PB Minutes 01-05-2006

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 5, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette (left the meeting at 10:15pm), Robin Bousa (arrived after t= he meeting commenced), Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate Ken Dunne (arrived after the meeting had commenced), Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction, Inc. – Sherburne Road – Proposed 5 <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Lot Subdivision

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He noted that he had been before t= he Board approximately a year and a half ago for approval of an eight lot subdivision. He said a period= of time passed including the time frame for recording plan; therefore, he had = come before the Board a couple months ago and had the eight lot subdivision re-a= pproved. Mr. Zohdi said he was now before t= he Board to take the eight-lot subdivision and turn it into a five-lot subdivision. He said there wa= s one lot, containing approximately seven acres, that the applicant would bring b= ack to the Board to possibly do an adult community.

Mr. Gowan clarified that = Mr. Zohdi was before the Board to amend a recorded plan. Mr. Zohdi answered yes; and said he would change note #1 on the plan indicating the purpose of the plan was to combine the eight lots and re-subdivide into five lots.

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f the scope of review was limited because the plan was being amended. In Mr. Gowan’s opinion, it w= as a new plan. He said an argument= could be made that since it was a new plan, the applicant could do a lot line adjustment.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the= road was in the same position (as the previous plan). Mr. Zohdi answered yes and noted t= hat it was shorter. He pointed out t= hat the intersection, sight distance and grade had not changed. Mr. Scanzani asked if the single f= amily lots were the same as previous. Mr. Zohdi said the first two lots were the same, but the last two were adjusted because of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Gowan noted, that since the road changed, the plan couldn’t be review= ed as a lot line adjustment.

Mr. Zohdi said the draina= ge didn’t change.

Ms. Ouellette asked if the cul-de-sac had been taken into consideration for the time when the seven ac= re lot came back before the Board. Mr. Zohdi gave a brief description of the adult community and noted that the cul-de-sac would remain (in compliance with the site plan and subdivision regulation). Mr. Yarmo questi= oned why the adult community design plan didn’t come before the Board at t= his time. Mr. Zohdi said his clie= nt wanted to start building the road. M= r. Yarmo was concerned with the drainage changing. Mr. Culbert said the risk was the applicant. Mr. Gowan said whe= n the project came in, it would come under full scrutiny.

Mr. Dunne asked if the ho= uses would be built prior to the proposal for the 55+ housing. Mr. Zohdi answered no; he planned = on coming before the Board in four or five months prior to construction of the homes for the elderly housing.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept the plan for consideration. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

The Board then considered the following waiver= s:

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.11(B) 2 well radii in building setback for lots 1-55-2 &am= p; 1-55-4.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I,dd – cross sections.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= pprove the two waivers: 1) Section 11.11(B)2 –well radius; and 2) Appendix I,dd – cro= ss section as submitted.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the plan contingent on no building permits being issued before (back lot)= lot 1-55-3 is approved (full review) by the Board.

VOTE:

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

Ma= p 1 Lot 5-127 Edwards, June – Mammoth Road – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision

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.&nb= sp; There were several returned abutter notifications returned from the = Post Office. Mr. Gowan explained t= hat the parcel abutted several businesses (industrial park); he said the attempt was made and recommended that the Board ask the public if there were any ow= ners from the industrial park present. Mr. Scanzani asked if any owners from within the industrial park that objected to the Board hearing the application. A member of the public indicated t= hey were an owner and had no objection to the Board hearing the case. There were no other persons presen= t that had not received notification.

Mr. Mike Grainger of Grainger Engineering presented the plan to the Board. He said the proposal was for a two-lot subdivision; one lot being 1.7 acres the remaining lot approximately 3.5 acres.&nbs= p; He explained that there were individual wells, septics and driveways. He said the owner = was giving a lot to her children.

Mr. Gowan said the conditions of the lot were pre-existing. The subdivision= would be ‘straight forward’ and not required to go before the Board of Adjustment.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= ccept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Ms. Bousa asked if there were any postings (si= gns) for the wetlands (setbacks). = Mr. Grainger answered no, but said they could.=

Mr. Yarmo asked for the status of the buffer.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Grainger said most of it was w= ooded (along Beaver Brook) approximately 75 feet consistently. Mr. Scanzani believed the Board ag= reed (as one condition) that there should be postings every fifty feet.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the plan, subject to posting conservation signs (every 50 feet).

VOTE:

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

Map 42 Lot 10-18 & 31 Advanced Inves= tment, LLC – 31 Hillcrest L= ane - Conceptual Discussion of proposed 24 Unit Elderly Housing Complex

It was noted that the discussion would be conceptual; however the abutters were notified of the meeting.

Mr. Shawn Harrington, representing Advanced Investment, LLC, introduced Mr. David Jordan of SFC Engineering Partnership, leading the engineering; Mr. Greg Smith of GSD Associates, leading the architecture and Mr. Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental Services. Mr. Jordan presented the plan to = the Board. He said the twelve acre parcel was surrounded by single family residents on two sides and a large undeveloped parcel to the east. He said the proposed was a senior housing project (55+) of twenty-four units; = the buildings would contain three and four unit townhouse units. The access driveway (coming off Hillcrest Lane) was approximately 900-feet in length and had in excess of 400-feet sight distan= ce in both directions. Mr. Jordan said a full boundary, topographic survey had been done as well as the wetla= nd delineation. Nine acres would= be left as open space for passive recreation.= The development would be serviced by a community well system (for domestic and fire protection). Test pits had been done and there were adequate soil conditions for a septic sys= tem; they were considering an advanced treatment system (providing secondary treatment). The developers had several meetings with the Planning staff as well as the Fire Department. Mr. Jordan indicated that after t= he meeting, it was their intention to move forward with full engineering design and come back to the Board for site plan approval. He said the only waiver they would= be requesting was for paving within the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’).

Mr. Smith (architect) reviewed the buildings a= nd the conceptual design of such.

Mr. Jordan then discussed the sto= rm water drainage and said they intended to use current best management practi= ces including low impact development to handle the runoff.

Mr. Danevich said he appreciated the level of detail being presented. He sa= id he would look for lighting detail. He wanted to know if the Fire Department would accept the fire panel and said = the Board would want written comment. He was concerned about the turn-around and would want comment from t= he Fire Department. He said the = Board would want to view a sketch of the front elevation to understand the identification of the project. He said landscaping detail would also be important. He was happy that they were consid= ering the grass pavers. Mr. Danevic= h said he would be looking for a minimal traffic impact study.

Mr. Scanzani, who also appreciated the level of detail being provided, said beside passive recreation, he would like to see what was proposed for a meeting/gathering room.

There was further discussion regarding the proposal.

PUBLIC INPUT

A member of the public stepped forward and said they appreciated the abutter notification.= They said the abutter’s concerns would be with regard to drain= age and buffering of the abutting parcels.

Mr. Gowan noted that abutters would be notified when the plan came back before the Board.&= nbsp;

Mr. Culbert said he appreciated the detailed plan. He wanted additional information regarding the community activity house, advanced septic system, drainage, handicap accessibility and buffering. He asked if it would be a condomin= ium association. Mr. Jordan answered yes. Mr. Culbert said the agreement sho= uld be reviewed by legal.

Mr. Yarmo questioned if the Board would want an Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’). There was a consensus by the Board= that they would want an EIA when the plan came back.

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates met with the Board regarding the proposed subdivision. Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) also came forward for the discussion. Mr. Gospodarek began the discussio= n by informing he had changed the 24inch culvert to an 18inch culvert which made= the difference in the drainage calculations; however the changes to the rain ga= rden didn’t change the calculations. He said the culvert change helped the situation, but didn’t so= lve it. He said he would like to request a waiver for the additional CFS; if not granted, they could still resolve the issue by taking the two wooded lots (in the back near the prime wetlands) and create something to solve the problem. He didn’t see the need to co= ntinue re-contouring the land for the small amount next to Golden Brook; he was confident that there was no impact downstream that Golden Brook could handle the flow without issue. Mr. H= ertrich said they would be adding 1.1CFS from pre- to post-development which would = flow to Golden Brook. He said some= sort of preliminary drainage study could be done to determine that a problem wouldn’t cause a problem downstream.= Mr. Zohdi understood that 1 CFS to Golden Brook would not make much difference. Mr. Yarmo confirm= ed that there would be 1 CFS at the 50-year storm.

Mr. Scanzani felt the key was to have better protection of the wetland by leaving the trees, which would be better for t= he environment. Mr. Hertrich sai= d it seemed adding 1CFS to the flow in the brook at a 50-year storm wouldn’= ;t be an issue. The Board concur= red that this item would be a waiver. There was a brief discussion regarding the peaks of the brook.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had previously dec= ided that they wanted the trees cut in the right-of-way on Balcom Road in order to meet the 40= 0-foot sight distance. He went on to= review the issues: 1) sight easements had been provided for the proposed lots 3,4 & 19; 2) waivers had been submitted for the 15K areas, which were not rectangular; the 400-foot right-of-way issue for the proposed road had been resolved; 3) well radius on seven lots fit within the boundary, but not wit= hin the 15-foot setbacks (waivers will not be granted by the Board for such); 4= ) two lots with driveways within 100-feet of an intersection (lot 8-86-3 is 85-fe= et from edge of pavement, lot 8-86-4 is 70-feet) only lot 8-86-3 could possibl= y be moved. Mr. Hertrich said it w= as a safety issue; the farther away the better.= Mr. Gospodarek said they would move lot 3 as far away as possible; a waiver is not required. 5) ou= tlet pipe for bio-detention area: = garden design relative to the grate being 3”-4” below the rim. Mr. Gospodarek said they had no is= sue and would comply. 6) rain gar= den – how to make sure that vegetation within bio mass area is not change= d by homeowner. The Board discusse= d what could be done. Mr. Gowan said he could work with the applicant come up with= a sign to define the areas. Mr. Danevich suggested contacting the state regarding the signage. Mr. Culbert said he would like a n= ote on the deed indicating the design and purpose. Mr. Zohdi said the developer would= be responsible until the bond was released.&n= bsp; He said during the as-built they could show the posts and include a = note on the deed. Mr. Gowan said he would share the solution with the Board.&n= bsp; Mr. Hertrich said the homeowners need to be informed/educated about = the maintenance. Mr. Danevich sug= gested adding a form to the back of the certificate of occupancy process. Mr. Zohdi said they would have a conveyance as part of the deeds. He will provide a copy of the conveyance to Mr. Gowan.

Mr. Scanzani said a letter had been received by Benchmark Engineering who was representing Mr. Pat Gendron who abutted the proposed. They had reviewed t= he right-of-way to Mr. Gendron’s parcel (which was inside a curve) and didn’t feel that the drainage system along the proposed right-of-way would not allow for insulation of catch basins at <= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Tina Avenue upon development of Mr. Gendron’s property. Mr. Hertrich said the drainage system was not conventional that could be tied in to. Mr. Scanzani said anyone = that further developed would have to come up with a different plan (relative to their drainage) or figure out how to tie in. Ms. Bousa asked if the proposed lo= cation of the connection was okay with Mr. Gendron’s representative. Mr. Hertrich said he didn’t = have any information about the abutting lot.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan said hydrological information for Mr. Gendron’s lot = was being done and would be brought in during the coming months.

Mr. Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering (M= r. Gendron’s representative) said they didn’t have an issue with t= he right-of-way providing the Board was willing to accept it. He said the grade raised approxima= tely 2-feet from the intersection at Tina Avenue (uphill) so in order for them to do drainage improvements in the direct area they were unable to take it back i= nto their site and discharge it back into a treatment area. Mr. Scanzani said as part of the intersection there would have to be a negative slope. Mr. Maynard said in order for them= to do something in the area, they may be looking for some waivers to meet the requirements because of the grades (for drainage). Mr. Culbert asked the size of the parcel. Mr. Maynard said it w= as forty acres. He said they wan= ted the Board to be aware of the situation.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert said the Board would anticipate them to come back with drainage that was comparable to the property.

Mr. Bob Grue, 46 Balcom Road, asked if the 400-fe= et of trees would be cut because of the road connection, or because of the sight. Mr. Scanzani said ther= e wasn’t 400-feet of trees to be cut; he said there had to be 400-feet of sight distance. Mr. Grue didn’= ;t understand why trees would be cut because the intersection could be seen. Mr. Scanzani understood that the t= ree to be cut were along lot 8-62. M= r. Zohdi showed Mr. Grue which trees would be cut. Mr. Grue didn’t like to see = trees cut. He didn’t have a p= roblem with the proposed tree cutting; he thought it was in a different location.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Ms. Ouellette questioned if the Board had rece= ived comments regarding the revised Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) from Mr. Craig Wood of Louis Berger. Mr. Zohdi said he generally didn&#= 8217;t speak with Mr. Wood, because he was the Town’s consultant.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was any resolve on= the abutting parcel in connection with the wetland violation. Mr. Zohdi said Mr. Gowan had been contacting the state to speed up the dredge and fill on the abutting proper= ty. He said he received a letter indic= ating they would take the project after February 2, 2006; a copy of the letter was provided = to Mr. Gowan. He said the ten acre p= arcel that his client previously said would be deeded to the Town upon approval; subject to the ten acres being cleared by the DES and accepted by the Selec= tmen as a gift. He said any mitiga= tion would be their responsibility.

Mr. Zohdi said they were still in agreement (w= ith the Town) regarding paying $185,000 ($100,000 in advance and then approxima= tely $4000 per lot until reaching $85,000).&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani said there were two items the Boa= rd needed to review that were not contained in the file: 1) letter regarding t= he EIA; and 2) traffic study. Ms. Bousa recalled there were recommended improvements along Route 38. She wanted the Board to consider t= he recommendations. Mr. Scanzani= asked that the Board review the waivers. The Board discussed how they would proceed. The Board was in agreement with the following: 1) 1.1 CFS to Golden Brook would not be a problem; 2) the drivew= ays within 100-feet of the intersection were okay, on lot 8-86-3 the applicant would try to get more clearance; 3) easements for the rain gardens as well = as signage (waiver still to be reviewed).&nbs= p;

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 12.02 – Storm Water Manage= ment Plan – to allow the minor increase in peak flow as presented in the Dufresne-Henry report presented to the Board (1.11 CFS)

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 12.02 – Storm Water Management Plan – to allow the minor increase in peak flow as presented in the Dufresne-Henry report presented to the Board (1.11 CFS)=

VOTE:

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

It was noted that the following waiver was accepted for consideration on January 3, 2005.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To = approve the waiver to Section 10.03, f – Specific Plan Information, Existing Conditions.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked that the Board take action regarding the Special Permit for the roadway wetland crossing.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To g= rant the Special Permit as requested.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara asked if the waivers for 15K area= (on lots 13, 15, 19 & 20) had been considered, or granted. They were not contained in the file. Mr. Zohdi said if the B= oard didn’t have a copy of the waivers, he would forward copies the waiver requests to Mr. Gowan.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the sight line easements= for lots 8-86-3 & 19 shown on the plan.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

The Board then addressed the waivers in connec= tion with 15K area.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waivers for 15K area (non-rectangular lots) in connection with lots 13, 15, 19 & 20.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= pprove the waivers for 15K area (non-rectangular lots) in connection with lots 1= 3, 15, 19 & 20.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Zohdi asked that the Board discuss the wai= ver for the well radii. Mr. Scanz= ani said it wasn’t a waiver to the current subdivision regulations because the plan was submitted under the old regulations; however, he believed the Boar= d was in agreement that even though it was part of the old regulations, they didn’t want to have the applicant back because a well wasn’t do= ne in the proper location.

Mr. Scanzani said there were several conditions that would have to be done at the next meeting. Mr. Zohdi clarified what would be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. Scanzani said he wanted to ensure that the Board did due diligence.

The plan was date specified to the January 19, 2006 meeting.

Map 39 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-53 & 55 LRL Development of Pelham & Gerniglia, Lisa & David – Sherburne Road & Mammoth Road – Proposed 5 lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Her= bert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He due to the Board of Adjustment = not approving a variance (for lack of 35,000SF), they changed the subdivision f= rom five lots to four lots. In ge= neral, Mr. Zohdi said they agreed with the memo submitted by Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer). He s= aid he also had discussions with Mr. Gowan and agreed to not request any building permits until the existing house was removed. The dredge and fill has been appro= ved by the Wetland Bureau.

Mr. Gowan said he had been meeting with Mr. Zo= hdi regularly. As Zoning Administ= rator, Mr. Gowan had determined that the Board didn’t have the authority to approve the subdivision with the house remaining per Section 307-13 of the Zoning. He said the applicant= had been clear they planned on coming back with an adult community development. He said the only= way he could see them being successful before the Board for the subdivision was= to add a stipulation (condition of approval) that the house be removed prior to the issuance of any building permits. Mr. Scanzani questioned how the Board felt if the addition (to the house) was removed and the house was remodeled somewhat as a recreational center (for = the 55+ housing). Mr. Gowan said = they had discussed it, however removal of the addition and the deck and retaining the house may be more appropriate to bring it in with the new application (= when brought in). In terms of subdivision, he felt it could be done with a condition to remove the house.= Mr. Zohdi said they would be glad = to put a note on the plan indicating that no building permits will be issues until= the house is removed, or until he came back with an elderly housing plan with t= he existing house being used as a club house.= Mr. McNamara believed the Board was being asked to approve a lot that was contrary to Zoning (without 35,000 SF). Mr. Gowan believed a condition for approval resolved the issue. = Mr. McNamara said the Board of Adjustment denied the case and now the applicant= is coming back requesting approval with a note on the plan. Mr. Scanzani said the original pla= n was to have a regular house lot; in this plan the applicant understood they wou= ld give up the house lot and take the house down. There was further discussion regar= ding how the Board could proceed. = The Board also discussed what modifications would have to be done if the house = was to remain for use by the adult community plan (still to be submitted). Mr. Zohdi suggested to add a note = to the plan indicating approval subject to the house being removed prior to the pl= an being signed. There was furth= er discussion regarding the existing house and whether it should remain, or be removed.

Mr. Danevich asked if a certificate of occupan= cy could be removed. Mr. Gowan b= elieved the authority for such was with the Building Inspector; he would find out t= he legal procedure. Mr. Scanzani= said he wouldn’t mind seeking an opinion from Town Counsel. Mr. Danevich said he would be okay= with a condition such as if the Certificate of Occupancy was revoked, it would b= egin the construction sequencing process such as road bond, and designate that t= he house is to be vacated before building permits are issued; the applicant (w= ho was present) was well aware that everything being done was done so at risk.=

Mr. Yarmo asked if the conditions of the dredge and fill (restoration) were included in the plan. Mr. Zohdi said restoration would n= ot be part of the plan (for the Planning Board); it would be part of the plan for Conservation Commission and the Wetland Bureau. Mr. Yarmo felt it should be incorp= orated of the proposed plan. Mr. Zoh= di said they would submit it to Mr. Gowan. Mr. Yarmo pointed out that 85% of the road was in the wetland buffer= , or wetland. He said there would = be an 80,000SF Wetland Conservation District impact on the road and questioned why there w= ere regulations if they weren’t going to be used.

Mr. Culbert asked if a Sherburne Road impact fund had been started. Mr. Scanzani said th= ey would have to pay for some pa= rt of the traffic study being done. Mr. Zohdi said they would be happy to pay their fair share, like others had been charged on Sherburne Road<= /st1:address>, per lot.

Ms. Ouellette left the meeting.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the Special Permit had b= een granted by the state. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

The Board reviewed the comments submitted by Dufresne-Henry. Mr. Gospodare= k said they tried to create the best location for the driveway and to minimize the= wetland and buffer zone impacts and as a result, the narrowest part of lot 1-55 was 73-feet (instead of the required 75-feet; therefore a waiver had been requested.

Mr. Scanzani pointed out that two of the drive= ways were shown directly on the lot line without separation. Mr. Zohdi said they were trying to minimize the dredge and fill and asked to leave the driveways until he came= in with the elderly development. He said the Board could put a condition on the plan, but he may ask them to re= move it. Mr. Gospodarek said as the driveways were widened, the impact would also be widened. Mr. Zohdi said they would do what = the had to, to minimize the dredge and fill.&n= bsp; Mr. Yarmo asked what would be done for mitigation and again he questioned why there were regulations.

The detention facility was discussed. Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry (Town’s Engineer) said their concern was if the facility wasn’t done, the Town should have some means of going back and making the applican= t do it. Mr. Zohdi said the plan s= howed an easement on the plan and they were hoping it to be a condominium project (and the responsibility of such). Mr. Hertrich said that would be a better situation, rather than a private individual. He noted = that the current plan was for a single family.&= nbsp; It was noted that the easement would be given to the Town. Mr. Scanzani said the easement wou= ld disappear when the 55+ development came in.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the outstanding requests= in association with the application. 1) waiver request to Section 11.04 (C) lot shape for lot 1-55-2; 2) = waiver request to Section Appendix I, BB, 16 – minimum centerline curve radi= i ; 3) Appendix IX, Roadway - minimum curve radius 200 feet (requesting 150feet= ); 4) Section 11.04 Lot Shape (less than 75-feet); 5) Section 11.04,(C), 7 = 211; Design Standards (in order to get to the upland areas for lots 1-55, 1-55-1, 1-53-1 WCD needs to be crossed – the existing house lot on 1-53 would need waiver to cross WCD).

It was noted that the waiver request to Section 11.04 (C) lot 1-53 (with the existing house) had been withdrawn.

Mr. Scanzani appointed Mr. Yarmo to vote in Ms. Ouellette’s absence.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver request to Section 11.04 (C) lot shape.

VOTE:

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

----------------------------------------------= ------------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Appendix IX – minimum curve radius – request 150-feet. =

VOTE:

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

----------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Appendix I, BB, 16 – minimum centerline curve radii. =

VOTE:

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

----------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

MOTION:

(Danevich/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 11.04 (B),2 - Lot Shape; lot 1-55-1 has approximately 71-feet width.

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no.

Mr. Danevich made a motion to approve the Spec= ial Exception (Waiver to Section 11.04, C, 7 – Design Standards to reach uplands of lots 1-55, 1-55-1 & 1-53 the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) needs to be crossed; also, the existing house lot on lot 1-53 would need to cross the WCD to comply. Mr. Culbert seconded the motion.

There was a brief discussion regarding mitigation. Mr. Yarmo reviewe= d the letter from NHDES which contained a list of conditions. Mr. Scanzani said the DES letter w= ith regard to the wetland crossing (dredge and fill) had eight conditions. He reviewed the letter and believe= d the majority of the conditions weren’t unusual. Mr. Gowan said there had been a suggestion to make all the conditions of the letter referenced on the plan. There was further discu= ssion regarding the letter from DES. Ms. Bousa said she would like the opportunity to review the letter from DES. Mr. Yarmo said he would like to kn= ow where the restoration was going to be.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert said he would like the applicant to comply with the DES letter.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had to resolve how= to deal with the existing house. Mr. McNamara said he preferred to see some communication from Town Counsel. Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t o= bject to approving the proposed plan, subject to the house being removed. Mr. McNamara said he preferred to = see some communication with Town Counsel. Mr. Gowan was asked to obtain comment from Town Counsel.

Mr. Scanzani said the DES letter should be provided to the Board members to review.&n= bsp; He said there seemed to be a consensus that the Board wanted to see a mitigation plan. Mr. Zohdi wa= nted to know what the Board would be asking Town Counsel. Mr. McNamara said the Board was as= king if they had the authority to approve a plan that was in violation of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zohdi said if the plan was approved, it could be subject to the house being removed; he didn’t feel it was fair to ask for the house to be removed prior to approval. Mr. McNama= ra said there were other questions to the plan contingent on the further development of the parcel for elderly housing that was not yet in front of = the Board. Mr. Scanzani agreed th= at the Board needed a letter from Town Counsel.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani said the remaining issues were as follows: 1) letter from DES to understand what mitigation plan could be don= e; 2) obtain Town Counsel’s opinion; and 3) conditions of approval, wetl= and crossing and special permit. =

Mr. Danevich withdrew his motion; Mr. Culbert withdrew his second.

The plan was date specified to the January 19, 2006 meeting.

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

Mr. Scanzani informed that the plan had been continued to the = February 6, 2006 meeting.

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

Mr. Scanzani informed that the plan had been continued to the January 19, 2006 meeting.

Map 28 & 34 Lot 2-12 Glance, M= ary Ann Stys – Burns Roa= d – Proposed 2 Lot Subdivision =

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates and Atto= rney David Groff, representing the applicant presented the proposed subdivision = to the Board. Mr. Zohdi said the= total parcel was approximately 134 acres; of which 9.756 acres would be subdivided. Neither of the lo= ts required a state subdivision approval.&nbs= p; The soils were done by Mr. Jim Gove of Gove Environmental and he also flagged the wetlands. Mr. Zoh= di said the plan had gone before the Board of Adjustment to obtain a variance = for frontage. He believed the Boa= rd had also obtained a letter from the Fire Chief.

Mr. Danevich asked if there was any issue with meeting the Fire Chief’s request.&nb= sp; Attorney Groff answered no. Mr. Gowan said the Fire Chief’s only concern was regarding additional paved area for emergency vehicle turn-around. He said there were no other concer= ns raised by the Safety Committee. Mr. Scanzani wanted clarification regarding the address. The access would be off Burns Road,= even though the frontage was on Marsh = Road.

Mr. McNamara said there was one waiver request dated November = 22, 2005 to Section 10.03 (C) to not have the complete boundary description of the n= ewly created lot (2-12) containing approximately 124 acres. Sufficient data was provided to sh= ow that lot 2-12-19= was a buildable lot.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= pprove the waiver request to Section 10.03 (C).

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= pprove the waiver request for the driveway easement off = Burns Road.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert made a motion to approve the plan. Ms. Medeiros seconded t= he motion. Mr. Yarmo had a conce= rn that this was the second largest privately owned parcel which had been subdivided a number of times and the Town may be missing opportunities by dividing in a ‘chopped up’ way. He said at some point the Board sh= ould review the plans for the parcel. Mr. Scanzani asked if the applicant minded having a note on the plan indicating that no further subdivision would occur on the 9.7 acre parcel. Mr. Zohdi said they had no objecti= on. There was further discussion regar= ding what the Board could request of the applicant in connection with reviewing = the remaining parcel. The motion = and the second were amended – approval was conditioned upon a note being added to the plan indicating ‘no further subdivision’.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Medeiros) To a= pprove the plan conditioned upon there being no further subdivision of the lot.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

VOTE:

(6-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Yarmo voted no.

Ma= p 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Currier Road, Peabody Lane & Rte 38 Bridge S= treet – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision =

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had been asked to continue the plan to the January 19, 2006 meeting. He said one issue was the drainage, which had not been worked out yet.

PU= BLIC HEARING

Pl= anning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to place the follo= wing roads on the Warrant to be accepted as town roads:

Mr. Gowan circulated a list of roads recommend= ed for acceptance. He said he re-reviewed the list of roads with Highway Road Agent, removed three and as= ked that the Board review such. <= /p>

Both Mr. Gowan and Mr. Foss recommended the following roads to be placed on the Warrant:

Appleleaf Road / Garland Drive (lot 10-110 to 10-361-10)

Cara Lane

Carlisle Lane

Gala Court

Heather Lee Lane

Longview Drive (lot 4-140 only)

Nature’s Way

Slavin Drive (lot 1-137-6 to 1-137-4)

Stonepost Road

Trailside Road

The following are not recommended by Mr. Gown and/or Mr. Foss:

Green Meadow Drive– there was disturbance that needed to be cleared up.

Holstein Drive- substantial drainage issues at intersec= tion at Meadowview

Mr. Gowan said if the Board approved, he wante= d to provide the list to the Selectmen. <= /span>

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To r= ecommend the list of roads to the Selectmen as presented by Planning Director Jeff Gowan.

VOTE:

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

DA= TE SPECIFIED PLANS

January 19, 2006 –

Map 15 & 22 Lot 8-86, Pelham Estates, Inc. – = Tina Avenue/Balcom Road – Pro= posed 23 Lot Subdivision 8-88 & 89

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

Map 29 Lot = 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

Map 35 Lot 10-351 Fineman, Neil & Maltz, Pamela Fineman – Cur= rier Road, Peabody= Lane & Rte 38 Bridge Street= – Proposed 6 Lot Subdivision

February 6, 2006 –

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/Danevich) To a= djourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:26pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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