= Town of Pelham, NH<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>=

Pelham Conservation Commission<= /o:p>

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

MEETING OF 7/5/06 = &nb= sp; APPR= OVED 8/16/06

Members Present: &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;

Paul Gagnon, Jay Stearns, = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; =

Paul Dadak, Lisa Loosigian, &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Glennie Edwards (Alt)&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

Chairman Paul Gagnon brought the meeting to order at 7= :30 p.m. Mr. Gagnon announced tha= t we could use a couple of alternates on this board.

NEW BUSINESS:

29/7-45, Charaka LLC, 49 Atwood Road, Constructi= on of new building and fire lane partially in WCD The location of this parcel = is at the intersection of Atwood Road and Livingston Road.

Representing this case is Mike Gospoderek of Edward He= rbert Associates. There is approximately 3.8 to 3.9 acres in size. Currently there is a doctor’s office building on the = site and includes parking spaces on both Atwood Road and Livingston Road. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental has flagged the wetlands. The proposed building is 8,400-sq.= ft.; is approximately 140 ft by 60-ft with parking in the front. The back of the proposed building = is up against the wetland boundary. The reason for this is to provide as much parking in the front of the building = as possible said Mr. Gospoderek. There is a 12-ft wide fire lane proposed at the rear of the building. He made reference to a fire lane i= n the back of a building on the opposite side of Atwood Road and said when it went through the process of the Planning Board the fire chief took a closer look= at the final plan and determined that there only needed to be a fire lane on 3 sides of the building and the fire lane at the rear of that proposed buildi= ng was eliminated but it was very late in the game said Mr. Gospoderek. Currently, the building shows an i= mpact of 3,240-sq. ft. into the WCD. The overall intention is to take the drainage from the parking lot and move it = from left to right into the right side of the property where there is an upland = area above the wetland conservation area where there can be treatment swales or detention ponds as required. = Mr. Gospoderek said he is before the Conservation Commission to ask that a recommendation be made to the ZBA to allow the 590-sq. ft. of impact for the corner of the building and fire lane at the back of the building and to also make this same recommendation to the Planning Board. Mr. Gospoderek said that the fire = lane would be constructed out of a paver system. A paver system is reinforcement be= low the grass line and accommodates the heaviness of any fire truck apparatus.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> A paver system eliminates the soft= ness in the grass during mud season. It is made of all natural materials and is approximately 8” deep with a natural grass overlain said Mr. Gospoderek.

PUBLIC INPUT: None

BACK TO BOARD: Member Jay Stearns questioned as to why we, the Conservation Commiss= ion, would allow a building to be erected in the conservation/wildlife district. Mr. Gagnon explaine= d that the infringement is in the buffer zone that protects the wetlands and the Z= BA may waive that regulation. Me= mber Stearns has a concern with the high waters that we recently had where there= was 6” of water up to the present building and now the proposed building = is that much bigger and sets back 100 ft closer to the wetland conservation district. Mr. Gospoderek was = asked to comment on this. Mr. Gospo= derek acknowledged that it was more like 30 ft. back and that we had a lot of back-to-back storms, which caused a lot of the brooks and streams to mimic = the large storm event, the 1500-year storm event. The bottom floor elevation is set = at elevation 129 and is basically going to be used as a storage area. If you add 8-ft to that you = are at elevation 137 for the actual use of the building. Both Living= ston and Atwood roads would have to be entirely flooded in order for the water to get up that high said Mr. Gospoderek. He said the usable building = space on this property would be well above the high waters that you’ve seen recently, the rest will be storage. The Planning Board requires we have zero run off and the design is to have no increase in flows or peak flows to the drainage area said Mr. Gospoderek. The Planning Board reviews this – there are two professio= nals looking at that. Member Dadak= asked if there was to be additional grading and the answer was no, that the build= ing will be constructed/graded as shown on the plan. The elevation area will be around = 129 as shown on the plan and is where the corner of the building is now. The top floor will be for the doctor’s services and is about 8-ft above that.

Chairman Gagnon said that he has been in town for 25 y= ears and the back corner of the proposed building floods every year, and on an adjacent homeowner’s land there was at least 4-ft of standing water in the back yard. Mr. Gagnon ask= ed how do you handle the displaced water, you are putting in a foundation, walls a= re being constructed and there is probably fill coming in? Mr. Gospoderek spoke of a 100-year= storm and said this parcel is outside the floodplain. Mr. Gagnon asked if there was goin= g to be a retention or detention pond to accommodate the water that is naturally= absorbed into the ground? Mr. Gospoder= ek said we are at the ZBA stage not the Planning Board stage where it is requi= red to establish the plan for the drainage systems. The parking area is being placed t= o the right of the building, toward the open space where it is above the WCD. It will direct that flow into a treatment swale or a detention basin with a treatment swale to meet the Planning Board requirement. Mr. Gagnon asked if the plan has pervious pavement? The answer was no. Mr. Gagnon asked why wouldn’= t we do that? Mr. Gospoderek said = that in order to do pervious pavement the state requires that you be at least 3-= feet above the seasonal high water table. He said you must provide an inter-connection with the pervious pavem= ent below the frost line. If you = have water that goes through the pervious pavement and it sits there in the fall= and winter months and it freezes, you won’t have any pavement left. You have to have pretty good condi= tions to put in pervious pavement said Mr. Gospoderek. Mr. Gagnon said that the talk at t= he site walk spoke of pervious pavement and grass pavers, which was agreed that you would do. Member Dadak questioned on how the grading would be in the proposed parking area, whethe= r it would be level with the street? Mr. Gospoderek answered that it would be as close as it can be to the existing grade.

Mr. Gagnon said one issue discussed at the site walk w= as why the parking couldn’t be shifted towards Dutton Road and to move the building 10-15 feet toward Atwood Road?&nb= sp; Mr. Gospoderek said that is where the retention area and treatment s= wale is planned. Member Stearns as= ked about proposing a mitigation plan due to 590-sq.ft. is planned in the buffer zone and a fire lane. He said something is being taken from the town and there should be some mitigation = for the damage being done to the WCD. He said nothing is being offered in return. Mr. Gospoderek said that they coul= d try to mitigate the square footage on the property and that it would probably b= e on the right side where the retention pond is planned because that is where the elevations appear right.

Mr. Gagnon asked about extending the WCD in another ar= ea to take into account 1000-sq.ft. Mr. Gospoderek said they could easily do that in “that” corner and donate an easement to the town and put the same restrictions as you would on the WCD so that the forested area remains intact.

MOTION: (Stearns/Loosigian) To send recommendations to ZBA/Planning Board as follows: (1) Eliminate the fi= re lane in WCD on backside of the building; (2) Expand/offset WCD 2-3 times ra= dio to 590 sq.ft. and put easement restrictions on other land, further away from WCD; (3), move building toward Atwood Road, move parking lot toward Livings= ton Road. It was recommended that= the plan be attached to the letter to positively identify the recommendations m= ade by the Conservation Commission

VOTE: 5-= 0 in favor of motion.

Map 39, Lot 1-53 & 1-55: LRL Development of Pelham – Proposed Senior Housing

Location is left of Sherburne Road.

Mr. Gagnon gave an overview of this project that went = before the Planning Board in January of 2006.&nbs= p; This was for a 4-lot subdivision including crossing over wetlands and the WCD. The intention to sub= divide for elderly housing came at a later date.&= nbsp; Mr. Gagnon said this is a major wetland; and the proposed plan now i= s to construct 63 units for elderly housing and is a much higher impact.

Mr. Gospoderek of Edward Hebert Associates represented= this case. He advised that that detention ponds are planned and the piping will be used for the driveway impacts and will drain into the detention pond. The impact is 49,800 into the WCD = and 5,442 impact through the wetland. Originally the plan was for two 12-ft wide driveways on the property line. The Planning Board has = now required two –24-ft wide driveways that include a 3-ft separation. Major frontage had to be created s= aid Mr. Gospoderek. Mr. Gagnon as= ked about the residence at #9 Sherburne Road, lot 1-53, that has a major violat= ion and whether it was staying. M= r. Gospoderek said that it had been considered for a clubhouse, but more likely that it will be taken down to bring things into compliance. He indicated th= at approximately 6.5 acres is planned as a donation to the town.

Chairman Gagnon will confirm with the Planning Directo= r to see if a joint site walk with the Planning Board is possible for Monday, Ju= ly 31 at 4 p.m.

OTHER: <= /p>

Member Lisa Loosigian gave an update on water testing = on Long Pond. She reported that = the testing on Long Pond was done on June 28^th with the assistance a= nd instruction of a biologist from Concord, three members of the Pelham Long Pond Association, one member of the Dracut Long Pond Association and Cindy Brunelle of Pelham. Lisa said they were trained to take water samples at different depths for phosphorus, pH, conductivity, and oth= er parameters, as well as to test for transparency with a Secchi disk. The biologist tests once a year for temperature and dissolved oxygen, too.&nbs= p; Member Paul Dadak advised that the Commission might want to put moni= es into the budget for training sessions that become available. He recently attended a training se= ssion that dealt with many issues, including erosion control and delineation of wetlands, etc. He will share = his literature with other members. He attended the above noted training as it related to his certification.

Member Paul Dadak advised that he was recently appoint= ed to the Planning Board as an alternate and representative of the Conservation Commission. In the event that= he cannot attend a Planning Board session, anyone from the Commission can atte= nd and voice any concerns in the public input part of the meeting – you wouldn’t have a vote, but you would be heard he said. It’s unknown, at this time, = how or if an alternate will be chosen when the process of an “elected” Planning Board is enacted in March of 2007.

Member Jay Stearns reported that he did a follow-up at Muldoon Park with regard to erosion into a vernal pool. He took pictures and relayed them = to other members. He asked if th= ere were any funds available for riprap to halt the erosion.

Member Jay Stearns commented on the silt that has flow= ed into “Moose Pond” that is located off Spring Street between Lan= nan Drive and Stonepost Road. Thi= s is the result of a developer clear-cutting the parcel and the use of silt fenc= ing failed. With the recent rains= , the run-off, the silt traveled through the woods, eroded a trail and was deposi= ted into the pond. The entire pon= d is now brownish, not the usual blackish look.= He took pictures of this and forwarded them to the Planning Director. A meeting is planne= d with Mark West of West Environmental, the developer and the Planning Director for possible mitigation of the affected area.

MINUTES APPROVED:&nbs= p; 6/14/06

MOTION to adjourn meeting – 9:45 p.m.

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

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary

The next meeting of the Conservation Commission is on = August 9 at the Elementary School.