PB Minutes 02-22-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

February 22, 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, Paddy Culbert, Gael Ouellette, Robin Bousa, Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate Ja= mes McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak (left the meeting prior to it concluding), = Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Tom Domenico, Alternate Bob Yarmo

PU= BLIC HEARING

Pl= anning Board to officially adopt the new Fire Station Impact Fee Schedule

Mr. Scanzani noted that the Planning Board discussed such two meetings ago. It was brought to his attention that the public meeting was not properly notif= ied. He said Town Counsel offered revie= w and suggested that the Board push this agenda item to the next meeting. Mr. Gowan said he spoke with Town Counsel and Bruce Mayberry and had engaged Mr. Mayberry to review the impac= t fee along with Town Counsel. He s= aid it would be brought back to the Board when it had been thoroughly reviewed.

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Ma= p 6 Lot 4-139 – Peterson Built Homes – Collin’s Way Subdivision – Request for Bond Release/Reduction

Mr. Gowan said the recommendation for bond rel= ease had been received, but asked that the Board table discussion until an on-si= te discussion/site walk could be conducted. He suggested a site walk be scheduled for March 3, 2007. He said there were a number of issues that should be reviewed in-field.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To t= able discussion until after a site walk was conducted (currently scheduled for= March 3, 2007)= .

VOTE:

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

A site walk was scheduled for March 3, 2007

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

Mr. McNamara stepped down.

Mr. Gowan believed the same conditions applied= to this matter as the previous case. He said this abutted the project a site walk was scheduled for. He noted there were a few items th= at were in contention with the punch list and wanted the Board to review such in the field prior to making a decision.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To = table discussion until after a site walk was conducted (currently scheduled for= March 3, 2007)= .

VOTE:

(5-0-= 0) The motion carried. (Mr. McNamara had stepped down)

A site walk was scheduled for March 3, 2007.

Mr. McNamara returned to the Board.

Ma= p 1 Lot 5-104, 113, 115 – SOUSA, Manuel – Lawrence Corner Estates – Request= for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan said this proje= ct had substantial completion done and explained such. He said it had also been inspected= by Stantec (Town’s engineer). The original bond amount was $916,063.50; the recommendation (by Sta= ntec and the Planning Department) for reduction was $727,675 retaining $188,388.50. He noted that the off-site improvements were at the level they should be to reduce the bond.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> There was a discussion regarding w= hat was being reduced. Mr. Gowan clarified that there were two bond reductions; on-site and off site improvements. The motion was = to reduce the on-site improvements retaining a total of $188,388.50.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To r= educe the bond for the on-site improvements to retain $188,388.50.

VOTE:

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

The second reduction was = for the off-site improvements. Mr. Sc= anzani discussed what items had been completed and noted that the recommendation w= as to hold back $24,134 which was for erosion control, wear course and catch basin/swale/rip rap work still to be done and the as-built plan.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To r= educe the bond for the off-site improvements to retain $24,134.

VOTE:

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

NEW BUSINESS

Map 21 Lot 3-58 CA= LLERY – Thomas & Lauren – 46-48 Nashua Road – Seeking a Spe= cial Use Permit to convert an existing duplex into a condominium form of ownersh= ip

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.

Attorney David Groff, representing the applicant, discussed the Special Use Permit with the Board. He said the applicants= would like to convert an existing duplex into a condominium form of ownership. In the Board’s packet of information was a site plan for review and a copy of the certification for = the septic system. It was noted t= hat there was plenty of room for an alternate system if the current system failed.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= at the driveway easement was as depicted on the plan. Attorney Groff said the abutting property built their driveway across the corner of the lot; there was an easement granted to the abutting property for the driveway so they wouldn’t have to move it. He said the easement had nothing to do with the current proceedings.

Mr. Gowan said he had bee= n asked a question about condo conversions that he was unsure of. He said generally with condominiums there is an on-site landlord or someone who could let people into units. He wanted to know if access to the= units was addressed in the condominium document.= There was also a question about access to the utilities if they were= on one side of the dwelling. Att= orney Groff asked if the question was regarding emergency personnel access or unit owner access to each other’s units.&= nbsp; He said typically the duplexes were set up with separate meters for electrical service; some were serviced with a single meter and the service = was split equally between the owners it all depended on how the condo document = was set up. Typically well pumps = were considered a common area expense, such as other common area maintenance ite= ms (i.e. driveways). The documen= ts provide for emergency access.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= accept, for consideration, the Special Use Permit to convert an existing duplex i= nto a condominium form of ownership.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Special Use Permit to convert and existing duplex into a condominium = form of ownership.<= /b>

VOTE:

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

Map 41 Lot 6-138 CUCCINELLO, John – 8 Pulpit Rock Road – Site Plan Review for Change of Use from a car dealership to a landscaping business

Attorney Peter Nicosia of Tyngsboro, representing the applicant, discussed the Site Plan Review for Change of Use. He said there = were two structures on the land, one being an existing dwelling, and the other b= eing a garage. He said the applica= nt was a prospective purchaser of the lot, contingent upon the hearing. Attorney Nicosia said Mr. Cuccinello was looking= to eliminate the used car operation and change the use to a landscape products= retail operation which was seasonably based. In warmer months he would sell items such as bark mulch, top soil, picnic tables and as the seasons change, he would sell seasonal items such = as pumpkins in the fall and Christmas trees in the winter. It would be a diverse, landscape, seasonal retail product operation. Currently there were no contemplated changes to the site (i.e. topog= raphy, structures). The applicant wi= ll use the existing garage for storage of equipment used in connection with the re= tail operations. They were aware t= hat the parcel was currently being used as a ‘mixed use’ parcel; the proposed use appeared to be permitted under the Table of Uses. Attorney Nicosia said in terms of the dwelling he presumed there was a grandfathered or special exception situation; he had n= ot researched this. Currently the applicant was looking at the existing dwelling for office space to support = the retail outfit. Attorney Nicosia had advise= d his client if he were to continue residential occupation of the dwelling it wou= ld need municipal approval. At t= his time, because there were no practical changes to the site, they didn’t feel it needed a= full site plan, but rather a more use site plan review.

Mr. Scanzani said the not= ice indicated the lot as being Map 41 Lot 6-138, but the plan indicated the lot= as being Lot 6-137. Attorney Nicosia said that was how the plan iden= tified the lot and presumed the lot was 6-137, but deferred it to the Tax Assessor= ’s designation of the parcel as being the accurate one. Mr. Culbert said he wouldn’t accept the plan for a landscaping business because it didn’t show whe= re the fertilizer would be located, or storage would be located. He noted that the plan was done in= 1987 by Mr. Stephen Patrick who was no longer with us. He said the lot was less than an a= cre; a commercial lot had to be 60,000SF; the applicant should go to the Board of Adjustment prior to meeting with the Board. He asked if it was a commercial area. Attorney Nicosia believed it was Industrial. Mr. Scanzani said the reason he as= ked the question regarding the lot number was first due to the size and second = due to notification. He said lot = 137 may have an additional abutter that may not have been notified.

Mr. Scanzani said the rig= ht thing may be to have the applicant go before the Board of Adjustment for a varian= ce for an undersized lot. Mr. Cu= lbert said he wanted a legal reading as to whether it needed to be redeveloped or something other than Mr. Patrick’s plan should come before the Board since it was done in 1987. He wanted a more detailed plan. = Mr. Gowan asked what lot number the file referred to. Ms. Ouellette said lot 6-138 was i= dentified as K&K Equipment (with a D= racut address) and lot 6-137 as = 72 Bridge Street Realty, LLC.(8 Pulpit Rock Road).

Attorney Nicosia said he was aware of the dimens= ional requirements. He said the app= licant prepared and submitted the application; because it was a use allowed in the zone, the applicant reviewed the by-laws/ordinances and came to the opinion that a full site plan was not necessary.&n= bsp; He said the applicant designated on the plan (in writing) the locati= on where materials would be stored. He said the current owner didn’t pre-date zoning and seemed to him that = there would have to have been some analysis to allow the use in the industrial zone. Mr. Gowan believed ther= e may be an existing variance, which may be for an auto dealership and may not ap= ply for this use. There was a bri= ef discussion regarding the lot. Mr. Scanzani agreed that an existing variance would need to be researched. He also agreed with Mr. Culbert regarding the plan.

Since the applicant was p= resent, the Board provided the direction that the plan should be more updated showi= ng the location of the septic and well. There was a consensus by the Board to show where items associated wi= th the business would be stored so ensure there would be no leaching onto abut= ting properties. Mr. Scanzani said= the Planning Board couldn’t take action until the Board of Adjustment took action. Attorney Nicosia asked to withdraw without preju= dice. Mr. Scanzani said when the plan ca= me back the applicant should take into account the following: pesticide, stora= ge of chemicals, lawn clippings, screening, hours of operation, lighting and signage.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= llow the applicant to withdraw without prejudice.=

VOTE:

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

Map 2 Lots 5-58 & 73 Town of Pelham and Coombs, Norman & Joyce – Mammoth Road – Lot Line Adjustment

Mr. Gowan showed the prop= osed plan and explained that the Selectmen had been working with the Coombs and = the only thing for the Planning Board to consider was a lot line adjustment that basically corrected an un-intentional encroachment on Raymond Park. The plan showed that the Town woul= d have a portion of the Coombs frontage in exchange for a redrawn lot line along t= he edge. He explained that the C= oombs had put up an expensive and extremely robust fence that would be destroyed = if they tried to move it. He said thi= s was something that the Selectmen had worked out; TF Moran had been engaged to do the plan. It was now before t= he Board for approval.

Mr. Scanzani added that t= he fence that was put up was part of a decree that the Selectmen had for the Coombs = in order for them to continue their junk yard license. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the Sel= ectmen required the Coombs to put up a fence on their property in order to separat= e it from the park and asked if the fence was put up in the wrong place. Mr. Scanzani said the majority of = the fence was put in the right place, but there were a couple of the fence posts that were put in the wrong place. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the Town was not asking the Coombs to move the fence because the Town was gaining sight distance. Mr. Scanzani said the Town was gai= ning frontage and sight distance on Mammoth Road that may be necessary/useful for the acce= ss to the park in that location. He said both parties had agreed to the lot line change, subject to the Board taking the appropriate action.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the Lot Line Adjustment.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Lot Line Adjustment.

VOTE:

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

OLD BUSINESS

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

This was heard in conjunc= tion with the following case.

Map 39 Lot 1-55-1 & Map 39 Lot 1-54 LRL Development of Pelham/David & Lisa Gerniglia – Sherburne Road – Proposed 32-= Unit Senior Housing and Seeking Special Permit for WCD Crossing for Driveway

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. M= ike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates presented the plans to the Board. Mr. Zohdi noted that the majority of items l= isted in the Stantec (Town engineer) report stated that they agreed with, or recommended the waivers proposed. He said there was nothing else to discuss unless the Board wanted hi= m to review the plan. He said they= were proposing a three-lot subdivision containing two condominiums for 55+ older persons.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said they would like to put the buildings under one association; the documents were presented for Town Coun= sel review (to be paid by the applicant). The reason they requested one association was due to cross-easements= for the roads/driveway, leach bed and the club house.

Mr. Culbert asked if ther= e would be two condominium documents but sharing a clubhouse and the roads. Mr. Zohdi discussed the need for d= eeded easements for the egress and said the best thing they could do was to have = two associations with one condominium document. Mr. Culbert wanted to make sure in= the event one condominium had a problem, for example with their roof or septic, that the other condominium wouldn’t be responsible for the repair of such. Mr. Zohdi said after the project was approved by the Board, the two associations could do whatever t= hey wanted between each other; he believed it was out of the Board’s purview. He said they wanted = to have one condominium, with two different associations. Mr. Scanzani preferred to have one association because it was easier for sharing costs. Mr. Culbert said it was coming in = as two lots and wanted it to leave as two lots.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said the Board had prior discussions when the plan first came in and noted the applicant solved the problem regarding the number of units per lot by the way the plan was presented.

Mr. Scanzani felt the Boa= rd should address the waivers. M= s. Bousa wanted to discuss Stantec’s comments prior to the waivers becau= se there appeared to be a couple items that had not been addressed yet. Mr. McNamara also noted that the B= oard had received a letter from Mr. Craig Wood of Louis Berger Group (Town’= ;s environmental consultant) that contained items to be addressed. The Board discussed how they would proceed. Ms. Bousa was upset = with the fact that a multi-page letter was submitted (on the night of the meetin= g) and the Board was being asked to act upon the items and vote regarding such. She didn’t feel t= he Board should be asked to act in that manner. She said there were several items = in Mr. Wood’s review that the Board told the applicant they needed to addres= s, but there was nothing in writing to address such. She felt the information was all relevant to the site plan and the waivers.=

Mr. Zohdi said the Fire C= hief gave his comments to Mr. Gowan and the applicant’s engineer. He wanted to review the (5-page) r= eport because there was only one item outstanding. Mr. Scanzani said it was his job to facilitate the meeting because it was the current Board’s job to comp= lete as much as they could prior to a new Board starting (after the election in March). Ms. Bousa said she wa= nted to know all the facts and discuss the open items prior to acting on a waiver. She said if Mr. Gowan= had a discussion with the Fire Chief, that was fine, but she wanted the informati= on prior to making any decisions. Mr. Gowan said he had a conversation with the Fire Department because the proje= ct would be ‘sprinkled’ and there was a letter (in writing) contai= ned in the file. He said the Fire Department didn’t need the grass pavers between buildings because of = the buildings being sprinkled. The cisterns were not something of concern because there are hydrants; the Fire Department was also keen on the emergency access through Pelham Veterans Memorial Park (‘PVMP’), which is something the Board had to be careful with in their motion, but Mr. Zohdi would address in terms of an exaction or contribution being made to satisfy improvements to the road. In summary, the Fire Chief and his Inspector were satisfied with the plan.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara confirmed that the Fire Chief had no problems with the plans as it was presented now. Mr. Gowan said that was correct; especially with the emergency egress issue resolved. He said the Fire Ch= ief wanted access to three-sides of a building when he didn’t have emerge= ncy egress and sprinklers. Mr. Mc= Namara asked if the plans referenced that the Fire Chief was in favor of the plan.

Mr. Zohdi said the Fire C= hief wanted access from the park (PVMP) and there were items negotiated. He explained that it was felt thei= r fair share for a contribution to intersection of Mammoth Road and Sherburne Road was $1500 per unit.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said they felt that their contribution to the Senio= r Center should be $5= 00 per unit. He said there was discu= ssion (with Mr. Gowan) regarding the connection to PVMP to which they would pay t= heir fair share and in principal agreed that $750 per unit would go to a roadway from the condominium, to the clubhouse to the existing roadway; to which his client agreed. Mr. Gowan said= there had been a discussion regarding the off-site exaction for the improvements = to Sherburne Road and Mammoth Road. He said he was meeting with the Department of Transportation on Friday to review preliminary plans and associated costs they had. He wanted to have consistency with what was charged for the senior projects and the Sherburne Road projects. He went on to discu= ss the process of having a connection road constructed. It was explained that $750 per unit would be to improve from the connection that the applicant would make, that they would pay for from their edge of their property, to the existing road = (not a very long stretch, just a temporary road); the $750 contribution would be from that point back to Ma= mmoth Road. Mr. McNamara questioned what would happen if the Town voted not to m= ake the connection. Mr. Zohdi sai= d it would be a contribution; the money would first be donated for the road, and second (if the road wasn’t done) would go to recreation. Mr. McNamara confirmed that inform= ation would be reflected in any approval. Mr. Scanzani said it would have to be. He went on to discuss what money w= ould be raised and where it would be spent.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said given the number of units (64), the total amount raised would be $96,000; there would be $32,000 to the Senior Center; the other contribution $48,000 would be the Town’s portion. Mr. Scanzani said the Town’s portion would be used for a second emergency egress (gated egress) and upgr= ade the road from Mammoth Road= . Mr. McNamara asked if the figures = could also be applied to the other developers on Sherburne Road. Mr. Gowan believed they could with= the exception of the $750 for the improvements inside PVMP. Mr. Scanzani said the other parcels would have a base of $2250 to fix the intersection of Sherburne Road and Mammoth Road; for this case it was = split because there was another need. He said if the estimates were reduced after meeting with DOT, it would be the purview of the Board.

Mr. Scanzani asked the Bo= ard how they wanted to proceed with the review of the open items. At this point, Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stantec joined the discussion. He said most of the technical items were dealt with. He said other than the waivers, the items were minor. He discusse= d the open items and said they were pretty much satisfied with the issues. Mr. Scanzani anticipated that the guardrail materials and retention wall detail would be included as a condit= ion of approval and provided in the final plan. He couldn’t recall if a deci= sion was made regarding sidewalks; but believed there was a consensus that sidew= alks wouldn’t be put in because of the sheet drainage. He said the only other item was in= the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) which Mr. Gospodarek could address. Mr. McNamara recalle= d the Board discussed sidewalks and why they were not applicable; he said in cases coming up later in the evening he would be requesting sidewalks in the abse= nce of a compelling argument. Mr. Scanzani believed the issue with sidewalks was possibly a moot point in sen= ior housing because when people get older, it’s the ease of getting in and out of the driveway and plowing the driveways that was important. He said walking paths shouldn̵= 7;t be near the street, but rather in the back of a parcel. Mr. McNamara felt there were engin= eering reasons why sidewalks weren’t applicable to this plan.

Mr. Gowan said another is= sue was trail connectivity, which was an issue for the Board and some of the abutters. Mr. Scanzani discus= sed the trails in the area and said there should be connectivity from the parcel across Sherburne Road. Mr. Gowan believed there was a continuing discussion between Mr. Bob Lamoureaux and the owner of the property. He said there was a= lso a letter from the Park & Recreation Director Darren McCarthy who was keen= on the connection because it was part of a very large trail system.

Mr. Scanzani said the onl= y other open issues, other than the waivers, was the EIA.

Mr. McNamara said Stantec indicated that no information regarding the water supply system was included and asked if it had been submitted. Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t have water supply approval yet. He said like other subdivision app= rovals it would be subject to obtaining a water pollution/supply permit. Mr. McNamara confirmed that system maintenance and operations requirements would be submit with the condominium documents. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. Gowan said the appli= cant was well along in the process; if approval wasn’t obtained they would come back to the Board for some other resolution. Mr. Scanzani said the two state pe= rmits the plan would be subject to would be the water and the driveway. Mr. McNamara confirmed that both roadways would be constructed. Mr. Zohdi said the entire roadway and drainage had to be constructed at the same time.

Ms. Bousa said the Board = discussed the EIA issues, but it didn’t give Louis Berger the opportunity to respond to the answers. She w= ould like a positive response letter from Louis Berger. She said there was no one on the B= oard who was qualified to determine whether the responses from the applicant were acceptable. Mr. Zohdi said the Board could give an approval subject to a satisfactory letter being received from the Town’s environmental people. Ms. Bousa felt that should be a condition of approval. She no= ted that the Board had already heard the responses, and wanted to make sure that they were acceptable to the Town’s environmental consultant. Mr. Zohdi said they would work wit= h them and get a letter submitted for the file.&n= bsp;

There was no public input= .

Mr. Scanzani believed the= Board needed to work on the waivers and then the Special Permit. Ms. Ouellette said there were five waivers because all the requests in connection with Appendix I were combined. Mr. Scanzani said t= he waivers pertained to both plans because during the process the Board had considered both plans together. Mr. McNamara noted that all of the waivers had been recommended by Stantec as b= eing appropriate because the roads being constructed are private and not being b= uilt to Town specifications. Mr. G= owan noted that consideration had been given to turning radiuses etc. in the roa= dway design. Mr. Scanzani suggeste= d that the Board review roadways in 55+ developments so the wear coat and base coat stays.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 11.05,4,a,1,d – driveway access and road desi= gn.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Ouellette vote= d no.

-------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/Scanzani) To a= pprove all the waivers to Appendix I – Roadway design - except bb, 6a,b&am= p;c and bb, 7,b related to base coat depth and top wearing coat and road prof= ile.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Appendix I, Section T – drainage easement and minimum pipe size.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waivers to BB. Street Construction Standards, 1,2,3,6,7,11, 12,13,14, 15,16,17, 21,22,26 & 27

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section DD – Cross Sections.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Special Permit to allow a Wetland Conservation District Crossing.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no.

Mr. Gowan noticed that Mr. Lamoureaux had returned to the room and asked if there had been a breakthro= ugh regarding the negotiation for the trails.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi said his client and Mr. Lamoureaux would get together, if = the plan was approved, with Park & Recreation Director Darren McCarthy to f= ind an area within the property to connect the existing trail to the park (PVMP= ). Mr. Scanzani said it would be part= of a ‘subject to’ approval. Mr. Culbert asked that the trail be kept as far away from the units = as they possibly could. Mr. Gowa= n said he had a list of concerns with regard to approval. He said a letter could be submitte= d to the file indicating that the trails were connected.

The Board reviewed the li= st of conditions that the plan’s approval would be subject to: 1) note put = on the plan regarding guardrail materials and design; 2) applicant provide retention wall detail; 3) note on the plan regarding grading between buildi= ngs; 4) show all utilities; 5) Stantec review the notes on the plan for completeness; 6) NH DES Wetlands permit; 7) Community well permit from stat= e; 8) Condominium documentation including maintenance issues reviewed by Town Attorney at applicant’s expense; 9) Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road inter= section improvement/off-site exaction of $1500 per unit voluntary contribution (at = time of building permit); 10) $500 per unit voluntary contribution (at time of building permit) for Senior impacts; 11) $750 per unit voluntary contributi= on (at time of building permit) for Pelham Veteran Memorial Park road improvements= or other needs as determined by the Park & Recreation Department; 12) lett= er from Mr. Gowan and Park & Recreation Director that a trails easement has been agreed to be provided and noted on the plan; 13) receipt of letter indicating Louis Berger (Town’s environmental consultant) is satisfied their comments had been addressed; 14) revised letter from Fire Department = that three-sided access to buildings not necessary; 15) state driveway permits; = 16) roadway and detention pond initially built at once.

Mr. Gowan said there was = an understanding that the applicant would build the emergency gated access up to the property line (of Pelham Veteran Memorial Park) and it was further understood that t= he Town would vote whether they could push through and connect to the other road. (Voluntary contribution= of $750 per unit is held for this work).

Ms. Bousa noted that Stan= tec (in the letter dated February 20, 2007) mentioned there was an 8ft.-10ft. difference between = some of the garage elevations and existing grades of the buildings; Stantec want= ed to know if there would be retaining walls.= Mr. Scanzani said one of the conditions was to have retaining wall details. Mr. Hertrich said the applicant provided the grading between the buildings and the center of the site. Ms. Bousa said she woul= d be voting no on the plan. She fe= lt the plan was cheating the Town’s Zoning; it was two separate lots service= d by one driveway, one well and one community center. She felt it was a cheap attempt to= cheat the Zoning and maximize the use on the lots. She said the plan was basically all paved or building, other than what was wet. Mr. McNamara agreed with Ms. Bousa= , but said he would vote yes. He sa= id the Board made the objections known at the time the plan was first proposed, but the plan was legal under the current zoning. Ms. Bousa thanked Mr. Gowan and any other Town Official that worked to get the emergency access to PVMP.

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the landscape plan discussed at the last meeting was incorporated into the plan. Mr. Zohdi answered yes.= Mr. McNamara said he had problems = with the plan’s aesthetics, but felt the landscape plan went a long way to help mitigate the wall like aspect of the units.

Mr. Gowan explained what = he had learned from this application in connection with the zoning and the article that would amend such. There = was further discussion regarding the proposed plan and how/if it would differ w= ith the proposed Zoning.

MOTION:

(Ouellette/) To approve= the plan subject to the following conditions of approval: 1) note on the plan regarding guardrail design and materials; 2) note on the plan regarding r= etention wall detail; 3) note on the plan regarding grading between buildings; 4) = note on plan showing utility and sewer lines; 5) Stantec will review and appro= ve all notes placed on plan; 6) NH DES Wetlands permit; 7) Community well pe= rmit from state; 8) Condominium documentation including maintenance to be revi= ewed by Town Attorney (at applicant’s expense) for completeness; 9) off-= site exaction in the amount of $1500 per unit (at time of building permit application) to be used for the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection = fix;10) $500 per unit voluntary contribution (at time of building permit applicat= ion) for Senior Center impacts; 11) voluntary contribution of $750 per unit (at time of building permit application) for Park & Recreation for park r= oad improvements or other uses; 12) trail improvements easement provided for the trail connectivity across properti= es including satisfactory letter from Mr. Gowan and Park & Recreation Director; 13) satisfactory letter from Louis Berger on outstanding issues; 14) letter from Fire Department that they are satisfied with the provisio= ns of safety as supplied on the plan; 15) state driveway permits; 16) road a= nd drainage to be completed together on these parcel.

VOTE:

(5-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Ms. Bousa voted no.

Mr. Zohdi wanted it noted= that the Board was approving the subdivision as well. Mr. McNamara said he asked the que= stion at the last meeting regarding what the opinion was regarding the top/third parcel; he believed Mr. Zohdi (in terms of subdividing) wasn’t making= the argument that it was grandfathered in any way. Mr. Zohdi said that was correct. Mr. Scanzani said Mr. Zohdi was referring to the small subdivision done for access. The plan showed the small subdivis= ion, plus the elderly housing. Mr. Zohdi explained that there wer= e two parcels of land that were combined then they re-subdivided; one lot contain= ed one senior housing complex, a second lot was the remainder of the property = with the second senior housing complex, the third lot they didn’t know what they wanted to do with in the future. He asked the Board to re-approve the three-lot subdivision. Mr. McNamara said in this case it = was a De Facto subdivision that occurred during the course of the hearings. Mr. Gowan clarified that two meeti= ngs ago when the new piece was added to the top and the Board agreed to consider su= ch, they in essence agreed to the subdivision at the same time.

Map 38 Lot 1-118 Magarian Development, LLC – = Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Seeking Special Permit = for Wetland Crossing

Mr. Brian Roy of Cuoco &a= mp; Cormier, Mr. Tim Watson, Project Engineer of Cuoco & Cormier, as well as the owner Mr. Ken Magarian was present for the meeting. Mr. Roy said from the last meeting= (January 4, 2007)= they were asked to meet with the Fire Department to ensure everything was acceptable = with them; this meeting occurred on January 23, 2007. He info= rmed that a letter was prepared and submitted for the file indicating that the F= ire Department felt the project was acceptable to them. He said they also met with the abu= tting developer (Cormier & Saurman) regarding the drainage and emergency acce= ss going out the paper street to Litchfield Circle. He said at this point there wasn’t a complete consensus regard= ing the final configuration of the drainage; however they appeared to be much closer on resolving the issue. He felt in terms of being ready for an approval, Mr. Magarian has said that the drainage necessary to make the system work would be done by him as part of = the project. They were willing to= bond that work along with whatever bonding the other developer had for their drainage. With regard to the = fire access, he said the Fire Department was satisfied with the configuration. Mr. Roy said there hadn’t be= en any major changes with the plans, there were still minor issues/comments from t= he Stantec (Town’s engineer) review letter; the bulk of those revolve ar= ound the final configuration of the drainage and emergency access.

Ms. Ouellette said she ha= d in her notes that the Board needed input from Tyngsboro regarding a right-of-way/easement to Long Pond. Mr. Roy believed that was rendered a moot point at the last meeting.=

Mr. Scanzani understood t= hat all the Stantec issues had been addressed, and the one outstanding issue was the drainage and how it would be done to Litchfield Circle.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec said there were two open review letters from December 27, 2006 and January 4, 2007. The letter of January 4, 2007 addressed the calculat= ions relating to the previously proposed drainage configuration for the easement area, since that appears to be changed, they wouldn’t expect a respon= se to such. The December 27, 2006 letter co= ntained eight/nine technical issues that needed to be addressed, most of them being minor in nature. The most imp= ortant being a plan showing how the project phasing would be done because the well= for the project cut across both phases. Mr. Hertrich said they hadn’t seen a final set of plans based = on the most recent letter (December 27, 2006).

Mr. McNamara asked if Sta= ntec had reviewed the proposed solution to the drainage easement. Mr. Hertrich said they did; commen= ts were contained in a letter dated February 21, 2007.&= nbsp; He said they did a preliminary review and were essentially in agreem= ent that the design worked how they represented it would. He said they would like to see a f= ull plan of how the road would pass through the existing detention area. They weren’t fully satisfied= at this point. Mr. McNamara aske= d if it would need any particular special attention with regard to maintenance, = or supervision. Mr. Hertrich sai= d that part of the drainage would be a Town drainage system. Mr. McNamara said it would be impo= rtant for the Town to find out what they were getting into. Mr. Hertrich said they would need = to make sure it was accessible. =

Mr. Scanzani said based o= n the new drainage proposed, the January 4, 2007 letter from Stantec didn’t need a response. He then reviewed the items contain= ed in Stantec’s letter of December 27, 2006. Mr. Gow= an discussed lighting and said since he had been a member of the Highway Safety Committee they had never reached a consensus that a street light was needed= ; on this project (and on all the senior projects) he was positive that they pla= nned to have illuminated signage showing the entrance to the project. He said he would get a letter from Highway Safety confirming such.

Mr. McNamara said he didn= ’t know if the Board had discussed exactions or voluntary contribution for this plan. He also noted that the = Louis Berger (Town’s environmental consultant) letter of February 5, 2007 noted the s= ensitive receiving waters of Long Pond. The comment was the need for a more detailed assessment of potential pollutant loadings and removal efficiencies of the storm water management system may = be warranted. Louis Berger belie= ved the project warranted a more detailed assessment of potential impacts of downstream receiving waters. = Mr. McNamara asked if the applicant had the opportunity to do such. Mr. Scanzani also noted that Louis Berger indicated that the Board may also wanted to consider imposing fertil= izer limitations. He said if the B= oard granted a conditional approval, it should include permits from NH DES wetla= nd approvals and state driveway permits, phasing, exaction and senior impact.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the Highway Safety Committ= ee letter regarding the light should be addressed.

Mr. Scanzani noted there = was a letter regarding the light; there were also waiver requests. He asked for clarification regardi= ng the comment about the sidewalk ramps at each driveway. Mr. Hertrich said the plan didn= 217;t show if the ramps curved down and slanted back up to the driveway. Mr. Roy said the sidewalk was set = back with a green strip; it would be flush to the driveway so a ramp wasn’t needed. Mr. Scanzani said the= Fire Department signed off on the plan, but questioned if the file contained a letter indicating such. Ms. Ouellette said there was a letter in the file dated January 29, 2007. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = want all the cable, telephone and all utilities listed on the plan. He said the board would also wante= d to ensure that the signage complied with zoning. Mr. Gowan said a sign application = was required separately.

Mr. McNamara wanted to kn= ow how buffering to abutters would be handled, since during the site walk abutters voiced th= eir concern regarding such. Mr. R= oy said some of the units had been moved and additional landscaping (and everg= reen buffer – starting at 6ft. high) had been added in that area.

Mr. Dadak said there was a community well on the site and noted that Louis Berger requested comments regarding the impact of it. M= r. Roy said they did a well impact analysis of the abutting properties and did a drilling of a test well, the next step would be to file the construction pe= rmit for the water system design. =

Mr. Culbert confirmed tha= t the units that had been moved were reflected as such on the plan being reviewed= by the Board. Mr. Roy answered yes.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. George Saurman, Scenic View Drive indicated he had a productive meeting with Mr. Gowan, Mr. Bob Yarmo and Cuo= co & Cormier regarding the drainage easement. He asked that a complete plan show= ing the drainage plan through Litchfield Circle be viewed by Cormier & Saur= man and the Board prior to the Board’s approval. He said they would also like to se= e the landscaping plan per Stantec’s February 21, 2007 letter. He noted when their plan was appro= ved for Litchfield Circle they kept the trail system so there was a connection back to Tyngsboro down= to the lake and wanted to make sure it stayed in tact with the proposed plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said there was a landscaping plan contained in the plan being reviewed by the Board. Mr. Scanzani believed Mr. Saurman = was referring to something else, specifically the recommendations made by Stant= ec in the area where the drainage would be done to Litchfield Circle.

Ms. Holly Saurman, Scenic View Drive, followed up on the discussion regarding the trail system. She described the extent of the tr= ail system that was frequently used. She believed that a 55+ project would be enhanced by those residents having access to the existing trails. She said it was also referenced during the October 24, 2006 Conserva= tion Commission meeting that it was of up most importance to grant the right-of-= way currently being discussed so that there would be a continuation of the trails. Ms. Saurman wanted to= make sure that the plan being presented included the drainage swale that was agr= eed to by both parties. Mr. McNam= ara said it would also be reviewed by Stantec.= Ms. Saurman felt it was important to have an answer to Stantec’= ;s question contained in their February 21, 2007 letter regarding what the proposed retaining walls wou= ld look like for the portion of the road extending through the existing swale. Mr. Gowan wanted to be= tter understand Ms. Saurman comment that when Litchfield Circle was before the bo= ard it was important for the trails to connect through the proposed right-of-way w= here the drainage swale is located. Ms. Saurman said in reviewing the Conservation Commission minutes from October, 2004, Mr. Yarmo (formerly a Conservation Commission member, but who she believed was now employed by Cuoco & Cormier or Mr. Magarian because he= participated in all the meetings regarding the drainage swale) was specific in the minut= es that they (Cormier & Saurman) grant a right-of-way so that there would = be a continuation of access to the trails (which were behind the drainage area).

Mr. Scanzani proposed tha= t the Board: 1) act on the special permits and waivers; 2) list conditions of approval that would need to be made so the applicant could have them and cr= eate a final plan for review at the Board’s March 8, 2007 meeting. Mr. Roy was unsure if they would h= ave sufficient time to address all of the details, they were hoping for a conditional approval. He said in terms of= the drainage, they were working with Cormier & Saurman to come up with something that would be satisfactory with.= Mr. Scanzani said if a plan was done so Stantec and Cormier & Saurman could review, the Board may be able to grant a conditional approval= on March 8, 2007. He noted that the applicant wouldn’t have the same Board after the March 8^th meeting.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Roy questioned if the conditio= ns needing to met could be accomplished by rushing the plan. It was respectfully suggested to t= he applicant that they would want to finish the plan prior to the Board’s next meeting, because they wouldn’t want to start over after that point.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the outstanding issues. Mr. Scanzani said he would be willing to do a conditional approval without Stantec review, subject to Stantec’s letter of February 21, 2007. The Board was not in favor of gran= ting a conditional approval at the present time.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan felt it would be to everyone’s benefit to add the dr= ainage detail for Stantec to review. He said he would meet with the applicant to create a clear list of items and h= ave a more detailed response from Stantec.&nbs= p; Mr. Scanzani asked the Board to address the waivers and special permit.

Ms. Ouellette read the wa= ivers aloud and the Board made the following motions.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section BB.1 – minimum right-of-way width for private site.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section BB.11 – to use a ‘T’ turnaround instead of a circular turnaround at the end of the cul-de-sac.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the Highway Safety Committee approved of the waiver. Mr. Gowan said they didn’t h= ave and issue with the waiver during the meeting at which it was discussed.

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section BB.12 – reduction of the horizontal tangent b= etween approaches from 100-0.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section BB.13 – reduction of the minimum horizontal curves from 200ft. to 60ft. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= --------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section DD – to not require cross-sections of the road because it is a private road.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section BB.30 – the sight distance for the driveways.=

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ------------------------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District crossing for the emergency access road – parts of the roadway, the detention areas a= nd wells.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert asked if the = Board should worry about the length of the road (since it was private). Mr. Gowan answered no; it was not = a Town road.

The following is a list of remaining items that the Board wanted the applicant to address and note on = the plan: 1) NH Water Supply and Pollution Control permits; 2) DOT driveway per= mits; 3) well permits; 4) because it is a phased project – note on plan exp= laining/breakdown of what would happen during each phase (concern about the roadways and drai= nage being done) – construction sequencing; 5) because of traffic created = by projects to the intersection of Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road – exactio= n of $2250 per unit for the roadway improvements; (see below for continuation it= ems to be included on plan)

Mr. Roy thought the exact= ion was $1500 per unit. Mr. Scanzani = said on the previous case it was $1500 because the Board took $750 plus and additional contribution to give access to Pelham Veteran Memorial Park; the = Board split the amount. Mr. Roy sai= d he had a discussion in the morning and the amount was $1500 as the contribution toward Sherburne Road, plus an additional $500 for Senior improvements. Mr. Gowan said based on the benchm= ark on the other plan he instructed the applicant that ($1500)was the fee because = $750 was separate from that fee. M= r. Culbert said it was never separate in his mind. Mr. McNamara said it was his under= standing that the initial exaction was split because of the connection, but it would have been higher. This was al= so Mr. Scanzani’s understanding. Ms. Ouellette said the previous applicant did $1500 for the intersection, with a set out of $750 per unit for Park & Recreation strictly for the park ro= ad improvements or other; the other voluntary amount was $500 (on top of the amounts) per u= nit for Senior impact. Mr. Scanza= ni said the discussion was for $2250; but because there would be a voluntary contribution ($750) for an emergency egress and improvements to the roadway= of PVMP they would trade them off. Mr. Gowan said that was the Board’s purview, but wasn’t his understanding. The Board was = in agreement that the exaction amount (as discussed with other plans) would be $2250 per unit (and note on plan) for the improvements to Sherburne Road and Mammoth Road. Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gowan to ob= tain a letter from the Safety Committee regarding the light for the next meeting.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

The additional items to b= e listed on the plans were as follows: 6) list on plans where all the utilities will= be located (including electric, telephone and cable); 7) proposed drainage that was agreed to (with Cormier & Saurman); 8) per Stantec’s letter of February 21, 2007 show retaining wall detail; 9) note on plan regarding scr= eening detail for the drainage; 10) easement in right-of-way and back of property = to Tyngsboro border for trail system from Litchfield Circle (Mr. Gowan will re= view with applicant); 11) response to the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) letter from Louis Berger (specifically - storm water wi= th regard to assessing Litchfield Circle and presence of downstream sensitive = receiving waters). (see below for addit= ional items)

Mr. Scanzani believed the= issue relative to the downstream impacts were probably more related to the water coming off the roadway and the grassed areas and what type of fertilizer we= re being used. He questioned if = the Board could get a recommendation for a type of fertilizer that would have l= ess impact downstream. He said th= e EIA suggested that the Board may want to consider imposing fertilizer limitatio= ns. Mr. Dadak suggested the applicant = speak with DES. Mr. Roy noted that = the parcel was a good bit away from Long Pond, so there was a good amount of natural filtration. He said t= he project was designed with storm water collection systems going into a detention bas= in with a treatment swale to improve/increase the amount of treatment above/be= yond what the state would normally require.&nbs= p; Mr. Roy then addressed the fertilizer and noted that it was a condominium, and it would be a landscaper that would have certain permits.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said because they were quite a = bit of distance away, it would be tough trying to pick a specific fertilizer.

Mr. Gowan wanted to add t= o the following items to the list of things to be completed: 12) road names to be added to = the plan; and 13) condominium documentation and any maintenance stipulations to= be reviewed by Town Attorney, subsequent to plan approval.

Mr. Culbert wanted to be = clear regarding the money; the S= herburne Road exaction would $2250 (per unit) and the applicant offered an additional $500 (per unit) toward the Senior Center impact.

The Board continued the p= lan to the March 8, 2007= meeting with the hope that the notes/items could be put on the plan and the drainage could be done; the plan could be reviewed by Stantec, Mr. Gowan and Mr. Saurman. Mr. Culbert conf= irmed that Mr. Saurman didn’t have veto vote on the plan. Mr. Scanzani said Mr. Saurman was requested to review the plan to make sure the drainage didn’t have a negative impact.

Mr. Dadak left the meetin= g.

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 40-Unit Elderly Housing

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. M= ike Gospodarek of Herbert Associates discussed the plan with the Board. Mr. Gospodarek said the revisions presented to the Board were based on the last meeting with the Board and Stantec’s review comments of January 22, 2007.&n= bsp; He said one of the changes was the elimination of the roundabout and replaced it with a ‘T’ type intersection. He said the underground drainage s= ystem and the drainage calculations had been revised. The project is set up with two det= ention basins, one being at the top of the hill, one at the bottom. Both detention basins are set up t= o meet DES erosion control/sediment control plans. Mr. Gospodarek said the project st= ill proposed a community well system as well as sprinklers and hydrants.

Mr. Scanzani asked if the= revised plan had been reviewed by Stantec (Town engineer). Mr. Gospodarek was in the process = of reviewing the plan.

Ms. Ouellette asked if any comments were received from the Fire Department. Mr. Gowan knew the plan was reviewed. Ms. Ouellette found= a letter in the file dated January 26, 2007 and read aloud some of the comments; one of which was = the recommendation of a second access being established. Mr. Gowan said there was no opport= unity for a second egress.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed th= at the waivers were accepted at the last meeting.= Ms. Ouellette answered yes. <= /span>Mr. Scanzani reviewed Stantec’s last letter dated January 2, 2007 and said most = of the items were minor and asked if most of the technical items had been addresse= d in the plan. Mr. Gospodarek said= they tried to take the review comments and incorporate them into the design they had. He noted that after discussions with the Fire Department they adjusted some of the radiuses so = they could get the ladder truck around the parcel.

Ms. Ouellette reviewed Stantec’s letter that indicated that the proposed wells were located = in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) and a permit would be required. Mr. Gospodarek said= they brought an application. He explained that the wells weren’t being developed right now; two wells= are shown in the buffer zone and they have to bring the water lines out of the buffer zone to the pump house; this is shown on the plan set. Ms. Ouellette said the Board would= have to accept it for consideration. An application for Special Permit was submitted to the Board.

Mr. Scanzani wanted the B= oard to review the Environmental Impact Assessment (‘EIA’), review the waivers, approve the Special Permit and then make a list of what would be r= equired for approval. Mr. McNamara sa= id he would like to hear the response to the bulleted items contained in the Louis Berger (Craig Wood) letter of February 5, 2007.

Mr. Luke Hurley of Gove Environmental Services said there were only five items sent over to them fr= om the Craig Wood letter. He beg= an by informing that the un-named stream in the eastern corner was listed as perennial and clarified that the stream was actually intermittent. Mr. McNamara said he wanted the it= ems listed in the Feb= ruary 5, 2007 from Craig Wood to Jeff Gowan. Mr. Hurley said he didn’t ha= ve a copy of the letter. There was= a brief discussion regarding the items contained in the letter; it was noted = that the items were virtually the same as those listed in the letter of January 10, 2007. Mr. Hurley showed that there would= not be wetland impacts or WCD impacts except for the crossing for the well. He said there may be some areas as= they were coming inside the site. = He said they could verify the National Heritage Database check, but elected no= t to because they had done one for a nearby project; if the Board wanted, he wou= ld do a check for this project. = He deferred the other comments (i.e. impacts on the wells) to Mr. Gospodarek.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara said Louis B= erger felt there should be qualitative measures to preserve mass producing trees = and shrubs, stonewalls, natural landscape features. He said he wanted to know specific= ally what those measures would be. Mr. Hurley said he would have to defer to the next meeting.

Mr. Scanzani asked that t= he impacts on the wells be addressed. <= /span>Mr. Gospodarek began by discussing preservation objectives and what they would = be doing on the site. He said wi= thin their site plan they showed the existing tree cover on the site and outline= d on the plan set the areas that would be left in tact. Mr. McNamara suggested that Mr. Gospodarek contact Mr. Wood and discuss the plan so the Board could have comments back from Mr. Wood regarding the proposed. Mr. Zohdi suggested Mr. Gowan set = up a meeting (at the applicant’s expense) with Mr. Wood to review the plan= . Mr. Gowan said he would be happy t= o set a meeting. Mr. Zohdi noted th= at the plan set contained information regarding the vegetation that would stay in tact. Mr. Scanzani asked to d= iscuss the WCD; it appeared that the storm water treatment probably addressed desi= gn issues and the special permit probably addressed the proposed well location within the WCD. He believe the Board had to decide if they wanted a status report of the National Heritage Database. The Board was in agreement that a status report was not needed. Mr. Scanzani said it seemed Louis = Berger may have questioned if the Town’s storm water plan was adequate. Mr. Gowan said he would work out a conference call to be followed up with a meeting if needed.

The Board then addressed = the Special Permit and waiver requests as follows:

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= ccept, for consideration, the Special Permit.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= --------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 10.04,J - drainage work to conform to standard specifications of the Town.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 11.11,b,2 – Well radius.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the waiver request to Section 12.03 – Traffic Impact Analysis.

VOTE:

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

-------------------------= ----------------------------------------------------

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove all the waiver requests to Appendix I, bb and dd (because the proposed is= a private driveway) except those in connection with – pavement width = and base coat depth.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Zohdi asked that the Landscape Architect have the opportunity to speak. The Board agreed. Mr. Jack Trembley, Landscape Archi= tect for the project noted that he had also worked on the LRL project. He discussed the project and said = he used the retention area as the main focal point. He explained that he used a mix of plantings, larger trees for the street and flowering trees for the homes to give the project a town feel.

Mr. McNamara questioned h= ow the plan would be affected if the project had sidewalks. Mr. Trembley said it wouldn’t= affect it. Mr. McNamara asked how fa= r away the individual units were from the street.= Mr. Trembley said the units were pretty much uniform; he wasn’t sure how sidewalks would work because the bulk of the area was parking. Mr. McNamara asked if the landscape design was indicated on the plan. Mr. Trembley answered yes.

Mr. McNamara said there w= as a recommendation from Stantec that sidewalks be provided. He also felt that in this case, sidewalks were particularly appropriate.&n= bsp; Mr. Zohdi said they would have to review, specifically the drainage = to see what they could do. Mr. McNamara said the reason he brought it up was due to the type of community = and the fact that the mail stop was close to Sherburne Road. He believed the sidewalk would enh= ance the community.

Ms. Bousa agreed, but fel= t the grade of the road also needed to be taken into consideration because they n= eed to be ADA compliant.

Mr. Scanzani said Stantec= still needed to do a final review. = He said it seemed they needed to look at drainage and a few minor technical issues. He then reviewed the = list of items (that the Board knew of) that would need to be added to the plan: = 1) NH DES water supply/pollution control number/approvals; 2) DOT permits; 3) community well permits; 4) note on the plan relative to an exaction of $2250 per unit for the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road improvement; 5) voluntary contribution to the Senior Cent= er of $500 per unit - Mr. Zohdi said they were volunteering to give the Town $= 500 per unit for the Senior Center. He said it didn’t matter how the Town spent the money, but he would real= ly like to see some of it go to recreation (i.e. $1500 per unit then remaining toward recreation); (additional comments below)

Mr. Scanzani said he woul= d like Mr. Gowan to get a letter from the Highway Safety Committee regarding the l= ight at the entrance. He asked tha= t the Sherburne Road developments be discussed together when reviewing lighting. He wanted lighting to be paid for = by the applicants and suggested it be reviewed as part of the sign review process. Mr. Gowan noted that= LRL had been approved without that stipulation. Mr. Scanzani said LRL still had to= come back for sign approval. Mr. Gospodarek said lighting had been discussed for the Mopar project and they found that across the street was a street pole with a light. He said they were also proposing entrance lights for the signs. Mr. Gowan said he would scrutinize and ensure that the signage would be appropriate.

The Board continued their= list of items to be included on the plan: 6) utility detail for underground utiliti= es (electric, cable, telephone etc.) – Mr. Gospodarek said there was a p= ole across the street where wiring would come into the development then go underground through the entire site; 7) sidewalks were still up for discussion based on Stantec’s review; 8) interconnecting trail up the sideline into the Burton property connecting to existing trails. – Mr. Zohdi said he wo= uld.

Mr. Gowan asked for confi= rmation that a letter from the Fire Department was contained in the file. Ms. Ouellette said a comment lette= r from the Fire Department dated January 29, 2007 had been submitted.&n= bsp;

The plan was date specifi= ed to the March 8, 2007= meeting.

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 – Sun Bridge Professional Center= , LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review a= nd Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

A site walk was scheduled= for March 3, 2007, <= st1:time Minute=3D"0" Hour=3D"8" w:st=3D"on">8am.

The plan date specified t= o the March 8, 2007 me= eting.

Map 32 Lot 1-146, 148 & 1= 49 – Spaulding Hill Development, LLC/Roger Montbleau – Marie Avenue & Spaulding Hill Road= – Proposed 24-Lot Subdivision and Seeking Special Permit for Drainage within the WCD

The plan was date specifi= ed to the March 8, 2007= meeting.

SITE WALK – March 3, 2007

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 –= ; Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review a= nd Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

Map 6 Lot 4= -139 – Peterson Built Homes – Collin’s Way Subdivision – Request for Bond Release/Reduction

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

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS- March 8, 2007

Map 35 Lot 6-113-1 –= ; Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning – 5 Old Bridge Street South – Site Plan Review a= nd Proposed 6240SF 5-Unit Professional Office Building

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

Febru= ary 5, 2007

MOTION:

(Culbert/Ouellette) To = approve the February 5,= 2007 minutes as amended.

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= djourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:30 pm

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

Charity A. L. Willis

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

=

=