PB Minutes 06-18-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 18, 2007

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 Joseph Passamonte, Selectmen Repr= esentative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Alternate James McManus, Alternate Edward McGlynn

OLD 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. Passamonte stepped down.

Mr. McNamara said the Board accepted the plan = for consideration last month and had conducted a site walk. He said during the site walk the l= imited itself to reviewing the proposed road connection and also discussed/reviewed the conservation connection. = He said once the engineering reports were brought back (August/September) anot= her site walk would be scheduled. Mr. McNamara said during the meeting the Board would focus on the road connecti= vity issue and hopefully provide guidance. He said the Board would also look at the connectivity of the conserv= ation land.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the proposed plan with the Board. He said the subdivision had previously been presented to the Board a= nd the Board took jurisdiction regarding such. Since the last meeting the Board w= alked the site. He said he discusse= d the limitations to connecting to Harley Road because of wetlands. Mr. Zohdi said as part of the subdivision they proposed to give the Town 5.98 acres and 1.727 acres of op= en space. He said he would like = to know the Board’s opinion regarding such. Mr. McNamara said he would like to= focus on connectivity first and invited the Fire and Police Chiefs to comment.

Mr. McNamara said it was important, given that there was a new Board for the Chiefs to discuss why road connectivity had b= een so important. Fire Chief Mich= ael Walker and Police Chief Joseph Roark came forward to discuss connectivity.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Chief Roark said connectivity was important for public safety; not just for response times, but to have two access points in the event a road was blocked in one direction. Chief Walker said whenever they re= viewed this type of plan they did so tactically.&= nbsp; He said in the event of a disaster, for emergency management, they n= eed to be able to move people in the community efficiently for which connectivi= ty was important. He said tactic= ally being able to apply his assets, fire apparatus and develop water supply, al= l of which went back to connectivity and was a more efficient process. He said he couldn’t speak to= how the connection would be made, but fundamentally, connectivity was important= for planning and public safety. M= r. McNamara said he would like to ask the audience if they had any questions.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Haverty said there had been a discussion r= egarding the possibility of having crash/fire gate to control traffic but permit acc= ess for emergency apparatus. He a= sked the Chiefs for their opinion regarding a gate. Chief Walker said he would prefer = not to have a gate. He found that ga= tes and the surrounding areas tend to be poorly maintained and it took addition= al time to access.

Mr. Doherty asked the Chiefs their opinion regarding a roadway that was not open to the public (such as a dirt/gravel road) unless other access was blocked.&nbs= p; Chief Roark said it wasn’t ideal, but a better solution than nothing. He said maintenance = would become an issue. He said any = type of connectivity they would be in favor of instead of no connectivity.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Richard Torra, 79 Stonepost Road understood the Chiefs wanting connectivity, but from his perspective, he hadn’t = seen any traffic study indicating that emergency response to Stonepost Road coul= d be quicker with the connection (other than through Lannan Drive or Spring Stre= et). He wanted to know if there was any= data analysis or statistical facts that supported the connection as being the greater good over conservation. Chief Walker summarized fire tactics. He said they had to supply water a= nd when there was no connectivity they dealt with tanker turn-around time. He said not having connectivity cr= amped the department. Mr. Torra not= ed that there were two cisterns that supplied the Stonepost neighborhood and believed all the new developments had them. He asked if this would alleviate s= ome of the concern. Chief Walker dis= cussed how cisterns were used and said because some of the cisterns didn’t h= ave over 10,000gallons of water, they would be expired if there was a large fire. Mr. Torra said the two = fire cisterns were supplied by a large lake (on Spring Street) and believed it w= ould be a big capacity. Chief Walk= er said it was important to get the tanker as close to a scene as possible; tactically it was difficult without connectivity. He said having connectivity eased = emergency management and access to residents. Mr. Torra asked the Police Chief to discuss the advantages of residi= ng on a cul-de-sac. Chief Roark = said he understood the concerns. H= e said he and Chief Walker found themselves balancing between a neighborhood’= ;s needs and a duty/obligation to state their fact in general. He said cul-de-sacs were good for knowing neighbors and spotting suspicious vehicles. He said they could have a traffic mitigating affect in terms of vehicle speed, but that needed to be balanced through the cul-de-sac length because if it was too long, it could lead to speeding vehicles. He gave ex= amples of natural disasters and the importance of access in connection with such.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He felt the proposed was unique in= that it bordered conservation property. He spoke in general terms regarding connectivity but was compelled to point out the benefits of connectivity.&nb= sp; Chief Walker understood the sensitivity of the issue. Chief Roark said they would be rem= iss if they didn’t speak to the benefits of connectivity. Mr. Torra said it seemed like a lo= t of the points being made focused around disasters and was more hypothetical th= an the immediate concerns regarding traffic safety and children playing in the street. He pointed out that <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Stonepost Road was met the cul-de-sac regulations.

Mr. Doherty wanted to keep the discussion to general terms, not specifics.

Mr. Gowan asked for an opinion about the road connection in terms of EMT services and if there was any differences. Chief Walker said connectivity was= good for gaining access from different directions for emergency medical services. He said it could be assume that accessibility would make access easier.

Mr. Rob Swan referenced the Master Plan that w= as the result of 16-months of data collection from the citizens of Pelham. He reviewed excerpts from the Mast= er Plan beginning with the Transportation section. He noted that there were no sidewa= lks on Stonepost and none proposed for the new development. He was concerned with traffic and = noted that there were many children that lived in the neighborhood. He pointed out that under Traffic Calming, in the Master Plan cul-de-sacs were recommended. He said it made sense to take such= into consideration. He addressed t= he comment about wires coming down and informed that the utilities were underground in the Stonepost development.&= nbsp; Mr. Haverty said in preparation of the meeting he did research and f= ound a study done by a professor of environmental studies (William Luce) at the = University of Virginia which stated that cul-de-= sac communities turned out to have some of the highest rates of traffic acciden= ts involving young children. The main caus= e of death in children under 5 was being backed over (by family members), not dr= iven over forward. Mr. Haverty sai= d the study also discussed traffic flow and cited cul-de-sacs lead to overly congested connecting streets.

Mr. Doherty said with the Master Plan being discussed he wanted to point out that there were areas contained within that contradicted each other. Mr. McNamara said there were competing interests between neighborhoods and connectivity. Mr. Gowan discu= ssed the Master Plan (having Chaired the committee) and said some of the comments being made were taken out of context. He noted it was a passive document and served to inform land use boards. He said the recommend= ations should be taken into consideration when working on regulations. He said the Master Plan provided g= eneral observations and recommendations. He agreed that it was time to take a fresh look at the Master Plan; because it cost approximately $45,000 to redo the entire plan, there would be a chapter update this year.

Ms. Sue Krzemenski, 58 Lannan Drive read aloud an e-mai= l she sent to Mr. Gowan earlier in the day. She stated having S= tonepost Road as an additional access road made sense to everyone. She said she spoke = with everyone in the neighborhood and they all (except for one residence that was not home) were in favor of the connection.= She said the traffic flow would be decreased if there was an alterna= te route. Ms. Krzemenski said a = lot of the time she saw residents of Stonepost and felt traffic would be decreased= if they had an alternate route. = She said having the connectivity made sense and noted on Lannan they had 20+ children. She said they needed another route because the traffic burden was too dangerous.

Kevin Lubinger addressed the concern with chil= dren and pointed out that the connection would provide a decrease in traffic for= the residents on Lannan & Shephard which would be good for the safety of the children. He said traffic was= a safety concern and having a connection would be a ‘plus’ for everyone.

Ms. Bernice Velazquez, 57 Lannan Drive asked the Board to = use common sense when voting on the issue.&nbs= p; She said during the winter months she watched people turn around bec= ause they couldn’t make it up Lannan Drive due to the grade. She questioned how a fire truck wo= uld make it when full with water. She said there were children in her neighborhood and was concerned for their safety. She felt the residents should share the traffic burden. Ms. Velazquez discussed cul-de-sacs but said there was no guarantee = they wouldn’t be opened. She= ended by saying they needed help with the traffic.

Mr. Richard Torra, Stonepost Road said he was kind of = the neighborhood representative and pointed out the other residents in the public. He said when people bought into the neighborhood the people understood the risk. He discussed the traffic flow and = access to the neighborhood. He said = with regard to studies, a person could find one to say whatever they wanted it to say. Mr. Torra cautioned the = Board not to do away with or change the Master Plan. He said the number one goal of the Master Plan was to preserve the Town’s resources. He said this was appropriate becau= se they would like to preserve the conservation land between parcels. He noted that the Master Plan was = done based on surveys of the residents. He said if the Board was to follow the Master Plan it was clear that= the natural resources, conservation area should be protected and the wildlife corridor should be kept in tact.

Mr. Haverty was unsure what calculus was used = to determine that the cul-de-sac was permanent. He said there were no guarantees.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He agreed that a person could find= a study to say whatever one wanted. He said when he looked for a study, he looked for one that spoke to = the safety of children living on a cul-de-sac.= He didn’t find a study that said children were safer living on= a cul-de-sac. Mr. Haverty said = when he went on the site walk and noticed a basketball hoop at the end of the street; he understood that the street was an extension of the resident̵= 7;s yard but it should be remembered that it was a street opened up to public traffic. Mr. Haverty informed= that he lived on a cul-de-sac and two years ago consideration was given to openi= ng it up, which he was in favor of for reasons of safety. He said they ended up not opening = it up and he was uncomfortable with the length of his cul-de-sac. He said he still kept an eye on his children when they went out to play because it was his responsibility as a parent.

Mr. Gowan said he had thought a lot about the issue and said it may be the most unique set of circumstances he had seen i= n a subdivision. He said he may h= ave a solution that would address the concerns brought up. He said from a planning perspectiv= e he wanted connectivity to which the Fire and Police Chiefs had weighed in; the Highway Road Agent had also weighed in.&nb= sp; He said there were real/legitimate concerns raised by the surrounding neighborhoods. He said one wa= y to address the concerns would be to make the connection, but leave the Stonepo= st cul-de-sac in tact and pull the ‘thumb’ piece out of developmen= t. He said a cul-de-sac could be done= on the Harris side ending on the opposite side of the Stonepost cul-de-sac lea= ving a gravel connection that would reduce the speed of traffic; the engineers c= ould come up with a road treatment. He thought it might be nice to have a parking area for 4-6 cars to have access= to the conservation land (a trail head). He felt it was a reasonable solution and the Board should consider such.

Mr. McNamara read aloud e-mails that were received. The following is a summary of each:

1) = Ms. Kristin Moore, 23 Shephard= Road was in favor of the new connection through Stonepost based on traffic, safe= ty, connection and emergency response time.

2) = Robert & Tamara Beanland, 18 = Lannan Drive were in support of the road connection.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

3) = Two-page document signed by approximately 17 property owners on Lannan Drive who wer= e in favor of the connection for safety and traffic flow.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had to determine a= s a Board if there was a consensus to make a connection, if yes, the Board had = to determine how to do it.

Mr. Montbleau referenced a roundabout that was done on the south end of M= ain Street in Nashua where they made the surface cobblestone.&n= bsp; He said it worked for traffic calming. He also discussed measures that we= re taken in Hollis and on Bla= ckstone Circle in Pelham. He discussed the balance that shou= ld happen between Fire, Police and Planning.&= nbsp; He said if the Board required a roundabout might strike a balance for the Board to move forward.

Mr. Doherty again reviewed the Master Plan and wanted to point out flaws contained within. He reviewed the section regarding = roundabouts and understood that they were used to increase the flow of traffic and make= it steady as opposed to being used to deter traffic. He said when reviewing safety, the Master Plan contained a table for accidents (no cul-de-sacs were referenced) prepared by the Department of Transportation. He suggested possibly having a gra= vel ‘S’ curve versus adding a roundabout.

Mr. Gowan said he was not suggesting a roundab= out, but rather maintaining the cul-de-sac.&nbs= p; He noted that one indication that the cul-de-sac was never intended = to be permanent was that there was no island in the middle. He said on the gravel road it migh= t be nice to have curvature. He suggested having the engineers come back with a plan for how the connection could take place.

Mr. Dadak said Mr. Gowan’s suggestion se= emed to be a compromise that would satisfy the road and conservation land connection.

Mr. Haverty appreciated the conservation land connectivity. However, he didn’t want to lose sight of the fact that there were a lot of reside= nts on Shephard Road and Lannan Drive asking for help. He didn̵= 7;t want to penalize those residents by providing half a solution and creating a road that wasn’t friendly to pass.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan said the connection need not be a high speed connection to= function. He said if it wasn’t on conservation land he would be in favor of the road being built to Town standards.

Mr. Zohdi said they could design the road connectivity how ever the Board wanted.&nb= sp; He said he designed the connection to Stonepost because he didn̵= 7;t want to request any waivers; however, the road could be passable and safe by adding curves. He said he didn’t have enough distance to follow all of the regulations, but if = the Board was willing to waive some of the regulations, they could design the r= oad to have horizontal and vertical curves.&nb= sp; He said he could leave the cul-de-sac and used a road he did in Windham as an exam= ple that had both a cul-de-sac and a turnabout for traffic calming. He said if he got a recommendation= from the Board that they wanted a connection he would be glad to work with Mr. G= owan and the Town’s engineer.

Mr. Culbert said this was the first time he had seen the Master Plan used so much and what it had done was shown some of its flaws. He said people should = understand that the Master Plan was a tool to be used as a guideline. He said there had been a lot of po= sitive input and wanted the Board to remember that the person speaking for Stonepo= st was doing so for a lot of people. He noted that studies could be found for both sides. Mr. Culbert said when the Board re= viewed connectivity they did so with due diligence to do the right thing for the Town. He said they needed to = look at the total picture for the Town. <= /span>

Mr. Montbleau asked if the Selectmen were in f= avor of crossing Town land to create a private subdivision. Mr. Gowan said when a layout for a= road was proposed to be across Town land the Selectmen had to give permission to design the plan. He said they= had not provided permission. He s= aid the Board provides the applicant with direction. Mr. Zohdi said the way it works wa= s that they come to the Planning Board who in turn send them to the Selectmen; the Selectmen review the conceptual plan and authorize them to design such. He said they followed that process= and now needed the Planning Board to approve the design; once the Planning Board approves the design they would go back to Selectmen for final approval. Mr. Gowan reiterated that the Sele= ctmen had to approve what the Board approved.&nb= sp; Mr. Montbleau asked if this plan was setting a precedent, or if there were any other roads that had gone through Town owned land in order to accommodate a subdivision. Mr. McNamara said the Board was not doing this; the road was provided for in the warrant article making the land conservation. He didn’t believe that the applicant had an opinion as to whether the land should be connected. It was believed that access throug= h Town land had been done during the Stonepost development.

Mr. McNamara asked if there was a consensus fr= om the Board. He said whatever w= as decided wouldn’t be the final decision until the entire plan was approved. Mr. Culbert said he= could only give his consensus if the Board figured out what they would do with the two lots (12-221-19 & 12-221-20 as the base abutting another cul-de-sac).

Forestry Committee Chairwoman Deb Waters reite= rated the correspondence that was read into the record at the previous meeting. She said they were asking for the Planning Board to consider forestry activities on the piece of land that wa= s acquired by the Conservation Commission in 2004 and later voted Town Forest in 2005. She said they were i= n the process of implementing a Forest Management Plan on the property and needed= the Board to consider moving forward with the forestry activities. Ms. Waters said there were some pr= oblems with the forestry (which were outlined in their letter) such as access thro= ugh Dracut. She said the Town Forester (Dan Cy= r) also confirmed that there were problems with using the access from Hidden Road= in Dracut. She said the proposed donation off Poplar Hill basically extended the conditions off that area and wouldn̵= 7;t relieve forestry. She said th= e two lots (proposed by Mr. Gowan) would be the best solution for them regarding forestry activity. She said s= he would walk the property with Mr. Cyr on June 23, 2007; they would review all the potential a= ccess points and make an advisement. She said as it stood, there was no access to foot traffic and problematic access for forestry activity. She sa= id at this point they supported the proposal of the two lots to be made open space. Ms. Waters showed the = Board the two lots on the plan posted for the Board. She discussed the importance of fo= restry and noted if they were able to move forward with forest management on the parcel it would be self-sustaining without asking the tax payer for any money.

Mr. Zohdi said he would discuss the proposal w= ith his client. He said the value= of the two lots was approximately half a million dollars. He said they left an access way to connect all the land together. He said he had another proposal to share and handed the Board a copy of such.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert asked how wide the wil= dlife access was at the narrowest point. Mr. Zohdi said the narrowest point was approximately 140-feet wide.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara asked if in summary t= he new proposal showed the consolidation of the two lots and the cul-de-sacs pulled back. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.= He went on to discuss that the pro= posal which provided a compromise; the cul-de-sac was pulled back and they lost a lot, and the Town gained a lot.

Mr. Doherty asked if it was feasible for the access road to curve. Mr. Zoh= di showed what he might be able to do. He noted that he didn’t have the topography on a portion of th= e land and if the road was done as suggested, they would need to go back to the Conservation Commission, the Selectmen and possibly to Town Meeting. He believed he would be able to do= a reverse curve and achieve what he was suggesting.

Mr. Culbert said he happy with the compromise = to give the 140-feet through conservation.&nb= sp; He said he would not vote for a permeable road but would go for grav= el or crushed stone. He said he = would need to know from Forestry what the weight limit of the forest harvesting trucks would be. Mr. McNamara confirmed that Mr. Culbert was in favor of a connection, but only if it was= a gravel road. Mr. Culbert shoo= k his head yes.

Mr. Haverty asked if the Board was being asked about the type of connectivity, or the general concept of having connectivi= ty or not. Mr. McNamara said he = was looking for an idea if the Board wanted connection. He said if the Board wanted connec= tion, Mr. Zohdi could show the connection and a design of the road that incorpora= tes some speed reducing features. Mr. Haverty wanted to make sure that the Board was seeking agreement regarding = the concept of connectivity as opposed to how it would be connected. Mr. McNamara said another part of = the equation was that the plans would be sent to Stantec (Town’s engineer= ) for engineering review and Vollmer for a traffic report. He requested that the traffic repo= rt show two alternatives to the plans one in which there is no connection and = one in which there is a connection (breaking it down to whether its gravel or pave= d) to see any difference in traffic flow pattern.

Mr. Doherty said he would like to see the park= ing and trail access. He was not = in favor of paving the access. M= r. McNamara said another aspect that was discussed was as it stood (with the p= rior plan) conservation land couldn’t be accessed other than going through= Dracut. Mr. Doherty suggested having a small parking lot was put in so people c= ould access from both sides. Mr. McNamara asked if Mr. Zohdi had been to the Conservation Commission. Mr. Zohdi said they met with the Conservation Commission last Wednesday; they were invited to do a site walk. He said a preliminary p= resentation was done but were stopped until the Planning Board made a decision.

Mr. Dadak said with the question of connectivi= ty and general guidance. He beli= eved the Board was asking to move forward with connectivity and providing ideas = for the applicant to think about.

Mr. Zohdi said he would like to design a plan = and come back before the Board. W= ith regard to surfacing, Mr. Zohdi said he had to get the Selectmen involved wi= th the decision because they had the final decision to accept the road. He said after he designed the plan= and spoke to Conservation the next step would be to go to the Selectmen. Mr. McNamara said this would be do= ne with the understanding that the Planning Board had the final decision if the road would be paved or gravel etc. &n= bsp; He asked if there was a consensus of the Board to have the connection. All the Board mem= bers agreed with having a connection with the exception of Mr. Doherty. Mr. Doherty disagreed in principal= with going through Town land. He didn’t want a connecting road, but wouldn’t mind a parking lot = with an entrance from both sides not called a road. Mr. Culbert said that would be con= nectivity. Mr. Doherty said it would connect = it, but it wouldn’t be a road. Mr. McNamara said if there was a connection it would be a road of some sort. Mr. Gowan advised not going back t= o the Board of Selectmen until the Planning Board had made a final decision on a final plan.

Mr. McNamara said the Board didn’t have = to make a final decision regarding the plan and wanted to obtain input both fr= om the Conservation Commission and review of the environmental study from Louis Berger (Town’s environmental consultant).

Mr. Zohdi asked for the plan to be date specif= ied to the next meeting. He said = he would like the opportunity to meet with the Conservation Commission and have his professional meet with the Board to discuss the environmental report. Mr. McNamara said the Board wouldn’t have their engineering report or consultant reports back by = the next meeting. Mr. Zohdi said = if the Board wanted all the reports back it wouldn’t be in thirty days. Mr. McNamara said he didn’t = want to continue the plan at every meeting.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert asked where the ‘clock’ was. Mr. Zohdi said he would forward a = letter giving an extension.

The plan was date specified to the August 20, 2007 meeting.

Mr. Passamonte returned.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 41 Lot 6-126 Nashua Redimix – Bridge Street (Route 38) - Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant

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.

President of Redimix Companies David Bissonett= e, President of Keating Company Jim Reiger and Dan Blaize of TF Moran met with the Board= to review the proposed plan. Mr. Bissonette read a brief introduction as to what their plans were and a hist= ory of their company. He said Red= imix Companies, Inc. was requesting permission to locate a concrete batch plant = on the existing Keating Quarry located on Bridge Street (Route 38). The batch plant will enable Redimi= x to locally produce and deliver a basic and widely used building material for the Town = and surrounding communities. Mr. Bissonette outlined the history of the Redimix company and their current locations. He explained that = the batch plant would be partially enclosed in a building (approximately 70ft.x40ft.x40ft); the maximum silo/structure height was 70ft. (a variance = was received for the setbacks Case #2357, December 11, 2006).= Mr. Bissonette said the batch plant had dust collection and recycling capability. He said they woul= d have a portable office trailer (approximately 8ft.x30ft.) with one employee; the= re would also be an above ground storage tank (approximately 12ft.x35ft) locat= ed adjacent to the building. Red= imix employees will use existing facilities for sewage and trash a two cubic yard dumpster would be located for trash. The hours of operation were anticipated to be 6:30am-5:30pm Monday-Friday and 6:30am-2:30pm Saturday. They anticipated 6-8 concrete truc= ks making five deliveries per day (totaling 60-80 vehicle trips) plus addition= al vehicle trips of raw materials anticipated to add 10-12 trips. The water/utility use and electric= al service would be installed by the local utility company. Water use would be recycled storm = water accumulated at the quarry. Aggregate stock piles and sand/stone stock piles would be maintained on site. = There would be approximately 8000gallons of chemical add mixture for the producti= on of concrete would be stored on site housed in plastic storage tanks provide= d by the vendors.

Mr. Blaize provided a summary of what they had done in the planning process to date. He said they originally met with the Planning Board November 6, 2006 and then as= ked to visit with the Town of Dracut, MA and the Nashua Regional Planning Commissi= on (‘NRPC’). They al= so met with the Pelham Conservation Commission even though there were no wetlands = on site. Mr. Blaize said they me= t with the Dracut Town Planner and Assistant Town Administrator; from there they conducted a technical review committee meeting with the various departments= of Dracut. They also met with the Dracut Plan= ning Board. Copies of everything submitted to Pelham was also forwarded to Dracut and to NRPC. Mr. Steve Willia= ms of NRPC informed Mr. Blaize that they would have no comments regarding the pro= ject and would follow that up with correspondence to Mr. Gowan.

Mr. Blaize discussed the site and the proposed footprint. He said one questi= on was the turning motion for the trucks who would use the ‘jug’ handle. He explained that the= plat had been rotated slightly (staying within what was granted for setbacks) to help with the on-site vehicle traffic.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara confirmed that the locus hadn’t changed. Mr. Blaize said the footprint rema= ined the same, it was just twisted a little bit. The water tank was relocated behin= d the berm. He then discussed the w= ater use and the proposal to use recycled storm water for the batch plant. There were 91 million gallons of w= ater (from runoff, snow and rain) pumped out of the quarry in 2004. Mr. Reiger discussed how the water= was recycled. Mr. Bissonette said= they anticipated using 15,000 gallon of water per day (annual 3 million gallons). He explained that conceptually they discussed either tapping into Dracut water or drilling wells, however through further discussions, they decided to use a portion of the storm wat= er collected. Mr. Bissonette wan= ted to clarify that they were a concrete plant (not cement plant) and locating at = the quarry would provide them with one of their raw materials.

There was further discussion regarding the wat= er storage and use. Mr. Bissonet= te said they proposed to use 3 million gallons of the 91 million gallons pumped. Mr. Culbert asked what happened to the remaining 88 million gallons of water pumped. Mr. Reiger said the water pumped w= as used in the process of washing and making stone and would go back into the quarry. Mr. Culbert confirmed= that there would be no need for wells. Mr. Bissonette answered yes.

Mr. Montbleau asked if a filtration system was= needed to make the water utilized in the process.= Mr. Bissonette said previously they came in with a conceptual plan a= nd usually used a municipal water source or a well; however, with storm water being readily available, it was a good option for them to use.

Mr. Doherty wanted to know what would happen if the water was not pumped out. Mr. Reiger said between snow melt and rain water built up within an encased sto= ne chamber. He said they pumped = 8-9 months per year to move out all of the water that was contained in; if they weren’t running an operation and didn’t pump, it would build up= and become a lake. Mr. Montbleau = asked where the water was pumped, other than to the settling ponds. Mr. Reiger said it was pumped to t= he washing station and some went to the settlement pond. Mr. Montbleau asked if the water w= ent anywhere else. Mr. Reiger said there may be some that went across the road from the settling pond; there w= as a small containment area/pond where some water was pumped. Mr. Montbleau asked if any water e= scaped from the site. Mr. Reiger sai= d they owned the property and the intention was that everything stayed on the property.

Mr. Culbert asked if there were any complaints from abutters regarding water. Mr. Reiger answered no.

Mr. Blaize said when they were in front of the Board they discussed traffic in general.&n= bsp; He said they got the average daily trip count from the state of New Hampshire; i= n 2006 the average daily count is 11,000 trips per day; and Mr. Bissonette was pro= posing roughly 80 trips per day. Bec= ause deliveries were site specific it was difficult to determine which direction= on Route 38 the trucks would go. They anticipated two cement deliveries per day; there would also be sand deliver= ies that fluctuated with the market. Mr. McNamara asked where the present batch plants were located. Mr. Bissonette said they had a bat= ch plant at each of the nine Redimix locations. Mr. McNamara asked if the Pelham p= lant would target a specific area. Mr. Bissonette said the nature of the product was a one-two hour time limit onc= e it was made; the delivery radius was limited to 20-30 miles from the batch plant.

Mr. Dadak asked if the current process (gravel plant) was a year-round operation. Mr. Reiger said they usually shut down in December and opened back u= p in March. Mr. Dadak asked if the concrete plant would run year-round. Mr. Bissonette answered yes. He said during December – March they had a significant drop-of= f in business and would run in levels of one third of what they were doing. Mr. Montbleau asked how many trips= were generated from the plant currently (without the proposed batch plant). Mr. Reiger didn’t have the data. Mr. Montbleau wanted to= know how much the traffic would be increased.&n= bsp; Mr. Reiger didn’t have exact figures. Mr. Bissonette discussed the deliv= ery/unloading process for the sand that was done nomadically. Mr. Montbleau noted that dust had = always been a concern at that location. He asked if there would be an increase in dust at the batch plant. Mr. Bissonette said dust could be generated by the process of making concrete, but they had a ‘bag house’ containment system. He said there may be fugitive dust from truck traffic on a roadway that they w= ould minimize using best management practices (sweeping/water). Mr. Montbleau asked if any of the cleaning procedure went out onto Route 38.= Mr. Bissonette they would tend to internal roads and across the street. Mr. Reiger discussed = the fact that they used water throughout their facility to keep the dust down; trucks drive through the water and get mud accumulation on their tires when they leave the facility and drive down the road some of it comes off, dries, and turns to dust. He said ev= ery night they swept Route 38 and tried to contain everything in front of their operation. Mr. Montbleau aske= d what was done about icing. Mr. Rei= ger said the quarry didn’t operate in the winter. Mr. Montbleau asked if the proposed batch plant would bring water out onto Route 38 in the winter. Mr. Bissonette answered no. He said in the winter they worked = at a reduced rate. He noted that t= hey would have sweepers come in and keep the road surfaces clean. Mr. Montbleau asked if the ‘= jug handle’ was presently in operation.&= nbsp; Mr. Reiger answered yes and explained the truck traffic flow.

Mr. McNamara asked how long the batch facility would be in existence. Mr. Bissonette was unsure how to answer, other than saying it had a long life.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara believed it was discu= ssed at a previous meeting and recalled hearing that it would have a 20-25 year = life expectancy. Mr. Bissonette be= lieved that was specific to the quarry. Mr. McNamara asked what would happen to the quarry once it was no lo= nger usable for stone and asked if stone would then be trucked in. Mr. Bissonette said potentially th= ey would truck stone in. Mr. McN= amara believed a request was made to have a remediation plan submitted. Mr. Reiger had a copy, but would s= ubmit a larger copy the next day. M= r. Culbert believed the reclamation was covered by state statutes. Mr. Reiger answered yes; his engin= eer looked at both the New Hampshire and Massachusetts si= de. Mr. McNamara said it would be revi= ewed by Stantec. Mr. Culbert said Stantec didn’t have an expert in that field. Mr. McNamara said if they didnR= 17;t have an expert, they would reference whatever they had to for adequate review. Mr. Gowan asked for information regarding the likely use of the site would be. Mr. Reiger said they believed it w= ould be approximately 25-30 years before it was fully harvested. He discussed some of the options f= or the site and noted that they gave a representation of things that were being do= ne today. He submitted a copy of= what he had and would submit a larger copy in the next couple days.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Bill Williams, 16 Shannon Circle said there were a number of residents from his street present. They resided on the other side of = Duck Pond. Mr. Williams read aloud= a letter written by Attorney Brian Correia of 17 Shannon Circle who was unable to attend the meeting. In summar= y, Attorney Correia opposed granting approval and was concerned with high levels of air= and noise pollution, blasting, loud speaker telephone ringing, negative impact = the community and byproducts of the facility permeating the ground water causing damage to the environment and wetlands.&nb= sp; The letter also stated the concern for the health of the residents in the community due to an increase in air emissions and increase nitrous oxide levels that could cause health difficulties; and increase in noise and truck traffic would also negatively affect the community. Mr. Bissonette said nitrous oxide wasn’t emitted during concrete production. Mr. Williams said his concerns cen= tered around the impact to the neighborhood and the health of the residents. He said he had heard about a law s= uit in the 1980’s regarding the dust that had been settled; he would look up information regarding such. <= /p>

Mr. Norm Sage, 34 Shannon Circle had a report (fro= m professional engineer) regarding environmental aspects of concrete problems and solutions specifically emissions. He sa= id he would submit the report to the Board for review.

Mr. Williams asked if environmental studies had been done. Mr. McNamara answe= red no; this was the first meeting regarding the plan. Mr. Williams said the community wa= s very concerned and hoped to work with the Town to make a good decision.

Mr. Sage had additional information from an environmental update of August, 2004 that he would add to the information b= eing provided to the Board. He wan= ted to know what type of containment was currently in place for containing slurry. Mr. Reiger said the containment dike was silt and clay. Mr. Sage asked if there was any way for it to leach back to Duck Pond. Mr. Reiger answered no.= He said the DEP monitored all the = runoff from their site. Mr. Sage ask= ed if the DEP had the information. = Mr. Reiger said they had all the information.&= nbsp; Mr. Sage discussed the amount of dust generated from the site. Mr. McNamara said the Board was fo= cusing on the addition of the batch plant. Mr. Sage wanted to know about filtration. Mr. Bissonette said he would provi= de information regarding the efficiency of the collection system at the next meeting. He gave a brief explanation about the ‘bag house’ and the fact that it was an e= nclosed system. Mr. Dadak asked if th= ey were regulated by the state of New Hampshire and required to keep maintenance records. Mr. Bissonette said = they weren’t required to have an air permit. He gave a further explanation rega= rding the system they used. Mr. Dad= ak said the dust problem had become a sensitive issue because of the past oper= ation of the gravel facility.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that Mr. Bissonette was op= en to conducting a site walk at one of the concrete batch plants. Mr. Bissonette answered yes and in= formed that abutters were also welcomed.

Mr. David LaRich, 2083 Bridge Street said he resided = at that location for twenty-eight years. He understood they were proposing a new plant and heard they were cleaning it up, but informed it was not good enough. He said testimony was given that n= o one had complained regarding runoff; however, he had complained several times a= nd was told it was the beavers. = He said once the quarry was done (in twenty-five years) there might be adult entertainment, since it was zoned for it.&= nbsp; Mr. Culbert said the Pelham regulations state that adult entertainme= nt can’t be within 2000-feet of the border.

Mr. Doherty asked what height the tallest structure was. Mr. Blaize sai= d it was likely the existing conveyor which was approximately 70ft. in height. He showed its location on the prop= osed plan. Mr. McNamara discussed = the plan for the silos, which were proposed to be below Bridge Street level; he recalled testimony given at the Board of Adjustment meeting indicating that the silos would be at the height of the Arbor Vites on the berm. Mr. Gowan believed that the silo h= eight would be above the berm, but follow the existing tree line. Mr. Bissonette provided photos of = the current site and the berm. Mr. Blaize showed a rendering of the berm and proposed silo.

Mr. Culbert asked what the (granted) variance = was for. Mr. Blaize said it was f= or setbacks.

Mr. Culbert commented that he didn’t rec= all the Board accepting a plan for consideration when the plan before them was incorrect. He had the followi= ng questions: 1) EPA regulations on noise and air emissions; 2) blasting ̵= 1; are abutters notified; 3) regarding reclamation - expects answers to all current RSA regulations for Massachusetts and New Hampshire; 4) specific earliest and latest hours of operation; 5) concern regarding water – = why did conceptual show wells; 6) how much has business grown from 2004 to pres= ent; 7) how much will business grow with proposed batch plant – specifical= ly in connection with water consumption, air pollution and noise pollution; 8) address all items contained in letter from Dracut, MA dated January 10, 2007. Mr. Culbert didn’= t feel he had a plan detailed enough to make a decision. In Mr. Gowan’s opinion the p= lan was ready for acceptance. He = would like the engineers to review. Mr. Culbert said he would like to conduct a site walk. He also wanted to make sure that S= tantec (Town’s engineer) had an expert in the field regarding reclamation.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Haverty) To approve accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan understood that the Board wanted engineering review. He asked = if they also wanted an environmental study.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said the environmental review should address dust, nois= e, emissions and impact to the area. Mr. C= ulbert wanted to know if the existing facility was in compliance at present. Mr. Bissonette said DES could prov= ide information regarding what was required for a concrete batch plant. Mr. McNamara suggested that the si= te walk be conducted when the plant was running to better understand the noise. Mr. Culbert said since= he was hearing impaired, he was sensitive to noise pollution.

Mr. Montbleau asked if the existing facility h= ad any violations (in connection with runoff). Mr. Reiger was not aware of any violations in Massachusetts or New Hampshire. Mr. Montbleau asked if the applica= nt would need any waivers. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the applicant would comply with all Site Plan Regulations. Mr. Bissonette a= nd Mr. Blaize shook their head yes. =

The plan was date specified to the July 16, 2007 m= eeting. Members of the public questioned t= he ‘time clock’ for the plan.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara explained the time limits that the Board had to review plans. Mr. Bissonette asked f= or clarification of what the Board wanted in connection with noise levels since that was usually under local jurisdiction.= Mr. Gowan said the Town had no noise ordinance. Mr. Culbert said he would like to = know the decibel levels. Mr. Bisso= nette offered a suggestion for obtaining decibel levels from an active plant.

Ma= p 9 Lot 9-5 J. Timothy Zelonis – Si= mpson Mill Road – 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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the pr= oposed 2-lot subdivision to the Board. He explained that there were actually three lots, one would remain non-buildable. He explained t= hat lot 9-5 (containing 25.715 acres) would be deeded to the Conservation Commission. He said they met = with the Conservation Commission and also with the Board of Adjustment regarding= lot 9-5-8 = because it didn’t have the required frontage; a variance was granted. Mr. Zohdi then reviewed the plan w= ith the Board. He noted that the = site specific soil mapping had been done by Jim Gove of Gove Environmental. He said they proved based on the s= oils that each lot was buildable. = He said at the Conservation Commission it was requested that a 10ft. right-of-= way be left for access to the back land; 5ft. was left on each lot to allow access. There was also a wood= en bridge providing access.

Mr. Zohdi said they had one waiver request for the well radius; it fits within the boundary of the lot, but not within the building setback. He said lot 9-5-7 had a prop= osed and an existing well. He said many y= ears ago he did a general subdivision of the parcel and was asked to drill wells= to prove they could obtain potable drinking water. He asked permission to use the wel= l; if the Board allowed the use of the well he wouldn’t have the proper well radius within the lot. He sai= d the well was good and would like to use it.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara asked how far the well was from the lot line. Mr. Zohdi believed it was approxim= ately 50ft. He asked for the Board’s consideration and noted they would comply with every other Su= bdivision Regulation. Mr. McNamara aske= d if the applicant was proposing a duplex. Mr. Zohdi said they had the option, but were not proposing a duplex.

Mr. Gowan provided the Board with a summary of the Boa= rd of Adjustment meeting and the request/approval of the frontage variance. He believed the conservation land/= open space being proposed was worth protecting.= Mr. Zohdi said the Conservation Commission accepted the donation of = the land.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gowan indicated that the plan was ready for acceptance.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

A waiver request letter (dated May 24, 2007) was contained in the fil= e. The following waivers were request= ed:

1) Section 11.11b2 – to allow the proposed well = radius of lot 9-8 to be located within the 15ft. building (side) setback. The applicant believed the request= met the criteria requirements of Section 13.01;

2) Section 10.03f – to not show the locations of= the existing structures, wells and septic systems within 75ft. of site. The applicant believed the request= met the criteria requirements of Section 13.03. Mr. Zohdi discussed the purpose fo= r the waiver. He said he showed the location of what he could find on the plan. Mr. Culbert asked that the lots be= site specific (also for the proposed well).&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said they would do site specific for both lots.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dadak) To accept, for consideration, the wa= iver request to Section 11.11b2 –well radius within the 15ft. building setback (lot 9-8).=

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dadak) To accept, for consideration, the wa= iver request to Section 10.03f – not show locations of the existing structures, wells and septic systems within 75ft.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert said since the plan seemed to be an easy 2= -lot subdivision he would like to approve the waivers. Mr. McNamara said the Board had a requirement that a waiver was to be reviewed over two meetings and it seemed every time the Board came upon a waiver; he said if the Board wasn’t going to use it, they should remove it.&nb= sp;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Montbleau) To approve the waiver request to Section 11.11b2–well radius within the 15ft. building setback (lot 9-8).

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Haverty vot= ed no.

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Montbleau) To approve the waiver request to Section 10.03f – not show locations of the existing structures, wel= ls and septic systems within 75ft.<= u>

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Haverty vot= ed no.

Mr. Zohdi submitted an additional waiver to Section 11= .11b2 – well for lot 9-5-7 (they will use the existing well on site).=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.11b2 – setback requirement for lot 9-5-7 and use = an existing well on site.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To approve the waiver request to Section 11.11b2 – setback requirement for lot 9-5-7 and use an existing = well on site.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara and Mr. Haverty vot= ed no.

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Croteau/Montbleau) To approve the subdivision conti= ngent on site specific for the two lots (house, septic and well).

VOTE:

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

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS –

July 16, 2007

Map 41 Lot 6-126 Nashua Redimix – Bridge Str= eet (Route 38) - Site Plan Review= of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant

August 20, 2007

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

MINUTES

June 4, 2007

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Dadak) To approve the June 4, 2007 minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan handed out a copy of the June 16, 2007 Site Walk min= utes for the Board to review and make comments.&nbs= p;

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:43 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