PB Minutes 03-08-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 8, 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, Ken Dunne (arrived after the meeting commenced), Alternate Tom Collins, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Paul Dadak, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Selectmen Representativ= e Tom Domenico, Alternate Bob Yarmo

OLD BUSINESS

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 developer Mr. Ken Magarian were present for the meeting. Mr. Roy said at the previous meeti= ng the Board had a list of items they wanted completed. He said essentially all of the information requested had been done and forwarded to the Town’s consultant as well as the abutting land owner on Litchfield Circle.

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the= items specified during the previous meeting and what had been completed. He said a letter from the Highway = Safety Committee had been received recommending installation of a street light (to= be powered by the Association) at the intersection of the driveway; a note on = the plan should be added. Mr. Gow= an noted that NH Department of Transportation permit requirements should be satisfied. Mr. Roy said the c= urb cut was still pending and would be modified.

Mr. Scanzani confirmed th= at the plan had been updated to include the new finished drainage design. He asked Mr. George Saurman (who w= as present at the rear of the room) of the abutting parcel on Litchfield Circl= e if Cormier & Saurman felt the design met their needs and that they had no problem with it. Mr. Saurman = shook his head in the affirmative (there was no problem).

Mr. Scanzani continued re= view of the items requested at the last meeting.&n= bsp; He said a letter from Louis-Berger (Town’s environmental consultant) had been received. Mr. Gowan reviewed the germane paragraph which in summary stated that the propo= sed drainage would likely affectively treat storm water loads. He viewed the letter as a ‘pass’.

Mr. Scanzani said the con= dominium documents would still need to be reviewed by the Town’s attorney and = an approval would be conditioned upon such.&n= bsp; Mr. Gowan noted that the attorney couldn’t review the documents until the plan was approved. =

Mr. Gowan noted that ther= e was a small ‘pie’-shaped lot (that abutted Hudson to the west) that would be land-= locked if no right-of-way was provided through this project. He recommended to the applicant th= at a 30ft. right-of-way be shown on the plan to allow for a driveway access to t= he lot (allowing for a single-family or duplex if adequate land). He said without access the lot wou= ld essentially be not-buildable. There was a brief discussion regarding where the right-of-way would connect, whet= her it be a connection to the private road within the project and if the Board = had the authority to grant such. = Mr. McNamara pointed out if the parcel came to the Board of Adjustment for a variance they would request frontage onto a private road. Mr. Gowan said that would also req= uire going to the Selectmen requesting a home with no frontage onto a Town road. Mr. McNamara questioned= if the owner would then have some obligation to the Condominium Association. Mr. Gowan said the Town’s at= torney would review the condominium document.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara confirmed that the owner of the parcel had been notifie= d of the hearings. Mr. Gowan was c= ertain that the owner had been notified. Mr. Scanzani noted that the lot was land-locked prior to the proposed project coming forward. He sa= id the project gave the Board the ability to un-lock the land. Mr. Gowan said the lot was at leas= t an acre, but unsure if it was any larger. He said it would support a single-family, and possibly a duplex. A right-of-way would not be opening up a large development.

Mr. Culbert questioned if= the developer was being penalized, even though the lot was previously land-locked. Mr. Gowan recall= ed that the Board, when able, remedied like situations. Mr. Roy understood what the Board = was attempting and offered an alternative to using the condominium roadways. He pointed out there were common boundaries on Sherburne Ro= ad. He said they would be willing to p= rovide an access easement through the northwest corner which would allow the lot t= heir own access. Mr. Gowan said th= at proposal would change the zoning relief; the applicant would only have to go before the Board of Adjustment for lack of frontage. Mr. Scanzani wanted to make sure t= he easement was only the width of a driveway and a connecting road was not bei= ng allowed through to Hudson. Mr. McNamara noted if the easement= was allowed it would disturb some open space and questioned if it skewed any calculations. Mr. Roy said it= would only be a small area. Ms. Bou= sa said the area was part of the wetland buffer. Mr. Gowan said it was unknown if t= he lot would ever be developed.

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= at frontage the ‘pie’ lot had on Sherburne Road. Mr. Watson said the lot had 8-feet= of frontage. Mr. Culbert note if= the Board allowed for a 30-foot right-of-way only 22-feet would be needed from = the applicant.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the easement, where it would be located and its width. Mr. McNamara pointed out that the Board’s actions would present problems for the Board of Adjustment ma= king the right-of-way ‘set in stone’. Mr. Gowan understood it would be a difficult position, but felt it would be even tougher if there was no access. Mr. Scanzani suggeste= d the following wording ‘a private driveway access easement of whatever wid= th is necessary to create a private driveway with a width not to exceed 30-fee= t at Sherburne Road.’

Mr. Gowan said another it= em to discuss was the applicant assuming the responsibility of continuing the drainage structure and therefore the bond to do work on this project and the abutting piece of Litchfie= ld Circle associate with reconfiguring the drainage. He believed the des= ign had passed with Stantec (Town’s engineer) and that the abutting owners (Cormier & Saurman) were amenable to the design. Mr. Roy said they proposed to reco= nfigure the drainage so the access road would not inhibit the treatment and the det= ention functionality of such. Mr. Sc= anzani said the Board wanted the applicant to include, in the total bond, the improvement being made to the drainage in that location. Mr. Roy understood.

Mr. McNamara clarified th= at the drainage system would be accessible to the Town. Mr. Roy said they provided an acce= ss easement from the end of the 50-foot right-of-way to allow for maintenance = from Litchfield Circle down to the wetlands. He said= they also incorporated in the trail easement so people could walk down the right-of-way and along the side line of the property.

There was no public input= .

Mr. Scanzani then reviewe= d the list of items discussed at the previous meeting which will be conditions for approval of the plan :1) NH Water Supply and Pollution Control permits; 2) = DOT driveway permits; 3) well permits; 4) because it is a phased project – note on plan explaining/breakdown of what would happen during each phase (concern a= bout the roadways and drainage being done) – construction sequencing ̵= 1; this was completed; 5) because of traffic created by projects to the intersection of Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road – (note on plan) exaction= of $2250 per unit for the roadway improvements – also note on plan $500 = per unit voluntary contribution for Senior Center; 6) list on plans where all t= he utilities will be located (including electric, telephone and cable); 7) fin= al drainage design calculations that have been reviewed/accepted by Stantec (and agreed= to by Cormier & Saurman); 8) per Stantec’s letter of February 21, 20= 07 note on plan regarding retaining wall detail; 9) note on plan regarding screening detail for the drainage area as proposed, agreed to and accepted;= 10) show easements to the continuing, existing trails to the Tyngsboro line fro= m the Litchfield Circle development; 11) letter of satisfaction to the concerns in the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘EIA’) from Louis Berger (specifically - storm water with regard to assessing Litchfield Circle and presence of downstream sensitive receiving waters); 12) road names to be ad= ded to the plan; 13) condominium documentation and any maintenance stipulations= to be reviewed by Town Attorney for completeness, subsequent to plan approval;= 14) install light at end of driveway at Sherburne Road, per Department of Transportation specifications, at the Association’s expense for insta= llation, maintenance and use; 15) private driveway access easement to be placed on t= he plan at whatever width necessary to create a private driveway easement with= a width not to exceed 30-feet at Sherburne Road along the westerly boundary of the property; 16) the bond to include the drainage on the right-of-way to Litchfield Circle; and 17) Stantec to review (and sign off on) the final pl= an set.

Mr. McManus was appointed= to vote in Mr. Dunne’s absence.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the plan, subject to the conditions reviewed.

VOTE:

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

Map 38 Lot 155 Mopar Construction – Sherburne Road – Proposed 30-Unit Elderly Housing

Mr. Mike Gospodarek of He= rbert Associates met with the Board to discuss the proposed plan and open items discussed at the previous meeting. He said the Board had requested they review sidewalks for the projec= t so they reviewed the slopes and didn’t feel it would be advisable to have them. He said they tried to a= ddress the request by adding a trail system behind the units.

Mr. Dunne arrived and wou= ld vote regarding the proposed. Mr. M= cManus would no longer vote.

Mr. Gospodarek discussed = the problems with having sidewalks in front of the units and showed the Board t= he location of the proposed (gravel) walking system which would connect to the trail to the mailboxes. He sa= id they received and didn’= t have any issues with Stantec’s (Town engineer) review comments. He noted that Gove Environmental h= ad responded to the comments submitted by Louis-Berger (Craig Wood); comments = have been received back with one remaining item. Louis-Berger asked to provide with= a simple methods for pollution loads and runoff; Mr. Gospodarek noted that the Board had approved the Green Book but were willing to meet the contents of = Mr. Wood’s letter. Mr. McNa= mara noted that Mr. Wood’s letter indicated it was ‘possible’ = that the measures would affectively treat storm water treatment loads.

Mr. Scanzani asked the Bo= ard if they were in favor of the walkways behind the unit versus in front of the units. Mr. McNamara asked what surface would be used for the walkways.&nb= sp; Mr. Gospodarek said they were considering stone dust or gravel. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the Ordinance going before the voters which would require sidewalk systems (with ADA compliance) in all senior projects. Mr. Gospodarek said it would have been difficult with this project b= ased upon the steep slopes. Ms. Bo= usa said the slopes were awfully steep and felt if anything was done, other than the ADA= requirements, there would be liability issues. Mr. Gowan asked Mr. Gospodarek to reiterate their solution to sidewalks. Mr. Gospodarek said they were tryi= ng to go around the buildings in the back with a path system that would allow wal= king trails and access to the bottom of the property. Mr. Gowan asked if it was a viable solution for someone wanting to get their mail. Mr. Gospodarek said they were tryi= ng to accomplish access to the mail boxes. He said they might be able to reduce the roadway from 26-feet to 24-= feet and possibly make a small path at the edge of pavement; however, people wou= ld have to be careful of parked cars in the driveways. Ms. Bousa said the Board should co= nsider what they would like to accomplish for pedestrian access (i.e. walking or connection from unit-to-unit or access to Sherburne Road). Mr. McNamara said he would like to= have a little of each so people would be able to ambulate. Ms. Bousa suggested having a long-= range plan of connectivity.

Mr. Scanzani said the Boa= rd wanted confirmation from the Fire Department indicating that their emergenc= y vehicles could negotiate the road system, as designed. Mr. Gowan believed that letter was already in the file. Mr. Scan= zani didn’t understand the comment regarding three-sided access. Mr. Gowan said that was a standard request, but on this site it didn’t work.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec said there were very few technical issues still open; the issues of most concern were: 1) grading behind unit #7 that abuts the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) – concern of encroachment. Mr. Gospodarek said they proposed = to move the building in giving approximately 4ft.-5ft. to the WCD. He showed on the plan what they proposed. Mr. Hertrich said t= he second issue was not showing vehicle access to the wells/pump station. Mr. Gospodarek said they showed a = water line on the plan and WCD impact of approximately 15ft. wide for water line;= as the water line was developed, they would show the grading (approx. 8%) at t= hat time. Mr. Scanzani said the applicant had provided a response to Stantec’s letter either indicati= ng they had no problem with the comment, or that they would add to the plan. He said the Board would require a = final review by Stantec. Mr. Culbert wanted to include Mr. Gowan in the final review of the plans.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To a= pprove the Special Permit for the Wetland Conservation District crossing.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani reviewed the= list of items that the Board would include as conditions for approval: 1) NH DES water supply/pollution c= ontrol 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; 6) note on plan indicating that a street light would be installed at the driveway intersection at Sherburne Road per Department of Transportation specification - installation, maintenance and use to be paid= for by the Condominium Association. Mr. Gospodarek asked for the option of installing decorative lighting using the same luminaries. The Board wa= s fine with the request. Mr. Scanzani asked if there was an easement showing the interconnectivity of existing tr= ails for access to the Merriam property. Mr. Gospodarek said they agreed to put such on the plan. Mr. Scanzani said it would be a condition of approval. Mr. Gospodarek understood. Stantec would have final review of the plans.

Mr. McNamara said at the = last meeting he asked Mr. Hurley for specifics regarding what qualitative measur= es to preserve mass producing trees and shrubs, stonewalls, natural landscape features they would do. Mr. H= urley said his response was in the letter (date February 26, 2007) sent to both Mr. Go= wan and Mr. Wood (of Louis-Berger). <= /p>

Mr. Scanzani added a cond= ition for approval that the condominium documents and maintenance schedules are t= o be reviewed by Town Counsel.

Ms. Bousa noted that the Louis-Berger letter recommended a couple measures for approval of the plan. 1) adequate measures to= avoid encroachment into the WCD associated with the construction of building #2; = 2) detailed qualitative assessment of the potential impacts to the downstream receiving waters; and 3) project components be required to undertake a qualitative assessment of potential adverse impacts to water quality. Mr. Scanzani believed the WCD encroachment was addressed by the driveway being moved. Mr. Gospodarek believed the other encroachment could be handled with grading. Ms. Bousa said possibly there shou= ld be a note on the plan. Mr. Scanz= ani said as a condition of approval the WCD recommendations by Louis-Berger let= ter (dated March 7, 2= 007) will be added.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To appr= ove the plan subject to the conditions read aloud.

VOTE:

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

DISCUSSION

Mr. Scanzani paused the m= eeting and thanked the Board members, Planning Department and Stantec for their hard work. He provided the followi= ng advice for the incoming members: 1) Prepare for meetings ahead of time and = read and understand the State’s statutes regarding planning, planning boar= ds, land use and court cases as well as the Town’s Zoning, Development and Subdivision Regulations – use the experience of people still on the B= oard as well as the advice of Planning Director Jeff Gowan; 2) continue the Plan= ning Board’s accomplishments by working on long-term impacts (not short-te= rm gains) and to think ‘outside the box’; 3) continue work with op= en space – continue the hard work the Board had done with the first righ= t of refusal to purchase the Girl Scout camp – work with the Conservation Commission to identify lands for purchase as well as lands were development rights should be purchased to protect wildlife corridors and scenic vistas – if this stops now, there won’t be anything to protect in the future; 4) understand the importance of the Town’s trail system for walking, biking, snowmobiling etc. – there is only one chance to prot= ect them when a development comes forward – it only takes one ‘miss’ to loose the connection of many miles of trails which are now longer than the Town’s road system – look for the connectio= ns in all developments and make sure to continue the connectivity; 5) several intersections will become increasingly problematic as the Town grows, as Ro= ute 93 widens and the regional project in Hudson unfolds – the Board shou= ld look to do exactions an off-site road improvements because there is never going = to be enough money in the state coffers to do all that is necessary; 6) impact fees and voluntary contributions for Town infrastructure projects are impor= tant – the Board should continue to follow through on a consistent basis w= ith such to support community development goals; 7) don’t be afraid to gr= ant waivers when warranted, and inline with past practice of the Board but be careful not to set precedents with new waivers, or waiver types – som= e of the subdivision and site development regulations were intentionally set up = to require waivers and special permits in order to allow the Board to review carefully the applicant’s intentions and ensure compliance with the regulations (examples being such things – well radius, wetland crossings, driveway construction and ad= ult and elderly projects; 8) follow Town engineer’s recommendations when = they look and ask the Board to grant waivers.&n= bsp;

Mr. Scanzani said zoning = was as much an art as it was a science and said few on the Board over the past yea= rs had initiated changes and cautioned the new Board to not ‘rock the bo= at too much’ because Pelham’s zoning had served the Town well over= 50 years. He said make small cha= nges as needed in order to improve on meeting the Town’s long-term Master Plan guidelines or to create new opportunities for the citizens and businesses.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said avoid big changes all at o= nce because the Town would regret it. He = said follow the outside paid consulting services employed including the Town Engineer, review consultants and legal unless there are compelling reasons = that could be articulated not to. = In conclusion Mr. Scanzani told the Board to have fun and enjoy what they are doing. He said the members wo= uld have to separate the facts from the fiction at every hearing, because they could only vote on the facts.

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

Mr. Scanzani asked if Stantec’s review letter addressed the plans currently before the Boar= d, or the revised set. Mr. Gowan= said the review letter (dated March 6, 2007) was in connection with revised plans; however, the plan set in front of the Board was dated January 29, 2007.&n= bsp; He asked the applicant what date the most recent set of plans were.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Donald Ronning (applicant) bel= ieved the January 29, = 2007 plans to be the most recent and the same one reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Scanzani said= the plan he had in front of him was not the most recent plan. Mr. Gowan believed the confusion c= ame from the fact that the Board received comment from the Conservation Commiss= ion who indicated they reviewed an updated plan, which they were more satisfied with. Mr. Ronning’s representative said the Conservation Commission was given two alternative plans; the plan in front of the Board was preferred by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Gowan said Stantec’s (Town engineer) review was based on plans dated February 27, 2007. He went to the planning office to = see if revised copies had been received.

Mr. Scanzani began discus= sing the pending issues. Mr. Gowan ret= urned and said he had the updated sheet the Conservation Commission reviewed, how= ever he didn’t have more than one set.&nb= sp;

Mr. Kurt Meisner of Meisn= er Brem Corporation discussed how the plan had changed since the Board originally reviewed in December, 2006. H= e said they had removed a bank of parking (reducing the number to 49); this moved = the detention basin toward the rear of the property. He said the other site design/infrastructure remained the same.&n= bsp; He said there were some underground roof drainage structures that we= re removed; the drainage now went into the earthen basin. He said if the Board would discuss= (approve) the waivers for the leach field under the parking and the front setback line then they could submit the plan to the state for their approval.

Mr. Culbert said he would= not vote on a plan that was not in front of him. Mr. Gowan said he would be uncomfo= rtable with voting, but felt it was important to discuss the comments made during = the site walk.

Mr. Scanzani noted that t= he issue of where the original retention pond was placed next to the abutting septic system was moved. He said Sta= ntec had made a recommendation to make sure the bottom of the retention area had= a different material and that the drainage swale went around the back of the property to the low area to take the water under the culvert on the abutting property to Hammar & Sons. Mr. Culbert reiterated that he would not vote for any approval at this time. Mr. Scanzani said another item rev= iewed during the site walk was the drop off at the back of the lot. He said the recommendation was mad= e for additional plantings so the people on Chagnon Lane didn’t get the drainage from the ba= ck of the site. Mr. Culbert said without a plan he couldn’t make any comments.

Mr. McNamara said Stantec= had some issues in their letter that would need to be addressed. Mr. Scanzani said the review comme= nts from Stantec were a review of a plan with a later date than the plan curren= tly in front of the Board. He sai= d the revised plan took into account the comments made at the site walk. Mr. Gowan explained that the plans= in front of the Board were dated January 29, 2007; the revised plan dated February 27, 2007 was done for the Fire Department and Conservation Commission consideration. Mr. McNamara believed the major co= ncern was the runoff from the site down to the area (Chagnon Lane). He understood that the applicant w= as going to try and eliminate any runoff.&nbs= p;

Mr. Scanzani said he had = concern regarding the 2-1 slopes and also wanted to know how much water the detenti= on pond could hold at any one time because it had an outlet to it. He wanted to make sure the detenti= on pond was constructed so it would not fail, because if it did, it would fail= off the back portion of the property. Mr. Meisner said the detention basin was sized to handle the roof runoff and all the water from the site. He s= aid the detention basin would hold the water and evenly spread it over a head w= all. He said Stantec had discussed the possibility of creating a swale, which they agreed to do. Mr. Dadak questioned if vegetation= would be added. Mr. Scanzani said t= hey discussed adding a buffer to the housing unit to the south. Mr. Meisner said they intended to = have a buffer, but had not discussed what it would be.

Mr. Scanzani since the pl= an was going to be continued, he agreed with Mr. Culbert that the Board shouldn’t make any decisions that would ‘handcuff’ the fu= ture Board to make decisions. He s= aid there were some outstanding issues to be addressed such as: 1) the under-pavement septic; 2) waiv= ers to the number of parking spaces; 3) the uses and how much water would be going into the septic system; 4) type of uses of the businesses; and 5) how to bu= ffer the neighboring properties so there would be no water runoff to the abutter= s on Chagnon Lane.

Mr. Meisner said they dis= cussed the septic system, what use and what went into the septic system at a previ= ous meeting. He said they had a n= umber of correspondences with NH Department of Environmental Services (‘DET= ’) and Pelham Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski and noted there was a proce= ss that other hairdressers/salons had gone through to obtain a state Groundwat= er Discharge Permit. He said the= y were in the process of doing such. He said they needed Mr. Zarnowski’s approval before it could be sent to = the state. He believed the Board = would want the applicant to have the permit as they went through the approval pro= cess for the plan. Mr. Scanzani confirmed that Mr. Meisner was asking the Board to approve the waiver for t= he underground septic. Mr. Meisn= er answered yes; it would help answer questions regarding the septic system. Mr. Culbert said he had no other information except what had been said.&nbs= p; He said if a hair salon needed special requirements, he wanted to see them. Mr. Meisner said a hair= salon didn’t need special requirements.

Ms. Ouellette informed th= at the Board accepted the waiver for the under-pavement septic on January 18, 2007. The Board was not in favor of appr= oving the waiver without a plan because the area was too critical. Mr. Meisner said the waiver would = only allow a septic to be placed under the pavement; the Board would not be issu= ing an approval for the septic system and in the series of checks and balances = (if the Board allowed the waiver) they would send it through Mr. Zarnowski and DES. Mr. Scanzani explained t= hat the Board was reviewing an older plan and would like to review the updated = one. Mr. Culbert reiterated that the pr= operty was very sensitive and wanted help understanding the requirements.

Mr. McNamara explained th= at there would be a new Board reviewing the plan in two weeks due to the election. He said the plan would have to lay= out the specifics.

Ms. Bousa said the plan w= as an improvement over the last. She said, since there was not full circulation around the building and there are now two dead-ends in the two parking lots, the Board should consider “= ;No Parking” signage at the end of the two parking aisles (at the inlet/t= urn around areas). If customers p= ark in the turn around areas, other customers coming down the aisle that don’= ;t find an open parking space will be stuck.&= nbsp; At the site driveway, she recommended running the curbing further in= to the site encompassing the hatched pavement area (which could then also be landscaped) to give the throat of the driveway a little more protection and integrity. She said they may = also want to consider how trucks would circulate on the site. Mr. Meisner said they would review= . He said Mr. Gowan alluded to the f= act that the Fire Department had reviewed the plan and signed-off on it. He said the Fire Department trucks= have a 51-foot wheel base.

Mr. Gowan strongly sugges= ted that the next plan set (revision) should address the comments. He felt it would be appropriate to contact Mr. Zarnowski to write a letter regarding the issue of the waiver a= nd what was needed. Mr. Meisner = felt they could address the Stantec comments in short order. Mr. Gowan said he could set up a m= eeting with Stantec to review the plans. He said they should bring the building renderings to the next meeting for revi= ew.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the March 19, 20= 07 meeting.

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 19, 20= 07 meeting.

AD= MINISTRATIVE

Ma= p 38 Lot 1-116 Cormier & Saurman Building – Litchfield Circle – Request f= or Bond Reduction

Mr. Scanzani said the Board had been concerned that the Magarian project (Map 38 Lot 1-118) bonded for the drainage improvements that had to be done in the right-of-way that went to Litchfield Circle. Magarian has agreed to do so and w= ill be noted on the plan (as a condition of approval – see above hearing). He said the bond reduction before = the Board, as recommended by Stantec (Town’s engineer) was to maintain a maintenance bond which would not include having to do the work.

Mr. Gowan said the original bond was $337,332.= 00; (after previous reductions) the current bond is $55,693.20; the recommended release is $21,960.00 which would retain $33,733.20 (10% of original bond h= eld until the road is accepted by the Town next year).

There was a brief discussion regarding what the correct reduction was because there were two letter. A motion was made, seconded and vo= ted on using the letter with incorrect amounts.&n= bsp; The motion was then withdrawn and the following motion was made:

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) To r= educe the bond to the maintenance bond amount of $33,733.20.

VOTE:

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

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

Mr. McNamara stepped down.

Mr. Scanzani noted that a site walk had been conducted. He said Meadowview Estates includes several (documented) requests (documented in meeting minut= es) regarding the continuation of a waterline that was supposed to come down Meadowview all the way to the Jeremy Hill Road intersection. He said the Board had discussed th= is fact/requirement over many years. He said as part of the subdivision there were grading changes to match the roa= ds, but at no time did the Board waver from the need or request that the water = main be continued to that point. M= r. Gowan felt it was important to discuss the discussions from the site walk.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He noted there was a bond reduction request that was significantly less than the developer would like to see. Mr. Scanzani said as part of the s= ite walk, a punch list had been created which the applicant didn’t feel a= ll the items contained on such should be done. He felt certain items in the punch= list (dated February 22, 200= 7 from Stantec, Town’s engineer) should be done again (i.e. clean catch basins) because of the length of time the project had taken and the delay by the developer.

Mr. Gowan said the developer had made the assertion that the water main was not shown on the plan and was not part of= the approval. He believed through investigation of the meeting minutes and discussions with the design engine= er (Herbert Associates) the extension of the water main was not a requirement of the Bo= ard, but had been offered up to the Board by the engineer. He said because it was offered up = to the Board it was part of the approved project; the records are clear to this fact. Mr. Scanzani also recal= led that the approved plan was later purchased for development. The purchaser is still responsible= to do due diligence and review Planning Board minutes and conditions for approval. Mr. Culbert said it= was his complete understanding that the (water line extension) offer was part of the plan. Ms. Ouellette said = that was the only reason the Board went forward at that point.

Mr. Scanzani said part of Stantec’s bond reduction holds back the money for the water line. Mr. Gowan said during the site wal= k it was noted that the water main couldn’t be put in without resurfacing = the entire section of the road. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Peter McNamara, Jeremy Hill Road read from the Plan= ning Board minutes from November 6, 2000 at which Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates said his understanding was that the Board wanted the water line extended to the end = of Longview. At that meeting Planning Board mem= ber Victor Danevich clarified that the water main’s extension to the end = of Longview and Jerem= y Hill was voluntary to which Mr. Zohdi answered yes and drew on the plan where the water main would run. Mr. Dan= evich then asked where the water line would be located. Mr. Zohdi said the lines would be = located on the shoulder, but informed that the road would have to be cut in two or three areas to connect to all the properties; he then said those portions w= ould be resurfaced. Contained in t= he same meeting minutes Mr. Culbert wanted to clarify that Longview would be resurfaced completely= to which Mr. Zohdi said the length of Longview would be put a one-inch finish = on the existing portion to blend with the other road. Mr. McNamara then read a portion o= f the conditions for approval that state Pennichuck’s ability to supply wat= er to all the areas. He informed= the Board that the project/case was discussed at several Board meetings that ma= ke the intent of the Board and Mr. Zohdi’s intent obvious. Mr. McNamara said the project had = been going on for seven years and since that time, the gentleman responsible had thrown forth different kinds of excuses through the years about why he couldn’t do it and why it wasn’t his responsibility. He asked the Board to impose a time limit for the work to be done or have the bond revoked.

Mr. Scanzani said the Board should look to have all the open punch list items completed by July 1, 2007 and have the water line and resurfacing of Longview to be done by Sep= tember 1, 2007 in order to prevent the Planning Board from calling the bond. He asked the Board for a recommendation that specifically says that the Board is in full agreement w= ith the recommendations of Stantec and that all of the punch list items must be completed and must be completed by July 1, 2007 except for the water main a= nd resurfacing of Longview which must be completed by September 1, 2007 and if either of those dates are not met, it would be the intention of the Board to pull the entire bond and have the work done ourselves.

Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Gowan agreed with the reduction of the bond. Mr. Go= wan said the bond reduction was pretty minor; it was for items that had been do= ne that Stantec agreed with. He = said he discussed the punch list with Seth Potter (Stantec) almost weekly. He said he agreed with the recommendation. He asked if t= he Board wanted a letter sent, or if they would make a motion. Mr. Scanzani said he recommended t= hat the Board make a motion to pull the bond if the dates were not hit. He said a letter should also be se= nt to the developer indicating the Board’s expectations.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dunne) To redu= ce the bond to $278,626.00 and to also send a letter to the developer indicating that the punch list must be completed by July 1, 2007 and the water (water line= ) and repaving of the road must be completed by September 1, 2007 or the bond would be revoked. <= /p>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. McNamar= a had previously stepped down.

Mr. Gowan said he would make copies of the let= ter available to the Board. He pr= epared the document, which Mr. Scanzani and Ms. Ouellette signed.

Mr. McNamara returned to the Board.

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

Mr. Scanzani said a site walk had been done and said there were a lot of issues on Collins Way that went back to when Greenmeadow Drive was done. He said there were also issues at = that time due to having changes with Planning Directors and Town engineers. He said at this point there were s= ome issues on Collins Way that had recently been looked at by Stantec (Town engineer) in the normal review for bond reduction. He= said for some reason when the road profiles changed on Long view Drive one of the road crossing open ditch culverts and retaining wall had some very steep dr= op offs without the proper guard rails; which was missed during many reviews, = but was now completed. Mr. Scanzani s= aid now with Collins Way there are other issues which include some extremely steep slope lots drivew= ay accesses (slopes in excess of 2-1; water on the road; catch basins not installed or done to Town specs etc.).&nbs= p; He said Stantec had identified all the items in a letter dated January 4, 2007 = that was given to the Board. Mr. Scanz= ani said (as discussed on site) if the developer was forced to do the work, it would require them to put in some very expensive retaining walls, among oth= er things (get easements from homeowners).&nb= sp; He said he was more inclined to work with the developer on the slope= s to make sure they were stable, with the understanding he would fix all of the deficiencies contained in Stantec’s review; and further, the developer would go back and fix the guardrails as required on = Longview.

Mr. Gowan said this project had been going on = for a number of years and believed the issues were the best example of inconsistencies in both Planning Directors and design review engineering firms. He said the slopes on = the plan for Collins Way were 3-1 (the regulations allow for 2-1 without waiver= ); however, when Stantec came onto the job, they noticed in the field that in = some cases the slopes weren’t 3-1 as shown on the plan (some were 1-1). He said there were other issues on= Collins Way= , but wanted to make sure the slope issue was in the record with the Board taking= a position. Mr. Gowan said the Town’s engineer recommended to the former Planning Director (Will D’Andrea) that he meet with the developer to resolve the issue and br= ing it back to the Board. He said essentially that’s what the Board was doing at this point. He said it was a complex and compl= icated issue to even get to a 2-1 slope because the driveways are installed and th= ere were owners in the homes. He = said to discuss this, the Board would have to separate the Collins Way portion from Mr. Peterson’s portion on Lo= ngview. He said most of what was included = in the bond reduction was on Longview= . He said there were some in-field d= esign changes done because Mr. Peterson’s section of Longview didn’t quite match up to= Mr. Nicholls’s section which was brought to the Board and well documented. The problem was the need for culve= rts was not picked up by the Board, CLD (former Town engineer) or subsequently = by TFMoran (former Town engineer); only Stantec (present Town engineer) caught= the deficiency. Mr. Gowan asked t= hat the Board take a position now regarding the slopes being acceptable in exch= ange for (an off site exaction) to fix the guardrails on the piece of the road (= up for acceptance at Town Meeting March 13, 2007). This c= ould be further discussed when Collin’s Way comes up for more advanced bond reductions once more work is done. <= /span>

Mr. Scanzani said the Planning Board’s responsibility ends at approving plans.&nb= sp; He said the Board had to rely on other experts to make sure that the approved plan is what gets done in the field. He said this plan went back many y= ears. He said the Board was now realizin= g that the plan was not done per specifications and the developer was looking for a bond reduction. He felt there= were some trade-offs that needed to be done, and agreed with Mr. Gowan about an off-site exaction for guardrails, but didn’t want to ‘pass’ on the slopes. He wanted the developer to go back= , and as best as he could (where it’s 1.5-1) work to get at least the minim= um allowed by the Board (2-1) at that time.&n= bsp; He also wanted the developer to provide as-built plans (once complet= e) to the Town showing the slopes as being 2-1. He said they should also follow so= me of the other recommendations that Stantec made (including on-site). He said given the steepness of the= road and the sides, one critical item is that all the catch basins work and an additional catch basin be added at the bottom of Collins Way in order to ca= tch water on the other side. He s= aid the road should be ‘crowned’ higher in the center to force the water to the berms to make sure the water ended up in the catch basins. He said part of that would require= a change in the catch basins and move them out from the curb. Mr. Scanzani said it would behoove= the developer to work with Stantec regarding the grading and make sure the temporary material for the slopes could withstand the elements and remain stabilize.

Mr. Scanzani said he didn’t know how the Board could address the issues with the driveways because the homeowners already owned the lots. Mr. C= ulbert said the slope requirements had not been met and felt that the developer sh= ould be required to put guardrails in the driveway on any slope problem. Mr. Gowan noted that in certain pl= aces boulders were used as guardrails and homeowners may prefer this. He said the slopes were safety issues. He believed the Board= had the right to tell the developer to figure out how to change the situation a= nd not give the bond money back.

Mr. Culbert was willing to have the developer = meet with the Board and explain how he would correct the safety issues he created.

Ms. Bousa asked if the slope changes could be accomplished within the right-of-way or if construction easements would be needed. Mr. Scanzani said the right-of-way slopes were fine, he was referring to the slopes on the property. Mr. Gowan said some= were just beyond the right-of-way. Ms. Bousa questioned whether the Board had the authority to go outside of the right-of-way because they were private properties. Mr. Scanzani said he agreed. He said he didn’t know how t= o go back and fix them. He said the issue of slope easements exceeding 2-1 was not an issue that couldn’t= be corrected within the right-of-way. <= /span>He said the issue at the end of the cul-de-sac could be taken care of. He said the issue was coming down = the hill and the slopes into the driveways.&nb= sp; Ms. Bousa suggested having someone from the Planning Department cont= act the affected homes and ask if they were interested in having corrections for safety reasons since they weren’t built per the plan. She said if the answers were spora= dic the corrections may not be able to be done. Ms. Bousa also didn’t believ= e the site plan included specific driveway locations and questioned if the developer c= ould be forced to fix a driveway that didn’t have an approved, or set grade on. Mr. Gowan said he wouldn’t mind contacting/ the homeowners. Mr. Scanzani said the Board would = have to decide if they wanted Mr. Gowan to contact the homeowners indicating the situation that the lots and driveways were not built to the Town’s specifications and the Board recommended adding guardrails or something; al= so informing that the Board would like to do some work within the right-of-way= to make sure the slopes were 2-1. He said the homeowners could also be asked if they would give temporary easeme= nts (to the developer) to make the improvements within the right-of-way.

Mr. Scanzani wanted the record to clearly show that the Board had serious concerns with the slopes, driveways, safety issu= es etc. Also that Stantec’s review and the comments regarding what needs to be done on the roadway (wit= hin the Town right-of-way) must be met. Further, that the Board is adamant about fixing the safety issue on Longview regarding the guardrails as part of it and it would be held togeth= er for a future Board to decide whether or not to give a bond reduction or to = pull the bond to make necessary improvements.

Mr. McManus questioned how deep the water main= was because many of the shut offs were two-feet above the ground. He also noted that the stonewall o= n lot 21 was located in the right-of-way. He said on lot #42 (last house) water collected under the basin.

Mr. Scanzani summarized the issues: 1) the Boa= rd was in full agreement with the review that Stantec made and expected all the items on the punch list to be done; 2) there are issues with 1-1 slopes and= the Board asked the developer to work as best he could on at least getting the = 1-1 slopes to the minimum 2-1 slopes as required by the regulations; 3) the Boa= rd expects what has to happen on Collins Way to extend to Longview in the sense that the Board expected the guardrails to be put over the cross-culvert on = both sides of the road; 4) in consideration of getting to the 2-1 slopes, the developer had to work in a reasonable way to fix some of the safety issues = with the driveways with guardrails or something – Mr. Gowan, at the developer’s expense, will send letters to the homeowners to get their opinions as to what to do. Mr. Gowan said he would go to the site and determine which houses have the issue. Mr. Scanzani asked tha= t Mr. McManus’ concerns regarding stone walls in the right-of-way be allowe= d to be added to Stantec’s review punch list to be addressed by a future Board. Mr. Gowan noted that t= he stone walls were not built by the developer, but rather by the homeowner an= d if they were in the Town’s right-of-way it would be taken up with the homeowner.

Mr. Scanzani said if the motion was made to re= duce the bond amount being held it should be with the understanding that Stantec= had conservatively estimated what needed to be held so the Town was protected.<= /p>

Mr. Gowan then reviewed the bond reduction breakdown dated December 19, 2006 that was quite specific. He said Collins Way had a lot of work left = to do, which the developer understood and was not contesting it. He said the items remaining on Longview Circle were part of the maintenance bond that would be held through acceptance of = the project and release in the spring. <= /span>He said the big item was the 10% of the original bond. He then explained that the project= was originally in two phases; bond for phase I $385,000, bond for phase II $437,00= 0. At a later time, the bonds were co= mbined and the remaining amount is $175,648.05.&n= bsp; Stantec’s recommendation is to release $41,757.48 retaining $133,890.57.

Mr. Culbert asked if there was enough money in= the bond to cover what needed to happen. Mr. Gowan said there was. He reviewed some of the items and said the guardrail on Longview was not included. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if ther= e was enough money in the amount to do the guardrails on the house lots (if the developer is allowed to do them). Mr. Gowan said the contingency was $38,500 which would buy a lot of guardrail. He noted that cost= of the driveway style guardrails were less than the heavy duty style.

Mr. Culbert made a motion to reduce the bond = by the amount recommended by Stantec and all the other caveats discussed will be addressed before any other bond reduction comes before the Board. Mr. McNamara seconded the motion. =

Mr. Gowan reiterated the list of issues that w= ould need to be addressed as follows: 1) Mr. Gowan will send letters to homeowne= rs with difficult driveways seeking their opinions on fixes and corrections on slopes where possible; 2) on all slopes in excess of 2-1 be restored to at least 2-1; 3) off-site exaction that will be covered by the remaining bond = on Collins Way to do the guardrails on Longview; 4) follow the punch list as existing by Stantec dated December 19, 2006; and 5) completion of items sho= uld be done by September 1, 2007 or a future Board may want to pull the bond if= not done by that date.

MOTION:

(Culbert/McNamara) redu= ce the bond by the amount recommended by Stantec and all the other caveats discu= ssed will be addressed before any other bond reduction comes before the Board.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Scanzani asked Mr. Gowan to send a letter = to the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator indicating the Board’s action and the list of conditions so they were aware that the Board was try= ing to take corrective action. Al= so to provide them with a history of the project. Mr. Gowan said he would do so once= the meeting minutes were approved.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 31 & 37 Lots 11-33, 34 & 35 Kleczkowski, Charlie &= #8211; Blueberry Circle – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Mr. McNamara confirmed that the plan had not officially been submitted to the B= oard and that it was a conceptual plan. Mr. Scanzani answered yes. Mr. Gowan said the Board didn’t have to accept the plan for co= nsideration because it was conceptual; however, the Board decided to vote.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

No public input was taken.

The plan was date specified to the March 19, 2007 meeting.

Map 29 Lot 7-45 &nbs= p; Charaka, LLC – 49 Atwood Road – Site Plan Review for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

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.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

No public input was taken= .

The plan was date specifi= ed to the March 19, 20= 07 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS- March 19, 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

Map 31 & 37 Lots 11-3= 3, 34 & 35    Kleczkow= ski, Charlie – Blueberry Circle – Pre-Design Review of Proposed 6-Lot Subdivision for Public Discussion

Map 29 Lot 7-45    Charaka, LLC – <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">49 Atwood Road – Site Plan Review for Proposed 8400SF Doctor’s Office & Health Center

MINUTES

Februar= y 22, 2007

MOTION:

(Ouellette/McNamara) To= approve the February 2= 2, 2007 minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(5-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Dunne abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Dunne/McNamara) To adj= ourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:55 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

=

=