PB Minutes 10-04-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

October 4, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the non-public session to order at 7:00 pm.

7:00pm – 7:30 pm= – Request for non-public se= ssion in accordance with RSA 91-A:3II(e) regarding legal matters

7:30pm – Call public meeting to or= der

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Henry DeLuca, Alternate= Raymond Brunelle

Mr. Yarmo will vote in Mr. DeLuca’s absence.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Map 35 Lot 10-352 – New American Homes – Cara Estates Phase I – Request for Bond Reduction – (TFMoran recommends a reduction of $62,009 leaving $28,400)

Mr. Tom Murray of New Ame= rican Homes said three letters (dated August 24, 2004) had been sent to the Board regarding the three phases= for construction of the Cara Estates project.&= nbsp; He agreed with the figures provided in the TF Moran letter. Mr. D’Andrea had no problem = with it.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = reduce the Cara Estates Phase I bond (based on the backup data analysis provided= by TFMoran) from $62,009 to $28,400.

VOTE:

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

Map 35 Lot 10-352 – New American Homes – Cara Estates Phase II – Request for Bond Reduc= tion –

(TFMoran recommends a reduction of $141,292.50 leaving $178,707.= 50)

Mr. Tom Murray of New Ame= rican Homes said he agreed with the figures provided with TFMoran in connection w= ith the Cara Estates Phase II project. Mr. D’Andrea also agreed.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the drainage problem onto Diamond Hill had been solved. Ms. Ouellette said per the letter,= the detention basin and drainage swale (75% complete). Mr. Murray said the drainage basin= was behind two of the lots and was not aware of a drainage problem from Diamond Hill. Mr. Scanzani discussed = the drainage flow. Mr. Murray said there would be a balance remaining in the bond. Mr. D’Andrea was asked to re= view the drainage.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = reduce the Cara Estates Phase II bond (per the TFMoran recommendation dated September 21, 2004) in the amount of $141,292.50 and retaining $178,707.50.

VOTE:

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

Map 35 Lot 10-352 – New American Homes – Cara Estates Phase III – Request for Bond Reduction –

(TFMoran recommends a reduction of $35,000 leaving $10,000)=

Mr. Tom Murray of New Ame= rican Homes requested a bond reduction for the Cara Estates Phase III project. Mr. D’Andrea said the bond reduction request was based on the improvements on site which were per the approved subdivision plan. Mr. Scanzani noted that the original plan that the Board approved was not the p= lan that the Board signed (which was indicated in the Board’s meeting min= utes for the approval including the conditions). Mr. Culbert believed that the plan= that was signed reflected field changes made by the former Planning Director. Mr. D’Andrea didn’t be= lieve it was a field change since the state signed off on the changes in the site specific permit. There was fu= rther discussion regarding the drainage issues.&= nbsp; Mr. D’Andrea believed the only solution was to go back to the state of New Hampshire and get an approval for the design. He pointed out that the bond was for the approved plan. Mr. Culbert said that the signed p= lan was not the one approved by the Board.&nbs= p; Mr. Murray wanted it known that he was not the person that brought t= he plan to the Board, but that he purchased the plan approved and built it according to such. He said the detention basin had been in for two years and was doing what the state appr= oved it to do.

After further discussion,= Mr. D’Andrea informed that there was an internal procedure in place so pr= ior to a plan being signed, notes and correspondence is flagged for review. A majority of the Board agreed tha= t the drainage was a separate issue than the bond reduction request. Mr. Danevich made the following mo= tion with regret:

MOTION:

(Danevich/Yarmo) To red= uce the bond for the Cara Estates Phase III to $10,000.

VOTE:

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

Map 9 Lot 9-9 &= #8211; First Street Realty Trust – Golden Brook Estates – Request for Full Bond Release

Mr. D’Andrea said he questioned the Board’s procedure regarding full release. He said this had over-wintered, bu= t they weren’t yet at the point for acceptance. Final comment had not been receive= d from TFMoran. It was suggested to = date specify the request.

The request for full bond= release was date specified to the November 1, 2004 meeting. =

DISCUSSION

Map 14 Lot 4-137 – G & M Jeremy= Hill Land Development, LLC – Meadowview Estates – Amendment to Subdivision Agreement

Mr. McNamara stepped down= .

Attorney Linda Connell of= McLane, Graf, Raulerson & Middleton, representing G&M Jeremy Hill Land Development, LLC, came before the Board to discuss preliminary issues becau= se they were coming to the point of requesting a final bond reduction for the Meadowview Estates subdivision. She said the current bond was placed in phases; phase I $1,000,000 road improvements (reduced to $517,000 February, 2003 broken out is: $310,000 ph= ase II and $207,000 remaining improvements in phase I). She said at this point the road wo= uld be complete after a correction to a single catch basin, and some road that nee= ded to be altered, which they expected would be scheduled and inspected by the = end of the month (this fall).

The first issue the appli= cant wanted to resolve was what the 10% maintenance would be applied to. Attorney Connell said (as set fort= h in her letter dated = August 4, 2004 to Mr. D’Andrea) they would like the Board to take t= he position to only require holding 10% of the $517,000 bond because the phase I improvements had been in place for over one year. They have done= a draft agreement to the subdivision agreement round off the maintenance bond= to $52,000 to be held for a year.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the amendment to the subdivision agreement and recalled that one condition for approval was the continuance of the Pennichuck water lines. Attorney Connell reviewed the Board’s November, 2003 meeting minutes in which it would be a volunta= ry contribution the developer was being asked to make. In the course to follow up with the voluntary contribution; Pennichuck was contacted and informed that they were neutral on the line connection and didn’t expect any customers to con= nect to the line in the foreseeable future.&nbs= p; There have been no homeowners who have inquired about the water connection. Attorney Connell = said this project had a lot of inspection fees built up before it was brought to= the attention of the developer; there is separate litigation with one of the consulting engineers (CLD Engineering) and wanted clarification from the Bo= ard that it would not hold up the bond reduction. She said her client was willing to= waive their protest of TFMoran’s fees (of over $10,000 that exceeded the estimate) as long as the Board didn’t hold up the bond reduction proc= ess and waived the voluntary contribution.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert said the plan accepted the voluntary contribution, which= was an integral part of the approved plan.&nbs= p; Attorney Connell said if the Board was going to take the position to= enforce a voluntary contribution to benefit neighbors she raised a constitutional objection and submitted a letter (dated October 4, 2004) stating such by ci= ting New Hampshire Supreme Court cases J.E.D. Associates, Inc. v. Town of Atkinson and Starr v. Governor et al. She said = the line was only for the benefit of the neighbors.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Peter McNamara, Jeremy Hill Road, said this was about the developer not wanting to spend any additional monies for something that he already promised to do. He said in several of the Board mi= nutes (five or six meetings) the project was spoken about. He said that Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates (the developer’s representative at the time) had a lot of = discussions with the neighbors/abutters and on several occasions raised the issue that = the line could be extended and the developer at that time would readily extend = the line. In addition they agreed= to repave Longview from Jeremy Hill, down to the new development to bring it up to the level of the= new development; as well as redoing the island in the cul-de-sac. Mr. McNamara said the main point a= nd major expense was the water line extension. It didn’t matter if anyone w= ould connect to the extension; the point was that the developer readily voluntee= red it and then at the November meeting it was made an explicit condition of the subdivision approval. Mr. McN= amara reiterated that the water line extension was an integral part of the Board’s approval; it was the developer’s responsibility to put = the line in; the developer could have raised an objection at any point in time (over the past four years). H= e said the issue of bond reduction had been before the Board and this is the first time the water line has been brought up.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said based upon the intent of the developer (and the fa= ct that the water line had not been brought up and the agreement), he felt the Board should put the developer on a time limit with which to comply with th= e conditions; if the limit is exceeded the Board should proceed to revoke the bond.

Mr. Culbert said he conta= cted the owner at the time, Mr. Eric Nickerson who felt that it (water line continuation) wasn’t voluntary, but part of the plan that he sold. He believed the Board felt it was clearly part of the plan and said any attempt to not put a water line in wo= uld not have his approval. He sai= d the fees were a separate subject.

Mr. Danevich said the Boa= rd knew going into the project that the residents would experience a lot of disruption. The voluntary contribution by the developer to re-pave the road was an important part in = his decision. It was also noted t= hat there were water problems in the area.&nbs= p; Mr. Danevich said that Pennichuck had come before the Board of Selec= tmen (as part of the Water District issue) several times and had also increased = the pumping station (corner of Holstein/Meadowview) to increase the water main = size for the potential placement of a large tank up on the hill. He said Pennichuck is very well aw= are of the water issues in the area and had discussions with the Selectmen about provisions/plans for connecting into Hudson if Pelham exceeded the quota. When NRPC gave a presentation of the GIS it also showed the potential path where= the line would go. Mr. Danevich s= aid he would not support the amendment of Clause V. He then addressed Clause IV(paymen= t of fees to CLD) and suggested that the Board defer the issue to the Board of Selectmen since it was currently in litigation.

The Board discussed the developer’s request further. There was a consensus of the Board that the proposed amendment was n= ot acceptable as written. Attorn= ey Connell asked that the individual issues be addressed: 1) interpretation of= the maintenance bond requirement – whether the 10% would apply to the $517,000; 2) whether the inspection fees (owed to and in litigation with CL= D) would hold up reduction of the bond; 3) off-site improvements. Mr. Culbert said the developer pha= sed the project and he felt the 10% was of $517,000. Mr. Danevich agreed that the mater= ial formula used would be the reduction on the $517,000; but said it was up to TFMoran review and documentation. He said the Board should defer to the Selectmen regarding the fees; = being the Selectmen’s Representative, he will speak to the Selectmen about = the issue. Mr. Culbert believed i= t was clear how the Board felt regarding the water line.

Ms. Bousa asked who would= inspect the road and do the bond reduction calculation. It was noted that Dufresne-Henry h= ad been to the site and would review. <= /span>

Mr. McNamara returned to = the Board.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 34 Lot 6-221 – Gurr= iero, Lisa – 1 Thomas Aven= ue – General Home Occupation – Proposed Childcare <= /b>

Ms. Ouellette read the li= st of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification. The file did not contain any written correspondence from abutters.

Ms. Ouellette stepped dow= n.

Ms. Lisa Gurriero, 1 Thomas Avenue, met with the Board to discuss her proposed childcare. She said that Board of Adjustment Case#2291 was approved for a Special Exception and meeting with the Planning Board would finalize such.

Mr. Danevich asked if any additional lighting, signage, driveway modifications (road paving), anything that would disturb the neighbors (other than children playing) would be add= ed or changed. Ms. Gurriero answ= ered no. Mr. Danevich said the app= licant had addressed the other issues in her submitted documentation.

Mr. McNamara said when th= e case was before the Board of Adjustment, the applicant was well prepared and eas= ily met the conditions of the Special Exception.

It was noted that the poo= l was gated and locked. Mr. Danevic= h said an approval would need to be subject to review and final approval by the Town’s Fire Chief.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was no public input= .

Mr. D’Andrea noted = that one condition from the Board of Adjustment was that a Radon test be submitted.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Gurriero said she had a copy o= f the test. Mr. Culbert asked that = the final submitted plan show the outside play area dimensions and location. Ms. Gurriero answered yes.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara ) To= approve the plan subject to the proper inspections and the Town’s Fire Chief’s inspection and approval.

VOTE:

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

Ms. Ouellette returned to= the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot subdivision for consideration

Mr. Michael Gospodarek of= Herbert Associates presented the plan for consideration. He said the Board had previously reviewed the project and since went through the consultant’s comments= /concerns and changed/modified the plan set in accordance with the developer’s recommendations. He said they received a new memo dated September 23, 2004 from the consultants with the remaining issues. He said there were two waivers: 1) 150ft. radius; and 2) sight distance at the Sherburne Road intersection (pictur= es of which were given to the Board). He noted that the project currently had 400ft. sight line toward Hudson (west) and approximately 600ft. = sight distance toward Mammoth Ro= ad (south).

Mr. D’Andrea review= ed some of his comments: 1) open space; 2) deeds for conveyance; 3) soils report (t= ype of standard required by the Board incl, characteristics); 4) 115k (100ft.x 150ft. – some lots aren’t);

5) soils information R= 11; characteristics of slope percentage within 15K area); 6) clarification of W= CD sign placement; 7) notation for receipt&nb= sp; of state DOT driveway permit, subdivision approval and site specific.

Mr. Gospodarek addressed = the 15K area for lots 155, 155-3 and 155-4 by saying each had difficulty because of= the wetland district and cul-de-sac curve.&nbs= p; Mr. Danevich asked if the 15K had been verified. Mr. D’Andrea answered no. There was brief discussion regardi= ng 15K areas, lot shapes and homeowner’s abilities to add on. Mr. Danevich noted that the regula= tions don’t require that a house be placed in the 15K area. Mr. D’Andrea said in the fut= ure he would note that waivers should be provided where an applicant doesn’t have 100ftx150ft. and if it’s shaped different, he will flag it for t= he Board. Mr. Gospodarek submitt= ed a waiver to Section 11 – 11.04 of the Subdivision Regulations ‘lot shape’.

There was a brief discuss= ion regarding the WCD signage. Si= gns should be placed every 50ft. =

Mr. Yarmo said he didn= 217;t see any notes on the plan to preserve the buffer or to pull the cul-de-sac back, which had been discussed by the abutters at a previous meeting. After reviewing, it was suggested = that plantings be put in to screen the abutters.

Mr. Danevich questioned i= f they could get sight distance by moving the road forty-five feet (45ft). Mr. Gospodarek said they could pro= bably move it, but the required full 520ft. wouldn’t occur. Mr. Danevich said he would support moving the road to gain sight distance.&nb= sp; He noted that there was an inconsistency in the plan regarding the center green space in the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan referred to only showed property lines (boundary), not roadway design. Mr. Danevich said he wanted the opportunity to review recent plans.

Ms. Ouellette questioned = what provisions were being considered if the second, or third house lots had a problem with their well going dry. Mr. Gospodarek said there was a standardized note on the plan that referred to a well test, prior to a building permit being issued. Ms. Ouellette noted their was a kno= wn water problem in the area. Mr. Danevich discussed what options a homeowner had (i.e. go deeper, community = well, easement). Mr. Scanzani said knowing this is a tough area, the Board could as a special condition, requi= re all the wells be sunk, working and have a certain flow prior to building permits being issued. Mr. D’Andrea said the Subdivision Regulations was written with an ‘and/or’ provision; the well test should be done, or done prior= to a building permit. The Board discussed the Town and state requirements regarding well tests and Ms. Ouellette’s concern was noted.

Mr. McNamara questioned o= pen space and asked if the voluntary monetary contribution was acceptable to the Board in lieu of land. Mr. Sc= anzani felt the amount was too low. = Mr. Culbert was unsure what space could be obtained out of eight lots. He suggested that the applicant re= view the open space regulations and the ‘in lieu of’ contribution. Mr. Danevich believed there were a= lot of plans that set a precedent for the amount per lot ‘in lieu’ = of open space; he was willing to relieve the waiver if the applicant was willi= ng to pay $750 per lot in lieu of open space.

Ms. Bousa asked who would= be responsible for maintaining the sight lines for the driveways on lots 3 &am= p; 7. Mr. Gospodarek said the li= nes would be dedicated to the Town; in his experience homeowners maintained, but the Town would have a right to maintain.&n= bsp; Ms. Bousa had concerns regarding the sight lines and the possible sa= fety concerns due to the road curving and cresting. Mr. D’Andrea suggested that = any restrictions imposed by the Board that they be clear in the notes section w= hen the plan is recorded. It was suggested to have the wording read that the sight line is to remain free of= any obstruction. Mr. Scanzani sug= gested moving the driveways toward the lot lines.= Mr. Gospodarek said they reviewed driveway location with Dufresne He= nry (Town’s engineer). He s= aid they could add a permanent structure (stone) as well as have a recording wi= th the property informing what could and could not be done in the area. Mr. Culbert was okay with that suggestion. There was no addi= tional comment from the Board.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Jeffrey Zall of = 221Main Street, Nashua, NH, representing Mopar Construction, addressed the 400ft. sight distance waiver that he strongly suggested that = the Board grant. He would rather = the waiver be granted at 445ft. because he was not certain if an additional 45f= t. could be achieved without substantially impacting the subdivision. He asked the Board to consider the waiver approval at 400ft. minimum, or the maximum that could be achieved in re-engineering the road location without adversely/substantially impacting = the subdivision. He believed sett= ing a minimum was a good safety measure and justification for the waiver. He reviewed the regulations regard= ing waivers. He discussed the sit= e and topography features he said made it impractical to adhere to the regulation= s, but they would get as much distance as possible (not below 400ft.). Attorney Zall said there was no pr= oblem drafting the deeds for the affected lots with a provision requiring that homeowners not construct any structures in the affected area that would aff= ect sight distances; said area also to be maintained. He urged that a note be added to t= he plan as well. He then discuss= ed the water issues and didn’t know what else could be done, other than to ‘work the system’ in place.&nb= sp; He said the owner of the property had discussed the water situation = with some of the neighbors; there was only one house that had a well problem, bu= t it had been corrected.

Ms. Bousa noted that the state’s criteria was a hybrid (not based on AASHTO) that did not take into consideration: 1) the posted speed of the road; 2) actual travel speed= ; or 3) grade of the road. She understood there was limited frontage (and was willing to work with the applicant), but didn’t feel the stipulation should be a minimum of 40= 0ft. because it shouldn’t be the Town’s responsibility and liability= . She said if it meant that the deve= loper lost a lot to gain the best possible safe condition, she wanted it investig= ated earlier, rather than later. M= r. McNamara said this was also a sensitive area where it was known that vehicl= es speed. He felt the Board had = an obligation for protection. Mr. Scanzani felt it was clear that the applicant couldn’t meet the sight distance and questioned if a light should be added to the intersection. Ms. Bousa said the plan showed a l= ight across from the proposed driveway. <= /span>

Mr. D’Andrea asked = how the drainage would be affected if the road was relocated. Mr. Gospodarek said they would los= e the treatment swale and have to figure out how to bring it to the other side of= the street.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Danevich) To = accept, for consideration the waiver request to Section 11 (11.04 lot shape ̵= 1; 100ft.x150ft) for lots 1-155, 1-155-3 and 1-155-4.

VOTE:

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

Ms. Ouellette reviewed the Board= 217;s other concerns as follows: 1) 15K areas confirmed by the Planning Director for lo= ts 1-155, 1-155-3 & 1-155-4; 2) WCD signage every 50ft.; 3) review moving = the road to add sight distance from 400ft. to 440ft. – how will drainage = be affected; 4) add green space area of the cul-de-sac on the recordable sheet= s; 5) water concerns in the area; 6) open space contribution ‘in lieu= 217; of the open space regulation, set at $750 per lot; 7) lots 3 & 7 sight line easements – record restrictions on the deeds as well as place a note on the plan. Mr. Yarmo added that a landscape b= uffer at the end of the cul-de-sac should be added with specifications.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the sight distance and a question regarding how the Board could be assured that the minimum 400ft. would be obtained. Attorney Zall said the DOT permit = would be violated if they didn’t have 400ft. Mr. Gospodarek said the only outst= anding DOT issue was the drainage in the front.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert questioned what would hold up in court, he believed that= the more stringent regulation was what held up (i.e. state 400ft. v. Town 520ft= .). Attorney Zall asked if a condition= of approval could be added that the applicant come in with an as-built plan (p= rior to building permits being issued) showing that the 400ft. of sight distance= was built. Mr. Danevich recalled a recent court case (Soucy – Old Lawrence Corner Road) with the exact dilemma in which the Board lost. He was concerned and noted in this case it is a state road, versus a Town owned ro= ad and wondered what the leverage/latitude is. Attorney Zall said in the Soucy ca= se there was a state road with 400ft. and the Town could not vary it. Mr. Culbert believed finding was i= n that case (specifically) the 400ft. could not vary; he questioned if there was an inherit danger with this road if there would be a different finding. Attorney Brad Westgate, representi= ng Eleanor Burton, who was also the attorney involved in the Soucy case said t= here was a state road issue. Mr. Danevich said with Old Law= rence Corner Road, it was an off-site improvement; b= ut in this case the Board had latitude of road placement, which could be incre= ase approximately 45ft to increase safety.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert asked that the applicant work with Dufresne-Henry to imp= rove the sight distance.

Mr. Gospodarek asked if h= e had to come back to the Board if he worked with Dufresne-Henry and was able to do = as he was being requested regarding moving the road. Mr. Danevich believed, per state l= aw that the Board could only give a conditional approval for administrative changes, which this was not. =

Attorney Zall informed th= at applicant was agreeable to extending the application to the next meeting. The plan was date specified to the= November 1, 2004 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-116 – Kendall & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for consideration

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said the project had been previ= ously before the Board; comments from Dufresne-Henry had been received September 23, 2004 and based upon that review, there were no technical comments. He said some of the outstanding is= sues discussed two meetings ago were: 1) sight line at Sherburne Road – pl= an set shows an easement to be dedicated to the Town that would achieve the si= ght line necessary per the regulations; 2) project calls for the reconstruction= of the existing Litchfield Circle cul-de-sac – Board has not officially voted upon, but made a recommendation early on; 3) Conservation Commission comments have been received regarding work in the WCD; 4) waiver request in file for the 150ft. roadway radius; 5) based upon last meeting a waiver req= uest will be submitted for Section 11 (11.04 lot shape – 100ft.x150ft) for lots 1-116-8, 1-116-9, 1-116-10 & 1-116-11.

Mr. D’Andrea commen= ted that cistern location and easements needed to be shown; waiver for lot crossing = WCD (Conservation Commission requested it be relocated on the adjoining property requiring an easement/waiver for two driveways). Mr. Culbert asked if Dufresne-Henr= y’s issues had been cleared up. M= r. Gospodarek said all the technical issues had been cleared up. Mr. D’Andrea reviewed his additional notations: maintenance of sight line/distance onto Sherburne Road (DOT specified if dedicated to Town right-of-way, the Town would be respons= ible for maintaining); special permit required for the road in WCD and driveway = for lot 1; cistern locations to be shown on the plan as approved by the Fire Department; zoning note referencing ‘rural’ to be removed from = plan; note regarding well tests prior to building permit to be added; WCD signs; question if site specific permit to be updated/amended due to drainage chan= ges from when approved by the state.

Mr. Scanzani had a couple= issues with the Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’): 1) bottle dump area with oil buckets/drum along wetland at eastern boundary should be clea= ned up; 2) questioned if protection could be given to the area where the Boboli= nks and Meadowlarks were in (as specified on page 32 of the EIA). Mr. Gospodarek believed that the r= eport was referring to the existing house lot on 116 that had no proposed develop= ment. Mr. Yarmo believed that additional investigation was going to be given regarding Dufresne-Henry’s comment about the wetland mapping. Mr. D’Andrea said Louis-Berger raised the issue in the first environmental review and there were not additional areas of wetland.

Ms. Bousa noted that ther= e was a sight line easement on lot 116-4. Mr. Gospodarek said the sight line easement served two points – the drive= way and roadway. Mr. D’Andr= ea pointed out that there was also a sight line easement for lot 116-6. Mr. Culbert confirmed that a note = would be added to the plan as well as the recordable deed. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Scanzani asked for cl= arification about the note in the file from Mr. Jim Gove, Gove Environmental that stated additional clearing/landscaping may cause habitat loss to certain species (= page 45 EIA); he wanted to make sure that the eastern portion was only contained= on the house lot, and not along the entire eastern line. Mr. Yarmo said Conservation Commis= sion walked the site and said the area was heavily wooded, not fields. Mr. Scanzani said he would like th= e area identified on the plan. Mr. Gospodarek was asked to check with Mr. Gove for clarification.

Mr. McNamara said when th= e plan was previously discussed the Hunt family had a concern regarding the reconfiguration of the cul-de-sac and the extension of the road. He asked what the plans were, and = if there had been any change. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan had not changed; the plan was to remove the cul-de= -sac, extend the driveways/sidewalks/relocate mailboxes and put back a typical ro= ad section (26ft. wide with curbing) so that Litchfield Circle went into the development as cleanly as possible.

Ms. Bousa pointed out tha= t on page 23 of 23 there was a note indicating that the sight line easement woul= d be maintained by the Town. Mr. Gospodarek said they were proposing the sight line easement to be maintaine= d by the Town. He said the DOT per= mit states that it’s not their responsibility, so the property owner maintains it. Mr. D’And= rea said a copy is contained in the file. Ms. Ouellette read a portion of the DOT permit aloud that stated the property owner was to maintain. Mr. Gospodarek said there were two distinctly separate easements; one that was = internal to the subdivision and second being the intersection on Sherburne Road. Mr. Culbert asked what the sight distance was at the Sherbu= rne Road intersection. Mr. Gospodarek = said they met the state’s sight distance requirements and the plan set proposed to meet the Town’s requirements. Ms. Bousa clarified that the state’s 400ft.sight distance requirement isn’t met without the sight easement over the property. She asked what the sight distance was without the easement (she approximated it = to be 200ft.). Mr. Culbert said whe= n he posed the question about the sight line easement maintenance, he was referr= ing to all of them (including Sherburne Road); this Mr. Gospodarek agreed that = the private property owner would maintain the sight distance easement (based up= on the state requirement). Mr. Y= armo was unsure if it was practical for a homeowner to maintain because there wa= s a substantial amount of growth in the area.&= nbsp; He believed a dredge and fill permit may be needed to remove some of= the undercover from the wetlands, which he didn’t think the state would i= ssue (to meet the sight line). He = said the Conservation Commission had discussed removing the vegetation (including the roots) and replacing it with low growth vegetation that would be self maintaining.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Tom Hunt, 27 Litchfield Circle, said he spoke= with the engineer who said they weren’t going to make changes to the plan unless directed to do so by the Board.&nbs= p; He said the current plan was unacceptable to him and others in the neighborhood. He said once the cul-de-sac was taken out he would have to maintain the additional area, whi= ch would be major maintenance. He noted the safety concerns surrounding the removal of the cul-de-sac, especi= ally because there were approximately thirteen small children in the neighborhood. He didn’t= know why the cul-de-sac had to be removed since the abutters and the builder preferred that it stay. He didn’t see what benefits, or in whose best interest it was to remove = the cul-de-sac. Mr. Hunt suggeste= d that the road be connected to the far side of the cul-de-sac, rather than the ne= ar side, which would be preferred. He reiterated his comments: 1) why cul-de-sac had to be removed; and 2) direct= the builder to come up with a plan that was acceptable to those who would be affected.

Mr. Marc Wilga, Litchfield Circle, said he attended the Board’s meeting in July at which the Board stron= gly suggested that the builder contact the abutters to the development and deve= lop the plan in a way that would garner their input; this was not done. He said the current plan was not acceptable. He agreed that th= ere was no purpose of pushing the cul-de-sac through and most likely his house would be looking into the back of a house and be responsible for a substant= ial lengthening of his driveway. = He said the additional area (that wouldn’t be deeded) would be a huge imposition. He felt at a loss because he didn’t have the opportunity to discuss the plan with the builder. Mr. Culbert said the= Board understood the reasons that people purchase homes on a cul-de-sac, but at t= he same time the Board tried to connect streets whenever they could for safety reasons.

Mr. Culbert believed if t= he cul-de-sac was taken out that the land would be deeded to the abutters and would not be Town land. Mr. Gospodarek sho= ok his head no. Mr. Hunt said he wasn’t interested in acquiring the property; when his home was built = it was positioned specifically to minimize maintenance.

Ms. Dianne Hunt, 27 Litchfield Circle, said they kept getting mixed messages regarding safety and as residents cou= ld not think of any safety reason to take the cul-de-sac out. She said if there was an access is= sue, the cul-de-sac was large enough to land a helicopter. She asked what specific reason the cul-de-sac was being taken away. Mr. Culbert said the Fire and Police would like to see roads connected whenever possible. Ms. Hunt said durin= g the meeting in July, she specifically asked and clarified if the Town would own= the additional property, or if it would be deeded; she was told that the Town w= ould still own the property, and they didn’t have to maintain it if they didn’t want to. She reiterated that there would be no benefit to the Town, but would be an immediate threat to the residents. She didn’t feel it was fair for the Town to lower the property values and increase the resident’s work load. She asked what recourse the abutte= rs had to revisit the plan and keep the cul-de-sac. She also suggested that an emergen= cy road be added that could remain for Police and Fire. Mr. Culbert said the Board would r= evisit the issue. Ms. Hunt said the abutters were not privy to discussions involving taking out the cul-de-sac. Mr. Culbert said abutters were notified of the first meeting and it was up to them to find o= ut when subsequent meeting were held. <= /span>

Mr. Wilga said it was his understanding that originally the development was done with its own cul-de-= sac and thought reviewing a plan in some form of existence would help the proce= ss.

Mr. Ken Magarian, owner o= f lot 118 said the project had a direct affect of what may, or may not be done wi= th his land and had asked consideration of the Board for an easement from the proposed subdivision to his land. Mr. Culbert asked if there was already road frontage. Mr. Magarian answered yes.

Mr. Roger Parsons, Engine= er with Cuoco & Cormier, representing Mr. Magarian said his function was to sup= port his client. At this point the= y were surveying the property and felt it was a good opportunity to present the situation as an abutter. Mr. Culbert suggested that Mr. Parsons meet with the applicant. Mr. Scanzani asked the size of Mr. Magarian’s property. Mr. Parsons believed there was approximately twenty-five to thirty acres. M. Culbert reiterated that Mr. Par= sons should speak with the applicant.

Mr. Scanzani had concern = with the sight distance not being met because the easement would be in the hands of a private property owner. He sa= id the Board had discussed a similar case earlier in the meeting dealing with sight distance and felt it would be even harder with this case.

Mr. Yarmo felt it was a g= ood idea to match up with Mr. Magarian’s property. He said if a connection was not ma= de with Litchfield Circle the Town would end up with another cul-de-sac. He recalled the Board having a con= versation with Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbe= rt Associates, who said he would meet with abutters and look at designing the cul-de-sac to meet everyone’s concern. Mr. McNamara believed Mr. Yarmo= 217;s recollection was correct. Mr. Scanzani said he would rather have a connection.

Mr. Gospodarek said a let= ter had been sent on Jun= e 10, 2004 to direct abutters (Hunt & Wilga) along with a copy of the design, but = had no response. There was also a letter sent Sept= ember 21, 2004 (Wills or Willis). He said they were doing due diligence to contact people. He then discussed the easement, wh= ich he felt the Town was the best to do the maintenance. He said the Board hadn’t vot= ed regarding the cul-de-sac and pointed out that there was a restriction where= the road could go due to an existing 50ft. right-of-way.

Ms. Ouellette said the fi= le contained waiver requests for the traffic impact study and the curve radius; however waiver requests were still needed for the driveway on lot 1 crossing the WCD as well as the 15K area. Mr. Gospodarek said they were currently proposing the driveway throu= gh the WCD, which he understood would be covered with the Special Permit. He provided the Board with a copy = of the waiver for the 15K. Mr. McNam= ara asked if a waiver was needed for sight distance. Mr. Culbert answered yes. Mr. D’Andrea clarified that a waiver would be needed per Section 11.04,c,vii, for the driveway crossing (= in addition to the special permit).

Mr. McNamara noted that t= here was no open space shown on the plan.

Ms. Bousa said she would = like to see a maintenance plan how the sight line was proposed to stay clear. She said if the applicant wanted a waiver for the traffic study she would like the applicant to make a contribution towards a planning study for Sherburne Road and Mammoth Road, which could be part o= f the Board’s approval.

There was discussion rega= rding the driveway placement and possible WCD crossing. Mr. Scanzani questioned at what po= int an application didn’t meet the subdivision plan because of the number of waivers being requested; and at what point would an applicant come in with a reasonable plan that met the regulations (including one where a couple lots= had to come out because of the number of waivers). Ms. Ouellette pointed out at this = point there were six waivers. Mr. C= ulbert said he would like to have the applicant meet with Mr. D’Andrea, get = the list of concerns from the Board and see what could be done. Mr. Gospodarek wanted clear direct= ion from the Board. Mr. Yarmo sai= d the Board wanted to review the options. Mr. Culbert reiterated that there was a list of concerns to be revie= wed and the Board would like to look at different options.

Some of the Board’s concerns were: 1) road placement/crossing wetlands; 2) WCD crossing versus shared driveway; 3) traffic impact – already approved; 4) curve ̵= 1; already approved; 5) 15K – waiver submitted for lots 8,9,10,11; 6) cl= earing area identified on the east side; 7) wetland area with bottle/oil drum dump – applicant said they would clean it up; 8) easement to lot 1-118 = 211; engineers to discuss with each other.

There was a discussion re= garding road connectivity versus a cul-de-sac.&nbs= p; A suggestion was made that the engineer discuss the plan with the abutters and try to compromise.

Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Gos= podarek if he could have the plan done in one month. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

The plan was date specifi= ed to November 1, 2004; if the plan is not done by that date, it will not be date specified again.

Map 2 Lot 5-89 – Best B= uilt Realty Trust – off C= astle Hill Road – Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision f= or consideration

Attorney Steve Clark of B= outin & Associates, Londonderry<= /st1:City>, NH, representing the applic= ant, said they had been before the Board last month at which time talked about worked on a tentative agreement with the abutter. He said several meetings were held= to try and reach an alternative to the retaining walls submitted as part of the plan; however at this point an agreement has not been reached and the plan reflects the two retaining walls included in the design. He believed Dufresne-Henry’s comments had adequately been addressed (other than pending waiver requests)= . Attorney Cl= ark discussed the waivers being requested and said at the time that the road gr= ade waiver was denied, the previous engineer had made a representation that the regulations could be met, however that statement was inaccurate.

Mr. Culbert asked if subs= tantial changes had been made to this p= lan and if the same waivers were being requested. Attorney Cl= ark said the same waivers were being requested because they had been denied bas= ed on the basis that the regulations could be met. It was noted that the retaining wa= lls would be used as a substitution for erosion control (2-1 side slopes). The walls, based on the present wi= dth of the road were between fourteen and seventeen feet in height. Mr. Culbert believed there was a s= afety factor with a retaining wall (being 14ft. in height) versus a slope. Attorney Cl= ark said they were restricted by a pre-existing right-of-way. He said there were very few issues Dufresne-Henry had with the subdivision; it was the connection from the pre-existing right-of-way required by a previous Board.

Mr. Chuck Strickland of Meisner-Brem Corporation (project engineer) addressed the purpose of the two waivers and why the regulations could not be met. He showed the proposed plan as wel= l as a plan showing full compliance with the roadway slopes (the limit of grading = and profile view of what the road would look like). He said the requirement could not = be met and were proposing an 11.5% slope, with 50ft. leveling area going into the roadway.

Attorney Clark discussed the safety concerns and said they would propose a barrier (i.e. f= encing) at the peak of the wall. He circulated ‘talking points’ to members of the Board. He didn’t feel that the Board minutes accurately represent the original denial of the waiver. Attorney Cl= ark said on Meadowview and Benoit had substantially greater drops than the prop= osed plan.

Mr. D’Andrea review= ed a list of comments he compiled: 1) street name review/approval; 2) no open sp= ace provisions per regulations; 3) lot size calculations showing soil types = 211; breakdown of slope percentages; 4) lot 4 – question lot shape; 5) wai= ver requests for lots 4 & 5 100ft.x150ft. – 15K area – need to = see percentage of slopes; 6) driveway profiles/drainage for lots 1,2,4 & 6;= 7) well radius requirement lot 5 – only one place on that lot for radius/location; 8) perk. Test in 4k area – ensure 50ft.; 9) notations for state requirements/permits; 10) summary of waivers (5) that would need = to be requested as summarized in the Dufresne-Henry letter date September 22, 2004.

Mr. Strickland believed t= he Dufresne-Henry letter contained very few technical comments that could be addressed.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry referenced a letter issued September 30, 2004 to the Board a= nd reviewed such; waivers and/or comments were: 1) existing driveways abutting proposed road don’t meet the 100ft. distance from an intersection; 2) retaining walls don’t meet 2-1 slope requirements; 3) issue being 17f= t. to 18ft. in height – need to be easements for construction particular= ly on the south side; 4) 10% slope; 5) waiver of 3% within 100ft.; 6) driveway sight distance easement for lot 6; 7) driveway slope for lot 2 is 18% - slo= pe for lot 6 is 12% - lots typically were 10%; 8) question if street light required at intersection; 9) plan should be on USGS base – applicant agreed to as a condition of approval; 10) double grate catch basins – applicant contacting Highway Road Agent for input; 11) Gabian system propos= ed for storm water detention – information requested for this and design= of retaining walls prior to the start of construction; 12) ground water – discussed ditches along the driveway that come to the road and behind the p= anel so any water coming behind the slopes would go into drainage system.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Al Dubois, Castle Hill Road, abutter directly = across the street from proposed development. He questioned where snow would be removed to since retaining walls w= ould be in place; he believed it would end up in his yard. He said currently he had more wate= r in his yard than he could use. H= e discussed the current drainage system and believed the drainage from the proposed development would be added to it. He noted that he had already lost a lawn and retaining walls; there = is a pump in his front yard constantly pumping.= Mr. Dubois didn’t want to look at 17ft. or 18ft. retaining walls. He disagreed with the project.

Ms. Gayle Plouffe, Castle Hill Road, a contiguous neighbor to Mr. Dubois discussed the current drainage system and flow. She said when the subdi= vision was originally done the right-of-way was switched to this site; the neighbo= rs have watched the property change hands (since the 1970’s) and tried to seek responsible development and drainage.= Ms. Plouffe questioned the sight distance and if it met the requirements. She said additi= onal concerns are the radius turns for the fire trucks, traffic speeds and child= ren and the dangerous intersections (Castle Hill/Keyes Hill; Keyes Hill/Mammoth). She believed t= here were other alternatives that wouldn’t involve this access and questio= ned whether the developer had pursued such.&nb= sp; She pointed out that one abutter (north side) had a non-conforming l= ot with 174ft. frontage and questioned if that non-conforming lot would become less conforming.

Ms. Cheryle Dubois, Castle Hill Road confirmed that the right-of-way was a Town’s and wanted to know who would be responsible for maintenance/repair. She didn’t want to view a roadway with the walls coming down.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani discussed the right-of-way and the retaining wall and wanted to know where snow would be removed to. Mr. Strickland sa= id the retaining walls were constructed in a cut situation so guardrails would not= be required along the bottom; snow storage could occur in the 4ft. grass area between the edge of pavement and face of the retaining wall. Mr. Danevich asked the Board to co= nsider the height of the retaining walls. He discussed the maintenance items that the Town would be responsible for if accepted.

Mr. Culbert addressed the ‘flare’ on lot 2-5-98, which was currently less than 200ft. Mr. Strickland said that the existing right-of-way would not change = as a result of the proposed. Technically, (even though there are retaining walls) if the proposed road was accepted, the abutter’s lot would be made conforming by havi= ng frontage onto two roadways. M= r. Culbert said it would have to be accessible road frontage. Mr. Scanzani said there was a posi= tive slope, but there wasn’t a negative access point for drainage purposes.     &nb= sp; Attorney Clark said the current driveway grade is 16%; the current subdivision called for a retention area = for anything above, therefore the rest of the runoff was designed to be collect= ed as proposed. He believed the proposed plan would improve the present conditions. It was noted that Dufresne-Henry didn’t review the pre-development issues; Mr. Culbert said testimony couldn’t be given that the drainage was going to be better, if it had= not been reviewed. Mr. Strickland= said the drainage report was reviewed, including the flow rate at the existing drive= way, therefore they could say that the conditions would not be made worse.

Mr. McNamara recalled tha= t there was a question concerning intrusion into abutter’s property. Attorney Cl= ark said the wall could be constructed without the need to be outside the right= -of-way; it was an issue of cost. He s= aid the existing conditions would be removed as part of the construction plan; however he had seen some conflicting issues, which he believed would ‘= ;go away’ if they received subdivision approval.   Ms. Bousa said the plan show= ed that the radius of the new roadway would encroach across the existing drive= way of the abutting property. Att= orney Clark said that was pre-existing and didn’t h= ave any authority to relocate it. He discussed the history and said there was a disagreement with the Crawfords = who believed they had it by eminent domain.&nb= sp; He said they didn’t have an agreement yet with the Crawfords.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said this was the Town’s = deeded right-of-way. Ms. Bousa said = she would like guidance from legal council.&nb= sp;

Ms. Bousa questioned how = the Town would maintain without an easement from the abutters. Mr. Strickland said there would be= a limited amount of area for access on both sides and believed it could be constructed and maintained without requirement of any easement. He said they had been speaking wit= h the abutters, but had not reached an agreement. Ms. Bousa scaled the plan, which s= howed approximately five feet (5ft.) on each side.

Ms. Bousa had an issue wi= th the sight distance and noticed that there was a note on the plan that said clea= ring was needed to obtain 400ft. M= r. Strickland discussed what was needed to gain the required footage. Ms. Bousa said she would like to r= eview a sight distance plan.

Mr. McNamara asked if ope= n space was delineated on the plan. Attorney Clark answered no; he sa= id his client was willing to make a contribution.=

Ms. Sandra Crawford, Castle Hill Road, said she and her husband had been in contact with the applicant’s attorney, however, the applicant was unable to meet their conditions to set= tle the matter. She discussed her concerns as follows: 1) the safety issues; 2) liability issues with high retaining walls; 3) devaluation of abutting properties; and 4) expensive repair/maintenance of retaining walls.&nbs= p; Ms. Crawford believed the applicant was fully aware when the property was purchased that a driveway was located within the radius portion of the right-o-way, and that steep slopes created by excavating may not meet the Town’s regulations. She= said there was no hardship to the applicant because they had full use of the property as a single-family residence (which was requested through a varian= ce in 1998). She reviewed Subdiv= ision Regulations Section 10.5, a (waivers)(granting will not result in impacts to pubic safety). In closing, Ms. Crawford said she (and her husband) laid claim to the radius portion of the right-of-way through adverse possession.&n= bsp; She said they had no intention of moving their driveway so a road wi= th high retaining walls could be put in. She noted that some of their trees had been removed and fill had been excavated (which they intended to restore to their original elevation/conto= ur). She said they didn’t feel obligated to remove additional trees from their property line and lose more privacy. They had verifiable elevation plans from the 1970’s.&nbs= p;

Attorney Clark noted that the right-of-ways overlapped, not the pavement. He discussed the history of the pa= rcel and said the right-of-way with the ‘flared out radii’ was appro= ved I 1972 (the deed was given to the Town in 1974). He said adverse possession was rare against a municipality. He sa= id there had been discussions regarding alternatives with the Crawfords. He didn’t feel that both wal= ls could be eliminated (from an engineering standpoint), but the height could = be reduced (regulations allow for 24ft. pavement on a cul-de-sac).

Ms. Ouellette asked if th= is was a recorded 50ft. right-of-way. = Mr. Culbert said there had been no communication from Town Counsel. Attorney Cl= ark said he observed the deed at the registry.= Mr. McNamara recalled that Mr. Lynde provided the Board with informa= tion of the property’s history when the application was first before the Board. He said the applicant’s attorney also tried to provide information, but there was= no resolution. Mr. Culbert said a resolution from Town Counsel was needed.&n= bsp; Attorney Clark believed it was cl= early an established right-of-way.

Mr. Culbert asked how man= y waivers were being requested. Mr. Strickland said they had three waivers:

1) 3% leveling area for 1= 00ft and 2) maximum slope. He said there were some odd shaped= 15K building envelopes that met the 15K areas, which may need a waiver and would request if necessary. Mr. Cul= bert said a waiver would be needed. Mr. Strickland said Dufresne-Henry had an opinion that additional waivers shoul= d be requested, however Mr. Strickland they believed that additional waivers weren’t necessary because of existing conditions and the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Culbert felt= the civil issues should be fixed; the Board needed to find out if it was a publ= ic right-of-way.

Mr. McNamara felt the Boa= rd made it clear at the last meeting that the only reason the one additional extens= ion was granted was with the hope that the concerns could be ameliorated by buy= ing additional parcels. He said t= here were multiple problems with the plan and there had been since it was first = been brought to the Board, even though the applicant had made some efforts to try and lessen the problems. The = Board was still confronted with multiple waiver requests.   He didn’t feel that the= plan met the general purpose and intent of the Subdivision Regulations, nor does= it meet the specific concerns that were brought up by the engineer or abutters. He felt the propose= d plan was clear that it would injure adjoining/abutting property values; there we= re huge concerns with future maintenance costs and construction in the right-of-way. Retaining walls= may solve the erosion problem, but they don’t go into the aesthetic quali= ty or safety issues. He said the applicant purchased the property knowing the conditions and pointed out that the property was currently in use. He felt the Board should vote, not continue.

Mr. Culbert said he had c= oncerns with the slope of the road, shortness in length to accommodate snowy/icy conditions coming down onto Castle Hill Road and the grade (3% - 11.5%).

Mr. Scanzani said that th= e Board had discussed at the last meeting the fact they were not willing to grant t= he waiver for the retaining walls.   In addition, he felt the appl= icant needed to work out the civil issues.

Ms. Bousa asked if lot 5 = needed a well radius waiver. Mr. D’Andrea said he sat with the applicant’s engineer and discussed the well radius; the well radius could only be placed in the location indicated.

Attorney Clark believed this case was different than the one denied by the Board (at Mammoth Road). He said the civil issue would go a= way if the subdivision was approved. He said with regard to the retaining wall, the applicant was requesting the sa= me that has been precedence in the past. Mr. Culbert said there were other issues, not only the retaining wall. Mr. Yarmo believed the = other roads were approved for specific reasons, such as connectivity that was a risk/gain situation, which this plan was not.

It was noted that the wai= ver request had previously been denied.



MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = deny the plan for the following reasons: 1) slope of the road exceeds regulations specifically, not only the length of the 11.5% slope proposed, but also t= he 3% slope at the beginning of the road represented a safety hazard; 2) plan creates an adverse impact on abutting parcels (taking away the abutting parcel’s ability for quiet enjoyment of their property not looking = at a 17ft. concrete barrier with an excessive length of 250ft.); 3) retaining walls represent a huge burden to the Town to maintain once put in (their height and length also represent a safety issue for the abutters in the area); 4) easement and additional items that have to be worked out with abutters in order to construct the proposed, these issues have not been worked out.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried to deny the plan.

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – Mend= es, David – Irene Drive/= Thomas Avenue – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Voluntary Remand

Mr. Culbert noted that th= e Board had not received plans for this application. This was date specified to the November 1, 2004 meeting.

Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiG= razia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for consideration

The application was date specified to the November 1, 2004 meeting.

MINUTES

Septembe= r 9, 2004 – Deferred to the next mee= ting.

Septembe= r 20, 2004 – Deferred to the next mee= ting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLAN(S)

Novemb= er 1, 2004:

Map 9 Lot 9-9 – First Street Realty Tru= st – Golden Brook Estates – Request for Full Bond Release

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Rev. Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-L= ot subdivision for consideration

Map 38 Lot 1-116 – = Kendall & Linda Roche/Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Sherburne Road – Proposed 12-Lot Subdivision for consideration

Map 34 Lot 6-206 – Mendes, David – Irene Drive/Thomas Avenue – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Voluntary Remand

Map 4 Lot 9-69-15 – DiGrazia – Arlene Drive – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision for c= onsideration

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Scanzani/Danevich) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 12a.m.

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Respectfully submitted,

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Charity A. L. Willis

           &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;            = ;            &n= bsp;         Recording Secretary