PB Minutes 08-07-06

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 7, 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, Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenic= o, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Robin Bousa, Alternate = Bob Yarmo

Mr. Collins was appointed to vote for the evening’s proceedings.

Mr. Scanzani said it was the Board’s intention, due to the length of the agenda, to open the projects, read the abutter list and send to the Town’s Engineer for review. Abutter comments will be limited u= ntil such time that the Board had engineering review. It was also noted that abutters wo= uld not receive additional notifications; they could contact the Planning Department as to what date plans would be heard.

ADMINISTRATIVE<= /p>

Rene LaBranch, Stantec – To Discuss updated Surety Unit Prices, Milestone approach for Bond Reductions, Surety on Senior Housing Projects

Mr. Rene LaBranch of Stan= tec (Town’s Engineer) said there had been a question regarding the unit prices on the bond worksheet. He said they have since revised the unit prices and provided the Board with a template based upon the averages between smaller and larger projects. He said the prices included labor = and equipment costs.

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara)To a= dopt the new bond estimate sheet for any new projects recommended by Stantec.

VOTE:

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

Mr. LaBranch then circula= ted a handout with information regarding a guarantee approach for specific project performance. He recommends a = surety of 30% of the site work; with= a 10% escalator and 10% contingency. This would be for all site plans. =

Mr. Gowan said he had rev= iewed regulations from surrounding towns. He noted Pelham’s senior housing was contained in the Subdivis= ion Regulations versus the Site Plan Regulations. Other communities have their senior housing in the site plan regulations. Mr. Gowan believed the Town’s power was in holding occupancy permits. He read aloud a sect= ion of Salem&#= 8217;s regulations and a portion of a letter forwarded from Attorney John Rattigan (Town’s Legal Council). Mr. Gowan explained the suggestion of ‘phasing’ construction, which would be discussed at the pre-construction meeting. He said the two projects approved = by the Board were the Atwood Road and Dutton Road projects both of which came in u= nder Site Plan Review (which provided the Board to put bonding in place, but it = was non-specific).

Mr. LaBranch his concern = was having no surety in place at the start of a project. He explained instances where havin= g a surety in place would be beneficial. Mr. Gowan suggested that he and Mr. LaBranch draft language for the Board to review.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the proposal for the number of reductions that could be requested of the Board. Mr. LaBranch discussed= the proposal further. Mr. McNamar= a said he would like Town Council’s opinion before the Board adopted the proposal.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Go= wan to work with Mr. LaBranch to work on language in the Subdivision Regulations f= or when and at what percentage reductions should be done. There was no objection by the Boar= d to have Mr. Gowan and Mr. LaBranch to work on language. Mr. Gowan said he would also check= with Attorney Rattigan.

Mr. LaBranch then circula= ted handouts regarding a plan compliance monitoring approach. There was a discussion regarding w= hich items would be inspected and at what time.= The discussion was continued to the September 7, 2006 meeting.

Mr. LaBranch then discuss= ed the difference between HDP and RCP pipe. He asked that Stantec be allowed to make the determination as to whi= ch pipe to use, versus applicants requesting waivers. Mr. Scanzani recalled that the Boa= rd had discussed the issue in the past and rejected such because there wasn’t history with HDP piping. Mr. LaBranch said he had seen HDP piping over the last 10-12 years and felt the= re had been good documentation on it; it has its limitations, but it lasts. Mr. Scanzani believed the TownR= 17;s Highway Road Agent used the different types of pipes and asked Mr. Gowan to find out when he used each. T= he Board will discuss further at the September 7, 2006 meeting.

Mr. Gowan noted that ther= e were two senior projects that had been approved by the Board (Atwood Road and Dutton Road projects). He said there was nothing stopping= the projects from moving forward except for the establishment of the bonds. He reviewed a portion of the langu= age contained in the Site Development Regulations. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the two projects and what the bonds could cover. Mr. Culbert asked if the BoardR= 17;s decision would ‘throw’ the applicants back into court. Mr. Gowan said it wouldn’t t= hrow them back into court with who they were in court before, it would throw them back into court with the Town. He recommended looking at the numbers for disturbance. Mr. Scanzani suggested having Mr. = Gowan and Mr. LaBranch work out what needed to be done (for the two projects) to cover the Town. Mr. Gowan bel= ieved the lower level of construction monitoring may also be relevant. Mr. LaBranch suggested the applica= nt be allowed to place the lower amount into escrow and possibly reevaluate in a month or so. Mr. Gowan will c= onduct a phone poll once the estimates are drafted; there was no objection by the Board.

OLD BUSINESS

Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl Scout Coun= cil – Webster Avenue – Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

Mr. Roger Parsons of Cuoc= o & Cormier met with the Board to discuss the proposed subdivision plan. He noted that Stantec (Town’s Engineer) had done a third review (letter dated August 2, 2006). He said a detention basin had been= added and Stantec had recommended the design be for a 2cfs and 50-year storm. The Board had no objection. Mr. Parsons said they were working= to re-charge the ground water and would further clarify with Stantec. He said another issue was one driv= eway with less than 200-feet sight distance which required approximately two-fee= t of excavation; Stantec is requiring a sight distance profile, the applicant didn’t have a problem with such.&nbs= p; He discussed the other details contained in the Stantec letter to wh= ich the applicant had no objections and would respond to them.

Mr. Culbert asked who wou= ld pay for (and inform the Town) the annual inspection and clean out of infiltrato= rs. Mr. Parsons said the homeowner wou= ld pay, and a notice would be given to the Town. The homeowner, when purchasing, wo= uld be notified of the requirements.

Attorney Mark Johnson, representing the applicant, said they would record a document at the Regist= ry of Deeds which obligates the inspections to be done and a report to be sent= to the Town (on an interval the Town was comfortable with). He said they would also provide th= at the deed would contain an acknowledgement that the homeowner understood the obligation and would be charged for maintenance and inspections.

Mr. Parsons informed that= they received approval from the Fire Department; a memo has been submitted informing of such. He noted that the Arche= ological Study had been completed and an ancient quarry site was discovered. He said the study suggested that at least one of the historic sites (where quarrying took place) be preserved; = the suggested area of preservation was marked on the plan. He ended by saying he believed the remaining comments could be wrapped up with Stantec.

Mr. Culbert asked if ther= e had been any talk regarding off-site improvements on Webster Avenue. Mr. Parsons said there had been significant off-site improvements and went on to discuss such.

Mr. Scanzani said the oth= er issue with the Board was open space. Mr. Parsons said the applicant had made two suggestions for monitory contributi= ons in lieu of open space: 1) in the form of cash; or 2) participation in an on-going project the Town would have either by cash, or some form of contri= bution of labor/machinery. He said t= hey discussed this with Mr. Gowan and recognized the second option would require considerable administration by the Town.&n= bsp; Mr. Domenico asked if Town Council had responded to Attorney Johnson’s letter. Mr. G= owan answered no; he would seek an opinion after the present meeting.

Attorney Johnson said he = provided the Town with a letter dated July 26, 2006 and would be happy to proceed either discussing it with the Board or with Town Council. Mr. Culbert said he wanted to hear from Town Council. Mr. McNamara reiterated his opinion regarding open space (as discussed at the last meeting); he would have a problem with the plan without a reasonable amount of open space being provided. He felt the Board, = under its regulations, had the authority to request open space. Mr. Gowan said the Board would hav= e a written legal opinion for the September 7, 2006 meeting; the Board will share the legal opinion with the applicant in advance of the meeting.

Mr. McNamara asked that a= draft document regarding the drainage maintenance be sent to Planning for review.= Attorney Johnson said he hoped to f= ile the documents in the next ten days so the Town could have council review. <= /p>

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 7, = 2006 meeting.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 17 Lot 12-253 – JRS Realty, LLC – Kenned= y Drive – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland a= nd WCD Crossing

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 a letter from the abutter at 11 Kennedy Drive.

In Mr. Gowan’s opinion the plan complied with the checklist.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept the proposed plan for consideration.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the proposed plan to the Board. He said the Board had previously reviewed the plan; the applicant had requested a WCD, wetland crossing and a couple waivers from the Subdivision Regulations. He said the plan had gone to the Conservation Commission for review and would be reviewed again for final approval (of the wetland crossing) at their next meeting.

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Zohdi and the Town’s Engineer jointly review = the plan. He asked that Mr. Zohdi discuss the concerns of the abutter (at 11 Kennedy Drive). Mr. Zohdi said he would review. He said they proposed to help some= of the drainage problems on K= ennedy Drive and would be meeting with Mr. Gowan and = the Town’s Highway Road Agent. Mr. Scanzani also wanted Mr. Zohdi to review the area where Kennedy Drive crossed Old Gage Hill Road= North. Mr. Zohdi said he would review. He said they already addressed the problem at Kennedy, but would be glad to re= view the other area with Mr. Gowan and the Town’s engineer. He requested that the Board accept= the waivers for consideration: 1) Section 11.04, c,1 – building envelopes= for lots 12.253-2 & 3 not being in required dimension; 2) Section 11.11,b,2 well radius of lot 12-253-3 to be located within the 15-foot building setba= ck (but within the lot); 3) Appendix I, bb & dd – intersection construction standards and cross sections.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Collins)To acc= ept for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.04,c,1 – building envelope.=

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept for consideration, the waiver to Section 11.11,b,2 – well radius.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept for consideration, the waiver to Appendix I, bb,1 & dd – intersecti= on standards and cross sections.

VOTE:

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

The plan will be sent to Stantec (Town’s Engineer) for review.

The plan was date specified to the September 18, 2006 meeting.

Map 28 Lot 7-175-1 – Sw= eren, John – Marsh Road – Special Permit for WCD Crossing for driveway to connect dwelling to garage/barn

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. Scanzani summarized t= he applicant’s request.

Mr. John Sweren informed = that the house and garage/barn were proposed and not currently existing. Mr. Culbert asked if the lot had b= een before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (‘ZBA’). Mr. Sweren answered yes. Mr. Scanzani said the variance was granted on Septe= mber 13, 2004. Mr. Sweren = said there was a prospective buyer who wanted to construct a home and a 34ftx34ft structure to be used both as a barn and garage.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the proposed. Mr. McNamara was concerned with not knowing where the house would be located and what size the garage/barn would be. Mr. Scanzani noted there was a WCD, not wetland, crossing. Mr. Gowan asked if the well had be= en drilled. Mr. Sweren answered = no.

Mr. Scanzani asked when t= he Planning Board grant the subdivision. Mr. Sweren was unsure. Ms. Ouellette noted that the plan had the Department of Environmental Services number dat= ed January 12, 2005. Mr. Gowan said he would meet with = Mr. Sweren to review further.

Mr. Scanzani suggested da= te specifying the plan. Ms. Ouel= lette questioned if the Board had to accept the plan for consideration prior to d= ate specifying it. Mr. Scanzani s= aid it would be date specified and come in as a new plan.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 7, = 2006 meeting.

Map 38 Lot 1-110 - Pacheco, St. Pierre – Sherburne Road – Proposed 2-L= ot Subdivision for resubmittal due to expiration of original approval

Mr. Scanzani said the ori= ginal approval had expired, therefore the applicant had resubmitted.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the submittal with the Board and noted that they had received approval with conditions. One condition was to drill a well = on parcel 1-110, which was done.= Mr. Zohdi noted that every conditi= on for approval had been done and believed Mr. Gowan had checked everything and was satisfied. Mr. Gowan said whe= n the applicant came in to have the plan recorded, it was just past the six-month period. He said the thing tha= t was different about this (from other re-approvals) was that some of the conditi= ons were already met and didn’t need to be part of the re-approval.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept the plan for consideration <= /o:p>

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept, for consideration, all the waivers as they existed in the original subdivision approval.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara felt the Board should either follow the regulation to accept waive= rs over two meetings, or get rid of it all together. Mr. Culbert noted that the waivers= had already been through that process.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked if there had been any material change to the lot or the circ= umstances of the surrounding. Mr. Zohdi= answered no; except the well had been drilled.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ap= prove the waivers as they existed in the original application.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To appro= ve the plan with the following conditions: 1) no further subdivision of lots 1-1= 10 or 1-110-1 may occur; 2) no expansion of house on lot 1-110-1 may occur; = 3) any new expansion or rebuilding of house of lot 1-110 or 1-110-1 must occur outside of Wetland Conservation District.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 0) The motion carried. <= /p>

Map 29 Lot 7-45 – Charaka, LLC – Atwood Road – Proposed Site Plan of 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center for Public Discussion

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. Mr. Scanzani said the plan was bef= ore the Board for discussion, but the abutters were notified.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates reviewed the plan with the Board for discussion.

Mr. McNamara, who is also= a member of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (‘ZBA’), informed that= the plan had gone before the ZBA. Given the fact that the ZBA had a lot of discussion and took a strong stand regar= ding the plan, he felt he should step down.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara then stepped down.

Mr. Zohdi indicated that = neither he nor the applicant had a problem with Mr. McNamara remaining on the Board. Dr. Srilatha Kodali introduced her= self, discussed her medical background and explained the reason for seeking to ex= pand the medical building.

Mr. Zohdi said the applic= ant had gone before the ZBA; the ZBA wanted comments from the Conservation Commissi= on. They had appeared in front of the Conservation Commission and held a joint meeting on the site; the final res= ult was the granting of a variance (with conditions) (Case #2348). He said a full drainage study and = design will be done and presented to the Board and the Town’s engineer for review. He said all the condi= tions from the ZBA will be added to the plan and the desires of the Conservation Commission will be met. He sa= id the whole building would be a doctor’s office and health center. Mr. Zohdi said he had spoken with = the Fire Department and was working with them regarding a fire cistern location.

Mr. Domenico said there w= as a note that said the elevation wouldn’t exceed 15-feet, and questioned the height of the back of the building. Mr. Zohdi said the height was measured from the street level. The Fire Department will also review.

Mr. Scanzani questioned w= here the water from the catch basin went. Mr. Zohdi said there was a series of catch basins that connected all= the way to Beaver Brook. He has a= ll the information regarding such. <= /p>

Mr. Dunne asked if the me= dical building would also be a walk-in center.&n= bsp; Dr. Kodali said she hadn’t thought of it being an urgent care center; for the Town’s size she felt it would be too much. Mr. Dunne asked if the fire lane w= ent into Livingston Road. Mr. Zohdi said the Fire Department wanted the fire lane to go half way to the back of the building and on the northeast side the lane would come half way. Fire access would be able to be ac= cessed from four sides. There was a = brief discussion regarding the importance of Dr. Kodali being able to access vehi= cles from the front of the proposed building for those patients who were unable = to get into the building on their own. Mr. Gowan said as part of the discussion with the Fire Chief is he wanted to minimize the incursion of the fire lane into the Wetland Conserva= tion District (‘WCD’). He said the Fire Chief was considering some alternatives, which would be refle= cted on the plan.

Mr. Domenico asked if the building could be turned (pivoted) to get it out of the WCD. Mr. Zohdi said if he pivoted the building he wouldn’t comply with the height requirements. He explained that as part of the approval condition they would have a mitigation area for the 590SF incursion into the WCD. The existing bu= ilding would be taken down. Dr. Koda= li will temporarily re-locate during construction.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road said the plan was scary and the drainage pipe (to the catch basin) was the ‘life blood’ to his home. He said the area floods. Mr. Scanzani said the Board understood the issue regarding flooding and the Town Engineer would have to review. Mr. Grant said the project as proposed would substantially increase the chances= of his home being flooded. Mr. Scanzani noted that pre- and post-development would have to remain the same. Mr. Grant said during t= he site walk there was a heated discussion regarding what areas would flood. He said by the end of the year the= area may be in a flood plane (when the new maps come out) based on recent storm events. He said Tony’s = Brook started up by the power line, but with the developments during the last twe= nty five years in the area all drain into the brook. He reiterated it was a scary plan.= Mr. Grant believed there were other areas in Town where the build= ing could go, but not as proposed. He wanted the Board to consider where the septic would go. He said FEMA advised him the build= ing should possibly be built with a first floor that was ‘floodable’. Mr. = Grant was against the size of the building at this site and felt it was a danger = to him. He asked the Board to lo= ok after his interest and home. = He said during the site walk he was told that he had a big problem and it wasn’t up to the applicant to fix it.

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = Board allow the plan to be sent to the Town’s Engineer for review. He was hoping to submit the plan in September and wanted the Board to walk the site. Mr. Scanzani discussed the problem= s with the pipe to the catch basin. = Mr. Zohdi said they would do everything possible to resolve the existing proble= m; but didn’t know if they could solve such. He said they would not add to the existing problem.

Mr. McManus said he only = counted eighteen spaces for the building and questioned if it would be sufficient.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Zohdi said he would review.

Mr. McNamara returned to = the Board.

Map 8 Lot 9-64 – Ivers, Timothy – 96 Windham= Road – Seeking guidance of the Planning Board regarding a reduction in the pavement width of Ivers La= ne

Mr. Culbert was out of th= e room for this discussion. Mr. Dada= k was appointed to vote with regard to this matter (while Mr. Culbert was out of = the room).

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had already approved the subdivision plan with a regular width road serving four houses that wouldn’t be extended. He said issue was whether the Board should reduce the pavement, which would reduce the impact to the Wetland Conservation District and have a mild slope reduction. He said the Board had recently been comfortable with 22-foot wide pavement.&nb= sp; This would be a minor change done in the field; the as-builts would = then be changed.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dadak)To acce= pt, for consideration, a change in the approved plan to reduce the pavement width= to twenty-two feet. <= /u>

VOTE:

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

Mr. Domenico asked if the Town’s easement (from the centerline) would be impacted. Mr. Gowan said it wouldn’t be impacted at all; there would only be less pavement. He said there was a letter submitt= ed by the Conservation Commission dated August 25, 2005 requesting the reduced pavement width. Mr. McNamara asked if = the other items in the letter from Conservation were overlooked. Mr. Gowan reviewed the letter and believed the items did occur.

MOTION:

(Domenico/McNamara) To = approve the pavement reduction to twenty-two feet.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert returned to the Board.

Map 42 Lot 10-18 & 31 = 211; Advanced Investments, LLC – 31 Hillcrest Lane – Proposed 24-Unit Senior Housing

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Sean Harrington, Adva= nced Investments, LLC, provided the Board with a brief summary of the proposed S= enior Housing project. Mr. David Jo= rdan, SFC Engineering Partnership, Inc. further described the proposed project. He felt one of the unique aspects = of the project was the storm water controls being proposed. They are planning to use porous pa= vement for the driveway as well as numerous rain gardens and open treatment swales. Mr. Jordan said they would like t= o get into greater detail when they brought the plan back to the Board. He said along with the application= , a list of waivers that were submitted; most of which were due to the manner in which the storm water is being handled.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n would be forwarded to Stantec (Town’s Engineer) for review.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 7, = 2006 meeting.

Map 16 Lot 13-84 – New England Pentecostal Ministries – Gage Hill Road/Route 38 – Prop= osed 2-Lot Subdivision

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates discussed the proposed 2-lot subdivision with the Board. He said there was approximately six acres. He explained that the = church wanted to subdivide a lot to do improvements to the church. He said there were a couple of ite= ms missing from the plan at this time (i.e. cell phone tower), but they would = be added. The soil and environme= ntal data was done by Gove Environmental. Test pits have been done and reviewed by the Town Health Officer. There will be one waiver requested= for well radius; the radius will be within the boundary, but outside the setback.

Mr. McNamara questioned i= f the lot line adjustment done approximately a year ago had anything to do with t= he current proposal. Mr. Zohdi answered no; he was simply providing history information. Mr. McNamara believed part of the discussion (for the lot line adjustment) dealt with ‘no further development’ of the lot. Mr. Zohdi said they weren’t developing that portion of the parcel.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = daycare was running. Bishop Stanley C= hoate (who was seated with Mr. Zohdi) answered yes. Mr. Culbert asked if there were le= ss than fifty people. Bishop Cho= ate answered yes. Mr. Scanzani as= ked if the state approval number was new or from when the addition (daycare) was approved. Mr. Zohdi said the = number was just received, and would confirm tomorrow.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the= re was any change-of-use that may require additional septic. Mr. Zohdi answered no; they weren’t requesting any expansion of the currently approved plan.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the waiv= er request for well radius.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said the pla= n would be sent to the Town’s Engineer for review. He noted that the wells for the ho= mes on St. Margaret’s Drive were located in the front. Mr. Zohdi said to the best of his ability, he would try to locate all the existing wells and leach beds.

Mr. McNamara asked how mu= ch of the proposed lot was wet. Mr.= Zohdi said there was no wetland or Wetland Conservation District.

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Zo= hdi to submit the waiver request in writing. Mr. Zohdi said he would submit to Mr. Gowan tomorrow.

Mr. Culbert read aloud a portion of the Board meeting minutes from January 13, 2005 ‘Mr. Cul= bert said it was known that St. Margaret’s Drive was a bad road and if in = the long term plans the applicant saw subdivision, they would have a hard time. Bishop Choate understood. He said developme= nt was not an issue and had no problem with the Board placing a restriction regard= ing building.’ Bishop C= hoate said that was in reference to the land they got as a donation. Mr. Culbert said he was referring = to the total lot and didn’t understand how it could be misconstrued. Mr. Zohdi recalled the discussion = and said circumstances changed a little and the church needed money from the subdivision to do improvements to the church. They weren’t looking to make money. Mr. Culbert said they committed not to subdivide. M= r. Zohdi said the church was complying with the regulations.

Mr. Scanzani asked that Mr. Gowan research the prior approval for any conditions. Mr. Gowan said he had researched and there were no conditions. He said the Board didn’t typ= ically send one-lot subdivisions to engineering review. Mr. Scanzani felt this should be reviewed based on the sensitivity of the area.

The plan was date specified to the September 7, 2006 meeting.

&= nbsp;

Map 22 Lot 7-273 – Dexter, Michael – 28 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site Plan Review to allow car sales on an existi= ng commercially zoned lot – 25 spaces proposed

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne)To accep= t the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Michael Dexter said h= e had been selling cars at the location for approximately ten – eleven years and was asked by the Town to come in an do a site plan because it wasn̵= 7;t legally a car lot.

Mr. Scanzani asked how ma= ny cars were proposed to be sold from the space.&n= bsp; Mr. Dexter said there would be five.

Mr. Culbert asked how the proposed fit with the Town’s zoning for used car lots. He recalled in 1998 the Town voted= that car lots would only be in Commercial Zone 1,2,3 & 4 and couldn’t = be closer than 2000feet apart. M= r. Gowan said when the application came in he checked the linear distance from what he believed to be the nearest car lot and it measured 2104 feet away.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He received a call that made him w= onder if he was correct with his assumption.&nbs= p; He said he researched the minutes from the public hearings and discu= ssed how measurements were taken. = He also noted that there was a business closer than 2000feet and had to find o= ut if they qualified as a legal car dealership. He believed Mr. Dexter may need to request a variance because of such. With regard to the measurement/distance of the other company, Mr. Go= wan believed there was a strong case that the applicant’s proposal would = be challenged.

Mr. Culbert recalled the = zoning stating it was only on Route 38 and ended at Atwood Road. Mr. Gowan said it was clearly with= in the Business District. Mr. Scanza= ni said typically for car sales there were some issues the Board made sure to consider (i.e. wetlands, runoff) and suggested that the Board walk the site. Mr. McNamara questioned= if the plan should be held in abeyance until it was determined if the applicant needed a variance.

Mr. Domenico said he woul= d like some clarity regarding the plan because the set submitted was difficult to review. An additional plan was handed out for the Board to view.

A site walk was scheduled= for September 9, 2006, 8am; abutters are invited to= the site walk. The plan was date speci= fied to the September= 18, 2006 meeting.

Map 39 Lot 1-55 – LRL Development of Pelham/Leverone & Associates – Sherburne Road – Proposed 34 = Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Mr. Culbert stepped out. =

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.

In Mr. Gowan’s opinion, the plan met all the qualifications for acceptan= ce.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

(6-0-= 0) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= was out of the room for this motion.

Mr. Scanzani said he woul= d like the Board to open the plan submitted by LRL Development of Pelham/Gerniglia, David & Lisa at the same time since they abutted one another, but keep = them separate. There was no object= ion by either the Board or the applicants. See below for discussion regarding the two plans.

Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/Gerniglia, David & Lisa – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housing and See= king Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Mr. Culbert returned.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Collins) To ac= cept the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani said he want= ed the Board to review the two projects separately even though they were abutting = one another. Initially there was = a plan to combine the roadways and share some of the amenities on the site and ask= ed that the Board consider those items at the same time. Mr. Gowan said one of the shared amenities would be a community water system owned by Pennichuck Water.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the two site plans to the Board. They were proposing 32 units for l= ot 1-53 (on 12.54 acres) and 34 units and a clubhouse for lot 1-55. Mr. Zohdi showed the wetland areas= and noted the soil was classified by Gove Environmental Services. He then reviewed the proposed egre= ss (and Wetland Conservation District crossing) and where emergency vehicles could = gain access to both projects. He n= oted that Pennichuck Water would be the custodian of the water system.

Mr. Scanzani felt the Boa= rd should look at possibly accessing the proposed project through Pelham Veterans Memorial Park (‘PVMP’). Mr. Cul= bert said a few years ago, obtaining access through PVMP was turned down by the voters. He felt the Veterans = should be asked before a lot of work went into the plan. Mr. Gowan said any change to PVMP = would need to go to Town vote. If i= t was an option the Board wanted to pursue, Mr. Gowan said he would discuss the options with the owners, owner’s engineer and the Veterans.

Mr. Dunne asked if there = were any plans to add an additional club house to the other parcel. Mr. Zohdi said they would be glad = to listen to the Board’s suggestions.&n= bsp;

Mr. McNamara reviewed the= plan and didn’t like the way it was set up. He felt it was too dense for the site.

The plans were date speci= fied to the September 18= , 2006 meeting.

Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148 & 149 – Spaulding Hill Developm= ent, LLC/Montbleau, Roger – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road – Propo= sed 24-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He explained that three parcels of= land owned by two different owners were combined to make the proposed subdivision. They will have t= wo community wells with Pennichuck. All the lots comply with the Town’s Zoning. Mr. Zohdi provided a summary of the proposed plan.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the= waiver requests. The first being a w= aiver to Section 12.03 to not provide a traffic impact analysis. He felt there was probably a study= in the Town’s files that was recently done and would be accurate. Mr. Scanzani said, from the standp= oint of any intersection improvements needed on Sherburne Road, the subdivision wou= ld have to take part in such. Mr. Zohdi said they would pay their fair share. Mr. Scanzani read the second waiver request, which was from Appendix I,dd (cross-sections). Mr. Zohdi explained they had a lit= tle cut to get up to Marie Ave= nue, but 90% of the road would be done with the grade.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 12.03 for the traffic impact analysis.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara)To ac= cept, for consideration, the waiver for Appendix I,dd (cross-sections).

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan suggested that = the Board may want to wait to walk the site until after a full presentation.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 18= , 2006 meeting. After this presentat= ion, the Board will schedule a site walk.

DISCUSSION

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & 221 – Harris, George Jr, George I= II & John – 71 Ledg= e Road – Public Discussion for Conceptual Review of Proposed Subdivision

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates reviewed the plan with the Board. He said he previously appeared in = front of the Board regarding the subdivision and had walked the site with some of= the Selectmen because at one point the Board wanted road connectivity to Stonepost Road. At this point he didn’t show= any connection to Stonepost Ro= ad and wanted the Board’s input regarding such. Mr. Zohdi said a right-of-way woul= d be given to the Town (on lot 12-215) for connection to Harley Road. He said the wetlands were flagged/located and they would be requesting four crossings.

Mr. Scanzani discussed th= e fact that the voters were asked to take lot 12-214 and put it into conservation = use. He felt from a planning standpoint= it didn’t make sense to allow another cul-de-sac from Poplar Hill since there had always been discussions about connectivity. He felt the connectivity could be = made without going through 12-214 if they lost a lot. He asked what was on the other sid= e of 12-39. Mr. Zohdi said it was = Methuen, MA. Mr. Scanzani asked if there was an= y stub on that property line. Mr. Zo= hdi will research.

There was further discuss= ion regarding connection. Mr. Gow= an suggested he bring up connectivity at the next Highway Safety Committee meeti= ng scheduled for August 14, 2= 006. Mr. Domenico read aloud Article #3= 6 from the 2006 Town Ballot which asked voters if they wanted to place lot 12-214 = into conservation land (the warrant didn’t prohibit road connectivity). After further discussion the Board= indicated they wanted connectivity. Mr.= Zohdi said he would discuss with the Highway Safety Committee and the Selectmen.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

SITE WALK - September 9, 2006

Map 22 Lot 7-273 – Dexter, Michael – 28 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site = Plan Review to allow car sales on an existing commercially zoned lot – 25 spaces proposed

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS

September 7, 2006 -

1) Map 23 Lot 8-17 Spar & Spindle Girl = Scout Council – Webster Av= enue – Proposed 10-Lot Subdivision

2) Map 28 Lot 7-175-1 – Sweren, John – Marsh Road – Special Permit for WCD Crossing f= or

driveway= to connect dwelling to garage/barn

3) Map 42 Lot 10-18 & 31 – Advanced Investments, LLC – 31 Hillcrest Lane – Proposed 24-Unit Senior

Housing<= /p>

4) Map 16 Lot 13-84 – New England Pentecostal Ministries – Gage Hill Road/Rou= te 38 – Proposed 2-Lot

Subdivis= ion

September 18, 2006 -

1) Map 17 Lot 12-253 – JRS Realty, LLC – Kennedy Drive – Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision and Seeking

Special = Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossing

2) Map 22 Lot 7-273 – Dexter, Michael – 28 Old Gage Hill Road South – Limited Site = Plan Review to

allow ca= r sales on an existing commercially zoned lot – 25 spaces proposed

3) Map 39 Lot 1-55 – LRL Development of Pelham/Leverone & Associates – Sherburne Road – Proposed

34 Unit = Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

4) Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/Gerniglia, David & Lisa – Sherburne Road – Proposed

32 Unit = Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

5) Map 32 Lots 1-146, 148= & 149 – Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Montbleau, Roger – Marie Avenue

& Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 24-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage=

within t= he WCD

MINUTES &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

July 6, = 2006

MOTION:

(Ouellette/Domenico)To = approve the July 6, 2006 Planning Board minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 3) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert= , Mr. Dunne and Mr. Collins abstained. <= /span>

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Dunne/Culbert)To adjou= rn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:40 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