PB Minutes 05-07-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 7, 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 Represen= tative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None

NEW BUSINESS

Map 1 Lot 5-112, 122, 123 - SOUCY, William, Soucy Industries, Inc. – 5 Dick Tracy Drive – Change of Occupancy to operate steel fabrication company having approximately 18 employees

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. William Soucy met wit= h the Board to discuss the request for the Change of Occupancy. He currently had a steel fabricati= on shop in Lowell, MA that was currently being taken over= by eminent domain. He came acros= s Dick Tracy Drive, but before moving forward with the present owner, he wanted to make sure it wou= ld be okay for him to move into the location.=

Mr. McNamara asked for a description of the present business and what was planned for Pelham. He also wanted to know if there wo= uld be any difficulties or special conditions.&nb= sp; Mr. Soucy said he employed approximately 20 people. There would be storage trailers on= site; outside activity would consist of loading and unloading materials. Inside there would be welders and = a high end working shop (drilling etc). Mr. Soucy said the current office was too small; he planned to reque= st permission to add a second floor. He said the building would also be a little tight, and in a few years may request to put an addition. For now they would maintain what they had.&nbs= p; Mr. Soucy said there was an existing foundation on the left side of = the site that he would like to finish off and add a tenant or two. He would like the tenant to also be someone in the trade (i.e. plumber, electrician) not automotive.

Mr. Gowan said the applic= ant came before the Board because of the Site Plan Regulation. He said the site plan being review= ed was approved in 1997 for Coleman Construction (aka Acme Construction). He said they built the building (p= hase I) and then put in the foundation (phase II). It was his understanding that the applicant was interested in occupying the existing building and also adding= a second floor to the foyer. He= said the applicant had the long-term option to expand the business into the 7500= sqft. building. He said the plan ha= d the parking laid out for the combined structures. He believed the build-out of the s= econd floor could be handled though the building permit process. Mr. Gowan said the question was ho= w to handle the tenants for the space. He said he informed the applicant if he were to deviate from the parking shown= on the plan, he would have to come back before the Board.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= eleven notes (on page one of the plan) applied to the requested use, or if they we= re conditions of approval that weren’t applicable. Mr. Gowan reviewed the notes (that= were on the plan from the previous approval).&n= bsp; In response to the notes on the plan, Mr. Sousa said he wouldn’= ;t do repairs of vehicles on site. He indicated that the addition of the second floor would not exceed 25ft. in height. He said there were ve= ry few plantings on site; they intended to add plantings during the process of fix= ing the place up.

Mr. Gowan asked Mr. Sousa= if he understood that additional parking would be a challenge given the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) around the site. Mr. Sousa said there was additiona= l land not in the wetland and if necessary, he would come back to the Board to dis= cuss additional parking. Mr. Gowan= asked if he would feel comfortable if the Board were to place limitations on the number of parking spaces since he currently had 20 employees (and that was approximately half the available parking area). Mr. Sousa felt beyond 20 additional parking spaces would be tight.

Mr. Haverty wanted a clarification of the hours of operation.&n= bsp; He said the plan indicated Monday-Saturday 6:30am-6:30pm except during snow plowing season; he = wanted to know if it was relevant. M= r. Sousa said the hours seemed to be about right, except Saturday. He said no one was working on Satu= rday, but there might be one or two vehicles.&nb= sp; Snow plowing was not relevant.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = plan (which was ten years old) was stamped.&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan said he had a copy that was stamped. He said the records reflected approval. Mr. Culbert wanted = to know in the event the Board approved the request if the people who drew the plan would be responsible for the content of such. Mr. Culbert asked if any changes h= ad occurred since the plan was approved. Mr. Gowan said he wasn’t aware of any changes, except the phas= e II building didn’t go beyond foundation stage. Mr. Culbert asked where the outside storage would be located (it was not on the plan). Mr. Sousa said it would be behind = the facility. Mr. Culbert said he= would need to see it on the plan. He didn’t know how a tractor trailer would access the rear of the buildi= ng. Mr. Sousa said they were currently= able to. Mr. Culbert asked if the storage would be on the existing 6in. concrete pad so it wouldn’t go beyond the parking area. Mr. Culbert reiterated that he would need to see the storage and how a truck wo= uld get into the back of the parcel and turn around to get out. He also wanted Mr. Sousa to be cau= tious with the tenant parking.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd should address the question of whether to set parameters/restrictions on the type of use (or business) that could occupy the future building, or to have= people come in under a modified site plan. It was his preference to have prospective tenants come before the Board. Mr. Doherty didn’= ;t feel that applicants related to construction tradesmen (i.e. plumbing, electrician, sheet metal workers) had to come before the Board to occupy the building. Mr. Gowan believed = it may be beneficial for the applicant to come back before the Board with a revised plan once the building had been altered so the Board could better understand parking etc. He said at that = point, site walk might also be appropriate.

Mr. McGlynn confirmed tha= t the intent for phase I was solely for Mr. Soucy and phase II was solely for pro= spective tenants. Mr. Soucy said phase= one was solely for himself.

Mr. Montbleau recalled the original plan (he was a Board member at that time) and informed that the concerns at that time were the type of use and the proximity to the wetlands. He said the propose= d use by Mr. Soucy appeared to have less concern because it was less intense. Mr. McNamara agreed.

Mr. Doherty wanted to kno= w how many Board members felt the proposed business was the type they would like = in Town. Mr. McNamara felt the s= ite was appropriate for the proposed business.=

Mr. Culbert wanted to hav= e the storage area defined. Mr. Sou= cy asked if it would suffice for him to come back when the other area was developed. Mr. Culbert said i= f the applicant intended to have storage that wasn’t outlined on the plan, = he should have it outlined on the next plan when he comes in. To clarify, Mr. Gowan said for the= use of the structure (existing building – phase I) they didn’t need= to do anything new, but anything done for the other building (including storag= e) would need a new plan (including as-built corrections). Mr. Soucy said that was fine.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that = the Board had no objection to the issuance of a building plan for the second fl= oor space above the foyer. There was no objection.

Mr. Montbleau made a moti= on to approve the Change of Occupancy subject to review of the second building wh= en it occurred. Mr. Culbert seco= nded the motion and asked that notes 1-4 be changed to reflect the new building. Mr. Montbleau accep= ted the change.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Culbert) To = approve the Change of Occupancy for Mr. William Soucy, subject to a review of the proposed building and usage of the second building when it occurs. Notes 1-4 (on the plan) should a= lso be changed to reflect the new building.&nbs= p; The landscaping will continue as it is built out.

VOTE:

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

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Doherty stepped down.= Mr. McGlynn was appointed to vote = for this case.

Attorney Mark Johnson, representing Webster, LLC, representing the applicant, and Ms. Cynthia Beau= vier of Cuoco & Cormier Engineering met with the Board to discuss the propos= ed subdivision. Ms. Beauvier inf= ormed that they had received state subdivision approval and added such to the pla= n. She said there was also discussion regarding the existing overhead line. She said the four waivers has been re-written and included a fifth waiver regarding the existing utilities that service the remainder of the lot. They requested that they lines be allowed to remain above ground. Ms. Beauvier said the lines would = be relocated within an easement on the new lot and rejoined to the existing ab= ove ground line into the Girl Scout land; she noted that the utilities for the proposed house would be underground.

Mr. Culbert didn’t = see the above ground utilities on the plan. Ms. Beauvier said they were on the state subdivision plan and on the second sheet of the topo plan; they don’t typically put utilities on = the plan being recorded at the Registry. Mr. Culbert asked what power was run through the line and if it serv= iced the entire Girl Scout camp. M= s. Beauvier didn’t know what power ran through the line. She was unsure what portion of the= camp the line served. Mr. Culbert = wanted to know if the above ground lines would have been (required to be) underground if the proposed lot had been part of the original subdivision. Mr. Gowan said the power serving t= he subdivision would have to be underground.&= nbsp; He said the Board would have to determine if the Regulation requiring all service (to be underground) include the current overhead lines that ser= vice the Girl Scout camp. Mr. Culb= ert didn’t recall approving a subdivision (in the last 15 years) with abo= ve ground power going over the property. Mr. Gowan felt it was in the Board’s purview to require all po= wer to be underground. He said if= that was required, he hoped it would be able to come back above ground at the ba= ck of the property. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the utilities to the new homes would be underground. Ms. Beauvier said that was correct= . Mr. Gowan indicated that the fifth waiver was a request to do what was proposed; if the Board doesn’t gr= ant the waiver the applicant will have to suppress the power across the lot.

Mr. Montbleau wanted to b= e sure what was being proposed. Mr. McNamara said Mr. Culbert wanted all the utilities to be underground (inclu= ding the existing line to the Girl Scout parcel) and the applicant was requesting that the lines servicing the proposed homes would be underground and the li= ne servicing the Girl Scout lot remain above ground (as it currently was). Mr. Montbleau said he was getting ‘stuck’ with the fact that the lines were already in place and = the applicant was being asked to put it underground. Mr. McNamara asked what the existi= ng conditions were for Webste= r Avenue. Ms. Beauvier said they were all ab= ove ground. Mr. McNamara said ano= ther difference was that all the lots fronted on Webster Avenue. He said the applicant was proposin= g the lot (including the prior approved lots) would be serviced by underground utilities. He said the contro= versy was the overland wires that went into the 200+ acres of the remainder parcel. Ms. Beauvier said the= line serviced the Girl Scouts so there wasn’t an easement because it was t= heir own line; an easement would be created over the new (proposed) lot for the line. She said the poles woul= d be moved to the easterly portion of the lot and connect to existing poles; it would remain an all above ground utility for the Girl Scout’s use, th= ey would just be changing its location.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road, asked if certain covenants had been placed on the sale of the subdivision.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She asked if the Town had met the agreement at the present time. Mr. Haverty said he was unaware of any. Mr. McNamara believed if the Board approved the subdivision; prior t= o it being recorded, the covenant and Right of First Refusal would be recorded first. Mr. Gowan said the rea= son that the 10^th lot was coming in because it was described (not ve= ry well) in the Right of First Refusal; therefore, the proposed plan was prepa= red to show the exact lot. He sai= d at the time the previous plan and Right of First Refusal was recorded the prop= osed plan would also be recorded. =

Mr. Culbert recalled it w= as for aesthetic reasons that the Board wanted underground utilities. He wanted to know why the applicant wouldn’t put the lines underground since they had to be moved anyway. Ms. Beauvier said the= line was longer than the portion to be relocated. She said for the Girl Scout use (a= nd possibly the Town), the whole line should be consistent.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = approve the waiver to Section 11.07 – Landscaping Design and plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.03,D,G – Existing site conditions for topograp= hy and wetlands. =

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.03,C – Property lines of the entire parcel. (o= nly the particular lot will be surveyed, not the entire parcel)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Culbert) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.12 – Utilities.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara said he pref= erred to vote regarding the waiver to Section 11.12 because the Board, based on the discussions at the last meeting, could act as if they constructively accept= ed such. He didn’t see a n= eed to postpone for another meeting. There were no objections.

Mr. Culbert made a motion= to approve the waiver. Mr. Montb= leau seconded. He asked if there w= ould be a lot of clear cutting and trench work done if the utilities were put underground. Ms. Beauvier ans= wered yes. Mr. Montbleau felt the installation operation would be more invasive than allowing the lines to be overhead.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = approve the waiver to Section 11.12 – Utilities (as described in the applicant’s letter of May 1, 2007).

VOTE:

(5-1-1) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Culbert voted no. Mr. McGlynn abstained.

Mr. McNamara said another remaining item was a reduction in application fee.

Attorney Johnson said the= y initially made the request to the Zoning Board of Adjustment because they erroneously= believed they required a fee of $250 per lot (minimum $1000; the Zoning Board reduced the fee. He said they later f= ound it was the Planning Board that had the fees. Mr. McNamara believed the Zoning B= oard felt $1000 for someone to come in for a waiver was somewhat excessive. Attorney Johnson said they were se= eking a fee reduction from $1000 to $250. It was their belief that the application didn’t take a lot of = the Town’s staff to process and in reality it was one lot.

Mr. McManus thought the i= ssue had come up (prior to the Board being elected). Mr. Culbert said normally when a f= ee is reduced it’s done for an individual on a two-lot subdivision. He said he couldn’t think of= doing it for a ten or eleven lot subdivision.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked how much time the application took to process. Mr. Gowan said it was a difficult question to answer. He said t= he original multi-lot subdivision paid the full rate of $1000; in this case, because it was an unusual case he felt $250 would cover the administrative service.

The Board discussed the f= ee reduction and past actions. If approved, the vote would be specific to this case.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To re= duce the fee (from $1000) to $250. &nbs= p; .

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara voted no.

Mr. McNamara pointed out = if the plan was approved, it would be conditioned upon the Right of First Refusal being recorded simultaneously.

MOTION:

(Croteau/McGlynn) To ap= prove the plan conditioned upon the Right of First Refusal being recorded simultaneously with the subdivision.&nbs= p;

VOTE:

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

Mr. Doherty returned to t= he Board.

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

Lucy and Jose Sousa met w= ith the Board to discuss their Site Review.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd conducted a site walk and didn’t believe there were any major problems once the site was viewed. He = said there were a couple of items that still needed to be addressed by the applicant: 1) construction of the (6ft) fence along the greater part of the boundary with Mr. Mullin and including a section that would be gated, closi= ng off the front of the yard from view from the road; and 2) repair of the roc= k wall that separates the property, at a specific location toward the front of the property. Ms. Lucy Sousa said= that was correct. Mr. McNamara ask= ed when the work would occur. Mr= . Jose Sousa said he was waiting for return calls and was hopeful to do the work w= ithin a week or two. Mr. McNamara a= sked when the fence would be installed. Ms. Sousa said the fence was on order; she would follow up to find o= ut when it would be delivered. M= r. McNamara asked what type of fence would be installed. Mr. Sousa said the fence was vinyl= .

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the applicant had agreed that there would be no materials stored on site. Mr. & Ms. Sousa said no materi= als would be stored on site. Mr. McNamara reminded the applicants that the terms of the Special Exception (g= ranted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment) only allowed them two vehicles associated with the business on site. Mr. & Ms. Sousa understood. <= /p>

Mr. McNamara believed the= final matter (which wasn’t part of the approval) was the matter of water (expressed by an abutter) that pooled and remained on the road in front of = the applicant’s property. He believed the Highway Road Agent Don Foss indicated it was on his list of th= ings to do something about. Mr. Go= wan said Mr. Foss was aware of the water at that location. He said as discussed at the site w= alk, the water was impacted by a number of things including the work that was do= ne during the Heather Lee Lan= e project. He didn’t feel= that the situation with water on the road or the deconstruction of the rock wall= fence were items for the General Home Occupation review.

Mr. McManus said he walke= d the site (prior to the Board’s site walk) and saw the water, but felt it = was an issue for Mr. Foss. He sai= d he had the property under agreement several years ago and the water was the sa= me at that time. Mr. McNamara fe= lt it was important to note that it was the Town’s responsibility.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Haverty/Culbert) To ap= prove the Limited Site Review of the proposed General Home Occupation subject t= o: 1) that a 6ft fence is built within a reasonable amount of time at the specified locations as described by the applicants; 2) no material storag= e on the site and any deviation from such would require the applicant to retur= n to the Board for approval; and 3) comply with all terms of the Special Excep= tion and all conditions of such approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan wanted the Board’s opinion about not having a recorded plan for the limited site plan review and if they would prefer to have something signed. He said the meeting’s procee= dings were a matter of public record and could be put in the file to show the approval. Mr. Doherty didn= 217;t see the significance of signing a plan and felt the minutes would be adequa= te because the approval didn’t go along with the property. Mr. McNamara agreed because it was= a minimal impact business.

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

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t a site walk had been conducted. He s= aid during the site walk Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates indicated that t= here were some permeability studies that were coming back and the Town’s engineers wouldn’t have the opportunity to review prior to the meeting. He said there were a= lso some other items that came about from the site walk.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates said they were expecting to have the results from the soil tests that were done but they had not yet come back. He said once they receive the resu= lts they would to through Stantec’s (Town’s engineer) items and make the necessary corrections. He= said they felt the design put before the Board was good and had a range of permeability for the soil. He= said he came before the Board to provide and update and request that the waivers= be accepted, if they haven’t already been.

Mr. McNamara said he was = present during the site walk and wanted a discussion regarding the creation of an e= xpanded flood water retention area. M= r. Gospodarek said Mr. Zohdi was looking for increased (water) storage on the property because of the volume of Beaver Brook. He said they weren’t dealing= with drainage from their property, but rather how Beaver Brook affects the prope= rty when it backs up. He said they reviewed the contours on the property and the flagging put out during the r= ain storm and figured if something were to be done it would be done around elevation 127 or 128.

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

Mr. Gospodarek showed the= Board the contours and what area could be dug out (providing 5000 cubic feet of storage). He explained that w= ith the tree removal it would create an increase of drainage on the site plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He discussed some other options th= at wouldn’t make much difference. Mr. Gowan showed the area (that would provide the extra flood storag= e) that was reviewed during the site walk.&nb= sp; He pointed it out and explained that it wouldn’t require the t= ree clearing. He said the question wasn’t = so much regarding the drainage from the parking lot and the building, but rath= er from where the flood area comes up. He said the idea of doing a replacement area it would make the lot ‘flatter’ so when it flooded it would give the water an extra a= rea to provide capacity. Mr. Gosp= odarek believed the location Mr. Gowan showed would have the same impacts as the location he pointed out (behind the proposed building). He said there wasn’t a good solution and didn’t feel it would make a difference with regard to Be= aver Brook.

Mr. McManus said he wasn&= #8217;t with the Board when he walked the site and the stakes were not in place at = that time. He said he went back to= day to review. He discussed the water levels during the recent storm and said the next time the area flooded over half the proposed building would be in water. The owner of the Pelham Plaza (Mr. Neil Fineman or the family trust) indicated to Mr. McManus that draina= ge bubbles out of the catch basin at the rear of his building. Mr. McManus said he suggested that= a dye test be done to determine where the water is going. Mr. Gowan said dye testing wasn= 217;t a bad idea and seemed to be a reasonable request and worthwhile to see wher= e it came out. He said he would li= ke to hear Stantec’s opinion regarding the compensatory area.

Mr. Doherty said several = times people discussed the storage area of the water and how it would affect Beav= er Brook; he pointed out that it was actually Tony’s Brook that went thr= ough the applicant’s property. Mr. Gowan understood that Beaver Brook affected Tony’s Brook’s abil= ity to run. Mr. Doherty believed = the adjustment on the property was so there would be storage on the property so Tony’s Brook would have some place to go.

Mr. Dadak said the only t= hing known was that the flow wasn’t carried and was contributing to proble= ms on the property. Mr. Culbert believed a dye test would help focus on the issue.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec Engineering agreed that Beaver Brook backed up and nothing helped because of whatever had happened in the water shed.&n= bsp; He said they were reviewing the site as kind of a sub-basin/pond. He said if the area where the water currently sat was filled, it should be kept away from the brook. If the fill was placed in the lower basin, an area somewhere on the site should be excavated so there would be a ‘no net increase’ in fill so it wouldn’t push it onto the neighbor’s property. He= said there should be a way to mitigate placing fill.

Mr. Passamonte asked if i= t was Mr. Zohdi’s idea to put the pit on the opposite side. Mr. Gowan didn’t recall who = made the specific suggestion, but it seemed to be an idea that had merit (to be tested by engineering on both sides). Mr. Passamonte believed Mr. Zohdi said that getting machinery in wouldn’t be an issue. M= r. Gowan said anytime equipment goes into a Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) it is a bit of an issue but believed Mr. Zohdi said it wouldn’t be.

Mr. Dadak reviewed the re= quested waivers to the Site Plan Regulations (which were accepted for consideration= March 19, 2007)= : 1) Section 248.41 – Sewage Disposal Systems (septic under pavement); 2) Section 248.32a – Off Street Parking (reduced number of parking spaces); and = 3) Section 248.34 – Drainage.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road didn’t believe that the proposed rain garden could support the area of runoff. He asked if the roof drainage was also going into the rain garden. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. Grant said he had done some si= mple calculations regarding drainage which he shared with the Board. He said rain gardens should be one= half to one third of the area they are serving and didn’t believe the prop= osed had enough capacity. He said = any kind of fill on the site scared him because of runoff onto his property. Mr. Grant asked if the parking was= going to be moved. Mr. Gospodarek s= aid at this point they weren’t proposing to move the parking. He said they took the elevations at Beaver Brook after the recent storm and knew that the brook was backing up water. He discussed how rain gardens are designed per regulations. Mr. Grant discussed the proposed compensating flood plain and explai= ned that his goal was to get the building on the site safely and properly. He didn’t feel that the park= ing lot was big enough for the building and that the rain garden was too small for = the parking lot. He believed ther= e was too much fill going in on the lot. He also believed that the area was a critical flood plain that would= be impacted by the proposed. Mr.= Grant ended by saying he was trying to secure his home and the project as designed would increase the probability of his home being flooded.

Mr. Culbert said the issu= es on the lot are drainage and flooding and the Board would be critical. He said the applicant needed to do= a dye test. Mr. Gospodarek said the= y knew the water went to Beaver Brook and wanted to know what else the Board wante= d to know. Mr. Gowan believed the = desire was to determine specifically which drainage structure the water came out of. There was further discuss= ion regarding the purpose of doing a dye test.= Mr. Dadak suggested checking the pipe and the connections to see if = over the years a problem has occurred with such.

Mr. Gospodarek questioned= who owned the pipe. Mr. Gowan believed = the catch basin was within the Town’s right-of-way on Livingston Road. He said it would be reasonable to = assume that all the underpinnings of the Plaza parking lot belonged to Mr. Fineman= (or the trust). Mr. Gospodarek qu= estioned why his client was being forced to go onto the abutter’s property to solve their drainage/obstruction problem, if one was found. Mr. Culbert said if they can come = back to the Board and inform there is no drainage problem on the property, then = they wouldn’t have to, but if they came back and said there was a problem = and they weren’t going to be able to get rid of all the water, they would have to fix something. Mr. Gospodarek believed they had a survey that indicated there was no drainage = problem on their property. He said th= ey already surveyed the linkage between Beaver Brook’s elevation and the= ir property; when Beaver Brook backs up to a certain elevation, it backs up on their property, regardless of the piping system under Fineman’s property.

Mr. Culbert said the waiv= ers were done, the applicant should come back to the Board with a plan.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the June 4, 2007<= /st1:date> meeting.

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

At the beginning of the m= eeting Mr. McNamara noted that the engineering was not yet complete and asked for a brief update. Mr. Mike Gospod= arek of Herbert Associates said they had a preliminary memo from Stantec (Town engineer). He asked that the = Board review/accept the waiver requests and defer the plan to June 4, 2007.

After reviewing the other= items on the agenda, the Board revisited the item.

Mr. Montbleau stepped dow= n.

Mr. McNamara understood t= hat the applicant would provide the Board a brief update.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates said the last time the Board reviewed the project their proposal showed various detention basins and treatment swales; since then the draina= ge system had been redesigned to eliminate such. He said they now had four detention areas. Mr. Gospodarek said th= e main changes to the subdivision were for drainage. He said the roadway configuration remained the same, the cul-de-sac length was the same, the interconnection = to the lots also remained it was just that the drainage had been re-worked extensively. He noted that th= e work in the buffer zone (for which they obtained a Special Permit) had been eliminated. He said there was= a mild grading in the buffer zone that went approximately 5ft into the Wetlan= d Conservation District (‘WCD’). The plans have been submitted to Stantec (Town’s engineer) for review; comments were received back May 7, 2007 minus the drainage review which still needed to be done.

Mr. Gowan suggested that = he meet with the applicant’s engineer and Stantec next week to review the comments so the Board would be able to review the ‘second’ roun= d of comments in advance of the next meeting.&n= bsp; He said because this project entails improvements to a section of a = Town road, the Selectmen reviewed and were clear that they didn’t want the road less than 20ft wide. He = said Highway Road Agent Don Foss was in agreement with the proposed improvements= to Spaulding Hill Road. The Selectmen gave permission to p= roceed with the planned road improvements to the existing section of Spaulding Hill Road. Mr. McNamara asked for an explanat= ion of the drainage work to be done on Marie Avenue. Mr. Gospodarek said they were proposing a new drainage system up Spaulding Hill Road that would collect their detention area and the reduction flow.

Mr. Gospodarek said durin= g Stantec’s review, they saw waivers that hadn’t submitted. He then submitted a waiver summary = to the Board. Mr. McNamara reviewed = the newly submitted waivers:

1) Section 12.02 Storm Water Management Plan – applicant = is requesting that two of their smaller sub-catchments be allowed to have a greater than zero increase in runoff. Mr. Gospodarek said in order to eliminate the detention basins and treatment swales behind the houses, two drainage areas were slightly off and felt it better to request a waiver rather than clear trees and add an additional detention basin. H= e was hoping for Stantec to review and form an opinion.

2) Appendix I,bb,10 Roadway Design – maximum cul-de-sac length – applicant is requesting a cul-de-sac length greater than 2400ft.&nbs= p; Mr. Gospodarek said the proposed length of cul-de-sac was 3400ft. He believed it was contingent on s= howing interconnectivity, which he believed they had done. Mr. McNamara believed Stantec rais= ed concern regarding the feasibility of the connection and further recalled speaking with Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates to make sure that the connection was able to be done and wouldn’t be cost prohibitive for t= he abutting parcel’s project (currently called Greenmeadow). Mr. Gowan said the connection was a concern of the Highway Safety Committee and believed some of the concerns regarding the connection (i.e. required cuts, retaining wall) had been responded to. He felt the app= licant needed to prove that the connection was buildable and should be one part of= the Board’s consideration when determining whether or not to approve the project. Mr. McNamara said the Board could address the issue at the next meeting once Stantec had the opportunity to review. Mr. Go= wan said the plan wouldn’t show the connection, but it would be indicated through response to Stantec’s comments. Mr. McNamara said he wanted the Bo= ard to have concrete evidence that showed the connection was doable and feasible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gospodarek said they would cre= ate a special worksheet showing the plan profile (which would go to Stantec for review).

3) Appendix I, bb,13 Maximum horizontal curve – the appli= cant was requesting a minimum horizontal curve of 150ft. Mr. Gospodarek said they tried to = follow the contour lines to minimize the cuts and fills.

4) Appendix I, bb,15 K Factor crest and sag – the applica= nt was requesting a value less that 30 for crest and requesting a value less t= han 40 for sag. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id the request was made in order to keep the road workable with the contours. He said they would review the areas further.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver to Section 12.02 – Storm Water Management & Plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,bb,10 – Roadway Design R= 11; maximum cul-de-sac length.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,bb,13 – Maximum Horizontal Curve.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,bb,15 – K Factor crest and = sag.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,bb,21 – maximum grade on intersection approach.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Dadak reviewed the fi= le and found that the waivers for the Traffic Impact Analysis and cross sections w= ere accepted August 7= , 2006.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Gospodarek said they = would like to be put onto the June 4, 2007 agenda. M= r. McNamara said if it ended up that they weren’t ready for the June 4th meeting to let Mr. Gowan know.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the June 4, 2007<= /st1:date> meeting.

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 said a lette= r had been received by the Planning Department from Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associ= ates requesting that the matter be continued to the June 4, 2007. The applicant would be meeting wit= h the Conservation Commission.

The plan was continued to= June 4, 2007.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – June 4, 2007

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 1= 6, 2007

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the April 16, 2007= minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:40 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