PB Minutes 08.01.2005

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 1, 2005

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

The Secretary, Ms. Ouelle= tte called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Gael Ou= ellette, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Alternate Ken Dunne, Planning Director Will D’Andrea

ABSENT:

Bill Scanzani, Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich

Mr. Dunne was appointed to vote in Mr. Scanzani’s absence.

NEW BUSINESS

ITEM #1

Map 40 Lot 6-185 – Brea= ult – Noela Avenue/Honey= Lane – Proposed 2-Lot subdivision for Acceptance/Consideration<= /u>

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. Two notifications were returned unclaimed.&nbs= p;

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the two-lot subdivision to the Board. One lot (approxima= tely 5.36 acres) contained an existing house, driveway, location of leach, well etc.; the remaining lot would be approximately 3 acres. He said at the last meeting they received a report from the Planning Director and believed, at this time, th= ey had corrected all the items. =

Mr. D’Andrea said m= ost of the comments were substantially addressed, and there were a few items that would be conditional with any approval: 1) well and septic systems to be sh= own within 75-feet – well and septic from adjoining property to be added;= 2) confirmation of test pits from Town Health Officer; 3) Fire Department ease= ment for cistern; 4) receipt of State Subdivision Approval. Mr. Zohdi noted that Town Health O= fficer Paul Zarnowski inspected the test pits when they were dug.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud = a letter submitted by John Hodge of the Pelham Fire Department dated July 25, 2005 i= n which a cistern easement (for the 5000 gallon cistern on lot 6-185) was requested t= o be shown on the plan; the Fire Department had no other problems with the plan = at this time. Mr. D’Andrea= noted that the letter submitted by Health Officer Zarnowski was based upon the pr= ior plan, since that time test pits had been dug, but confirmation of compliance had not yet been submitted to the Planning Department. The leaching area would be reviewe= d by Mr. Zarnowski.

PUBLIC INPUT

Amy and Jared Breault, applicants said = they resided in the existing house on the lot and requested that the Board appro= ve the subdivision. Ms. Breault = said she and her husband had recently entered into an agreement to purchase anot= her home in Town and were interested in selling their home on Noela Avenue, which could not be do= ne until the subdivision issue had been resolved. She noted that similar requests to subdivide the lot in the past had been denied, however the reasons for deni= al in the past no longer applied and continued denial would lead to undue hardship. She discussed the p= arcel and believed the primary concern of abutters would pertain to drainage prob= lems they experienced as a result of the initial development of Honey Lane. It was the applicant’s conte= ntion that the drainage problems had nothing to do with the request at hand and therefore should not be penalized for past problems with the development. Ms. Breault didn’t see any r= eason that additional drainage issues would arise from subdividing the lot. She said the current access way and structure didn’t impede on the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) in any way. = ;

Mr. Tim Fraize, who resid= ed on the corner of Honey Lane and Noela Avenue, said he was not for, or against the proposed subdivision. He discussed his concerns with the absence of trees, road pitch, increased water and drainage flow on the prop= erty being discussed.

Ms. Ouellette asked if th= e Town had access to the Town owned parcel. Mr. D’Andrea was unsure. Mr. Ouellette was concerned with land locking the Town parcel. Ms. Breault said there was a 20-fo= ot easement at the end of the cul-de-sac that provided access.

Ms. Ouellette noted there= was a waiver that needed action. Mr. D’Andrea said the waiver was for the 100ft.x150ft. area (shape) for t= he existing house lot. There was= no question regarding the 35,000SF area, just the shape.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Bousa) To accept the 100ft.x150ft. area waiver for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To accept the pla= n for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Bousa) To approve the 100ft.x150ft.area waiver.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the pl= an, subject to: 1) test pit results submitted to Town Health Officer; 2) fire easement for cistern placement shown on the plan; and 3) state subdivision approval.<= /p>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ITEM #2

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review ad Seeking Special Pe= rmit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

The Board did not have a = quorum to hear this application, therefore it was date specified to the August 15, 2005 meeting.

ITEM #3

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 – KDS Properties, LLC – At= wood Road – Site Plan – Proposed 20-uni= t, 55 years of age and older adult community for acceptance=

At the request of the app= licant, this hearing was tabled to the August 15, 2005 meeting.

ITEM #4

Map 3 Lot 5-26/26-1 – Edwards, Barbara & Leonard / Edwards, Steven & Patricia – Edwards Drive – Lot line adjustment

Mr. Matt Hamor of Polaris Engineering, representing the applicant, presented the lot line adjustment = to the Board. He said the applic= ant was proposing the lot line adjustment to be able to give his son an additio= nal 6.5 acres. Each parcel contai= ned an existing dwelling. He said th= e plan was compiled by using a previously approved/recorded subdivision plan (from 1989) as well as using as-built information from the existing two structures.

Mr. Culbert questioned if= the brook had changed. Mr. Hamor = said when he met with the Planning Director it was felt that the exact location = of the brook was not that important because the calculations were rounded (+ o= r -) to the nearest 100ft. Mr. Cul= bert questioned when the treatment swale and drainage easements were established= . Mr. Hamor said they were establish= ed in 1989. Mr. Culbert asked if it= was a correct assumption that the easement and swale were in good repair. Mr. Hamor believed so. He said he was not representing the physical nature of the entire drainage design, but rather the easement itself. Mr. Culbert asked how= many feet of frontage would be on Edwards Drive. Mr. Hamor said there was two hundr= ed feet of frontage for one lot; the other would have two hundred nine feet of frontage. Mr. Culbert confirm= ed that the lots would be ‘single’ building lots. Mr. Hamor answered yes.

Mr. McNamara wanted to kn= ow the purpose of the lot line adjustment. Mr. Hamor said the applicant wanted to transfer the land to his son because it would be behind his son’s house. Mr. McNamara asked if there were a= ny plans to subdivide or further build on the parcel. Mr. Hamor answered no. Mr. McNamara asked, if approved, t= he newly configured lots would meet all setbacks and be conforming. Mr. Hamor answered yes.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Culbert said he was u= nsure if he was comfortable with the 20-foot drainage easement and the 100-foot treatment swale because he didn’t know if it was working. Mr. Hamor said he reviewed it, and= it seemed fine, although he was not there during a storm event. He said he was informed that it ha= d been maintained by the Town for the past fifteen years.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To accept the= plan for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To approve th= e lot line adjustment plan.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

IT= EM #5

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board.&= nbsp; He said the Board had reviewed the plan approximately four times dur= ing which changes had been made such as adding a 50-foot right-of-way, bio-rete= ntion areas, drainage easements and extensive vegetation proposal through the wet= lands. He said the plan had gone before t= he Conservation Commission and received positive recommendations. He said a report had been received= from the Town’s engineering firm Dufresne-Henry dated July 29, 2005 which discussed= the remaining drainage issues; most of which covered the bio-retention area bec= ause it was new technology. He sai= d he had submitted a brief synopsis regarding the bio-retention area to the Plan= ning Director regarding some of the evidence of use. He said in regard to drainage, rat= her than try to collect all water and dump it down stream, they were trying to colle= ct the water in small sub-catchments, manage the small amounts, treat and get = it into the ground. He further discussed the bio-retention design and its workings. Mr. Gospodarek said rather than cross-sections he provided profiles of center line and drainage ditches (el= evations and how they interfaced with retention areas), also spot elevations. He was hopeful that the Board would provide a conditional approval.

Mr. D’Andrea said at the last meeting the Board had requested further clarification/comments from the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) regarding the bio-retention syst= em and its use in New Hampshire<= /st1:State>, which had not yet been received. He said the technology was fairly new, but was attractive and being promoted.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said more information sho= uld be obtained regarding the technology and whether it could withstand winter conditions. Mr. D’Andre= a said the Board had also requested that the Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’) be revised to address the technology, however it had not yet been received, and recommended when it was received to have it reviewed/verified by the Town’s environmental consultant.

Ms. Ouellette noted that within the information provided by Mr. Gospodarek regarding the retention system, it was written t= hat they were not designing for winter or frozen conditions. Mr. Gospodarek said none of the dr= ainage systems were designed for that. He was unaware of any towns (other than up north) that designed for winter conditions. He said the Town requires a 50-year storm event and in his opinion, the proposed system would work better than a detention system. He discussed the Town’s regulations. Ms. Ouellette believed more inform= ation was needed.

Mr. Dunne asked if there were any towns in New Hampshire th= at had the proposed system in place.

Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental Services in= formed that the Town of Salem was using bio-detention areas as the primary form of treatment within an el= derly/condominium development which was being funded through HUD. He said through a series of tests = (done by UNH) between grass treatment swales, detention basins, gravel wetland and standard bio-retention area, it was found that the grass treatment swale provided very limited treatment, the detention basin provided no treatment,= the two best treatments were the gravel wetlands and the bio-retention area. He said this past spring, the bio-retention failed; it sealed over. He said UNH was taking it out and using the model out of New Jersey and Georgia, which was the same b= eing proposed. Mr. Gove felt this = system was the way of the future; DES felt towns would get away from using standard detention basins very soon; the administrative rules were in the process of being re-written. Mr. Dunne questioned if there was any data received from the system in Salem.= Mr. Gove answered no, it was still under construction.

Mr. Gove discussed the concept of the bio-retention system. Mr. Cul= bert questioned what would happen if the system failed two-years ‘down the road’. Mr. Gove said eventually the system would no longer allow water to percolate in; the water wouldn’t be retained and would move to the next basin. He didn’t feel that there wo= uld be a big effect during small storm events, but the effects would be noticeable during the spring conditions (snow melt and heavy rains). Mr. Culbert asked if the Town woul= d be responsible. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. Gove said it depended upon when it failed. Mr. Culbert said it seemed as if a detention basin would be easier to repair th= an a bio system. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id the biggest area would be approximately 400SF so it should be easily handled fr= om the road instead of going into an easement and excavating. He said the design was simple and believed there would be good success rate for maintenance (as was the case = in the towns he researched). He = noted that the maps to the system were on the last pages of the plan. Mr. Culbert said the soil was sand= y and questioned if that was the reason the system was being reviewed. Mr. Gospodarek said that was one o= f the main reasons. He said on this project they had a number of test pits that went down sixteen feet with no water. He said in most cases = they were two to ten feet above the high water table. He said they made sure the enginee= ring part worked in theory. Mr. Cu= lbert asked if they would come back in a year or so and request to install the bio system in an area with high soil content of clay or ledge. Mr. Gospodarek didn’t believ= e so, the overriding factor was the seasonal high water table and percolation rate. Mr. Gove said the system installed= in Salem had similar conditions as the proposed. H= e said there was a three year program of testing that would provide answers about = the ledge sites. Mr. Culbert aske= d if the proposed site would be used for evaluation purposes. Mr. Gove said this site had not re= ceived funding through the PATH Program.

Mr. McNamara asked that Dufresne-Henry provide comment.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry said they = were not philosophically opposed to the type of system. He said they were unsure if the lo= cations of the basins were correct. T= here was a concern that during winter maintenance the drains would be covered ov= er; more information was wanted regarding where the systems were used during cold weather and the effectiveness over the long run. Mr. McNamara asked if such informa= tion existed. Mr. Hertrich said he= had spoken to DES, who informed there were several operating systems located in= the state and was trying to obtain site specific information in able to make a determination.

Mr. McNamara reviewed some of the concerns bro= ught up at the June, 2005 meeting (i.e. catch basins, utility pole, usable land = lot 104 for park or parking). Mr. D’Andrea noted that the remediation plan for lot 104 was not known and could affect open space. Mr. = Gove said they were in contact with DES and had put together draft plans for the= m, but had not yet received clear direction.&= nbsp; He said DES would be processing as two separate applications (permit= ting for Pelham Estates and the violation on the other side of the power line).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A determination still had to be ma= de if there would be a condition for restoration, or an after-the-fact permit or = if an outright remediation order would be issued. Mr. Gove said with regard to Pelham Estates, a prime wetland hearing needed to be held (and was scheduled for <= st1:date Year=3D"2005" Day=3D"25" Month=3D"8" w:st=3D"on">August 25, 2005= , 10am at DES).

Mr. McNamara said the other items from the last meeting was Article K compliance and revised Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’). Mr. D’Andrea said the last correspondence from Health Officer Paul Zarnow= ski, there were non-compliance issues on a couple lots. Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associa= tes said they had received one letter from Mr. Zarnowski and corrected the plans. He was not aware of an additional letter. Mr. Gospod= arek said they received a copy of a letter from Gove Environmental sent to the Louis-Berger Group (Town’s environmental engineer) that addressed the bio-retention system. Mr. D’Andrea said they recently received the letter from Gove Environment= al and forwarded to Louis-Berger; however the Board had requested a revised EIA since the bio-retention system was not included. Mr. Gove asked that the Board clar= ify if they wanted the entire EIA revised. Mr. D’Andrea believed that the Board had been clear they expre= ssed their desire that the EIA be revised to include the bio-retention drainage = system. Mr. Culbert believed it would be modified EIA with the currently proposed drainage. Mr. McNamara said the Board wanted= to know what effects the new drainage system would have and how it would modify the environmental assessment that was done.

Mr. McNamara said the other issue was the open space requirement. Previously= , the applicant had proposed to give both land and money to the Town; however, the Board was concerned that the land be usable for what was being proposed (i.= e. game fields, parking). Mr. Zo= hdi said the wetlands were shown on the plan and to the Wetland Bureau (DES) and understood they would have enough area to build a ball field (part of which would be under the power line) and in conjunction with that, another lot co= uld be taken. He said his client = would give the land under the power line and a total of $185,000 ($100,000 prior = to the plan being signed and $50= 00 per lot at the time of building permit). Mr. McNamara said it was a good offer, providing that the land was usable. He believed that the = land under the power line was in dispute; the Town claimed that it was already T= own land. Mr. D’Andrea said= the property under the power lines was in dispute; the Town made claim that it = was deeded, accepted and owned by the Town; however the a property owner was disputing this and claiming they had clear title to the property (lot 8-87)= . Mr. Culbert asked what other land = was being offered to the Town. Mr. Zohdi said lot 8-104 was also being offered. Mr. D’Andrea noted that prop= erty had a violation and was before DES for remediation. Mr. Gove said they were told that s= ome decision would be made regarding how to proceed with the violation by the e= nd of the week.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Joseph Maynard speaking on behalf of Mr. Patrick Gendron (owner of lot 8-85) who would be receiving a roadway easement/stub to his property, was concerned with sight distance for the right-of-way. He said another concern was the 10-foot slope easement that the applicant said they would provide, but was not included on the plan set. He said they weren’t against= the project, but believed one of the swales fell close to the right-of-way.

Mr. James McManus, 2 Rita Avenue, said one of his conc= erns was the removal of sand during the weekends and asked that it not be done u= ntil the project was 85% complete. Mr. D’Andrea wasn’t aware of any recent complaints, only those rece= ived approximately one year ago. M= r. McManus said he didn’t want trucking on the small piece of property in front of his house (that was owned by the state for Route 38 widening). He said he had permission (in writ= ing from the state) to use the land, the applicant did not. Mr. McManus said the abutters were= told they would be notified by registered mail regarding the wetlands hearing and questioned when it would be held. Mr. Gove said the hearing date was set yesterday; the direct abutters would be notified. Mr. McManus questioned if lot 8-88 was combined with another. Mr. Zohdi said the lot would be co= mbined with another as part of the proposed plan.= Mr. McManus questioned if a decision had been made regarding the remediation. Mr. McNamara sai= d DES had it under advisement and had not yet issued a decision. Mr. Culbert questioned the removal= of material. Mr. McManus request= ed that no material be removed from the site until the project was 85% complet= e. Mr. Culbert said once a subdivisio= n was approved, the Board didn’t impose percentages. Mr. McManus reiterated that he didn’t want the state land in front of his home used for construction vehicles because he had small children residing with him.

Ms. Ouellette asked how much of lot 8-104 was usable. Mr. Zohdi reviewed th= e plan and noted that Gove Environmental had flagged the soil and believed it was 100ft-150ft. from the property line. He said a small field could be put in. Mr. Culbert said he had been resea= rching power lines and wouldn’t want to live underneath, but wouldn’t = have a problem with his children playing soccer underneath a couple times per week. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t have a problem cutting the five acre section and deeding it to= the Town. Mr. Culbert asked if th= ere was any information regarding electro-magnetic fields under power lines. Mr. D’Andrea had no informat= ion with regard to recreational activities.&nb= sp;

Mr. McNamara said further information was need= ed as to if the drainage would be acceptable to the Town’s engineer; fur= ther information was needed about systems in operation at this time in cold weather. Mr. Culbert said he = would be happy with information from Illinois = and Minnesota. Mr. McNamara said the DES informat= ion regarding the remediation would help clarify things. He said the revised EIA (in connec= tion with the drainage and wetland impacts) was needed for submission to the Louis-Berger Group. Mr. D’Andrea said if the Board was going to accept an offer for the properties to be used for recreation opportunities, there should be some document, or plan showing that they could be used for such prior to any acceptance. Mr. Culbert said = he would move forward with the assumption that the land the Town said was thei= rs is theirs, unless it is proven otherwise.&= nbsp; He asked if the 10-foot slope was taken care of. Mr. Zohdi said they would add the easement to the plan. Mr. D’Andrea said confirmation was needed from the Health Officer regardi= ng the two lots having updated information for Article K. Mr. McNamara wanted to confirm tha= t Mr. Gendron’s concerns were included: 1) 10-foot slope easement; 2) sight distance easement; and 3) drainage. Mr. Zohdi and Mr. Gospodarek said they would review.

Ms. Ouellette questioned Mr. D’Andrea’s comment that the notes for lots 6-13,14 &15 shou= ld be revised to exclude the 100-year flood plane. Mr. D’Andrea said zoning req= uires that the 35,000 minimum exclude wetlands and 100-year flood plane. He said the plan needed to show th= ere was still adequate area. Mr. McNamara reviewed an additional note by Mr. D’Andrea that advised the Board to request that the plan = show existing wooded areas on the plan.

The plan was date specified to the September 8, 2005 meeting.

IT= EM #6

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

At the applicant’s request, this hearing= was continued to the = September 8, 2005 meeting.

IT= EM #7

Ma= p 3 Lot 5-169-4 – Buonarosa, Peter – 45 Dogwood Circle – Modification to an Approved Subdivision Plan – Allow a driveway withi= n a ‘no-cut zone – protected area for Bird’s Foot VioletsR= 17;

Mr. Culbert said the last time the Board heard= the plan he recused himself because he knew the Buonarosas; however, if he recu= sed himself for this meeting, the Board wouldn’t have a quorum. He felt he could judge the applica= tion impartially. Mr. McNamara ask= ed Mr. Culbert if he had any financial relationship with the family, if he stood to gain anything if the plan was approved, or lose anything if the plan was denied. Mr. Culbert answered no. The Board did not object = to Mr. Culbert remaining seated for the hearing.

Mr. Mark Jacobs a certified wetland and soil s= cientist, representing the applicant, met with the Board to review the modified plan.= He said the applicant had expresse= d a desire to relocate the approved driveway location to a more suitable locati= on; the current driveway is extremely steep and doesn’t comply with the current slope requirements. H= e said the Town requested that Louis-Berger (Town’s consultant) review the s= ite, which had happened and a memo (dated June 28, 2005) was generated by Craig Wood (of Louis-Berger) who confirmed the presence of the endangered species and made recommendations. One recommen= dation was a driveway further down on the slope that would minimize the removal of trees and may/may not encroach on the Wetland Conservation District (‘= ;WCD’). Mr. Jacobs noted that since receip= t of the memo, the plan was revised and submitted to the Town that showed a new driveway alignment and complied with the Town’s slope requirements. The surveyor returned to the site = and located all eighteen occurrences of the violet as well as all trees over 5” in diameter. He said= Mr. Wood submitted a memo dated July 29, 2005; the applicant was happy to make the recommended chang= es and requested that the Board make a conditional approval according to Mr. Wood’s letter. Mr. McNa= mara read aloud Mr. Wood’s letter dated July 29, 2005 which stated the revised p= lan was a suitable compromise between limiting potential impacts to the violets and minor encroachment into the WCD and tree removal. Mr. Jacobs wanted the Board to kno= w that any incursion into or damage to the WCD would be temporary and restored upon completion of the project.

Mr. Culbert said it appeared that the slope of= the driveway would be 8.3% at worst and questioned if the flowers could be moved. Mr. Jacobs said at one point, some of the specimens were moved in connection with the road construction, however the specimens being discussed preferred to be under a canopy.

Ms. Ouellette questioned what type of retaining wall was being proposed. Mr. = Jacobs said the owner hadn’t decided, it would either be versa-block type or possible boulder type. He sai= d they would be interested if the Board had a preference. Mr. Culbert said he would want to = know the type of wall.

Ms. Bousa questioned what would happen to the existing driveway, if the proposed relocation was approved. Mr. Jacobs said the gravel current= ly there would be left in, however, it would be cordoned off so it couldn̵= 7;t be used in the future. Ms. Bo= usa noted that Mr. Wood’s letter of June 28, 2005 recommended reforesting and asked if t= he applicant would consider doing so. Mr. Jacobs said they would consider it.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To accept the pla= n for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the plan conditioned upon defining the retaining wall (which also must be accepted by the Planning Director) and reforesting the old driveway. Mr. Dunne seconded the motion. Mr. McNamara asked that the provis= ions contained in the letters from Craig Wood of the Louis-Berger Group dated July 29, 2005 b= e included as conditions. Mr. Jacobs ask= ed that the Board consider re-vegetate, rather than reforest. There was no objection.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To approve the pl= an conditioned upon: 1) define retaining wall which also must be accepted by= the Planning Director; 2) re-vegetate the old driveway; 3) provisions outline= d in letter (dated July 29, 2005) by Mr. Craig Wood of the Louis-Berger Group shall also be conditions for approval.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

IT= EM #8

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-95 – Pelham Plaza Corp. – Jose Ho= t Dog – Pelham Plaza/Route 38 – Modification to a Site Plan – Proposed hot dog stand

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates met with= the Board to discuss the modification to the site plan. He said at the last meeting, the B= oard was supposed to receive a legal document so the Board could make a decision. He asked if it had = now been received; he had no new evidence to present to the Board. Mr. McNamara said the Board had a submittal from Town Counsel and from Tom Gaydos, Town Administrator. He said some of his concerns had b= een lessened by the responses and was fairly comfortable with the designation of Itinerant Vendor for Jose Hot Dog. <= /span>

Mr. Culbert thought from the last meeting that= the Board was not approving the Jose Hot Dog stand, but rather a location on the site for an itinerant area. M= r. McNamara said the Board received comment from counsel informing that the Bo= ard was within its rights to request for an amendment on the site plan to impose certain restrictions (i.e. health/safety, traffic flow, pedestrian access). Mr. Culbert reviewed= the information provided to the Board and read that the Board should determine = the proper location on the site for the itinerant vendor use. He believed this meant the Board w= as supposed to determine an itinerant area.&n= bsp; Mr. D’Andrea said the applicant was referring to an itinerant vendor area even though it was specific to Jose Hot Dog. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the Boa= rd could determine that the proposed location for the vendor was not appropriate. Mr. D’Andr= ea answered yes. He noted that t= here had been no accidents/incidents at the location for the operation for the l= ast several years. He said the Hi= ghway Safety Committee had reviewed the site and recommended pedestrian protection from the drive isle; there were no other concerns. Mr. McNamara felt it should be not= ed that the proprietor of Jose Hot Dog had responded to whatever requests were made by the Town and its officials over the past years.

Mr. Culbert noted that this was the first time= the Board was reviewing a plan in a commercial district that didn’t ident= ify traffic flow. Ms. Bousa felt = the applicant should have come in with a more detailed plan; however there had = been no issues over the past several years.&nbs= p; She didn’t feel it was big issue.

Ms. Ouellette was concerned with the fuel truc= ks maneuvering into the gas station, which was within approximately 50feet from the hot dog stand.

Mr. McNamara said bollards had been installed = to protect the propane tank (per Fire Chief David Fisher).

Mr. Culbert wanted to know the setback of the stand from the center line on Route 38.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi was not sure, but ventured to say approximately 150feet. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the = stand was within the state boundary. Mr. Zohdi answered no.

Ms. Bousa asked what the hours of operation we= re for the stand. Mr. Zohdi did = not know, but guessed the hours would be 10am-8pm, seven days per week. Ms. Bousa didn’t feel there was parking deficiency on the site.

There was no public input.

Mr. Culbert questioned if all state requiremen= ts were met for licensing. Mr. Z= ohdi said he would have to. Mr. D’Andrea said he would have to be compliant with state requirements f= or a mobile hot dog cart. He didn’t know if the current permits had been updated. Mr. Culbert confirmed that an itin= erant vendor didn’t have to move every 30-days. Mr. D’Andrea answered no, not according to the itinerant vendor criteria. Mr. Culbert questioned if the Board would require facilities. Mr. D’Andrea answered no; it was a convenience mobile cart. Mr. Dunne questioned what faciliti= es the employees used. Mr. Zohdi didn’t know.

It was noted that the two tables currently on = site would remain; there would be no additional tables.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the stand would remain = on site when it closed for the season. Mr. Zohdi believed the stand would remain. Ms. Ouellette said due to the intersection and traffic flow, she would rather have the stand located in a different area. Mr. McNamara = asked if consideration had been given to other locations on the site. Mr. Zohdi believed there was an agreement with the post office for certain dedicated parking. He said he wasn’t asked abou= t any other area on the site and believed the current location was ‘tucked’ away. He= said the owner had a desire to stay in the current location.

MOTION:

(Bousa/McNamara) To accept the pl= an for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Dunne asked if a safe traffic study would = be done. Mr. McNamara wasn’= ;t sure what a traffic plan would accomplish given the existing nature of the facility and the opinion (by Ms. Bousa) that there was sufficient parking on the facility.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Bousa) To approve the plan.

VOTE:

(3-1-1) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette voted no. Mr. Dunne abstained.

IT= EM #9

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

This item needed a variance; and was believed = to be on the next agenda for the Board of Adjustment. The application was date specified= to the August 15, 2= 005 Planning Board meeting.

IT= EM #10

Ma= p 41 Lot 10-346 – Armstrong, Kevin – Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed storage of logs in relation to a logging business

This item requires Board of Adjustment action,= but has not yet been scheduled with the Board of Adjustment for a hearing. The application was date specified= to the September 8, = 2005 Planning Board meeting.

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

August 15, 2005

Map 30 Lot 11-93 – = Cormier & Saurman Building, LLC – Dutton Road – Proposed Elderly Complex for Site Plan Review ad Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing – Court Remand

Map 29 Lot 7-44-1 – KDS Properties, LLC – Atwood Road – Site Plan ̵= 1; Proposed 20-unit, 55 years of age and older adult community for acceptance<= /p>

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

September 8, 2005

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

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

Map 41 Lot = 10-346 – Armstrong, Kevin – Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Propos= ed storage of logs in relation to a logging business

MINUTES

July 18, 2005 – amendments were discussed, however the vote was deferred until an adequate number of people present at the July 18^th meeting could vote regarding the amendments.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Culbert) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:15 p.m.

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

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

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