PB Minutes 05-01-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

May 1, 2006

The Chairman, Bill Scanza= ni called the meeting to order at 7:3= 0 pm.

The Secretary, Gael Ouell= ette called the roll:

PRESENT:

Bill Scanzani, Peter Mc= Namara, Gael Ouellette, Paddy Culbert, Robin Bousa, Alternate Tom Collins, Select= men Representative Tom Domenico, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Ken Dunne, Alternate Bo= b Yarmo

OLD BUSINESS

Map 21 Lot 3-102 & 102-1<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Cynthia Currier 2000 Rev. Trust &#= 8211; Tenney road – Proposed 9-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant, presented the revised plan to the Board. He informed that the B= oard had previously reviewed and taken jurisdiction on the plan. He said since the last meeting the= plan had been through review. He s= aid he visited the site with Stantec (fka Dufresne-Henry) and the Planning Directo= r; a report had been received from Stantec and the plan had been revised; however Stantec had not yet done a second review.&= nbsp; In general he said plan needed to be cleaned up; the major item to be discussed was sight distance. Mr. Zohdi said they needed 445ft. sight distance (per the regulations), but the maximum they could get was 405ft. He explained with a 30mph speed limit they complied, but could not design for 10mph higher. He s= aid some clearing/cleaning needed to be done in the Town right-of-way for the stopping sight distance. He a= sked that the Board consider granting a conditional approval subject to final re= view of the plan. He said the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services had been to the site and approved the plan.

Mr. McNamara asked if Mr.= Zohdi agreed with the items contained in the letter dated April 25, 2006 from Stantec.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. McNamara confirmed that the on= ly issue before the Board was sight distance.= Mr. Zohdi said the Town’s regulations were harder than AASHTO = and he would submit a waiver.

Mr. Gowan said he met wit= h Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates and reviewed the letter from Stantec = and noted there was no disagreement except for the sight distance issue. He said there were two items requi= ring Fire Department sign off; 1) proposed cistern location, and 2) Item #7 of Stantec letter - pavement radius of temporary cul-de-sac.

Mr. Scanzani asked what w= ould have to happen to Tenney R= oad to gain the 45ft. sight distance. Mr. Zohdi said a hill at station 365 would have to be cut a couple f= eet, which he felt was not necessary because the road was a side road. He then discussed the cul-de-sac a= nd said if the Fire Chief or Board didn’t like it, they would pave the center. With regard to cistern placement, Mr. Zohdi said the Fire Chief would make a decision where they w= ould be placed and what size they would be.&nbs= p; Prior to the plan being recorded the Fire Chief and Planning Director will inform where cisterns will be placed.= Mr. Gowan informed that the plan had been reviewed by the Highway Sa= fety Committee; the only concern was the road not be named Blue Bird, and it sho= uld be changed to Goldfinch. He s= aid several 30mph speed limit signs should be posted along the stretch of road. He said Stantec had a question if a street light should be placed at the intersection; at this po= int it was not recommended by the Highway Safety Committee.

Mr. Scanzani said he didn= ’t have a problem with the cul-de-sac (if the Fire Chief didn’t) because= it would be temporary. He was concerned with the road profile and the sight distance because Tenney Road= was a cut through road. Mr. Culbert wasn’t concerned with the sight distance being 405ft.

Ms. Bousa didn’t ha= ve a problem with the sight distance. She didn’t believe it was the type of road that vehicles could get high speeds. She said Mr. Zohdi was referring to intersection sight distance (looking East or West onto Tenney Road= ). She said the plan met the posted s= peed limit per AASHTO. She said th= ere was also stopping sight distance, which the plan also met; there was plenty= of time for a car on Tenney R= oad to stop. Mr. Scanzani noted t= hat the sight distance was more for the people coming out of the new subdivision onto Tenney Road; which they would have a tendency to look more carefully. Ms. Bousa believed with additional= speed limit postings, the side street would not be a problem because it wouldn’t generate a too much traffic.

Ms. Bousa questioned the = note indicating that clearing would be done (stone wall, trees & shrubs) and didn’t want the rural aesthetics of the area to be taken away. Mr. Gowan said while walking the s= ite he viewed low lying vegetation; any moving of the stone wall would be maintained. Mr. Zohdi said the stone wall would be rebuilt. =

Ms. Bousa said she didn&#= 8217;t have any big issues; the plan met AASTO and felt the additional measures in= the Town’s regulations were more for high speed traffic roads.

Mr. McNamara saw that sto= ne walls traversed the property. Mr. Z= ohdi said they didn’t propose to move any walls except where the road crossed. Page 2 showed much o= f the stone wall. Mr. McNamara aske= d if more specific language be added regarding the stone wall. Mr. Zohdi said he could draft lang= uage and show it to the Planning Director. Mr. Gowan said there were stone walls on some of the lots, but was s= ure that every effort would be made to maintain those that could be saved and w= ere along the traverse roadway. M= r. Zohdi reviewed the plan and indicated that language could be added to the p= lan that stated if a stone wall was damaged it would have to be rebuilt for the character of the area.

Mr. Culbert believed the = plans were going to come in with the roads not named. Mr. Zohdi said they provided three= road names for the Town to choose; the name on the plan was preferred by the client. Mr. Gowan said the Hi= ghway Safety Committee reviewed the road names; in this case the chosen name was Goldfinch.

Mr. Scanzani said the last Stantec letter had a few items to be worked out and the Board would expect those items to be met as part of the approval process. Mr. Zohdi said he didn’t hav= e any objection to the comments made and would meet with the Fire Chief regarding cistern placement. He said pr= ior to the plan being signed he was sure that the Planning Director would review a= nd there would be a letter from Stantec that the plan met their comments.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert)To ac= cept, for consideration, the waiver for sight distance (as submitted during the meeting).

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Zohdi asked if he cou= ld submit a waiver for the two meeting requirement for approving waivers. Mr. Gowan asked that Mr. Dick Hert= rich of Stantec be allowed to speak regarding the plan. Mr. Hertrich said there were a few technical issues; the larger issue was sight distance and if the Board would accept it. He agreed with Ms.= Bousa that stopping sight distance was available. He believed the details could be w= orked out in a conditional approval.

Mr. Culbert made a motion= to waive the two meeting rule for the one waiver. Mr. McNamara seconded for discussion. He said he would = vote no. Ms. Bousa questioned if t= he Board had waived the requirement in the past. There was further discussion by the Board. Ms. Ouellette question= ed if the Special Permits had been acted upon; the file contained the written request. Mr. Zohdi believed w= hen the Board took jurisdiction on the plan the Board also took jurisdiction on= the Special Permit because they were part of the plan.

Mr. Gowan said since he h= ad been Planning Director, the Board hadn’t voted to waive the provision, they had simply accepted waivers without the formality of having a separate vote= for waiving the waiver.

There was discussion as t= o if a motion was needed to waive the requirement of two meetings for the sight distance waiver. Mr. Scanzani= said the question was if the Board wanted to waive the requirements for two meet= ings; if no, the next motion would be if the Board wanted to approve the waiver in one meeting.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To w= aive the two meeting rule for the one waiver (for sight distance).

VOTE:

(0-6-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd had accepted the waiver and asked the Board if they wanted to now approve the waiver. Mr. Culbert made a mo= tion to approve the waiver.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Culbert reiterated hi= s motion to approve the waiver. Ms. Ouellette said the Board decided not to accept the waiver to waive the requ= ired two meetings. Mr. Culbert sai= d he was making a motion to approve the waiver to the sight distance. Mr. Gowan clarified that the Board= usually didn’t accept a (physical) waiver (to waive the two meeting requireme= nt) and it didn’t prevent the Board from accepting the one waiver (straig= ht forward) as opposed to waiving the requirements. Mr. Scanzani said the Board didn&#= 8217;t agree to accept the (physical) waiver that Mr. Zohdi was presenting and now needed to vote whether or not to accept the sight distance waiver.

Mr. McNamara seconded (for discussion) Mr. Culbert’s motion to approve the waiver for sight distance. He questioned why t= here was a regulation if the Board was going to continue to ignore it.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the waiver for the sight distance.

VOTE:

(4-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette and = Ms. Bousa voted no.

There was clarification r= egarding the previous motion in connection with waiving the two meeting rule. Mr. Scanzani explained that the Bo= ard, by voting no, had decided to go with the Board’s past practice and not require an applicant to hand a piece of paper to waiver a waiver.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 11.04,c,1 – building envelope (35,000SF build= ing envelope for lot 3-102-43 & 44).

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed th= at the well radiuses would not exceed the lot lines. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

The next motion was made = by Mr. McNamara, seconded by Mr. Culbert and a friendly amendment was made by Mr. Scanzani (and acceptable by both Mr. McNamara and Mr. Culbert) to make the cul-de-sac radius subject to approval by the Fire Chief.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Appendix I, bb, 11,b & c (outside edge of pavement 63-f= eet / inside 39-feet); bb, 12 (minimum tangent length); bb, 13 (minimum horizontal curve 200-feet); dd (requirement for cross-sections). Radiuses of cul-de-sac are subje= ct to the approval of the Fire Chief and the ability to turn-around a fire truck.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ms. Ouellette read aloud = the Special Permits for Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’)crossi= ng access for proposed subdivision and proposed well location (for lot 3-102-4= 3) being within the WCD.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Special Permit.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the plan subject to: 1) plan to reflect minor technical review items as mentioned by Stantec (fka Dufresne-Henry); 2) plan to reflect road name change (from Blue Bird) to Goldfinch; 3) additional note on plan regarding the rebuilding/relocating stone walls with input from the Planning Board/Planning Director with the appropriate language; 4) post additional signage for 30mph (speed limit).=

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

CONCEPTUAL DISCUSSION

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 & 149= Manoukian – Spalding Hill Road – Conceptual Plan for Discussion of Proposed 23-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the following plan had been submitted as a conceptual plan and would be discuss= ed as such.

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 contained three abutter notification envelopes that had been returned as ‘unclaimed’.

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= y the plan was so detailed for conceptual review. Mr. Gowan said an applicant could = take a plan where they wanted at a conceptual level.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the conceptual plan to the Board. He said he had met with the Planni= ng Director and the Highway Road Agent on site and it was discussed to go befo= re the Board and have a public discussion prior to completing the minor detail= s on the plan. He said he was read= y to submit the plan. Mr. Zohdi explained that the plan was a subdivision of two parcels of land (one owned= by Mr. Manoukian the other owned by Montbleu). He said Mr. Monbleu’s existi= ng house was not conforming with the lot line and with the subdivision it would become conforming. Mr. Zohdi = said the proposal was for a road to come from Marie Avenue; the entire length of = road would be 3918ft (from the center line of Marie Avenue and going around the loop). He said he met with the Planning Director and the Highway Road Agent and there would be two access roads from the subdivision (because of an agreement with the owner and Mr. Monbleu), one from Spauldi= ng Hill Road and the other from Marie Avenue. He discussed the road profile/grad= ing and the proposed drainage from the roadway. He said they would need to seek the Selectmen’s permission to do some improvements to Spaulding Hill Road near the propos= ed intersection.

Mr. Zohdi said they had w= orked with an engineer regarding wells located in the center of the loop and asked that the Board accept his testimonial.&nbs= p;

Mr. Bruce Lewis of Lewis Engineering discussed his credentials.&nbs= p; He said he was asked to work with Mr. Zohdi on the site to locate quantities of water. He said Pennichuck Water had been contacted and had indicated an interest in owning= and operating this water system. = He said to date, they have located and drilled wells (using a hydro geological firm); two water supply wells were located on the northerly end of the turn-around. The location was reviewed and approved by the Department of Environmental Services – W= ater Supply Engineering Bureau; two test wells were drilled and pump tested in accordance with water supply engineering criteria. They were able to find a water sup= ply equivalent to 40-gallons per minute between the two wells. Mr. Lewis felt t= here was more than enough water available for the proposed 23-lot subdivision. He noted that the wells fell under= the Safe Drinking Water Act (through the EPA).=

Mr. Scanzani asked what t= he chances were for the wells/pump houses to supply any future development or people with wells already in the area.&nbs= p; Mr. Lewis said there would be a maximum number of homes that could be supplied based on the 40-gallons per minute; there would be some opportunity.

Mr. McNamara asked what a= ffect the well operation would have on the abutting properties. Mr. Lewis said based on the testin= g, there would be no adverse affects. He said in this case the state required a minimum of a 48-hour conti= nuous pump test; however, in this case, the pump test was extended for an additio= nal 24-hours, nearby wells were monitored with no ill effects. Mr. McNamara asked how far down the wells were drilled. Mr. Lewis= said one well (close to the pump house) was drilled down to 518 feet and the oth= er (behind the pump house) was 620 feet.

Mr. Gowan asked if the we= lls would service the drinking water and the hydrants. Mr. Lewis said it had not been discussed; but it was possible.

Ms. Bousa asked when the = pump testing was done. Mr. Lewis s= aid the testing was done between November 8-11, 2004.

Mr. Domenico asked what t= he water use of 25,000 gallons per day was based on. Mr. Lewis said it was a year-round average. Mr. Domenico asked h= ow the number would change if everyone had in-ground irrigations systems. Mr. Lewis said the number could double. Mr. Domenico asked if= there were any long-term concerns about sustaining a higher level of usage than t= he 25,000 gallons. Mr. Lewis sai= d it would be limited to the overall water use.= Mr. Domenico asked if the Board could request a note to the plan indicating that any in-ground irrigation systems be supplied through additi= onal private wells and not through from the central community well. Mr. Scanzani said there was nothin= g that said the Board couldn’t request such. Mr. Lewis said Pennichuck Water Co= mpany may make that request.

Mr. Scanzani asked what t= he chances were for the system to be linked up to the system on Longview and the ridge on the Hudson line. Mr. Zohdi said hopefull= y one day there would be a couple of similar systems on Sherburne Road and with long-term planning there would be an entire water system.

Mr. Zohdi circulated rend= itions of the type of homes that would be built within the subdivision.

Mr. Gowan said there had = been some discussion regarding unusual amenities and asked Mr. Zohdi to elaborate regarding such. Mr. Zohdi sai= d when he met with Mr. Gowan and Mr. Manoukian there had been a discussion of poss= ibly adding curbing and a (grassed) sidewalk.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara asked if the conceptual drawings were for one home.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi said they were four samples running approximately 7000SF-8000SF. Mr. McNamara a= sked if there was any provision for open space.= Mr. Zohdi said there was plenty of room and they would be glad to li= sten to the Board. Mr. McNamara as= ked if any waivers would be requested. Mr. Zohdi said he would have to work with the Town’s engineers. He said he was trying to comply wi= th the regulations. Mr. McNamara ask= ed what the length was from the proposed connection road to the center of the loop. Mr. Zohdi said approxim= ately 1900feet.

Mr. Gowan asked if the dr= awing showed the existing conditions of the site or what was proposed. Mr. Zohdi said the rendition was representative of what was there.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Scanzani said an abut= ter, Mr. John Caradonna of Marie Avenue, had submitted a four-page letter (dated Apr= il 20, 2006 that he requested be read into the record. Mr. Scanzani felt a lot of the iss= ues would be taken care of during engineering review (e.g. ledge, well location= s, steepness of slopes).

Mr. McNamara asked what M= r. Zohdi wanted clarified. Mr. Zohdi s= aid he wanted to know how the Board felt about the subdivision. He also wanted the Selectmen Representative to know that they would visit the Selectmen regarding the Spaulding Hill Road improvements. He said when he= came back before the Board they would have landscaping specifics for review. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = ask the engineer to review the water situation and how much water could be pumped.

Mr. James Fischer, 19 Sce= nic View Drive circulated a handout to the Board (dated April 17, 2006) that contain= ed photographs of the lot line between his parcel and the lot line of the proposed. He began by discuss= ing his concern regarding the water erosion that came off the hill toward his parcel. He said it had the potential to come off the hill and erode his property. He discussed problems he had in th= e past with tree clearing and the erosion because of such. He asked that the Board consider h= aving a 75ft. no-cut zone between his property and the applicant’s property= to prevent erosion onto his land. He rev= iewed some of the photographs submitted to the Board and noted that his gahnite p= ool had collapsed due to previous tree cutting, drainage and erosion. He noted the concern with the lack= of drinking water in the area. H= e said during the summer months his well sometimes ran dry.

Mr. Mike Soby, 9 Marie Avenue provided the Board w= ith a information (dated April 29,= 2006) which included photographs (taken in 2004). He told the Board that when it rai= ned, Marie Avenue went under water. He said the amou= nt of water that came off from lots 150-13 & 150-14 was sizable and that he and Mr. Caradonna had do= ne what they could to control water runoff.&n= bsp; However, in the summer months the water level ran low. Mr. Soby said the proposed road ap= peared to be coming in tight to his and Mr. Caradonna’s driveway. He also pointed out that Spaulding Hill Road was very narrow and believed unless it was widened, it would do no good. Mr. Scanzani asked the status of t= he area between lots 150-13 & 14. Mr. Soby said the previous owner cut the trees in 2003-2004 which intensified the amount of water runoff that came through. He said there wasn’t a lot of growth and the debris that came down was a hazard to the road. He asked that the concerned contai= ned in Mr. Caradonna’s letter would also be taken into consideration when be= ing reviewed by the engineers. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would look at the siltation. Mr. Soby also noted that the intersection at Marie Aven= ue and Spaulding Hill was deteriorating rapidly; during a heavy rain there was= a lot of dirt and clutter that became a hazard. Mr. Domenico asked if Mr. Soby had= any water in his residence in terms of runoff.= Mr. Soby answered no. = He said he made sure he had proper drainage around his house when it was put in. Mr. Scanzani asked if oth= er wells on Marie Avenue were good. Mr. Soby could only speak for his home; his well was re-fractured due to water reduction. In the summer there was a noticeab= le decrease. Mr. Scanzani wanted= to know if Mr. Soby would tie into the proposed community well if it was made available. Mr. Soby said he w= ould take it under serious consideration.

Mr. Chris O’Connor,= 5 Marie Avenue said the runoff was a big concern, not only on Marie Avenue, but also down the old logging road. He was concerned about drainage. He ended by s= aying he would welcome the opportunity to tap into a community well.

Mr. Fischer asked that the hydrological study be included in the recordable plan. Mr. Scanzani said the Board had a 42-page study that the Board wouldn’t review until their engineer had= a chance to review.

Mr. Zohdi said there was = an existing problem on Marie = Avenue that needed to be resolved. He discussed the history and informed that the Highway Road Agent Don Foss required that they would put an underground drainage system on Marie Avenue and trench drain to capture any infiltration from the ground. He showed the drainage system as proposed on the plan. He was = sure that the Town’s Engineer would make sure that pre- and post-developme= nt would comply with the Town, State DES and site specific rules. He said they were aware of the pro= blems on Marie Avenue and were working to correct them. He said the intersection at Spaulding Hill Road was also being reviewed; a design wo= uld be presented to the Selectmen.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd may want to see some buffers to slow the water coming off the hill. Mr. Zohdi said the Board could wal= k the site.

Ms. Ouellette said the te= stimony from abutters was that the water shortage came in the summer months. She asked if the 40-hour pump test= could be repeated during the summer months. Mr. Zohdi said he wanted to speak to their professional and report b= ack to the Board.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd understood the issues with ledge, but felt there had to be a way to catch (= and direct) the surface water to go back into the ground water and re-charge. Mr. Zohdi said he wanted the Board= to walk the site.

Mr. Domenico asked if the connection from Sherburne would be reviewed, or just the connection from Spaulding Hill and Marie. Mr.= Zohdi said during the year there had been a few subdivisions, and each time a por= tion of the road had been widened/repaired.&nbs= p; He said they would review this and report back to the Board. Mr. Domenico asked if Slavin Road was paved. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.

Mr. Scanzani asked that t= he Town of Hudson be notified when the plan was formally submitted because the traffic would aff= ect them. He also said that the proposed subdivision would be subject to ‘fair share’ to help f= ix the intersections. Mr. Zohdi = said they had already asked their traffic engineer to contact Mr. Gowan and they would pay their ‘fair share’.&= nbsp;

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road was concerned with blasting and how it may affect wells further down the hill.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She said she spoke with Mr. Zohdi regarding the procedure to verify if damage is done after the blasting. She felt this should be taken into consideration. Mr. Scanzani s= aid usually blasting companies did site surveys of the houses that would be affected. Ms. Burton said the= water table at the bottom of the hill had already been affected in the last three years because of the development on Scenic Hill.

There was a consensus to = schedule a site walk after the next meeting when the plan was submitted.

ADMINISTRATIVE

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

<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Collins Way (Phase I) – Longview – Mr. Gowan said at = the last meeting, the Board did a preliminary review of the bond reduction. He said at that time, calculations= (done by Stantec) were brought forward for the Longview and Collin’s Way projects. At that time the Town’s Engineer recommended a change in the contingency approach which the Board declined to do.&n= bsp; He said subsequently (after consulting with the Town’s attorne= y), Mr. Gowan realized that these projects pre-dated the change in the Subdivis= ion Regulations that require a 30% contingency. The amount was back to retaining 10%. Mr. Gowan said he review= ed the ‘punch list’ to be sure it included everything.

The original bond amount = was $437,000; the current bond being held is $156,700; Stantec has recommended a reductio= n of $82,154; the remaining bond would be $74,545.89 which would be all the work remaining plus a 10% contingency.

Mr. McNamara asked if Duf= resne-Henry (Stantec) had signed off on the work to be done. Mr. Gowan answered yes; the amount= s were based on Dufresne-Henry’s recommendation to the Board. He said it also included some off-= site work on a drainage swale that was down hill from the cul-de-sac necessitate= d by the tank behind it.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To re= duce the current bond amount (for Collins Way – Phase I – Longview) by $82,154 thereby retaining $74,545.89.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

<= st1:address w:st=3D"on">Collins Way (Phase II) – Collin’s Way – Mr. Gowan said the other bond originally had $385,000; the curr= ent bond was $190,918.05; Stantec recommended a reduction of $89,815.89; the remaining bond would be $101,102.16. Ms. Ouellette asked if the amount recommended to be retained would c= over everything that needed to be done. Mr. Gowan said it was enough money and the contingency would cover t= he increase in materials and labor. There was a clarification of what would be covered by the bond.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Domenico)To re= duce the current bond amount (for Collins Way – Phase II – Collin’s = Way) by $89,815.89 thereby retaining $101,102.16.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

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

Mr. Scanzani informed tha= t the request would not be heard at the current meeting.

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

April 17, = 2006 –

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette)To a= pprove the April 17, = 2006 Planning Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 9:45 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