PB Minutes 10-01-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 1, 2007

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

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paul Da= dak, Roger Montbleau, Jason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Selectmen Representative Robe= rt Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. McGlynn to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 4 Lot 10-248 MZL Realty, LLC –= ; Bridge Street (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed Change of Use from flea mar= ket to a Tanning Salon and Seeking Special Permit due to portions of existing pavement being located within the Wetland Conservation District<= /u>

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.

Leo Zisis came before the= Board to discuss his request. He sa= id a few years ago he and his partner purchased the Mobil station as well as the abutting property. They were planning a phased development. The request currently before the Board was f= or a change of use from retail into a service.&= nbsp; The building would also be altered to have a farmer’s porch on front.

Mr. Gowan told the Board = how the applicant had kept the Mobil station very tidy and had cleaned up the abutt= ing property (formerly Moe’s flea market). Mr. Zisis provided the Board with = an artist’s rendition of what the proposed building would look like. Mr. Gowan said the footprint= of the building would remain as it was.

Mr. McNamara asked the si= ze of the proposed building. Mr. Zi= sis said the proposed building was approximately 2800SF. Mr. McNamara asked if one business= would occupy the building. Mr. Zisis answered yes.

Mr. Dadak asked what the = building was used as prior to Moe’s. Mr. Gowan said he categorized it as a flea market.

Mr. McManus asked if the = garage was included in the 2800SF. M= r. Zisis said the front was approximately 1300SF and the back was another 1300= SF. He said it was now opened so it was continuous. Mr. Montbleau ask= ed if the building had previously been a kitchen/bath store. Mr. Gowan answered yes.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the photographs and asked if they had been taken while Moe’s was still in business. Mr. Zisis answered yes. Mr. McNamara noted some = of the photographs were dated from 1998 and 2000.=

Mr. Gowan informed the Bo= ard that the building itself would be exactly the same footprint with the exception = of the expansion of the farmer’s porch, which was primarily there to mee= t ADA requirements.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

It was noted that the onl= y waiver request was to continue the use of the gravel driveway around the back of t= he building which was partially in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’). In Mr. Gowan’s view, because the gravel drive was used formally (prior to the WCD rules) he didn’t feel the waiver was necessary, but saw no harm in granting it. Mr. McNamara questioned the Special Permit. Mr. Gowan felt that was appropriate for within the WCD. He said the business was the first= seen as people entered Pelham and was pleased to see someone not just occupying = it, but was beautifying it. He kn= ew that the applicant was planning some upgrades in the future to the Mobile station.&nb= sp; With regard to the gravel drive, Mr. Gowan believed the Fire Departm= ent also wanted it for access. Mr. Zisis said he spoke with John Hodge from the Fire Department who recommended (because the ground was soft) that they put 1.5 inches of gravel down. He said he had done so, to satisfy= the Fire Department. Mr. McNamara= read aloud a letter dated June 12, 2007 from the Fire Department regarding the site plans which they didn’t have any problem accepting such.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Zi= sis to address hours of operation, lighting and parking. Mr. Zisis indicated that the site = plan showed proposed light poles on each side of the building along the parking area. There were seven spaces= in the front of the building. Mr. Zisis said they owned the abutting Mobil station and had a total of approximately 23 spaces. Mr. McNamara asked if the property boundary would have a buffer between the Mobile station and the building being discussed. Mr. Zisis said they owned lots 8, = 10 and 12, which were currently separate lots.&nb= sp; With phase two they would be combining all three properties into one lot. Mr. McNamara asked for t= he hours of operation. Mr. Zisis believed it may be 9am-9pm; six days per week. Mr. McNama= ra asked what type of business was proposed.&= nbsp; Mr. Zisis said they would like to put a tanning salon in that locati= on. Mr. McNamara asked that the water = supply and septic system be discussed. Mr. Zisis showed the location of the well and septic system. He said he provided a letter from = the septic contractor that stated they felt the system was up to date. Mr. McNamara read aloud a letter d= ated October 1, 2007= submitted by Jeff Soucy who reviewed the septic system.

Mr. Dadak asked if the we= ll shown on the south of the building was existing.= Mr. Zisis answered yes. Mr. Dadak asked that the plan be marked ‘existing’. He then asked if the boundaries of= the existing pavement would remain as is. Mr. Zisis said they would like to expand the pavement during phase II. Mr. Gowan said he had been having discussions with Mr. Zisis for some time and explained the possible future plans for the sites. <= /p>

Mr. Montbleau asked if the trailers, trucks etc. that were depicted in the pictures had been removed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zisis said everything had been= removed.

MOTION:

(Croteau/Montbleau) To = accept the site plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request for parking space requirement under 248-72, Site Plan Regulations. Seven parking spaces proposed.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara read aloud t= he request submitted for a Special Permit.&nb= sp; He asked if the existing drive would be used only for emergency acce= ss and further, that there would be no storage of materials or parking or anyt= hing else on it. Mr. Zisis said th= at was correct. Mr. McNamara asked f= or a description of the existing parking in the WCD. Mr. Zisis said the right two parki= ng spaces were contained in that area. Mr. Gowan noted that the ‘finger’ of wetland was man made and sort of a culvert. Additi= onally, with regard to the number of spaces, Mr. Gowan said the tanning salon with = have a specific number of tanning beds, therefore, the parking would match the number of those tanning beds. There was a brief description of the parking.&nb= sp;

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = accept, for consideration, the application for Special Permit.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd typically needed to meetings to accept/grant waivers. Mr. Montbleau felt with the simpli= city of the plan and what it was trying to achieve at the gateway of the Town, he felt it would behoove the Board to make a motion to approve the plan. Mr. McNamara discussed his feeling= s on the issue. He said if it is i= n the regulations and the Board didn’t use it, it should be taken out of the regulations.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = waive the two-meeting waiver requirement and approve the Change of Use.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McNamara and Mr. McGlynn vot= ed no.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = approve the waiver for the number of parking spaces.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara looked at the Special Permit and said he didn’t believe there was any prohibition f= or acting upon it in one meeting. Mr. Gowan didn’t believe there was.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Haverty) To = approve the Special Permit allowing the existing gravel driveway in the WCD to re= main and for some of the existing parking in the WCD to remain.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara believed the= only condition mentioned would be to add the word ‘existing’ to the = well and septic. Mr. Dadak said an= ything existing should be marked on the plan as such. Mr. Gowan noted that he advised the applicant that the proposed lighting should be down facing. Mr. Zisis said that wasn’t a problem and the lighting would be such.&nb= sp;

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the Site Plan subject to indicating, where appropriate, all the existing items on the plan.

VOTE:

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

Map 24 Lot 12-202 Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman Lane – Proposed 2-L= ot 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. Mike Grainger of Grai= nger Engineering discussed the proposed subdivision with the Board. He said one lot would contain the existing house, the proposed lot would contain a new single-family home. He said they received a variance f= or the frontage on the second lot for 150ft. of frontage. The new house would have a new sep= tic and proposed well. The drivew= ay layout was shown on the plan. Mr. Grainger said there were some wetlands on the property. Each lot would be approximately 2.5 acres in size.

It was Mr. Gowan’s = opinion that the plan was sufficiently detailed for the Board to accept such for consideration.

MOTION:

(Croteau/Montbleau) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at a single-family home was being proposed for the new lot. He asked what the topography was like. Mr. Grainger said the l= ot was flat in the front and gradually rising in the back. The second sheet of the plan showe= d the topography. Mr. McGlynn asked= where the wetlands were located. Mr. Grainer outlined the wetlands that were flagged by the Wetland Scientist. Mr. McNamara asked if the new lot contained an excess of 35,000SF of high and dry land. Mr. Grainger answered yes. He said the wetlands were only on = the parent (existing) lot. Mr. Mc= Namara said the well on the proposed lot was up to the side setback. He asked if a waiver had been subm= itted. Mr. Grainger answered yes. Mr. McNamara said typically = the Board had accepted waivers in the past, but stressed that the well has got = to be placed exactly, they didn’t want it going over the line. He said it would have to be site specific. Mr. Grainger said t= hey could make it site specific. = He said the developer realized this. =

Mr. Dadak read the waiver= request for the well radius aloud.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Haverty) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request for the well radius.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Montbleau asked why t= he Board of Adjustment approved the variance for the frontage. Mr. McNamara recalled that there w= as more than enough high and dry land to accommodate another home; the wetlands were on the existing lot. He = said the frontage that was there was almost 400ft. Mr. Grainger said the frontage was 390ft.

Mr. Croteau asked when th= e last drainage study had been done. Mr. Grainger said the house was built in the 1960’s; he noted that the To= wn did the road, and maybe they did one at that point. Mr. Croteau asked if anything had = been done since Ballard road was put in. Mr. Grainger said he didn’t know, they had done a wetland study and that was it. Mr. Croteau = said there was a significant amount of water that ran across Ledge Road from the property being discussed. He suggested that = the Board walk the site. Mr. Grai= nger said there was a wetland area with drainage coming down into a culvert in t= he Foreman area.

Mr. McGlynn asked if the = septic system was existing. Mr. Grai= nger answered yes. Mr. McGlynn ask= ed for an explanation of the area around the wetlands. Mr. Grainger said that area was th= e 4K area; the existing septic was located in the back of the house.

Mr. Croteau asked if the = Board could request a drainage study. Mr. McNamara said they could request a study, but typically, they didn’t request one for a simple one-lot subdivision. He said a site walk may be appropr= iate. Mr. Grainger discussed the drainage, which he believed was coming from the north to Ledge Road. He said up in back the wetland disappeared. Mr. McNamara ask= ed if the proposed lot contained wetlands. Mr. Grainger said the proposed new lot did not have wetlands.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Peter Loosigian, 8 Foreman Lane, said Foreman Lane was a narrow road paved by the Town, but not widened. He said currently it was difficult= for two cars to pass; one would have to pull over and slow down or stop. He was concerned with additional t= raffic from the proposed new home and wanted to know at what point the Town would = decide that the road was too narrow for safe passage. Mr. McNamara asked how wide the ro= ad currently was. Mr. Loosigian believed it varied from 15ft to 17ft. He wanted to know if the Town would require the proposed property to have fire cistern. Mr. McNama= ra said that matter would be referred to the Highway Safety Committee. He said typically that type of sys= tem was proposed for larger subdivisions. Mr. Loosigian understood if the road was over 1000ft. it would be re= quired. Mr. Gowan said it was unusual to r= equire a cistern for a one or two-lot subdivision, however, he felt it was appropr= iate to get comment from the Highway Safety Committee regarding the site. Mr. McNamara said they would revie= w and provide the Board with a recommendation.&n= bsp; Mr. Loosigian said there had been and continued to be drainage probl= ems coming from the Foreman property.

Mr. Dave Foreman, 3 Foreman Lane, said the proposed lot was high and dry at this time of year, but when there= was a melt off, the water seemed to come from every direction. He said got a good amount now, and= was afraid of getting more. He sa= id he was directly across from the new proposed lot.

Mr. Michael Carrier, 30 Ledge Road, said there was always drainage from behind the Foreman property that came down t= o Foreman Lane. He said they were troughs in dirt = up in the woods and two storm catch basins down toward Foreman Lane that were alw= ays adequate until Ballard Road was put in.&nb= sp; He gave a further description of the drainage and explained that the= troughs in the dirt were now rivers. = He was concerned with further clearing and the effects it would have on the current water problems. He said the w= ater problems had never been like they currently were until the new (Ballard) development was done. Mr. McN= amara first, what was previously done was not the applicant’s responsibilit= y; and second, the applicant had to show that pre- and post-development runoff= had to be the same. He said by la= w they were not allowed to increase runoff.

Mr. Dadak asked the engin= eer to confirm where the existing septic system was located. Mr. Grainger discussed the locatio= n of the system.

Mr. Loosigian asked if th= e new leach field would be built by the current owner. He wanted to know the provision for crossing a wetland; it looked to him that the house and leach field were divided by a wetland. Mr. Gra= inger said they would have to go close to the wetland and showed where the wetland stopped. He said that would o= nly occur if the owner wanted to put the septic design out back. He said currently the septic was b= ehind their deck. He said it had be= en there for thirty-five years, had a 1000-gallon tank. Mr. Loosigian asked if a new well = would be dug for the property. Mr. Grainger said it was a possibility, but not until the current well died. He said if the existing well failed/dried up they showed the proposed new location for the well and the septic system.

Mr. Gowan said if moving = the existing structure to the back of the lot, he said he would require that the WCD 50-foot buffer be illustrated, and in addition to the 4K area would lik= e to see a building envelope proposed for the new home and figure out how they w= ould access from the front of the lot to the back. Mr. Grainger said if the owner wan= ted to build a home in the back, he understood that they would have to come back before the Board and request a Special Exception. Mr. Gowan wanted to ensure that the applicant understood. Mr. Gra= inger answered yes. He said right n= ow the existing house, driveway and septic system were inside the WCD.

There was a consensus of = the Board to have the proposed plan reviewed by the Highway Safety Committee fo= r a recommendation of cistern placement. The Board discussed if they wanted a drainage study. They decided to conduct a site walk prior to making a decision regarding having a study done.

A site walk was scheduled= for October 6, 2007= beginning at 8am.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 15,= 2007 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot 1-155 M= opar Construction – Sherburne Road – Seeking 6-month extension of Ma= rch 8, 2007 approval of a 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates met with the Board to discuss the requested extension.

Mr. McNamara said the mat= ter was continued from the last meeting. He said there was some confusion whether the testing for a community well had = been done. He said Mr. Gowan had s= ince learned that it had not been done. Mr. Aspinwall said they had installed a couple wells. They had a problem with production= , no water was found, so no yield test was done.

Mr. McGlynn and Mr. Dadak= recused themselves.

Mr. McNamara believed tha= t an application for a community well was never made to the Department of Environmental Services. Mr. A= spinwall said that was correct; one of the required items was the water supply approval. He said the owner h= ad arranged for the expert from the Contoocook Well Company to be at the meeti= ng; however he was not present. H= e said he’d like the Board to consider putting the plan off until the next meeting. He said they would a= ssure the Board that at the next meeting they would have a well expert present to discuss solutions to the water issue.

Mr. Gowan discussed the permitting process.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the November 5, = 2007 meeting. Mr. Doherty suggeste= d that Mr. Passamonte or Mr. McManus vote in the absence of Mr. Dadak, or Mr. McGl= ynn who had previously been appointed to vote for the evening’s proceedin= gs. Mr. McNamara answered yes, but not= ed the Board would not be voting at the present time.

The Board discussed at wh= at distance the well monitoring should be done. The Board agreed if there was any further testing or drilling done that those abutters with wells within 2000= -feet should receive notification of such. Mr. Aspinwall said that was okay.

Ms. Roula Johnstone, 20 Nicolas Lane wanted to know what type of notice the abutter would receive. There was a brief discussion and t= he Board decided that abutters with wells within 2000-feet should have five da= ys notice prior to any testing or drilling.&n= bsp; Ms. Johnstone said she spoke with a tech person from the company who drilled the well. They told h= er the well was 1240ft. deep and had been hydro-fraced and was still only pumping = 2.5 gallons per minute. She was concerned about the number of wells that would be drilled behind her proper= ty and if it would affect her well again.&nbs= p; She appreciated the fact that she would be notified of any drilling. She wanted to know = what the builder’s intentions were. Mr. McNamara said at this point the builders had an approved plan and they were attempting to process it. He said a lot depended upon the procedure and if they couldn’t= get sufficient water to sustain a community well, they wouldn’t be buildi= ng what was approved and the property would go into some other use. He said the Board would wait to se= e what happened in a month.

The plan was continued to= the November 5, 2007 meeting with the provision that a 5-day advance notice be given of any drilling or = any community well/sustained yield testing.

Mr. Paul Dadak, 103 Sherburne Road (speaking as a member of the public), asked if a level sensor would have to= be put into the wells of the abutters who had wells 2000-feet away. Mr. Gowan said the DES would have = to decide upon the monitoring and would scrutinize it if it moved forward. He said the physical monitoring de= vice would be up to the DES.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the November 5, = 2007 meeting.

Mr. McGlynn and Mr. Dadak returned to the Board.

Map 35 Lot 6-115 Hammar & Sons, Inc. – Site Plan Review of Propos= ed 4500SF Addition to be used for Retail

The applicant submitted a= request for continuance. The plan was= date specified to the November 19, 2007 meeting.

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

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates discussed the plan with the Board.

Mr. McNamara believed the= Board wanted a new drainage study for the plan which had been done. He said Stantec submitted a letter= dated October 1, 2007 that provided their review of the study.

Mr. Aspinwall said the pl= an was a proposed 2-lot subdivision with one lot fronting on Orchard Lane with an existing house (lot 15 – 5+ acres) the proposed new lot (lot 17 ̵= 1; 5+ acres) would have frontage onto Surrey Lane. Both the existing and proposed hom= es were single family homes. Mr. Aspinwall said because of the size of the lots, it was not required to obta= in a Department of Environmental Services approval for the subdivision. He noted there were no direct wetl= and impacts; there was impact within the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’); a permit for which had been submitted. Mr. Aspinwall said they had sent a drainage report to Stantec and had received comments back. He said he spoke with his engineer= ing department and was confident that they could provide additional information= to Stantec. He requested that the Board act on the plan subject to the Planning staff and Stantec being satis= fied regarding the issues.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec Engineering came forward and provided the Board with an overview of their review and concerns. He said = the two major concerns were water detention (confirm amount) and possibly provi= ding more of an outlet control structure and also they were concerned with the maintenance of the detention basin; they suggested granting the Town an easement. He said snow shouldn’t be plowed into the basin.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said with regard to an easement, he felt that easement language should be reached and recorded that described that the maintenance= was the responsibility of the property owner; however, it also grants access to= the Town so if it was not maintained and had an impact on a Town road, the Town would have the ability to address the issue. He noted if the Town went in and d= id work, it would be appropriate for the Town to seek compensation for such wo= rk from the owner. The applicant= or their attorney would need to draw up the language to be reviewed by Town Council, at the applicant’s expense.=

Mr. Aspinwall was asked t= o show the location of the (25ft.x50ft.) basin.&n= bsp; He outlined the area on the plan (to the south of the driveway) and discussed the maintenance for such. He said a 50-foot easement had been set up to access the basin. Mr. Gowan asked if any portion of = the basin was in the Town’s road easement.&nbs= p; Mr. Aspinwall answered no. He said there were existing catch basins in the Town’s easement that would connect to the detention basin.= Mr. Gowan noted that the catch basins would be the responsibility of= the Town to maintain.

Mr. McManus questioned if= it were possible to install a chain-link fence to stop snow from being plowed into = the detention basin. Mr. Aspinwal= l said that they could install something.

Stantec’s comments = were further reviewed. Mr. Aspinwa= ll said they were agreeable to digging a test pit in the area of the detention basin. Mr. McNamara asked if = they were agreeable to the conditions contained in Stantec’s October 1, 2007= letter. Mr. Aspinwall answered yes. Mr. McNamara said any motion to ap= prove the plan would be conditioned upon satisfaction of the concerns raised by Stantec, as well as a redesign of a satisfactory outlet control device and = an easement document, language to be provided to and reviewed by Town Council = at the expense of the applicant. Mr. Aspinwall discussed the t= ype of document that would be needed. Mr. McNamara said in the event that maintenance didn’t occur, the Town wo= uld have the right to go in and maintain the drainage and possibly/hopefully ch= arge the applicant for it.

There was no pubic input.=

Mr. McNamara reviewed the conditions for approval as discussed earlier: 1) satisfactions of the conditions contained in Stantec’s letter dated October 1, 2007; 2) design of a satisfa= ctory outlet control; and 3) buffer to the detention basin. Mr. Aspinwall discussed the purpos= e of the detention basin. Mr. Gowan suggested adding language to the plan indicating that an appropriate snow barrier was to be added, subject to Stantec and Mr. Gowan’s satisfact= ion. Mr. Aspinwall felt that was reasonable.

MOTION:

(Doherty/Montbleau) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.04,a drawing scale.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Dadak/Montbleau) To ap= prove the waiver to Section 10.03,f to not show the locations of existing structures, wells and septic systems within 75ft. of the site.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Croteau/Montbleau) To = approve the Wetland Conservation District Crossing for driveway access (150 linear feet – 1500SF area) to the single family home.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the subdivision plan subject to: 1) a satisfactory design and installatio= n of an outlet control device installed to the satisfaction of Stantec; 2) the items of concern raised in Stantec’s letter of October 1, 2007 be addressed to the satisfaction of Mr. Gowan and Stantec; 3) satisfactory document regarding maintenance, whether it be by way of easement or agree= ment that allows the Town access to the area in the event that the property ow= ner does not adequately maintain the area and provides for the Town recouping= the cost of that maintenance and 4) design of a barrier between the drainage = and the driveway subject to the approval of Stantec and Mr. Gowan.

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

Mr. Dan Blaize of TFMoran= and Mr. David Bissonette of Redimix Company said they were in receipt of Stantec’s letter of September 26, 2007. Mr. Bla= ize said they substantially agree with most of the comments, which seemed to be= mostly ‘housekeeping’ items. He said since the Board wanted them to address the issue of peak tra= ffic counts they provided numbers from 1993 – 2006. He said the trend hadn’t rea= lly changed in the fourteen years; the PM trip seemed to be the peak versus the= AM trip. He said the plant stagg= ered it’s drivers throughout the day so there wasn’t a lot of people sitting at the site. He discu= ssed the average traffic that would be associated with the batch plant, which wo= uld translate to 2.2% in the overall traffic in terms of volume. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe = that volume was the concern, but rather the impact that the trucks would have at= any given time if there were a number of them present. Mr. Blaize said the peak traffic o= f the site would be 10-11 trips in an hour. He said typically between 7am-9am would be busy. Mr. Bissonette= said there would be another peak mid-afternoon and then trail off near the end of the day.

Mr. Doherty wanted to kno= w how the speed of the cement truck/delivery compared to the dump trucks that cro= ssed the street. Mr. Bissonette discussed the trucks and said they were a different configuration of the ro= ck truck that would cross back and forth.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec Engineering said they didn’t receive traffic information or a report = and commented if the Board wanted, the information provided at the meeting coul= d be forwarded to Vollmer (traffic consultant) for review. He said their question was how the proposed operation would interface with the current operations on the site. The concern would be the turning movements and cuing of the trucks.=

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= letter dated September = 17, 2007 from attorneys in Manchester that provided additional information regarding abutter concerns, from those bought up at previous me= etings, regarding traffic concerns. T= he concerns brought up by the abutter’s letter mimicked Stantec’s concerns. Mr. Blaize said they submitted the traffic circulation plan to the Board and to the state in the= ir application for a driveway permit. He noted that the state had issued a driveway permit. He said the right turn lane was an existing function and was not aware of any accidents in that area. Mr. Haverty asked if the addition = of trucks may increase the chances. Mr. Blaize said it had been in operation for several years and had n= ot been problematic. He discusse= d the traffic pattern and the fact that the trucks would be driven by professionals.

Mr. McNamara continued hi= s review of Stantec’s letter and asked if the state had been asked to make a r= ecommendation if a left turn pocket and/or acceleration lane was desirable for entering a= nd leaving the space. Mr. Gowan didn’t believe that had been done.&n= bsp; He noted that the DOT were around Town recently for other areas and = said it wouldn’t be difficult to ask them to make comment on that issue. Mr. Doherty didn’t feel that= a left turn lane would be good for the traffic conditions on Route 38. Mr. Blaize was unsure if Stantec w= as aware of the right turn pocket when the comment was made and felt it made m= ore sense than a tractor trailer school.

Mr. Montbleau noted that = in the past a tractor trailer school was proposed for Route 38 and Jericho Road. He said it was turned down and rec= alled the reason for such was due to the type of traffic, the speed at which they speed up and slow down and the turning radiuses. Mr. McNamara said given the concer= ns, it might make sense to send the information to Vollmer/Stantec to review and f= or expert opinion. Mr. Gowan fel= t it might be appropriate to have the Vollmer personnel to review the information that was provided. He suggest= ed that subsequent to the review, Mr. Blaize, Stantec, Vollmer and him get together to try and narrow the items of concerns down prior to coming back = to the Board. Mr. McNamara felt = that was a good idea to have a joint meeting to reduce the areas of conflict. Mr. Gowan said he would like the recommendations incorporated into a revised plan set that was submitted to = the Board.

Mr. Gowan noted that a le= tter from the Fire Department had been received indicating their inability, as currently equipped, to handle a confined space rescue. He said he asked the Chief for more information regarding the type of equipment they were lacking and the kinds= of costs they would have. He said he’d like resolution on the topic.&n= bsp; Mr. Bissonette said they would be open to having a discussion with t= he Fire Department.

Mr. McNamara asked the ap= plicant if everything else was agreeable. Mr. Blaize said he wanted to know if the Board had a ‘good feeling’ of the waivers that were submitted. Mr. McNamara asked that the waiver= s be reviewed and read them aloud as follows: 1) Section 248.23 - requirements f= or final topographic plan; 2) Section 248.33 c – driveway width and entrance; 3) Section 248.35 – landscaping; 4) Section 248.34 – drainage; and 5) Section 248.36 – lighting. It wasn’t believed that there would be a problem with any of the waivers, absent something coming up.

Mr. Gowan suggested havin= g the joint meeting after Vollmer personnel had reviewed the traffic information submitted. There was further discussion regarding having information forwarded prior to holding a meeting.

There was not public inpu= t.

Mr. Bissonette asked if t= he Board had any additional questions regarding the environmental aspect of the plan= . Mr. McNamara reviewed Stantec̵= 7;s comments to see if Mr. Roulan, the applicant’s environmental consulta= nt, could address any issues so he wouldn’t need to attend the next sched= uled meeting. There was concern regarding the system and what would occur if there were problems. Mr. Roulan said maintenance record= s were common place and suggested they be kept on site available for inspection if someone had a reason to review them. Mr. Gowan agreed. Mr. Hertrich felt that would be acceptable as long as there was a note on the p= lan indicating that the records would be kept on site. It was also noted by Mr. Roulan th= at the facility was required by law to have a Spill Prevention Control Counter-mea= sure plan in place at the site so they would know how to deal with an emergency spill in the event one occurred. There was then a brief discussion regarding the end-use plan which h= ad been provided, but was not specific to the type of commercial development.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Blaize suggested if there wasn’t a major change to the traffic patterns, he believed the site w= ould be appropriate for retail.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the November 5, = 2007 meeting.

SITE WALK – October 6, 2007

Map 24 Lot 12-202 Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

October = 15, 2007 –

Map 24 Lot 12-202 Jay Gagnon – 4 Foreman Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

November= 5, 2007 –

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherbur= ne Road – Seeking 6-month extension of March 8, 2007 approval of a 40-Un= it Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District=

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

November= 19, 2007 -

Map 35 Lot 6-115 Hammar & Sons, Inc.= – Site Plan Review of Propos= ed 4500SF Addition to be used for Retail

MINUTES

Septe= mber 17, 2007

MOTION:

(Haverty/Croteau) To ap= prove the September = 17, 2007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Montble= au and Mr. McGlynn abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:05 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