BOA20080315-site walk Salem 66 -Walgreen's.mht

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SITE WALK – Route 38 / Salem 66

March 15, 2008

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Zoning Board of Adjustm= ent Members: David Hennessey, Lana Paliy, Peter McNamara, Robert Molloy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate Lance Ouellette

Conservation Commission Members: Paul Gagnon, Paul Dadak, Glennie Edwards, Karen MacKay, Lisa Loosigian

Planning Director Jeff = Gowan, Building Inspector Roland Soucy, Planning Board member Tim Doherty, Neil Fineman, JP Fine, Mike & Joyce Sherman, Mitchell Pina, Tom Doff, Atto= rney Paul DeCarolis, Deb Brewster

Deb Brewster introduced s= ome brief concepts and theories. = She presented a map of the proposed pharmacy which included the location of the pharmacy, the footprint of the pharmacy on the property, and also where the pick-up window would be located. She explained how the project would be negatively graded around the site. It would be lifted approximately five feet which was equal to 131.

It was explained that the= re would a wall called a ready wall around the site that would be provided up. Ms. Brewster presented the wall conceptual detail indicating the wall and where the water would be projecte= d to be in relation to that wall under normal conditions. She also explained how that would = be related in a two year storm as well as a one hundred year flood. At this point Ms. Brewster present= ed a cross section profile of the elevations and how the site was negatively gra= ded around Old Bridge Street. She showed the existing grade and = where the elevation would be at 132.5.

Paul Dadak asked how the = wall would be filling with some storage areas.&= nbsp; Ms. Brewster stated that the fill would have no impact in relation to the storage area. She showed profile B where the water would go around a one hundred year storm event and where the site would be in relation to such. She also presented where the stake= s were located on the property and how they were placed, and what they meant in relation to where the property would be graded out.

Peter McNamara asked about frontage and the deficit variance request.= Planning Director Jeff Gowan corrected that it was the setback the applicant had requested. Ms. = Brewster stated that the storm pitch showed the attraction element tower and the set= back relief. Meaning that the vari= ance was for the height of the property in relation to the setback requirements, which was what the Board was currently reviewing.

Dave Hennessey identified= where the property line was located and where the property setbacks currently were.

Lance Ouellette asked if = the tower would exceed the height of the bank (Citizen’s Bank across the street).

Paul Gagnon asked to show= where the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) was located. Ms. Brewster said the wall would n= ot affect the wetlands, only the WCD. <= /span>She also indicated, by project map, where the WCD was located.

Dave Hennessey asked how = the flooding impact would be in relation to Route 38 Plaza and beyond toward Du= tton Road, which last year had a large impact in relation to Beaver Brook. Ms. Brewster showed an area on the= map and explained where the existing impact was now and explained they wanted to move this area away from Beaver Brook.&nbs= p; She explained how that would be done.

Paul Gagnon asked for a n= umber in square footage of what would be returned back to the area and what would be impacted. Ms. Brewster showed= where Beaver Brook was projected to flow in the one hundred year flood and how it= was projected to work its way around the property after having it designed.

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan pointed out when it came to the Planning Board there would be a technical review procedure and pointed out that the Shore Land Protection Act would a= lso be reviewed. Dave Hennessey e= xplained that the applicant was already before the Department of Environmental Servi= ces because Beaver Brook was a Class IV stream. Ms. Brewster explained that Darlen= e Ross has stated that the parking originally was in the back but because of the impact to Beaver Brook, she asked if they could have the parking squeezed to the front and the side by Route 38. That was currently in the design.

Attorney Paul DeCarolis (representative of the applicant) stated that Walgreen’s had shrunk t= he building down to get the building to fit the site. Storage in the building would be l= ocated on the second floor.

All participants then lef= t the area and went to look at the site. <= /span>

Lana Paliy arrived.

Participants went to the = back of the existing area and observed where the stakes were located. They were shown where the stakes w= ere in relation to the parking field. They were also shown where the pilings were behind the current building and where the stakes were located there as well.&nbs= p; They walked along Route 38 and were shown where the stakes and the markings were there. They wer= e told that the parking elevation would probably be equally as high as Route 38. Then they walked to the far stake = along Route 38 where the tip of the island would be.

Dave Hennessey indicated = that an issue would be traffic entering onto Route 38. The design was that vehicles would= come into the back and exit out onto Route 38.&= nbsp; Dave Hennessey pointed out that Tony’s Brook was at the tip, t= he top of Route 38, which was at level 132.&n= bsp;

Karen MacKay asked about = the tree line by the pilings and if filling would be raised as well. Ms. Brewster pointed out a stake b= y the end of that area and indicated where the clearing would be out of the right-of-way.

They reviewed the front o= f the property and were shown where the parking would be located in the front. Ms. Brewster indicated where the p= arking would be elevated and how it would be graded down. She explained where the driver wou= ld come into the paving area. The normal pavement would be removed. Ms. Brewster said a part of the pavement would be given back to conservation. The corner of t= he parking would be across from the bank.&nbs= p; Ms. Brewster showed the beginning of the wall along Beaver Brook (on= the Bridge Street side) and noted it would be 2.7ft. on top of the pavement. She pointed out the alignment of t= he wall.

Tim Doherty saw that the = water was moving upstream and wanted to see it addressed at the Planning Board hearing.

Ms. Brewster showed how t= he water continued along Beaver Brook and pointed out the birch trees she was trying= to protect. She indicated where = the wall would be located near the birches.

The hydrologist, John exp= lained the flow and the change in the stream on the banks and that the water may actually move backward. The s= ilt would still continue in that area of Beaver Brook.

Dave Hennessey asked how = the height would look in the back of the building, from where they stood at the rear of the building. It was = stated that it would be 28ft. in the back and the present height of the building w= as 24ft.

Submitted by Robert Mollo= y

Transcribed by Charity Wi= llis