= Town of Pelham, NH<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>=

Pelham Conservation Commission<= /o:p>

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

MEETING OF 3/14/07 = &nb= sp; APPROVED 4/11/07

Members Present: &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; = ;

Paul Gagnon, Jay Stearns, Lisa Loosigian

Karen MacKay, Paul Dadak,

Glennie Edwards (Alt)

Chairman Paul Gagnon brought the meeting to order at <= st1:time Minute=3D"30" Hour=3D"19" w:st=3D"on">7:30 p.m.

The chairman congratulated Paul Dadak who was elected = to the Planning Board at last evening’s election. (Mr. Dadak had been an alternate a= nd representative for the Conservation Commission prior to his being officially elected to the Planning Board)

NEW BUSINESS:

Map 39 Lots 1-55 & 55-1, LRL Development of Pelham – <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">Sherburne Road – Senior Housing Complex – Expedited Dredge & Fill Permit Application

Jim Gove of Gove Environm= ental Services represented this case. Luke Hurley was suppose to represent this case but had to withdraw h= is appearance at the last minute. Joining Mr. Gove was Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates of Windham. LRL already had a dredge and fill application that came before us earlier and had been reviewed by the state = and approved. That particular wet= lands permit number was 2005-01149 and that is in the back section of this expedi= ted application that is before the Commission this evening. It was purposely placed in the bac= k of this plan so that we would be aware that this is the same project. Since that time things have change= d for this project in the sense that an additional piece of land has been purchas= ed and allows for an access, still to come in off Sherburne Road. It reduces the impact on the wetla= nds significantly said Mr. Gove. = On February 21^st, a letter was sent to Doctor Richardson requesting= that the existing application be amended due to a reduction of wetland impact. This does not necessarily apply to= the expedited application that is before the Commission this evening said Mr. Gove. The letter of February = 21^st is not related to the application before us; this is a new expedited application and has another lot number said Mr. Gove. This had to be filed as a new appl= ication because of the purchase of this additional land (map/lot 55-54). It is a modification of the LRL pr= oject and had to be filed as a new application. The changes that had been requested under the February 21^{st
letter had significant wetland crossings. The purchase of this new parcel was=
done
to allow less impact than previously planned.}

The new expedited impact = is 2,706 sq. ft. This plan shows what = is going to be retained from the original application in order to access the a= reas where the wells are located. = The wells are out of the wetlands but the crossing is needed for the installati= on of the utilities. Chairman Ga= gnon asked if Mr. Gove remembered what the first application had for an impact a= nd said this new application significantly reduces the impact to the wetlands dramatically. Mr. Zohdi said = that the original application was shy of 10,000 sq. ft. of impact. Mr. Gagnon said the 1^st impact was close to 1 acre in size.

Member MacKay asked about= the road that connects from the subdivision to the well. Mr. Gove answered that there is a = need for a narrow road that crosses the wetland to access where the wells are located. The wells are actual= ly outside the WCD said Mr. Gove. That particular crossing has already been approved by way of the first applicati= on submitted to DES Wetlands Bureau said Mr. Gove. Member MacKay also asked about the location of the septic system, that the plan was not clear as to their locations. Mr. Zohdi indicate= d that the systems will be located between the buildings.

Chairman Gagnon questione= d the direction of the water flow. = He said at one point it says that the water is flowing across Sherburne Road, and then flows west= to east to the beaver pond to the east and then flows down to Beaver Brook und= er Mammoth Road. He questioned the information on t= he plan that stated that there is a 73 foot culvert that flows from south to n= orth and will be maintained by the installation of an 18” RCP with a rip r= ap out to eliminate erosion. The direction of the flow from south to north was an error and the language wil= l be corrected. There are places w= here the water does actually flow south to north for short distances then turns = to the east to the beaver pond. = This appears understandable once the grading was explained by Mr. Gove.

Chairman Gagnon questione= d about retaining the snowmobile trails that exist on the property presently. The trail connects from PVMP and a= cross Sherburne Road to the Merriam Conservation area and to this new parcel. Mr. Zohdi acknowledged that the tr= ail runs through the center of this development. He stated that he had spoken with = Mr. Bob Lamoreaux of the Trail’s Committee at one of the Planning Board meetings and a stipulation of the Planning Board for acceptance of this development was to accommodate the trail system in another area on this par= cel.

Chairman Gagnon asked Mr.= Gove if he knew what the square footage of the impact was to the WCD on the new plan. Mr. Gove did not know.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Both agreed that the impact to the wetland was more like 6,000 s.f. whereas the impact on the first plan submi= tted was in the vicinity of 40,000 s.f. Mr. Zohdi said his client plans to= do an adult community project and that requirement (54-1) is 10 acres. Mr. Gagnon asked Mr. Zohdi what he planned to do with lot number 1-54. Mr. Zohdi said this is a 10 acre lot. His client, Mr. Meisner plans to d= o an adult community preliminary plan. Mr. Zohdi also said that economy dictates – and Mr. Zohdi was asked to prepare a preliminary plan.

Member MacKay asked about= putting the road in where the new purchase/parcel had been gained to avoid crossing= the wetland completely. Mr. Zohdi= said no matter what they do/plan, they have to have a way out. Mr. Gagnon said that the adjacent = parcel is Veteran’s Memorial Park.

MOTION: (Stearns/MacKay) to approve the mi= nimum impact expedited dredge and fill application. Also to correct the language that = the flow of water shall read west to east and not south to north.

VOTE: 6-0 in favor.

The actual signatures wil= l be applied to the application once it has been corrected said Mr. Gagnon.

Map 35 Lots 10-320, 321 & 322 - Advanced Spa & Pool Corp. – Bridge Street/NH Route 38 – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 12,= 400 s.f. Mixed Use Commercial Building which will require a Dredge & Fill Permit. The request will be to fill approximately 2300 s.f. of wetlands directly adjacent to Route 38 for construction of a detention pond

Joseph Maynard of Benchmark Engineering represents this case. A site walk was conduct= ed by the Conservation Commission and Mr. Maynard back in January. The dredge and fill is needed in o= rder that a detention pond may be created within the WCD. Because of the restraints of this = parcel there weren’t any other options to consider for construction for the drainage. There is ledge in t= he back and wetlands at the lower edge of the site.

Mr. Gagnon said that Conservation members talked these= over and sent emails back and forth about the constrictions of this property and said the frustration on our part is that the site is so heavily developed t= hat there are no degrees of freedom: (1) We can’t move the detention pond= out of the wetland, (2) We can’t create more wetlands, (3) We can’t take uplands and protect them. We can’t even take the roof run-off and put it into an underground syste= m that would keep it from getting into the retention pond so that the retention po= nd could be made smaller. Mr. Ga= gnon made it clear that he was not against this proposal, that it had been a good business for the town and to move it towards another site is probably a good thing. He acknowledged the reduction in parking spaces that was a compromise with the planning board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Maynard said he did not necess= arily agree with the Planning Board’s ordinance for requiring one parking s= pot for every 100 s.f. when every other town has a requirement for 4 ½ f= or every 1000 s.f. He also said = this business is not a high traffic type of business. Much of his present business is big ticket items for show room displays; a smaller building for this type of tr= ade wouldn’t be feasible for his client he said.

Chairman Gagnon talked about the use of pervious pavem= ent that had been discussed on the site walk.&= nbsp; Mr. Maynard said the volume that would be required in order to susta= in the run-off to meet the requirements of the town’s ordinance would ha= ve to be a very large underground storm water system created under the pavemen= t. He said he would loose his septic = area if an underground system were to be installed because it would leach into t= he septic fields because of it being at the same elevation. Member MacKay said she had a conce= rn with the steepness of the slope between the proposed building and parking a= rea toward the wetland. She felt = that the slope was between a 60 or 70 degree slope and looked like a 20-ft drop. Mr. Maynard said they would be creating a retaining wall off the edge of the parking area, including a guard rail installation on the top of the retaini= ng wall to prevent anyone from going beyond that edge. He said the fill that is on this l= ot has been in place about 35-40 years, since the plaza was built as that is where= the fill came from and it is pretty sandy soil and it has compacted well. Mr. Maynard said that they plan to create a low spot in the parking area that will include a catch-basin with a deep sump to accommodate the drainage.&nbs= p; Two basins are proposed: one in the middle of the parking lot and a second basin that he pointed out on = the plan. The water will not be g= oing down that slope; it will be directed from the basins through a pipe and fin= ally into a retention pond. The cu= lvert that goes under route 38 is a 24” RCP. Member Stearns didn’t want t= o see this area stressed and compared the site to the plaza that does have wet is= sues in the parking area when there are large amounts of rainfall. The impact to the WCD is about 10,= 000 s.f. said Mr. Maynard.

Member Stearns and Chairman Gagnon had recently attend= ed a seminar concerning impacts to wetlands and WCD. The issue that they were referring= to was mitigation for impacts over 10,000 s.f. and doesn’t apply in this case. Chairman Gagnon said there were 3 options for mitigation where wetla= nds have been impacted, and now there is a 4^th option, passed last August, where the developer/owner can contribute to a regional fund and the= regional funds have been set up by drainage area and then those funds are pooled and used to purchase land that might be more significant rather than having a little spot here and there. T= here would be a small fine if the developer/owner couldn’t mitigate on the property. Chairman Gagnon tri= ed a final suggestion to Mr. Maynard which was if the land-owner could add some acreage from abutting land. I= t was explained that this parcel is owned solely by Mr. Neal Fineman and the adja= cent land is co-owned by him and his sister.&nb= sp; Mr. Maynard did not think this was possible because of the co-owners= hip. Also, the proposed development is a lease agreement with Mr. Fineman and the proprietor of Advanced Pool and Spa. Chairman Gagnon asked ab= out the possibility of Mr. Fineman purchasing more land on the backside of this parcel and be set aside as protected uplands.

MOTION: (Stearns/MacKay) To send a letter to the Planning Board with a negative opinion to not supp= ort this project based on the fact there are no options to mitigate wetlands lo= ss or WCD loss. The letter to in= clude the following mitigation suggestions: (1) – Use of pervious pavement;= (2) – Create an underground storm water system to accommodate roof run-of= f; (3) – Purchase adjacent land; (4) Further reduce parking spaces (presently plan has 58 which is a reduction from the town standards of 156)= .

VOTE: 6-= 0

Map 17 Lot 12= -253 - JRS Realty, LLC – Ke= nnedy Drive – Proposed 4 Lot Subdivisions and Seeking Special Permit for Wetland and WCD Crossing -

This case has been withdr= awn from this hearing this evening. It’s unknown when it will be = rescheduled.

Map 21 Lot 3-101 - 32-34 Tenney Road Developme= nt, LLC – Discussion of the possibility of constructing a new house<= /o:p>

Peter Zohdi of Edward Herbert Associates represented t= his case. Presently this is 2 lots. The owner/developer wis= hes to make this one lot with approximately 7 ½ acres. Member Mrs. Edwards recused herself because she lives a short distance from this parcel of land. There are wetland issues on this p= arcel and a site walk was planned for Saturday, March 17^th at 8 a.m. Mr. Zohdi said that he and his cli= ent had no objections to Mrs. Edwards coming to the site walk or sitting on the board.

Approved Minutes of 2/21/= 07.   VOTE: 4-0-2 (Dadak and Loosigian abstain= ed)

WALK-IN ITEMS= : Chairman Gagnon said he would be attending the Planning Board meeting on Monday, March 19, 2007 and presenti= ng the proposal to purchase 37 acres of land on Sherburne Road from the Nadeau family. He is looking for a f= avorable recommendation from the Planning Board to forward to the selectmen to purch= ase the Nadeau property which we have already reviewed and voted on at our meet= ing. A public notice by the selectmen w= ill be published in the local newspaper on March 27^th. A second public hearing is schedul= ed for April 3^rd. This la= nd abuts the 110 acre parcel that the Conservation Commission recently purchas= ed from the Frederic Cutter Merriam family. The closing is scheduled for April= 6^th.

MOTION: (Edwards/Dadak) To go into non-public session to review the possibil= ity of acquiring a parcel of land per RSA 91-A-A: 3.          VOTE: 6-0 in favor.

MOTION: = To seal minutes of public session. (Edwards/Dadak)      VOTE: 6-0 in favor.

MOTION: = To adjourn meeting – 9:3= 0 p.m. (Edwards/Dadak)    &nbs= p;    VOTE: 6-0 in favor

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

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;               &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary