PB Minutes 11-19-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

November 19, 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, Planning Director Jeff Gowan =

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty

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

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 13 Lot 4-139 Bob Peterson – Collin’= s Way – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan provided the Bo= ard with a summary of the project. He = said a letter had been received from Stantec indicating that the original bond for phase I was $385,000 and phase II was $437,000. The current amount being held was $133,809.57. There have been several bond reductions over the course of the project. Stantec submitted a break down of = the remaining work on Collin’s Way and recommended that the bond be reduc= ed by $58,600.57 retaining $75,290 (which contained 10% contingency of the original bond amount).

Mr. McNamara confirmed wi= th Mr. Gowan that the recommended amount would cover the work still needing to be done. Mr. Gowan said it was.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Croteau/Doherty) To re= duce the current bond of $133,809.57 by $58,600.57 retaining $75,290.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Lake Mary of Pelham, LLC – “The Woodlands, Frontier Drive” off Dutton Road – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the request for bond reduction had been date specified to the December 17, 2007 meeting p= er the request of the applicant.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 20 Lot 3-137 Raytheon Company – 50 Bush Hill Road – Proposed Site Plan Review to construct concrete test pads, retaining walls and placement of ancillary support items such as electrical upgrades, office type trailers a= nd internal fencing required for testing of the JLENS program. =

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.

Raytheon Manager Faciliti= es Engineering Bill Cummings and Manager of Raytheon Pelham Test Site Phil VanSteensburg (who was also a Pelham resident) met with the Board to discuss the proposed Site Plan for a minor alteration to their property at 50 Bush Hill Road. Mr. Cummings said Raytheon current= ly owned forty-seven acres and leased an additional twenty acres to the north = as a buffer. He said the construct= ion they were planning was two 26ft.x42ft. concrete pads and one 8ft.x10ft. concrete pad with ancillary equipment to test the JLENS Program. He said Raytheon had been at the s= ite since 1968 and had last come to the Town in 2002 to put up a 900SF addition= on a section of the property which had been withdrawn without prejudice becaus= e of questions regarding noise. He= said they asked to build a noise wall down the side of the property that was affected. To his knowledge, t= here hadn’t been any complaints since then.

Mr. Cummings then reviewe= d the site plan and discussed the testing that was proposed. He said they had taken readings an= d did a complete sound study which had been submitted. He then outlined the site and show= ed the areas for the proposed concrete pads.

Mr. McNamara informed the= Board that the applicant had gone in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and obtained a variance to proceed to the Planning Board for Site Plan review.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Cummings said there w= as an original variance granted in 1968; the verbiage indicated that they expected from time to time that changes would be made, but when doing so they had to come back to the Board. He sa= id during the last meeting there had been questions regarding the noise. He believed he provided the Board = with adequate information regarding noise and radiation. He said they had been a good neigh= bor and would continue. He said t= he program was important to both the military and for Raytheon. He said the JLENS was important to= all the services. He gave a brief discussion regarding the radar and testing that would occur. He explained that the tower would = be put up for testing and put down in the evening. He showed the Board a photograph o= f the proposed tower which would have three tie points.

Mr. McManus asked what pu= rpose the (crushed) stone pad had. = Mr. Cummings said the crushed stone would help the air conditioning units become leveled. He explained how they would be situated. Mr. McNama= ra asked if the air conditioners would run all the time or only during testing. Mr. Cummings said th= ey would only run during testing because they cooled the equipment. Mr. McNamara asked how many hours = testing was done per day. Mr. Cumming= s said they expected testing to go on for six to eight hours per day during peak periods. He said the only tim= e all four systems would be running was when the radar was being tested. He said he had someone go to their= facility in Marlborough and electronically taped the sound of the twin-sister unit and broadcast the sound at the proposed site to conduct the sound study; this was also done in conjunction with all the other equipment running. Mr. McNamara asked if the Marlborough plant conducted similar testing. Mr. Cummings said similar testing was done both in Marlbo= rough and Andover, Ma. He noted that there were advantages to conducting testing in Pelham because of its elevation and free air space ov= er Boston. Mr. McNamara confirmed the testimo= ny given at the Board of Adjustment that the testing didn’t include airc= raft typically. Mr. Cummings said typically they would not expect to fly aircraft in there.

Mr. McGlynn informed that= he worked with the government on missile defense programs but not the JLENS program. He asked where they = would be radiating from. Mr. Cummin= gs from due east, looking up. Mr. McGlynn reviewed the memo submitted and wanted to know if the applicant ‘normally’ radiated through the air, what happened ‘abnormally’. Mr. Cummings said they normally radiated through the air and if it started to c= ome down they had reflective fences; sensors would immediately shut the radar down. He said an expert in the field had submitted information regarding the average radiation and provided government references. Mr. Mc= Glynn asked where the keep zone was located.&nbs= p; Mr. Cummings said from the shelters to the mast during test they wou= ld operate as a keep out zone. M= r. McGlynn asked if the mast was a repeater versus a target. Mr. Cummings said he could have so= meone speak to the question that was more familiar with radar; he knew that the m= ast had a repeater on it and was told that in test they would go up into the atmosphere. He said there were tests that they had to use the repeater as well.

Mr. Cummings asked Mr. Ed= Sidgesy to address the Board. Mr. Sid= gesy (from Londonderry) said they used the repeater= like a target because it was a calibrated signal with a known level. Mr. McGlynn asked if the radar was= being tested at near field range. M= r. Sidgesy said before it came to Pelham it would be tested in the near field range so they would know the array was calibrated. He said they were transfer modules= so they would only use a portion of the array; they wouldn’t do one elem= ent at a time. Mr. McGlynn confir= med that someone had done the math of radiating multiple modules. Mr. Sidgesy answered yes.

Mr. Gowan said he took a = phone call from an abutter and answered a question that he would now like confirm= ed by the applicant. He said the abutter wanted to know if they would notice anything different from what was currently going on at the site. He told the abutter that they wouldn’t based on the information that was provided. Mr. Cummings said t= hat was correct. He said there sh= ould be no change in operation or sound level; it should be seamless.

Mr. McNamara pointed out = that Raytheon agreed, on their own, to notify (abutters) beyond the required leg= al limit of abutters. Mr. Cummin= gs said on average he went four to five hundred feet. He said they were trying to be pro= active which was why they did the noise generation and study and found some enhancements they could do to make it better for their employees and drop t= he sound levels even though they didn’t seem to be a problem now.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = noise reduction system was something they were doing on their own to reduce noise. Mr. Cummings said they= found when doing a complete study of the site and found on the Patriot side of the hill that the duct silencers had degraded.= He said new test silencers were brought in and they found that they could reduce the sound.

Mr. McNamara asked that t= he applicant discuss compliance and inspections to be sure that the materials being tested were within safe ranges. Mr. VanSteensburg, being the Pelham site manager, discussed the prec= autions taken to keep employees and abutters safe.= Mr. McNamara asked if additional lighting would be installed. Mr. Cummings said there would be a change in the lighting to be more energy efficient and placed on a timer. The lights will be down cast light= s with back wash reflectors. Mr. McN= amara asked how the materials for testing be transported to the facility. Mr. Cummings said they would be transferred by truck on a flat bed over the period of a week. Mr. McNamara asked if there would = be a continuous stream of traffic on the road.&= nbsp; Mr. Cummings said it would not be a continuous stream of traffic. He said did expect there to be twe= lve to fifteen people coming in their automobiles to work on an as need basis.

Mr. McGlynn asked if just= the radar would be tested or if the cooling unit would also be tested. Mr. Cummings said it was a complete setup. Mr. McGlynn asked if a= ny Glycol would be used. Mr. Cum= mings said to his knowledge, no Glycol would be used because they were dry cooler systems.

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = accept the plan for consideration. <= o:p>

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Frances Chadwick, 93 Bush Hill Road she had resided in her home for fifty-seven years. She said over the years it had been brought to Raytheon’s attention that there were incidents of breast cancer on the arch. She said = the original radar ran from east to west and they were located on the west side. She discussed the vario= us people that had developed breast cancer over the years, including herself.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She was very concerned and said it seemed very strange that the arch directly opposite of the radar on the property had cancer (preferably breast cancer) in almost every house along = that arch. She questioned where th= e arch landed. She said she had three granddaughters that she didn’t want to have to go through it. She felt they needed to have more = done to find out where the radiation was flowing (from the original pad).

Mr. McNamara asked if the= re was ever a report that either Ms. Chadwick or her neighbors made to the state or another authority to investigate. Ms. Chadwick said she reported it to her Oncologist (at Lowell Gener= al) and it was to go into a report. There was nothing filed at a state level. Mr. Cummings said until this time = he had not heard of any situation like that in the Town; it was the first time he heard of it. Mr. McNamara ask= ed if there was an arch of radar. M= r. Cummings said the radar was in test basically in the air, not at ground level. He said the proposed r= adar would be in the west looking east. He said there was currently radar in the east looking west and up th= at had been there since 1984. He= said it was looking more toward the back of the property than the front. He reiterated that it was the firs= t he had heard of the situation prior to the meeting. Ms. Chadwick said it might have be= en before Mr. Cumming’s time, but she knew that it had been brought up s= ince the first case possibly fifteen years ago and it had progressed over the la= st few years. She said there were other cases with different forms of cancer in the area. She said the Cancer Society had co= me out and said the basic cause of breast cancer was radiation. She said she wasn’t happy wi= th the situation and didn’t know what the new proposal would add to it.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Go= wan if he was aware of any report of incidences.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said they had gone through the file carefully and saw no record of any complaint. He a= sked if anyone from Raytheon that might be able to speak to the issue or the eff= ects of radar.

Mr. VanSteensburg said th= is was the first he heard of the issue. He said with regard to radiation and the zones they test for and the energy le= vels they look at, they do a 360degree around the radar. He said the people most susceptibl= e to any radiation issues would be the people working on the radar. He said he had worked at the site = for six years (and previously twenty years ago). He said one of the things of utmost importance was the safety of their personnel and went on to discuss the saf= ety measures and controls that they measured.&= nbsp; He said there were keep out zones where they envisioned there could = be potential power level issues. He said they were very cognizant of the emissions off the property. Mr. McNamara questioned how the le= vels of magnitude from radiation being emitted from the tests/facility compared = to a CAT scan, regular x-ray or MRI. Mr. VanSteensburg said he was not qualified to make that relation. Mr. McNamara asked if the workers = had any lead shielding to protect them. Mr. VanSteensburg said it was not necessary. He said any lead shielding was bui= lt into the equipment for people working on it.

Ms. Chadwick said she jus= t wanted her comments on the record in case there were any more incidents on her hill.

Ms. Denise Oujaimi, 54 Bush Hill Road said she lived next door to the site. She said she had worked for several years at a cancer center and her biggest concerns when she read the paper was that radiation was the second reason for people getting cancer. She said she had healthy eight year old twins who attended Pelham Elementary and was concerned about air and water quality and radiation. She wondered what the Town’s responsibility was in terms of what Raytheon was saying was the correct inf= ormation so they could stay safe.

Mr. McNamara said there w= as a matter of common sense and would find it hard to believe that the company w= ould knowingly expose their own workers to an elevated risk of illness. He said the applicant had describe= d some of the precautions taken. He = said in terms of obligation of the Town, the applicant had described the mainten= ance and supervision that was happening at the site to ensure what they were tel= ling the Board was happening, was happening.&nb= sp; He said they had to comply with certain federal standards and testim= ony was given that they were exceeding those standards. Mr. McNamara said it was a bit bey= ond the Board’s understanding. They could make inquiries, but as far as they knew, there had been no reports of elevated risk level or studies of which by the state or the Town.

Ms. Oujaimi said it was g= ood that Raytheon was doing internal studies and questioned if the Town paid for som= eone who was not related to Raytheon to come in and ensure the safety of the Tow= n. Mr. McNamara said because of the n= ature of the testing and the fact that they were working on military weaponry and systems, he didn’t believe the Town had jurisdiction unless there was= a matter of public health and they knew that there was some endangerment. Mr. Gowan said typically it was th= e site work and impacts from development that the Board required independent revie= w of a plan. He said that aspect o= f the proposed plan was insignificant in terms of drainage and site work. Mr. McNamara said Raytheon had sub= mitted a letter dated = October 26, 2007 from Paul Belmont to William Cummings that summarized the radar levels. Mr. McNamara re= ad pertinent portions of the letter into the record. Ms. Oujaimi asked if the lett= er was addressing people within the building.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said the letter was addressing any neighbor or any pers= ons in Pelham. Mr. Montbleau felt= the letter should be made available to the abutters. Mr. Cummings said he would be happ= y to make copies of the letter. He= said he shared the concern that Ms. Oujaimi had for her children and would have = no problem with his children or grandchildren living in the same house that she was in. He said he had worked= for Raytheon for forty years and had never put him or their employees at risk. =

Mr. Doherty asked if the = abutters had tested their houses to find out what their elevation of Radon was. Ms. Oujaimi said when they purchas= ed the house four years ago they tested for Radon and were fine.

Mr. McGlynn asked if the = military or range safety personnel reviewed the Pelham facility. Mr. VanSteensburg said before anyt= hing is brought to the government it was demonstrated in Pelham. Mr. McGlynn asked if the independe= nt range safety group had reviewed the site.&= nbsp; Mr. VanSteensburg answered no. He noted that they had trained the Army, Navy and Air Force at the site. He said the equipment typically had gone from Pelham and then to a range and had never had an iss= ue with it.

Ms. Oujaimi wanted to kno= w how long construction was expected to take and what the noise levels would be.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Cummings showed where construc= tion would occur. He said it would= take an estimated twelve weeks. The construction would be done during daytime hours and would begin prior to 7am-7:30am. Mr. McNamara asked if any blasting= would occur on site. Mr. Cummings d= idn’t anticipate any blasting and said they would have to notify people if they did.

Mr. Gowan informed if any abutters wanted a copy of the information from the meeting, they should con= tact the Planning Department at 603-635-7811.&n= bsp; Mr. VanSteensburg said if anyone had questions for him, he could be contacted at direct number 603-635-6801.&n= bsp;

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the Site Plan.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Map 41 Lot 10-248 MZL Realty, LLC – 12 Bridge Street – Proposed Change of Use from a Tanning Salon to “Advanced Spa & Pool”

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. Gowan informed the Bo= ard that the applicant had come before the Board a couple meetings ago for a change-of-use from Moe’s Flea Market to a tanning salon. He said that plan didn’t rea= ch fulfillment. He said they dec= ided they didn’t want to proceed with the tanning salon. He said the applicant reviewed the building and decided to seek a different use and also to tear it down and re-build on the same footprint. He said he gave them permission (in terms of zoning) to tear the building down= and re-build the building in the same footprint; although the applicant would l= ike to eventually expand the site.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering, representing MZL Realty Trust said the plan had come before the Board last month for a change-of-use which didn’t happen. Since then, Advanced Pool & Sp= a has shown interested in trying to rent the space and had worked out a deal to m= ove from Pelham Plaza to the proposed property. Mr. Maynard explained that Advance= d Pool & Spa occupied 12,000SF – 13,000SF (9000SF retail/4000SF storage)= at the Pelham Plaza and would down-size to move = in the proposed space of 2900SF. He outlined the building’s footprint.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara asked if the= y were seeking to expand the footprint. Mr. Maynard said they would rebuild on the existing footprint. He noted that there had been an ov= erhang on the front left corner of the building (7f.tx12ft.) that the applicant wo= uld like to square off that portion of the building. He said later in the meeting he ha= d an application for the Board to review that explained the applicant’s de= sire to expand the building. Mr. McNamara asked what square footage the building had been. Mr. Maynard said the building had = been 2803SF. He then went back to = his review of the lot. He said in= the current configuration there was availability for seven parking spaces in the front of the property. The lo= t was mainly a gravel surface and when the property was finished they would maint= ain a gravel drive around the building for fire apparatus.

Mr. Maynard said in summa= ry the proposal was to change the use and work with the Board to reduce the number= of parking spaces. He said Mr. Z= isis (owner/applicant) also owned the abutting parcel (Mobil station) and could = use overflow parking on that site while they worked through the next site plan approval for the expansion of the building. He said they would like to finish = the renovations by January/February, 2008.&nbs= p;

Mr. McNamara said the red= uction was substantial in size from the current location of Advanced Pool & Sp= a and questioned if they anticipated a reduction in customers. Mr. Maynard said they would reduce= their display and inventory. He sai= d the owner had other stores and the availability at those stores for storage. He said they would like to stay in= the community and downsize.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Ma= ynard to address the well and septic. = Mr. Maynard said currently the site was serviced by a well toward the rear of t= he property and there was a septic located near the front and in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’).= He said they saw no failure in the septic and the well was producing= a good quantity of water. He sa= id as part of the future development of the site they would be installing a new s= tate approved system and a new well. Mr. Maynard then showed an artist rendition of the proposed expanded building.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was a brief discussion regar= ding the rendition and what the applicant was proposing at this time. Mr. Maynard discussed the intentio= n of Advanced Pool & Spa to reduce their display area. Mr. Montbleau asked if it was their intention to expand into the future building once it was built on the site. Mr. Maynard said it was= a possibility, but right now they were looking to stay into the community. He said it would take a while for = them to obtain site plan approval for the remainder of the building. Mr. Montbleau noted that storage w= ould be a concern because of the chemicals.&nbs= p; He questioned if the products would be stored within the building or outside. He noted there was a= lso a wetlands issue on the lot. Mr. Maynard understood that the owner (Advanced Pool & Spa) owned a warehou= se in another community where he did the majority of storage. He said it was not anticipated to = have outside storage. Mr. McNamara= said the Board could stipulate that there not be outside storage. Mr. Gowan noted that the Fire Department had oversight over chemical spill prevention and believed any business that had that type chemicals was required to have a spill plan on = file with the Fire Department.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the proposed building.

Mr. McManus said he visit= ed the site several times and felt the applicant ‘jumped the gun’ and = went ahead of what Mr. Gowan allowed. He discussed the work that had been done on the site. He asked where the septic system w= as located. He wanted to know wh= at Mobil would do for their customers if some of the parking was shared with t= he proposed. Mr. Maynard said th= ey had the property surveyed by Patriot Land Surveying and was provided with an as= -built of what was on site. He said = they had an idea of where the septic system was located, but had not excavated it because it would be more detrimental to the system than to just let it func= tion in its capacity at this point in time.&nbs= p; Mr. Zisis said when he came before the Board for a change-of-use from retail to a tanning salon, he submitted a letter from a septic person who inspected the system. He said= they made a new cover for the tank and went on to show the Board where it was located (approximately 8ft.-9ft. beyond the building line). Mr. Gowan said much of the excavat= ion work had been done prior to the building being torn down. He said the new electrical service= was part of the original plan and had been properly permitted. Mr. Zisis explained what electrica= l work had been done on site.

Mr. McManus wanted to kno= w where Mobil would have parking if the proposed building used seven other their spaces. Mr. Maynard said the proposed building had seven spaces and if there was a need some of the spac= es could be shared between now and the site plan they would be bringing forward. Mr. McManus asked if people would have to walk out onto Route 38 to access the parking. He questioned if there was wetlands between the two sites. Mr. Ma= ynard said there was ample dry land between the drainage ditch and the street.

Mr. Montbleau reviewed wh= at the Board was being asked. He sai= d the request was for a new change-of-use approval. He said the Board approved the tan= ning salon and now the applicant was seeking approval for a pool company. He said he knew the building and f= elt the prudent method would be to reconstruct using new code and make the buil= ding structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing. Mr. McNamara said the request in f= ront of the Board was a change-of-use and a waiver for parking spaces. Mr. Gowan said he had spoken with = the property owners and engineer and noted there were two separate properties f= or Mobil station and one separate parcel being discussed. He said the applicant was required= (from a formal planning approval) to combine the Mobil properties, which they pla= nned to do. He said they also plan= ned to merge the third lot. He said merging the lots only required the Chairman’s signature and saw no re= ason to wait to a later date.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the request and what the previous change-of-use consisted of.

MOTION:

(Doherty/Croteau) To ac= cept the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Doherty/Montbleau) To = accept the waiver from the Site Plan Regulations (248-32) for parking space requirements; seven spaces requested where twenty-eight spaces are requir= ed.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara believed mos= t would agree that twenty-eight spaces were too many given the property’s location in a sensitive area. Mr. Maynard said at this time, that was the reason for the request.

Mr. Doherty believed since Advanced Pool & Spa had been in Town for some time they would know what parking requirements they had versus the tanning salon that didn’t know. Mr. McNamara said one t= ime parking would be a concern was during the tent sale. Mr. Maynard said they wouldn’= ;t have room at the proposed location to do the tent sale. There might be some sort of sale b= ut not the same size. He said he was downsizing to stay in the community.

Mr. McGlynn said the orig= inal plan was to use the existing building.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara understood that the building had been torn down. Mr. McGlynn said the current reque= st was to build within a WCD and flo= od plain and wanted to know if a new variance was needed. Mr. McNamara said it was an existi= ng non-conforming structure and didn’t believe a variance was required if there was not going to be an unnatural expansion. Mr. Gowan said it was his opinion = that a variance was not required as long as they stayed within the same footprint. Mr. McGlynn asked = if there were codes that would have to be met to build within the 100-year flo= od plain. Mr. Gowan said there w= as nothing in the Town’s regulations to preclude it. He said the wetland ‘finger&= #8217; was a man-made drainage ditch. He said there were wetlands behind the property. He said the next phase would requi= re them to go to zoning and have a full site plan review. Mr. Gowan noted when the original building was being demolished a section of the dilapidated foundation colla= psed and had to be rebuilt. He sai= d the height was also adjusted to make the building handicap accessible (ADA compliant). Mr. McGlynn asked if the Town was = taking on a liability for allowing the building in the flood plain. Mr. McNamara said all the current building codes would have to be met. There was a brief discussion regarding the building and its use. Mr. Gowan said he limited the buil= ding to the foundation that was there.

Mr. Gowan discussed the p= arking and suggested that possibly employees be limited to parking at the Mobil station. Mr. McNamara asked i= f any consideration was given to impervious surfaces. Mr. Maynard said right now they we= re trying to work with what they had on the site. He said as part of the large pictu= re to the property they would get further into improvements.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Doherty wanted to kno= w if just the left section of building was built if it would look like the artist’s rendition. Mr. Maynard said they were reconstructing the building with that character in mind. He said it would take s= ome time to go through the planning process for the remainder of the building/p= roject. He said they would like to constru= ct the building in the hopes of having the whole project come together.

Mr. McNamara asked the Bo= ard if wanted to conduct a site walk. Mr. Maynard said he had a site walk scheduled for the morning of November 24, 2007 (8:30am) with the Conservati= on Commission.

Mr. McManus asked if the = gravel drive around the building would be posted as an emergency access/fire lane. Mr. Maynard said it cou= ld be posted. It was proposed to be= left open as access for emergency vehicles.&nbs= p; They had already spoken with the Fire Department about the access.

Mr. McNamara said typical= ly the Board had a rule that required a waiver to be heard over two meetings. He said the Board tends to have a liberal view of it, but he didn’t.&n= bsp; He said he kept telling the Board that if they continued, someday an applicant was going to come in and ask to waive the two-meeting rule and the Board wouldn’t be able to enforce the rule because they had waived it= on a consistent basis. He asked = the Board if they wanted to make a motion.&nbs= p;

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = approve the waiver to reduce the number of required parking spaces from twenty ei= ght to seven.

VOTE:

(3-3-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Dadak and Mr. McManus voted no.

Mr. McNamara said the app= licant would have to come back to have the waiver voted on. In his opinion, the vote was not o= n the merits.

The plan was date specifi= ed to December 3, 2007.

Mr. Doherty said he would= like to reconsider the motion so the Board could discuss the waiver at a future mee= ting and take a new vote. The Board discussed the meaning behind the motion/vote that the Board had just taken because there was some confusion. Mr. McNamara reiterated that there was a regulation that required waivers to be considered over two meetings before being approved. He asked if the Board wanted to ta= ke another vote due to voter confusion. Mr. Montbleau made a motion to reconsider the vote. Mr. McNamara said the Board should= vote again for clarification. He s= aid the motion would be to waive the two-meeting requirement for consideration = of the parking space waiver. If the motion passed, the Board would then vote to approve the waiver during t= his meeting instead of waiting until the next.

MOTION:

(Croteau/Montbleau) To = waive the (Board’s) waiver requirement of two meetings (to approve a waiver).

VOTE:

(3-3-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Dadak and Mr. McManus voted no.

Map 41 Lots 10-246, 247 & 248 MZL Realty, LLC – Bridge Street/Route 38 – Design Review of Conceptual Lot Consolidation and Improvements to the property including additional retail space and the expansion of the existing convenience store.

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. Joseph Maynard of Ben= chmark Engineering presented a conceptual plan for the Board to review. He said the proposal was to expand= the existing convenience store/gas station and add additional retail space between the g= as station building and the existing retail building that the Board just spoke about. He said the lot was bu= rdened be a Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) that exerts from the wetland complex that surrounds it. He said there was a wetland ‘finger’ that came up between the two properties on the northerly side of the site. That finger was a drainage ditch f= rom a small pipe that was part of the parking lot drainage situation. As part of the application they wo= uld be looking to fill approximately 1500SF of wetland for the construction and as part of that filling it would create a post-development WCD. Mr. Maynard said they would be see= king a variance for the expansion into the WCD to make the building look like the artist’s rendering. He = discussed the drainage and runoff situation. <= /span>As part of the improvement they would look to put detention ponds and treatment swales in the WCD to catch the runoff from the proposed and existing improv= ements on the property. Mr. Maynard = said they spoke with the Fire Department who said they wanted access to three si= des of the building which would be on the left, right and front of the proposed building. He showed the locat= ion of the proposed new septic system. He showed where they would have a proposed increased parking area and noted th= at the drainage would flow into a detention pond to a treatment swale before exiting the property.

Mr. McNamara asked what information they were seeking from the Board. Mr. Maynard said they were looking= to go to the Board of Adjustment regarding the impacts from the buildings and the trade off for doing improvements to the site.

Mr. Doherty asked what di= rection the water flowed on the property. Mr. Maynard said there was a slight crown on the property and showed= the direction the flow went. Mr. Montbleau wanted to know what the drain on the south east corner of the con= crete pad for the pump island. Mr. Maynard said that was a 6inch steel cover that took the water from the park= ing lot to the ‘finger’ drainage in the parking lot. Mr. Montbleau said he was sitting = on the Board when the original tank installation came forward and questioned if th= ere was supposed to be a drain or something in the event of an overspill. Mr. Maynard wasn’t familiar = with the original plan. Mr. Zisis (owner/applicant) said around the pad there were six 1”deep grooves t= hat would contain any spill. He s= aid on site they had speed dry for protection.&nb= sp; He said the reason the drainage was put in to have the drainage flow into the pipe. Mr. Montbleau = said at the time of the original approval (15 years ago) the Planning Board was concerned with sheet flow (into the wetlands) of fuel from when the tankers came in to fill the underground tanks.&nbs= p; He believed the pavement was pitched in the fill area (of the tanker trucks) to catch the fuel which was then supposed to go into some kind of containment, not into the wetlands. He felt the Board should review the minutes from the original meeting. Mr. Zisis showed the direction of the flow. He sai= d the tankers had a automatic stoppage in the event of a spill. Mr. Montbleau knew of the device t= hat would stop a spill from the hose but went on to note that it wouldn’t stop the flow if a hose broke. He reiterated that the Board should review the minutes from the original meeti= ng because it would be important if the site was further developed. He understood that the drainage wa= s for containment purposes rather that drainage flow.

Mr. Gowan pointed out the= fact that during plan review the Board would have the opportunity to correct any shortcomings of the lots. He = said he was excited about the project and noted it was a ‘gateway’ property to the Town and important to the future of Route 38. The Board further discussed the pr= oposed plan and the concerns of the WCD. Mr. McNamara asked what the time period was for construction. Mr. Maynard said they wanted to do= it all at once and said after they went through the permitting process and the Boards it would be a late spring project.&= nbsp;

Mr. Maynard asked that th= e case be continued to the next meeting in the event questions arise regarding suc= h.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the December 3, = 2007 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the matter had been continued, at the request of the applicant, to the January 21, 2008 meeting.

SITE WALK – November 24, 2007 8:30am

Map 41 Lot 10-248 MZL Realty, LLC –= ; 12 Bridge Street – Proposed Change of Use from a Tanning Salon to “Advanced Spa & Pool”

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

December= 3, 2007 –

Map 41 Lot 10-248 MZL Realty, LLC –= ; 12 Bridge Street – Proposed Change of Use from a Tanning Salon to “Advanced Spa & Pool”

Map 41 Lots 10-246, 247 &= amp; 248 MZL Realty, LLC – Bridge Street/Route 38 – Design Review of Conceptual Lot Consolidation and Improvements to the property including additional retail space and the expansion of the existing convenience store.

December = 17, 2008 –

Map 36 Lot 10-10 Lake Mary of Pelham, LLC – “The Woodlands, Frontier Drive” off Dutton Road – Request for Bond Reduction

January = 21, 2008 –

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

MINUTES

Octobe= r 15, 2007

MOTION:

(Croteau/Dadak) To appr= ove the October 15, 2007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Novemb= er 5, 2007

MOTION:

(Croteau/Montbleau) To = approve the November 5= , 2007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Doherty abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Doherty) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:55 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