1-21-10

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

AGENDA FOR THE JOINT MEETING OF THE

PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

January 21, 2010

Planning Board Chairman P= eter McNamara called the joint meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

The Planning Board Secret= ary Paul Dadak called roll:

Planning Board:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy C= ulbert, Paul Dadak, Roger Montbleau, Tim Doherty, Jason Croteau, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Planning Director/Zoning Administrat= or Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Selectmen Representativ= e Robert Haverty

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

Zoning Board of Adjustment:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Svetla= na Paliy, Peter McNamara, David Hennessey, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Bill Kearney, Alternate Chris LaFrance, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Planni= ng Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Robert Molloy

JOINT CASE

Map 41 Lot 6-118 /= BOA Case #2430 - PATEL PLAZA, LLC -= 59 Bridge Street Map 41 Lot 6-118 - Site Plan Review of Proposed New Gas Station/Convenience Store with 8 Filling Locations & Offices for Commer= cial Use and Seeking an “Area” Variance to Articles III & VII, Sections 307-12, 307-39 & 307-41 (B) to permit the proposed building to= be located 15ft. from Pulpit Rock Road rather than the required 60ft. and the canopy above the proposed gas pumps to be 20.6 feet from Bridge Street rath= er than the required 60ft. Also = to permit a portion of the proposed building,= a retaining wall, grading for access and parking, a portion of underground storage tanks, a concrete pad and propane tanks to be located within the Wetland Conservation District.&= nbsp;

Mr. McNamara explained to= the Boards how the hearing would proceed. The Planning Board would hear the proposal first.

Mr. Gowan noted that because of the joint meeting, there was only one abutter notification. Mr. Dadak read = the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had difficulty with notification.

Attorney Bill Mason along= with Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, and Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Servi= ces representing the applicant, came forward to discuss the proposal. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan set pr= ovided to the Board showing the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements to the parcel. T= hey will be requesting waivers for the following: 1) Section 248-32 - the number of parking spaces ̵= 1; 84 spaces required – 35 spaces requested, and 2) Section 248-41,e to all= ow a septic system under the parking area. He noted they would also be requesting a variance from the Zoning Bo= ard for the setbacks, as well as needing a waiver from the Planning Board to Section 248-31, C - setback to allow parking and building to be within 50ft= . of a wetland.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= waiver requests had been submitted in writing.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi said the waivers were noted on the plan. Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Zohdi to su= bmit a written request for the waivers delineating the reasons for the requests. Mr. Zohdi said he would.

Mr. Zohdi continued his r= eview of the plan and discussed the site building, drainage and tank. He said they were proposing two treatment swales. They are requesting two curb cuts onto Route 38 from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation. Mr. Zohdi sai= d they are also requesting a curb cut from the Town so they could have access from= Pulpit Rock Road. The lighting and landscaping was specified within the plan.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed lighting was Dark Sky compliant.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Zohdi stated that the proposed erosion control, general maintenance and procedures were detailed = in the plan. There were also specifications for the pavement, sidewalks and handicap access. The drainage detail was outlined.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was a depiction of the Island/Apron detail. Mr. Zohdi noted that the plan included a copy of a septic design his office had done = in 2002. They would like to keep= that system; the plan will show the area for a system in the future.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Go= wan if the plan contained enough information for the Board to accept it for consideration. Mr. Gowa= n told the Board that it was a complete plan and advised that they accept it for consideration.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd would accept the plan for consideration on a conditional basis because the presen= ted plan had some significant departures from the Town’s Zoning Ordinance= . He said if the Zoning Board denied one, or all of the variance requests, he wo= uld ask the Planning Board to deny the plan as not complying with zoning. Mr. Zohdi said he expected that answer.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental conducted a study of the parcel. He said he had done a functional assessment of what the wetlands were doing, which included a site specific = soil map report. He discussed the history of the site, wetlands and current drainage flow. He then discussed the wetland and = its functions. He said the storm = water was effectively being treated and was infiltrating because of the sands and gravels. He said from a stand= point of flood control potential, it was very good. Mr. Gove said because the soil had= sands and gravels, the ground water use potential was high. He stated there was not much run o= ff going through the existing culvert area.&n= bsp; He commented that the development would enhance the wetland system mainly due to the fact that the storm water management would be improved.

Mr. Zohdi stated that the= y had met with the Conservation Commission many times beginning June 10, 2009. He said they had staked the site f= or the Conservation Commission to review during a site walk.

Mr. McNamara read aloud a= letter dated September = 10, 2009 from the Conservation Commission to the Planning Board. The following motion was approved = (4-0) by the Conservation Commission at their meeting of September 9, 2009 with t= he consideration that many actions are being proposed that will have a net pos= itive effect on the site: Send a positive recommendation to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment because this proposal improves significantly upon the existing situation with the following conditions: 1) The proposed overflow of parking approximately 14 which would require significant filling in the WCD will be held in reserve = and only built if use of the site proves it is necessary. If it is determined that this park= ing must be built that pervious paving be required. In addition, if a gas station is n= ot approved, parking spaces should be added to the front of the building where= the gas station is being proposed. This proposed parking area is adjacent to Route 38 on the southerly portion of t= he site. 2) All proposed catch b= asins be equipped with oil/water separators.&nbs= p; 3) All roof runoff for the proposed building be directed to dry well= s. 4) The proposed site plan has a landscaping design prepared with significant enhanced planting. In addition, as discussed at the PCC meeting on Septembe= r 9, if possible, have the invasive species removed from the southwesterly porti= on of the lot in the WCD and replaced with native species. 5) Move the proposed fuel storage = tanks to the northerly portion of the lot near route 38 and Pulpit Rock Road as far away from t= he wetland and WCD as possible. = 6) Use grass pavers in the proposed access area to the south of the proposed build= ing from the edge of the loading dock toward the currently proposed area of the underground fuel storage tanks. 7) The culvert under Bridge S= treet be cleaned out to allow water to flow freely out of the wetland on the property. 8) Remove the trail= ers from behind the building, as well as the trash and general debris.

Mr. Zohdi discussed the e= xisting condition of the site and the building location. He said the only drainage currentl= y on the site was one catch basin (76ft.x12” corrugated pipe) that went directly to the wetland with no treatment.= He then reviewed the proposed plan with the pump island and undergro= und tanks. He said the Conservati= on Commission suggested not constructing the proposed additional parking unles= s it was needed. He said the decis= ion regarding the parking would be the Planning Boards. Mr. Zohdi stated that the Conserva= tion Commission also wanted grass pavers (from the Pulpit Rock Road egress), which wou= ld need approval from the Planning Board and the Fire Chief. He requested that the Board’s decision wait until the Highway Safety Committee had the opportunity to comment. He showed the wetlan= d area on the parcel. He discussed t= he proposed drainage and the treatment swales; a full drainage study has been submitted for review.

Mr. Doherty questioned ho= w the grass pavers would affect the water treatment. Mr. Zohdi said it was similar to h= aving porous pavement; the area would need to be raised so the water could be tre= ated underneath.

Mr. Zohdi showed the Board photographs of the existing site. He then reviewed an artist’s rendition of the proposed building as well = as the floor plan. He showed the= Board the locations of the proposed lights. He noted that they were still working on the landscape design.

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f any flashing electronic signs were proposed.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said they weren’t proposing it at this time.

Mr. Gowan asked if there = was contemplation for a canopy at the gas station pump. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. He showed the proposed location and lighting for the canopy. Mr. = Gowan said the Board members might want to see what the canopy looked like. He hoped that the canopy would ref= lect some of the architectural elements of the proposed building. Mr. Zohdi said he would ask his cl= ient to have their architect draft a rendering to be presented at the next meeti= ng. He noted that they hadn’t br= anded the type of gas that would be sold at the station.

Mr. Culbert said he didn&= #8217;t want the canopy to be a box. = Mr. Zohdi said he would take the suggestion under advisement and speak to his client. Mr. McNamara said the= Board may want to see alternative designs for comparison. Mr. Culbert said he wasn’t h= appy with the proposed landscaping. Mr. Zohdi stated they were still working on the landscape. Mr. Culbert suggested that a lands= cape engineer design the landscaping. Mr. Zohdi said a landscape architect was working on the plan. Mr. Culbert said the porous paveme= nt would need to be greatly enhanced for him to approve it. Mr. Zohdi showed the areas where p= orous and non-porous pavement would be used.&nbs= p; He asked the Board to allow him to work with the Fire Chief. Mr. Culbert said he would be willi= ng to sacrifice the setback to have an aesthetically pleasing building.

Mr. Gowan said he needed direction from the Board whether or not to send the plan out to Keach-Nords= trom for review; the applicant would also need to weigh in whether they were wil= ling to take the risk prior to the variance being voted on.

Mr. Dadak didn’t re= call that there would be additional tenants.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi stated that the building would be 7000SF; one tenant would like to have a separate wine and cheese store, something related to the same business. Mr. Dadak said he w= ould want to know the type of tenant being proposed. He then asked if the proposed ligh= ting would have a greater effect on the neighbors than the existing. Mr. Zohdi answered no. He showed the lighting plan and st= ated it would not affect any of the neighbors.&= nbsp; Mr. Dadak questioned what the hours of operation would be. Mr. Zohdi said the plan indicated = twenty four hours, because if the owner was selling gas, they would like to be open late. He said he would need to speak with his client.

Mr. Montbleau discussed c= anopies and common designs for such. = He said canopies were similar to a ceiling with a box like façade around the= m, and open at the top. He expla= ined that the canopy housed the lights for nighttime illumination plus the façade lighting for product branding. Mr. Montbleau warned they would ha= ve to be careful not to trap gasoline vapors (under certain conditions) inside the enclosed area because of electrical fixtures. He commented that canopies should = all be open to the atmosphere for ventilation.

Mr. Gowan noted that it w= ould be ashamed to hide the building architecture behind a canopy. Mr. Zohdi said they would work with their architect and the different brand companies.

Mr. McManus suggested pos= sibly angling the gasoline pumps for ease of traffic flow. Mr. Zohdi said he would review the design.

There was no public input= .

The Planning Board steppe= d down. (The Planning Board heard addition= al testimony. See Below for furt= her action)

The Zoning Board of Adjustment came forward to conduct their hearin= g of case #2430. Chairwoman Pa= liy appointed Mr. Kearney to vote.

Attorney Mason read the v= ariance criteria aloud (as submitted) as follows:

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: It will al= low for the replacement of an older commercial building complex in poor conditi= on with a new, more attractive and higher valued building.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: The location and configuration of the wetland and WCD restricts the site so severely that Variances are needed to do any redevelopment on this site.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = There is no land that can be added whi= ch would satisfy the zoning setback requirements.

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because:&= nbsp; If the variance is granted t= he owners will meet all other building, health, septic, access, fire and energy codes. The proposed developme= nt conforms to the purposes of the zoning ordinance as stated in Article I sig= nificantly better than the existing building.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: It will allow the owners to offer more services to the public from an improved facility and at the same time significantly improve the aesthetics and appearance of this property on Route 38 very near a major gateway into the Town of P= elham and State of New Hampshire.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: A large irregular building in poor condition and of rather cluttered architectural design will be replaced with a new attractive building and a = more functional layout. This should enhance the value of the area.

Mr. Hennessey stated that= he expected to see an economic prong to the application for the area variance. The application sta= ted that the wetland and WCD severely restricted the site and the variance was needed for any development. M= r. Hennessey questioned if a development could still be done on the site using= the same building footprint and not requiring a variance. Attorney Mason stated they could d= o a 9200SF redevelopment which wouldn’t be as functionally efficient as the proposed. He said for economi= c reasons there had to be reasonable business functionality with the proposal. He explained that for any branding company to come to the site, a certain level of pumps and gallon volume wou= ld be required. He noted to have= a convenience store, the owner would need a certain amount of square footage and shelf sp= ace available to make it feasible. Attorney Mason said there were practical reasons to make the design smaller, but economic reasons that say 7000SF is what the applicant needs in order to have a reasonable plan. Mr. Hennessey requested that the statement just made should be attac= hed to the area variance application as the economic argument.

Mr. Hennessey addressed c= riteria #5, with which he was concerned because of the notation of the hours of operation being twenty four hours. He suggested that a 24-hour operation may have some impact on surrounding properties values being diminished. Mr. Hennessey in reviewing the Town’s Master Plan, it looked like the site was on top of one of the = Town’s aquifers. Mr. Gove answered yes. He said the majority of = the area around the site was deep sand and gravel deposits. He said the wetland provided a lot= of infiltration. Mr. Hennessey q= uestioned if there should be pervious surfaces underneath a gas station over a Town aquifer. Mr. Gove stated that= the area under and directly around the pumps should not be. He reviewed the site and the propo= sed runoff and drainage.

Mr. O’Sullivan ques= tioned if there was a need to have an opinion from public safety based on traffic (from the gas station) and the proposed hours of operation possibly being twenty four hours. Mr. Zohdi commented that Wakefield Engineering worked twenty four hours during certain times of the year. He said as= for the gas station, they were still in the process of working on the hours. Mr. Gowan stated that the Highway = Safety Committee would review the plan and consider the hours and traffic. He said there were a lot of concer= ns that both boards should address with regard to the nearby residential compo= nent behind the site. He said he w= ould bring the matter up with the Highway Safety Committee and bring their recommendation back to the boards. <= /span>

Mr. Hennessey discussed t= he culvert and questioned who was responsible for the ongoing maintenance of it. Mr. Gowan said if the cul= vert was located on private property it would be the owner’s responsibilit= y; if it was within the Town road easement it would be the Town’s responsibility, or state’s depending upon the road. Mr. Zohdi said in this case, the Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) would be responsible for t= he culvert. Mr. Ouellette said t= hat information was found out when the culvert for Tony’s Brook was being reviewed. Mr. Zohdi said they= had told the Conservation Commission that they would see to the culvert being cleaned either by them (one time) or the DOT.

Mr. Zohdi discussed the h= ours of operation. He said there was a station in Windham<= /st1:place> that had an agreement with the town’s emergency services. They have a special card to be abl= e to access the gasoline pumps in the event of an emergency. He said they would be glad to work= with both boards to discuss the hours of operation.

Mr. McNamara asked what percentage of the (four acre) parcel was non-wetland and non-Wetland Conser= vation District. Mr. Zohdi said approximately one acre was high and dry.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara was concerned with the density of use being proposed. He asked how close the pumps would= be to Route 38. Mr. Zohdi said the = pumps would be approximately 22ft.-23ft. to Route 38. Mr. McNamara said in looking at th= e plan there wasn’t much more than landscaping between the pumps and Route 38. He stated he would like t= o obtain input (regarding safety) from both the Highway Safety Committee as well as = the Planning Board’s review engineer. Mr. Zohdi commented that the existing building was 30ft. from Route 38. Mr. McNamara understood that there= were upgrades being proposed, but he still had concerns.

Mr. Ouellette said in rev= iewing the plan there appeared to be a measurement of 24ft. from the pump to the island. Mr. Zohdi said the is= land was on Route 38. He said the measurement from the edge of pavement to Route 38 was approximately 57ft.-5= 8ft.

Mr. Kearney believed the = plan showed an improvement to the land. He was concerned with having three tenants in the small space, specifically with parking and the access in and= out f the lot. He said if the pla= n was to have three separate tenants, the additional parking would be needed. He didn’t like that portion = of the proposal.

Mr. McNamara asked if = 216;dry goods’ stores were being proposed for the potential tenants. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. He said the leach bed wouldn’= ;t allow for anything else. Mr. McNamara said it may be good to know the type of tenants that would be going into the space. Mr. Hennessey= noted that once the variance was granted, they could have any retail use tenant.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the Board would have to lo= ok ahead and presume what the uses might be.&= nbsp; Mr. O’Sullivan said the market would drive the type of tenant = that would want to occupy the space.

Mr. Zohdi said the site c= ould only handle a certain amount of septic loading. He said they would be able to have= the convenience store, but the remaining wouldn’t be able to use more than (approximately) 100-gallons per day because of the size of the lot and the amount of high and dry area. =

Ms. Paliy questioned if h= aving a gas station would add to the load since people would have the ability to get out of their cars. Mr. Zohdi = said the site plan would go to the state for approval and they would review the = use, and the loading of the store and the two dry goods stores.

Mr. Ouellette confirmed t= hat the water run off from the canopy would go through a water filtration system as would the water from the site. Mr. Zohdi answered yes and showed how the water would flow and where it would e= nter the treatment area. He said t= he roof drainage would go through the same treatment system. Mr. Ouellette asked if the site wo= uld be raised. Mr. Zohdi said it wou= ldn’t be raised much and showed the area that would be altered and have a retaini= ng wall. He said the front of th= e site was level with Route 38 and couldn’t be raised. Mr. Ouellette asked if the site wo= uld be curved in such a way so the runoff would flow into the drainage system. Mr. Zohdi said the entire si= te is curved; they are handling all the drainage in their drainage (catch basin) system before it is sent to the treatment swales.

Ms. Paliy asked for public input. Mr. McNamara informed = there was a gentleman who wanted to speak, but didn’t see him in the audience. There was no public input.

A site walk was scheduled= for January 30, 2010 at 8:30am. The case was date specified to the= Board of Adjustment’s March 8, 2010 meeting. =

Mr. Zohdi stated they didn’t object to the plans being forwarded for engineering review.

The Zoning Board of Adjus= tment stepped down.

The Planning Board returned to hear additional testimony.

Mr. McManus discussed the gasoline station farther south on Route 38 (Mobil station). He said the Board had left it up t= o Mr. Gowan with respect to the septic loading and parking and questioned why it couldn’t be done in this case. Mr. Zohdi said the last page of the plan had information.

Mr. Gove stated because o= f the treatment taking place, there would be a reduction in the pollution dischar= ged to the surface and ground water He said there would be flood protection by slowing the flow down. He noted that the wetland wasnR= 17;t unique or unusual and the additional encroachment into the WCD wouldn’= ;t affect the functional value of the wetland. The better control of runoff would enhance the wildlife habitat valu= e. The removal of pollutants will rec= harge the ground water. In summary,= Mr. Gove believed that the proposed would be a vast improvement from the standp= oint of wildlife.

Mr. Doherty didn’t = feel it was a good idea to use porous surfaces (or grass pavers) on commercial sites. He said vehicles leaked fluids and people litter with no consideration. He said normal pavement would prov= ide control over water runoff. He= was concerned that eventually the porous surface would need to be replaced beca= use of contamination, which would disrupt the business. Mr. McNamara said the use of porous surfaces was reviewed on a case by case basis and was appropriate in some circumstances. Mr. Gowan stat= ed there would be review of the proposed plan. He said many would argue that the best application use of porous pavement was in parking lots. In regard to the application of grass pavers, Mr. Gowan said those areas are typically not plowed, and unless they were, they would be useless for their intended purpose of emergency access. He said the Highway Safety Committee would review the plan and provi= de a recommendation.

Mr. Dadak discussed the conversation the Conservation Commission had regarding the porous pavement. When the site walk = was conducted there had been some discussion about moving the tanks and access = for filling the tanks. He noted t= hat the state was highly restricted regarding putting tanks into the ground. Mr. Zohdi said they were currently= doing a couple of projects and working with the Department of Environmental Services. He said their desig= n was for a double-walled tank. Mr.= Gowan said concern about the aquifer was something that everyone took seriously.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said he had an aquifer map that= would show the exact location.

To keep things on track, = Mr. Gowan suggested having the plan sent to Keach-Nordstrom for engineering review. Mr. Zohdi didn’t object.

Mr. McNamara asked the Bo= ard if they wanted independent review of the soils report done by Gove Environmental. There was no comment by the Board.=

The plan was date specifi= ed to March 15, 2010.=

The joint meeting of the = Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment was adjourned.

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January = 21, 2010

NEW BUSINESS

Map 23 Lot 8-18-2 ESN REALTY TRUST / Eric Nabydoski, Trustee – Preliminary Review = of Proposed 7-Lot Subdivision – For Discussion Only. Also applicant is seeking reconsideration in regards to the Right of First Refusal=

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had difficulty with notification.&n= bsp;

Attorney Elizabeth McCorm= ack of Cleveland Waters and Bass along with Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates = came forward to discuss the preliminary review of the seven lot subdivision. Mr. Zohdi said they were proposing= a seven-lot conventional subdivision by extending Heather Lee Lane. The plans being presented were preliminary. To date, the wet= lands were not finalized by Gove Environmental.&= nbsp;

Mr. Zohdi began by discus= sing the cul-de-sac length and explained that he was proposing two cul-de-sacs, one being 2334ft. and the other being 2393ft.&= nbsp; He said they would need to cross a wetland (with a possible impact of 10ft.-15ft) which may require a waiver.&nb= sp;

Mr. Dadak asked how many = units were originally proposed in the 55+ development. Mr. Zohdi said they had originally proposed forty units.

Mr. Culbert stated he wou= ld have to think about (extending) the cul-de-sac length.

Mr. Doherty commented if = the proposal was for a conservation subdivision, the development could be done differently. Mr. McNamara questioned why the applicant didn’t try to do a conservation subdivision. Mr. Zohdi said he discussed the issue with his client and his client wanted to build larger h= omes which they didn’t think would work in a conservation subdivision. Mr. McNamara said the proposed lot shapes were irregular (non-rectangular).&n= bsp;

Mr. Gowan stated because = of the wetlands crossing, he was sure the applicant would meet with the Conservati= on Commission who in turn would provide comment regarding impacts to the wetla= nd and Wetland Conservation District. He said he spoke with Mr. Zohdi reg= arding a conservation subdivision and encouraged the applicant to keep an open mind.

Attorney McCormack stated= there were two major reasons the conservation subdivision didn’t seem appropriate at this point; the first being the investment in the property a= nd the ability to recoup that investment and the second being the desire to maintain continuity/character with the existing neighborhood of Heather Lee Lane.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Mackey, 72 Heather Lee Lane wanted to know if the current cul-de-sac would be cut out if the road were extended. Mr. Zohdi stated it= would be up to the Board and the Highway Safety Committee if the cul-de-sac were = to be left alone. Mr. McNamara a= greed that the decision would be based upon the comments/recommendations the Board received. Mr. Gowan discussed traffic calming and said that was better achieved through a vegetated (cent= er) cul-de-sac. His preference in= this case would be to remove the cul-de-sac.&nb= sp; If that were to happen, the abutter would gain additional area for a front yard. He said the prope= rty owner’s opinion would be valued.&nbs= p; Mr. Mackey wanted to know who would be responsible for the associated costs (i.e. extending the driveway, moving the mail box). Mr. Zohdi stated they (the applica= nt) would be responsible.

Mr. Doug Shawver, 65 Heather Lee Lane was pleased to see the plan and liked it in general. He said he wasn’t pleased wi= th the ‘S’ curve at the end of Heather Lee Lane.&nbs= p; He believed his frontage extended into the cul-de-sac and he would be willing to work with the applicant regarding such. Mr. Shawver questioned how the cur= ve would relate to Heather Le= e Lane (per the regulations requiring a 70 degree curve) if the road was to extend into the proposed lot. Mr. Mc= Namara said the plan would have engineering review. Mr. Zohdi stated they would = need to work with the abutting owners; he would let his client know Mr. Shawver = was interested.

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f the applicant was relying on the previously approved variance condition. Mr. Zohdi answered no. Mr. McNamara said in reviewing the Zoning Board’s conditions for the variance, he saw that the frontage = and lot created would only be used for Senior Housing. He said if that wasn’t the c= ase, the variance was null and void. Mr. Zohdi understood. Mr. McNamara noted that Attorney McCormack had reiterated the desire for a Right of First Refusal for her client. He be= lieved the Town had evidenced a desire to either keep the golf course, or create s= ome kind of permanent conservation space. He was curious how having a second right would change the benefits to Attorney McCormack’s client. Attorney McCormack said the thought was that the Town may not intend= to purchase the golf course. The= ir preference was to have the first priority.= Her client’s goal was to not develop the land at all and opera= te the golf course. Attorney McC= ormack stated their thought was that her client had the means and desire to preser= ve it; they would be happy to have something in writing conveying those rights with restrictions.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = golf course still owned the back lot. Attorney McCormack answered yes.&nb= sp; Mr. Doherty questioned if the applicant was proposing to subdivide t= he land. Attorney McCormack said= the approval at the last Planning Board meeting subdivided the two lots; the pi= ece currently before the Board is thirty acres, the remaining lot is forty acres. Mr. Doherty didn’= ;t feel the Board had jurisdiction on the Right of First Refusal because the l= ot had already been subdivided. Mr. = Gowan believed the Planning Board picked up the Zoning Board’s provision (f= or First Right of Refusal) when the original subdivision (in the context of a senior development) came through. He didn’t feel the Planning Board’s condition would be removed (for the First Right of Refusal) if the applicant decided not to pu= rsue use of the variance. He didn’t think the Town would be interested in running a golf course and felt it might make sense to have a legal document indicating that the appli= cant would like the first right to purchase the golf course in order to run it.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said he could run the idea past= the Selectmen. Mr. Doherty said i= f the Planning Board had jurisdiction over swapping the rights, he wouldn’t have a problem doing so. He w= anted to make sure the other Board members felt the Board could do so. Mr. McNamara said the rights would= come about through private documents. Mr. Gowan stated that the Selectmen never took a position in support= and questioned whether it was necessary for the Board to ask the Selectmen if t= hey wanted to take a position to change their mind.

Mr. McNamara believed the= primary motive of everyone was to protect the property from development. Attorney McCormack stated she woul= d be happy to draft something for review at the next meeting by the Board as wel= l as Town Counsel.

Mr. McNamara suggested th= at the applicant look into the possibility of doing a conservation subdivision. Mr. Zohdi said they would review it.

MINUTES REVIEW

Decem= ber 21, 2008

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of December 21, 2009

VOTE:

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

Janua= ry 4, 2010

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of January 4, 2010

VOTE:

(4-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= and Mr. Dadak abstained. =

SITE WALK – January 30, 2010

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

Planning Board- March 15, 2010:

Map 41 Lot 6-118 /= BOA Case #2430 - PATEL PLAZA, LLC -= 59 Bridge Street Map 41 Lot 6-118 - Site Plan Review of Proposed New G= as Station/Convenience Store with 8 Filling Locations & Offices for Commer= cial Use

Board of Adjustment – March 8, 2010:

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = adjourn the meeting. <= /b>

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:24 pm.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Charity A. Landry Willis

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Recording Secretary