PB Minutes 6-07-04

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

June 7, 2004

The Chairman, Paddy Culbe= rt called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter Mc= Namara, Bill Scanzani, Henry DeLuca, Gael Ouellette, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectm= en Representative Victor Danevich (left early), Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa, Alternate = Raymond Brunelle

Mr. Culbert informed that= Mr. Yarmo would vote in Ms. Bousa’s absence.

NEW BUSINESS for acceptance

Map 4 Lot 9-69-23; Map 8 Lot 9-69-22 – Mesiti Mill Pond Realty Trust/Arlene Gordon – Arlene Drive – Proposed 3-lot subdivision for consideration (for acceptance only – not for discussion at this time)

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.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The application was date specified to the = July 8, 2004 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Revocable Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-l= ot subdivision for consideration (for acceptance only – not for discussi= on at this time)

Mr. McNamara pointed out = that there were a few items on the agenda dealing with the Sherburne Road area, which was a to= pic of discussion during the meeting last month due to traffic concerns. He questioned if a traffic study s= hould be done for that area. Mr. Cu= lbert said if a traffic study was done, it should be for all the lots. It was believed that the regulatio= ns contained a provision that allowed the Planning Board to use discretion reg= arding traffic studies. Mr. Scanzani suggested asking NRPC what a study would cost to review both ends of Sherbu= rne road and possibly have the proposed subdivisions share such costs. Mr. D’Andrea will contact NRPC.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The application was date specified to the = July 8, 2004 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 29 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood R= oad – Site Plan Application to construct a 30x40 garage within the Wetland Conservation District adjacent to a Prime Wetland

Mr. Culbert noted that th= e plans being circulated had no revision date and had not been submitted to the Planning Department ten (10) days prior to the meeting as required.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board. He said when the Board reviewed th= e plan at a prior meeting the garage location was a question. He said the garage location had be= en changed.

Mr. Culbert reiterated th= at the plan should have been submitted to the Planning Department ten (10) days pr= ior the hearing. At this point, M= r. D’Andrea had no comment because he didn’t have an opportunity to review the plan.

Mr. Gospodarek said the B= oard had a major problem with the previous plan which showed the location of the gar= age set back in the wetland buffer (100-year flood plain), therefore the plan h= ad been revised to locate the garage next to the house with a driveway.

Mr. Danevich questioned i= f the plan needed to be reviewed by the Board if the building is located outside = the WCD. Mr. D’Andrea said = it required a site plan approval because it was a new building for a commercial operation. He said the buildi= ng appeared to be within the 50 foot area based upon the scale shown on the plan. Mr. Gospodarek said the corner of the building was located in the WCD buffer zone. Mr. D’Andrea said buildings = were not allowed in the WCD without a variance; the applicant received a variance for the previous plan (with the garage location in the back of the house) t= hat would not be applicable for the revised plan being presented (with the gara= ge location in front of the home).

Mr. Culbert said because = the plan was not submitted prior to the meeting, Mr. D’Andrea would need time = to review.

Mr. Scanzani asked for th= e height of the earthen berm. Mr. Gosp= odarek said the berm varied and in some cased would be 1 feet deep and in others it would be 2-foot deep because of the 129 top contour of the berm which would blend back into the ground. M= r. Scanzani believed that the site was a good place to use the mulch fencing d= ue to the location of the wetland (and for siltation). Mr. Gospodarek said if the state a= llowed mulch they would do so, but the state permit specifically called for a silt fence. Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Gospodarek to inform the Board if the state didn’t allow the mulch (a= nd to find out why). Mr. Yarmo q= uestioned if the earthen berm could be moved away from the buffer and closer to the garage. Mr. Gospodarek said it could be reviewed to see if the state permit would be affected. Mr. Yarmo said the earthen berm was predicated upon the garage being located behind the house. He didn’t feel the state wou= ld have any objection. Mr. Gospo= darek said they were trying to: 1) comply with the state permit and 2) move the garage and handle it as a separate construction. Mr. Yarmo noted that the state per= mit could be amended. Mr. Gospoda= rek said it was easier to put it in with the state rather than going back to the state and amending, but they would review since the plan was being deferred= to the next meeting.

Mr. Scanzani asked what t= he 5x10 rip rap pad would be used for. Mr. Gospodarek said the pads would be used for erosion control. He said under the old plan the sta= te had them form a dam, which would drain on each side.

The application was date = specified to the July 8, 20= 04 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 6-179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-lot subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

Mr. Culbert asked if the = plans had been revised since the last meeting.&n= bsp; Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposed pla= n to the Board, which had not been revised since the previous meeting. He said they would be discussing t= he culvert crossing/size and the cul-de-sac which had also been discussed at t= he previous meeting. He said the= y had increased the culvert crossing size from 4x12 to now be 5x12 and had added a 36-inch pipe culvert to handle a little of the stream. He noted that the stream was approximately 7-feet wide and with the added 2.5-feet on each side, animals would be able to cross. Mr. Gospodarek said the original cul-de-sac was proposed to be paved, with no island in the middle; there had been discussion regarding the amount of impervious surface and flow that would be discharged into the wetland. He said the cul-de-sac radius call= ed for in the regulations would increase the impervious area by 1200-feet; however they would be happy to design the cul-de-sac with either the paved center, = or green space middle. He said h= e spoke with Dave Jordan of TFMoran who didn’t have a problem with a conditio= nal approval with the remaining engineering items. He said there had also been discus= sion regarding the mitigation of the flood plain.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed th= at the brook was not always wet to 7-feet year-round. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. It was noted that the brook flowed year-round with reduced flow in the summer.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services said it was relatively typical for DOT projects to include a shelf on each side for animal crossings. He discussed the hazards for wildl= ife with tunnel crossings. He sai= d the proposed plan showed a shelf that appeared to be sufficient and met the DOT criteria. He discussed the de= sign (rip-rap rock with soil laid over the top) which the animals could cross without trouble.

Mr. McNamara recalled tha= t Craig Wood (Louis-Berger Group) suggested that a higher culvert may be better. He asked if the plan increased the height of the culvert. Mr. Gospodarek said the culvert was raised one foot. Mr. Gove said it was difficult to = get small animals to go through the tunnels (which always had problems with light). He said the height al= lowed for more light in the tunnel.

Mr. Danevich said he stoo= d by his earlier request (at the previous meeting) regarding the cul-de-sac; open gr= een space center and outside circumference touches the property line. Mr. Gospodarek said they were will= ing to comply with the open center and that they could take the cul-de-sac and mov= e it back. Mr. Danevich said one r= eason for his request was to keep the symmetry with the road directly across the street (Jones Farm Road) which had an open center. He = said the Board took a stand when the regulation was created and would like to ad= here to it. Mr. DeLuca asked who w= as responsible for cutting the grass in the center. Mr. Danevich said every situation = was different, but it would be the Town or the neighbors that would be responsi= ble. Mr. DeLuca said there was a situat= ion in his neighborhood where grass wasn’t being cut; he didn’t want to put additional burden on the Town. Mr. Culbert felt it went without saying that the center of the cul-de-sac should be loamed and seeded.&nb= sp;

Mr. Yarmo asked if the Conservation Commission’s items had been addressed: 1) first two hous= es on the right at the egress driveway suggested to be moved out of the WCD – Mr. Gospodarek answered no; he said the original plan set showed a shared driveway for the first two homes which was pulled from the egress point. 2) house with long dri= veway being site specific away from the WCD because of the proximity to the mitigation area – Mr. Gospodarek showed the mitigation area which was approximately 150 feet from the location.&= nbsp; Mr. Yarmo questioned if the original plan showed two separate drivew= ays for the first two homes. It w= as noted that the Board had been provided with plans showing the first two hom= es as having separate driveways; the plan being presented (on the presentation board) by Mr. Gospodarek showed the first two homes as having a shared driveway. Mr. Gospodarek said= if there was an issue, they would combine the first two lots into one lot. He noted the shared driveway was d= ue to the filter treatment plan (for road runoff) suggested by TFMoran.

Mr. Culbert said if a dif= ferent set of plans was being presented, the Board should have a copy. Mr. Gospodarek agreed. Mr. Culbert asked which set of pla= ns was correct. Mr. Gospodarek said = he would like the Board to conditionally approve the set of plans to TFMoran’s comments, at which point they would come back before the Bo= ard with a revised set of plans that addressed the comments. Mr. Culbert said it would seem tha= t the revised plans would have been presented.&n= bsp;

Mr. Culbert reviewed the = issues. He asked the Board if anyone had a problem with the open culvert or the two and a half (2.5ft.) foot border on each side of the culvert R= 11; the Board members did not have a problem with the open culvert or the borde= r. Mr. Culbert said the issue was tha= t the Board was given a plan that showed two driveways, but the plan being presen= ted showed a shared driveway. He = said in order for the Board to review, they would need a new set of plans.

Mr. Scanzani asked what f= rontage the first lot (6-179) had on Mammoth Road and questioned if the driveway should be placed on Mammoth Road, which would allow for a drainage treatment to be incorporated without affec= ting any driveways. After review o= f the plan, it didn’t appear that the parcel contained adequate frontage fo= r Mammoth Road.

Mr. Danevich believed the= Board should have the opportunity to review a revised set of plans. He was not in favor of moving forw= ard with a conditional approval. =

Mr. Culbert asked the len= gth of the shared driveway. Mr. Gosp= odarek said the shared portion of the driveway was approximately fifteen feet (15ft). He said if the shared driveway was an issue, they would just do one. It was reiterated that the two lots would be combined into one lot if the Board had a problem with the shared driveway. Mr. Culbert also no= ted that the cul-de-sac should remain open.&nb= sp;

There was no public input= .

Mr. Culbert reminded Mr. Gospodarek that the revised plans should be provided to the Planning Depart= ment at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Board meeting.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the= items that would be contained on the plan: 1) revised to show either two driveway= s, or the two lots combined into one lot; 2) cul-de-sac will be open space in = the middle (loamed and seeded). M= r. D’Andrea asked if the proposed culvert design was the same one review= ed by Louis-Berger Group. Mr. Gospodarek answered no. Mr. D’Andrea said he would forward the plan to Louis-Berger for review.

The application was speci= fied to July 8, 2004.

Map 20 Lot 3-130-4 – A.= G.A.N. Realty Corp. – Bearh= ill Road – Proposed 2-lot subdivision for continued consideration

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board. He said the Board had walked the s= ite and believed the only issue was related to Map 3 Lots 124-2 & 4 pertain= ing to a common driveway that currently had a drainage problem onto Mammoth Road. He said he discussed the issue wit= h DOT who recommended that they apply for a trench cut so that a driveway culvert could be constructed under the driveway, which they were willing to do.

Mr. Yarmo believed the of= f-site drainage work was related to when the road bond was released, not the subdi= vision plan. Mr. Gospodarek understo= od (from Peter Zohdi, Herbert Associates) that it was a concern of the Board in conn= ection with the project. Mr. Scanzani understood when the subdivision had been approved the two lots were combined into one partly because of the steep slopes in the back coming down to Mammoth Road. He said he requested a site walk b= ecause the two lots had been cut and filled, but the topography being presented was not what the Board originally reviewed.&nb= sp; He said he would not vote to take a lot that had eight feet (8ft.) to ten feet (10ft.) of fill that still had a ‘cliff’ straight down= to Mammoth Road. Mr. Culbert understood that Mr. Scanzani wasn’t saying he had issue with the disturbance, but that there was a danger/safety issue along the backside of= the two lots.

Mr. Danevich asked how the proposed lots differed from Valley Hill and Brown Avenue. Mr. Scanzani said area brought up = by Mr. Danevich didn’t have the backside of the lots against the property li= ne on the houses below and they weren’t so high up in the area without natural growth on the backside (the proposed lots were blown seeded). Ms. Ouellette said crushed rock ha= d been laid down. She questioned dur= ing the site walk what would happen to the lots in two (2) years after rain. She said at the bottom of the slope there was a five (5) foot wide ledge that was proposed to hold the water. She said the abutters questioned d= uring the subdivision hearing where the major runoff would go, which she feels has been increased by the proposed. Mr. Culbert asked if the runoff had been addressed. Mr. Gospodarek answered no.

Mr. Yarmo said during the= site walk there was an area at the back side of the property where the water wou= ld be directed toward the drainage. He said the plan didn’t represent the grading done to address the drainage.

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n being presented didn’t show the steepness of the lot. He said the original plan showed a= fifty foot (50ft.) drop-off and the houses from the back of the lot were approximately one hundred twenty feet (120ft) further. He said the problem were lots approximately one hundred fifty feet (150ft.) in the air, with no back yard= , on soil, on a steep slope that had been filled (with ledge underneath). Mr. Gospodarek said Meadowview was= an example of some tremendous fills and believed the building department had s= een similar construction. He said= the existing contours were approximately 25%-30%; the test pits were done in the natural soils (which is why the septic subdivision was approved). He said if there were erosion prob= lems a stipulation could be added that the slope is loamed, seeded and growing pri= or to building and occupancy permits being issued.

Mr. Culbert said it sound= ed like there were two issues other than the land disturbance: 1) safety and 2) drainage. Mr. Gospodarek said= the Town had dealt with similar lots. Mr. Culbert said other lots weren’t as steep. He believed the drainage could be engineered and fixed, but didn’t feel the safety issue had been addre= ssed. Mr. Scanzani said safety was the i= ssue of the Board during the original approval and the reason the lots had been combined.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Yarmo felt the draina= ge issue had been addressed by the grading, however the plan being presented didn’t represent what was on-site.&n= bsp; His issue was stabilization.

Mr. Gospodarek asked for a deferral to give them the opportunity to do an as-built survey of the prope= rty and to be able to address the survey (safety issues) and the grading of the property.

Mr. Scanzani questioned w= hy the plan wouldn’t be denied. Mr. Culbert was unsure if the plan reflected what was discussed at the site walk (such as the drainage slope/disturbed area toward Bearhill).

Mr. Danevich was aware of= other issues such as: 1) there were not two qualified test pits within the 4K are= a of both lots; 2) 4K area is within the slope easement of both lots (should rev= iew that the slope easement was within the 15%) – Mr. Scanzani said becau= se the lot was filled eight feet (8ft.) to ten feet (10ft.) in some places he = was unsure how test pits were done to natural grade to ledge. He said the first set of test pits= , on the original subdivision showed ledge from one foot (1ft.) to three feet (3ft.). Mr. Danevich was not opposed to the plan being worked on for engineering; he strongly recommended that Mr. Gospodarek work with Mr. D’Andrea to ensure that his concerns were also addressed.

The application was date specified to Augu= st 2, 2004.

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

Ms. Ouellette said she had stepped down from a previous plan by the developer because he had done work= for her in the past. The work has= been completed, and Ms. Ouellette had no further dealings with the developer. She asked if the Board wanted her = to step down from this case. The= Board did not have a problem with Ms. Ouellette remaining seated on the Board.

Mr. Scanzani asked if Louis-Berger had returned the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIAR= 17;). Mr. D’Andrea said the EIA ha= d been received, but the results of the review by Louis-Berger had not been receiv= ed. Mr. Scanzani asked if the developer received an Economic Impact to fill out.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea answered no.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board. He said at the previous meeting th= ey received application acceptance for the project, during which time the reco= nstruction of the cul-de-sac was discussed. He circulated a proposal for the existing cul-de-sac as well as photographs of= Litchfield Circle and reviewed the concept with the Board.&n= bsp; The proposal was to extend the driveways and make a nice area that w= ould blend into the area.

Mr. McNamara asked if the property owners had been consulted. Mr. Gospodarek answered no. <= /span>

Mr. Gospodarek said the i= ntersection and sight lines (455ft both directions) onto Sherburne Road had been reviewed. He explained what would be done to improve the sight line (vegetation cut down to 1.5 feet) so they could obta= in a state driveway permit. Mr. Sc= anzani questioned why the vegetation wouldn’t be removed (and replaced with something else) rather than cut. Mr. Gospodarek said they didn’t want to destroy the wetland/bu= ffer vegetation. Mr. Scanzani said= if the vegetation was simply cut it would grow in a matter of time and block t= he sight line. Mr. Gospodarek said the vegetation would need to be maintained.&nb= sp; Ms. Ouellette didn’t feel a plan should start off with the knowledge of an area that would not be maintained. Mr. Culbert asked how far in the vegetation would be cut and if it was owned by the Town. Mr. Gospodarek said the land was o= wned by the applicant and would be cut in approximately thirty feet (30ft.). He discussed the alternatives to c= utting the area but still maintaining the sight distance. Mr. McNamara asked if the sight di= stance met the requirements of DOT or AASHTO.&nbs= p; Mr. Gospodarek said based upon the speed, the DOT required four hund= red feet (400ft.).

Mr. DeLuca questioned how= this vegetation plan differed from the previous case. He said the maintenance was being = left for the residents, which he didn’t believe wouldn’t happen.

Mr. Yarmo said the Conser= vation Commission received the EIA the day before their meeting, which didn’= t provide them with enough time for review. He said they would like to do a joint site walk with the Planning Board.

Mr. Scanzani reiterated h= is question of how the sight distance would be maintained; he didn’t know how the area could be cut (when it was wet) since the area was thirty feet (30ft) across.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Envi= ronmental addressed the jurisdictional issues of wetlands. He said by cutting vegetation (dur= ing the dry season) and not disturbing soils (which were mainly poorly drained)= a wetlands permit would not be needed. He said if the area was to be converted to upland (soil with grass) would require a soil disturbance and permit with the NH Wetland Bureau. Based upon previous situations Mr.= Gove had dealing with sight distance, the Wetland Bureau was unlikely to grant a permit for the purposes of cutting to maintain sight distance. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that the = land was not <= st1:PlaceType w:st=3D"on">Town owned and questioned how to m= ake a homeowner keep the vegetation low to maintain sight distance. Mr. Gospodarek said the road was a= state road. Mr. Gove said if the ar= ea was not maintained, it would grow just as quickly as upland as it would a wetland. Mr. Scanzani asked i= f the sight distance could be met if the road was relocated. Mr. Gospodarek said he would revie= w the maintenance issues further and get back to the Board.

Mr. Yarmo asked if the fo= rested area could be removed and replaced with a spreading low lying vegetation to dominate the area. Mr. Gove s= aid there was a question if particular vegetation could thrive in the soil type. He said even with low vegetation, other species would still introduce themselves to the area.

Mr. McNamara wanted it to= be clear that the Board would require a traffic study.

Mr. Yarmo discussed the n= eed for stumping certain species so they wouldn’t grow back. Mr. Gove said if the area was to be converted to upland it would need to be stumped and possibly filled. He said if the Board wanted to move forward making the area upland, he would need to take the case before the Wetland Bureau and see if they agree.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Courtney Magarian, representing her father Ken Magarian (owner of lot 1-118), wanted to ensure that the Board had received a copy of a letter her father submitted to the Planning Department. Ms. Ouel= lette read Mr. Magarian’s letter aloud which stated the concern with the affects on his adjoining property. Basic research had been done regarding potential use and or developm= ent and possible conservation area of the land. The letter requested that any/all information be made available. Ms. Magarian noted that her father was traveling, but would attend all future meetings. She said her family= would like to understand what/how the project would affect their property. Mr. Scanzani asked how large the property was. Ms. Magarian sa= id their property was approximately thirty-eight (38) acres. She requested the opportunity to s= peak with everyone before the project moved forward. Mr. Scanzani said it may not be a = bad idea to request a fifty foot (50ft) right-of-way from Litchfield circle to = the back end of lot 118 to alleviate the need for a long cul-de-sac if the parc= el was developed. Mr. Yarmo said= Mr. Magarian wanted to keep his options open not only for development, but for conservation. He said the Boa= rd should keep in mind that the parcel may be conservation.

Mr. Danevich reviewed Mr. D’Andrea’s comments provided at the May 3, 2004 meeting (1) test pits 4k area location; 2) fire cisterns; 3) waiver request to create lot th= at requires driveway crossing; 4) missing WCD boundaries; 5) no test pits shown for lots 1,2,4,5,7; lots 3, 8= , 9 – one test pit shown; lots 6 & 10 – test pits not separated= by 50ft), during the meeting Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said the pl= an would be revised by the next hearing; Mr. Danevich said the items had not b= een incorporated. Mr. Gospodarek = said they hadn’t revised the plan because the Town engineer’s commen= ts had not been received until recently. Mr. Danevich recommended that the Board allow the Planning Director latitude to work with the engineering firm before plans re-appeared on an agenda. He believed the Board= was wasting time by reviewing plans that were not ready.

Mr. McNamara said the Boa= rd had previously discussed open space and possible mitigation; he suggested that = the Board consider a connection/conservation land easement.

Mr. Gospodarek said he br= ought an overview map showing land in T= yngsboro, Massachusetts.

There was a discussion re= garding when the application would be further reviewed. It was decided to not date specify= the application, but instead direct the applicant to work with the Planning Director and come back to the Board when the application was ready to view. Mr. McNamara wanted to = be certain that there was a tracking process so that the application didn̵= 7;t ‘slip through the cracks’.&nbs= p; Mr. D’Andrea said he had tracking procedure now in place.

Map 41 Lot 10-310 – Cer= ullo – Route 38 – Modification to Approved Site Plan<= /b>

Mr. Paul Warren, contract= or responsible for building the Cerullo building met with the Board to discuss= the application. He said during t= he May 3, 2004 Board meeting there was discussion regarding retroactively approvin= g a site plan. At that meeting it was decided that the Board would review the site on May 17, 2004 and come to an agreement re= garding what action would be taken. M= r. Warren said he spoke with the Planning Director in connection with the meet= ing minutes and were now seeking approval to take the steps discussed at the si= te walk. He reviewed the issues = and noted what they had agreed to do: 1) area formally occupied by the barn – propose to re-= grade the existing fill to as near 3-1 as possible extending 4ft from existing sidewalk to the erosion control fence; 2) area where retaining was supposed= to be located (but was not built) – soils were beginning to heal, and th= ere were areas of vegetation – it was proposed not to disturb the areas t= hat had grown and to introduce a new seed mix (slope is 3-1 and in an area with existing trees 2-1); 3) bring in loam where the barn was formally located, discussing the type of seed mix with Gove Environmental; 4) introduce 70ft = of wood guardrail at the end of the parking lot built to conform with the radi= us; 5) loam between the edge of the driveway and the rip rap swale on the north= end of the building. Mr. Warren s= aid if the Board approved the plan, the items would be completed within two weeks.

Mr. Scanzani said the rem= aining issue was providing an as-built. Mr. Warren said they had an as buil= t, but they needed to fill in the line at the newly created slope. He said there was already a line a= nd the top and bottom of the slope. = Mr. Culbert recalled they were going to get 3-1 slope as much as possible. Mr. Warren explained that they wou= ld be able to have 3-1 slope, except in the areas with the trees which would be 2= -1 (he noted that the area appeared to be growing and was stabilized).

Mr. DeLuca said his conce= rn was if a rail of the guardrail was removed in the winter and snow was pushed ov= er the embankment, any sand/salt/chemical would be onto the embankment and pos= sibly kill the vegetation. Mr. Warr= en said it had always been the intention to push the snow over the embankment,= but didn’t feel that the owner would put chemicals down.

Mr. Yarmo’s underst= anding at the site walk was that because the retaining wall was removed, the area = had been graded to the wetlands and removed the buffer. He believed the buffer was going t= o be restored and the purpose of getting Gove Environmental involved was to do a planting plan to restore the buffer that had been removed. He also pointed out that the area discussed for depositing the snow was the buffer area. Mr. Culbert said snow may need to = be removed or placed in another location.&nbs= p;

Mr. Culbert recalled that= Gove Environmental was going to get involved not only for the slope area, but al= so in connection with the reconstruction of the wetland area. Mr. Warren said the vegetation wou= ld creep up the hill and felt if the soil was stabilized the other vegetation = in the area would come up the slope. He was unsure if the engineer had contacted Gove Environmental.

Mr. Yarmo said since the = Board walked the site, he didn’t see any changes to the site. He understood that there would be temporary stabilization and felt that the whole landscape plan should be reviewed given the fact that it was located on Route 38. Mr. Culbert said the only issue he= saw was the plantings. Mr. Warren= said he was seeking the approval from the Board so they could do the necessary w= ork. Mr. Culbert said the plan couldn&#= 8217;t be approved without at least introducing seed mix over the entire sloping w= ith plants that could tolerate heat and dryness per the suggestion of Jim Gove. Mr. Warren asked if they could correspond with Mr. D’Andrea regarding this. Mr. Culbert said the other issue t= hat wasn’t clearly drawn out was that they would try to get as close to a 3-1 slope as possible. Mr. Warren said they would try to do it. He noted = that the slope was pretty much established.&nbs= p; There was further discussion regarding the site and the existing condition of the slope and wetland buffer.=

Mr. Culbert asked if the = Board was okay with Mr. Warren contacting Gove Environmental and Mr. D’Andr= ea regarding the seeding and the plants. M= r. DeLuca asked if Mr. Yarmo would also be involved. Mr. Culbert said Mr. Yarmo could be provided with a copy of the report.

NEW BUSINESS for Public Hearing

Map 24 Lot 12-44-11 – Meissner, Maureen & Eloise – Lannan Drive – Well Radius Wa= iver Request

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.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the request to the Board. He said they were requesting a wai= ver to allow the well radius to go into the Town right-of-way. He said when test pits were done a= nd sited the house, they wanted to place the house closer to the roadway instead of = in the back to disturb more area. He said essentially this was the design approved by the state.

Mr. Culbert confirmed tha= t they were seeking to have the well radius encroach on Town owned land. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked how far in the = well radius encroached. Mr. Gospod= arek said approximately eighteen feet (18ft.).&= nbsp;

There was no public input= .

Mr. Scanzani questioned h= ow they got into the position of moving the well versus moving the septic so that t= he well fit. Mr. Gospodarek said= the plan was approved before the regulations were enforced and the developer and owner didn’t want to move the house very far back, they wanted to keep the house as far as they could in front.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert said the house didn’t affect how far back the sept= ic system was located. Mr. Gospo= darek said when the house was moved back, the well was also moved, which in turn affected the placement of the septic system.

Mr. Scanzani asked for clarification of the enforcement. Mr. D’Andrea said these issues started to be enforced when he began reviewing building permits. He said during a past meeting there was a discussion regarding how t= he review process could be monitored. He went on to discuss the review process that now took place. Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel tha= t the Board should waiver the well and septic placement; if it doesn’t fit there wasn’t an approved lot. Mr. Culbert thought the Board said people could go onto Town land for the road. Mr. D’Andrea = said that could only be done if the subdivision regulations were modified. Mr. Culbert believed the Health In= spector was okay with the process, but the Board hadn’t followed through. Mr. Scanzani discussed the future concerns with allowing a well radius in a road (e.g. salt). Mr. McNamara believed that the Boa= rd was following the process based upon what Health Inspector (Paul Zarnowski) and Building Inspector (Roland Soucy) were doing in the field. Mr. D’Andrea said the Board = would have to modify the regulations to allow the Board of Health the authority t= o go through the state process of granting waivers. Mr. Scanzani recalled the discussi= on regarding giving the Health Inspector jurisdiction as far as making some adjustments on the lot. He no= ted that the Town’s regulations could be more restrictive than the state.=

There was no public input= .

Mr. Danevich made a motio= n to approve the well radius request based upon the overlap area only being eigh= teen feet (18ft). He didn’t = see the overlap as detrimental to the property. Ms. Ouellette asked if the waiver = needed to be accepted for consideration. Mr. D’Andrea said the acceptance was implied.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = approve the well radius waiver request.

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Scanzani and Mr. Yarmo voted= no.

* see below for further consideration

Map 31 Lot 12-42-1 – Me= issner, Maureen & Eloise – Lannan Drive – Well Radius Request

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.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the waiver request for review. He said the layout and lot shape w= as different than the previous request (see lot 11 above). He discussed the test pits and not= ed that they were using the soil they had on the property to meet the septic system requirements. He said = as the well radius was moved it became more restrictive due to the ledge. Mr. Culbert noted that with this p= lan, the house location and everything could be moved back. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Danevich said he woul= d not support this waiver request because it appeared to be an issue of convenien= ce versus lot topology.

Mr. McNamara said if ther= e was a problem it was with the lot shape. Mr. Danevich said that Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates was awa= re that the septic would be far back and didn’t ‘buy’ the fa= ct that it would be moved up for convenience.= He recalled that this plan was reviewed lot by lot to ensure all components would comply.

Mr. Scanzani believed in = the previous request (see lot 11 above) the house could have been moved. Mr. Danevich compared the two requ= ests and believed the second request was different from the first in that the ho= use location could be moved. Mr. Culbert also believed that the house and septic could be moved to maintain = the seventy-five foot (75ft) radius. &nbs= p;

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Danevich/Scanzani) To = deny the well radius request.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked that t= he Board reconsider the vote taken in connection with the well waiver request for Ma= p 24 Lot 12-44-11.

MOTION:

To reconsider the vote = taken in connection with the well radius request approval for Map 24 Lot 12-44-11.=

VOTE:

(5-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Danevich and M= r. Culbert voted no.

It was Mr. Scanzani’= ;s opinion that the house had been moved for convenience which predicated the moving of the septic and well. Mr. McNamara asked if the septic could be moved back. Mr. Gospodarek didn’t know w= hat the test pits on site were. M= r. Danevich said the applicant could request reconsideration; he then made the following motion based upon the same reasons as initially discussed (well radius only being eighteen feet in the right-of-way):

MOTION:

(Danevich/McNamara) To = grant the well radius waiver request.

VOTE:

(2-5-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. Scanzani, Mr. McNamara, Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Ouellette and Mr. Yarmo voted no.

Mr. McNamara changed his = vote based upon the assumption that the septic tank could be moved back and with= the idea that the holding tank was within the seventy-five foot (75ft.) radius. Ms. Ouellette also ch= anged her vote based upon the possibility that the septic could be moved back.

Mr. Danevich excused hims= elf and left the meeting.

Map 32 Lot 1-139, 140 & 142 – Montbleau, Armand, Rita, Roger, Dennis & Eileen – Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 23-= lot subdivision for conceptual discussion

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.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates presented the conceptual plan for a twenty-two (22) lot subdivis= ion to the Board. He said the road s= ystem was in a pitch-fork design from Spaulding Hill to two cul-de-sacs (with a distance of approximately 2000feet). He said an existing right-of-way was being used to gain access. He said they were aware of the tra= ffic study.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= Hudson side of the property was developed, or a potential for connection. Mr. Roger Montbleau said the Hudson side was a = marsh area that would need to be dredged and didn’t feel the state would al= low it. He didn’t feel a connection could be made to the Hudson side across the wetland. Mr. McNamara said the Board would look for open land given the size, possible interconnection and the other developments presently before the Board.

Ms. Ouellette said it had= been brought to her attention that the neighbors had a concern about the lack of water in the area and wanted to let the applicant know of the concern. Mr. Montbleau said he was aware of= the water given the fact that he lived in the area. Mr. Culbert said the Board could r= equest that the developer drill wells to make sure that a well could be placed on = the property with the cost being passed to the land owner when purchasing the land. Mr. McNamara questioned= if the cul-de-sacs could be connected to form a loop. Mr. Culbert said it appeared that = a wetland divided the property between the cul-de-sacs.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Steve Long, 16 Slavin Drive had concerns regarding the narrow width of Spaulding Hill Road and wanted to k= now if there were any plans to widen the roadway for accessibility of school busse= s, or emergency equipment. He sa= id water was also an issue and asked that the Board consider the amount of wetlands in the area.

Mr. Mark Laurin, 10 Slavin Drive, said water was a great concern and noted he had three (3) wells on his prop= erty and still was only able to get less than one gallon per minute.

Mr. Allen, an abutter fro= m Hudson, NH, informed that he occasionally (over the last couple years) had to truck wat= er in to his well (September/October).

Ms. Niki Kakris, Spaulding Hill Road, discussed the history of the property (since it had previously been owned by her family in the past). She believed the proposed development would land-lock her property (lot 1-138).= Mr. Culbert asked if she had acces= s to her property from any other area. Ms. Kakris was unaware of any other access. She then noted (through information contained in a past lawsuit that had been dropped) that an Indian may have resided on the property, and may also have been buried there (between the original farmhouse and Armand’s house). Mr. Culbert said documented proof = of where the Indian had resided and was buried would need to be provided to the Planning Director. Mr. Montbl= eau believed Ms. Kakris may currently have a walking easement to her property.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Culbert asked that information= be provided regarding the easement.

Mr. Michael McCabe, 20 Applewood Road, was concerned regarding the wells. He said in the past the Board had approved an extension of Slavin Drive and since that time the turtle population had diminished. He had concerns regarding the conservation aspects of the area and n= oted that the area was very wet. H= e was also concerned that some work had already been done, and there was a siltat= ion issue. Mr. Culbert said the Planning Director was aware of the situation.

Mr. Scanzani asked how cl= ose Pennichuck water was to the site. Mr. Gospodarek said Pennichuck didn’t have water in Hudson, even so, it didn’t come close to the site.

Mr. Yarmo said he would l= ike to view the abutting properties, roadways and conservation lands. Mr. Gospodarek said they would try= to look for the wetland. Mr. Sca= nzani suggested that Hudson be notified of the proposed plan. Mr. McNamara said the Board should have some idea of the surrounding area, poss= ibly through an aerial photograph. Mr. Montbleau said they would try to come up with something.

Map 36 Lot 10-10 – Comeau, John & Olivia/Tuck Realty C= orp. – Dutton Road – Conceptual discussion

Mr. Culbert informed that= the application would not be heard. The applicant is working on some items; abutters will be re-notified by the application at a later date to inform when the application would be heard.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Map 38 Lot 1-112-13 – F= ort, Michael – 5 Autumn Street – Modification to an approved Subdivi= sion – Propose to remove a portion of a No-Cut Easement along a property l= ine

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.

Mr. Michael Fort, 5 Autum= n Street met with the Board to discuss his application. He said the property was purchased= in November, 2000; when the land was subdivided their lot was created with a l= arge conservation easement in the rear and a fifteen foot (15ft) easement strip = that ran along the northerly border. He said the fifteen foot easement corresponded at the time of the subdivision approval to land that the neighbors had used as an extension of their lawn = over the property line. He said the strip of land was cleared and developed into a manicured lawn complete with in-ground sprinklers, pet fencing and in-ground pool. Mr. Fort believed the conservation easement was ill-conceived based on what he had noted; no known official or conservation easement exists for the easement and there is no discussion no= ted in the Town meeting minutes for the subdivision. He noted that no other lot in the subdivision had fifteen foot (15ft) conservation easements on property lines. He didn’t feel t= hat it made sense to have a conservation easement on a well manicured lawn. He ended by requesting that the conservation easement be removed so they could maintain the strip of their property and plant a row of shrubberies.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara asked the le= ngth of the conservation easement. Mr= . Fort said the conservation easement ran along the northern border of their prope= rty for approximately three hundred twenty feet (320ft) to a large conservation easement in the rear of the property. Mr. McNamara confirmed the statement being made that Mr. Fort’s neighbor developed the land as a lawn prior to Mr. Fort moving in. Mr. Fort answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked who was cutting= the lawn and if there was encroachment by the neighbor. Mr. Fort said he was cutting the l= awn and there was no encroachment by his neighbor at this point.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed th= at the land was owned Mr. Fort and had been cleared by his neighbor. It was assumed that Mr. Fort’= ;s neighbor installed the sprinkler system.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani said the Board should review the meeting minutes from t= he subdivision approval to find out the purpose of the easement. Mr. Culbert informed that any encroachment of neighbors would be a civil matter.

Mr. Yarmo believed the ea= sement must be the pathway to access the conservation easement. Mr. Culbert believed the easement = was meant to be a walking path. M= r. D’Andrea said the original subdivision plan referred to the easement = as a ‘no-cut easement’. Mr. Scanzani questioned why a walking path would be ‘no-cut’. Mr. Yarmo asked if the applicant w= anted to remove the easement, or the buffer portion of the easement. Mr. Fort asked that the easement be removed so he could plant privacy shrubs.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani asked if the conservation easement ran along additional lots. Mr. D’Andrea beli= eved the easement ran along the backside of several lots (approximately 100ft. d= eep; the land was labeled on the plan as: forested buffer conservation district easement no-cut/no-disturb line). Mr. McNamara confirmed that the fifteen foot (15ft.) strip was meant= to be no-cut/no-disturb. Mr. D’Andrea said it was labeled as a no-cut easement.

Mr. Fort provided the Boa= rd with a copy of the meeting minutes from the subdivision.

Ms. Ouellette asked if th= ere were any other access easements shown for the back piece (conservation easement), other than on Mr. Fort’s property.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea answered no.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert confirmed that it was the only way to back to the conservation easement. Mr. D’Andrea answered yes. =

Mr. McNamara asked if the no-cut/no-disturb easement was noted on Mr. Fort’s deed. Mr. Fort believed it was. Mr. McNamara said the Board didn&#= 8217;t have power to do anything if it was on the deed. Mr. DeLuca said it appeared that t= he area should be put back to its vegetated state (with the sprinkler removed). Mr. Culbert said it= was a civil matter or an inspection matter. Mr. D’Andrea said it would no longer be a civil matter if the = Town had a fifteen foot (15ft) easement that had been cut.

Mr. Fort provided the Boa= rd with a copy of his deed. Ms. Ouell= ette read a portion of the deed aloud. Mr. Culbert said the Board could not remove the easement, but could request Code Enforcement to review. Mr. Ya= rmo felt the language used to describe the easement implied that the Board allo= wed access of the property for the stewardship of the conservation easement. There was further discussion regar= ding the interpretation of what the Board meant when placing the easement on the plan.

Mr. DeLuca asked what the Fort’s would like to do with the easement. Mr. Fort said they would like to p= lant a privacy screen along the property and would like to mow the remaining area.= The Board discussed what actions c= ould and could not happen within the easement and how to enforce the conditions = of the deed. Mr. McNamara didn&#= 8217;t feel that the Board should provide advice to the applicant, other than to s= eek the opinion of a land-use attorney. It was decided to request Code Enforcement to review and make a recommendation.

Mr. Fort questioned if th= e issue pertained to the deed, or the conservation easement and wanted to know if t= he Board had any jurisdiction regarding placing, modifying or removing easements. Mr. Culbert said t= he Board had no jurisdiction when an easement was placed on a deed. Ms. Ouellette said only a court of= law could remove the deed restriction, however, enforcement could be handled through the Town. There was f= urther discussion regarding the easement which lead to the motion below.

There was no public input= .

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant should have the opportunity to withdraw the request. Mr. Scanzani believed the code enforcement action would take care of the situation.

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = not allow the modification to the approved subdivision as requested. Mr. D’Andrea will have Code Enforcement review and make a recommendation and restore the easement as outlined in the original subdivision.&nb= sp;

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried to deny the request to modify an approved subdivision.

Map 17 Lot 13-37-33 – Songini, Robert – He= rrick Circle – Modification to an approved Subdivision –Proposed revision to a Wetland Conservation District boundary

The application was date specified to the June 21, 2004 meeting.

Map 35 Lot 10-328 – Kid= s N. Cribs/Heather Murphy – 100 Bridge Street – Change of Use – Proposed Daycare facility

The application was date specified to the June 21, 2004 meeting.

Map 41 Lot 10-280 – Micolupoulos, Peter/Gary & Johnnah Demone dba Pizzaman – 30 Bridge Street – Change of Use – Proposed Pizza/Sub Restaurant<= /b>

The application was date specified to the June 21, 2004 meeting.

DISCUSSION

Subdivision Regulations – General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access an= d Road Design

Discussion was deferred t= o a later meeting.

MINUTES

May 3, = 2004

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the May 3, 2004= meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

May 1= 7, 2004

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = approve the May 17, 20= 04 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

DATE SPECIFIED APPLICATIONS

June 21, 2= 004:

Map 17 Lot 13-37-33 – Songini, Robert – Herrick Circle – Modification= to an approved Subdivision – Proposed revision to a Wetland Conservation District boundary

Map 35 Lot 10-328 – Kids N. Cribs/Heather Murphy – 100 Bridge Street – Change of= Use – Proposed Daycare facility

Map 41 Lot 10-280 – Micolupoulos, Peter/Gary & Johnnah Demone dba Pizzaman – 30 Bridge Street – Change of Use – Proposed Pizza/Sub Restaurant

July 8, 20= 04:

Map 4 Lot 9-69-23; Map 8 Lot 9-69-22 – Mesiti Mill Pond Realty Trust/Arlene Gor= don – Arlene Drive – Proposed 3-lot subdivision for consideration (for acceptance only – not for discussion at this time)

Map 38 Lot 1-155 – Mopar Construction/Burton Revocable Trust – Sherburne Road – Proposed 8-lot subdivision for consideration (for acceptance only – not for discussion at this time)

Map 29 Lot 7-41 – David Bibeau – 36 Atwood Road – Site Plan Application to construct a 30x40 garage within the Wetland Conservation District adjacent = to a Prime Wetland

Map 39 Lot 6-179 – 128 Realty Corporation – Mammoth Road – Proposed 9-lot subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing for continued consideration

August 2, = 2004:

Map 20 Lot 3-130-4 – A.G.A.N. Realty Corp. – Bearhill Road – Proposed 2-lot subdivision for continued consideration

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Scanzani/McNamara) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:22 pm.

           &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