PB Minutes 03.07-2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

= March 7, 2005

The Vice Chairman, Peter McNamara called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm= .

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Bill Scanzani, Robin= Bousa, Henry DeLuca, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Alternate Bob Yar= mo, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert

Mr. McNamara informed that Mr. Yarmo would vot= e in Mr. Culbert’s absence. =

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 8-89 – Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road<= /st1:Street> – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, discussed the proposed subdivision. He said they had been before the B= oard approximately two months ago and received application acceptance, but had s= ome ‘hurdles’ to do. = He said they had met with Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) and revised t= he plan set per the comments; there were still a few outstanding issues. He said the traffic study had been completed and submitted to the Board (February 15, 2005).= The Environmental Impact Study was also submitted. Mr. Gospodarek said they had one m= eeting with the Conservation Commission and were scheduled to meet with them on March 9, 2005. He said a majority of the state pe= rmits had been applied for. He disc= ussed the 50-foot right-of-way that was requested and asked the Board for guidanc= e as to where it should be placed.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had received a let= ter from Dufresne-Henry dated February 21, 2005 and wanted to know if the appli= cant had reviewed and discussed it with them (Dufresne-Henry). Mr. Gospodarek said they had revie= wed the letter, and didn’t really have any issues with the comments. He said there were approximately f= our issues of the seventeen listed that didn’t apply to them; the remaind= er of the comments were technical. Mr. McNamara said the Board had just received (today) a copy of the traffic stu= dy and didn’t have the opportunity to review. He noted that there were a number = of comments provided by the Planning Director and questioned if they had been reviewed. Mr. D’Andrea = said a most of the comments were correctable; there was nothing of major substance. Mr. McNamara asked= if there was a proposal for open space. Mr. D’Andrea answered no; but believed a waiver had been requested. Mr. McNamara felt = that was a major issue.

Mr. Yarmo said he had heard testimony regarding the hydrology being changed/culvert being installed and asked if it had been investigated. He asked if the= Board would conduct a site walk; the Conservation Commission would also like to w= alk the site. Mr. McNamara said b= ased on the size of the proposed subdivision, he felt the site should be walked; after the snow pack had melted. Mr. Yarmo questioned if a plan had been submitted to the state to see if it had= adjacency issues since it was so close to a prime wetland. Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental= said they assumed that they would be considered adjacent to the prime wetland an= d so the dredge and fill was listed as a major impact dredge and fill (5000SF im= pact for the crossing) with the state. He said the state would probably hold a public hearing. Mr. Yarmo understood that the dred= ge and fill was not within the prime wetlands.&nb= sp; Mr. Gove confirmed that the dredge and fill was not within the prime wetland, but because of the hydrologic connection to the prime wetland and based upon past experience with the state, they were quite certain they wou= ld view it as an adjacency issue.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the power easement (Gaudet Avenue and Heather Lee Lane) and the fact that in the past, the Board didn’t allow the two roads t= o be looped together to protect the wildlife corridor. He noted the span of the corridor.= He said the Board had to decide wh= ether they wanted the road to cross the easement, if so, could the impact to the conservation land be mitigated. Mr. McNamara said without the conservation report, the Board was at a loss.

Mr. Danevich wanted to hear from the Fire and Police Chiefs. He reviewed the petition submitted by sixty-five residents who were not in favor of the connection and wanted the subdivision denied. He said at this point, the Selectm= en had no input and hoped the Safety Committee would provide comment.

PUBLIC INPUT

Fire Chief E. David Fisher and Police Chief Ev= an Haglund who were members of the Highway Safety Committee came before the Bo= ard to discuss the committee’s opinion regarding the proposed plan. Chief Haglund said the committee w= as in favor of cul-de-sacs (documents indicating the preference of 1000-foot maxi= mum had been submitted to the Board in the past), however, the committee favors connectivity in a lot of areas for public safety access. He said in this case, the committee favored the connectivity of the two roads in question. Chief Fisher said a 2400-foot cul-= de-sac was a great difference, and the committee felt strongly that they didn̵= 7;t want to waiver from that at all. He said if there was any change to the road, it would be connectivity. He said the distance already given= by the Planning Board for the lengths of cul-de-sacs had to be considered and = if any more was to be given, the road would at least have to be connected to another area. He said by look= ing at the plans the committee saw the possibility of an additional cul-de-sac, wh= ich could possibly lead to another situation of creating 3000 – 4000 foot cul-de-sacs. The Safety Commi= ttee felt the cul-de-sac was not acceptable and didn’t feel comfortable th= at they could give the services they needed to give to the people with such.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Safety Committee reviewed the fact that the road would be crossing a wetland. Chief Fisher said they reviewed un= der the Planning Director’s direction, who thought it would be taken care= of in the plan design. Mr. Scanz= ani reviewed the traffic analysis and the increases on Route 38. He was concerned with traffic incr= eases at the intersection of Balcom and Route 38. Chief Haglund said it was an area = they had been concerned about and that it would need to be reviewed in the future (by the state); the Pelham Police would keep an eye on the area. Mr. Scanzani felt the Board should review something for the area (i.e. widening of road, turn lane) and seek t= he state’s input.

Mr. Scott Bowden, 42 Balcom Road, said he collected t= he signatures contained on the petition. He said just about everyone signed (approx. 90%). He said in summary the petition sa= id they did not want the Board/Town to require the developer to be limited to a 2400-foot cul-de-sac or required to connect to Balcom Road. He said if the road wasn’t connected the cul-de-sac would be approximately 3700-feet. Mr. Bowden noted since he resided = on Balcom Road= the road had only been blocked off one time, due to an ice storm. He said at the time the road was blocked, the residents opened the road within a short time. He said the small additional amoun= t of safety was not worth the loss of the character of a cul-de-sac. Mr. Bowden didn’t want the restriction on the developer and understood that the connection was costing= the developer two of the twenty-three lots.&nb= sp;

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue, questioned if the residents would be notified of the state’s public hearing. Mr. Yarmo said when the state held= a hearing regarding a major dredge and fill it would be public, but he was un= sure regarding abutter notification. Mr. Gove said the Board, Selectmen, Conservation Commission and all abutters wo= uld be notified of the public hearing, which is typically held in Concord. Mr. McManus said the power lines were definitely a wildlife corridor= and a concern of the residents on Tina Avenue. He suggested that the road come through from Balcom and rather than tying through have a gravel emergency access. He said when Balcom Road was appro= ved it was unconditionally clear in the Planning Board meeting minutes that there would be an access to both eastern properties that was never done. He said the lot prior to the cul-d= e-sac was supposed to contain access. Mr. Scanzani asked when Balcom was approved (1950?). Mr. McManus was unsure. He said the remaining input would = be given after the Conservation Commission meeting was held.

Chief Fisher said the Safety Committee had fac= ed similar situations with putting in gates and dirt roads; general consensus = it was not acceptable. He said t= he maintenance and traffic control was difficult. He reiterated that they were not a= gainst cul-de-sacs, but they were not in favor of the size being discussed.

Mr. Scanzani said he would like the Board to require: 1) soil type square footage (calculations by soil types); 2) 50-fo= ot right-of-way off of the proposed Tina Avenue Extension into a dry portion t= hat allowed a loop back out because there would be no other place for additional connection.

Mr. Pat Gendron, Wood Road (owner lot 8-85), questio= ned how he would get the right-of-way (through Board, or developer). Mr. McNamara said he could discuss= with the developer, however, it would be subject to the Board’s approval.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani discussed the possibl= e area the right-of-way could be placed, but was informed by Mr. Gendron that the access onto Route 38 was completely wet.&n= bsp; Mr. Gendron showed a copy of the topography and pointed out that the= re would be no way to get in from Route 38.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani said he wanted the Board to avoid future cascading cul-de-sacs by not doing due diligence now. He said basically the whole sectio= n of lot 8-85 abutting Route 38 was all wet, and technically there should be a right-of-way off Belvedere as well as off Tina Avenue Extension.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the Environmental Impa= ct Analysis (‘EIA’) had been reviewed by the Town’s engineer= ing company. Mr. D’Andrea s= aid the EIA had been sent to Louis-Berger for review.

Mr. McNamara summarized the issues: 1) site wa= lk to be scheduled; 2) traffic study needs to be reviewed; 3) input from Conservation Commission; 4) additional review and possible revisions; 5) cul-de-sac length. He said he= would be extremely hard pressed to vote for any proposal of this size and sensiti= vity in this area that didn’t include open space. He also noted that he would be opp= osed to extending a cul-de-sac past 2400-feet in length, which was done in the p= ast and felt to be a mistake. He discussed his neighborhood, which was previously a cul-de-sac that was later connected. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d one key point was to determine where the key wetlands were on Mr. Gendron’= ;s property. Mr. McNamara sugges= ted a conversation with Mr. Gendron. He was hopeful that the site walk would provide additional information regardi= ng the parcel; he was hopeful that the site walk wouldn’t be scheduled u= ntil the Conservation Commission had provided input and the snow pack melted. Mr. Scanzani wanted more informati= on regarding the wildlife corridors.

Mr. D’Andrea asked if the Board wanted to investigate Department of Transportation (‘DOT’) review regardi= ng Route 38. There were no objections. Mr. Scanzani also= felt that the traffic heading North, turning left onto Balcom (width of the road= ), should be reviewed and if there was a recommendation then it would be part = of the off-site improvements that would have to be done as part of the subdivision. Mr. D’Andr= ea wanted to be clear that DOT review was a directive by the Board. There was a consensus of the Board= .

Mr. Gospodarek asked how the site walk would be arranged. There was a brief discussion at which point, Mr. McNamara suggested date specifying the plan = to the March 21, 20= 05 meeting; if the weather permits and the Board had all information, they wou= ld schedule a site walk.

The plan was date specified to the March 21, 2005 = meeting.

DISCUSSION(S):<= /p>

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

Su= bdivision Regulations –General Design Principles and Standards, Lot Shape, Driveway Access and Road Design

Mr. McNamara informed when the Board last revi= ewed the proposed changes to the Subdivision Regulations, the Board had questions regarding some of the technical specifications and had asked Mr. D’An= drea to contact Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) to comment on such. Since that t= ime, Mr. Hertrich forwarded his comments to the Board. The Board met with Mr. Hertrich to review the submitted comments.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked that Mr. D’Andrea inc= orporate all the new changes made in the proposed new subdivision regulations so they may reviewed at a public hearing on March 21, 2005.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Danevich) To incorporat= e the proposed changes into the subdivision regulations and set a public hearing for March 21, = 2005.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 3 Lot 5-180 – Daniel Rosa – 32-34 Tallant Road – Request = for Special Use Permit to convert a Duplex into a Condex form of ownership=

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

Attorney Trisha Hayes of Jordan, Maynard, Paro= di (Nashua, NH) representing the applicant met with the Board. She began by distributing a copy o= f the plan to the Board. She inform= ed that the applicant had owned the property since September, 2004. The building is an existing duplex= , the applicant is requesting to change the form of ownership to make the buildin= g a condex. A licensed engineer prepared the condominium site and floor plan, which the engineer certified = was in compliance with the necessary New Hampshire statutory provisions. Attorney Hayes’ law firm has= been retained to draft condominium documents (declaration & by-laws) which w= ould be on record at the Registry of Deeds.&nbs= p; The proposed set up would be that both unit owners would make up the condo association and be responsible for maintenance of the common areas. The units will be serviced by priv= ate water and sewer. Attorney Hay= es ended by saying that the site was appropriate for the proposed conversion because the building was and existing duplex and would not result in any physical changes to the property.

Mr. Danevich asked that the septic location be= designated on the plan.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the common driveway responsibilities would be noted. Attorney Hayes believed that the driveway would be designated at com= mon area.

Mr. McNamara questioned if the by-laws would n= eed Town Counsel review. Mr. D’Andrea did not believe so.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Danevich) To accept, for consideration, the request for Special Use Permit with conditions.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Danevich) To grant the Special Use Permit, conditioned upon: 1) the applicant filing the necessa= ry registration form with the Town; 2) update the plan to show the septic location; and 3) update the note to show that the well and septic are sha= red.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-44-15 – DHB Homes Builders, LLC –= ; Lannan Drive – Well Radius Waiver Request

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates met = with the Board to discuss the Well Waiver Request. He said the well had been placed approximately 68.3 feet from the property line (6.7 feet off). He said the well was installed four months ago and was full-working with good yield. He said they were requesting a wai= ver to the regulations so they could continue using the well and wouldn’t ha= ve to sink another one. He noted= that the well met the state and Town Health requirements.

Mr. Scanzani asked who owned lot 12-44-16. The plan showed that the lot was o= wned by DHB Homes; it was not known if the lot had been sold.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Ouellette) To accept, f= or consideration, the Well Radius Waiver Request.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. DeLuca was in favor of granting the waiver since the well was only 6.7 feet off. Mr. Yarmo disagreed. H= e felt that the problem was a function of the lot designs, squeezing as many lots = as possible. He believed a new w= ell should be sunk. Mr. Scanzani = was not in favor of granting the waiver. Mr. Danevich felt this was one of the least offenders and felt the waiver should be granted. He = noted that the DES waiver form had been signed off on. Mr. DeLuca said it was outside the 75-foot buffer, he would vote against the waiver. Ms. Bousa didn’t understand = why the developer’s couldn’t put wells where they belong, but couldn’t see them incurring a hardship since the well was okay. Mr. D’Andrea questioned why = having a regulation that the well radius must comply. Mr. Yarmo felt the developer took = a risk with the lot configuration (being too tight) and an error was made. Mr. Scanzani said there was enough= land on the lot to fix situation. = Mr. Yarmo questioned if the lot line could be moved. It was noted that the last waiver = was approximately 2-feet, this request was approximately 7. Mr. Scanzani wanted to know at what point the Board would draw the line.

There was no public input.

Mr. Gospodarek said this was a simple field mistake. He reiterated that t= he state and health regulations were met.&nbs= p; Mr. D’Andrea noted that the developer had two or three approved and two or three denied waiver requests, but not for this development. Mr. Danevich questioned what groun= ds the Board would use for denying the waiver request. Mr. McNamara stated that it didn&#= 8217;t comply with the regulations. = Mr. Scanzani pointed out if the original plan showed a waiver was necessary, the Board would have denied it; however, because of a measurement mistake the w= ell was in the wrong location and the same developer keeps coming back with the same mistakes.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Yarmo) To deny the Well Radius Waiver Request.

VOTE:

(4-3-0) The motion carried to deny th= e waiver request. Mr. DeLuca, Ms. Bo= usa and Mr. Danevich voted no.

Ma= p 13 Lot 4-139-22 – Pennichuck Water Works – Collin’s Way – Site Plan Review of Proposed 350,000 Gallon Stor= age Tank

Mr. Don Weare of Pennichuck Water Works presen= ted the site plan showing the location of a 350,000 gallon water tank with the inside diameter of 40ft. and inside side wall height of 37.2-feet on an easement at the end of Collins Way. He said two waivers were requested: 1) location of sign off block; a= nd 2) scale (1=3D30). He informe= d that it would be a pre-stressed concrete tank; once it is up there is no mainten= ance associated with it. There wil= l be a fence surrounding the tank. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Ouellette) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Mr. Scanzani asked why there was a storage tank proposed for the area. Mr. We= are said the current water system feeding Pelham had pumps running virtually all the time; however, as the system grows, the availability of fire protection= was limited by the pumps and there were short durations of time where the water pressure dropped. The tank wo= uld bring the system to a more conventional pump and gravity storage system. He said the project had been recom= mended by the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) and if appr= oved by the Town, the DES would provide the money for the project. He said the proposed tank would double the current fire prote= ction in the area and to the two schools currently fed by the water system.

Mr. McNamara asked what the dimensions of the = tank would be. Mr. Weare said the = tank was 37.2 feet to the side wall (approx. 5 feet is in the ground); with the dome (approx. 6 feet) there would be approximately 38 feet out from the ground.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara asked if there were h= omes in the area. Mr. Weare said t= here were no homes there now, but the developer shows that the closest proposed = home would be approximately 200-feet from the water tank. The fence is proposed to be 6-foot= high with three strands of barbed wire. The applicant was also proposing a vegetation (Colorado Blue Spruce) screen to the fencing. Mr. Mc= Namara asked what would happen if the tank was breached. Mr. Weare said the tanks started t= o be built in the 1930’s and there has yet to be a failure. He said there would be no way to m= odel what would happen if the tank were suddenly removed. He said there was an under-drain s= ystem that was regularly inspected. Mr. McNamara asked where the line tied into.&n= bsp; Mr. Weare reviewed the plan and showed that there was a catch basin = that the line was tied into. The t= ank is drained approximately every five years; the 6-inch drain pipe was the vehic= le to drain the tank. The system= works via radio that communicates with the pumping station on Mt. Vernon Avenue; if the communica= tions were somehow shut off and the= re was an overflow, the 6-inch pipe would carry the overflow at a rate of no more = than 300 gallons per minute. Mr. S= canzani asked if the drainage system on the road handle the amount of drainage. Mr. Weare answered yes. He said the system would be monito= red through the radio system in Na= shua (24 hours per day/365 days per year). If there was an overflow signal, they have the ability to remotely t= urn off the well pumps.

Mr. McNamara asked what the benefit would be to the neighborhood. Mr. Weare s= aid the benefit was to the whole community.&nb= sp; He said fire protection in the area would be increased; provided sto= rage in the event of a power outage; it would also be a second source of water in the event of a line break= age from the Mt. Vernon tank. Mr. McNamara asked if individual h= ome water pressure would be increased. Mr. Weare said it increased available capacity.

Mr. Scanzani asked what material the proposed driveway access would be. Mr.= Weare said it would be gravel and pavement. He showed that the water would sheet across a gravel area and get in= to the infiltration system. He s= aid the rock in the area was at the surface of the ground. Mr. Scanzani asked if gates and ba= rs were being proposed. Mr. Wear= e said the easement was exclusive. He showed the areas that they would consider gating off and could show the Boa= rd what they installed in Litchfield.

Mr. DeLuca asked if there would be blasting. Mr. Weare said they would have to = blast into the area to create the platform for the tank. Mr. Scanzani asked who else would = use the roadway for access up to the tank.&nbs= p; He questioned if emergency vehicles would need to get to the tank. Mr. Weare said the only reason an emergency vehicle would need to access is if during the monthly inspection,= the person had an accident. He sa= id there was an approximate 15% slope; the purpose for the paving was to keep erosion from happening. Mr. Scanzani asked if Pennichuck kept the road plowed in the winter. Mr. Weare answered yes. Mr. Scanzani said the grades conce= rned him for emergency vehicle access. He felt the Town’s engineer and the Safety Committee should review. Mr. McNamara asked Mr= . Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (who was seated with the public) if he had any q= uestions/comments. Mr. Hertrich said their concern wo= uld be the overflow and what it would be directed into; also they would be concern= ed with the road drainage design and how they proposed to catch surface runoff. Mr. Weare said there = was an under drain that sat up higher than the stone which tied into the catch bas= in and into the design drainage system. He said the design was similar to that designed for Litchfield. Mr. Scanzani wanted a better idea = of where the water would go. Mr.= Weare said the water would run perpendicular to the existing grade lines.

Ms. Ouellette noted that the Technical Review Committee reviewed the plan and submitted a memo dated February 24, 2005 and said th= e proposed water tank would assist the Fire Department in fire protection as the system would be gravity fed and provide good pressure at all times. The Committee suggested that a fen= ce be installed at the driveway entrance and also inquired if installation of an emergency service radio antenna would be considered by Pennichuck. Mr. Weare said they don’t al= low cell communications; however would consider a mono-pole, or something attac= hed to the tank by the Police/Fire Department.=

Mr. Scanzani asked that Dufresne-Henry review = if the plan should be done for a fifty-year storm event (per proposed new regulations); he also wanted standard review.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Charlie Pugsley, <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">27 Longview Circle was concerned ab= out the amount of blasting that would have to occur. He said some of the blasting done = on Collins Road affected his home. He believed if the = tank were to rupture, some of the water would end up in his back yard. He ended by saying the tank would = be an eyesore. Mr. McNamara said th= e best protection, in the event of damage to property, would be to document the present conditions (including water flow).= Mr. Weare said with any blasting, a pre-blast survey would be done if homes were in the proximity. = He said they would be happy to do a pre-blast survey for Mr. Pugsley.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request for the title block.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To accept, for consideration the waiver request for the scale being 1=3D3= 0.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) would review the design. Mr. Weare said DES had reviewed th= e design from a storage standpoint (e.g. volume, head conditions, correct pipes); DES does not review the structural design.

The Board wanted the plan to have an engineeri= ng review. Mr. D’Andrea sa= id he would provide Mr. Hertrich with a copy of the proposed plan (and did so at = the meeting).

The plan was date specified to the April 4, 2005 me= eting.

Ma= p 41 Lot 10-280 – Building Blocks Fitness, LLC/McLean, Cheryl – 30 Bridge Street – Seeking a Change of Use from Retail to Proposed Children’s Fitness Center

Ms. Cheryl McLean met with the Board to discuss the requested Change of Use. = She would like to put a child’s fitness program in the 1400SF. She informed that she spoke with F= ire Code Officer John Hodge regarding what needed to be done to the interior and said she would be willing to accommodate whatever the Fire Department’= ;s needs are. She said the progr= am would be designed for two, three, four and five year olds and four sessions would be held for a total of approximately five sessions per day. Full enrollment would be eighty ch= ildren per day. Ms. McLean discussed= the parking and said they were hoping for a drop off/pick up; the owners of the= property were willing to do a drive around the building as to not hinder the other businesses. She briefly discu= ssed traffic flow for the drop off/pick up area. Mr. McNamara asked if the area was currently paved. The owner (w= ho was seated with the applicant) said the area was not entirely paved, but was willing to do so in order to accommodate the applicant.

Mr. McNamara asked about the septic system. The owner informed that a new sept= ic system and leach field had been installed as part of the ‘over-haul&#= 8217; of the property; the system was as large of a capacity as could be accommod= ated on the property. It was her understanding that the system could accommodate the load (number of people)= not only from the children’s fitness center, but also the other businesses either currently existing, or that could exist in the future. She said there was one system serv= icing the entire building.

Mr. Scanzani said he would like to know the nu= mber of employees, the number of proposed parking spaces, a design for the drop = off point (traffic flow) and obtain engineering review. Mr. Danevich noted that the well w= as less than 35-feet from the lot line and asked that the Board be consistent = with the 75-foot well radius. The = owner said the well was pre-existing and on the property at the time of purchase. Mr. D’Andrea pointed out that the 75-foot well radius was a Subdivision Regulation, not a Site Plan requirement. Mr. Mc= Namara asked the age of the well. The owner informed the well was existing at the time of purchase approximately = one year ago; she would have to research.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked if the Fire Department had = been consulted. The owner said the= y had worked extensively with the Fire Department for quite a while. She said the Fire Department had a= sked them to install a new system to service the entire building; it was her understanding that it was up to code per the type of zoning. She believed the Fire Department&#= 8217;s criteria should be satisfied, but said they would accommodate additions/adj= ustments requested by Officer Hodge. <= /p>

Mr. McNamara said the Board had indicated they would like to review the proposed driveway (circulation) plan. Mr. Scanzani said he would like the original approval (of the pizza shop) to review the conditions. Mr. D’Andrea said he would o= btain the information and recalled that septic replacement was one of the conditions.

The owner of the property questioned if the re= ar drop off was needed; it had been suggested as a means of easing congestion. She asked if it w= ould be better if the children were dropped off and picked up at the front door. Mr. McNamara said that = would be a function of traffic flow/volume which couldn’t be commented on u= ntil the Board was able to review a plan. Ms. Bousa said she always had concerns with parking (even with the p= izza place). She didn’t feel people would be dropping students off.&nbs= p; Ms. McLean said the students would be simply dropped off; her staff would be greeting the students and walking them into the facility. Ms. Bousa reiterated her feeling t= hat there were not enough parking spaces.

Mr. Scanzani said he would like to see the existing conditions with regard to the septic if paving were added. He discussed the possible traffic = flow and used Bridge Street Hardware as and example. The owner said in the past she had= been approached by an individual inquiring about a drive-up window; at which poi= nt she approached Officer Hodge regarding such. She said they were open to going a= round the building, or doing a turn-around area.= Mr. McNamara said the Board would need to review what was being proposed.

Mr. Scanzani asked what the existing garage was being used for. The owner sai= d the garage wasn’t being used. Mr. Scanzani asked if the dumpster could be moved. The owner noted that the dumpster = had an alternate location. Mr. DeLuca suggested that the applicant submit a couple different plans for the Board = to review. The owner questioned = if a conditional approval would be entertained.= Mr. McNamara said because there was a proposal to ‘house’ children and there was an active retail establishment next door, the Board = had to ensure safety and traffic flow/parking was more than adequate. Mr. Scanzani questioned if the sit= e had been before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. D’Andrea was unsure if it would be needed for a change-of-use.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/DeLuca) To accept the p= lan for consideration.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The plan was date specified to the April 4, 2005 me= eting.

MINUTES

December 20, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Danevich) To approve the December 20, 2004 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. DeLuca and Ms. Bousa abstain= ed.

December 27, 2004

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To approve the December 27, 2004 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-3) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Ouellette, Ms. Bousa and Mr. DeLuca abstained.

February 24, 2005

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To approve the February 24, 2005 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(5-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. DeLuca and Mr. Yarmo abstain= ed.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

March 21, 2005:

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, 8-88 & 8-89 R= 11; Pelham Estates, Inc. – Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision for review

April 4, 2005:

Map 13 Lot 4-139-22 – Pennichuck Water Works – Collin’s Way – = Site Plan Review of Proposed 350,000 Gallon Storage Tank

Map 41 Lot 10-280 – Building Blocks Fitn= ess, LLC/McLean, Cheryl – 30 Bridge Street – Seeking a Change of Use = from Retail to Proposed Children’s Fitness Center

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danev= ich/Ouellette) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:35p.m.

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

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

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