PB Minutes 01-18-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

January 18, 2007

The Chairman Bill Scanzan= i 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, Ken Dunne, Alternate Tom Collins, Planning Director Jeff Gowan=

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Robin Bo= usa, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Alternate Paul Dadak, Alternate James McManu= s, Alternate Bob Yarmo

Mr. Collins was appointed to vote during the e= vening’s proceedings.

PUBLIC HEARING - Planning Board to make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to place the follo= wing roads on the Warrant to be accepted as Town roads: Empire Road; Greenmeadow Drive; Longview Drive (portion owned by Bob Peterson); Quail Run Lane<= /st1:address>.

Mr. Gowan discussed the roads being proposed f= or the ballot. He said based upo= n the documentation the Planning Department was satisfied that Greenmeadow Drive and Longview Drive (the Bob Peterson po= rtion +4 - +130) were ready for the Board to consider recommending them to the Selectmen. He said Empire Roa= d and Quail Run Lane had a couple items left to resolve. Quail Run Lane has an off-site improvement not yet completed. Town Counsel (John Ratigan) recomm= ends placing two warrant articles for roads; 1) to accept Greenmeadow Drive and Longview Drive; 2) to authorize the Selectmen to accept Quail = Run Lane and Empire Road when the off-site improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board when a recommendation is made at a Plann= ing Board meeting. The Board disc= ussed the recommendation.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To rec= ommend that Greenmeadow Drive and Longview Drive (portion owned by Bob Peterson - +4 - +139) be accepted.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To con= ditionally recommend acceptance of Empire Road and Quail Run Lane with the stipulati= ons outlined by Mr. Gowan (per recommendation of Attorney Ratigan).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

DISCUSSION – Update of Fire Department Impact Fee Schedule

Mr. Scanzani said if the impact fees that star= ted to be collected in 2002, it was calculated based on the best information kn= own information at the time for what a central fire station and two fire stations would cost and had not been adjusted since then. He said there was now a not to exceed price of $7.3 million for a central station. The total va= lue necessary for fire stations has been increased to $14.7 million (which incl= udes equipment for the substations). Mr. Scanzani discussed the way impact fees were calculated and said the fee per square foot should be increased to $2.56.&= nbsp; The CIP needed for the Planning Board to adopt the new fee schedule = for any new plans going forward, then the Board of Selectmen could adopt such.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed bonding fai= led if the fees could still be collected. Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. McNamara asked who calculated the figures. Mr. Scanzani said the calculations hadn’t really changed, other than the project cost and the averages relative to the assessed value of the Town.

Mr. Dunne asked if both the central fire stati= on and the two substations would be on the ballot. Mr. Scanzani said only the central station would be on the ballot. He said they only revised the schedule. Mr. Dunne asked when the two substations would be on the ballot. Mr. Scanzani didn’t know. Mr. Dunne questioned if it would be better to just have the central station and look at the substations later.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani said the original imp= act fee schedule was already collecting for substations as well. He said down the road the numbers = could be updated further, but since there were specific costs for the central fire station a fair share should be collected to pay for such. Mr. Gown asked if the substations = were set for specific years. Mr. Scanzani believed one was scheduled, but it had been pushed off to the end = of the schedule. Mr. Dunne quest= ioned if the current assessment was fair since the substations hadn’t been assessed yet. Mr. Scanzani was confident that the numbers being budgeted for substations were less than wh= at they would be when they would be constructed. Mr. Dunne just wanted people to understand the proposed plan.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To adopt/update the new fire impact fee schedule and request the Board of Selectmen to collect.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

NEW BUSINESS

Ma= p 29 Lot 7-101 – RULLO, Pasquale – 9 Highland Avenue – Special Use Permit to convert an existing Apartment Complex into a Condominium form of ownership

Mr. Collins said he planned on stepping down because he was an abutter and had an ongoing issue; however, if he did, the Board wouldn’t have a quorum. Mr. Scanzani said the application was a change-of-use (ownership) wh= ich the Board would have to approve one way or the other. He recommended that Mr. Collins re= main seated, discuss anything pertinent, and abstain from voting. Attorney David Groff, representing= the applicant didn’t object to Mr. Collins remaining on the Board.

Attorney Groff said the applicant was requesti= ng a Special Use permit to change the apartments to condominiums. A packet of documents had been sub= mitted that contained a plan showing the location of the apartments, septic, leach field, well etc. There was sufficient available usable land in the event the existing system failed. The existing system had failed in = the past and had been redesigned (and built to current standards) most recently= in 2003. The system has been inspected, works properly and is expected to work properly for a number of = years.

Mr. Scanzani questioned how many buildings the= re were and the number of units. Attorney Groff said there were four buildings with a total of 46 units. The owner, Mr. Pasquale Rullo informed there were 34 – two bedroom units, 12-one bedroom unit= s and 2 studio units. Mr. Scanzani = said this case was different from those the Board had reviewed in the past becau= se of the number of units. He as= ked what would happen if one of the occupant didn’t want to purchase the unit. Attorney Groff discusse= d the process the applicant had to go through because of the number of units (thr= ough the Attorney General and the DES because of the public water supply), the f= irst step being Planning Board approval of the type of ownership. Mr. Scanzani discussed what the Bo= ard typically reviewed, and noted this application was far more complex. Attorney Groff said all the items = would be dealt with in the Condominium documents that would be reviewed by the St= ate Attorney General’s office as part of the application for sale of cond= ominium units.

Mr. Dunne asked who would draft the initial by-laws of the condominium units. Attorney Groff said he would draft the document at the time he made application to the Attorney General’s office. He said he needed approval from th= e Planning Board that the septic system was working properly. Mr. Dunne said the Board wouldn= 217;t have a guarantee of who would take care of it after approval. Attorney Groff said the only appli= cation to the Planning Board was that the system was installed properly, inspected= and that there was sufficient vac= ant available land in case the system needed to be replaced.

Mr. Gowan discussed the difference between the current application and those that came in with a new development. Because this was an existing struc= ture, Mr. Gowan didn’t believe the Board had the authority to require condo= minium documents in advance. He sugg= ested if the Board supported the request that the condominium documentation be supplied to the Planning Department for the files when it became available.= Attorney Groff discussed the reason senior housing required certain documentation, specifically due to exemptions with regard to the fair housing act; however, this type of conversion was not age restrictive it was simply a conversion of ownership which falls directly under a state statute.

Mr. Collins asked if the septic system would a= lso be a parking area. Attorney G= roff answered no. Mr. Collins aske= d if he was aware that people parked there now.= Attorney Groff said it wasn’t a parking area, but he had notic= ed that some people were parking toward Highland Avenue on the lower section. Mr. Collins said people were parki= ng in the grass close to the septic and asked if it would become a parking area.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Attorney Groff said there was no p= lan to make it a parking area. Mr. C= ollins asked if there were plans to do anything else with the exterior such as fen= cing in the dumpsters. He said he = lived directly across the street and he got a fair amount of the trash in his yard from wi= nd and animals bringing it across. Mr. Rullo said they would do something, whatever had to be done.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= accept the Special Use permit for consideration.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Collins abstained.

Mr. Scanzani said in the future the Board may = want to review the regulations for Special Permits in connection with multi-unit buildings. He questioned from= the Safety Committee standpoint, if the Board could review an updated plan. Mr. Gowan said if the Board wanted= , he would seek an opinion from the Highway Safety Committee, but it was his opi= nion that this was an existing structure and the applicant was not bound (to the= ir opinion) because of the change of ownership; anything addressed by the committee would probably be irrelevant to this specific application. He said any expansions (because it= was a commercial structure) would have to come for Planning Board review. Mr. Scanzani said normally there isn’t an issue because the Board deals with two units, but in this ca= se it is multiple units. He ques= tioned if the Board should err on the side of caution. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe = the Board had the authority to do so at this time. Mr. Gowan believed the present application in terms of the law (and the facts) was no different than a dup= lex conversion to a condex; it was simply a change of ownership. He felt the Board’s authorit= y was limited.

Mr. Dunne believed the Board should look at expanding the regulations in the future (for larger complexes), but at this= time couldn’t do anything with the current application.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To app= rove the Special Use Permit.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Collins abstained.

Attorney Groff brought the document forward for the Board to sign.

Ma= p 24 Lot 12-214 – HARRIS, George Jr, , George III & John – Stone= post Road – Public Hearing to discuss the construction of a road on a Town owned parcel for the purpose of road connectivity

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. Gowan asked if the City of Dra= cut, MA was notified. Ms. Ouellette answered no. Mr. Gowan asked = that the Dracut Building Department be notified before the plan came for a formal hearing. He said Methuen, MA should also be notified.

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates discussed the proposal with the Board. He said the project ha= d come before the Board twice. Durin= g the August 7, 2006 w= hen the concept of the subdivision was put to the Board for input there was also a discussion at that time relating to connectivity of the roadways. The proposed plan showed the propo= sed roadway coming off Poplar = Road and breaking into two cul-de-sacs. Both cul-de-sacs are under 2400 linear feet. Mr. Gospodarek said when connectiv= ity was discussed during the August 7, 2006 meeting, they then pursued how to connect to Stonepost Road and conducted surveys. It was fou= nd that the general topography would lend a roadway between 2%-6%; a concept w= as submitted to the Board. The T= own owned property was shown on the plan as well as property being proposed to = be deeded to the Town. Mr. Gospo= darek said they had requested that the Board of Selectmen review the item for connectivity and they would like the Planning Board to provide input regard= ing such connectivity.

Mr. Scanzani questioned what the plan would look like if the road connectivity didn’t occur through the Town owned parcel. Mr. Gospodarek said the plan would= look essentially the same; there was a 50-foot right-of-way near the end of the cul-de-sac with a proposed road to Stonepost Road. He said if it didn’t go through, they would show a roadway and= the lots would basically stay the same. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that the plan would stay the same except for = the connectivity through lot 12-214. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes.

Mr. McNamara asked if they were proposing a road connecting Harley Road to one of the cul-de-sa= cs. Mr. Gospodarek said they originall= y looked into such, but after doing a quick survey came to the conclusion that the elevation difference between the two sites would make it difficult to put a road connector there.

Mr. Gowan noted it was the unanimous recommendation of the Highway Safety Commi= ttee that both connections be considered.

Mr. Scanzani asked what the slopes would be at Harley. Mr. Gospodarek said the slopes wer= e in excess of 20% over approximately 200feet.&= nbsp; He said when you add the curve, it tended to make it difficult to dr= ive it. Mr. Gowan believed the combination of the curve and the slope made it a challenging stretch of road. Mr. Scanzani said it wo= uld far exceed anything the Board had allowed in the past.

Mr. Dunne asked if they were proposing the connection to Stonepost because of t= he recommendations from the Highway Safety Committee and the Police Department. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id they came before the Board on August 7, 2006 and showed the concept without the connectivity. He asked the Board’s opinion= and as part of the meeting believed the Board gave a reasonable recommendation = in favor of connectivity. At tha= t time they then started pursing the other items recommended (i.e. meetings with Highway Safety, Police, Fire, Board of Selectmen. Conservation Commission). Mr. Dunne asked = if there was a reason they were looking at a connection to Stonepost versus Harvey Road= . Mr. Gosapodarek said when they did= their survey the section near Ha= rvey Road it would be difficult to construct. Mr. Dunne asked if they were propo= sing the connection (through Stonepost) based on the recommendation of the Highw= ay Safety Committee and Police Department rather than doing both connections.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gospodarek said they were prop= osing both connections, but when the engineering was done, they found the Harley Road connection would be difficult to construct. Mr. Dunne asked what the advantage= s were to go through Stonepost versus Harvey Road. Mr. Gospodarek said the advantage was connectivity for both roads. Mr. Scanzani read aloud a letter submitted by the Highway Safety Committee who unanimously recommended conne= ctivity through Stonepost and Harley. Mr. Scanzani said the engineering showed the connectivity through Harley (20% slopes for 200feet) to not be favorable.&n= bsp; He also noted there was a petition Warrant Article to preserve the cul-de-sac at the end of Stonepost for open space which had been amended to allow connectivity through parcel 12-214 to ensure that the Town had access. Mr. Gowan said lot 12= -214 was designated as conservation land, but it didn’t preclude the connectivity from going through if the Board so determined and the Selectmen determined to lay out the road.

PUBLIC INPUT

Attorney Michael Donovan, representing the Stonepost Village Neighborhood Associatio= n, said there were approximately eighteen-twenty families living along Stonepost Road and Trailside Lane and almost every one of them were members of the association. There are 41 children living on Stonepost Road with the average being 6.5 years old. Attorney Donovan said the connectivity was of grave concern to the residents on the street. He a= sked for clarification if the proposal was being made by the developer, or wheth= er it was coming from Town officials. He understood that the development could meet the regulations without the connectivity. His clients wanted to know what would happen next with the proceedings. Mr. Scanzani said in this case, th= e parcel in question was Town owned. H= e said it was up to the Board of Selectmen to give approval to put a road through a Town-owned parcel. He said the Planning Board would make recommendation on that based on their past practi= ces of always requiring road connectivity when possible and specifically in this area of Town the Planning Board had tried to reduce drive-through (response) times for emergency access vehicles.

Mr. Gowan said he and the Town Administrator had requested Town Counsel to spell out the specific procedural steps; the application before the Board at this time is conceptual for discussion and no action would be taken by the Board other than some recommendations to the engineering firm. He was confident that the informat= ion from Town Counsel would be available at the hearing with the Selectmen. Mr. Gospodarek said a request had = been sent to the Selectmen for a public hearing to construct a road. Mr. Gowan confirmed that the action before the Selectmen was for them to take action. Mr. Gospodarek answered yes. Attorney Donovan questioned if it = was a layout petition. Mr. Gowan didn̵= 7;t believe so. Mr. Gospodarek al= so didn’t believe so. Mr. = Gowan suggested that the Town Administrator would be the best person to ask.

Attorney Donovan said his clients were present to oppose and request the Board not to recommend connectivity in this particular circumstance. He said he just became active in t= he case and his clients would participate and inform why the proposed was bad planning, bad natural resource protection and bad public safety. He believed there were some legal concerns that should be brought up and would be better suited for the Selectmen. He also had some equitable points (bordering on legal points) that he wanted the Board to th= ink about: 1) Reliance – there were regulations for temporary and permane= nt cul-de-sacs – Stonepost was approved and platted not as temporary; 2) Stonepost and the proposed development falls well within the regulations for cul-de-sac; and 3) who does the connection benefit – it appears that = the connectivity benefited the residents in the proposed development – th= ere is a constitutional prohibition in New Hampshire about putting public prope= rty to a private benefit. Attorney Donovan discussed the petition article submitted last year and was unsure if the amendment that happened at the Deliberative Session represented the pol= icy being discussed presently.

Mr. Shawn Hullihan, 39 Stonepo= st Road said his family moved to Stonepost primarily because of it being a cul-de-s= ac and no indication about an intended road through it. He said when the residents heard ne= ws of the proposed street, they went through all the procedures to get a warrant article so the Town could vote. The main concern was the trail system and to maintain the integrity of the cul-de-sac. He said a (public= safety) loop hole was inserted into the article that the residents weren’t satisfied with, but were powerless to do anything about it. The people of Pelham voted to join= the two tracts of land together. = Mr. Houlihan said the residents were surprised to hear that the Selectmen wante= d to put a road through and made him question if the people had a representative government. He understood tha= t it was the Town’s position that a road was needed for connectivity so he researched response times and according to the Fire Chief’s handbook = 6^th edition, it states that a successful fire rescue plan could be achieved if = 90% of the Town is covered by the minimum response time guideline. He didn’t believe that the eighteen residents would stop the Town from obtaining 90%. Mr. Hullihan said Pelham had no do= wntown infrastructure, but did have a commitment to preserving community (and neighborhoods) and asked the Board not to dismantle such.

Mr. Richard Torra, 79 Stonepos= t Road began by discussing the Highway Safety Committee letter and questioned who = the ‘public at large’ was. Mr. Gowan said the Police and Fire Chief are charged with protecting= the public safety of the entire resident and business community in Pelham. He said this was the worst area in= Town with regard to connectivity. = He said the Police and Fire Chiefs felt very strongly about the connection and= the number of people in the neighborhood was the reason they would want to acce= ss the quickly. He said if the proposed connection was approved, it would be very unlikely that the traffic would go from the proposed subdivision toward Stonepost because it would be= the longest way to get anyplace. = It was more likely the residents of Stonepost would go through the proposed to acc= ess Ledge Road.= Mr. Gowan was sure that the Chiefs= would discuss their opinions about the greater public good. He said some of the problems for tactical response was the ability to have more that one way in and out of a neighborhood. He said when the Board considered cul-de-sac length the longer length was determined over the objection of the Highway Safety Committee who wanted a shorter length; the longer length was decided upon (by the Planning Board) to encourage connectivity.

Mr. Torra questioned what ‘best practices’ were being referred to.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gowan believed it was in terms= of planning in general; interconnectivity and not allowing multiple cul-de-sac= s in communities is something widely accepted by the planning professionals in t= his state and across the country.

Mr. Torra asked if the Master Plan was referenced regarding connectivity. Mr. Scanzani said the Master Plan addressed open space and noted that the number one responsibility planning boards had under the state statutes was road connectivity. He said the engineer pointed out t= o the Board that the recommendation the Safety Committee wanted to Harley would require a 20% grade, which was too steep for a safe road, especially with a curve. Mr. Torra asked which statute referenced road connectivity as the number one priority. Mr. Scanzani said under the state statutes, one of the primary responsibilities of planning boards is road connectivity; it is one of the top priorities. Mr. Torra discussed public safety = and quoted Selectmen Victor Danevich as saying that the pressing need for connectivity for the Spring Street area was resolved with the Lannan Drive connection. He said no one had provided any ev= idence that the connection through Stonepost would save any time; there hadn’= ;t been any analysis done to understand if it really saved time. Mr. Torra said they wanted to prot= ect their children and reiterated that there were 42 children in the neighborho= od; average age 6.5 years old. He= said the development was done without sidewalks, but understood it was a safe neighb= orhood because it was a cul-de-sac. = He said people generally move into a cul-de-sac and assume the risks. He said people understand that tra= ffic issues are more important than fire safety and more important than some of = the issues that were cited for public safety.&= nbsp; Mr. Torra understood that the public at large are the residents. He said the residents had spoken a= nd said that their public safety issue was traffic. In terms of fire safety, Mr. Torra= said there were two fire cisterns in the neighborhood and the homes were built pursuant to updated fire code. Mr. Torra said one of their members did research and the Center for Disease Con= trol website did an analysis of safety issues and found that you’re 45% mo= re likely to die as a pedestrian than by a residential fire in the state of New Hampshire; the fatality rates were 1.23 in 100,000 people in New Hampshire = and for that same year residential fire related fatalities was 1.85 per 100,000 people (taking into account that not a lot of homes are built per fire code= and have cisterns). Mr. Scanzani questioned how many pedestrians had died in Pelham from walking on a street= (in Pelham) in the last five years. Mr. Torra didn’t have the answer, but would research and find out. He said the rate of residential fi= re fatalities in New Hampshire and increased 33% from 2000 to 2004. He said the Master Plan was important and a result from surveys done= . He said as a result from that proc= ess, the number one goal/objective of the Master Plan was to identify and protec= t the natural resources, the number two goal under transportation was relative to connectivity. He discussed so= me of the criteria that were to be considered when designing streets: 1) designed= and maintained for the comfort and safety of the residents; 2) local residential streets should be designed with the needs of children, pedestrians, and bicyclists foremost; 3) provide a well connected and interesting pedestrian network, and 4) provide convenient pedestrian access to schools, shopping, employment and develop an interconnected pathway linking cul-de-sacs with adjacent streets and neighborhoods.

Mr. Torra said with regard to natural resources, he showed the conservation are= as that were in the area and said the same developer had received an easement = to put Lannan Drive in and now there was a proposal to give a piece of Town owned property to facilitate development. He said it was clear that the conservation lands provided an area for wildlife to transverse the area, but a road in the middle of two conservati= on areas didn’t make sense. He questioned why the Town was helping the developer. Mr. Scanzani said the developer didn’t need the connectivity to do the subdivision. Mr. Torra questioned why the issue= was being decided before a formal plan was submitted. Mr. Scanzani said the developer requested the Planning Board to give direction to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Torra questioned why that couldn’t be done once a formal plan was submitted because the Town wo= uld be in a better position, with more information, to decide the impacts of the road connectivity to the entire area. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would decide later in the evening.

Attorney Donovan believed the Board needed to think about the fact that planning loo= ked forward and try to accomplish the goals and objectives in the future. He said where you run into problem= s and controversy (and sometimes litigation) is when you try to retrofit what the planning objectives are into situations that already exist, which is what appeared to happening with the proposed.&n= bsp; He said the Board only had the opinions from Police, Fire and public safety people who would always say they want to get everywhere as fast as t= hey could. He felt the Board shou= ld ask if there was any scientific study. <= /span>He said the Chair of the Selectmen said at a public meeting that the connectiv= ity problem had been solved when Lannan Drive went through. He felt the Board needed to think = about if there was a real problem that was worth what was proposed to be retrofit= ted in the neighborhood. He didn’t know what the urgency was.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Board had looked at connectivity in this area for the past twenty years. He sai= d one criterion had always been to have 90% of the Town served under the NFPA standards, bu= t the fact was, the Town was not there yet and there are a lot of people not serv= ed per the standards. Mr. Scanza= ni said this area was specifically one of the worst, the Planning Board recogn= ized it as a problem and the former Fire Chief (while trying to balance needs) h= is priority was to have a sub-fire station in this area because he couldn̵= 7;t get to that whole area of Town in a quick manner. He said Stonepost probably got ser= vice from Methuen quicker than from Pelham based on the route. He said there was a serious time constraint and anything that could be done to take seconds off such would be important.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the plan and didn’t feet that the applicant had sho= wn an adequate open space requirement for a subdivision. Mr. McNamara said it would seem to= make more sense if lots 221-19 & 20 were included. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant ma= y want to think about leaving the area as permanent open space; and the proposed c= ul-de-sac that was there to serve two lots and whose frontage was solely on the two l= ots just to get them there didn’t meet the requirements in this area.

Mr. McNamara said he had always been strongly in favor about connecting where possible. He said Attorney Do= novan was right about retrofitting, but he said 90% of all planning was retrofitting. He said during = the August meeting the Board wanted to see if the Harley connection was possible because, with regard to fire and police response from the center of Town, it was quicker; however, that connection didn’t look feasible. He said the developer said they co= uld do the plan with, or without the connection.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara said the one thing that gave him pause was how the init= ial Stonepost road cul-de-sac was labeled.&nbs= p; He said that might change his mind in terms of the connectivity issu= e if it became a significant sticking point.&nb= sp; Mr. Gowan said the Board didn’t require (and couldn’t re= call ever requiring) cul-de-sacs being designated on a plan as either temporary = or permanent. He said typically a cul-de-sac is determined to be permanent when they cannot proceed because of steepness of grade or the presence of wetlands; the Board had done a better= job over the past 5-6 years in being sure that cul-de-sacs that terminate at the edge of property boundaries actually can be continued, and evidence provided that the connection is practical. He said the points raised are good, but noted that the whole process= had a long way to go before approval. He said if the Board didn’t allow cul-de-sacs because neighbors didnR= 17;t want them to go through, then there would be no road connectivity in Town.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the Board had to consider = the desire of residents in the area against the Town’s fire and police experts with regard to what they feel is the greater good; all of which is complicated by the conservation aspect.&nb= sp;

Mr. McNamara said he agreed, and discussed the fact that when the development o= n Longview came in, = both he and his neighbors didn’t want it developed because it was a great cul-de-sac, but it was developed. He said if the connection occurred, it didn’t seem that it wou= ld save a whole lot of response time from the center of Town, but what it did = was provide an access from Led= ge Road to Methuen as well as another point of entry for fire and police. Mr. Gowan didn’t know the sp= ecific answer, but believed the Fire and Police Chiefs would give specifics at the Selectmen’s meeting.

Mr. Dunne asked if anyone reviewed connecting to Trailside Avenue as an option. Mr. Scanzani said the road length = would be four times the length through conservation land. He said the Board understood the i= ssue of conservation and said just because Town land was currently designated as such, it didn’t preclude the Town from using the land for some other purpose. Mr. Gowan said it wa= s Town Counsel’s opinion that putting a road through didn’t require go= ing to Town Meeting. Mr. Scanzani= said to use the land differently from what it was designated would require a vote from the voters. He said no o= ne could predict what the Town’s needs would be in twenty years.

Ms. Deb Waters, Forestry Committee member, said she was involved with the purch= ase of the conservation land noted that there were deed restrictions for it.

Mr. McNamara asked how the design would change with, and without the connection. Mr. Gospodarek sa= id if they went with the connection there would be an intersection that would hav= e to follow certain regulations. M= r. Scanzani said if there was not connectivity and the Board wanted the land at the end of the cul-de-sac as conservation land because of the number of lot= s, the cul-de-sac could be pulled back and would meet the regulations.

Mr. Gowan was unsure if there was a need for the Board to make a recommendation= to the Selectmen because direction had already been given by the Board to the engineer to design a plan that shows a connection. Mr. Scanzani said the question was= if the Board was going to change the original recommendation given to the applicant. He said information pertaining to response time, when given to the Selectmen, should also be gi= ven to the Planning Board. It was= noted that the comments were non-binding because the Planning Board didn’t = make the decision about the connectivity because it was a Town-owned parcel.

Ms. Ouellette asked if going through Town land would hold the Board back from dictating how the road would look. Mr. Scanzani said Planning Board design was the jurisdiction the Board. It was Mr. Gowan’= ;s opinion that the Planning Board had the authority to determine how a subdivision was done and how a road was laid out. Mr. Scanzani said the Board had the purview to request traffic calming. He asked if everyone was in agreement that it made sense for the two lots at the end of the second cul-de-sac to be continued as conservation la= nd for the continuance of both parcels. The Board members agreed. Mr. Gospodarek said he would ask his client.

Mr. McNamara said the Board had in general endorsed connectivity the last time = the plan (conceptually) was before them was still their opinion. He said it had been shown that the= re wouldn’t be a great deal of difference from engineering if it was, or= was not done. He would like to he= ar more evidence that would probably be forthcoming at the Selectmen’s m= eeting. He said in the absence of any other evidence, the Board had a recommendation from the Highway Safety Committee = that the connection was needed. He= said there may be some mitigating factors, but would like to hear more evidence.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had originally asked for the connectivity; there wa= s a letter from the Safety Committee and didn’t believe there was anything that changed their original position.

Mr. Gowan said regardless of which way the plan went forward, he felt it was an opportunity for the Board to take a creative look at the way the plan unfolded. He said there were = many things that the Board didn’t normally do, or require of an applicant = that was in the Board’s purview to do.&nb= sp;

Mr. Scanzani said (at the Selectmen’s meeting) he would like the owner of= lot 12-42 identified and what the connection down to Spring Street would look l= ike in that location.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the Aug= ust 18, 2006 letter from the Highway Safety Committee that recommended that the roads be re-engineered to be less straight for improved traffic calming and said if there was a connection he would be looking for that to be addressed. Mr. Gospodarek said a lot of times= road designs were dictated by the wetland pockets.

Mr. Scanzani discussed the locations where Mr. Gospodarek may want to look at t= he possibility of traffic calming. Mr. Gospodarek said the regulations currently require that roads are designed f= or 35mph and questioned if the Board was looking for them to come in with waiv= ers to the regulations to slow the traffic down. Mr. Scanzani said he wanted the op= tions reviewed. He said if the Board requested such, the tangents etc. to be adjusted, and the Board would be responsible to give the waivers. He said the Board was in a difficult position because they had to balance the community development goals against what was best for the community. Mr. Gospodarek said they would try= to help balance such for the Board. Mr. Scanzani said they were trying to work on the concerns of the residents and wanted to know what the engineering feasibilities were.

Attorney Donovon requested copies of the proposed plan. Mr. Scanzani provided him with a c= olor copy.

Ma= p 1 Lot 5-123-1 – Great North Property Management – Pelham Industrial Park/Mammoth Road – Proposed 8’x24’ expansion to existing pump room attached to Unit #1=

Mr. Don Demers of DBC Contractors and Ms. Sharon Sanbourne of Great North Prope= rty Management met with the Board to discuss the proposed 8ft.x24ft. pump room expansion. Mr. Demers said th= e Pelham Industrial Park asked to improve upon a building they ne= eded for their water filtration system. He believed the state had mandated to them that they improve upon such.

Mr. Scanzani said there was a pump room for the community well on the property. Mr. Demers said the= re was a well that currently went into a 4ft.x8ft. room that could not be maintain= ed any longer. He described how the = proposed room was designed, which left room for improvement as well as their salts.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

There was no public input.

Ms. Ouellette asked if there would be any exterior lighting. Mr. Demers said they would have ex= terior lighting at the door so it could be identified as an extension of the building. Ms. Ouellette asked= if the extension would be wood frame. Mr. Demers said it would be a masonry structure with a steel roof. Mr. Scanzani said it was a utility area. Mr. Demers said the ext= ension would match the building.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Scanzani asked if there would be any electrical on the inside. Mr. Demers said there would be a panel inside; electrical ran down the wall so = the services would be taken from the existing line. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that they w= ould be done per the Building Inspector. Mr. Gowan said the permit process is what sent the applicant to the Board. He said he would ask t= he applicant to review the plan. He recommended that the Board approve the plan.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To app= rove the plan.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Ma= p 1 Lot 5-123-1, Unit 17, 18 & 19 – Veloxion, Inc./Steve Robinson – Pelham Industrial Park/Mammoth Road – Change of Occupancy

Mr. Steve Robinson said the space would be used mostly as a manufacturing facil= ity for machine parts. Mr. Scanza= ni asked if there were any hazardous materials used in the process. Mr. Robinson answered no. Mr. Scanzani confirmed it would be aluminum and circuitry etc. M= r. Robinson answered yes.

Mr. McNamara asked if there were any by-products of the manufacturing process t= hat were hazardous or that would need special disposal. Mr. Robinson said some of the coola= nts would be handled/processed, but the inspection records had to be kept on file. Mr. McNamara questioned= if the Fire Department was aware of the change of occupancy. Mr. Gowan said any change of occup= ancy would provide the inspectors with the opportunity to review.

Mr. Dunne asked who was previously in that location. Mr. Robinson said Lancaster Synthe= sis was formerly in that location and had a chemical storage facility. Mr. Dunne asked if Veloxion would = do a lot of aluminum cutting. Mr. Robinson said they did relatively little cutting. He explained that the main purpose= of the company was making/assembling parts for military robots. Mr. Dunne asked where the company = was previously located. Mr. Robin= son said because of the current demand/time urgency this was a new operation; t= he bulk of the work was being done by a company in Massachusetts. Mr. Dunne asked how many employees= there would be. Mr. Robinson said t= hey were projecting approximately ten people.&= nbsp;

Mr. Scanzani asked if there was anything particular that made the company come = to Pelham and if there were any recommendations that could be make it more attractive. Mr. Robinson said= he lived in Windham and already had a company in the building.= It was his proximity for the reason of being in the building.

There was no public input.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Collins) To a= ccept the Change-of-Occupancy for consideration.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara) To app= rove the Change-of-Occupancy subject to the normal conditions/permit process (going through the Planning Office and Inspectors).

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

OLD BUSINESS

Ma= p 35 Lot 6-113-1 – Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning R= 11; 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review of the Proposed 6240sf 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Mr. Robert Balquist, Septic Designer with Meis= ner Brem said he would make a brief presentation discussing a preliminary landscaping plan and a presentation on the request for waivers to the septic rules/regulations. He asked t= hat the Board vote regarding the waivers and continue the plan to the February 5, 2007= meeting when the engineering staff would have the opportunity to address the commen= ts from Stantec (Town’s engineer). He said he was not qualified/prepared to answer the comments from Stantec which mainly were in connection with drainage and runoff.

Mr. Balquist reviewed the preliminary landscape plan. He showed proposed plan= tings along the frontage (26 globe arborvitaes); across the back of the parking t= hey proposed 26 globe arborvitaes; across the entire length of the rear of the property a 6-foot high stockade fence; another 100feet of stockade fence al= ong the southerly side/KLN property side; along the right side of the lot they proposed to utilize the mixed hardwood and pines; and also to use the mixed hardwood and pines adjacent to the wetlands along the left lot line. Mr. Balquist said the vegetation i= n the 50-foot Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) would remain. He provided the Board with recent photographs of the lot. Mr. G= owan asked if another variety of arborvitaes could be used for buffering. Mr. Balquist said not along the fr= ont because it would interfere with sight distance.

Mr. Gowan noted that letters to the Board had = been received from Paul Gagnon of the Conservation, Paul Zarnowski Health Deputy= as well as from Stantec. Mr. Sca= nzani said Conservation indicated to the Board they felt the intensity of the proposed development was too much, and also because of the imperviousness of the proposed they were concerned with the proximity of the lower Beaver Brook a= rea that was proposed as a prime wetland on the ballot in March, 2007. He said Conservation had preferenc= e to reducing the size of the building and reducing the number of parking spaces. There was also concer= n with encroachment of the WCD with the retaining wall. Mr. Balquist said there would be no encroachment into the WCD; they proposed a fill wall, and all the construct= ion would take place on the west side of the WCD boundary. The wall would be build from the u= pland side so there would be no disturbance to the WCD or wetland. Mr. Balquist said he made a presen= tation to the Conservation Commission, who seemed to be happy with such.

Mr. Scanzani believed, based on the informatio= n he had, that the intensity of the lot was too much based on where it was located. He still felt there = was a drainage issue and the slopes and area of the retention pond needed to be addressed specifically regarding its proximity to an existing septic on an abutting property. He said the Board had typically not waivered radiuses outside lot lines regardless of t= he fact that DES allowed such with permission from the abutting property. Mr. Balquist said their first requ= est was to allow a septic system under pavement; the Health Agent and Stantec review both recommended approval of the waiver. He said the septic system was desi= gned to be crush-proof. He discuss= ed the fact that the leach field was designed to have two-feet of cover over it and vented to breathe; he also discussed the construction of such and requested= that the Board grant the waiver. H= e then discussed the other waiver being requested which was the minimum setback fr= om front lot line to septic – they are requesting 19ft., the regulations require 50ft. He felt it shouldn’t be a problem because there were no abutters near the front = of the property; Route 38 had a 100ft. wide right-of-way. He also noted that the state minim= um for a septic system with this sewage flow was 19-feet and they requested 22-feet. He then discussed the wells, which had been revised, and went on to say they have two wells each = with a 75-foot protective radius. = One well would supply Unit #1 (a hairdresser) and the other well would supply t= he four remaining units (unspecified office units). He said with each well having a 75= -foot protective radius, they overlapped the abutting property to the south but because of the adjacent wetlands any development on the abutting parcel was precluded by the setbacks from the wetlands. In addition they filed a well rele= ase, which is on record at the Registry of Deeds, that does not hold anyone liab= le for any possible contamination as a result of reduced setbacks. He then said there would not be a = waiver request because there was nothing in the Site Plan review regulations or Ar= ticle K that restricts the location of a well on a lot with respect to a lot line.

Mr. Gowan said he spoke with Mr. Zarnowski abo= ut this. Mr. Balquist said the Town’s Health Agent and Stantec endorsed all three waivers. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the requested waivers. Mr. Ba= lquist said he was requesting that the Board vote regarding the waivers because he= was unable to make his submission to DES until the waivers were granted. Ms. Ouellette noted that the Board= had not yet accepted the waivers for consideration. Mr. Scanzani felt the applicant sh= ould address the Stantec issues because some of the items may preclude some of t= he waiver requests, or require additional ones. Mr. Balquist said Stantec endorsed= the septic proposal; the majority of their review was in connection with draina= ge and runoff which would be addressed at the February 5, 2007 meeting. The Board discussed what action to= take. Ms. Ouellette confirmed which waiv= ers the applicant wanted the Board to address.

Mr. Scanzani questioned why two wells were bei= ng proposed. Mr. Balquist said t= he hairdresser had an unusually high water usage and to put less stress on a single well, they were using two wells.&nb= sp; The hairdresser would use 750 gallons per day and the remaining four units combined would use 750 gallons per day. The wells were spaced 20-feet apart.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248,41,E,2 – location of the e= ffluent disposal system under concrete/pavement.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248,41,E,1 – effluent disposal area with 22-feet from the property line.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(McNamara/Dunne) To acc= ept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 248-32 – requisite minimum par= king spaces.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara said having two wells in a locati= on so close together and the large water use of the hairdresser only accentuat= es the point made at the previous meeting and the Conservation Commission that the= use seems much too intensive for the property given the location of what is probably going to be a prime wetland designation and the slope. He said he had grave concerns rega= rding the intensity. Mr. Scanzani s= aid the issue (on the southern side of the aquifer) was the soils and the rate = of water withdrawal and septic. = It was Mr. Scanzani’s opinion that the lot was better suited for residential= . He said regardless of what Mr. Zar= nowski or the Conservation Commission’s recommendations, it’s the purv= iew of the Board to grant or not grant waivers and also to determine if develop= ment is too intense for a site.

Mr. Gowan felt a site walk should be conducted.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Jan Fournier, 9 Chagnon Lane, said she was not an immediate abutter, but wanted to discuss drainage. She said when building was propose= d for 3 Old Bridge Street there was a concern and decision not to put in a beauty shop because of the amount of water they would use. She asked what side of the fence the arborvitaes would be on. Mr. Balquist said there were no arborvitaes being proposed along the fence. He showed where the fence would be located. Ms. Fournier was very concerned about the beauty shop and their water usage. She provided the Board with a pack= et of information.

Ms. Barbara Ginty, 3 Chagnon Lane, appreciated the fac= t that the land would be treated as sensitive and was surprised that they were ask= ed not to speak on drainage. She= said that was the reason the abutters were present, because there were serious concerns regarding such. She didn’t know where all the water was supposed to go. She noted there was still a signif= icant number of parking. She felt t= he project was ‘overkill’ and believed there should be something smaller that wouldn’t have such a huge impact. She asked the elevation and wanted= to know if the proposed would be equal to the building by KLN. Mr. Balquist said for the moment t= hey were treating drainage/runoff by a detention basin with berm sides. He said there wouldn’t be a = net increase in runoff and would flow through a grass treatment swale to existi= ng wetlands. He said Ms. Ginty h= ad the same concerns and they would have to make some revisions to address all the concerns and would be discussed at the February 5, 2007 meeting.

Ms. Fournier asked if a septic system for a be= auty shop had to be designed different. Mr. Balquist said it was slightly oversized and designed to meet all= the DES criteria and other design features.&nb= sp; Ms. Fournier asked about chemicals/hair dyes etc. Mr. Balquist said the DES had to be supplied with the material safety data sheets which list all the chemicals = in use. If DES finds those chemi= cals to be inappropriate for waste water disposal, they won’t be allowed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Fournier asked who would overs= ee it. Mr. Balquist said the DES= and Pelham Health Agent would by reviewing the plans and a system would be installed in accordance with such; and included inspections during installation. Mr. Scanzani sa= id the Town’s engineer would make sure that the system met the standards. Ms. Fournier wanted to know who wo= uld oversee the beauty shop once it was in the building. Mr. Balquist said it would be an owner-occupied site. The over= sight would be in the event of failure. Ms. Fournier discussed the problems with a development in the past.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Scanzani noted that the Board = would walk the site and asked if the Board would be allowed to walk the area in t= he back of Ms. Fournier’s property.&nbs= p; Ms. Fournier answered yes. Mr. Balquist pointed out that Ms. Fournier was not a direct abutter,= was somewhat removed from the site and was upslope.

Ms. Ginty said she understood Ms. FournierR= 17;s concerns because everything flowed down to her. She said with regard to the septic= and things being enforced. She sa= id she had MtBE (gasoline additive) in her water which wasn’t there before.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She wanted to know who would follo= w up on problems. She said things = had not gone right in the past and was very concerned about additional construction, drainage and runoff. <= /span>

Mr. Scanzani said when the Board reviewed pre-= and post-runoff it was normally from its existing state, but in this case he assumed that the pre-runoff was higher because a lot of the trees and vegetation had been cut. He questioned how to calculate the difference between what was happening on the lot prior to anything occurring versus what now was there. He asked if it was something that w= as able to be calculated. Mr. Di= ck Hertrich of Stantec said he couldn’t answer specifically because he didn’t have the drainage report.&nbs= p; He said typically it would be assessed for what it was. He said the concern with the drain= age was that it was an infiltration system that discharged into the ground. He went on to discuss some of their other concerns regarding the water. Mr. Scanzani said the location in proximity to a septic system was a concern. Mr. Hertrich said th= ey questioned how the two systems would work together since they were both filtration systems. He said t= he other issue was that there were some off-site areas that should be taken in= to account that would affect the size of the detention basin. Mr. Balquist asked that the discus= sion regarding the drainage wait until February 5, 2007.

The plan was date specified to the February 5, 2007= meeting.

Ma= p 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

The plan was continued to the February 5, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David & Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Drivewa= y

The plan was continued to the February 5, 2007 meeting.

Ma= p 32 Lot 1-146, 148 & 149 Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Ro= ger Montbleau – Marie Av= enue & Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 24-= Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

The plan was continued to= the February 5, 2007= meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – February= 5, 2007

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 – Sun Bridge Professi= onal Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site P= lan Review of the Proposed 6240sf 5-Unit Professional Office Building

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

Map 39 Lot 1-53 LRL Development of Pelham/David &a= mp; Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32 Unit Senior Housi= ng and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

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

MINUTES - = January 16, 2007 deferred.=

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(McNamara/Ouellette) To= adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:00 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