PB Minutes 02-23-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

February 23, 2006

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

The Secretary, Gael Ouellette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Victor Danevich (arrived shortly after the meeting began), Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Christine Medeiros, Alternate Bob Yarmo, Alternate K= en Dunne

ADMINISTRATIVE =

Ma= p 31 Lot 12-41 & 43 Deloury Co= nstruction – Stonepost Village Phase I = 211; Request for Bond Reduction

Ms. Ouellette noted that the original bond amo= unt was $509,932.50, the current bond amount is $116,030.75; the applicant requested a bond reduction of $54,263.25 which would leave $61,767.50. In a letter dated February 14, 2006 from Dufr= esne-Henry (Town’s engineer) there was a list of the remaining work items and associated costs; they recommend the reduction. Mr. Gowan supported Dufresne-Henry’s recommendation.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Bousa) To approve the bond reduction (as recommended by Dufresne-Henry) retaining $61,767.50.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 35 Lot<= /st1:place> 6-113 KLN Construction Co. &#= 8211; 79 Bridge Street – Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

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. Mr. Gowan called the Board’s attention to a letter submitted by Mr. John Lyon. <= /p>

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the special permit request. He said they = were proposing a single family house and the only way to construct it was to go through the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) and wetland.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He believed that the lot was appro= ved in the late 1980’s/early 1990’s by the Planning Board as a three-l= ot subdivision; this was the only lot without a structure on it. He reviewed the driveway profile.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said if there was a problem wit= h the grade he could make it more gentle, but the wetland would need more fill. A copy of the septic design had be= en submitted. Mr. Zohdi said the= plan was going to be submitted to Division 5/Highway Department for approval of = the curb cut on Route 38.

Mr. Danevich arrived.

Mr. Gowan asked what the high and dry contiguous area calculation was. Mr. Zohdi said it was approximately 30,000SF/32,000SF. Mr. Scanza= ni said under today’s regulations the lot may not be buildable unless th= ere was 35,000SF of contiguous high and dry.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said the lot was a lot of record (approved by the Planning Board) and didn’t think that should change because of zoning changes. Mr. Gowan said the l= ot was created in a 1989 subdivision plan and at that time the 35,000 contiguous h= igh and dry requirement was in place (in the ordinance for minimum lot size it states any lots prior to January 1, 1975 don’t need to comply with the 35,000SF requirement). Mr. Zo= hdi said he didn’t have 35,000SF but wanted to better understand Mr. Gowan’s interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Scanzani believed that the lot= being in the Business District (at the time of approval) didn’t require 35,000SF. Mr. Culbert recalled passing the 35,000SF requirement after 1990. There was further discussion regar= ding the ordinance. Mr. Gowan said= he would check the dates contained in the ordinance and subdivision as well as confirm with legal. He felt u= nder the circumstances the Board may want to accept the plan for consideration s= o a site walk could then be scheduled and he could obtain legal opinion. Mr. Danevich understood that accept= ing a plan for consideration was more of a mechanical process (black/white); if an application came in and met the regulations it was able to be accepted for consideration. He asked Mr. G= owan if the application met the requirements (in the regulations) for acceptance. Mr. Gowan said the application met the requirements for acceptance. He said even if an application had= a zoning question an applicant had the right to bring it before the Board and then have it sent to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. McNamara confirmed that if the application didn’t have 35,000SF (contiguous high and dry) the Board could still accept the plan. = Mr. Gowan answered yes and discussed the options that the applicant had regarding mee= ting with different boards.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Danevich) To accept the plan for considerat= ion.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board walk the site.

Mr. Scanzani was concerned about the steepness of the driveway. He questioned the sight distance a= nd safe driveway access. He said= to cut the driveway there would be steep slopes and said he would want the Saf= ety Committee to review. Mr. Gowa= n said he would put the plan on the Safety Committee’s agenda for review pri= or to the Board walking the site.

Mr. McNamara asked for the length of the driveway. Mr. Zohdi said from the edge of the guard rail to the house was 238ft.; 135ft of which would cross the wetland. The total wetland cr= ossing would be approximately 350SF. Mr. Zohdi said the proposed wetland crossing was at the narrowest point. He said he had a 2-1 slope but cou= ld have 3-1 if the Board wanted; it would require expanding the crossing.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the original plan was for two lots with the entrance comi= ng off Old Bridge Street Sout= h. Mr. Zohdi said the original plan w= as for two lots; however the applicant didn’t have a contract for the second= lot at this time.

Mr. Zohdi said he wanted to have the plan heard by the Conservation Commission; however he was informed they had a new policy of not hearing plans until th= ey had gone before the Planning Board. Mr. Gowan said because the plan had been accepted for consideration,= he was sure the application could be put on the Conservation Commission’s March agenda.

Mr. Danevich asked if a note could be added regarding the 100-year flood plain.= He discussed the drainage and the increase in the volume of water (coming down Beaver Brook) since the bridge= on Main Street= were fixed. He noted there was approximately a two-foot difference in elevation between the wet area and t= he driveway. He said there was no relief and discussed the way the water would possibly flow. He asked Mr. Zohdi to provide a be= tter understanding about the water flow if the water coming down the brook excee= ded the capacity and hit the wall. Mr. Zohdi said there was a catch basin across the street and discussed where it would flow/drain. He will che= ck on the flood plain and provide additional information at the next meeting.

There was further discussion regarding the drainage. The Board wanted to walk the site.= Mr. Gowan will forward the plan to= the Safety Committee for review. =

There was no public input. Mr. Scan= zani noted that letters had been submitted to the Board from abutters. The issues dealt specifically with drainage.

A site walk was scheduled for March 4, 2006 at 8am.

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 meeting.

Map 6 Lot 4-166 Boucher, Barbara –= ; 55 Gibson Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

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.

Mr. Dennis Pollock of Cuoco and Cormier Engineering, representing the applicant, presented the plan to the Board. He said the plan was for a two-lot subdivision taking a 34 acre lot and subdividing off 5 acres for the applicant’s daughter to eventually build on. The existing home will on the rema= ining 29 acres. A Variance was appl= ied for and granted (October, 2005) for the frontage being on a Class VI road (= Gibson Road= ).

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani noted because the driveway access would be coming off a Class VI road, the applicant would need Board of Selectmen approval. Mr. Pollock clarifi= ed that the driveway would come off part of the maintained (Class V) section o= f Gibson Road= . The applicant would not need to ob= tain approval from the Selectmen. = Mr. Pollock said all of the access was on the paved portion; there was a turn-around at= the end of the paved portion of Gibson Road; the existing driveway to the existing ho= me was located in this area; the proposed driveway would be adjacent to it on = the same paved section of Gibs= on Road. Ms. Ouellette confirmed that the t= wo driveways would be located side-by-side.&n= bsp; Mr. Pollock answered yes. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the Board was being asked to approve a= non-conforming lot. Mr. Gowan said there was= a variance for the frontage being on a Class VI road, the access was off the = last improved section of Gibson= Road (hammer head). He said any fu= ture subdivision of the parcel would entail bringing the road up to Class V standards (which would be appropriate to add a note to the plan indicating such).

There was no public input.

Mr. Scanzani noted that there were five waiver request= ed which made sense from what the Board had done in the past: 1) storm water m= anagement; 2) site specific soil mapping; 3) landscape design and plan; 4) existing si= te conditions; and 5) scale of the plan.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.04 Storm Water Management Plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.04,S – Site Plan Specific Soil Map.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.07 – Landscaping Design and Plan.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03, d & g – Existing Site Conditions, Topo= logy and Wetlands Area.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.04, a – Scale of Plan –request of 1inch=3D100feet.

VOTE:

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

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 meeting.

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Je= nna Auto Sales – 563 Mam= moth Road – Site Plan Review of vehicle stora= ge and sales

Ms. Ouellette read the list of abutters aloud. There w= ere no persons present who did not have their name read. The file did not contain = any written correspondence from abutters. Ms. Ouellette informed that there were a number of abutter notificat= ions from the industrial park that had not been picked up.

Mr. Randy Guilbault said he had been located at 563 Mammoth Road since 1994. He said he bought= and sold repairable collision vehicles. He said the vehicles still ran and drove, but they had damage. He noted that there were no repairs being done or parts being sold on site.&nb= sp; Only customers viewed the cars.&nbs= p; He is the only employee.

Mr. Gowan said the reason the applicant was before the= Board was because the original license specified ‘no cars to be sold’= at this location. He said when he became aware that cars were being sold, he made Mr. Guilbault aware of the process beginning with going to the Board of Adjustment for a use Variance = (not a permitted use within the Industrial Zone); the Variance was granted. He said the applicant was before t= he Board for a limited site plan review. Subsequently, Mr. Guilbault will have to go before the Selectmen bec= ause the operation was considered a junkyard.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani asked what the original permit was for. It was Mr. Gowan’s interpret= ation that the license was to run ‘an office’ to the car dealership; however that point is moot since a Variance has been granted.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any other businesses = on the site. Mr. Guilbault said ther= e were other businesses such as a street sweeping company, landscaping material sa= les, welding, and others. There we= re mixed uses. Mr. Guilbault sai= d he only used 2500SF.

Mr. Culbert asked for further clarification regarding = the operation. He also wanted to = know what was being done to ensure that the vehicles weren’t leaking. Mr. Guilbault said he checked the = cars very well prior to purchasing; it would be difficult for him to sell the vehicles if they were leaking. Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Guilbault would be willing to bond the area in the eve= nt wells (in the area) became contaminated.&n= bsp; Mr. Guilbault said he would be willing to, but wanted it known that = the property had been sold two years ago at which point the soil was tested wit= h no problem. Mr. Culbert asked if= Mr. Guilbault had been using the building for the same activity. Mr. Guilbault answered yes. Mr. Scanzani pointed out that the applicant would also have to go before the Selectmen. He believed the Planning Board had= the right to limit the number of cars for the footprint (2500SF). It was his opinion that there shou= ld be a concrete pad and drain. Mr. Culbert was concerned with drainage going into Beaver Brook. Mr. Gowan said when the current ow= ners purchased the property they did an extensive clean up. He said there was a brown fence th= at did an excellent job of screening from Mammoth Road. He said the applicant had discussed adding additional fencing with t= he landlord. Mr. Guilbault said = his objection with putting a concrete slab was the fact that other junkyards wi= th hundreds of cars have nothing down; it would be costly to him to add such.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He currently had crushed asphalt.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani said other junkyards = were not as close to the wetlands. He said he was also concerned with catching all the fluids and discussed possi= ble alternatives. Mr. Guilbault s= aid he could research alternatives. =

Mr. Scanzani asked if limiting the hours to 8am-6pm. Mr. Guilbault had no objection. Mr. Scanzani asked about the exist= ing lighting and if it was adequate for the applicant. Mr. Guilbault said the existing li= ghting was fine for him. Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any signs or plans for such. Mr. Guilbault said he didn’t= have a sign. Mr. Gowan asked how p= eople knew about the business. Mr. Guilbault said he advertised in the Auto Hunter and met people by appointment.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(McNamara/Culbert) To accept the plan for considerat= ion.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked how the Board wanted to address the ‘fluid’ issue and the potential for getting into Beaver Brook.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gowan asked if there was any r= eason why all the fluids couldn’t be drained from the vehicles. Mr. Guilbault said it was importan= t for people to hear the vehicles run; he started them briefly and shut them off = for clients. Mr. Culbert said he = would like some sort of fluid capture process.&n= bsp; Mr. Scanzani asked if it was possible for the Board to ask Louis-Ber= ger (Town’s environmental consultant) if they had any suggestions. Mr. Gowan said it would be possibl= e, but any costs would need to be covered by the applicant. Mr. Scanzani said he was looking f= or a recommendation regarding fluid storage; he wasn’t looking for site review. Mr. Gowan said he cou= ld ask. There was no objection b= y the Board.

Mr. Gowan said he would have the plan reviewed by the = Safety Committee.

Mr. McNamara asked if a decision was made regarding the fencing. There was a consensu= s from the Board for the following: 1) a ‘screening’ fence; 2) limitat= ion of no more than 15 cars; 3) allow no other cars for sale anywhere else on t= he property except in the designated area; and 4) clearly demark designated area. Mr. Scanzani said in th= e Board’s letter to Louis –Berger it should state the concern about the proximi= ty of Beaver Brook and request what the best retention method for car fluids w= ould be. Mr. Culbert believed the = state had a lot of information on the issue.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani informed Mr. Guilbault that the Board was requesting an opinion letter from their environmental consultant (at the expense of the applicant). He= said the Board would also request the screening fence along Mammoth Road. There would also be a limit of 15 = cars; no other cars can be sold on the site except in this area. The hours of operation would be fr= om 8am-6pm. At this time there is no sign or lighting plan; if the applicant wanted to change such, he would have to go = back before the Board for review. &n= bsp;

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 meeting.

Map 17 Lot<= /st1:place> 12-253 Concordia Homes, Inc. – Kennedy Drive – Public Discussion of Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision =

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

It was noted that this would be a conceptual discussion; abutters were notifie= d.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He began by reviewing the plan the= re would be four lots; one being non-buildable. He said existing house and shed we= re shown. The site specific soil mapping was done by Gove Environmental Services; the wetland buffers and Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) were shown on the plan. The existing and proposed wells, s= ystem, proposed 15K; a waiver will be requested for the lot with the existing house because of the lot shape, also the existing well radius goes over the road. Another request for a w= aiver will be for lot 12-253 because the well radius is within the boundary, but = not the setback. Mr. Zohdi contin= ued to review the plan. He said ther= e was 600 feet of road to the beginning of the cul-de-sac; and from the beginning= of the road around the cul-de-sac the total was 960 feet. He discussed the drainage and expl= ained they would use the Vortex system for the treatment area; information on such was circulated to the Board. =

Mr. Scanzani asked if the land proposed to be given to the Town would provide access to lot 12-241 (which appeared to be landlocked). Mr. Zohdi said the lot was not landlocked (they had some frontage onto Route 38), and said they could have access. Mr. Gowan said he recommended that the odd remainder piece be added to 12-253-3, which was the reason it was before the Board for discussion. Mr. Scanzani wanted to ensure that= lot 12-241 didn’t become landlocked.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said the next time he came to the Board he would provide a full tax map to show the surrounding lots/access. He said he could have further discussions regarding deeding frontage to other lots. There was further discussion regar= ding access and road connectivity.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there were any existing snowmobile trails in the area. Mr. Zohdi said there was a trail o= n the southerly side of lot 3 and pointed out such on the plan. Mr. Scanzani asked if an easement = would be left for connectivity of the snowmobile trails. Mr. Zohdi said he would discuss wi= th his client and discuss at the next meeting.&nb= sp; Mr. Scanzani maintaining connectivity of the trails would be important. Mr. Zohdi was sure= his client would work with the Board regarding such. Mr. Scanzani said the trails could= be moved to the edge of the property line.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert didn’t want to protect the trails for special inte= rest groups. There was further discussion regarding the trails, which were used for various passive recrea= tion activities. Mr. Scanzani said= he would like the client to consider the connectivity of the trails.

Mr. Zohdi further discussed the proposed downstream storm water treatment (Vortex). He said this type of system was being proposed for use in Windham; he will provide the Board with a list of Towns that are using the system.

Ms. Bousa asked what the distance was on Kennedy Drive from Old Gage Hill Road to Bayberry. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t kno= w the distance, but would provide the information at the next meeting.

There was no public input.

Mr. Scanzani said he would like connectivity of the snowmobile trails. Also Ms. Bousa would like to know = the length of the cul-de-sac. Mr.= Zohdi said he would be submitting the plans tomorrow. When submitted the plan would be p= laced on an upcoming agenda.

Map 2 Lot 5-57 Tynco Realty, LLC – 409 Mammoth Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Todd Connors of Sublime Civil Consultants Incorporated said he would be presenti= ng the plan because Mr. Jim Levalle a license land surveyor, who was supposed = to present the plan was unable to attend the meeting due to a conflict. Mr. Connors said the proposal was a 3-lot subdivision with a small cul-de-sac containing 500 +/- linear feet of roadway. There was an existin= g home located on lot 5-57 that would need to be demolished/removed/replaced becau= se it was dilapidated. Lot 5-57-1 was proposed to contain a single-family = home; lot 5-57-2 was proposed to have a duplex.&= nbsp; All lots would be served by individual septic systems and wells. The utilities would be underground= in the roadway. A set of drainage calculations was submitted with the application; there would be a combinati= on of closed and open drainage. = There was a small detention basin proposed for Lot 5-57. There would be a small wetland impact for the construction of the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Gowan questioned where a home would be proposed for lot 5-57-2 between the wetlands and their buffers. M= r. Connors said at this time the most likely location would be the westerly si= de of the wetland however the area to the northern side appeared to have sufficient width. Mr. Gowan a= sked to confirm that there was 35,000SF contiguous high and dry land. Mr. Connors said he wanted to refe= r the surveyor to the Planning office to convey the area. Mr. Gowan said there needed to be clarification regarding the indication of the ‘paper’ road that believed may be an unnamed access to Raymond Park. Mr. Danevich said the abutter list= may be incorrect (the lot containing the tire dump).

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/McNamara) To accept the plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

There was a brief discussion regarding the lot shapes. Mr. McNamara pointed out that ther= e was a well radius that crossed Mammoth Road into lot 3-529 and the applicant was aski= ng the Board to reconfirm the lot. He felt it was substantial that the property was graded down and it appeared everything would go onto the property across the road. Mr. Culbert didn’t believe a= ny of the well radii met the regulations. Mr. Gowan said all three needed waivers.

Mr. Danevich felt it was important to have a larger locus map/tax map. He said more importantly he needed= to know the proximity of the tire dump and monitoring wells. He noted either the Town Administr= ator or the Planning Director could help the applicant locate the monitoring wells.

Mr. Scanzani questioned if the plan would be better served with two square individual lots with driveways and not a road. He said since the existing house n= eeded to be razed, the well could be rebuilt and the second parcel could have a w= ell that met the regulations. He = said the Board may want to consider (since Mammoth was a state highway) a short portion of the driveway being connected.&n= bsp; Mr. Connors noted that the total length of frontage was 326 feet.

Mr. Culbert asked if there was a sliver of wetland going through the cul-de-sac. Mr. Connors said = it was a stream channel that met the jurisdictional definition of a wetland. Mr. Culbert said that made him lea= n more to a two-lot versus three-lot subdivision.= Mr. Scanzani questioned if it would be worth requesting a variance f= or frontage versus adding a road since there were over five acres. Mr. Danevich preferred to see a sh= ort portion of the driveway entrance being shared versus a new road. Mr. Gowan said the cost for buildi= ng the cul-de-sac to specifications may outweigh the benefit of having a third lot. Mr. Scanzani pointed out= that the applicant was looking to fill the wetland to put the cul-de-sac in and couldn’t recall ever seeing such.&nb= sp; Mr. Culbert asked what the impact would be to the WCD. Mr. Connors said the surveyor woul= d have that information.

Given the Board’s questions/concerns, Mr. Connors asked that the plan be continued (and not yet sent to the Town’ engineer) to further review = the plan and make a decision which direction to take.

The plan was continued to the March 20, 2006 meeting.

Map 21 Lot<= /st1:place> 3-102 & 102-1 Cynthia Cur= rier 2000 Rev. Trust – Te= nney Road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He sai= d they would combine two parcels and subdivide into 9-lots. He said when the plan previously c= ame before the Board, there was a cul-de-sac on the southerly side of the site = and a suggestion was made to have road connectivity. He said since that time he had wal= ked the site and decided to extend the road and leave a 50-foot right-of-way to= the abutting property. As of toda= y, the abutters had not flagged their wetlands.&n= bsp; Due to redoing the road, he would need a couple of waivers for a cou= ple of the lots. He said lot 3-10= 2 had an existing house and garage (the setback is in compliance). He said the abutting houses and we= lls had been located on the plan. Mr. Zohdi informed that the soil classification and wetland flagging had been d= one by Gove Environmental. Each o= f the lots contained 35,000 contiguous high and dry land. He noted that the test beds had be= en reviewed by the Town Health Officer (Paul Zarnowski). He then continued reviewing the pl= an. Mr. Zohdi noted that the cul-de-sa= c was designed after Gauthier Wa= y (small grassed island in the middle). He noted that there would be a (grassy) ditch line to treat the wate= r, and at the end of it there would be a treatment swale. The treatment swale would be in the WCD;a permit has been applied for. He showed the areas where the WCD would be crossed to construct the = road and said they tried to minimize the impacts. The total road length would be 1250ft. Mr. Zohdi discussed s= ight distance which was shot at different locations. He said station 290 would be check= ed again and may possibly need to be shaved to get 400ft.

Mr. Gowan said the application was complete and appropriate to accept for consideration.

MOTION:<= o:p>

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked what/if any adverse effect = having the tangent length at zero versus the recommended 100feet. Ms. Bousa said it would depend on = how it was continued; it would be unknown until something was planned. There wouldn’t be a problem = if it remained straight.

There was no public input.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.04,c,1 – building envelope.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.11,b,2 – to allow the well radius for lots 3-1= 02, 3-102-1, 42,45 & 46 to be located within the 15-foot building setback.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani indicated to the applicant that t= he Board had been stringent regarding well radiuses on lots and did not want anyone coming back saying the wells went in the wrong place. He said the Board expected the wel= ls to be exact and not go over since the applicant was not giving the 15-foot set= backs. Mr. Zohdi understood.

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/McNamara) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, bb, 11,b & c (outside edge of pavement 63-feet / inside 39-feet); bb, 12 (minimum tangent length); 13 (minimum horizontal curve 200-feet); dd (requirement for cross-sections).

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said the plan needed to be review= ed by the Town’s engineer. Mr. Gowan said he would send the plan to Dufresne-Henry as well as the Highway Safety Committee. Mr. McNamara asked if the plan should go to the Conservation Commission for the special permit. Mr. Zohdi said he was= asked to meet with the Planning Board prior to meeting with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Scanzani aske= d if there could be a voluntary form applicants could fill out that indicated th= ey wanted direction before going to the planning board. There was a question if it was leg= ally allowed. There was further discussion regarding the new Conservation Commission policy to have plans reviewed by the Planning Board prior to meeting with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Gowan said the policy could be clarified further. <= /span>

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 me= eting.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank – 155 Bridge Street<= /st1:address> – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 me= eting.

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

The plan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 me= eting.

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. Gowan provided information to the Board and Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates that had been forwarded from Dufresne-Henry (Town’s engineer) yesterday. Dufresne-Henry had been asked to r= eview the parcel’s drainage. = Mr. Gowan said ‘Google Earth’ images were taken (off the computer) = that showed the parcel prior to the Cara Estates development. The images showed that the natural= water movement flowed across an abutting parcel.= It was Dufresne-Henry’s point of view that the only development that would have an impact on Currier Road or Peabody Lane would be directly behind the six proposed lots. It was also recommended= that the lots behind the proposed, if developed, that there be some drainage connection to Peabody Lane= .

Mr. Scanzani wanted clarification regarding the catch basin along Currier = Road. Mr. Zohdi said they located the ca= tch basins when they did Cara Estates; however, since that time, they were unab= le to find the catch basin at corner of Livingston across from Cara Estates. He = said the pipe was found and believed that the basin had been crushed.

Mr. Gowan noted that Dufresne-Henry saw little= /no value to the proposed plantings behind the proposed lots and instead recommended that a berm be constructed to direct the water because there hadn’t been recent vegetation in that area.

Mr. Zohdi reviewed the proposed plan and point= ed out the areas where the catch basin had been located. He believed one of the catch basin= s may have been damaged (and it may part of the water problem). He said the series of catch basins= on Currier Road were all connected. Mr. Zohdi said= there was no objection to having a berm and cleaning up the ditch line to the cat= ch basins. He said if the Board = wanted the catch basin reset (as part of the approval) they would be glad to do so during April,2 006 and connect to the existing catch basins; a sufficient b= ond had been posted for such. Mr. Scanzani asked if, at the next meeting, the plan would be ready to take into consideration the comments contained in Dufresne-Henry’s letter. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

The p= lan was date specified to the March 6, 2006 meeting.

DISCUSSION

= Map 39 Lot<= /st1:place> 1-53 & 55 LRL Development – Sherburne Road – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult community<= o:p>

= The plan was continued and date specified to the March 6, 2006 meeting.

= SITE WALK – March 4, 2006 8am=

Map 35 Lot 6-113 KLN Construction Co. – 79 Bridge Street – Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS:

March 6, 2006:

Map 35 Lot 6-113 KLN Construction Co. – 79 Bridge Street – Seeking Special Permit for Wetland Crossing

Map 6 Lot 4-166 Boucher, Barbara – 55 Gibson Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Map 1 Lot 5-123 Guilbault, Randy dba Jenna Auto Sales – 563 Mammoth Road – Site Plan = Review of vehicle storage and sales

Map 21 Lot 3-102 & 102-1 Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust &#= 8211; Tenney Road= – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

Map 29 Lot 7-269 Citizen’s Bank &#= 8211; 155 Bridge Street – Site Plan Review – Proposed expansion of parking area

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

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

= Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55&= nbsp; LRL Development – Sherburne Road – General Discussion regarding the possibility of an adult community

March 20, 2006:

Map 2 Lot 5-57 Tynco Realty, LLC &#= 8211; 409 Mammoth Road – Proposed 3-Lot Subdivision

= MINUTES = &nb= sp;

= February 6, 2006=

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Danevich/Ouellette) To approve the February 6, 2006 minutes a= s amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-2) The motion carri= ed. Mr. Culbert and Mr. McNamara abstained.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Culbert/Danevich)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned at approximately10:45 pm.

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

Charity A= . L. Willis

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