APRIL 3, 2000


The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.


The Clerk called the roll:


PRESENT:       Jeff Gowan, Paddy Culbert, Henry DeLuca, Victor Danevich, William Scanzani, Alternate Peter McNamara, Alternate Gail Quellette, Selectmen’s Representative Greg Farris


ABSENT:        Michael Soby, Alternate Richard Foote, Alternate Doris Cvinar, Alternate Carl Huether,  Planning Director Vincent Messina


The Chairman welcomed the new board members and reminded them to be sworn in by the Town Clerk.


The Chairman announced that Ms. Ouellette would be voting for Mr. Soby.


The Chairman announced that ML 12-203



ML 6-113-2 - KLN Construction/3 Old Bridge Street South – Request for Final Bond Release


Mr. Gowan stated that Mr. Messina had recommended that the final bond on ML 6-113-2 be released.


MOTION:  (Culbert/Danevich)  To release all of the bond ($2,000.00) on ML 6-113-2 plus interest.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.





ML 6-185 – Thomas Mahoney/Irene Drive/Phase II – Design Change


The Chairman stated that the Planning Director has recommended that consideration of this design change be date specified to the next meeting.  He further recommended that the board review the letter received from the Town Safety Committee.  Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, stated that Phase II of this subdivision was approved by the board subject to review by the Fire Chief.  An 18 ft. wide roadway was proposed to connect Honey Lane with Noela Avenue. 


Mr. Zohdi stated that since that meeting, a new Safety Committee has been formed and they have recommended that the proposed roadway not only be utilized as a fire access road but also an access for all to cross.   Mr. Zohdi reported that he had met with the Planning Director, the Fire Chief and his client.  The Planning Director advised him to come back to the board on April 17th with the proposed design changes. 


Mr. Zohdi reported that the Planning Director has agreed to allow his client to construct 1,000 ft. of the road after a meeting with CLD and posting of sufficient bond with the town. 


Mr. Gowan agreed that the board had approved this plan for this subdivision.  A full connecting road was not approved.  Instead a fire lane was approved with appropriate gating and input from the Fire Chief.   The applicant would like to begin construction on the subdivision road.  The Planning Director has recommended that the design change discussion take place at the April 17th board meeting.  Mr. Gowan expressed concern that this item was placed on the Work Session agenda and noted that the Planning Director was in error by promising Mr. Zohdi that this issue would be on the work session agenda.  Mr. Zohdi requested that the board consider taking this issue up at the work session as promised. 


Mr. Farris asked if the abutters would be re-notified.  Mr. Gowan did not believe that the abutters have to be re-notified. 


Mr. Zohdi stated that he would build this roadway the way the board wishes.  The town’s Safety Committee has requested something different. 


Mr. Gowan read aloud a letter the Notice of Decision of the Planning Board dated March 28th.  Mr. Gowan also read aloud a letter dated April 3, 2000 from the Safety Committee to the board with their recommendations on the proposed egress. 


Mr. Scanzani asked why the road was not just left open and not closed to gates and bars.  Mr. Gowan explained that the basic concern of the board was with the intersection of Noela and Marsh Road and the traffic exiting and entering at that point.  


Mr. Gowan was under the impression that Mr. Zohdi was requesting a change to the plans.  He now understands that Mr. Messina was making the request.  Mr. Gowan stated that Mr. Zohdi could have a spot on the next meeting.


Mr. Farris asked whether the board should take a vote to reconsider this plan.  He questioned why the Safety Committee did not have this letter to the board member’s for review prior to this meeting.  Mr. Farris feels that the plan was thoroughly discussed and a decision was reached.


Mr. Culbert explained that this plan was approved conditionally upon the Fire Chief’s favorable approval of the proposed fire road.  The Fire Chief did not approve the fire road therefore the plan is not approved.  Mr. Farris felt that the issue of the fire road was whether or not it would be graveled or paved.  Mr. Gowan would like to have the Safety Committee representatives appear before the board to discuss this situation.  He stated that they would be invited to attend the April 17th board meeting. 


Mr. Zohdi stated that he is willing to re-notify all abutters.


Mr. Culbert asked for clarification on the time clock on this plan.  Mr. Zohdi explained that as of the last meeting on this plan, they were at the 55th day.  He is willing to work with the board and request an extension. 




Mr. Tim Fraize, Noela Avenue, stated that the board spent many hours discussing this plan and they voted 5-0 to approve it.  He questioned whether or not the Safety Committee had all of the necessary information to reach their decision.  Mr. Fraize requested that they be present at the next meeting.  Mr. Gowan stated that the Safety Committee would have to present their case and attempt to change the board’s mind on their vote. 


Mr. Scanzani agrees with Mr. Farris that the board should vote to reconsider the plan.  Mr. Culbert believes that technically, this is not an approved plan without the Fire Chief’s approval.  Mr. Gowan feels that the board can vote to reconsider on April 17th.


Mr. Farris suggested that if the board is going to begin taking recommendations from the Safety Committee, they consider incorporating it into the subdivision regulations.  If not, the Safety Committee should look at every plan that comes before the board. 


Mr. Culbert agreed and asked exactly what their charter is.  His only issue is with the Fire Chief, not the Safety Committee.  Mr. Danevich referred to RSA 676:4 Paragraph, Items 1, 2, 3 and read them aloud to clarify Mr. Culbert’s statements. 


Mr. Gowan stated that this plan is date specified to the April 17, 2000 meeting at which time the discussion would continue.



ML 12-203 – Frederick & Suzanne Schlapp/Mulberry Wood Estates/Shephard Road – Proposed 20 Lot Subdivision


Mr. Gowan stated that according to the Planning Director’s report, no traffic study or design modifications have been received from the applicant as requested at the last meeting.  This hearing was continued to the May 1, 2000 board meeting.



ML 1-161 – Estate of Charles Jack/Greenmeadow Estates/Greenmeadow Drive – Proposed 9 Lot Subdivision


Mr. Gowan stated that according to the Planning Director’s report, no drainage report or final road plans have been received from the applicant on this plan.  This hearing was continued to the May 1, 2000 board meeting.



ML 3-138 – Nationwide Construction/Bush Hill Road – Proposed 5 Lot Subdivision


Mr. Gowan stated that according to the Planning Director’s report, a site walk of this parcel is recommended.  The hearing was continued to May 1, 2000. 




ML 7-44-1 – KDS Properties/Atwood Road – Site Plan Review for Proposed Elderly Housing


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Gowan stated that according to the Planning Director’s report, no architectural renderings, building designs or formal declaration of intent have been received. 


MOTION:  (Culbert/Danevich)  To continue the hearing on ML 7-44-1 to the May 1, 2000 board meeting.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.



OLD BUSINESS (Continued)



ML 13-84 – New England Pentecostal Church/327 Gage Hill Road – Site Plan for Proposed Addition to Existing Building


Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the board to present the site plan for ML 13-84.  Mr. Zohdi stated that the board was concerned with the hours of operation at the last meeting.  He pointed out that the hours of operation for each event have been indicated on the plan as requested. 


Mr. Zohdi stated that another concern was landscaping and a buffer for the leaching area of the septic.  He explained that minimal cutting will take place for the construction of this area and a note has been added to the plan regarding the planting of shrubbery to buffer the parking and septic area. 


Mr. Zohdi pointed out that the majority of the church operations already are taking place with the exception of the gymnasium activities.  He explained that the basement classrooms are being moved upstairs to the proposed addition.  Rev. Choate has made plans to include a daycare facility in the future.  The daycare is not in existence today, it is proposed for the future.  There will be a maximum of 50 children in this proposed daycare. 


Mr. Gowan read aloud the Planning Director’s notes regarding this site plan.   Mr. Messina reminded the board that both the zoning ordinances and the State RSA’s encourage building churches and schools in residential zones.  He noted that the board had expressed concern regarding on street parking and recommended that the approval include appropriate signage. 


Mr. Messina further stated that there was some concern raised regarding the buffering of the leach fields from roadside view.  He noted that based on the setback to the field from St. Margaret’s Drive, the natural vegetation that is present is more than adequate and that clearing this area to plant a buffer would expose far more of the proposed leachfield than leaving it as is.  Mr. Messina questioned whether the board would impose the same requirement on a residential septic leachfield currently along this road. 


Mr. Messina noted that the hours of operation were also a concern.  He advised that the board not impose restrictive hours of operation.  He noted that there are other churches and schools which have no restricted hours and operate as daycare facilities and schools in the residential zone.  Mr. Messina feels that restricting the hours of operation of parking lot lighting with timers would be appropriate.


Mr. Culbert asked if the church had applied for a daycare license from the State.  Rev. Choate said no, they had not.  He further noted that currently there is no daycare operating on this site and that they were making accommodations now in this site plan for the future.  Mr. Culbert asked if the applicant appeared before the ZBA seeking a special exception for the daycare.  Rev. Choate said yes, they had.  Mr. Zohdi submitted a copy of the State regulations relative to daycare facilities and noted that these regulations must be met before a license would be granted. 


Mr. Danevich agrees that the 40 ft. buffer is more than sufficient for the septic and parking area.  He reminded the board that “No Parking” signage was requested for St. Margaret’s Drive.  Mr. Zohdi stated that provisions have been made on the plan for the signage.  Mr. Danevich asked for clarification on the timed lighting.  Mr. Zohdi stated that the lighting would be shut off one half hour after any event and would be the responsibility of the church.  Mr. Danevich believes that a timer could serve as an “over ride”.  Mr. Gowan noted that the lighting would be “downward facing”.  Mr. Farris feels that the “No Parking” signage would be confusing in the residential zone.  He recommended that additional parking be considered within the church property. 


Mr. Farris asked if the church intends to participate in youth basketball tournaments.  Rev. Choate stated that the gym would be utilized for practice and training purposes.  They currently participate in a league in Nashua but they have no plans for tournament play, only supervised play by the children.  Mr. Farris asked the applicant to consider a modification of the gym hours for Sunday.  Mr. Gowan questioned whether this would be within the board’s jurisdiction.


Mr. Scanzani asked if the 105 parking spaces would be adequate if church services and a basketball game were to occur at the same time.  He further questioned what “by event” meant.  Rev. Choate stated that he did not want to “lock himself in” on hours.  They are more than willing to notify the town hall if there is a special event taking place.  Rev. Choate explained that occasionally the children would be in the gym doing something during the adult bible study or choir practice. 


Mr. Scanzani asked where they intend to locate the additional parking spaces.  Mr. Zohdi indicated on the plan where the extra parking spaces could go.  He further noted that the septic piping could be changed from H10 to H20 to handle the additional 50 parking spaces if needed in that area.  Mr. Scanzani requested that the additional “proposed” parking area be shown on the plan. 


Mr. DeLuca asked for clarification on the location of the shrubs and cutting of existing vegetation.  Mr. Zohdi stated that the existing vegetation would be left natural and additional landscaping would be installed according to the plan. 


Mr. Scanzani referred to the architectural rendering and the 25 ft. trees shown.  He asked what the true size of the proposed trees and landscaping would be.  Rev. Choate stated that the church would landscape the parcel according to the board’s wishes.  Mr. Culbert stated that the board needs to be very specific with the landscape plan as in the past, it has been a problem.  Rev. Choate understands and asked the board for guidance.  Mr. Zodhi stated that the minimum tree height would be 6 ft.  Mr. David Brouillet, CLD, stated that the number of proposed trees to be planted has been shown on the plan and they were part of CLD’s review.  . 


Mr. Farris asked if the windows in the front elevation of the gym had been considered.  Mr. Zodhi stated that the architect is currently working on the design of windows for the gym and both side of the proposed addition. 




Mr. Kenneth Dorrance, St. Margaret’s Drive, stated that according to two recent appraisals, his property would drop in value when this addition is constructed.  Mr. Dorrance stated that with this gym, there can be any number of children in the daycare and it would not be restricted to a maximum of 50. 


Mr. Dorrance asked if any of the board members would want three septic systems and a lit parking lot across the street from their house.  He believes that he has the right to have his neighborhood protected from this.  Mr. Dorrance does not feel that the Reverend has “worked with them” on this issue.  He questioned why the parking couldn’t be kept at the front of building.


Mr. Gowan stated that this is a residentially zoned area.  If there were houses instead of a church across from Mr. Dorrance, there would be pump up septics on each lot because the water table in this area is so high.  Mr. Scanzani stated that the arborvitaes should shield Mr. Dorrance’s view of the leachfields. 


Mr. Scanzani asked how far this proposed septic would be from Mr. Dorrance’s well.  Mr. Zohdi stated that the requirement is 75 ft.   Mr. Dorrance’s well is approximately 87 ft. from the edge of tar of St. Margaret’s Drive.  Mr. Zohdi noted that his design is based on information provided by the church. 


Mr. Culbert reminded Rev. Choate that any future daycare facility would need to meet all of the State regulations and that the Planning Director must also approve the facility.


Mr. DeLuca requested that the arborvitaes be utilized at the front of the lot for further buffering of the parcel.  Rev. Choate asked that he be allowed to do their own landscaping in this area.  He assured the board that the landscaping would add to the aesthetics of the area.  


Mr. Farris suggested that the height of the poles for the lighting be a maximum of 10 ft. to be more in keeping with the residential zone.  Mr. Culbert suggested that the board consider a “standard” that a motor home could fit under.  Mr. Brouillet explained that the lighting must be constructed according to “the task”.  He stated that CLD is capable of assisting the board with a specific lighting plan for this site. 


Mr. DeLuca suggested that the driveway entrance be located further down St. Margaret’s Drive in order to keep the headlights from shining into the homes.  Mr. Farris noted that the majority of the traffic to the church would be during the daylight hours. 


Mr. Danevich asked for clarification on the proposed signage.  Mr. Dorrance suggested that any signage be installed on the right hand side of the street.  Ms. Quellette suggested that the church consider allowing the neighbors to utilize the church parking if needed for a neighborhood event. 


MOTION:  (Culbert/Farris)  To approve the plan subject to 1) windows for the gymnasium being applied to the prints; 2) proper landscaping and planted trees for septic buffer approved by the Planning Director;  3) proposed area for the additional parking of 50 cars added to the plan; and 4) proper signage for “No Parking” installed on the right hand side of St. Margaret’s Drive.


Mr. Culbert stated that upon application for the daycare license, the church should approach the Planning Department with a copy of said license.  He further noted that he does not expect to see any more than 50 children in this proposed daycare facility.


Mr. Farris requested that the Sunday hours for the gymnasium be reduced to 8:00 pm.  Mr. Gowan believes that it is illegal for the board to restrict the hours.  Mr. Culbert agreed. 


Mr. Farris suggested that the lighting be subject to review by CLD. 


Mr. Culbert agreed to add the following to his motion:


5)  CLD will review the lighting plan and the specifications will be added to the plan. 


Mr. Farris agreed to amend his second.     


Ms. Quellette asked if the changes to the septic should be added to the motion.  Mr. Zohdi explained that the changes would be included in the parking


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries. 


MOTION: (Danevich/Culbert)  To approve the waiver request to allow the septic components to be less than 20 ft. but greater than 10 ft. from the lotline.


 VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.



NEW BUSINESS (Continued)



ML 10-325 – Pelham Kindergarten & Daycare Center, Inc./96 Bridge Street – Special Permit for Replacement of Septic System


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Ms. Joan O’Connell, applicant, stated that her engineer from Meisner Brehm was not present but that she would be willing to present the plan to the board.  Ms. O’Connell explained that she owns the Pelham Kindergarten & Daycare Center located at 96 Bridge Street.   They are trying to purchase the building.  The septic system is fine and the holding tank is pumped on a regular basis.   In the spring when the water table is high, the holding tank must be pumped weekly.  They propose to install a new septic system with two pumps.  A pipe will be run under the stream in the back of the property to the leachfield which will be located on the next lot, which they also own. 


Ms. O’Connell explained that they have already been before the Conservation Commission for an expedited wetlands crossing.  Ms. Alicia Hennessey, Chairman of the Conservation Commission, stated that the board voted 5 – 0 – 0 to approve this wetlands crossing.   The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has also approved this wetlands crossing. 


Mr. Gowan stated that the Planning Director’s report notes that the applicant is seeking a special permit to construct a replacement septic system.  He recommends that the board accept the plan for consideration and move to approve the application. 


Mr. Scanzani stated that it appears that this drainage easement is dry 75% of the year. 


MOTION:  (Culbert/Danevich)  To accept the plan for consideration.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.


MOTION:  (Culbert/DeLuca)  To approve the special permit for construction of the replacement septic system on ML 10-325. 


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.



ML 12-223-2  - George III & John Harris/Ledge Road – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Mr. Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates, appeared before the board to present the plan for a proposed 4 lot subdivision of ML 12-223-2.  Mr. Zohdi stated that this proposed subdivision is located off Ledge Road on the Easterly side of Harris Inn.  They propose to subdivide three building lots and leave one remaining lot.  The soils were completed by Mary Gospodarek and the test pit information is shown on Page 2 of the plan.  The septic and 4K area have also been shown.  The remaining lot contains approximately 17 acres.


Mr. Gowan stated that the Planning Director’s report notes that these four lots all have their frontages on an existing road and meet all of the subdivision requirements.  Any approval should be conditional on a final report from CLD.


Mr. Farris questioned the site distance for the driveway location on lot 12-223-3.  Mr. Zohdi explained that the trees in the curve of the road of lot 12-223-3 would have to be cleared in order to achieve proper site distance. 


Mr. Zohdi noted that no waivers are being requested for this proposed subdivision. 


Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Zohdi will be presenting a conceptual plan for the remaining lot.  Mr. Zohdi stated that he would have one for the board’s review at their next meeting.


MOTION:  (Culbert/DeLuca)  To accept the plan for consideration. 


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.


This plan was date specified for May 1, 2000.




ML 7-143 – Kim Neskey/43 Willow Street – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Ms. Kim Neskey, applicant, stated that her engineer, Kurt Meisner, was not present and requested that the board allow her plan to be continued.


MOTION:  (DeLuca/Culbert)  To continue the hearing on ML 7-143 to the May 1, 2000 board meeting.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries






ML 6-129-1 – TeleCorp Realty LLC/60 Pulpit Rock Road – Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review – Proposed Construction of a Wireless Communication Tower


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Ms. Kathleen Sullivan, Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, Manchester, representing TeleCorp, appeared before the board  to present the site plan and request for a conditional use permit for ML 6-129-1.  Ms. Sullivan explained that TeleCorp is seeking to construct a 150 ft. wireless communication tower on a 25 acre parcel located at 60 Pulpit Rock Road.  This property is owned by QAC, LLC.  The proposed tower will service four other carriers. 


Ms. Sullivan stated that this plan complies with the 175 ft. setback requirement as well as the fall zone requirement.  It is a permitted use in the industrial zone and access would be provided via the existing the existing driveway and parking area.  There will an 8 ft. chain link fence installed around the facility. 


Ms. Sullivan explained that the technology is PCS technology which requires tower locations at two mile intervals.  The two mile interval is subject to topography limitations.  This tower will be in addition to the TeleCorp tower which is located on Atwood Road.  Ms. Sullivan explained that possible telecommunication tower locations in Pelham are limited by the current ordinance.  An agreement has been reached with the land owner to allow the construction.  This proposed tower will provide CO-location opportunity for four additional carriers.  This should minimize the need for additional towers in this area. 


Ms. Sullivan stated that TeleCorp is requesting a waiver to the requirement that they provide an inventory of all facilities within five miles of Pelham.  She noted that this technology requires location at two mile intervals.  If they were to provide an inventory of all facilities within a five mile radius of Pelham, it would not provide the board with any additional information to make their decision.  Ms. Sullivan further noted that TeleCorp is not licensed to do business in Massachusetts.  She believes that the intent of five mile inventory requirement is to give the board the opportunity to determine whether or not this tower is necessary or if there are alternate locations available that the provider could go to.  Ms. Sullivan explained that in this case, because of the two mile interval, the inventory requirement would not be necessary for a decision. 


Mr. Gowan explained that two years ago, the town voted to provide protection to the residential areas in Pelham from telecommunications towers.  He noted that the proposed TeleCom tower would be located in the industrial zone.  Ms. Sullivan stated that they will meet all other requirements of the ordinance and will provide room for four additional co-locators. 


Mr. Scott Pollister, Senior RF Engineer, SunCom, appeared before the board to discuss the proposed telecommunications tower.  Mr. Pollister referred to the site plan indicating coverage area for TeleCorp.  He explained  that mobile communications are achieved by radio frequencies from cell tower to cell tower.  The towers have two way communications via transmitters and receivers.  Many factors determine the strength of the frequencies received.  Height of the tower, distance between the actual cell phone and tower and topography all effect signal strength.  Strength will decrease inversely to the actual distance from the tower.  Buildings, trees and the terrain can also effect the signal strength.  Mr. Pollister explained that a slight overlap in areas is sought in order to avoid static or “dropped” calls.  All studies conducted indicate that the average cell rate is two or three miles.


Mr. Culbert asked for clarification on the 150 ft. tower.  Mr. Ken Kosyra, Sun Com, explained that the current regulations allows for 199 ft. but according to their testing, 150 ft. will be adequate to provide the necessary coverage for their customers. 


Mr. Culbert questioned the waiver request for the five mile inventory and whether or not TeleCom could co-locate on another existing tower.  Mr. Kosyra stated that the inventory would not benefit the board’s ability to make the decision because they are only licensed to do business in Southern New Hampshire.  Mr. Kosyra hopes to connect with the Salem network. 


Mr. Farris asked if police use will be allowed on this tower.  Mr. Kosyra stated that he would need to see what type of equipment the police department would require. 


Mr. Scanzani asked if it were possible to locate inside a building.  Mr. Kosyra explained that you could but it would depend on the elevation. 


Mr. Scanzani stated that coverage is needed on the Northside of Route 38 and questioned coverage for the Mammoth Road area.  He further questioned the possibility of a tower location at Raymond Park.  Mr. Farris does not feel that this would be possible because it is a residential area and the parcel is town owned.


Mr. Culbert questioned if 180 ft. would allow the signal to go further up Route 38.  He also asked if TeleCorp tested for a maximum height.  Mr. Kosyra did not believe that increasing the tower height would improve the service. 


Mr. Gowan recommended that the board accept the plan for consideration and schedule a site walk.


MOTION:  (DeLuca/Culbert)  To accept the plan for consideration.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.


MOTION:  (Culbert/Farris)  To deny the waiver request for the five mile inventory. 


Mr. Culbert expressed concern that the board has never waived any other requirement and that the town needs all of the information they can get to make their decision.  The board needs to determine whether or not this facility can be co-located on existing tower. 


Ms. Sullivan explained that this is a very difficult waiver to comply with as there are no master lists of the existing facilities.  She feels that there is a “practical hardship” for the applicant to comply with this part of the ordinance.  The ordinance provides for the waiver under these circumstances.  Ms. Sullivan explained that this inventory will not provide any further practical information to help the board review TeleCorp’s application.


Mr. Farris asked if co-locaters are listed with the FCC.  Mr. Kosyra said no, only the owner of the tower.  Mr. Culbert questioned that statement. Mr. Scanzani noted that it does not pay for any telecommunications business to locate too close together. 


Mr. Scanzani stated that if there is a problem with the inventory requirement, the board will need to review this ordinance for revision.  Mr. Gowan feels that the inventory requirement forces co-location where possible.   Mr. Scanzani stated that the board needs to know what is inside the town border.  Mr. Culbert would consider looking at a change to ordinance after he conducts some of his own research into the matter.


Mr. Culbert withdrew his motion.  Mr. Farris withdrew his second. 


MOTION:  (Farris/DeLuca)  To accept for consideration the waiver request relative to an inventory of all telecommunications towers within a 5 mile radius of Pelham. 


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0   The motion carries.



ML 1-57  -Whittaker, Barbara/9 Mammoth Road – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision


The Clerk read aloud the list of abutters.


Ms. Barbara Whittaker, 9 Mammoth Road, appeared before the board to present the plan for a proposed six lot subdivision of ML 1-57.  Ms. Whittaker stated that they are proposing a six lot subdivision of ML 1-57.  The road entrance is located to the left of the existing Veteran’s Memorial Park driveway.  Much effort was made to share this entranceway but it did not work out.  The road has been relocated to minimize impact to the wetlands.  The odd shaped lot is configured in order to accommodate the multi-dwelling unit on ML 1-57.  The existing multi-dwelling unit is a three family home.  The proposed road “hugs” the Veteran’s Memorial Park driveway. 


Ms. Whittaker stated that this plan has not been before the Conservation Commission for review.  A dredge and fill application has been made to the State. 


Mr. Danevich stated that there is a waiver request for cul de sac length – from 560 ft. to 700 ft.


Mr. Farris explained that this plan had been before the Board of Selectmen for review.  The applicant proposed to utilized the existing gravel driveway for Veteran’s Memorial Park as the entranceway to the proposed development.  A site walk was conducted with the engineers and Planning Director.  Mr. Messina sought input from the State and a response was submitted to the file.  A petition warrant article was brought forward by the Veterans to keep the driveway from being utilized as an entranceway to the subdivision. 


Mr. Farris explained that Ms. Whittaker has the right to utilize the driveway cut to access this parcel which will create a road within 25 ft. of an existing driveway.  Three options were provided to the town by the State. 


Mr. Scanzani feels that the proposed road will be within 12 ft. of the existing driveway to Veteran’s Park.  He asked if the Planning Board or the Board of Selectmen can require that the existing gravel road be changed.  Mr. Farris stated that the board cannot do anything without coming before the town for a vote.  Mr. Scanzani feels that this is a “Catch 22” situation.  Mr. Farris questioned whether the Board of Selectmen can make changes due to the safety issue of having an approved roadway entrance within 15 ft. of an existing driveway.  Mr. Culbert asked who has declared the situation a safety issue.  Mr. Farris said the State has. 


Mr. Farris stated that there were some legitimate issues brought forward by the veterans regarding the monument there.  He suggested reconfiguring the driveway to better accommodate the traffic flow for summer campers. 


Ms. Whittaker explained that she felt that the common entrance was the way to deal with the safety issue and noted that she had offered to do off site improvements around the monument for protection purposes.




Mr. Gowan read aloud a letter from direct abutter,  Ms. Mary Masse.  The letter was submitted to the file.  


MOTION:  (Culbert/DeLuca)  To accept the plan for consideration.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.


MOTION:  To accept for consideration the waiver request for a cul de sac length of 700 ft.


VOTE:  6 – 0 – 0  The motion carries.


Mr. David Brouillet, CLD, explained that because this is only a six lot subdivision, no traffic study is required.  Mr. Farris referred to the State’s letter to the Planning Director relative to the three options.  He recommended that CLD review the options and make comment.  Mr. Farris suggested that the Planning Director check with the town to see if the safety issue allows the board to do any work within this area.  





The following parcels were scheduled for a site walk on Saturday, April 8, 2000 at 8:00 am:


            ML 12-223-2                          George II and John Harris/Ledge Road – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivision


ML 6-129-1                TeleCorp Realty LLC/60 Pulpit Rock Road – Proposed Telecommunications Tower


ML 3-138                    Nationwide Construction/Bush Hill Road – Proposed 5 Lot Subdivision












MINUTES REVIEW – March 20, 2000


MOTION:  (Culbert/DeLuca)  To accept the minutes of the March 20, 2000 as read.

VOTE:  5 – 0 – 1 with Ms. Ouellette abstaining.  The motion carries.


     Mr. Danevich reported that he, Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Messina attended the NRPC Elderly Housing workshop.  He reminded the board members that the Office of State Planning will conduct an all day workshop on May 6th in Concord.  Mr. Danevich urged board members to register and attend this important workshop. 


     Mr. Culbert reported that the Open Space Committee met and they are working on prioritizing their issues for discussion.  


     Mr. Gowan reminded board members that elections would be held at the May 1st board meeting. 





MOTION:   (Culbert/Farris)  To adjourn the meeting.


VOTE:  6– 0 – 0   The motion carries.


The meeting was adjourned at  11:20 pm.



                                                                                    Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                    Susan J. Tesch

                                                                                    Recording Secretary