PB Minutes 04.04.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

= April 4, 2005

The Chairman, Paddy Culbert called the meeting to orde= r at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette, called the roll:

PRESENT:

Paddy Culbert, Peter McNamara, Gael Ouellette, Bill Scanzani, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

None

EL= ECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Ouellette) To nominate Mr. Scanzani for Chairman.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Scanzani abstained.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/Ouellette) To nominate = Mr. McNamara for Vice Chairman.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Mr. McNamara abstained.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Scanzani/McNamara) To nominate Ms. Ouellette for Secretary.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The motion carri= ed. Ms. Ouellette abstained.

The newly elected Mr. Scanzani took the meeting over. He thanked the former officers for their service. H= e then welcomed the new officers. Mr. Scanzani welcomed Ms. Christine Medeiros as a full-time member and Mr. Ken Dunne as an alternate; they would be sworn in by the Town Clerk later in the meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 32 Lot 1-146 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC – <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Spaulding Hill Road – Conceptual Discussion – Proposed 19-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani informed that the engineer reques= ted the discussion to be moved to the April 18, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 7 Lot 9-136-48 Kathleen Taris – 19 May Lane – Amend Subdivision p= lan and grant a waiver from Section 11.14.B to allow both the replanting within= the WCD and to allow a portion of the WCD for residential uses.<= /b>

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

Ms. Bousa recused herself.

Ms. Kathleen Taris said it had come to her attention that her deed was in violation; a Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) was cleared prior their taking ownership. It went unnoticed when it happened= , but appeared to be during development. Ms. Taris submitted a proposal to replant a portion of the WCD and requested that they be allowed to mow the remainder of the land. If not allowed to mow a portion of= the WCD Ms. Taris said they would have a hardship and a health issue for their children due to deer ticks being abundant in their back yard.

Mr. Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental Services addressed the Board and provided a re-planting scheme for review. He discussed the type and location= of plants/trees proposed. He sai= d as it stood, the applicant had an approximate 12ft. backyard (from the back of their house); the applicant was requesting to replant half of the 70ft.-80f= t. cleared area and continue to mow the remaining 40ft.-50ft. of lawn; they wo= uld like their deed changed to reflect such.&n= bsp; Mr. Hurley noted that the applicant had been granted a request for a swimming pool, which had been placed on the side of their house (outside of= the WCD). The applicant was infor= med of their 12ft. back yard at the time they were requesting their swimming pool.

Mr. Scanzani wanted clarification that the applicant didn’t clear the land, and it was somehow cleared during construction of the house. Mr. Hurley believed that to be true based upon his records. He said Gove Environmental did an = impact assessment in the year 2001 for the entire subdivision, which didn’t = show the land as being cleared. It= was speculative where the tree line would have been. Mr. Hurley said they also gathered information in an aerial photograph done in the year 1995 (part of the EIA). He said they also had t= he habitat cover (part of EIA) which showed the area to be mixed deciduous and coniferous woods.

Ms. Ouellette confirmed that the 50ft. WCD set= back began 12ft. from the back of the house.&nb= sp; Mr. Hurley answered yes. Ms. Ouellette asked how far into the WCD they were requesting to go. Mr. Hurley said the WCD had been c= ut almost all the way to the wetland. Ms. Ouellette said there was currently no protection and the applica= nt was seeking to maintain an additional (approximate) 25ft.-30ft. Mr. Hurley answered yes. Ms. Ouellette asked if the area flooded. Mr. Hurley said it c= ame up a bit, but it was not a significant flooding situation. He noted there was a large detenti= on pond (to the north of the house) that overflowed the bank when filled up and leached through the applicant’s back yard into the wetland.

Mr. Culbert asked how far the water came up. Mr. Hurley said the water came up approximately 5ft-6ft from the poorly drained soil. He discussed the water flow and sa= id it drained north to northwest off the site.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert confirmed the request was for a reduction of the WCD (setback) from 50ft. to approximately 20ft-25ft WCD (setback). Mr. Hurley answered yes. Mr. Culbert asked if there were ot= her open lawn areas on the lot. M= r. Hurley said there was some in the front and to the north (on the right). The pool was installed on the righ= t side of the house. It was noted th= at the septic was in the front of the house.

Mr. McNamara questioned when the house was purchased, if it was new and if the area had already been cleared. Ms. Taris said the house was purch= ased new in February, 2003; the area was cleared prior to their taking ownership= . Mr. McNamara asked if there were a= ny conservation/wetland signs on the lot.&nbs= p; Ms. Taris said there were green conservation signs in the trees along the poorly drained soil. Mr. McNamara questioned who the property was purchased from. Ms. Taris said it was suggested to= her not to discuss ‘he-said, she-said’ questions. Mr. McNamara said he didn’t = want to force the applicant into any kind of uncomfortable position, but still wanted to know. Ms. Taris sai= d the property was owned by SDK Holding Corp. prior to them purchasing the house.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Susan Dubois, 29 May Lane who directly abu= tted the applicant was concerned with excess water ending up on her property. Mr. Scanzani noted that currently = there was a cleared space; the proposal was to replant which typically would remo= ve water than add to what was currently there. Ms. Dubois questioned why plantings would occur to get rid of water, which was a natural thing. Mr. Scanzani said the area that was cleared should not have been cleared to begin with. Ms. Dubois reiterated her concern = about water ending up on her property and into her home. Mr. Scanzani said the planting wou= ld not cause more water on her property. Ms. Dubois said she didn’t want additional water and until her concerns could be put down, she objected to the proposal.

Attorney David Groff, representing the develop= er SDK Land Holdings, Corp., which he noted was Mr. Dave Mendes’ company (who was present). He began by informing that the applicant’s (Mr. Castrucci and Ms. Taris) have sued SDK Land Holdings and the case was coming up for trial next month. He said one of the claims in the l= awsuit was that they didn’t know the extent of the wetlands and the WCD prio= r to entering into the contract and prior to purchasing the property. He said the sales agreement was si= gned in September, 2002. He provid= ed the Board with a copy of a note sent by Ms. Taris to the buyer’s broker (Susan Linnehan) (dated August 7, 2002)(a copy of which was also submitted = to the Pelham Zoning Board of Adjustment at the time the applicants were seeki= ng a variance). He reviewed the no= te and said one of the things the applicant was worried about was the extent of the wetlands on the property. He deposed Ms. Linnehan, who made it clear that Mr. Mendes walked the property with the applicants (prior to the signing the contract or purchasing the house), and showed them the septic design and the subdivision plans; both of which delineate the wetlands and WCD. Attorney Groff said prior to the purchase of the property, the applicant’s bank got a certified foundation plan (faxed January 21, 2003) showing exactly where the wetlands, wildlife, foundation, etc. were located. He provided a copy of the fax as w= ell as a copy of the deed to the Board.

Attorney Groff said the applicant was claiming that the developer cleared the area behind the house. He said the developer claims that = he didn’t clear the area and there was a natural clearing when he purcha= sed the property in 2000 from Ms. Velma Smith.= He said the aerial photograph (from approximately 400ft-1000ft) was = taken five years before his client purchased the property and was difficult to ma= ke out because of the resolution. Per the developer’s discussions with Ms. Smith, the property was logged during her ownership. Attorney Groff said during the course of investigations, he visited the site with his client, other developers and the Town Building/Code Enforcement Officer. He said there was a tree that had = been cut down and was laying in the WCD; a photograph was provided to the Board. He also showed a photo= graph of the back of the applicant’s house which had wood storage. He then showed a photograph of the= pool installed by the applicant, which he claimed (per the Town’s records)= was put in without obtaining the proper permits. Attorney Groff provided the Board = with a copy of a letter dated March 10, 2005 sent to the applicant from the Building/Code Enforceme= nt Officer which outlined certain violations on the property and to the house.= He said his client didn’t ca= re what the applicants did with their property, but did care about misrepresentations regarding the property prior to the applicant purchasing. Attorney Groff sa= id Herbert & Associates did the subdivision plans and the as-built; they w= ould have had an obligation to inform the Conservation Commission if the wetlands had been cut. He suggested ra= ther than replanting, the area should be left alone.

Mr. McNamara clarified that Mr. Groff’s client’s position was that when he owned the property, the land was naturally cleared, he didn’t cut anything down. Attorney Groff answered yes; other = than installing the detention area.  =

Mr. Scanzani said the Board would not rule on anything relative to what may be a court case between the applicant and Attorney Groff’s client.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Hurley if he could tell from the area if it had been treed recently, or if it was part of a natural area. Mr. Hurley said there w= as a tree cut down, because it was dead; the stump was left in. He said in reviewing the site, and= based on the aerial photograph (contained in the EIA) which showed the trees along the lot line, most likely the area had been cut prior to development. Mr. Scanzani confirmed with Mr. Hu= rley based upon his EIA that the land was cleared prior to the lot being built.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Hurley answered yes, based upo= n his review it appeared the area had been significantly forested, and no signifi= cant open fields were located in that portion otherwise they would have been spe= lled out in the cover type map (in the EIA).&nb= sp;

Mr. Culbert did not want to take action on the plan until the civil matter had been settled. Mr. Scanzani reiterated that the B= oard would not get involved in the legal implications. He also noted that the Board typic= ally didn’t waive this regulation.

Ms. Taris said they did not clear the land. She said during the hearing for her variance the issue came up regarding ‘natural clearing’. She explained that she wrote the l= etter regarding the wetland to get clarification and was assured that the foundat= ion was 50ft. from the WCD; that she had a 50ft. back yard; the yard was cleare= d to look like there was a 50ft. back yard.&nbs= p; Ms. Taris said she never saw a septic design, or a plan until closing. She said she would n= ot know how to read a plan that was not to scale. She said the Board could confirm w= ith Mr. D’Andrea that her permits were in order and that she discussed the dead tree prior to it being taken down.&nb= sp; She said the issue was that the land was cleared and they were tryin= g to rectify the situation.   =

=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept the waiver request for consideration.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The motion carri= ed.



Mr. Danevich discussed the situation and said information is readily accessible to the public. He said if the waiver request was accepted by the Board, he would like the following added to the plan: 1) co= mpliance with Gove Environmental Services report (re-planting schedule) to be done w= ithin 90-days; 2) more detailed as-built plan updated and inclusive of the swimmi= ng pool, tree line and mitigation plan; 3) no building, shed, or further expan= sion (other than simple residential use of a back yard) shall occur; 4) restrict= ion of expansion (clear notation on plan) with the understanding there would be= no further encroachment; 5) DES fines reviewed (outside the Board’s foru= m).

Mr. Scanzani didn’t feel it was up to the Board to determine at what point clearing occurred. He said the question was if the Bo= ard would allow plantings within the no-disturb zone. Mr. McNamara said if the Board did anything, he wanted it spelled out precisely; he wouldn’t vote to app= rove unless he was convinced what would be done would be better for the land, th= an not. Mr. Danevich said he wan= ted the updated information and reiterated such. Mr. McNamara questioned if the Boa= rd should request input from the Conservation Commission. Mr. Danevich didn’t believe = it was necessary because it was a small area of impact.

There was further discussion what action the B= oard would take. There was agreeme= nt to hold off making a decision until such time as an updated plan was provided. Mr. Culbert wanted = to ensure that any action by the Board would not influence a civil case. He suggested not making a decision= until the civil case was decided. M= s. Taris said their deed was in violation and didn’t feel the decision h= ad any bearing on the civil case. Mr. Culbert said historically the Board had held off making decisions until the cases were over. There was fu= rther discussion. Ms. Ouellette agr= eed that any decision by the Board should not influence the civil case. A majority of the Board agreed to = hold off making a decision until the civil matter had been decided.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board would leave the ca= se open until such time as there is a ruling on the civil case; the requiremen= ts as outlined by Mr. Danevich will then need to be met.

Ms. Bousa returned to the Board.

The new Board members, Ms. Medeiros and Mr. Du= nne joined the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 33 Lot 1-46 Melanson/Driscoll – 57 & 59 Mammoth Road – Proposed Site Plan Review to re-open pre-existing variety store

Ms. Cheri Driscoll and Mr. Carl Melanson met w= ith the Board to discuss their application.&nb= sp; Ms. Driscoll believed all the issues had been address with the excep= tion of the septic. She understood through her conversations with Health Officer Paul Zarnowski and engineer T= ed Hatem if DES didn’t have a septic plan on file, they would need to hi= re an engineer to draft a contingency plan, which was their intention.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the changes that had bee= n made. Mr. D’Andrea questioned the drainage, where the water was going, and what provisions had been made to handle it. He noted that the secondary planting strip (on Bowley Way) needed to be widened and the number of sh= rubs needed to be increased per the specifications.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the New Hampshire Depart= ment of Transportation (‘DOT’) permit had been obtained and a copy of which provided to the Board. = Ms. Ouellette said the permit was in the file; she read a portion of which alou= d. Mr. Scanzani asked for an explanat= ion regarding the note on the plan for fuel tanks. Ms. Driscoll said they were unsure= if they would have propane or oil and when a decision was reached, they would discuss with Fire Inspector John Hodge accordingly. Ms. Ouellette read aloud a letter = dated March 23, 2005 = submitted by the Pelham Fire Department, who at this time, didn’t have a problem accepting the site plans.

The Mammoth Road access was briefly discussed.

Mr. Culbert asked for more information regardi= ng the improvements to exterior of the building. Ms. Driscoll said they would hire a person with a construction license to review the building. Mr. D’Andrea reminded the Bo= ard that one of the conditions of the variance to reopen the existing store, was that it had to comply with all current code requirements. Mr. Culbert wanted to know what the exterior of the building would look like.&= nbsp; Ms. Driscoll said it would look brand new; they planned to put sidin= g on the building. Mr. Scanzani sa= id it would be nice, since structural work had to be done to the building, that it look somewhat residential (including the windows). Mr. Culbert said the Board normally required an artist rendition of what the building would look like. Ms. Driscoll said she didn’t= have a problem providing a rendition.

Ms. Ouellette said the DOT permit didn’t discuss the traffic flow from the Mammoth Road access.&= nbsp; Ms. Driscoll explained that the original plan presented to the DOT h= ad narrow angles at the entrance that would not allow a large truck to go into= the parking area; the plan was revised by Ms. Driscoll’s engineer so the angles were spread out for better access from both sides of Mammoth Road. Ms. Ouellette questioned if delive= ry trucks would enter from Ma= mmoth Road. <= /span>Ms. Driscoll said the trucks could go in from Bowley Way.

Mr. Scanzani said the only things that appeare= d to be outstanding were: 1) the artist rendition; 2) more information regarding= the lights (lumens); and 3) the septic design as reviewed/approved by the Health Officer. Mr. D’Andrea s= aid he wanted to know where the water currently flowed and how it would be affected with additional pavement. Ms. Driscoll said the recommendation she received from the DOT was to put flat soil/grass area so the direction of water flow wouldn’t change. Mr. Culbert said the DOT was conce= rned with the water on the road. H= e said the Board was concerned with the water on the property.

Ms. Bousa asked if the DOT permit specified th= e Mammoth Road access as an entrance only. Ms. Ouel= lette answered no; the permit states that two driveway accesses are permissible.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The DOT permit references the plan= being reviewed by the Board (dated March 21, 2005 and as revised March 28, 2005).&nb= sp; Ms. Bousa asked if the Fire Department allowed deliveries in a fire lane. Mr. Scanzani reviewed t= he fire lanes shown on the plan. Ms. Driscoll informed that the whole area would be repaved including the existi= ng parking area; the fire areas would also be marked. Mr. D’Andrea said he spoke t= o the Fire Chief specifically about deliveries being in a fire lane, and the Fire Chief had no problem. Ms. Bou= sa confirmed that the DOT was okay with part of the landscaped island on Mammoth Road. Ms. Driscoll answered yes. Ms. Bousa believed the driveway wa= s too wide to be one way and she would like to see a more defined landscape plan.

Mr. Dunne asked if the signage (i.e. Do Not En= ter) would need to be a certain size and illuminated in the evening. Ms. Driscoll said the signage woul= d have to meet the METCD requirements.

The width of the access from Mammoth Road was further discussed.= Mr. Danevich suggested that the twenty-two feet remain and the striping show a reduced area to eighteen feet. Mr. Scanzani also sugge= sted adding painted direction arrows.

Mr. Danevich reviewed the outstanding issues: = 1) submit a rendition of the external façade; 2) more detail regarding ‘down’ lighting; 3) Health Inspector revisit the septic to ensu= re its proper; 4) add note #10 that the sign complies with zoning; 5) prior to= Certificate of Occupancy being issued the following should be completed – a) traf= fic flow (painting) and landscaping, b) paving, c) signage. Mr. Culbert said he wanted to add a condition regarding the drainage. Mr. Scanzani said a condition would be that the sheet drainage flow = to the back of the lot, off the main roads.

There was no public input.

Ms. Driscoll requested that the application fe= e be waived. Mr. Danevich said the= Board never waived the fee in its entirety (other than for one non-profit organization). He said typica= lly it would be reduced to $250.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the reduction the application fee to $250.=

=

VOTE:

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



The exterior of the building was discussed. Ms. Driscoll said she would like t= o put a gambrel roof, but was unsure if she could because the roof was currently flat. Mr. Scanzani said the B= oard wanted to review a rendering of what the building would look like. He said a landscaping plan should = also be submitted. He reviewed the= other items the Board requested.  &nbs= p;

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To approve the plan conditioned = upon: 1) submit a rendition of the external façade; 2) more detail regar= ding ‘down’ lighting; 3) Health Inspector revisit the septic to en= sure its proper; 4) add note #10 that the sign complies with zoning; 5) prior = to Certificate of Occupancy being issued the following should be completed – a) traffic flow (painting) and landscaping, b) paving, c) signage= ; 6) the sheet drainage flow to the back of the lot, off the main roads.

=

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no.

Ma= p 30 Lot 11-97-2 Dallaire, Frances & Lever, Jim &= ; Dawn – Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani informed that a variance was need= ed therefore the application was date specified to the

June 6, 2005 meeting.

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

Mr. Scanzani informed that there were some iss= ues discovered by the Board at the last meeting as well as some issues raised by the Town Engineer; therefore, the application was date specified to the May 2, 2005 meet= ing.

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-207 Brodie, Peter & Muriel – 44 Ledge Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

Mr. Matt Hamor of Polaris Engineering Corp. appeared on behalf of Peter & Muriel Brodie and presented the plan to t= he Board. He began by informing = that the plan had been reduced from a five-lot subdivision to a three-lot subdivision subsequent to the last hearing. He showed the revised plan. He said they had met with Mr. D’Andrea and discussed his issues.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said he had a couple of additional minor comments= and proceeded to review such.

Ms. Ouellette questioned if the lot lines coul= d be shifted so the well radius for lot 12-207 could be contained on its own lot. Mr. Hamor said he review= ed different configurations, and believed the proposed location was the best.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Ouellette asked if the lot lin= e could be straightened. Mr. Hamor sa= id he would review.

Mr. McNamara asked if there were further plans= to subdivide lot 12-207-2. Mr. H= amor answered no. Mr. McNamara questioned if the plan were approved if the applicant could then request a = back lot under the criteria. Mr. H= amor said the lot size would have to double, and there wasn’t adequate acreage.

There was no public input.

Mr. Danevich said it appeared the only outstan= ding issues were administrative changes. Mr. Scanzani said he would like a note added to the plan that there = be no further subdivision of lot 12-207-2.&nb= sp; The Board addressed the waiver requests for the dimensional requirem= ents and also the well radius. Mr. McNamara questioned if a waiver was needed for open space. Mr. D’Andrea said he would review.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver for the dimensional requirement of 110ft.x115ft.=

=

VOTE:

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the overlapping well r= adius from lot 12-207 onto lot 12-207-1 (which was a pre-existing condition).

=

VOTE:

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert)&= nbsp; To deny the waiver request for the fire cistern based upon Fire Department feedback.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed to deny the waiver request.

Mr. Hamor wanted to Board to know that there w= ere in excess of three cisterns off Shephard Road adjacent to the property. Mr. D’Andrea said the Fire Department was aware of the cisterns on Shephard Road and felt they were in excess of distance.

=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the waiver request for= open space.

=

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. McNamara voted no.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To approve the plan conditioned upon: 1) surveyor, soils &a= mp; wetland scientist stamp to be placed on final plans; 2) test pit log data= to be added to plan; 3) fire cistern location to be shown on plan; 4) soil mapping delineation per Town standard; 5) DES subdivision approval number= to be added to plan; 6) note stating no further subdivision will occur; 7) f= inal review by the Health Officer for compliance with Article K (septic system= s); 8) sheet two to include the 50ft. WCD; and 9) notes #12 & #13 on shee= t #2 should also be included on sheet #1 (to be recorded).

=

VOTE:

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

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 provid= ed the Board with an update regarding the plan. He said they received comments fro= m the Town’s Engineer Dufresne-Henry relative to the drainage design. He said the drainage design had be= en recast to involve detention on site. He reviewed for the Board the revised drainage. He said they would come back with = a full set of plans (including drainage calculations) and responses to the comments.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the retention area would catch the water if the tank ruptured. Mr. Weare said the retention area was approximately 1000cu. ft. (holding approximately 7500 gallon= s); the tank holds 350,000 gallons. He said if the tank were to rupture the water would fan out and flow downward.

Mr. McNamara asked what the noise level on site would be. Mr. Weare said ther= e was no noise. He said the pumping station was at the intersection of Meadow View and H= olstein. He said the only power on site was= a small pedestal (4ft.x4ft) panel with electronics to pick up the water eleva= tion of the tank. Mr. McNamara questioned if the tank was constructed to account for hurricane winds or an earthquake. Mr. Weare said al= l the requirements (i.e. BOCA) would be built into the design.

Mr. Culbert questioned why the calculations we= re done on a twenty-five year storm event rather than a fifty-year storm event. Mr. D’Andrea sai= d the Site Plan Regulations required a twenty-five year storm event, the Subdivis= ion Regulations required calculations for a fifty-year storm event.

Mr. Scanzani recommended that the drainage tie into the catch basins at the bottom of the road. Mr. Weare said there were two connections into the drainage; 1) going down the street; and 2) any overflow into the upper drainage system. He said he would be willing to review incorporating a fifty-year storm event.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani said it would be appreciated. There was further discussion regarding a twenty-five year storm versus fifty-year storm.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the design height was necessary for the function. M= r. Weare said the side wall would be thirty-seven feet; the height of the wate= r in the tank develops the water pressure in the surrounding area (the lower the tank the less pressure there would be).&nb= sp; He said taking 10ft.-15ft. off the tank would lower the pressure. Ms. Ouellette questioned how the t= ank would look visually. Mr. Wear= e said he would provide photographs at the next meeting. He explained the concrete tank wou= ld be done in an earth tone.

Mr. Scanzani said Mr. Weare would have the opportunity to work with Dufresne-Henry prior to the next meeting to work o= ut any issues.

PUBLIC INPUT

= Mr. Charlie Pugsley, 27 Longvi= ew Circle discussed, as he did at the previous meeting, his concerns with blasting since he had recent problems with blast= ing done on Collins Way. Mr. Scanzani said a blasting compa= ny is supposed to do pre-blast surveys to areas that may be impacted. He said the Board recommends prior= to blasting that homeowners document (i.e. photograph) their house in the event there are problems, the information could be provided to an insurance compa= ny. Mr. Pugsley reiterated his serious concerns with the blasting. M= r. Weare agreed to a pre-blasting survey for any abutter requesting it.

The plan was date specified to the May 2, 2005 meet= ing.

=

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

Ms. Ouellette read aloud a letter dated March 25, 2005 = submitted by the Safety Committee. The Com= mittee found the 18ft. driveway acceptable, but asked that the Board consider a secondary access onto Fox = Street in order to help alleviate any on-site circulation issues or congestion. Ms. Ouellette then reviewed a lett= er (dated March 28, 2005) submitted by the Fire Inspector who indicated that t= he site plan had been reviewed; all fire lanes shall be marked and follow all regulations; both the propane tank and regulator shall be protected with bollards cemented in the ground; they had no problems at this time accepting the plan.

Ms. Cheryl McLean met with the Board to discuss her application. She informed= that the septic system was capable of carrying the load of the amount of children that would be in the building since it was a new system. She explained that the initial des= ign was for a twenty-foot driveway around the building, but due to the propane tank, the driveway was decreased to eighteen-feet. Ms. Ouellette was surprised that t= he tank area wouldn’t be enclosed. Ms. McLean was unsure if it was something that could be done and said the bollards were what was presented to her. She noted that three additional pa= rking spaces had been added, one of which was a handicap spot, since her business= is handicap accessible.

Mr. Danevich said all the proper sign-offs had occurred and felt the Town should encourage the business. He said because the request was fo= r a change-of-use, he didn’t feel the Board should impose the second egress.

Ms. McLean said a concern had been brought up = at the previous meeting regarding the drop off/pick up of students. She said there was adequate space = in the front of the building for parents to use the spaces so they could escort children into the building. S= he said parents would have the opportunity to stay during the session, but it = was not required.

There was no public input.

Ms. Ouellette wanted to know how the traffic f= low pattern would be communicated to people.&n= bsp; Ms. McLean said signage would be added and planned on preparing a ‘parent’ packet that explained everything. She believed that the signs would = be large enough for people to view. The noted hours of operation were from 8:30am to 5:30 pm; the = children would not be there after 3:= 30pm.

Ms. Bousa said that parking spaces 13-20 were = only 8ft. wide; parking spaces are typically 10ft.x20ft. or 9ft.x18ft. Ms. McLean said spaces 8-12 and 13= -20 were existing. Ms. Bousa was viewing the plan submitted by the pizza shop. She recommended taking space #20 o= ut and add an additional foot to the remaining spaces. It was noted that the parking spac= es were already lined. Ms. McLea= n said when she met with the Board on March 4, 2005 she was using the pizza shop’s original site plan, but when she hired an engineer she insisted that her site plan include the existing conditions. Mr. Scanzani said there was a requirement for 35 parking spaces, and the total shown was 28. Mr. D’Andrea believed the pi= zza place submitted a waiver for a reduction in parking spaces.

The only outstanding issue was to ensure that = the Health Officer signs off and verifies that= the septic is complete. Mr. McNamara confirmed that Ms. McLean understood that the Town had a sign ordinance that would need to be followed.&= nbsp; Ms. McLean said she had discussed the sign with a local vendor. She said she wanted it done correctly.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Culbert) To approve the Change-of-use from retail space to a proposed child fitness center at 30 Bridge Street (Map 41 Lot 10-2= 80) subject to the Health Inspector signing off on the septic.

=

VOTE:

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

=

MINUTES

March 21, 2005 = – deferred.

SITE WALK (rescheduled) – April 16, 2005 = 8am meet at Town Hall

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

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – =

April 18, 2005:

Map 32 Lot = 1-146 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC – Spaulding Hill Road – Concept= ual Discussion – Proposed 19-Lot Subdivision

May 2, 2005:

Map 39 Lot = 1-53 & 55 LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David –= ; Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5-Lot Subdivision for Consideration

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

June 6, 2005:

Map 30 Lot 11-97-2 Dallaire, Frances & Lever, Jim & Dawn – Dutton Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

=

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:30 p.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