the Board requested that t= he applicant meet with the Fire Department, which was done on November 20, 2006; also pre= sent was Mr. Gowan. He said the Board = had also requested that they address the Stantec review letter, which had been done; they believed the engineering review was complete. Mr. Roy said there were a number of items in Stantec’s second review letter that needed the Board’s attention, such as waivers and discretionary items and the emergency access proposed.

Mr. Scanzani discussed his understanding regarding the original desig= n of the access. Mr. Roy explained= that Litchfield Circle was currently under development; the street itself had not been accepted by= the Town. It was his understandin= g once the developer had completed construction and resolved outstanding construct= ion issues the road would be available for street acceptance no sooner than Spr= ing, 2008. Mr. Roy said a secondary issue was that the drainage swale criss-crossed back and forth across the p= aper right-of-way that was left as a potential connection to the Magarian property. He said they had submitted a design revising the drainage and placing the access road through the paper street. A meeting w= as held with Mr. Cormier, Mr. Saurman and Mr. Gowan and Stantec to discuss the situation; Mr. Roy’s impression was they weren’t entirely satis= fied with the aesthetics of the situation with the road and the drainage. Mr. Roy believed they met the func= tion, and in terms of the aesthetics, Stantec had made three/four recommendations= to try and improve the situation with landscaping/fencing; they had no objecti= on to putting in additional landscaping/fencing/screening. He believed at this point the deve= loper (of the abutting property) was not willing to give permission for the access road to be constructed. Mr. R= oy said alternatives were discussed, such as the plan that had been presented showing a more traditional detention basin. Another alternative would be to fl= ip the existing swale 90 degrees making it parallel with the road. A third alternative would be to ta= ke the emergency access and run it off the secondary road within the subdivision a= nd have it go out to Sherburne Road; this would eliminate the conflict between= the two developers, however, the Fire Department preferred to see the connection with Litchfield Circle.

Mr. Scanzani said his job on the Planning Board was to protect the Town. He said when developers couldn’t agree money could be held (in the bonds) on both development= s to have the work done. Mr. McNam= ara said in order to approve the plan the Board had to know that an adequate dr= ainage system was in place. He said = during the site walk there was a great deal of discussion regarding the issue. Mr. Roy said the Board had a desig= n that had been reviewed and accepted by Stantec as meeting the original design in= tent prepared for the original subdivision.

Mr. Gowan said some engineering that Cuoco & Cormier had done all= eged that the existing drainage structure was not functioning per design. Stantec had recently reviewed the drainage and had qualified that they saw some problems with how the structu= re was built. He said there was a figure being held from the bond reduction (on the <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Litchfield Circle development) to r= esolve the drainage. He said the app= licant wanted to build their project, but until the abutting road was accepted by = the Town, their neighboring developers ‘held more cards’ with regar= d to allowing the emergency access to be built.= The neighboring developer contends that the drainage structure as proposed, would virtually make the lot (that had been on the market for mon= ths) unsellable because they were already having difficulty selling it with the serpentine drainage.

Mr. Scanzani said he wanted it perfectly clear to both developers that the Town could ‘double-dip’.&n= bsp; He said the Town has already held the bond money back for the draina= ge that Stantec had reviewed. In addition, the applicant shows a different des= ign going into a road; even if it couldn’t be done until the Town accepts= the road it would be okay, the Board could approved the project and hold off on= the bond money to be done at a later point.&nb= sp; He said neither bond would be given back until the connection was bu= ilt. He said his job was road connectiv= ity and to protect the Town. Ms. Ouellette questioned how the Board could approve something that wasn’t functional. Mr. Scanzani said= the proposed drainage that was necessary for the road connectivity, met the reg= ulations. He said the drainage that was ther= e now, that should have met the regulations that were in existence for the Litchfield Circle extension, need a little work. He said t= he bond money wouldn’t go back to either development until they worked i= t out. Ms. Ouellette wanted to know if th= e Litchfield development fixed it their way if it could be ‘married’ to the proposed to make it work. Mr. Scanzani answered yes; but it may have to be ripped out and redone. Mr. Roy said if the Board approved= their plan, they had re-designed it so it would work; however, what was currently= in the ground was something already approved and not working how it was intended. He said his client = was proposing to do the drainage work and fix the problem at his expense. The Board discussed the situation further.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec said technically what the applicant prop= osed in the plan set worked. He sa= id the only issue was having it moved/rearranged away from the building. Mr. Roy said they could reconfigur= e since the house had not been sold yet.

Mr. Gowan was asked to get the applicant together with the developer = of the abutting property together to discuss further. Mr. Gowan discussed how the situat= ion occurred.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Hertrich had the opportunity to review the alternative engineering plans and if one was preferable to another. Mr. Hertrich answered no; they had discussed such, but not reviewed any alternate plans. Mr. Scanzani said if the developers couldn’t work it out, the Board would have to ensure that it was work= ed out to the benefit/protection of the Town.= Mr. McNamara said he would like comments regarding the merits of the alternative plans.

The Board then addressed the waivers contained in the file as follows= :

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, BB,1 – Roadway Design R= 11; minimum right-of-way width.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dadak) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, 11 – Roadway Design – Cul-de-sac design.=

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,BB,12 – Roadway Design – minimum tangent length between horizontal curves.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 13 – Roadway Design – maximum horizontal curve.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, DD – Roadway Design – Cross Sections.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 30 – Roadway Design – Required Sight Distance from Min= or Approach Posted. <= /u>

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, – Roadway Design – St= reet Construction Standards. =

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board wanted to see the alternatives for the ac= cess road and the drainage. Mr. Ro= y said they were willing to meet with the Town and the other developer.

Mr. Scanzani questioned the type of home to be built. Mr. Roy said the homes were all single-family detached. Mr. Scanzani wanted to know where the units were located and the distance from = 125 Sherburne Road. Mr. Watson said they looked at the= house during the site walk; the closest house to the abutter had been moved (approximately 60-feet from the property line) preserving the existing vegetation. Mr. Scanzani said= the second request was to have a way for the property to access from Tyngsboro = to be used primarily for recreational purposes. After a brief discussion regarding making a connection, Mr. Roy informed that the owner expressed concerns regarding trails and wasn’t ‘keen’ on having them because= the proposed development was condominium; further, the owner also owned the abutting parcel. Mr. Scanzani= said there was nothing on the trail maps. It was noted that Tyngsboro had no common boundary with the applicant’s parcel.

MOTIO

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the Special Permit application to work in the wetlands and Wetland Conservation District. <= u>

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani summarized the discussion. The applicant would come forward w= ith alternative plans regarding the connection to Litchfield Circle and the drainage.= The waivers had all been accepted = for consideration. All the draina= ge issues from Stantec review had been done.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said he would like to meet with the applicant and the Fire Chief.

Mr. Scanzani provided the Board with an update regarding the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection. He said it had = been indicated by the Department of Transportation that there was no money conta= ined in the state’s fourteen year plan to fix the = Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection. He said the only chance the Town had to fix the road would be to get some money from the developers putting houses in the area and possibly from tax payers (for whi= ch a warrant article would be put forward).&nbs= p; He said the Hudson side would be reviewed in the Green Meadow Golf Course project.

The plan was date specified to the February 5, 2007 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS=

January 16, 2007

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

January 18, 2007

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 Sun = Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review of Proposed 6420SF 5-Unit Professional Office Buil= ding

Map 39 Lot 1-55 LRL Development of Pelham/Leverone & Associates – Sherburne Road R= 11; Proposed 34 Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing= for Driveway

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

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

February 5, 2007

Map 17 Lot 12-253 JRS R= ealty, LLC – Kennedy Drive<= /st1:address> – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision and S= eeking Special Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossing

Map 41 Lot 6-138 K&K Equipment – Pulpit Rock Road – Site Review of Proposed 120ft.x60ft. two story Warehouse Building<= /st1:PlaceType>

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – = Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit = for Wetland Crossing

SITE WALK – January 6, 2007 = 8:30a.m.=

Map 10 Lot 13-163 Bennett, Bruce & Lisa – = 83 Pelham Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

MI= NUTES

December= 18, 2006

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne)To appr= ove the December 18, 2006 Planning Board minutes as written.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara) To adj= ourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 12:05a.m.

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Respectfully submitted,

Charity A. L. Willis

&n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Recording Secretary