PB Minutes 04-03-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

April 3, 2006

Joint Discussion between the CIP Committee and the Planning Board

The Vice Chairman, Peter = McNamara called the joint meeting of the Planning Board and Capital Improvement Plan Committee to order at approximately 7:30 pm.

PRESENT:

Planning Board - Peter McNamara, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellett= e, Robin Bousa, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Alternate Ken Dunne (arrived after the meeting commenced), Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT: (Planning Board= )

CIP – Bill Scanzani, Doug Viger, Selectmen Representati= ve Tom Domenico, School Board Representative Bruce Couture

Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Scanzani (speaking as a member of the CIP)= said the Capital Improvements Plan Committee (‘CIP’) as a sub-commit= tee of the Planning Board had requested a joint meeting to discuss what should = be done when putting together the CIP plan.&n= bsp; He discussed the needs for a Town having a CIP. He said last year it was difficult= to put together a CIP because projects, over the past several years had been backed up (because they hadn’t been funded) and each year tax impacts rise. He said typically a CIP= was good for 3-5 years and the CIP members felt they had done a good job prioritizing projects so they felt rather than starting from scratch they should just update the numbers. The CIP wanted the Planning Board’s input/direction regarding such.

Mr. Domenico said the CIP members spent a lot = of time last year trying to determine the tax rate impacts for the projects contained in the CIP. He said Nashua Regional Planning commission had helped put together a good document; however, the 7-year Park & Recreation plan was not included.

Mr. Scanzani said it was up to the School Boar= d to update what needed to happen regarding the schools.

Mr. Culbert asked what type of success the CIP= had with the Budget Committee. Mr. Scanzani said each year, separate presentations were given to the Planning Board, Selectmen, School Board and Budget Committee. He believed the CIP had become les= s of an important document to department heads and the Budget Committee which has caused a problem for what the taxpayers would have to pay for some of the projects. He was concerned th= at some of the long-term goals of the CIP would not be possible to meet in the future because some of the projects had not been funded and the costs would exceed today’s prices. = Mr. Culbert said he had seen a lot of the work put in the plan, but it wasnR= 17;t gaining the support he felt it should be.&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said part of the Planning Board’s work may be informing people regarding what the CIP did. Mr. Culbert felt if the Town’= ;s committees got behind some of the projects, people may not have voted again= st them.

Mr. McNamara felt it was part of due diligence= to anticipate and plan for long-range capital costs. He said the CIP did a good job and expressed appreciation to the committee.&n= bsp;

Mr. Dunne asked if the CIP members felt exasperated because items weren’t passed after they did a lot of work. Mr. Scanzani said it had nothing to do with appreciation; the members write what they think is a good plan to stabilize the tax rate and show the voters what was needed. He said it was getting to the poin= t that the CIP was not doing what it was set out to do which is to stabilize the t= ax rate. He said project costs w= ere rising. Mr. Dunne questioned = if the CIP would be better off reducing the items being put before the voters. Mr. Scanzani said over the past 10= -15 years that’s what the CIP did, however it took so long for items to p= ass it backed up projects.

Mr. Gowan said he had been involved with the C= IP almost since it began. He sai= d the CIP prioritized in order to determine how projects got scheduled. He felt it was important to mainta= in the plan, not only because it was the right thing to do, but also because it wa= s a statutory prerequisite to implementing/collecting impact fees. He hoped that the plan continued t= o be updated. Mr. Gowan asked if t= he CIP had a process in mind. Mr. Sc= anzani believed the consensus of the committee was to take what was already schedu= led and add inflation costs to these items instead of sending forms to the department heads to fill out. He said the costs of the projects (for which impact fees would be collected) w= eren’t stable. Mr. Scanzani said the= CIP rating system took a lot of subjectiveness out of the rating. He said the top three items were v= ery specific. He said the plan wouldn’t work if it wasn’t followed.

Mr. Domenico noted that 72% of the Operating B= udget was fixed costs. He discussed= the tax impact and said the Town couldn’t continue neglecting capital improvements.

Mr. Dunne asked if CIP had thought about educa= ting residents (beyond what had been done) and providing pros and cons. Mr. McNamara discussed how he beli= eved voters made their decisions. = Mr. Scanzani said the voters needed to start voting on things that were in the Town’s best interest. H= e said because projects are being funded going forward and not from the CIP schedu= ling (so new people could be charged impact fees) the current tax payers would p= ay the full burden and not the people coming in.

Mr. Scanzani said the CIP would like to update numbers and limited update which would still provide the necessary criteria= for impact fees.

Mr. Culbert believed if the Budget Committee, Selectmen and Pl= anning Board backed the CIP and there was information published.

Mr. Viger felt people didn’t vote for the items in CIP because it wasn’t embraced by everyone in public office. He believed if the Sc= hool Board, Town and the Budget Committee would come together (as a team) and provide a plan for what would be brought forward (in total) it would succeed. There was further discussion regarding how to better communicate to residents about what the = Town needed. Mr. Domenico said the= re would be joint meetings with the School to bring certain projects together = and come up with a plan to engage new residents.

Mr. Scanzani asked for a consensus of the Board about doing a more stream line approach (to the CIP). The CIP members felt they had done= a good job prioritizing the items and were interested in updating information. He said focus sh= ould be on getting support for the projects already listed. There were no objections by the Board.

The joint meeting of the CIP and Planning Board was adjourned.

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Dunne was appointed t= o vote for the evening’s proceedings.

Map 39 Lot 1-53 & 55 LRL Development of Pelham – = Sherburne Road – Preliminary Design Review for Discussion of proposed Senior Housing Complex.

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.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates, representing LRL Development, presen= ted the preliminary review to the Board. He noted that lot 1-53 contained 12.54 acres and lot 55 contained 9.= 55 acres. The project had two se= parate driveways off Aspen Drive<= /st1:address>. Eight, four-unit buildings was pro= posed for the southerly 9.5 acres as well as a club house; the northerly portion = also had eight, four-unit buildings. The plan had been shaded to show the wetland and grassy areas. Since the project was still concep= tual the applicant still had to deal with drainage and other issues; they hoped = the Board could provide input.

Mr. Gowan asked how many units were being requested. Mr. Gospodarek said the 9.5 acre property proposed 34 units and the 12 acre property proposed 32 units. Mr. Gowan confirmed that there wou= ld be separate septic systems for each lot. Mr. Gospodarek said the septic desi= gn would remain separate. Mr. Go= wan asked about the location of the proposed club house. Mr. Gospodarek showed the location= . Mr. Scanzani understood the plan w= as conceptual, which would make it difficult to give direction regarding drainage. Mr. Gospodarek said= they envisioned the well going on the property proposed to be donated to the Town (lot 1-58). The septic system= s had two proposed locations 1) under the driveway, or 2) between the buffer zones. Ms. Ouellette asked if= one septic would service both lots. Mr. Gospodarek said usually one septic would service 4-8 units. There would not be a community sep= tic system.

Mr. Scanzani asked the status of the existing house since during the time of th= e original subdivision (knowing there would be a future plan) there was an issue with = the proximity of the back of the property to the edge of the poorly drained soi= l, edge of the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) and the probl= em with the road access. Mr. Gospodarek said the status of the house had not changed; the lot would have= to be brought into conformance with zoning before work began. He didn’t believe that the W= CD violation had been corrected yet because of the weather. He said there was a wetland crossi= ng for the entrance of the road, but the necessary permits had been received.

Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant considered the complexes as separate. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked for the length = of the driveways. Mr. Gospodarek sai= d they were approximately 800-feet (containing a connection for safety). Mr. McNamara asked if there were t= wo clubhouses being proposed. Mr. Gospodarek said there was one clubhouse being proposed.

Mr. Culbert said when he saw two lots, he viewed them as separate (containing separate wells, septic, clubhouses etc.).&= nbsp; Mr. Scanzani said the clubhouse may be able to be shared if it was of adequate size for the number of units.&nbs= p; He noted that Veteran’s Memorial Park abutted the proposed property and said the Board may want to consider doing a trade-off for improvements in that area.

Mr. McNamara said perhaps an interpretation of zoning was being made (with the number of units not exceeding 40). If being considered one complex, a variance would be needed.

Ms. Bousa asked what would be done with lot 1-55-1. Mr. Gospodarek said it would still= be a single-family home.

The applicant’s architect showed the Board renderings of the proposed complexes.

Mr. Dunne asked how many bedrooms per unit and what the square footage would be= for the buildings. The architect = said the units were basically two-bedroom units. The square-footage would be approximately 1200SF on the first floor and an additional 400-500SF on the second floor. Mr. Dunne had c= oncern with how fire apparatus would access the back of the property and suggested that the applicant would want to speak with the Fire Chief.

Mr. Culbert wanted to ensure that the applicant understood he would be looking = for two (separate) wells. Mr. Gospodarek shook his head in agreement.

Ms. Ouellette understood when the Board looked at the first layout was that the occupancy permit for the existing house would be pulled, unless it was goin= g to be used as a club house servicing the elderly housing; it would not remain = as a single-family residence because of the violation. In Mr. Gowan’s opinion, the violations were separate from the house and the creation of the lots. He said the current lot configurat= ion could not be used as a single-family dwelling; it would have to be used in = some other way, or razed. Mr. Scan= zani said the original plan had not yet been signed or recorded and agreed that = the existing house would have to be dealt with in a subsequent plan. Ms. Bousa was referring to a diffe= rent lot (1-55-1). Ms. Ouellette w= anted to be sure that the single-family house was not going to stay, the way the = plan was being proposed. Mr. Gowan= said it wouldn’t, unless it was used for something non-residential associa= ted with the development.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed that it was the applicant’s intention to donate lot 1-58 to the Town. Mr. Gospoda= rek believed that was contained in the original approval (of January, 2006). He discussed the reason for the pl= an containing a tie line, which typically was done to ensure closure during a survey when a pond or wetland was in the way.

Mr. Gowan reviewed the ordinance and found no language requiring a community building or function room; it may have been in an earlier version. He said by allowing one on site, it basically gave an applicant a ‘pass’ from impact fees that woul= d go to the off-site needs for the Senior Center. Mr. Scanzani believed when the zon= ing was passed it left the opportunity for the Board to review the type of recreational activities that were wanted for the site. He felt with 64 units proposed and= the locations of the wet areas most of the dry area of the property was used. He said there may be an opportunit= y to tie into Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Park; or provide emergency access or additional access to such. Th= e term ‘club house’ was further discussed.

Mr. Domenico asked Mr. Gospodarek to point out the parcel being proposed for donation. Mr. Gospodarek show= ed the area proposed to be donated. = Ms. Bousa asked for the subdivided lots to be pointed out. Mr. Domenico asked how many square= feet the high and dry portion being donated would be. Mr. Gospodarek estimated that it w= as an acre.

Mr. McNamara asked for an explanation of the retaining wall. Mr. Gospodarek said when the origi= nal test pits were done, it was noticed that the seasonal high-water table was approximately three feet. He = said the slopes would have to be adjusted, or possibly a retaining wall. It would be an internal retaining wall.

Ms. Ouellette questioned the fact that the applicant wanted to reserve the righ= t to put wells on the lot being donated to the Town. Mr. Gospodarek said it was a stipu= lation from the approval of January 19, 2006. The wel= ls would be for both of the lots. Ms. Ouellette understood that the units being proposed would have individual we= lls and septic. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id the wells would be per lot; one could service 32 units, the other well could service 36 units. Ms. Ouellet= te said earlier, Mr. Gospodarek = said he wouldn’t have community wells.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek thought the earlier question about ‘community well’ referred to one well servicing both lots, which was not the cas= e. Mr. Gowan said the fact that the p= roposed wells were not on the lots, it may require a variance. Mr. Scanzani asked if Mr. Gospodar= ek had considered putting one of the wells on the other side of the retaining wall. Mr. Gospodarek said they hadn’t reviewed it.

Mr. Domenico asked where the proposed leach fields would be located. Mr. Gospodarek said they would be = either under the roadway, or with in the building setbacks. Mr. Domenico asked if they were proposing community septics. = Mr. Gospodarek answered no. He sa= id the soils would be reviewed and usually 4 – 6 units could use one field.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Scanzani said there wasn’t enough information to provide specific feedback. He would look for t= he plan to have connectivity into the Town owned parcel and maybe some additio= nal amenities on the site. Ms. Bo= usa felt the parcel was too dense (too many units). Mr. McNamara said the proposed plan didn’t leave much room for error.&nb= sp; He wasn’t sure how much recreational land would be left once a= ll the high and dry was gone.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Joanne Powers, an abutter, questioned if the driveway accessing the units w= ould have the same requirements as a driveway that would access a single-family house. Mr. Scanzani said there would be two different driveways maintained by the development. He wasn’t sure what the widt= h of the driveways were; it would have to be determined in the process. He said typically the Board let developers make the driveways less than the 50-feet required for a road. Ms. Powers questioned how the wetl= ands would be affected if the dredge and fill permit was approved for single-fam= ily dwellings. One of her main co= ncerns was the setback requirements and the number of septic systems being proposed (along her property line). Sh= e also questioned how the traffic along Sherburne Road would be affected with the addition of th= e senior housing. She discussed studie= s that outlined issues with senior drivers. She asked if there were restrictions about what could be done on top= of the wells (that were proposed for the land being donated to the Town). She didn’t feel that plan me= t the regulations for adequate and coordinated open space since the applicant was donating land, but still wanted to put wells on it. Ms. Powers read aloud a portion of= the Open Space regulations and had serious concerns about the set up of the lots. She said the area being gifted to the Town was actually a stream.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani said it was correct that a lot of the area proposed to be donated = was in the WCD. Typically the Boa= rd allowed wells to go into the WCD, it was possibly the least impact that cou= ld go into such. Mr. Scanzani sa= id there was a significant amount of land that could be used for open space; t= he engineer would be requested to provide a calculation of the 30% area. He noted that the Board was aware = of the Sherburne Road traffic issues and would have a study done shortly on both ends of the road. Mr. Gowan recommended t= hat the Board reserve any determination about exactions/contributions not only = be for a study, but also for a solution. He said the traffic impact analysis would answer additional questions.

Ms. Darlene Balzotti, 5 Sherbu= rne Road asked if 307-53-1 applied. She asked that the Board consider the impact to the area. She asked if a Town vote would be = needed (for funding) if an RFP (for the Sherburne Road intersection) were put together. She said if the voters turned it d= own, the situation would be made worse by a decision of the Board. She noted that the parcel ran up a= gainst Long Pond and discussed the items that could impact the pond and other water ways (as noted in a flyer sent out by the Park & Recreation Advisory Board). Ms. Balzotti asked if= a full environmental impact study would be requested. Mr. Scanzani said based upon what = the Board was reviewing the plan would meet the criteria for the Board to reque= st an environmental study. Ms. Balzotti said on January 19, 2006 when the first plan was approved, it was brought forward t= hat the Board would look for the least impact to the wetlands when accessing the land. She said during initial review, she mentioned the option of access through Veteran’s Memorial Park (‘PVMP’) and was told there were ordinances in place that would prevent such. However, = she noted this evening, a Board member mentioned access through PVMP (for emerg= ency and additional parking spots), which now seemed to be a possible solution (= with the proposed plan) given the obstacle of a second club house. Mr. Scanzani said the access to PV= MP was on Mammoth Road; he was referring to the area toward the beach area and the possibility of emergency access (not drive-through access) toward the back of the park. Mr. Gowan said there may be other options to access the parcel, but the direction he had given was that a determination had to be made as to what access would be provided to. This would include having a traffic study/analysis done to review the options.= Ms. Balzotti was confused how the open space would impact the wetlan= ds. Mr. Scanzani couldn’t answer= until the Board had a plan to review (at this point the plan was conceptual). Ms. Balzotti said as a condition of approval (during the January 19, 2006 meeting) 6.5 acres was to be deeded to the Town; she wanted to know how something with monetary value (being a condition) could = be differentiated from a bribery to the Town (to get out of open space requirements). Mr. Gowan said= the January 19, 2006 approval was for the creation of four individual housing lots, not for the plan being presented at this time. He sa= id the open space requirement was not ‘in play’ at that time. He said the reason the proposed conceptual plan was being reviewed was to give the applicant input so they could develop a detailed plan.

Ms. Bousa said she wished the applicant would take another look at the lot and would consider a one-lot, one-driveway proposal.

Mr. Domenico asked how many parking spaces each unit had. Mr. Gospodarek said there would be= two per unit. Mr. Domenico said he wanted more information regarding emergency access through the development = at times when the vehicle count and pedestrian walking may be high (e.g. weekends).

OLD BUSINESS

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

Mr. Paul Turbide of Port Engineering, prepared the plan for Citizen’s Bank and was now present= ing such to the Board. He said in= light of the previous review (of the Board and the Town’s engineer), there = had been some minor modifications to the plan.= He believed an updated response from the Town’s engineer (Dufr= esne-Henry) had been submitted. He review= ed the comments contained in Dufresne-Henry’s memo. The drainage was discussed; per the recommendation of Dufresne-Henry, wheel stops would not be added to the ext= ra spaces as to not interfere with the sheet drainage (this would be a conditi= on of approval). It was also recommended (by Dufresne-Henry) to add an additional catch basin on the nor= th side of the entrance; construct a new catch basin on the south side of the entrance and repave the entrance to prevent the ponding of the water. Mr. Turbide reviewed the current drainage and explained what they proposed (as part of the scope of work) to ensure the runoff from the pavement sheet would get to the grass waterways = as quickly as possible alleviating the need for discharge/culvert/catch basin that wou= ld connect into the state drainage system.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Dufresne-Henry felt the applicant should be able to re-shape the swale (that ran along the landscaped area) and get the drainage back to the basin on the corner of Route 38 and Ab= bot Bridge.

Mr. Turbide continued the reviewing the drainage. Mr. Scanzani asked if the Board agreed to having rolled wood chip berms along t= he edge of the encroachment. The= re was no objection by the Board. Mr. Hertrich felt it would be a good approach; the impact was minor. A detail of the type of siltation fencing would be provided to Mr. Turbide by Dufresne-Henry.

Mr. Turbide then discusse= d the lighting for the parking and drive-thru, which would basically be the exist= ing lighting being moved. Mr. Sca= nzani was concerned about the sight-distance at the entrance/exit. He wanted to ensure that the bushes (looking toward Route 38) stayed low and maintained. He discussed the existing pine tre= es and suggested that the lower limbs be trimmed (7ft.-8ft) for sight distance as = well as the security of the bank. = Ms. Bousa said per industry standard, the height of the driver’s eye is 3= .5 feet. She was also concerned = about the integrity of the tree if 7ft.-8ft. were to be cut from the bottom. Mr. McNamara said most of the trees didn’t impact sight distance on Old Bridge Street. Mr. Turbide said most of the trees= on the planting island (on Ol= d Bridge Street) were coniferous and had already been t= rimmed providing a sight line. There= was further discussion regarding trimming the trees. Mr. Culbert had a problem with tri= mming the trees for people to see the bank from Route 38. Mr. Gowan noted that he received c= alls from both Citizen’s Bank and Rite Aid asking about cutting trees along Route 38; he referred them to District 5 of the Department of Transportation. Mr. Turbide s= aid the bank had withdrawn the previous request to trim the (three) trees on the Route 38 side of the site. Mr. Scanzani wanted to ensure that there was something in place to maintain the sight distance. There was a suggestion to have the applicant work with Mr. Gowan to review the site in a couple weeks once everything was in bloom.= Mr. Gowan suggested that the Board require cutting vegetation as min= imally as possible into the WCD.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd had asked Mr. Hertrich to review the turning movement. He said from the field, Mr. Hertri= ch felt there was enough room. M= r. Turbide discussed the other changes that had been made to the plan. He said he would get a reference f= or the NHDOT wooden guardrails.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Scanzani said as cond= itions for approval he would like some of the issues referenced in the Dufresne-He= nry letter relative to sheet drainage being provided, but the wheel stops aren’t allowed so that the sheet drainage can continue. He said the Board should vote rega= rding the Special Permit for the construction in the WCD and stipulate that the t= ype of siltation fencing should be fabric and wood chip. Also, any tree cutting should be to whatever the Planning Director agrees to.&= nbsp; When the applicant fixes the drainage coming off the driveway onto <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Old Bridge is fixed, they will also fix the degraded pavement (caused by water sitting). The guardrail will = be done per the NH DOT standards and so reference on the plan. Ms. Bousa asked if the excavation = permit had been obtained from the DOT.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To ac= cept, for consideration, the Special Permit.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To ap= prove the Special Permit.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan suggested that Dufresne-Henry conduct some on-site inspections because it was a commercial project. He suggested further= that they draft an estimate for such. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would want to ensure that the wetland encroachment didn’t exceed what was contained on the plan and that the pavement was done accordingly. Mr. Dunne asked who would oversee the maintenance of the catch basins. Mr. Scanzani said one of the catch basins was the Town’s, the other was the state’s basin. Mr. Dunne suggested that the applicant clean out the T= own's catch basin since they would be conducting work on the site. Mr. Scanzani believed the site was adding more water, than siltation. <= /span>

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To ap= prove the Site Plan conditioned upon: 1) no wheels stops in the parking spaces = so as to not interfere with the sheet drainage; 2) use of wood chips and fab= ric berms; 3) any/all tree trimming done in the field per the Planning Direct= or; 4) drainage from driveway has to be fixed as well as the degraded pavemen= t at the end of the driveway (at the end of the Town right-of-way); 5) guardra= il be built per NH Department of Transportation standard; 6) NH Department of Transportation excavation permit is to be obtained; 7) reference the lett= er of Dufresne-Henry dated March 29, 2006 ( to further explain the conditions (if needed); and 8) conditions of approval will be added to the plan (to = be signed). <= /p>

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert confirmed tha= t the file contained a written request for the Special Permit. He said he would be satisfied if a written request for the Special Permit was provided to the Town during the = next week.

Mr. Gowan noted that ther= e were some technical issues (e.g. placement of title block) that would need to be addressed on the recordable plan. Mr. Turbide said he would. Mr. Gowan also informed that the applicant should submit a written request for = the Special Permit (for work within the WCD).&= nbsp;

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

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates discussed the Special Permit (to cross a wetland for a residenti= al property off Route 38) being requested.&nb= sp; He provided a color copy showing the impacts to the wetland as well = as the impacts to the buffer zone. He said there was a 10-foot wide driveway with a retaining wall sitting on the edge of the driveway pavement, which would be difficult to build. He said the Conservation Commissio= n was shown a second plan showing a head wall extending approximately 5-feet on e= ach side so a guardrail and wall could be put in. He said the original impacts were = 7755SF and with the changes the impacts were shown to be 6900SF. He said the Conservation Commissio= n was in agreement with their plan set and signed the Wetland Permit. He said the second plan was develo= ped per the Wetland Permit conditions of approval.

Mr. Gospodarek said durin= g the week of the Conservation Commission meeting he had a meeting with a representative of District 5 who suggested (in order to facilitate the stat= e highway and make it look better) and asked if there was any way they could go into = the property and make 4-1 slopes off the shoulder down and eliminate the guardr= ail in the front of the property. He referenced a third plan that showed the area that would be affected (562SF)= if they did a 4-1 slope (and eliminated the guardrail). He was hoping that the Board would= feel it was in the best interest to get rid of the guardrail. He circulated photographs of the s= ite and guardrail being discussed.

Mr. Culbert asked if ther= e would be a problem getting a curb cut. Mr. Gospodarek didn’t feel there would be a problem because th= ey provided the sight line in both directions. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the st= ate was recommending the removal of the guardrail and asking for 4-1 slopes in = its place. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. Culbert questioned if= the state recommended the 4-1 slope, or if Mr. Gospodarek suggested doing a 4-1 slope= would be acceptable if the guardrail was removed. Mr. Gospodarek said the state (Dis= trict 5) came to them and asked if they would like to get rid of the guardrail if= a 4-1 slope could be done. Mr. Culbert questioned if the guardrail would be taken down for the length of t= he property. Mr. Gospodarek answ= ered yes. Mr. Scanzani said it wou= ld be from the driveway to Old B= ridge Street South (toward the north). In his opinion, it would help solv= e part of the sight distance issues. He said it would still leave 50-feet. Mr. Gospodarek said when the area past the culvert was inspected, the representative (from District 5) indicated that area could also be removed because the slope was already at 4-1. He further explained what alterations would be made.

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he state wouldn’t grant a permit unless their requirements were met. Mr. McNamara wanted to know what w= ould happen if the permit were granted. He asked if there was any resolution to the 35,000SF area question.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gowan said 35,000SF came into = play in 1995. He said there was an= issue of ‘grandfathering’ which was a more complex legal issue where = one could make the argument that nothing was ever built on the parcel; however against that argument, this is a commercial lot where a single-family home = was being proposed. He suggested = that if the Board approved the Special Permit that a condition be added to have = WCD signs posted every 25-feet. M= r. McNamara asked who would address the issues outlined by the Conservation Commission other than the Planning Board.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said it would be to the extent that the Special Permit was granted; and the Town’s inspector.

Mr. Scanzani asked the si= ze of the building envelope. Mr. Gospodarek said the building envelope was approximately 20,000SF. Mr. Scanzani believed at the last meeting the Board was informed that the size of the contiguous area was clo= se to 32,000SF and there were other areas on the lot that were dry.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the proposed and if the Board was in favor of removing the guardrail.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the Special conditioned upon: 1) guardrail to be eliminated from the driv= eway northerly from Route 38 back to Old Bridge Street South – southerly guardrail to be terminated as required by the Department of Transportatio= n - decrease slopes to 4-1; 2) Wetland Conservation District signs required t= o be installed every 25-feet; 3) Wetland Conservation District demarcation on = the deed and plot plan; 4) site specific locations of wells, septic and propo= sed house required; and 5) Department of Transportation driveway permit and a= dds the number to the plan. =

VOTE:

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

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

The applicant had not yet submitted drainage calculations to the Town’s Engineer. At the applicant’s request, = the plan was date specified to the April 17, 2006.

ADMINISTRATIVE &= nbsp;

&nbs= p;

Map 6 & 13 Lot 4-139 = Collins Way LLC – Longview Circle/Collin’s Way – Request for Bond Reduction

Per the r= equest of Mr. Gowan the request was date specified to the April 17, 2006 meeting.

&nbs= p;

Map 13 & 14 Lot 4-137 = G&M Jeremy Hill Land Development – Meadowview Estates – Request for Bond Reduction

&nbs= p;

At the re= quest of the applicant, the request was date specified to the April 17, 2006 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

April 17, = 2006:

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

Map 6 &am= p; 13 Lot 4-139 Collins Way LLC – Longview Circle/Collin’s Way – Request for Bond Reduction

Map 13 &a= mp; 14 Lot 4-137 G&M Jeremy Hill Land Development &#= 8211; Meadowview Estates – Request for Bond Reduction

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

March 6, 2= 006 –

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne)To appr= ove the March 6, 2006 = Planning Board minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 3) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= , Ms. Bousa and Mr. Domenico abstained.

March 20, = 2006 –

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the March 20, = 2006 Planning Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Domenico abstained.=

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ad= journ the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:45 pm.

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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