PB Minutes 06-04-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

= June 4, 2007&nbs= p;

The Chairman Peter McNamara called the meeting to orde= r at 7:00 pm.

The Secretary Paul Dadak called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Paul Dadak, Jason Cro= teau, Tim Doherty, Roger Montbleau, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 24 Lots 12-215 & 221 HARRIS, George Jr., George III & John - Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road - Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham an Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland & WCD Crossing<= /p>

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. McNamara informed that this hearing would be the first of many meetings. He said during this meeting the Bo= ard would not make any decisions and was unsure if any direction would be given because additional information was needed.= He asked that the applicant provide an overview of the plan and any problems that they may have. = He said he would allow opponents of the plan the opportunity to respond. He said they would also have the opportunity to speak at subsequent hearings. He said at the end of the discussi= on the Board would set a date for a site walk.&nb= sp;

Mr. Passamonte stepped down.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates discussed the proposed plan with the Board. Mr. Zohdi said the plan was the subdivision of two parcels of land (12-215 & Lot= 221). He said they proposed to construct a road from Popl= ar Hill Road which would split and end in two cul-de-s= ac; these were referenced on the plan as road A and road B). There were 36 lots proposed with t= wo lots designated for open space (one being 5.98 acres the other being 1.727 acres). Mr. Zohdi said they p= reviously appeared before the Board regarding road connection and at that time the Board’s desire was to connect to Stonepost Road and possibly to Harley Road= . He understood that the connection = to Harley Road= was not wanted due to the close proximity of a quarry in the area. He provided a colored plan to the = Board showing the existing road and connection to Stonepost Road. He said they didn’t care abo= ut the connection to Stonepost, they did so based on the Board’s direction to show a preliminary design. Mr. Zohdi said he discussed the possibility of the connection with the Board of Selectmen. He said if the Pla= nning Board wanted the connection through to Stonepost Road they would need to a= pprove a design so he could bring it back to the Selectmen for acceptance and appr= ove a road on Town land. The prov= ided plan showed the Town owned land and what was proposed to be dedicated to the Town. Mr. Zohdi also provided= a land showing the wetlands (in blue) and the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) areas (in green). He pointed out the areas that would require wetland/WCD crossings. The plan also showed the prelimina= ry house locations and the individual well locations.

Mr. Zohdi said he would like the Board to walk= the site and make a decision based on such.&nb= sp; At that point he would finalize the plan and bring it back for review.

For clarity, Mr. McNamara said the Board had preliminary discussions regarding road connection, and the proposed plan sh= owed such. He hoped that after a s= ite walk and additional testimony from the Highway Safety Committee and Fire/Po= lice Chiefs a decision would be made regarding the preliminary plan. He wanted it understood that the proposed was not a ‘done deal’.

Mr. Zohdi said the proposed plan consisted of = 64 pages and briefly summarized the contents of such for the Board. He said the WCD impacts would be d= iscussed with the Conservation Commission soon (at their next meeting). Mr. McNamara asked how much of a W= CD impact the entire project would have. Mr. Zohdi said he would have to review and provide that information. He would like the Conservation Commission Chairman to attend the site walk.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a letter submitted by = the Pelham Forestry Committee (dated April 1, 2007). In summ= ary thee letter informed that a Forestry Management Plan was in the process of being drafted for surrounding conservation land. It also indicated that steep slope= s and wetlands along Poplar Hill= Road were impeding the ability of timber harvesting equipment to enter the property. Access is available= from Dracut, but not preferred. The letter pointed= out that the proposed plan didn’t contain a right-of-way for harvesting equipment or fire equipment to access the abutting conservation land. Acquiring a ‘dog leg’ portion of the Harris land would be an appropriate addition to the signific= ant contiguous open space that had been created in the area (totaling 157 acres). The Forestry Committee requested to be placed on the agenda when the development was discussed so = they could request to not develop the ‘dog leg’ portion of land and = have it placed with Pelham conservation land.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara also read aloud a letter dated August 18, 2006= from the Pelham Police Department indicating that the Highway Safety Committee revie= wed plans submitted to the Planning Board during their August 7, 2006 meeting. The letter indicated that Mr. Gowa= n also submitted a letter dated August 12, 2006 from the Stonepost Village Neighborhood Association. After reviewing the plans and considering the opinions of the Stonepost Village Association, the Committee discussed the need for interconnection to enhance public safety for fire, ambulance, police protection as well as for planning best practices. The Committee was unanimous in the= ir recommendation that road connectivity (to both Stonepost and Harley) would = be beneficial for the public at large. They further recommended that the plan be re-engineered to be less straight for further traffic calming. Mr. Gowan said the Safety Committee reviewed the plan when it came before the Board as a conceptual plan.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara then read aloud a letter dated Ma= rch 5, 2007 from residents in the Shepard Road neighborhood (Mulberry Estates) (signed by approximately 39 people). The residents were in favor of the Stonepost Road connection given tha= t Shepard Road is the Town’s only current connection to the Spring Street area. The letter indicated that the resi= dents had received assurances from Town Officials, at the time of the connection = from Shepard Road= to Spring Street, that additional access points to Spring Street would eventually be constructed.

Mr. Culbert said he would request site specific for every lot because the area was wet.&nb= sp; He wanted to know if the right-of-way at the end of the cul-de-sac c= ould be shown. Mr. Zohdi said a right-of-way was already shown.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Deb Waters a Forestry Committee member requested that the Forestry Committee be placed on the agenda next time the plan was shown. They would li= ke to discuss the concerns they had regarding the conservation area. Ms. Waters also requested that For= ester Dan Cyr be invited to the site walk. Mr. McNamara said the public was invited to the site walk and they w= ould add the Forestry Committee to the next agenda.

Mr. Raymond Brunelle, = 3 Matthew Drive said the area was v= ery sensitive. He said a lot of w= ork had been done to maintain open space. He showed the Board the areas that were wet and the locations of two ponds in very close proximity. He said the development would put an ‘X’ through the center of the property and break up a wildlife corridor.= He hoped that the land owner would consider keeping more land contig= uous with the conservation land. He believed the site walk would be important.=

Mr. Richard Torra, 79 Stonepost Road addressed points = made in letters submitted to the Board. He understood that the Highway Safety Committee was in favor of connectivity and believed they would always be a proponent of connectivity. He said the Boa= rd needed to take other factors into account (i.e. conservation land, wildlife corridors). Mr. Torra then addressed the letter from the Mulberry Estates residents and said they shar= ed the same concerns. He said th= ere was no proof, or fact that the connection would cut traffic in the Mulberry Estates area and would instead expose two neighborhoods to the same concerns regarding traffic and safety. He told the Board that the St= onepost Road had approximately 21 homes, each having children (the average age being 6 years of age). Mr. Torra said the cul-de-sac met = the current regulations. He quote= d a letter from the Highway Safety Committee that read cul-de-sacs improved neighborhood awareness of crime prevention, limited flow of vehicles into a development increasing resident safety and reduce ability of traffic speed. He reviewed statistics= of pedestrian fatalities compared to fire related fatalities. Mr. Torra said when buying into the neighborhood there was reliance on it remaining a permanent cul-de-sac/dead= end road. He said in reviewing th= e map for the original development, there was no designation of a temporary cul-d= e-sac. He said when speaking to his attor= ney he knew that usually when there is a temporary cul-de-sac and future right-of-= way prescribed there would be clear notations of such. He questioned who would really ben= efit from the road connection. He = said if the proposed plan accommodated the developer (and not the public at good) and allowed for an easier development he wanted the Board to know that the state had a prohibition against using public land for private good. He felt in this case if the connec= tion was allowed through conservation land that the Board would be accommodating= a private development at the detriment of the public at large. Mr. Torra said there was a referen= ce in the letter from the Mulberry Estates residents about assurances being made regarding additional connections. He said the only thing he recollected was former Planning Board Chai= rman Victor Danevich stating that the connection to Spring Street would be resol= ved with the Lannan Drive connection. He said he reviewed meeting minutes and video tape and found no reference to such statements. Mr. Torra ended by asking the Board to consider the Master Plan (drafted in 200= 2) which indicates the number one goal/objective is to maintain conservation.<= /p>

Mr. Haverty said he saw no benefit in the connectivity to the developer. He believed the benefit was only to the Town and residents of the area in term= s of connectivity and safety. Mr. = Torra believed the benefit would be better access. He said there was a model home at = the end of Stonepost Road that would make it easier for the owner to sell the new development by havi= ng easier access. Mr. Haverty no= ted that it would also be easier for a fire truck/emergency services. Mr. Torra reiterated that the majo= rity (if not all) of residents on Stonepost Road were not in favor of the connection. He said their neighborhood had two= fire cisterns and although fire was a concern it was not the biggest concern; protection of the children (and traffic fatalities) was the biggest concern.

Mr. McNamara said in the pre-conceptual design phase there were discussions regarding lots 12-221-19 & 20 . He said this Board had concerns ab= out that land and would review closely during the site walk. Mr. Zohdi said they would be happy= to work with the Board regarding such.

Mr. Aidan Fallon, 51 Stonepost Road discussed the saf= ety issue. He said 38 families si= gned a petition to oppose the break through of Stonepost Road. He said testimony was given that t= he connection would be a benefit and be safer, but there was no statistical information to support such. = He said before a cul-de-sac neighborhood was disrupted the information should = be considered. He said the resid= ents deserved to look into the facts.

Mr. Gowan said there were strong opinions regarding the connection and said he would ask the Police and Fire Chief to attend the next meeting so people would have the opportunity to ask them questions. He noted that the = plan still needed full review by Stantec (Town’s engineer), Vollmer (Town’s traffic consultant) and Louis-Berger Group (Town’s environmental consultant) which would provide additional data for review.

Mr. Fallon asked why a plan without connectivi= ty wouldn’t be proposed; why would the Board request connectivity up front. Mr. Gowan said it had = been a long-standing practice of the Board to seek connectivity of roads. He explained that 4or 5 years ago = the Police and Fire Departments opposed cul-de-sacs being over 1000 feet in len= gth but some of the Board member of the time felt strongly that connectivity was important. He said there was = ample negative evidence regarding cul-de-sacs.&n= bsp; He believed there was room for a lot of creativity with regard the p= lan. Mr. Fallon said as a parent he had= to assume that the data would support cul-de-sacs were safer.

Mr. Torra asked that when data was being revie= wed, they keep two alternatives in mind (with and without a connection). Mr. Gowan said typically review wa= s done regarding a specific plan, but that determination would be made by the Boar= d.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Gowan if, in his opinio= n, the plan was appropriate for acceptance.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said the plan was appropriate (and within the Town’s guidelines) to be accepted for consideration.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Montbleau) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara said there would be other issues = that came up during review, but at the present, connectivity of conservation land and road connectivity were two obvious pieces. He discussed how the Board would p= roceed if they determined a road connection was favorable. There was a brief discussion what = steps would be taken now. Mr. Zohdi requested that the Board hold off sending the plan to engineering until they took a position regarding the connectivity.

A site walk was scheduled for June 16, 2007 beginning at 8am on site.

The plan was date specified for June 18, 2007. =

Mr. Passamonte returned.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-45 CHARAKA, LLC -= 49 Atwood Road -= Site Plan Review for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

Mr. McNamara stepped down and appointed Mr. McGlynn to vote in his absence. Vice Chairman Culbert conducted the hearing.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek presen= ted the plan to the Board. Mr. Zo= hdi said the plan had previously been before the Board and site walks had been conducted. The most recent was earlier in the evening because a Board member wanted to review the site aft= er the rain fall. Mr. Zohdi said= since the last meeting they had changed the drainage design from a rain garden to= a detention area and treatment swale. He said the change was due to suggestions made by the Town’s engineer regarding flooding. = He reviewed the plan and showed the preferred area for storage.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road said he hadn’t reviewed the new proposal and believed that more flooding spaces would be good. He said the biggest pro= blem thing was water storage especially from the rising and falling of Beaver Br= ook. He understood there was a new flood plain policy which gave the Board leeway to review each case individually.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He urged the Board to review information from the NH Flood Plain Management Handbook which discusses ‘no adverse impact’ development. He also asked the Board to keep the abutters in mind and ensure there was enough storage.

Mr. Doherty asked what cubic yard/volume of material was proposed to be pulled out of the proposed areas for water storage. Mr. Gospodarek said = the northern area would store 43,000 gallons and the southern area would store 48,000 gallons. Mr. Gowan dis= cussed the proposal for the storage area. Mr. Gospodarek showed the areas on the plan and what work had to be = done on the property to create the storage areas. Mr. Doherty asked if the material = would be removed from the site. Mr. Gospodarek said the material would be excavated.

The applicant, Dr. Srilatha Kodali said she had resided in Town for approximately eight years and had reviewed its needs. She saw that the Town didn’t= have certain medical facilities for special services and would like to bring suc= h to the Town. She wanted to give = back to the community she resided in. She said in doing the plan she tried to address the abutter’s concerns and hoped the Board would approve the plan.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec (Town’s engineer) said he received the revised plan on May 25, 2007 and issued a letter June 4, 2007. He said they reviewed the flood st= orage issue and mitigation area which they felt could be increased so the net area that was from the site could go into the detention area.

Mr. Culbert asked how much larger a detention = area would have to be. Mr. Hertric= h said he didn’t know because there were several things to consider. He didn’t know how long it t= ook Beaver Brook to back up into the area because the issue was when the brook rose. He said he also didn= 217;t know how long it to leave the detention area. He believed when adding up the ava= ilable storage and the new flood area and what passed the flood impact would be negligible. Mr. Doherty asked= if Mr. Hertrich thought the water garden or the detention area was better. Mr. Hertrich said the suggested ad= ding more flood storage in the area of the detention basin. Mr. Doherty confirmed that there c= ould be an increase in water volume that the lot could hold without taking away = from the aesthetics and how it would function.&= nbsp; Mr. Hertrich answered yes. Mr. Doherty asked if the wall of the detention pond would be affected. Mr. Hertrich said t= hey would have to be aware of the situation and have the footings down when constructing the wall.

Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Gospodarek if he would h= ave trouble making the area larger. Mr. Gospodarek reviewed the plan and said he believed they could probably do as Stantec suggested.

Mr. McManus asked where the culvert pipe dumped that went under Route 38. Mr. Gospodarek explained that there was a 36” culvert that discharged int= o a meandering stream down to Beaver Brook.&nb= sp; Mr. McManus asked if the pipe would still handle the flow with the proposed design. Mr. Gospodar= ek said the volume wouldn’t affect the flow of the pipe. Mr. Gowan discussed the outcome fr= om the dye test conducted to determine flow. There was further discussion regarding the proposed plan, which Mr. Gospodarek said they were trying to correct problems that occurred in the p= ast with flow.

Mr. Gowan noted that he was at the meeting with the Fire Chief when the plan was reviewed and knew he was satisfied with it. However, the file didn= 217;t have a note from the Fire Chief indicating his satisfaction. Mr. Gowan asked that any approval = of the plan be subject to the receipt of a letter from the Fire Chief.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Section 248-32,a – number of parking spaces.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Section 248-34,d - drainage.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Section 248-41,E – sewage disposal under pavement.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. Croteau voted no.

Mr. Gowan noted that the location of a fire cistern was still being determined to be either on the applicant’s property, or the senior housing development across the street. He suggested language be added to = the approval motion indicating that appropriate resolution of fire suppression storage.<= /p>

Mr. Croteau confirmed that the storage/drainage wouldn’t affect the = Dutton Road area and would make it better. Mr. Culbert said it wouldn’t= be worse than it currently was. =

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To approve the plan contingent o= n: 1) receipt of approval lett= er from the Fire Department; 2) increased storage acceptable by Stantec and = the Planning Director and 3) appropriate resolution of fire suppression stora= ge (either on applicant’s property or the senior housing development across the street).

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara returned and resumed as Chairman.=

Ma= p 32 Lots 1-146, 148 & 149 Spa= ulding 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 down.

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates discussed the plan with the Board. Mr. Zohdi said since the last meet= ing the plan had been sent to Stantec (Town’s engineer) for review and comment; they responded to those comments.= He said they received an additional report, but hadn’t respond= ed yet. One item on the new repo= rt was drainage, which he believed Stantec was satisfied with; the other comments = were ‘housecleaning’ items and about the water system, which Mr. Zoh= di said they would comply with their report.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara questioned if the sight distance = from the new road to Spaulding Hill had been resolved (as referenced in the High= way Road Agent’s memo from April, 2006).= Mr. Zohdi said they had 240ft sight distance and couldn’t do anything more about it because they couldn’t go through private property. He suggested review= ing Stantec’s comments and noted there were only six houses on the northe= rly side of Spaulding Hill Roa= d. He said the Town owned lot 1-145 a= nd didn’t believe that the Town would develop it; traffic would most lik= ely use Sky View and not Spaulding Hill.

Mr. Gospodarek said during the last meeting th= ey spoke about eliminating some of the waivers. They eliminated the waiver request= for the cross-sections and also fixed the sections with ‘K’ values = on the curves and eliminated those waivers.&n= bsp; He then provided the Board with an updated list of waiver requests.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara said there was a discussion during the May 7, 2007 meeting regarding the potential connection to Green Meadow and Mr. Gospodar= ek said he would create a special plan profile that would be submitted to Stantec. Mr. Zohdi recalled providing a profile/plan near the beginning of the project to check the topology of the applicant’s land and the abutting land. He said this would make a benchmar= k of being within 2ft. and made him comfortable that putting a road through was possible. Mr. McNamara said t= he Board had discussed if the connection would be feasible and able to be done. He said because the req= uested road length was 3400ft he wanted to make sure that when Green Meadow came through that the connection would be able to be done without ‘bankrupting’ that developer.&= nbsp; Mr. Gospodarek said they reviewed the file and found that Stantec had put together a profile of how the road might connect; they agreed that it w= ould be a possibility how it was shown. He said the question at that point would be how the driveways would = come off the road.

Mr. Dadak reviewed the two waiver request lett= ers to be clear what was still being requested.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec addressed the Boa= rd and noted that a comment letter had been submitted earlier in the day (date= June 4, 2007). He discussed the possible connecti= on to the abutting parcel and explained if a road was built it would be expensive= to build and difficult to comply with the new driveway regulations. He said the road would probably ha= ve to have ‘switchbacks’ and ‘S’ curves to make the drive= ways work. Mr. McNamara asked how feasible (in terms of economics) it would be. Mr. Hertrich said they hadn’= t seen the layout and assumed that whoever developed the land would have to deal w= ith the cuts and slope of the land. He said at this point he couldn’t comment if was ‘doable’ in= an economically feasible way. Mr. Zohdi said whoever develops the land, didn’t have a choice except to connect because currently there was only one way in and one way out. He said the subject of cost was no= t the point, unless the Board granted a waiver for length of cul-de-sac. Mr. McNamara said (if he was to gr= ant the waiver for cul-de-sac) he wanted to have assurance that a connection wo= uld be made. He discussed the fac= t that waivers would still be needed for the driveways, assuming the ‘switchbacks’ could be done.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said one of the things that would happen would be the lots would have to be bigger to accommodate the ‘switchbacks’ and driveways. He said it would b= e a tricky design, but noted all the lots in the area would be. Mr. McNamara was concerned about t= he Board being ‘boxed’ if they approved the proposed plan and then found that there were a whole host of waivers needed for the abutting parcel because of it. Mr. Culbert fe= lt the cost of land would dictate what was developed. Mr. Zohdi said to build a road was possible and the owner of the (abutting) parcel had already done a prelimin= ary design and had no other choice except to make the connection.

Mr. Hertrich continued to discuss the comments contained in the = June 4, 2007 letter. He said they identifi= ed a waiver that would be necessary where Spaulding Hill Road intersected with Majestic Avenue due to the angle of= the connection. He said they also questioned if a waiver was necessary for the off-site work on Spaulding Hill Road. Mr. Gowan said it could be done by waiver, but could also be done through the direction of the Board (during approval) indicating the road width. He said while he and the Highway Road Agent (Don Foss) were on site = with Mr. Zohdi they reached a cons= ensus that it would make sense for it to be narrower than the full width typically required for a new road. He recalled talking about 22-feet. Mr. McNamara reviewed a memo submitted by Mr. Foss (dated April 30, 2007) regarding imp= rovements (drainage, width and sight distance) to Spaulding Hill as discussed on site with Mr. Gowan and Mr. Zohdi. Mr. Foss said he recommended 20ft. wide pavement width with Cap Cod curbing to = be used on the road improvements; he also suggested adding drainage and paveme= nt improvements to 90-feet past the first catch basin on Marie Avenue to resolve existing problems. Mr. Foss said sight distance from the proposed new road to Spaulding Hill Road was a problem, = but had been assured by Mr. Zohdi that the hill at the curve would be cut back = to allow appropriate sight distance. Mr. Zohdi said they would allow for a minimum of 200-feet sight distance. He discussed the improvements that would be done to Marie Avenue. He recalled that the Board of Selectmen wanted 22-feet. Mr. Haverty recalled 20-feet, but = wanted to review the minutes. Mr. Gospodarek believed the pavement would be 20-feet with Cape Cod curbing totaling 22-feet.=

In regard to the roadway standard waivers (rad= ius and ‘K’ factor within cul-de-sac), Mr. Hertrich said it was the= ir opinion they could be granted without creating safety issues. He said they received sight line profiles and found three instances where it ‘pushed’ what it allowed. He said one sight li= ne crossed over the lot with the detention basin area and commented that the clearing easement would have to be kept clear. Mr. Zohdi said the easement would = be deeded to the Town. Mr. Hertr= ich suggested signage (coming up to Spaulding Hill) indicating ‘intersect= ion ahead’. He said waivers= for sight distance would be needed for the Majestic Avenue/Sky View Way inters= ection and Sky View Way loop. He said the remaining comments were minor engineering/drafting.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara questioned the 15K building area = for lot 1-149 and if a waiver was required.&nb= sp; Mr. Hertrich said the building area extended into the detention basin area and would require a waiver unless it could be moved up hill a bit. Mr. Zohdi said they had 15KSF but didn’t have the proper shape. He said he would request a waiver for such.

Mr. Zohdi commented that his client agreed with Mr. Bob Lamoureaux and would review the trail system on Town property and a= dd a trail easement if it was feasible. Mr. Lamoureaux, who was seated in the public, explained that they wa= nted to keep the link between the Merriam property and the Gumpas Pond property. He said Park & Recreation viewed the trail as (pedal) bicycle trail from Raymond Park to Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Park. Mr. Zohdi said they would work with Park & Recreation. Mr. Zohdi also pointed out that du= ring the site walk they would be adding a 100ft. no-cut zone at the border of Scenic View Drive for an abutter that had a swimming pool behind their home.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Rosemary Fisher, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">19 Scenic View Drive appreciated th= at the applicant would add the 100ft. buffer zone for them. She requested that the buffer be recorded on the plan. She also wanted to know if they could request a permanent deed restriction recorded = at the Registry of Deeds. Mr. Zo= hdi said just like any no-cut zone, it would be shown on the plan and recorded = at the Registry of Deeds.

Mr. Culbert said he would like to see site specific on the lots. Mr. Zoh= di said it wouldn’t be a problem and requested that it be a condition for approval. Mr. McNamara pointe= d out that there was the issue of the waiver not being filed and typically the Bo= ard did waiver in two meetings. M= r. Zohdi requested that the Board waive the two-meeting requirement for the waiver. Mr. Culbert didn̵= 7;t mind doing the waiver in one meeting.

Mr. Dadak reviewed read the waiver requests aloud.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb,10 – Roadway Design – maximum cul-de-sac length. (approximately 3300ft.)<= /o:p>

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,bb,13 – Maximum Horizontal Curve. (requesting 150ft.)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dadak) To approve the waiver to Appendix I,= bb,21 – maximum grade on intersection approach. (have 2.75% and hade a vertical curve immediately for 50ft.)

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To accept, for consideration, the = waiver to Section 11.04 – lot shape

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To accept, for consideration, the = waiver to Section 11.04 – lot shape (lot 1-149 – 140ftx100ft. with o= ne area widening)=

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Section 1= 1.04 – lot shape (lot 1-149 – 140ft.x100ft. with one area widening= ).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To accept, for consideration, the = waiver to Appendix I,bb, 23 – road design – maximum angle at intersections (angle of road from Spaulding Hill is greater than 70 degre= es).

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau) To approve the waiver to Appendix = I,bb, 23 – road design – maximum angle at intersections (angle of r= oad from Spaulding Hill is greater than 70 degrees).

VOTE:

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

Mr. Dadak saw nothing that indicated the waive= rs for traffic impact and storm water management were approved. Mr. Gowan believed through previous discussions (for this application and other projects in the area) that there would be a contribution of $2250 per lot in lieu of a traffic impact study. Mr. Zohdi said they wo= uld pay whatever other developments were paying per unit. Mr. Gowan said it would be the sam= e as the LRL and Mopar projects. M= r. Zohdi recalled the amount as being $2250. Mr. McNamara said it would be subje= ct to verification. He said if ther= e was a dispute, it should come back to the Board. Mr. Zohdi said they wouldn’t dispute. Mr. Gowan said the approval should specify that the contribution was in lieu of a traffic stud= y to be contributed to the intersection improvements at = Mammoth Road and Sherburne Road.

Mr. Hertrich reminded the Board that they had = to address the sight distance waivers. Mr. McNamara said the Board also had to address signage in their motion. Mr. Gospodarek didn&#= 8217;t feel that waivers were needed for sight distance. He explained that the plan set siz= e only showed 300ft. sight distance (on the site line profile), but if the Board reviewed the contours they would see that they didn’t extend out to 4= 00ft. He said they would comply with the regulations of 400ft. and provide the details necessary to do so. He further explained that they didn’t extend their profile sheet out far enough to show 400ft. and t= hey would modify the sheet as part of Stantec’s conditions. He said they would comply with the= sight distance at the Majestic Avenue/Sky View Way and at the Sky View loop; = but they would need a waiver for the Spaulding Hill Road/Majestic Avenue sight distance. Mr. Hertrich confirmed that was correct.

The Board then reviewed the conditions of appr= oval as follows:

1. = Compliance with Stantec’s letter dated June 4, 2007 and approval of the final plan set by S= tantec and the Planning Director;

2. = Contribution of $2250 per lot in lieu of a traffic impact study (amount subject to verification) which would be for the intersection improvement fund for the = Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road;

3. = Intersection warning signs to be installed at the discretion of the Highway Road Agent a= nd Planning Director at the S= paulding Hill Road/Majestic Avenue intersection;

4. = Compliance of intersection sight distances on Majestic Avenue/Sky View Way and Sky View loop (as referenced in Stantec’s letter of June 4, 2007);

5. = Clearing easement regarding the Sky= View Way loop sight distance;

6. = Compliance of road improvements to Spaulding Hill Road, as discussed with the Board of Selectmen and as outlined in the Highway Road Agent’s letter dated Ap= ril 30, 2007 – including the 20-foot wide pavement with Cape Cod curbing;=

7. = Note on the plan (and recorded) of 100-foot no-cut zone for Lot 1-146 along the shared property line of Lot 1-158-20;

8. = Discussions between the applicant and Bob Lamoureaux about the possibility of extending= a trail onto/through the applicant’s property.

Mr. Dadak noted that a waiver for the traffic study had been accepted August 7, 2006 but not yet approved.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau)To approve the waiver to Section 12= .03 for the traffic impact analysis. <= /span>

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan said the applicant requested that the 100-foot no-cut zone be shown on the plan and recorded as a conservation easement. Mr. Zohdi said the 100-foot no-cut buffer would be on the sheet that would be recorded.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau)To accept, for consideration, the w= aiver to Appendix I,bb,29 – sight distance – for the Spaulding Hill Road/Majestic Avenue and Majestic Avenue/Sky View Way intersections.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Croteau)To approve the waiver to Appendix I= ,bb,29 – sight distance – for the Spaulding Hill Road/Majestic Avenue and Majestic Avenue/Sky View= Way intersections.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the plan = listing the conditions as discussed above and adding that the lots would be site specific. Mr. McNamara reiter= ated the conditions so as to not leave one out of the motion.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Haverty)To approve the plan subject to the following conditions:

1. &nbs= p; Compliance with Stantec’s letter dated June 4, 2007 and approval of the final = plan set by Stantec and the Planning Director (Compliance of intersection sight distances on Majestic Avenue/Sky View Way and Sky View loop (as reference= d in Stantec’s letter of June 4, 2007);

2. &nbs= p; Contribution of $2250 per lot in lieu of a traffic impact study (amount subject to verification) which would be for the intersection improvement fund for th= e Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road;

3. &nbs= p; Intersection warning signs to be installed at the discretion of the Highway Road Agent= and Planning Director at the Spaulding Hill Road/Majestic Avenue intersection;

4. &nbs= p; All lots are to be site specific;

5. &nbs= p; Clearing easement regarding the S= ky View Way loop sight distance;

6. &nbs= p; Compliance of road improvements to Spaulding Hill Road, as discussed with the Board = of Selectmen and as outlined in the Highway Road Agent’s letter dated April 30, 2007 – including the 20-foot wide pavement with Cape Cod curbing;

7. &nbs= p; Note on the plan (and recorded) of 100-foot no-cut zone for Lot 1-146 along the shared property line of Lot 1-158-20;<= /p>

8. &nbs= p; Discussions between the applicant and Bob Lamoureaux about the possibility of extendi= ng a trail onto/through the applicant’s property.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Montbleau returned to the Board.

Ma= p 31 & 37 Lots 11-33,34 & 35 KLECZKOWSKI, Charlie – Blueberry Circle – Pre-Design Rev= iew of Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Mr. McNamara said the Board had been informed that the= re were on-going negotiations. H= e said that he would prefer to take the item off the agenda.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said he would se= nd the Planning Department a letter indicating they withdrew their application.

Mr. McNamara said the item had been withdrawn.

SITE WALK = – June 16, 2007 8am (on site)=

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & 221 HARRIS, George Jr., George III &am= p; John - Ledge Road & Popla= r Hill Road - Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2= Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham an Seeking a Special Permit f= or Wetland & WCD Crossing

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS – Ju= ne 18, 2007

MINUTES

May 21, 2007

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Haverty/Croteau) To approve the May 21, 2007 minutes as wri= tten.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Haverty/Croteau) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:25 pm

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

Charity A= . L. Willis

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