PB Minutes 04-16-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

April 16, 2007

The Chairman Peter McNama= ra called the meeting to order at 7:00= pm.

The Secretary Paul Dadak = called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy C= ulbert, Paul Dadak, Jason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Roger Montbleau, Alternate James McMan= us, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty (arrived after the meeting commenced), Plan= ning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None

APPOINTMENTS

Planning Board appointments to CIP – three positions, each with a 3-year term

Mr. Gowan indicated that = the Planning Board needed to appoint three people to the CIP; applications had = been received from Mr. Bill Scanzani (former Planning Board and CIP member) and = Mr. Ken Dunne (former Planning Board alternate). He said there should be an additio= nal Planning Board member appointed to the CIP. He noted that the Selectmen had em= braced using the CIP as a tool and encouraged the Board to make the appointments. =

MOTION:

To appoint Mr. Bill Sca= nzani to the CIP committee.=

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

To appoint Mr. Ken Dunn= e to the CIP committee.=

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty abstained.

The term for the appointm= ents will be three years.

Mr. McNamara that the mem= bers of the Board consider being the representative to the CIP.

(*see below for appointme= nt of Jason Croteau)

Miscellaneous

The Board members signed = the document indicating that the alternates would be acting Board Member when appointed to do so.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 8 Lots 9-82, 82-1 Paul & Linda Beauchesne and Kristina Lea Caldwell 2,4 & 8 Hayden Road – Se= eking a Special Use Permit to convert existing Duplex into a Condominium Form of Ownership and submission of Voluntary Lot Merger application=

Mr. Dadak 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.

Attorney David Groff, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the request for Special Use Permit and the submission of the Voluntary Lot Merger application. He asked that the Board begin by reviewing the lot merger.&n= bsp; He said he client would like to join the two lots together. He pointed out that the duplex was= constructed wholly on the left lot and the septic system was on the lot on the right. Attorney Groff said after discussi= ng the matter with his client, they wanted to merge the lots. The merger would solve the setback= issue with the existing duplex.

Mr. Gowan asked how the d= uplex was built on a lot with less than two acres and wanted to know if a variance had been granted. Attorney Gr= off said there were two separate lots and built in the configuration shown. He understood by talking to the ow= ners that they may have believed they were building closer to being on the lot l= ine; he didn’t know the answer to the question but believed merging the two lots was the simplest solution. Mr. Gowan agreed. He explained to= the new Board members that a voluntary lot merger required no action of the Boa= rd, it was a simple form signed by the Chairman. He felt in this case the merger wo= uld make sense since the lot was technically non-conforming without the merger and w= ould require zoning relief.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the Voluntary Lot Merger application form and saw that the lot numbers didnR= 17;t correspond to the lot numbers shown on drawing provided. Attorney Groff believed the lot nu= mbers were originally taken from the tax bill.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara wanted to make sure they referenced the same property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gowan said the Planning Depart= ment could review and simply change the form if need be. Attorney Groff said the original p= lan referenced the lots as ‘a’ and ‘b’; and the tax map identified them map 9-82 and 9-82-1. Mr. Gowan said he would use the map and lot numbers. He said if the form listed the num= bers incorrectly, the form could be corrected.&= nbsp; Attorney Groff said the ‘a’ and ‘b’ were on = the subdivision plan, and suggested removing them from the form and only using = the tax map numbers. Mr. Gowan ma= de the change (eliminated a & b) and noted that otherwise, the numbers were appropriate.

Mr. Doherty asked what th= e new lot number would be. Mr. Gowan believed the new number would be lot 8-9-82, but would double check.

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= at the house numbers were because 2,4 & 8 were listed. Attorney Groff was unsure why the = house numbers were assigned. Mr. Cu= lbert said if the lot line was eliminated, the total lot would then be 3.16 acres. He wanted to know if t= he lots were combined if the applicant would come in for another lot since the= re would then be enough road frontage along Hayden Road and Windham Road to allow for another lot. Attorney Groff said that= was one of the options, but would need to come back to the Board with the request. He said right now, t= he applicant wanted to combine the lots. Mr. Culbert wanted to be sure the applicant understood if they came = back it would be under the new zoning. Attorney Groff said that fact was understood.

Attorney Groff then revie= wed the Special Use Permit. He said t= here was an existing duplex and noted there was an existing septic, leach field = and sheds. They weren’t ask= ing for any change to the physical structures, just that there be a change in o= wnership; duplex to condominium. It was= noted there was plenty of room for an alternate location of the leach field in the even the existing failed. The= re was certification that the existing system was adequate.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Go= wan if he had reviewed the documents and if the Board had everything needed to move forward. Mr. Gowan answered y= es; it was a typical condominium conversion per RSA 356-B:5. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the se= ptic was functioning and adequate, and that the lot has adequate room for a replacement if needed. Mr. Go= wan answered yes.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the Special Use Permit.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = approve the Special Use Permit.<= /o:p>

VOTE:

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

Mr. Haverty arrived.

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Girl Scouts of Spar & Spindle Council, Inc./ Webster, LLC – Webster Avenue – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision=

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Gowan provided the Bo= ard with a brief overview/background. = He said in 2006 the Spar & Spindle organization reached an agreement with = the developer Gary Patch to create a 9-lot subdivision on one edge of the Girl Scout (Spar & Spindle) property along Webster Avenue. When the plan was originally broug= ht in the proposed lot was non-conforming (by lack of frontage) and the applicant decided to put it aside and come forward with only the 9-lot subdivision. The Board negotiated with Spar &am= p; Spindle (and the applicant) and instead of open space (which is required and there had been much debate about during the original hearings) the Town preferred a Right of First Refusal document established with the organizati= on (Girl Scouts). This document = would allow the Town the first right to purchase the property if the Girl Scouts decided to put all, or a portion of the land up for sale. Mr. Gowan said one of the conditio= ns for approval of the 9-lot subdivision was the recording of the Right of First Refusal document prior to the plan being recorded. He explained that the proposed lot (considered the 10^th lot) was called out in the agreement but because it was not actually subdivided it was difficult to describe in the agreement. He said it occurre= d to the applicant that the subdivision needed to occur. Mr. Gowan noted that the lot being proposed was virtually identical to the plan that was first brought in to t= he Planning Department. He said = it was as small as it could be to meet the regulations; it had a variance for short frontage. He said the lotR= 17;s approval, once achieved (if the Board cared to) would enable the Right of F= irst Refusal document to be recorded.

Attorney Mark Johnson, re= presenting Webster, LLC, representing the applicant, and Ms. Cynthia Beauvier of Cuoco & Cormier Engineering met with the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision. Attorney Johnson= said it made sense to create the tenth lot so everything could be cleanly put on record; there would be no question what the Town was getting the Right of F= irst Refusal for.

It was Mr. Gowan’s = opinion that the subdivision was ready to be accepted.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = proposed lot was at the corner of S= pringdale Lane. Ms. Beauvier answered yes. She noted that Spri= ngdale Lane was a private road.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the proposed plan.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty abstained.

Ms. Beauvier informed the= Board that they had gone to the Zoning Board of Adjustment with a variance request for frontage being less than 200ft., which had been granted. She said they were requesting waiv= ers for the following: 1) Landscaping design/plan for total site; 2) topography= not done for entire property– based on the topographic plan (of the immed= iate area) there were no wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the proposed lot;= 3) property lines of entire parcel- boundary survey; and 4) locus map 1in.=3D400ft. Mr. McNamara as= ked if the waivers had been submitted in writing.= Ms. Beauvier said the waiver requests were listed on the plan. Mr. McNamara asked that they be submitted separately by letter. Ms. Beauvier said she would submit.

Mr. Doherty recused himse= lf from the case.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = proposed lot was part of the 9-lot subdivision and if it had a private road running through it. Ms. Beauvier said= it was an additional lot and did not have a private road running through it. Mr. Culbert wanted to know why ove= rhead wiring was proposed instead of the underground utilities, as required in the Subdivision Regulations. Ms. Beauvier said the overhead wires shown were existing and went further into = the Girl Scout land. She said the= y were proposing to move the overhead wires from across the lot to the property li= ne so they hook up to the existing poles in order to service the Girl Scout lot. Mr. Culbert asked if a w= aiver would be requested. Ms. Beauv= ier said they didn’t request a waiver because they were relocating the ex= isting line. Mr. Culbert felt the utilities should be underground. Mr. McNamara agreed because it was a subdivision coming in.

Mr. Montbleau questioned = the reason for the variance. Mr. McNamara said the variance was requested for lack of frontage. He recalled that the Board of Adju= stment felt that the proposed (10^th lot) had been described and contemplated in the original 9-lot subdivision, just not delineated. He believed it was also in view of= the fact that to secure a Right of First Refusal on the remainder property the = lot would have to be dealt with; the Board of Adjustment felt that the variance criteria had been met. Mr. Cu= lbert asked if obtaining additional frontage was reviewed. Mr. McNamara said it was. He said if the lot was made to be conforming, there would be less property protected by the Right of First Refusal. Mr. Culbert asked ho= w much land would need to be added so the lot would have the required frontage. Attorney Johnson didn’t have= the calculation; it was part of the presentation to the Board of Adjustment.

Attorney Johnson noted th= at the utilities servicing the proposed lot would be underground.

There was no public input= .

There was further discuss= ion regarding why the proposed lot was not included in the original 9-lot subdivision. Attorney Johnson= said they originally came in with the 9-lots that complied and anticipated comin= g in for the tenth; however, what the didn’t anticipate (through the 9-lot subdivision process) was the Town negotiating with the Girl Scouts the Righ= t of First Refusal. He said it then became important for them to come up with a legal description which had to leave enough land for the tenth lot; therefore, putting off the tenth lot f= or a later date, put it in the forefront.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = Town had negotiated for a non-conforming lot. Attorney Johnson said the Town negotiated for a Right of First Refus= al that would not encumber a tenth lot. He said they tried to come up with a legal description of the land t= hat would be subject to the Right of First Refusal and were unable to do that without taking a lot of land out of the land that was part of the Right of First Refusal for a potential tenth lot.&n= bsp; He said he suggested coming in now for the tenth lot so it could be recorded with specificity at the Registry of Deeds. He didn’t want to come up wi= th a document for a lot of land that wouldn’t be needed. Mr. Culbert asked if the tenth lot= was part of the 9-lot subdivision. Attorney Johnson said the tenth lot was part of the Right of First Refusal (less the 9-lot subdivision and less the land needed for a tenth lo= t). Mr. Culbert said he was confused by the fact that someone came up with a non-conforming lot as part of the negotiation for the Right of First Refusal because there had been plenty of area to have 200ft. of frontage. He felt the land that would have b= een lost (from the Right of First Refusal) would have been miniscule compared to the size of the lot. Attorney Johnson understood what was being said and noted that they went to the Boar= d of Adjustment (for a frontage variance). He said he wanted to have a legal description of the land subject to= the Right of First Refusal. Mr. C= ulbert understood that the lot was conforming.&nb= sp; He had a problem with the process of coming up with a non-conforming= lot as part of the negotiation. M= r. McNamara said the tenth lot was contemplated in the original proposal and w= hen the Board approved the 9-lots, they knew a tenth lot would come back before them. He didn’t feel th= ere was any ‘slight of hand’ on the part of the applicant or the Board.

Mr. Montbleau confirmed t= hat the Town was the recipient of the Right of First Refusal for the remaining Girl Scout parcel. Mr. McNamara an= swered yes (200+ acres). He said a R= ight of First Refusal would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds so when/if the = Girl Scouts (and their successors) decides to sell a piece/or all of their prope= rty the Town would be presented to buy such and given sufficient time to hold a Town Meeting (or Special Town Meeting) for the purchase. Mr. Montbleau said in the early 1990’s a survey was done of the Town’s important land. It was said that the (Girl Scout) property was one of the most important pieces (for watershed, environmental= ly etc.) in the Town.

Attorney Johnson said if = the Board approved the proposed, they would expect a condition stating that it = not be recorded until/at the same time as the Right of First Refusal. Mr. McNamara said that was also his understanding.

Attorney Johnson submitte= d the waiver request in writing to the Board.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.07 – Landscaping Design= and plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03,D,G – Existing site conditions for topography and wetlands.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03,C – Property lines of the entire parcel. (only the particular lot will be surveyed, not the ent= ire parcel)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix IX, 18 – Locus map showing 2500ft. from all sides of a project at a scale of 1in.=3D400ft.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara asked that t= he plan be revised to show below-ground utilities.= Mr. Gowan noted that the Right of First Refusal documents were compl= ete, waiting for the proposed tenth lot description. He encouraged the Board to make an approval contingent upon the Right of First Refusal being recorded first/simultaneously. <= /p>

Mr. Gowan said the applic= ant had made a request to the Board of Adjustment for a reduction in the application fee which should actually be requested through the Planning Board. Attorney Johnson said they had req= uested an application fee reduction from $1000 to $250 for the one lot; after discussing, the Board of Adjustment granted the reduction. He asked the Planning Board to con= sider lowering the application fee from $1000 to $250. Mr. McNamara said the discussion w= ould be brought up at the next meeting. <= /span>

Ms. Beauvier wanted clari= fication regarding the underground utilities. Mr. Culbert understood that there would be no above-ground utility l= ines. Attorney Johnson said they underst= ood that the existing above-ground utility line that serviced the Girl Scouts w= ould remain, but the service for the proposed lot would be underground. Mr. Culbert asked how long the above-ground pole had been in place. Ms. Beauvier said it was an old line. Mr. Culbert said he would review t= he regulations. Attorney Johnson= said if the Board believed they needed a waiver, they would request such. Mr. McNamara said his understandin= g was if the lot was being serviced by underground utilities, he didn’t fee= l it was their responsibility to tear down an existing pole. Ms. Beauvier asked if they could r= equest a waiver for the utilities to service the remaining land. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe = that a waiver was needed. Mr. Culber= t said he would review the regulations.

The plan was continued to= May 7, 2007.

Mr. Doherty returned.

Map 22 Lot 8-20-18 Jose Sousa dba JCS Landscaping = 211; 66 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site Review of Proposed General Home Occupation to operate a Landscaping Business

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Gowan said the applic= ants wish to use their property to do a landscape business. He said they went before the Board= of Adjustment for a Special Exception for a General Home Occupation and receiv= ed such (with conditions).

Lucy and Jose Sousa met with the Bo= ard to discuss their Site Review. Ms. Sousa submitted photographs of the concrete pad as well as the receipt for = the fencing (with 50% deposit the remaining is due upon delivery this week). Mr. McNamara confirmed that the co= ncrete pad was in the same location as discussed during the Board of Adjustment si= te walk.

Mr. Montbleau asked for i= nput from Mr. McNamara and Mr. Haverty, since they were members of the Board of Adjustment during the time the Sousa’s case was heard. Mr. McNamara said the Board of Adjustment was concerned regarding storage of materials on the property; the only thing stored on the property was lawn mowing equipment and two trucks (which is allowed in the Special Exception). He noted if any of the conditions for the Sp= ecial Exception weren’t met, it would not exist any more. Mr. Haverty said during the site w= alk he noticed that the lot would be large enough to accommodate what they stored there. He said the location o= f the fence would provide adequate screening and the location of the storage pad = was adequately placed on the lot. Mr. McNamara said the abutters had a concern regarding drainage off the applicant’s driveway which the board didn’t get into because it= was not in their purview. He said= it looked to be more from recent development in the area versus something that= the applicants did. Mr. Montbleau= asked if the driveway was paved. Ms. Sousa said at this time part of it was gravel; they were considering possib= ly paving the driveway. Mr. Mont= bleau asked if the screening was for dust. Mr. McNamara said it was more for visual because they weren’t proposing running the business on the property. Mr. Sousa discussed what equipment= would be on the property. Mr. McNam= ara didn’t believe there would be a problem with noise because repairs wouldn’t be conducted on the property. There would also be a minimum of t= raffic because everything would be picked up off site.

Mr. Doherty asked for an = explanation regarding ‘fuel storage’ and asked if he would obtain permits f= rom the Fire Department. Mr. Sous= a said he usually purchased fuel in the morning, on his way to a job. He said he didn’t store anyt= hing on the property. Mr. Sousa sa= id the only thing he kept was one, or two cans.&n= bsp;

Ms. Sousa explained the n= ature of the landscaping business. She= said everything they did would be off-site.&nbs= p; They had two trucks and trailers that would be carried to the jobs.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Haverty said during t= he Board of Adjustment site walk there was a discussion regarding a swale, or fuel containment system on the pad. He said in the photographs circulated he saw the pad and a cinderblock wall ar= ound it and questioned if there would be additional containment or a channel aro= und the pad. Mr. Sousa believed h= e had designed the pad as requested so that nothing would leak outside of it. He tested the pad/wall with water = and nothing leaked. Mr. Dadak ask= ed what the pad was used for. Mr. McNamara explained the pad was put underneath the storage area to keep equipment off the ground. Mr. Haverty said the intent was also to keep fuel from soaking into the ground. It was noted that the= re would also be a Quonset hut over the pad/storage area. Mr. Gowan felt the proposed was a reasonable approach, which satisfied the Board of Adjustment’s conditions.

Mr. Croteau asked if ther= e was a problem with the existing well, because the plan showed both an existing we= ll and a proposed well. Mr. Gowa= n said the applicant used an existing site plan and was not proposing an additional well.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Thomas Mullin, Old Gage Hill Road South= , said he had a couple items of concerns.&nb= sp; He explained that a perimeter drain was installed. The drain went around the house and ended up on his side of the property approximately 15-feet from his wall. Mr. Mullin said every time it rains heavily, he gets the water. He submitted photographs of the pipe (taken approximately 3 years ago) . Mr. McNamara confirmed that the pr= oposed fence (on the applicant’s lot) would shield Mr. Mullin’s proper= ty. Mr. Mullin answered yes. He continued his discussion regard= ing the drainage pipe that he felt was not working and was currently covered up due= to the applicant changing their driveway.&nbs= p; He said the location of the pipe was currently unknown because it was covered. He said at this point he was okay with the drain pipe be= cause nothing was coming out of it and would ‘let it ride’; however, = he wanted his concern about the drain noted in the event that there were future problems.

Mr. McNamara suggested th= at the Board conduct a site walk to better understand the area.

Mr. Dadak noted on the se= ptic design for the applicant’s lot (dated December, 2002) it showed a proposed foundation drain heading toward Gage Hill.

Mr. Mullin said he had an= other issue with the rock wall constructed. He indicated that he spoke with the Sousas about the wall and they s= aid they would fix the wall. He a= lso wanted to make sure that the maintenance free fence would be put up. Other than these items, Mr. Mullin= had no problem with the applicant’s request.

Mr. Pat Gendron, represen= ting his Mother Lucille (who lives across the street) had a couple issues, one of wh= ich is the water coming off the lot creating a puddle. He said the foundation drain had b= een an issue since the (applicant’s) house was built. He said another issue was the fact= that his Mother had a shallow well (15ft. deep). He was concerned with fluids or chemicals leaving the property and polluting the well. Mr. McNamara said the applicants wouldn’t have storage on the property. Mr. Gendron said lawn mowers and equipment leak.

Mr. Haverty noted that the drawing of the lot showed a straight driveway but during the (Board of Adjustment) site walk it was noted that there was a fairly sizable, circular driveway.

Mr. Sousa said he would f= ix the wall discussed by Mr. Mullin. He was waiting for the machine to be able to come and fix it.

Mr. Culbert asked for add= itional information regarding the drain. Mr. Sousa said since he moved in (four years ago), Mr. Mullin had a problem with the drain. He said when he bu= ilt the driveway he tried to make the water flow toward the street. He said he had done everything Mr. Mullin asked him to do, such as pitch the land with a swale. Ms. Sousa noted the drainage went = toward the street in front of their home, not near Mr. Mullin’s property.

Mr. Doherty asked if ther= e was a swale in front of the Sousa’s property along the road so the water wouldn’t come off their property across the street into the neighbor’s property. Mr. Sousa said there was a swale that was not working. Ms. Sousa said the problem had been there since they moved in four years ago, but didn’t know the history= of the area prior to them moving in. Being a landscaping business, Mr. Doherty questioned if it was the nature of such= to reinstall the swale to keep the water from running onto a public road. Ms. Sousa discussed that they want= ed to keep the landscaping equipment on the top left corner of their property and that the water was ending up on the front right side of the property.

Mr. McNamara reminded the= Board that they were reviewing a limited site plan review, not the drainage of the house. He said the Board was looking at how the business would affect the drainage, if any. He said there were some pre-existi= ng problems that may/may not be the responsibility of the applicant to fix/cor= rect and also not be the Board’s purview.= Mr. Gowan said he spends a lot of time with Highway Road Agent Don F= oss reviewing drainage issues. He= said they specifically reviewed this location based upon testimony given (at pre= vious meetings) and Mr. Foss indicated that the water had been a problem at the location for quite some time and was one item on his punch list to fix. He believed it was an area that ha= d a problem longer than the applicant’s had lived there.

Mr. Doherty asked what si= ze sign and how many company vehicles the applicant was allowed. Mr. Sousa said they were allowed t= wo company vehicles and a small sign (no larger than 3SF). Ms. Sousa said they wouldn’t= have any signs and weren’t planning on promoting any.

Mr. Montbleau believed th= e Board was getting to the point of the discussion being like a site plan review wh= en it was only supposed to be a cursory look.= He didn’t feel it was the purview of the Board to fix problems that previously existed.

A site walk was scheduled= for May 5, 2007 begi= nning at 8:30am on site.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 7, 2007 meeting.

Ms. Sousa asked if they s= hould wait to put up the fencing. M= r. McNamara said if they had occasion to put it in, they could.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 29 Lot 7-45 Ch= araka, LLC – 49 Atwood Road= – Site Plan Review for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

Mr. Dadak told the Board = that he was doing limited, part-time environmental consulting, some of which was for Herbert Associates. He said n= one of the work was in Town nor would he do any work on a project that would come before the Board. He assured = the Board that the work would not effect the decisions made on the application brought before the Board. Mr. McNamara asked how many hours per week the work entailed. Mr. Dadak said it was less than a = day; a few hours per week. Mr. McNam= ara asked if he was employed by Herbert Associates, other than being a sub-contractor. Mr. Dadak sai= d he was being paid by Herbert Associates. Mr. McNamara asked the Board if the= y had any questions, because Herbert did a lot of work before the Board. Mr. Culbert asked if there were ot= her consultants that did the same work for Herbert. Mr. Dadak didn’t know. Mr. Culbert confirmed that it was = only a couple hours per week and never in Pelham.= Mr. Dadak said the work was less than a day per week and never in Pelham. Mr. Culbert asked if = he would ever work in Pelham. Mr. Dadak said he wouldn’t work in Pelham on anything brought before the Board. Mr. Dadak explained th= at he was doing inspections for storm water pollution prevention plan in another town. The Board had no object= ion to Mr. Dadak remaining seated. <= /p>

Mr. McNamara stepped down= . Vice Chairman Paddy Culbert took o= ver for this hearing.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. M= ike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates and Jack Trembley, Landscape Architect met with the Board to discuss the proposed Site Plan. Mr. Zohdi= said the site plan had been submitted approximately eight-nine months ago, appea= red in front of the Board and then went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and w= ere granted a variance for a portion of the building (590SF) that would be in t= he Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). He said since that time they had b= een working on the plan and conducted many meeting with the Planning Director as well as meeting with Stantec (Town Engineer). He said a majority of the comments= were already answered on the plan and they were working on responding to the remaining which he felt were . Mr. Zohdi said they came before the Board to bring them up to date on the status. He said they didnR= 17;t object to the Board walking the site.

Mr. Culbert said he drove= behind the building prior to coming to the meeting and noted there were some stake= s in the back under water. He requ= ested that the Board schedule a site walk. He also said he wanted the drainage issues and remaining Stantec comments addressed so they could come back to the Board at the next meeting with all of it completed. Mr.= Gowan felt the suggested approach was good, given there were new Board members. He then asked what the stakes represented. Mr. Zohdi said t= he stakes were control points. <= /p>

At site walk was schedule= d for May 5, 2007 at a= pproximately 9:30am.

Mr. Trembley discussed th= e proposed landscape plan and the use of a rain garden for storm water drainage contro= l.

Mr. Dadak questioned how = the rain garden would be maintained. M= r. Trembley said it was intended to be self contained. Mr. Gowan further explained that a= rain garden was essentially a bio-retention system that recharged the ground water. He said when Louis-Ber= ger Group (Town’s environmental consultant) reviewed the system for a different project, they really liked it.&n= bsp; He said this type of system should be done in a sandy soil type, whi= ch the proposed site was.

Mr. Doherty said Stantec = seemed to have a problem with sand, sediment and decomposing leaves encrusting the= top of the water garden so the water can’t penetrate. He wanted to know if someone would= rake the top so a layer of clay wouldn’t form over the top and stop the functionality. Mr. Gospodarek= said it would have to be watched; there would be a bio mat that forms. He said when the rain garden starts filling up (it should be only be 6 inches) someone would have to go in and ‘scuff’ it up, move some of the mat. He noted as the mat grew it tended= to reduce the frost level and allow it to work in the winter better.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec said when the calculations were reviewed they found by using the proposed method= of storm water disposal both the rate and the volume off the site were reduced. He said the applican= t was asked to review other methods to further reduce the numbers. In a meeting today Mr. Hertrich sa= id he was informed the applicant was proposing green pavers for the fire lane. He said they would also re-direct = the roof drainage to the bio-retention area.&n= bsp; He discussed the research done on the rain gardens during a previous case before the Board. He sai= d the system seemed like a good system for this site. He said the owner would have to ma= intain the garden, or their parking lot would be flooded.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road noted that currently half the proposed building up to the rain garden was current= ly under water. He said during t= he last meeting there was a question (from a Board member) regarding another medical building that did the same thing and their parking spaces. He said there was a medical buildi= ng (22 Main Street) in Salem, = NH which was 6900SF, had two physicians and 40 parking spaces. He had a meeting with the Salem Pl= anning Director who commented that the building was constantly coming back request= ing additional parking however they were surrounded by wetlands. He noted that the proposed building wouldn’t have gotten anywhere in Salem because as of March, they banned building within a flood plain. Mr. Culbert said he didn’t w= ant to use Salem as an example because their population was 3x-4x that of Pelham and they managed their business different. Mr.= Grant said he was curious how another town managed projects. He said he had a photograph of the= area proposed for the building. He thought the idea of the rain garden was a good idea, but felt the berm would push more flood water toward him. He discussed the current conditions of the site and noted that it was very wet= . He didn’t understand why som= eone would come forward with the type of plan being proposed.

Mr. Doherty asked Mr. Gra= nt if he was familiar with Saints Memorial Medical Center (walk-in center) in Dracut, MA. He suggested making a comparison t= o that site and the number of parking spaces they had. Mr. Grant didn’t understand = how the Board would be able to vote in the positive the proposed plan because it was flooded, threatened people, was dangerous, reckless and scary.

Mr. Gowan said the plan, = as he understood, did not contemplate building in the 100-year flood plain. Mr. Culbert reiterated that the Bo= ard would conduct a site walk and the applicant’s engineer would do some = more work on the drainage.

Mr. Zohdi asked if the Bo= ard acted on the three waivers requested. Mr. Dadak reviewed the file and saw that the waivers had been previo= usly accepted.

&n= bsp;

The site walk would be co= nducted on May 5, 2007. The plan was date specified to the= May 7, 2007 meet= ing.

There was a member of the= public who didn’t address the Board. Mr. Culbert informed it was too late, but noted that there would be = time at the next meeting to speak.

Mr. McNamara returned to = the Board and resumed as Chairman.

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

Mr. Montbleau stepped dow= n.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates provided the Board with an update. He said they met with Mr. Gowan an= d the Town’s engineer to discuss drainage.= He said they would be meeting with the Selectmen on May 1, 2007 because they would= be doing major improvements on Spau= lding Hill Road and needed their permission. He hoped to have most of Stantec&#= 8217;s issues resolved so they could come back before the Board May 7, 2007.

Mr. Gowan wanted to know = when revised plans would be submitted. Mr. Zohdi said the plans could be submitted tomorrow. They waited so they could get the Town’s Highway Road Agent (Don Foss) involved to make sure he was okay with the plans prior to sending them to the Selectmen. Mr. Gowan said if the revised plan= s were submitted he could meet on site with Stantec and Mr. Foss and provide the B= oard a thorough update.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the May 7, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Montbleau returned. <= /p>

Map 31 & 37 Lots 11-33,34 & 35 Charlie Kleczkowski – Bluebe= rry Circle – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Mr. McNamara explained to= the Board that a Pre-design review was a conceptual, overall review. The plan was not being submitted t= o the Board in a formal manner. The level= of discussion should remain general and not get into specifics. Because abutter notification had occurred, the list was read aloud. <= /span>

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the Pre-design of the proposed subdivision to the Board. He explained that they would be combining four parcels of land (totaling approximately 45 acres). The subdivision would be accessed off Blueberry Circle with a short road and cul-de-sac. They are proposing six lots; one ho= use existing. There will be waive= rs requested for wetland and Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) crossings. Mr. Zohdi said they could include lot 11-32 and make the proposed lots larger, but he felt the = best thing may be to deed that area to the Town/Conservation Commission. He wanted to know what the Board preferred.

Mr. McNamara wanted to know what direction he was seeking. Mr. Zohdi said he wanted the Board’s opinion regarding the wetland/WCD crossings. Mr. McNamara said in the future it= would make the Board’s review easier if they had a four or five color rendi= tion showing the wet areas, steep slopes etc.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said he would. Mr. Gowan commented that the parcel had an unusually high amount of wetlands and slopes in the back which would make it a challenge. He said the Board would have to re= view the proposed and decide if the configuration made sense given items such as= long driveways, shared driveway etc. He also asked that the Board consider when contemplating changes to the regulations, always require colored plans with specific color coding. Mr. Zohdi said if he was date spec= ified to the May 7, 200= 7 meeting, he would bring a plan for review showing the wet areas, slopes etc.

Mr. Doherty wanted to know if the 9.47 acre lot was needed to make the proposed= lot or if it could be added to lot 11-32 and deeded to conservation. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t nee= d the nine acres to make the proposed lot.

Mr. McNamara asked what square footage the wetland impact was for the initial driveway. Mr. Zohdi said the = first was a maximum of 2000SF; the last two driveway crossings would have a wetla= nd crossing of approximately 600SF. Mr. McNamara asked how long the cul-de-sac would be. Mr. Zohdi believed it would be 1500ft.

Mr. Culbert understood the plan would go to the Conservation Commission, but expected e= very lot to be site specific when the plan was submitted back to the Board. Mr. Zohdi said he would do so.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Michelle (Manning) Green of Dracut, MA wanted people to understand that the proposed was a big issue for those who reside in the area. She wanted the Board to know the steepness of the proposed lot and the concern of runoff due to trees being cut. She was also concerned a= bout the proposed septic systems being uphill from her well. She discussed the close proximity = of the abutting homes and felt the proposal was ‘cramming’ the lots in. Ms. Green discussed the f= act that there was a lot of wildlife in the area and a large ecosystem which was very important. She felt it w= as worth while to make the property conservation land.

Mr. McNamara said there were some concerns that needed to be addressed. Some items were the length of the driveways, septic etc.

Mr. Montbleau provided a brief explanation of the information the Board would review during the plan review.

Mr. McNamara also noted the Board had no say as to the land being purchased by = the Town or the state. The = plan would not be sent to engineering until formally submitted and accepted.

Mr. Zohdi said he would be showing the plan to the Conservation Commission and asked to be placed on the Board’s agenda for May 7, 2007.

The pre-design review was continued to the May 7, 2007 meeting.

CIP Appointment=

Mr. McNamara said while the Board was on break Mr. Croteau approached him and volunteered to be the Planning Board’s representative to CIP.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = appoint Mr. Jason Croteau as the CIP Representative for the Planning Board.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

SITE WALK – May 5, 2007 beginning at 8:30 am on site at the Sousa’s property

Map 22 Lot 8-20-18 Jose Sousa dba JCS Landscaping = 211; 66 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site Review of Proposed General Home Occupation to operate a Landscaping Business

Map 29 Lot 7-45 Charaka, LLC – 49 Atwood Road – Site Plan Re= view for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – May 7, 2007

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Girl Scouts of Spar & Spindle Council, Inc./ Webster, LLC – Webster Avenue – Proposed 2-L= ot Subdivision

Map 22 Lot 8-20-18 Jose Sousa dba JCS Landscaping = 211; 66 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site Review of Proposed General Home Occupation to operate a Landscaping Business

Map 29 Lot 7-45 Charaka, LLC – 49 Atwood Road – Site Plan Re= view for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

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

Map 31 & 37 Lots 11-3= 3,34 & 35 Charlie Kleczkowski – Blueberry Circle – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

MINUTES

April= 2, 2007

MOTION:

(Culbert/Croteau) To ap= prove the April 2, 20= 07 minutes as written.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To ad= journ the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:00 pm

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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