PB Minutes 09-17-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

September 17, 2007

Chairman Peter McNamara c= alled the meeting to order at 7:00= pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy C= ulbert, Paul Dadak, Jason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Roger Montbleau, Altern= ate Edward McGlynn

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. McManus to vote in Mr. Montbleau’s absence.

Mr. Gowan informed that h= e had received a memo from Town Assessor Susan Snide that addressed the issue of subdivision and lot line relocation plans where the owner of the primary lot had not transferred ownership of the newly created lot to the intended adja= cent owner. This was a topic Mr Go= wan recommended that the Board discuss so as to not have similar situations in = the future.

Mr. Gowan then informed t= hat the NRPC had a contest for ‘great streets’ and said if there were a= ny nominations, they should be forwarded to the Planning Office by Friday.

PUBLIC HEARING

CIP presentation and possible adoption of 2008-2014 Capital Improvement Plan

Co-Chairmen Bill Scanzani= and Andy Ducharme presented the plan to the Planning Board. They listed who was on the committ= ee. There was a discussion regarding t= he CIP message the cost increase in items and how those items were prioritized.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/Croteau) To ap= prove the 2008-2014 Capital Improvements Plan as presented.

VOTE:

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

NEW BUSINESS

Map 2 Lot 5-57-1 Carso Realty Trust – 411-413 Mammoth Road – Seeking a Special Use Permit to convert an existing Duplex into a Condominium Form of Ownership

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

Attorney Seth Bostock, ap= peared before the Board on behalf of Tynco Realty, LLC and Carso Realty Trust, for= a condominium conversion. A new= copy of the plan containing two sites for the septic was provided to the Board a= nd posted for review. It also sh= ows the well radius and the easement. Attorney Bostock informed that his client was seeking a Special Use Permit for a condo conversion and what required to obtain such.

Mr. McNamara asked for an explanation between the applicant Carso Realty Trust and the other name lis= ted Tynco Realty, LLC. Attorney B= ostock said Tynco Realty, LLC was the owner; Carso Realty Trust was the developer.= He provided the Board with authori= zation to represent the applicant. T= he owner was present in the event further authorization was needed. He noted that the easement ‘granting’ language blank because at this point they were unsure which name the condo association would be in.

Mr. Culbert said the 4K a= rea for the two septics was not shown and would be a requirement. He also could not recall the Board approving a waiver for well radius to go onto another property. He had a hard time understanding t= he radius because it was a new well. Mr. Gowan understood that the well was currently existing. Attorney Bostock said the well was in. It was newly drilled. Mr. Gowan confirmed that the well = radius was extending onto a property owned by the same entity that owned the parcel currently being discussed. At= torney Bostock said that was correct. Mr. Gowan asked if the language would specify that a septic could not be instal= led too close on the SE corner of the lot. Attorney Bostock said it was a protective well easement. Mr. Gowan noted that the applicant= was not in front of the Board to have the lot approved, they were before the Bo= ard in connection with the ownership. He said the lot was already approved, the applicant was only before the Board regarding the ownership. Mr. Culbert said the applicant was not showing the existing septic system. He a= lso wanted to see the 4K area. Mr. McNamara asked how the well was drilled so as to violate the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Gowan asked = when the lot was subdivided. The a= pplicant said it was subdivided approximately one year ago. Mr. Gowan said on recent subdivisi= ons wells are shown; sometimes it’s later found that they are drilled in = the wrong location. Attorney Bost= ock believed the situation was easily fixable because the same entity owned both parcels. The applicant discus= sed the history of the lots and the placement of the wells and septics. Mr. Gowan reiterated that the lot,= duplex and septic were already in existence. The applicant said there were two separate (three-bedroom) septic systems contained on the property which had been approved.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Joyce Coombs, 415 Mammoth Road wanted to know what the difference was between what the applicant was seeki= ng and what they had been approved for. Mr. McNamara said the applicant was seeking to change the manner of ownership from a duplex to a condominium.&= nbsp; Ms. Coombs asked if more buildings and people could be brought in. Mr. McNamara answered no. Mr. Gowan explained that the two u= nits would be owned by different people. He said visually, there should be no difference. The request was for a legal ownership. Ms. Coombs wanted = to make sure that the applicant couldn’t disrupt the neighborhood and pu= t in more homes. Mr. McNamara said= that wasn’t being proposed. = The only thing before the Board was the type of ownership. Mr. Doherty said when people have ownership, they tend to maintain the building better. Mr. McNamara said the Board only h= ad to make sure that the necessary documents were in place and that there were two approved septic systems.

Mr. Gowan said the Board generally had Town Counsel review the documents (at the applicant’s expense). Prospective purchas= ers and banks also reviewed the documents. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara asked the ap= plicant what they were going to do with the protective covenant document because it contained blanks. Attorney Bo= stock said Town Counsel may want to review. He said the intent of the document wa= s to ensure the protection of the well area.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan said if the document was reviewed by Town Counsel it would have to be at the applicant’s expense. He said the document should be rec= orded within a reasonable amount of time and submitted to the Planning Office with book and page. Attorney Bosto= ck said 90-days would be reasonable.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To ap= prove the Special Use Permit contingent upon Town Counsel approving the well easement radius document and such document being recorded (at the Registr= y of Deeds) within 90-days.

VOTE:

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

OLD BUSINESS

Map 16 Lot 13-125-15 Judy Cooke – Orchard Lane, Pineridge Road & Surrey Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Seeking a Special Permit for a Wetland Conservation District crossing

The applicant’s eng= ineer requested a continuance to the October 1, 2007 meeting. =

Map 38 Lot 1-133 Rita L. Louf – 15 Spaulding Hill Road – Prop= osed 2-Lot Subdivision

Ms. Cynthia Bouviert, Cuo= co & Cormier Engineering, representing Rita Louf, regarding a subdivision on Spaulding Hill Road said when they last met with the Board there were several items the Board wanted them to address. She discussed those items and explained the revisions that were made to the plan.

Mr. Dadak reviewed the mi= nutes from the previous meeting and noted that it was requested to ‘stay away’ from having a detention pond.&= nbsp; Ms. Bouviert said the detention pond was very small and grassed near= the driveway. She said it was the minimum of what the engineers felt they could do. Mr. McNamara asked for the dimensions. Ms. Bouviert said= it was roughly 40ft.x25ft. located toward the front of the proposed dwelling site.

Mr. Gowan believed every = issue that was raised had been addressed. He looked for a note regarding the 50ft. buffer and questioned if it would be a no-cut zone. Ms. B= ouviert said they didn’t label it ‘no-cut’ because that term had certain implications when performing tree maintenance. Mr. McNamara believed the Board as= ked that a (treed) buffer be shown to run along the entire north west side (boundary) of the prop= erty. It was shown on the plan, but ther= e were no specifics. Ms. Bouviert sa= id they could label ‘buffer’ on the plan (for the proposed home).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert felt he was clear that= the buffer would be no-cut. Ms. Bouviert said they could label the area ‘no cut’. Mr. Gowan said even if the area wa= s no cut, if there was a diseased tree in danger of falling onto a house, he wou= ld grant permission to cut the tree. There was an explanation that the 50-foot buffer was reduced to 40-feet due to the Fire Department’s access/turning radius minimums.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Doug Campbell, 11 Spaulding Hill Road, asked for where the buffer would be located. Ms. Bouviert showed Mr. Campbell w= here the 50-foot buffer was located and where the 15-foot buffer was. Mr. Campbell asked why his propert= y line would only be buffered with 15-feet. He said there appeared to be adequate room to provide a larger buffer. Mr. McNamara said the Subdivision Regulations called for a 15-foot side setback; the reason the B= oard asked for a higher buffer in the other area was due to the house location a= nd the nearness to the abutters in the back.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said one reason the Board asked for the extra buffer was because originally the proposed house was planned to be located near the re= ar of the property; however since then, the building envelope had been moved t= o be more centered on the lot.

Mr. Culbert said he had originally asked for the buffer because of the density of the houses in the back. He wouldn’t see a 50-foot buffer zone around the property.&n= bsp; He asked Mr. Campbell if he attended the previous meeting. Mr. Campbell said he was unclear (without seeing the plan) where the 50-foot buffer was proposed. Mr. Culbert said he was clear wher= e the buffer would be located. He a= sked Mr. Campbell how his lot was situated.&nbs= p; Mr. Campbell said his lot was mostly grass, with some small trees. Mr. Dadak reviewed the lot setback= s and suggested that the plan contain an explanation of such. Ms. Bouviert said the ‘no-cut’ areas would be labeled and explained that the 15-foot = area was a setback, not a ‘no-cut’ area.

Mr. McNamara said the pla= n showed a tree line around the lot. M= r. Campbell pointed out that the tree line was currently going through the sep= tic system and concluded that it was drawn on the plan for purposes of looking = at the drawing. He said there was nothing to stop someone from clearing back to the 15-foot setback line. Mr. McNamara said the Board was re= lying on the specifics contained on the plan.&nb= sp; He said the Board could discuss additional protection to Mr. Campbell’s side of the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Campbell said given that a variance was approved to make develop= ment happen and it was a back lot with houses 360degrees around it, he felt requesting a buffer strip was not too much to ask. Mr. McNamara said there shouldn= 217;t be any need to go in and cut because the proposed lot would be accessed from the proposed road. Ms. Bouvie= rt left briefly to speak to her client.

Mr. Campbell said it appe= ared that there was adequate room to provide for a buffer on the site without infring= ing upon the layout. Mr. Dadak as= ked if the backside of Mr. Campbell’s lot was heavily wooded. Mr. Campbell said there were scatt= ered very small hardwood trees approximately 3inch diameter within 10-15 feet of the = lot line and during the fall he could see from his street through to the street behind him.

Ms. Bouviert returned from speaking with her client. She= said they had agreed to the 50-foot buffer at the previous meeting. She said the lot would be 3.19 acr= es and to require a 50-foot on the east and west side (on a lot that ran east and west) was putting a lot of constraints on the proposed lot. She said where the abutting lot wa= s all lawn, that was fine, but not to say the proposed lot should have the buffer= . She said they may agree within the fifteen foot to be no-cut, but to ask for the same buffer the Board would be taking away 100feet of the lot. Mr. Haverty agreed that the Board would be asking a lot to maintain two 50-foot buffers. He said it seemed to= be more that what the Board had required in the past. He wouldn’t support an addit= ional buffer. Mr. Gowan said the en= gineer offered a 15-foot no-cut buffer. He couldn’t recall, during his many years involved with planning a single instance where the Board had made a two-lot subdivision go to some of the extremes as the present one. = He felt it was reasonable to designate the 15-feet in the area of the house; he didn’t feel the area of the driveway should be designated as no-cut because some cutting may need to be done to facilitate the driveway. He said making the westerly bounda= ry a 15-foot no cut would provide more assurances than most have with their neighbors.

Mr. Campbell said when the 50-foot no-cut zone was proposed at the last meeting, the abutters were not given the opportunity to speak about such.= He said he was prepared to ask the Board about such. He felt it was a moot point that t= he buffer was proposed at the last meeting.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said the Board was discussion it now. Mr. Campbell said given that varia= nces were approved to make the lot happen, it was not a lot for the abutters to request a buffer like the one given to the other side.

Mr. Culbert reiterated th= at there would be a 50-foot buffer. He= asked if the lot would be clear cut. Ms. Bouviert said they were not developing the lot. Mr. Culbert said he had a hard time asking someone to add a 50-foot buffer when the abutters didn’t have a 50-foot buffer on their lot. = He said the other side said they had buffers which was why for the density and position of the house it was a valid point. He was willing to support a 15-foot no-cut buffer, but was not willing to support a (second) 50-foot buffer.

Mr. Campbell submitted le= tters to the Board that voiced some of their concerns.

Mr. Doherty asked what Mr. Campbell was looking for. Mr. Campbell said he would like something more than a 15-foot setback. Mr. Doherty wasn’t clear wha= t the requested buffer would do for the entire area. Mr. Campbell felt having the buffe= r would lessen the impact on his lot. He said he wasn’t concerned with runoff. Mr. McNamara said the primary conc= ern for having the 50-foot buffer was the proximity of the house to the propert= ies close to the home. Ms. Bouvie= rt agreed. She said as the lot o= pened up, they originally had put the house in the corner; the buffer was to pull= the building box away from the lot line.

Mr. McNamara read the thr= ee letters aloud that were submitted by Mr. Campbell. 1) dated September 6, 2007 signed = by Doug and Bonnie Campbell outlined concerns about the proposed construction,= new dwellings could affect the aquifer on the property and negatively affect the aesthetics and value of their home; 2) dated September 6, 2007 signed by Ann Currier, 9 Spaulding Hill Road which listed the same concerns as the Campbell’s letter; and 3) dated September 17, 2007 signed Nils and Beverly Beverlie expressed concerns regarding a new well being drilled in t= he area. Mr. McNamara said the B= oard had no authority to ask the developer to take responsibility for water in t= he area. He said a developer is responsible for what happens on their lot if there are consequences that oc= cur after the fact, it would remain a civil matter between homeowners. He said the landowner had the righ= t to develop their property as every landowner has in that area.

Mr. Campbell informed the= Board that since the last meeting, he put another $4000 into his well. To date he lived in his house sinc= e 1995 and between replacing burned out pumps from low yield and hydro-frac the we= ll had spent in excess of $10,400. He said if the conditions worsens, there would be abutters looking for answers.

Ms. Rita Louf, 15 Spaulding Hill Road said when sh= e made the decision, over a year ago, to subdivide her 4.5+ acres she was asked if= she got along with her neighbors and did she think she would meet with oppositi= on. She said never once, had she had i= ll words or issues with any neighbor. She said when she moved to Spaulding Hill Road, forty-three years ago, there were n= o houses to her left, right or along her western boundary. She said that she and her late hus= band had expressed concerns to each other as they saw houses being built all aro= und them, but never once did they attend a meeting to oppose the building of th= ose homes because people have a right to do as they wished with their property. She said what she h= ad witnessed over the many months was truly disturbing. She said opposing abutters needed = to know that life is not constant, life changes. She said she found that out on February 14, 2004 when her husband of forty-one years died suddenly.&= nbsp; Ms. Louf said the abutters who were so opposed to the subdivision had known since her first appearance, December 2006, of her intent; however, not one had approached her to purchase the land. She said the fact that the abutters thought her land would afford them privacy forever was simply ridiculous. She said the abutters don’t = want change at her expense. She no longer could afford to keep the land. She was sure if the abutter’s house sat on 4.5 acres of land a= nd were at the same point in their life as she was in hers, they would do the = same thing. Ms. Louf then addresse= d the buffer zone. She felt a 50-fo= ot buffer was unreasonable because that’s what was needed for a road. She said during the surveying of her property it was discovered that some abutters had been dumping grass clippi= ngs and tree branches etc. on her parcel. She questioned how the purchaser of the land would be assured those actions wouldn’t continue if there was a 50-foot buffer. Ms. Louf said three abutters had s= tated that they had their wells tested and were ready to go to court. She wanted the Board to know that = she had resided in her home for forty-three years and never had a water problem. She questioned if the abutters challenged their neighbor, who was two houses away, when a lawn sprinkler system was installed. She also questioned if the abutters intended on blaming all of their water woes= on the one 3+ acre lot. She said= it was not a strip mall that would be built, it was a house lot. Ms. Louf said she was accused at t= he last meeting of cutting and running. She didn’t feel forty-three years in the same house was ‘cutting and running’. She ended by saying no one liked changes, but life is constant and d= oes change.

Mr. Gowan discussed the b= uffer and had just decided to order signs indicating ‘no-cut buffer’. He recommended= that the applicant use the WCD zone signs every 50ft. until the buffer signs come in. He would switch the signs= at no charge. Mr. McNamara noted th= at there were no wetlands and no WCD on the property. Mr. Gowan said he would modify the signs.

Mr. McNamara asked what t= he Board’s feeling was regarding the buffer on the easterly side of the project. He said the applican= t had offered a 15-foot no-cut buffer. The Board was fine with having a 15-foot no-cut buffer extending down the easte= rly line. Mr. McNamara confirmed = that page one of the plan set would be recorded at the registry. Ms. Bouviert answered yes and indi= cated that no-cut would be indicated on the record plan. Mr. McNamara asked if the house lo= cation would also be shown on the recorded plan.&= nbsp; Ms. Bouviert said the house location wouldn’t go to the regist= ry; the intent of page two was to show how the lot could be developed. Mr. McNamara said if the house was located in another area it might make the buffer change. Mr. Culbert was under the impressi= on he was looking at a site specific plan. Ms. Bouviert said they didn’t do a site specific because they weren’t developing the land. She said the lot was a great piece of property and explains that the plan contained a note indicating that the plan would have to be reviewed at= the Planning Office. She said the= Board was asking a lot more for the one lot than they ever had for any other lot. Mr. McNamara said the wh= ole reason they asked for the site location of the septic and house was so they could show adequate buffering.

Mr. McManus said the Boar= d should ask the applicant if they would consider increasing the 15-foot buffer. Mr. Culbert said he wouldn’t support making that request. = He said the Board asked for site specific.&nb= sp; Ms. Bouviert said the plan was site specific and the land plan indic= ates to review the second page to see what was in place. Mr. Gowan said he couldn’t s= ee the plan differing widely from where it currently was. He felt the plan was reasonable an= d the notes and conditions provided adequate protection. He felt signage would also help en= sure on the land the buffers would be maintained. Ms. Bouviert addressed the signs an= d said it was an expensive item. She= said they would have to survey and stake them.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said he would post the signs himself because a measurement from the property line was accurate enough. Ms. Bouviert said they could certa= inly indicate the buffer on the plan, but felt asking them to post signs was ‘outside the box’ and not contained anywhere in the regulations. Mr. Gowan wasn&#= 8217;t suggesting that the Board require the applicant to post signs.

Mr. McNamara said any mot= ion to approve the plan should indicate that there are no-cut zones between 15ft. = and 40ft-50ft. along the various boundaries of the property so when someone else comes in they will know precisely what they can and cannot do.

The Board then discussed = the waivers that had been discussed. Ms. Bouviert explained how they addressed two of the three waivers.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The Board then made the following motion.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Croteau) To ap= prove the waiver for the landscaping plan.&nbs= p;

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert felt the stor= m water drainage plan was adequate and he noted that the applicant had don’t = the soils mapping.

Mr. McNamara said any mot= ion should refer to the two page plan with the first page being dated August 3, 2007 p= repared by Cuoco & Cormier for Rita Louf and the second page dated August 15, 2007. The conditions will be reference i= n the plan set in front of the Board.

A motion was made explain= ing where the buffers would be located. Mr. McNamara said the Board was approving the plan with the understanding that the location of the home and septic as is delineated on sheets B1 and C1 would be closely adhered to.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Croteau) To ap= prove the plan subject to an addition to the plan that there will be a no-cut buffer zone of varying lengths between 40ft. -50ft. running from the northwest corner of the property near map 38 lot 1-136-19 down to the southwest corner of the property adjacent to Map 38 Lot 1-130; in additio= n, a 15ft. no-cut zone (with no-cut provision to be added to plan) which runs = from an area immediately adjacent to map 38 lot 1-131 up to the corner of the property that is map 38 lot 1-132-1 where the proposed new lot meets the = existing lot.

VOTE:

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

Map 41 Lot 6-126 – Nashua Redimix – Bridge Str= eet (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant **Applicant requests continuance to 9/17/07 **

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the applicant was unable to attend the meeting and requested a continuance to t= he October 1, 2007= meeting.

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 272&nbs= p; John Alosso – Main Street & Route 38 – Seeking re-ap= proval of Site Plan that was originally approved in 1989 for 25,000SF Retail Build= ing

The applicant requested a continuance to the October 15, 2007 meeting. Mr. Gowan said the Board had given clear indication that they weren’t interested in re-approving the plan without determining (at a minimum) where the regulations had changed. Stantec has provided a quote for minimal review; the applicant was advised. To provide adequate = time for the process the request for continuance was submitted.

Map 4 Lot 9-138 Marie Stadtmiller (Portner) –= ; Tallant Road – Pre-Design Review of Proposed Subdivision for Discussion=

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering, representing the application, said they had come in approximat= ely one month ago and showed the Board what it could look like under a possible future open space ordinance. = They re-notified and attended the joint meeting with the various boards and were denied a variance. Mr. Maynar= d said at a previous meeting he asked the Board what their comments were regarding= the conventional plan. He said the biggest issue was to try to minimize the wetland and wetland conservation district (= ‘WCD’) impacts. He pointed out a por= tion of the parcel that contained two lots which would require a wetland/WCD imp= act to access the area. He asked = the Board if they would allow a 20-foot paved common driveway with 1-foot gravel shoulders through the WCD to minimize the impact. He asked the Board if the shared driveway would be acceptable with the Board or if they preferred two separa= te driveways. He noted with the = remainder of the design he was not seeking any waivers at this time.

Mr. Maynard then discusse= d that there was an existing house on the parcel with a state approved septic system. He said if the Board = was going to request that certain lots be site specific he would like to know because it would affect how he would ‘tackle’ drainage.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= plan had gone to the Conservation Commission for review, other than at the joint meeting. Mr. Maynard said he wasn’t able to get onto their agenda. He said he planned to see them and believed the more information he had when he went before them would be helpful. Mr. McNamara said the Board may be able to provide some direction, but it may be subject to what Conservation advises. Mr. May= nard understood and explained his timing with their schedule hadn’t worked out.

Mr. McNamara asked how lo= ng the proposed shared driveway was. Mr. Maynard said from the street to where it crossed the WCD was approximately 200feet and then would go independent to the two lots.

Mr. Dadak asked how the p= lan being presented compared to the other conventional plan that came before the Board. Mr. Maynard said it wa= s just the driveway had changed. Mr. McNamara asked if the property being accessed by the driveway was high/dry = and relatively flat. Mr. Maynard = said once going through the WCD the land was flat. He explained what they had done to= the grade to minimize the impacts. Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed location was a spot where the crossing would= be minimized. Mr. Maynard answered yes. Mr. Culbert discussed the reasons that the Board didn’t like shared driveways. He recalled= the Board only approving a shared driveway in a similar case to minimize a wetl= and impact. He said at this point= he wouldn’t have a problem with the shared driveway were it was. Mr. Gowan said the other instance = that the Board had considered a shared driveway was for sight distance. He said the proposed fit with what= the Board would consider.

The Board discussed shared driveways further and the reasons for such. Mr. McNamara asked how greatly the shared driveway would reduce the impact.&n= bsp; Mr. Mayard said the original wetland impact was 1600SF.-1800SF and w= ith the shared driveway could reduce such to 1000SF.

Mr. Culbert recalled the = Board reducing roadway width with the shared driveway. Mr. Gowan said it could be done; it would be up to the applicant. Mr. Culbert said he would be okay with 18ft.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara asked the Bo= ard for their opinion regarding the shared driveway. The Board, with the exception of M= r. Doherty were in favor of a shared driveway.

Mr. Maynard discussed the= lot containing the existing house and explained that the driveway location woul= d be moved. He said he was interes= ted in finding out if the Board would want site specific with the other lots so he would know when drainage was being designed. Mr. Doherty asked if there was a l= ist of waivers being compiled for the project.&nb= sp; Mr. Maynard said he was trying to not apply for waivers. He asked if the Board was going to request any of the lots to be site specific. Mr. Culbert said because of the am= ount of water, he would like to see all the lots as site specific. Mr. Maynard said the site was 29 a= cres and there were 16 of those acres outside of WCD not including the areas out= side of wetlands. Mr. Culbert aske= d what percentage was WCD and wet. M= r. Maynard said 16 acres were outside of the WCD buffer; there are approximate= ly 8 acres of wetlands on 29 acres of land.&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan asked for clarification of what the Board meant by ‘= site specific’. Mr. McNamara= said to him it was the building envelope (100ft.x150ft.) and 4K area. Mr. Gowan said if a member of the = Board was going to recommend site specific he wanted to be clear to the applicant what it meant.

Mr. Culbert said the reas= on he had discussed site specific was because the plan was conceptual, and he didn’t know how the plan would come.= He said he didn’t know where the driveway crossings would be, = or where the wells, septic or building envelopes would be located. He said if any of those things came close to the wetland, he would be looking to have those lots as site specific.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re would be any waivers to the well radius. Mr. Maynard didn’t believe there would be any.

Mr. Culbert asked how many wetlands crossings/special exceptions would be requested. Mr. Maynard said there were four.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara asked when t= he plan would be formally presented. = Mr. Maynard hoped to present by the end of October. Mr. McNamara said by the time the = plan was reaching the end, it might be around the same time period that the open space/conservation ordinance was going to ballot. He asked the applicant to keep the option available. Mr. Maynard= said they would like to be building at that point in time.

It was noted if the exist= ing house was to remain the same that lot shouldn’t need to be site specific.

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Gowan said he was goi= ng to be proactive in providing the Board with updates to subdivisions. He provided the Board with an upda= te of the Woodland Development/Cuomo subdivision. It was the developer’s inten= tion to begin work as soon as possible on the first 2400ft. of road and pave bef= ore the end of the season. They w= anted to then build houses on the lower section of the project; after they paved = the lower section, they would immediately begin working on the final 1600ft. of= the road and tie into Brandy R= oad. He said this ‘phasing’ wasn’t represented to the Board and wanted the Board’s opinion regarding such. Mr. McNamara = said he would like to review the plan and the minutes from when the Board approv= ed the subdivision. Mr. Gowan sa= id he could provide the Board with that information. Mr. Dadak asked if the development= had a substantial amount of wetlands. Mr. Gowan answered yes. He = said that part was satisfied. Mr. Culbert said he wouldn’t support half the road being built, based on = past experience and the current housing market. He said he would want to see the= whole road to base coat. Mr. Gowan = said he could indicate to the applicant that the Board was uncomfortable making a decision without them coming in and showing what they were proposing. He believed it was approved within= the past two years.

Mr. Doherty asked that th= e Board to address the language regarding back lot standards. He questioned the intent of the language. Mr. McNamara said i= t was to allow a landowner to access land. He explained that the Planning Board couldn’t create a non-conforming lot. Mr. Culbe= rt said the board wasn’t concerned with the frontage because the Board of Adjustment would advise regarding such.&nb= sp; He said the concern was with cascading one-acre lots. Mr. McNamara said anyone wanting to request that type of situation had to go to Zoning for a variance. Mr. Doherty asked if the variance = would then be split between the lots. Mr. Gowan said as Zoning Administrator, it would be his decision and provided an example of how the ruling would be made.&n= bsp; He said it would be done on a case-by-case basis.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

October 1, 2007 –

Map 16 Lot 13-125-15 Judy Cooke – = Orchard Lane, Pineridge Road & Surrey Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Seeking a Spe= cial Permit for a Wetland Conservation District crossing

Map 41 Lot 6-126 – = Nashua Redimix = 211; Bridge Street (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant

October = 15, 2007 -

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 2= 72 John Alosso – Main Street &a= mp; Route 38 – Seeking re-approval of Site Plan that was originally appro= ved in 1989 for 25,000SF Reta= il Building

MINUTES

Septe= mber 6, 2007

MOTION:

(Culbert/Croteau) To ap= prove the September 6= , 2007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:25 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