PB Minutes 03-19-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

March 19, 2007

The Vice Chairman Peter M= cNamara called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. He then calle= d the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy C= ulbert, Paul Dadak, Jason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Roger Montbleau, Selectmen Representat= ive Tom Domenico Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None

ELECTION OF OFFICERS

MOTION:

(Culbert/Domenico) To n= ominate Peter McNamara as Chairman.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Domenico/Montbleau) To nominate Paddy Culbert as Vice Chairman.

VOTE:

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Domenico) To n= ominate Paul Dadak as Secretary<= /o:p>

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara asked the Bo= ard if they would be amenable to commencing the Planning Board meetings at 7pm versus 7:30 pm. The Board was in agreement. =

MOTION:

(Dadak/Culbert) To amen= d the Planning Board By-Laws to amend the meeting starting time to begin at 7pm.

VOTE:

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

Mr. McNamara informed the= Board that they needed a representative to volunteer for the CIP. The CIP is a Board sub-committee a= nd it is required that the CIP have a representative from the Planning Board.

ADMINISTRATIVE

Presentation by Paul Gagnon, Conservation Commission Chair regar= ding proposed land purchase of a tract of land abutting the Merriam parcel with = over 1000-feet of frontage on S= herburne Road. NH RSA 41:14A requires the Planning Board and Conservation Commissio= n to make a recommendation regarding the purchase of land prior to the Board of Selectmen hearing process

Conservation Commission C= hairman Paul Gagnon said the purpose of his presentation was to hopefully have the Board send a positive recommendation to the Selectmen to purchase a piece of property that would be used for conservation purposes. He reviewed a map that showed the proposed 37.1 acre parcel which ha 2096-feet of frontage onto Sherburne Road. He noted that the parcel abutted a= Town parcel consisting of 25 acres; adjacent to the Town parcel was a parcel (Merriam) consisting of 110 acres that was recently purchased for conservation. Mr. Gagnon said= they were offering $390,000 for the parcel which appraised at $560,000. He said a timber assessment had be= en done that indicated the timber to have an approximate value of $82,000. He went on to describe the propert= y that had a 2-acre field in the center and a wetland area of approximately 2-acres. The appraisal showed= the highest and best use of the lot was for residential building lots that esti= mated 13-building lots. Mr. Gagnon = said there were two public hearings scheduled with the Selectmen (March 27, 2007= and April 3, 2007), which if all went well, the owner would like to ‘close’ prior to April 15, 2007 to be able to take advantage of= tax benefits.

Mr. Domenico informed tha= t the Selectmen had already been briefed (during a non-public session) regarding = the parcel. He said he didn’= ;t anticipate any issues arising from the public meetings, because the Selectmen’s feedback had been favorable.

Mr. Gowan confirmed that = there was no plan to harvest the timber. Mr. Gagnon said they would harvest some of the timber by having the = Town Forester conduct a selective cut. This would make the forest healthier. He said there was no intention to = clear-cut; however they may take 30%-50% of the timber and use the money for possibly signage, parking lot or trails.

Mr. Dadak asked if the th= ree parcels combined would be considered Town Forest. Mr. Gagnon said the Merriam proper= ty was voted to be Town Forest. He said if the proposed parcel was accepted, it would make sense to put it and the Town parcel on the ballot to become Town Forest thereby making a contiguous area.

Mr. Culbert questioned wh= ere the money from the timber would be placed.&nbs= p; Mr. Gagnon said the money would go into the Forestry Fund. He explained that the Forestry Com= mittee would then decide how to spend the money; the process would be public and g= o to the Selectmen and Town for approval.

Mr. McNamara felt the pro= posal was good news given the proposed projects in that area. He questioned where the funds to purchase the property would come from.&nbs= p; Mr. Gagnon said the funds would come from the bond previously approv= ed at Town Meeting; there was $1.6 million remaining and after the purchase of= the proposed property there would be a balance of $1.2 million.

Mr. Doherty questioned if= there was any intention to make the property a park or if it would remain forested land. Mr. Gagnon said the Pur= chase and Sales states that the land would be used for conservation purposes; suc= h as passive recreation and snowmobile trails.&= nbsp; They did not intend to clear cut and construct soccer fields. Mr. Doherty said the area seemed t= o be a place for bow hunters and said if it was to become a park, they would be fo= rced out. Mr. Gagnon said he didn’t have any personal intention to purchase property and take it a= way from the hunters and fishermen. His personal opinion was to have property in Town that could be used for everything, except for four-wheelers. Mr. Culbert discussed the possible uses described by the state. He also didn’t feel snowmobi= les were considered ‘passive’.&nbs= p; Mr. Gagnon believed there was precedence/distinction for snowmobiles versus four-wheelers. He beli= eved the difference between four-wheelers and snowmobiles was the damage left behind. He understood it was a ‘touchy’ subject. Mr. Culbert agreed because of excluding someone from using public trails. Mr. Gagnon said it wasn’t his decision it would be something for law enforcement. Mr. Culbert had a problem excluding certain uses.

Mr. Montbleau asked if a = wildlife inventory had been done. An inventory had not been done to Mr. Gagnon’s knowledge. He said a wetland scientist was br= ought in to review the Merriam parcel, but had not brought one in for the proposed. Mr. Montbleau quest= ioned what the wetland consisted of. Mr. Gagnon had an aerial photograph that he showed Mr. Montbleau. Mr. Montbleau was familiar with the property and supported protecting it. He said he knew Mr. Merriam and the property he donated. He believed Mr. Merriam donate his property because of it being an important wildlife habitat resource. He suggested being careful in how = the land was ‘opened up’, for example to vehicles. Mr. McNamara noted that it was the domain of the Selectmen to determine the use of the property. Mr. Domenico said there would be a public hearing process to discuss the uses.

There was further discuss= ion regarding the uses of property. Mr. Gagnon noted that there was a document written by the Merriam family indica= ting the wishes for how the property would be managed. He said they wanted it to remain r= emote forest land, managed for the wildlife and timber value; however, in the fut= ure, if something were to happen, the Town people could vote to take it out of conservation. Mr. Montbleau questioned what the wetland scientist’s findings were. Mr. Gagnon discussed what was revi= ewed and noted that no endangered species were found, but the scientist spoke hi= ghly regarding the quality of the property.&nbs= p; Mr. Montbleau said in his conversations with Mr. Merriam (in the 1980’s) he was very astute with the value of the habitat.

MOTION:

(Dadak/Montbleau) To ma= ke the recommendation to the Selectmen to purchase the 37 acres on Sherburne Road.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan said he would d= raft a letter for the Selectmen indicating the Board’s position.

There was no public input= .

NEW BUSINESS

Map 41 Lot 6-137 Cuccinello, John - 8 Pulpit Rock Road – Site Pla= n for Change of Use from a Used Car Dealership to a Landscaping Business<= /b>

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name read, or who had a problem with notification.

Mr. McNamara informed that the plan had previously been in front of the Board a= nd there were some questions regarding the information presented and also a question as to whether a variance had been granted for the property. It was discovered there was a vari= ance granted in the 1980’s. =

Attorney Peter Nicosia, representing the applicant met with the Board to discuss the plan. The applicant (proposed purchaser), Mr. John Cuccinello and Mr. Steve Auger of Haynor, Swanson Engineering who prepared the site plan was also present. Attorney Nicosia explained that they were meetin= g with the Board per the Town’s By-Laws regarding change-of-use. He said with the change-of-use the= re was nothing structurally or topographically changing on the site and would be u= sed ‘as is’. He provi= ded a summary of the request. The applicant was looking to conduct a seasonal landscape/retail/sales business. The retail products= would change with the seasons (i.e. pumpkins in the fall, Christmas trees in the winter). Attorney Nicosia believed the proposed would be = a welcome change to the neighborhood. T= he intent was to operate the business from 8am-5pm Monday-Friday, 8am-1pm Saturday and closed on Sunday.

Attorney Nicosia= said at the previous meeting there were a few questions. To begin with, there was a dimensi= onal limitation in regard to square footage; it was determined by the Planning Director there was a pre-existing variance which ran with the land. There were also requests to create= an updated survey showing a number of items; Attorney Nicosia was confident ev= erything requested of them had been done.

Mr. Auger informed that the site had been surveyed. He reviewed the proposed plan and = showed the area of the office and designated areas for landscape material storage = and seasonal item area. Attorney = Nicosia noted ther= e would not be hazardous products stored on site.&= nbsp; If there was any expansion, the applicant would come back to the Board.

Mr. McNamara said the site had previously been a used car lot and questioned if= the applicant was aware of any issues with the storage of gas/oil, or contamination. Attorney Nicosia said they weren’t aware of any issues. Mr. McNamara asked if there were cars currently on the lot. Attorney Nicosia answered no.

Mr. Domenico asked for an overview of the equipment that would be used on site. Mr. Cuccinello said the= re would be a couple trucks on the property and bobcat that would be stored in= the garage. Attorney Nicosia said the business would be more= of a retail operation with customers coming to the site versus a trucking operat= ion of deliveries. He said there = would also be hand tools etc. stored in the structure.

Mr. Doherty asked if there would be dumpster.&= nbsp; Attorney Nicosia said they didn’t show one on the plan, but they would have some form = of their own privately maintained container.&= nbsp; Mr. Doherty said he was curious about the location because of the residential area behind the parcel. Mr. Cuccinello said there was currently a dumpster on the site near = the garage. Mr. Auger showed the = existing garage and concrete pad for the dumpster.&= nbsp; Attorney Nicosia said if the Board thought there was a more appropriate location, they would= be amenable to relocating the dumpster. Mr. Doherty questioned where the customer parking would be located.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Auger explained that they calc= ulated the number of parking spaces based on the requirements; there would be a to= tal of eight parking spaces for customer with a separate area for employees. He said they anticipated was very = little ‘long-term’ customer parking because of the nature of the business. Mr. Doherty questio= ned if a ‘screening’ machine would be used and if its operation would = be limited to the business hours. Mr. Cuccinello said there wouldn’t be a screener on the property.

Mr. Culbert didn’t see the location of the septic or well on the plan. Attorney Nicosia said they were marked on the plan. Mr. Auger showed the co= ver of the septic tank being between the existing garage and existing building; the leaching field was located to the left of the garage; the well was located adjacent to the driveway near the existing house.

There was no public input.

Mr. McNamara asked if any lighting would be added. Mr. Cuccinello said he would use whatever was currently on site. Attorney Nicosia said the hours of operation were limited and would not run into a lot of ni= ght time service. Mr. McNamara questioned if the business was existing and would be moved. Mr. Cuccinello said the business w= as in existence with over 300+ clients in the Dracut, Billerica, Tewksbury MA areas. Mr. McNamara asked if Pelham would= be his only business location, or if the other location would continue. Mr. Cuccinello said he had another location in Billerica that would continue. Mr. McNa= mara asked if the Fire Department had reviewed the property. Attorney Nicosia answered no. Mr. McNamara said it might be the recommendation of the Board to have the Fire Chief review. He asked if there would be adequate space for trucks to access the storage areas on the lot. Attorney Nicosia said they reviewed the site and didn’t feel there would be a problem.

Mr. Montbleau asked how many employees would be on site. Attorney Nicosia said there would be two employees. Mr. Montbleau aske= d if all the vehicle activity would access the site through the paved area. He wanted to know if access could = be obtained through Pulpit Rock and Lori Lane. <= /span>Mr. Cuccinello said they (trucks and customers) would come in from Pulpit Rock. Mr. Montbleau asked if = there was an area where vehicles would be parked, or if they would access the ent= ire area. Mr. Cuccinello said it = was previously a car lot so there would be room. Attorney Nicosia said there would be access arou= nd the site and depending upon the season, there would be more access. Mr. Montbleau wanted to know if cu= stomers would be parking on the street or on the property. Attorney Nicosia said customers would park on the property.

Mr. Dadak asked if Lori Lane was a paper street or Town road. Attorney Nicosia said Lori Lane was paved.

Mr. McNamara asked if the stockade fence shown on the plan was entirely on the applicant’s property. M= r. Auger said there was a portion on the Michaud’s property. Mr. McNamara questioned how high t= he fence was. Attorney Nicosia said the fence was 6-feet in height.

Mr. Dadak asked what types of signs were proposed. Attorney Nicosia said the applicant would follow/conform with the Town’s regulations. Mr. Gowan said the sign regulation specified size and was a separate permit process.

Mr. McNamara commented that he felt the proposed would be an improvement to the property. He believed there m= ay be a few conditions to an approval: 1) hours of operation as stated; 2) no hazardous material storage; and 3) review by Highway Safety Committee to en= sure the property was appropriate. Mr. Gowan said the hours of operation were indicated on the plan. He said since there was no new roa= dway access entrance or exit, he advised to seek favorable comment by the Fire Department and didn’t believe the Highway Safety Committee would have= a problem. Attorney Nicosia didn’t object to the ment= ioned conditions.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Domenico) To a= pprove the Site Plan conditioned upon the Fire Chief providing a favorable letter and that no hazardous materials are stored on the property.

VOTE:

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

OLD BUSINESS

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

Advice had been received = by Town Counsel, therefore, Mr. McNamara asked that the three new Board members step down from the Board for the hearing. He said the plan had been before the Board for several months and go= ne through several revisions. He didn’t feel it was fair to the new members and also felt the Board ma= y be on legally questionable grounds if they acted upon the plan with the new member’s vote. He said = there would still be a quorum. Mr. = Gowan provided further explanation. He said = Town Counsel advised it was better to have a larger majority of the ‘sitting’ Board than to have half the Board abstaining. He said Counsel’s advice was= to have the new Board members step down and take seats in the audience. Mr. Culbert confirmed that the Boa= rd members were still allowed to ask questions as members of the public. Mr. Gowan answered yes.

Mr. Croteau, Mr. Doherty = and Mr. Montbleau stepped down from the Board and took seats in the audience.

Mr. John Gallant of Galla= nt & Irving and Mr. Kurt Meisner of Meisner Brem Corporation met with the Board = to discuss the most recent revised plan. He said a number of changes had been made to the plan based upon the concerns of the Board and the Conservation Commission. He said they had substantially reduced the impervious surface and intensity of the site. He sai= d the parking had also been scaled down and added additional vegetation. He said the Conservation Commission recommended the approval of the proposed plan versus the alternative (build= -out of entire site). He said the retention area had been moved thereby eliminating the need for the waiver f= or the system to the abutting property. Mr. Gallant said the waivers being requested were: 1) location of se= ptic system underneath pavement; 2) setback of the septic system to the front of= the lot; and 3) reduction of parking space requirement from 73 spaces down to 49 spaces. Mr. Gallant said at t= he previous meeting one of the members indicated they would like the entrance = area more defined, which had been done on the revised plan. He believed the Board had letters = from both Stantec (Town engineer) and Deputy Health Officer recommending the wai= vers concerning the septic system. He said the Conservation Commission had also submitted a letter indicating the= ir preference to the revised plan based on the wetland impacts.

Mr. Domenico was concerne= d with Stantec’s statement that 46% of the site would be covered with imperv= ious materials after development and concern that it would generate additional runoff. He said the applicant’s representative had stated that the additional volume would add only slightly to the level of the lower Beaver Brook wetland. He noted that wetland was 400+ acr= es and didn’t expect that the site could have an impact based on the size of= the wetland. He was concerned wit= h the runoff to the surrounding areas.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec said the applicant had discussed their plan (during the site walk) to make sure = that the discharge from the detention basin didn’t go to the southwest. He said they submitted a review le= tter on March 16, 200= 7 which discussed that the applicant moved the detention basin so the flow wo= uld go more to the wetland to eliminate the possibility of flow going to the west. He said they also discu= ssed the percent of the lot that would be developed and reducing such by using subsurface disposal. He said = during discussions it was indicating the applicant would enlarge the detention bas= in and retain the wick system. H= e said they agreed with the effect it would have on the wetland. Mr. Hertrich said what the applica= nt was claiming for the post-development discharge/runoff rate was less than pre-development rate and because of the subsurface disposal wick the actual would be less than what was being claimed.= He said they were asked when they got to that point to do a test pit= to confirm that the seasonal ground water was at the proper level and the basin was situated in correct relation to such. He said they were certain that the infiltration would work and also would cut down on the amount of water leaving the site.

Mr. Domenico asked if the pre-development runoff calculations were done before or after the site was clear cut. Mr. Hertrich said = the applicant used the pre-cut land which would make less runoff from the fores= ted area; which would make the detention basin bigger. He said the applicant did the conservative calculations. Mr. Domenico wanted to know what would be done to resolve the southwest portion= of the lot to get it re-forested with appropriate foliage/trees that would help absorb any natural runoff because of the topography of the site. Mr. Meisner said they proposed tre= es that would be 5ft. in height with a 2in. diameter; there would be additional arborvitaes. He said they had pretty much taken care of the issues contained in Stantec’s letter. Mr. McNamara asked if the size of = the trees would be sufficient. Mr. Hertrich believed they would be; typically a 2in.-3in tree would be planted= . He said he would have someone review.

Mr. Dadak said there was a comment in the Stantec letter regarding taking additional measures to re-ch= arge the water. Mr. Meisner said t= he original plan showed a series of chambers up to the north side of the building. He said what they h= ad done is put those chambers into an infiltration system located in the deten= tion basin. He said the runoff wat= er that came into the basin would settle and filtrate into the ground with the wick system. He said they wer= e at a negative situation and were putting off less water after construction than prior to construction. Mr. Da= dak questioned at what point (what frequency storm) there would be overflow from the pond toward the southeast. Mr. Hertrich said the applicant provided calculations during a meeting on March 16, 2007,= but he didn’t have the opportunity to review such. Mr. Meisner believed it was a 50-y= ear storm, but would have to check. Mr. Culbert confirmed the drainage was designed for a 50-year event. Mr. Meisner answered yes.

Mr. Gowan indicated at th= e last meeting there was some confusion as to what the most current plan was. He said the Board still gave the applicant further direction and he had a subsequent meeting (March 16, 2007)= where some of the remaining issues were cleared up.&n= bsp; He said the Highway Safety Committee met, discussed the building and= did not identify any specific areas of concern and reached a consensus that the= re was no specific advice to offer the Board at this time. He then reviewed a copy of a letter addressed to the applicant (Mr. Donald Ronning) from the New Hampshire Depa= rtment of Environmental Services (‘DES’) regarding the discharge restriction relevant to the proposed hairdresser and also a letter mailed f= rom Pelham Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski who reviewed such. In summary Mr. Zarnowski indicated= that the products listed were not regulated contaminates according to the DES. Mr. Zarnowski wrote that the produ= cts for hair permanents were not listed which concerned him, so he contacted Mi= tchell Lockhart (DES Water Supply). According to Mr. Lockhart (through correspondence with Mr. Zarnowski) the modern products for specific use in salons. Based on the information provided = and the conversation with Mitch Lockhart, Mr. Zarnowski indicated that it appea= red the proposed use met all the required permitting outside the Town’s planning requirements. Howeve= r, it is suggested that any change or increase in the use or change in ownership = or business or property (including the hair salon) or remaining space would require a review by the Pelham Planning and Health Departments. A new Certificate of Occupancy sho= uld also be required. Mr. Gowan s= aid if the application were to be approved, the only businesses that would be appr= oved would be the hair salon and the real estate office; the other undefined businesses would require site plan review.=

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. He= rtrich if he had any significant reservations given the assumption that the commen= ts listed in the Ma= rch 16, 2007 letter were addressed. Mr. He= rtrich answered no; he believed the applicant had addressed the major issues. He then responded to Mr. DadakR= 17;s previous question. It was his understanding of the drainage design that the whole 50-year storm didn̵= 7;t go into the ground water. He = still had to review the calculations. Mr. Culbert asked if the calculations were usually done for a 50-year storm event. Mr. Hertrich answered yes. Mr. Meisner said they had calculated for a 50-year and 100-year storm. He said the infiltration was not expected, required or intended to infiltrate a 50-year storm into the groun= d. He said the way it was required was= to hold the water and let it out at a slower rate. He said they had added an ‘extra’ with the infiltration wicks in the detention basin. Mr. Culbert wanted to make sure th= at the design would handle a 50-year storm event and prevent flooding into the abutters. Mr. Meisner discuss= ed the design and indicated that no water would run onto the abutter’s prope= rty; the water had been directed away.

Mr. McNamara noted that c= omments were made at the previous meeting regarding the parking and the following recommendations were made: 1) signage (inlets and turnarounds); 2) running curbing and adding landscaping. Mr. Meisner said in the upper parking they provided a berm around the island and plantings. He was unsure if t= he signage was added, but it was intended and would be done on the final plan. Mr. Domenico said there was another issue regarding tractor trailers getting in and out of the sight. Mr. Dadak reviewed some of the not= es from the previous meeting. Mr. Meisner said the Fire Department put their templates on the plan (for a 51-= foot truck) and approved the layout of the plan. He said deliveries to the site wou= ld typically be cube trucks. He = said he hadn’t reviewed if a tractor trailer could turn around, but said a 51-foot fire truck could. He believed a truck could back into the site and deliver to the front of the building. Mr. Gowan confirmed= that a letter was in file from the Fire Department. He noted that the Highway Safety Committee met and signed off on the plan.&= nbsp;

Mr. Dadak said there was = a note questioning if the septic could be put in another location now that the detention basin was moved. Mr. McNamara said a waiver had been accepted.&= nbsp; Mr. Meisner said there was no other feasible location because of the proposed drainage.

Mr. Culbert asked if sight distance had been addressed because he was concerned with traffic coming in from Bridge Street (Rt. 38). Mr. Gowan said the Highway Safety Committee discussed the situation and came to the decision t= here was no way to make a recommendation to make an improvement. Mr. Culbert believed there was a s= afety issue with people coming out of the driveway. Mr. Gowan reviewed what was discus= sed at the Highway Safety Committee and said they advised they saw no way to impro= ve the situation and made no recommendation for changes. Mr. Culbert agreed there was no wa= y to improve such. Mr. Culbert ask= ed how far the driveway was from = Bridge Street. Mr. Meisner said it was more than 120-feet from the driveway coming = out to the edge of pavement at Bridge Street. Mr. Culbert asked what the sight distance was since shrubs and trees were proposed. Mr. Meisner sa= id the shrubs would be low growth and not interfere with the sight distance. Mr. Culbert asked if they had 300-= feet. Mr. Meisner answered no; they had a minimum of 145-feet. He said anyone pulling onto the road wouldn’t do= so faster than 30mph or more. Mr. Culbert felt the proper sight distance was 300-feet (for 30mph). Mr. Meisner said they provided the= best case scenario for the site. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Dadak said there was a comment regarding the slopes but couldn’t recall what it was related to. Mr. Meisner said the slop= es were in the detention basin and provided some additional shoring up of such. The slopes were propose= d at 2-1 made from rock providing more stability. Mr. Hertrich said they asked for t= he detail of it and believed it would be fine.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Joe Fornier, 9 Chagnon Lane was unsure about the testimony regarding the direction of water flow. He resided at Chagnon Lane for forty years and sa= id since the area was deemed commercial there seemed to be a water encroachment problem. He had a packet of information containing correspondence and photographs of the area documenti= ng the fact that they had been trying to explain the situation to the Planning Boa= rd (past and present). He said h= e had seen three 50-year floods in the forty years he had resided in his home. Mr. Fornier said since the area was deemed commercial the engineering, on a project by project basis, appeared = to be faultless, but what he had seen was a cumulative effect. He invited the new members to visi= t the area. He wanted everyone to understand what the residents in the area were enduring and their quality of life. He believed approving a= nother site to the area would add to their concerns. Mr. Fornier said testimony was giv= en (in a previous case) about a wetland scientist reviewing an area and questioned= what impact it would be to have a wetland scientist review the area prior to the proposed development being approved. Mr. Fornier then provided the Board members with the information packets.

Ms. Barbara Ginty, 3 Chagnon Lane, (listed as Erika Rieper Trust) agreed with Mr. Fornier’s testimony. She hoped that the Board would go = back to what was discussed regarding the site plan being too intense for the property. She respected the f= act that people have a right to build, but it would have a profound effect on t= he abutter’s quality of life. She discussed the fact that since the KLN construction she had to live on bottl= ed water; her water filtration system failed.= She said more pavement on the property would allow for more runoff to her property. She said they currently purchased bottled water to drink and cook since 1999. She said there were issues of cance= r with family members and with pets that the water was fed to and her daughter hav= ing juvenile diabetes. Ms. Ginty discussed the current traffic situation and serious accidents that had occu= rred in the area. She wanted to kn= ow by how much the land would be elevated to construct the project. She pleaded with the Board to go b= ack to the statements made at the beginning of the project that it would be too intense. She believed there w= ould be a higher rate of accidents. She ended by saying her quality of life was getting worse.

Mr. McNamara asked for an explanation regarding the land elevation.&= nbsp; Mr. Meisner said currently the higher end of the site was toward the street; the site would remain in generally the same condition with a slight flattening out. He wanted eve= ryone to understand that in the end (with the infiltration system ) there would b= e a net zero effect and less on the wetland and the water off the property. He said their site was not making anything worse, it would make it better once constructed.

Mr. Culbert asked if the = negative effect would be with flow or volume. Mr. Meisner said there would be more volume after the site was constructed, but they would contain it, control it and let it run off at le= ss of a rate than it currently did; thereby having a negative effect on flooding. Mr. Culbert confirm= ed that the flow was greater but the runoff was less. Mr. Meisner said it was quite probable. Mr. Culbert questio= ned why the abutters wouldn’t be affected if the volume was greater. Mr. Meisner said the runoff rate w= as less than it currently was. He briefly discussed the drainage design.&nbs= p; Mr. Culbert confirmed that the flow would be directed away from the abutters. Mr. Meisner answere= d in the affirmative. Mr. Culbert = asked if the abutters would get more volume that wasn’t directed away. Mr. Meisner answered no. Mr. Dadak believed that there was = a lot of runoff on the property because the trees had been cut. He said it was hopefully a net improvement to have the detention basin and to repopulate with trees.

Mr. Meisner corrected a s= tatement he made. He said with the infiltration, they would have a net decrease in both rate of runoff and volume. Mr. Culbert questione= d what would stop the water (that seeped into the ground) from exacerbating the abutter’s current problems. Mr. Meisner said that would be ground water. He said eventually the ground water would run into the wetland. H= e said they had met and exceeded the standards, Stantec had reviewed it, and it worked. It would be a positive for the abutters.

Mr. Domenico said he was irritated by the fact that the site was basically clear cut and comments we= re being made that the situation would be better. He said if the site had remained f= orested, the delta between pre- and post-development flows would be much different.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Meisner discussed how drainage calculations were done. He no= ted that there were no current regulations that require the site had to remain forested. He briefly discusse= d the landscaping. Mr. Gowan said h= e had taken photographs that were now in the file. He said there was a fair amount of clearing done and when he became aware of such he issued a Stop Work Order = and asked Mr. Meisner to re-flag the wetlands.= He said he reviewed the site to see if there were any Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) encroachments, which he didn̵= 7;t believe there were.

Mr. Culbert reviewed the = DES letter and questioned how facility owners would perform sampling and labora= tory analysis of the septic system if it is located under the pavement. Mr. Meisner explained that sampling could be done through the distribution box. Mr. Culbert also noted that the DES letter (#4) indicated that expired chemicals or bulk amounts shouldn’= t be put into the septic. He quest= ioned what was considered a ‘bulk amount’. Mr. Meisner said when they sent the information to the state they informed what would be there (hair salon) and what products would be used; the state then issued their registration. His impression of bulk would be mo= re than washing someone’s hair. In his opinion ‘bulk’ would be what a cleaning company w= ould use (i.e. 55-gallon drums of cleaning solution). Mr. Culbert asked if continued use= (after three years of discharge into the septic) be considered ‘bulk’. Mr. Meisn= er wouldn’t consider that to be ‘bulk’.&nb= sp;

Mr. Culbert asked what wa= ivers were requested. Mr. McNamara understood there to be three: 1) 248:41,e – location of septic system under pavement; 2) setback of septic from front property line; and 3) numbe= r of parking spaces. Mr. Gallant n= oted there was a letter from the Town consultants recommending approval of the waivers. The waivers were acc= epted for consideration on January 18, 2007. Mr. Cul= bert said he didn’t hear a waiver for sight distance or the slopes. Mr. McNamara said Stantec advised = that the Town’s regulations were silent regarding sight distance (as to a single entrance/exit commercial property) and in the absence of a regulatio= n, AASHTO suggests a stopping sight distance of 200-feet be available at an approach speed of 30mph. Mr. Culbert said the plan showed 130ft.-140ft. which was ha= lf of what’s recommended. = Mr. Meisner said the proposed was not a speed of 30mph, there was a ‘dead’ stop to turn in.

Mr. McNamara closed testi= mony from the public.

Mr. Culbert said his posi= tion was that the road had a speed limit of 30mph.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara agreed with what the abutters had said and that the proposed use was too intensive, but the problem was that the Town’s engineering firm said the design was workable and the Highway Safety Commit= tee made no specific recommendation against the sight distance. He said he didn’t want to vo= te for the plan, but didn’t feel he had a choice. Mr. Culbert questioned the slopes = being 2-1 versus 3-1. Mr. Meisner s= aid there was not a waiver requested, nor was it required. Mr. Gowan said the Regulations all= owed a 2-1 slope and a wavier would only be required if the applicant proposed something outside the regulations. He believed a 2-1 slope to be within. Mr. Culbert said at the last meeti= ng the Board had requested a building rendering.&= nbsp; Mr. Gallant showed the Board a rending. Mr. Gowan noted there was a small = color rendering in the file. Mr. Mc= Namara believed a comment was made that the exterior would be similar to the Stone Cottage.

Mr. Culbert confirmed tha= t the height requirement worked. Mr. Gowan answered yes.

The Board then addressed = the waivers that had been accepted for consideration at the January 18, 2007 meeting as= follows:

MOTION:

(Domenico/Dadak) To app= rove the waiver to Section 248,41,E,2 – location of the effluent disposal sy= stem under concrete/pavement.=

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Dadak) To app= rove the waiver to Section 248-32,A,1 – requisite minimum parking spaces.

VOTE:

(3-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Culbert voted no.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Culbert) To a= pprove the waiver to Section 248,41,E,1 – effluent disposal area (septic) = with 22-feet from the property line.<= u>

VOTE:

(4-0-= 0) The motion carried.

Mr. Domenico asked if the= re was anything missing from the plan. Mr. McNamara didn’t believe so, other than as referenced in Stantec’= ;s letter of March = 16, 2007 that he felt any approval of the plan should be made contingent upon a favo= rable letter from Stantec that the remaining issues as outlined in the letter are resolved to the satisfaction of Stantec.&n= bsp; Mr. Culbert added that the Planning Director should also be satisfied. Mr. Domenico said = it pained him to make a motion. He beli= eved the development was too intense for the site. Mr. Culbert said he was also paine= d because he felt the drainage was not adequate and the problem was exacerbated, but since the applicant had guaranteed that wouldn’t happen he had to bel= ieve them because they were the experts. Mr. McNamara agreed. H= e said when the Board walked the site and saw the properties it was made very plain the difficulties of the people living there. He said in this particular case, w= ithout engineering or Highway Safety support, the Board had nothing to ‘hang their hat on’ to deny the plan and they would also expose themselves legally if they were to do so.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Culbert) To a= pprove the plan per satisfaction of all conditions referenced in Stantec’s= March 16, 2007 letter and the Planning Director’s oversight of the implementation of those issues.

VOTE:

(3-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Culbert voted no.

Mr. Croteau and Mr. Doher= ty returned to the Board.

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

Mr. McNamara provided the= new Board members with a brief history of the project.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the plan to the Board. He said approximately 8-9 months a= go the Board said they were in favor of another access. He discussed the history of the pl= an and how it had evolved into the current design. He said there had been a general consensus to waive the cul-de-sac length requirement. He said they were asked to review = the aerial topography at the end of the loop and found they would be able to pu= t an ‘S’ curve road and tie into an existing road. They reviewed the ground area and = found that the connection could take place. Mr. Zohdi said the Board had also requested a right-of-way to the To= wn property; he added a 50-foot right-of-way (in the loop road) and noted that= the topography showed a flat area so that a road could be build. He said walked the site (at least = three times) with Mr. Gowan and the Highway Road Agent and had presented the prof= ile for construction (improvement) of a 700ft section of Spaulding Hill Road. He reviewed the road profile with = the Board and explained that some areas of the road would have cuts of 8ft-9ft. which would help the road grade. Mr. Zohdi believed he had done everything thing he was supposed to. He understood that Stantec (Town&#= 8217;s engineer) still needed to review the plan.= One argument he had with Mr. Gowan was with open space. He would like to work with the Tow= n and make a presentation for something ‘in lieu of’ land. He said they would like to discuss= a (monetary) contribution to the Recreation Department. Mr. Zohdi said there had been an existing drainage problem on Spaulding Hill Road so they spoke with the abutter and questioned if they would grant an easement for an underground drainage ease= ment to connect through to an existing wetland.= The abutter had agreed to give a 20ft. drainage easement. Mr. McNamara said the plan would be given to Stantec for review. =

Mr. Zohdi wanted directio= n from the Board regarding: 1) cul-de-sac; 2) road connection; and 3) contribution= in lieu of open space.

Mr. McNamara said he want= ed to hear from Stantec regarding the potential connection to the new potential development because there were concerns regarding steep slopes. Mr. Gowan noted it was the Highway Safety Committee’s recommendation that the connection to Marie need n= ot take place if the project to connect to the easterly piece of land and ultimately to Greenmeadow.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec said they submitted a letter (dated January 12, 2007) to Mr. Gowan. He said they took the plan and made a centerline profile; the first 1700ft. of the roadway would have cuts approximately 15ft.-20ft. which migh= t be expensive and not buildable, the remaining 1000ft. was reasonable. He said they made the suggestion to review a ‘switch back’ road.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara asked if the new proposal with the switch back was feasible. Mr. Hertrich said t= hey hadn’t reviewed it yet. Mr. McNamara said it was highly recommended to have a connection from the development and he didn’t want to approve a plan (with the connection= ) and later find out it couldn’t be done.&= nbsp; He said the Board needed to know if the connection was able to be done. Mr. Zohdi said the deve= loper of the other project would have to do a switch back/’S’ curve r= oad otherwise they couldn’t do anything; however it was viewed, the road would be expensive. Mr. McNam= ara said the Board wanted to be sure that the connection was not prohibitive whether by terrain or practicality.

Mr. Culbert asked what le= ngth of road would have excessive cuts. Mr. Hertrich said the length would be approximately 1700ft. Mr. Culbert wanted to know if the l= and would be developable once the road was cut. Mr. Hertrich said he didn’t = know enough about the lot to answer. Mr. Gowan said Mr. Zohdi understood that the road would have to be designed with nothing in excess of 10% and that the new driveway regulations would apply = (and essentially be site specific). He reminded the Board that the project clearly impacted Sherburne Road and the (per lot) exactions for such would apply for all the lots. He said in addition the Board woul= d have leeway in how they approached open space.&= nbsp; Mr. Domenico said the Board should keep an open mind when discussion open space based on the location of the property. There was a brief discussion about= open space and Mr. Zohdi was asked to continue discussions with Mr. Gowan about such.

Mr. McNamara wanted to kn= ow how far over the limit the cul-de-sac length went. Mr. Zohdi said the road was approximately 3800ft. (1400ft= . more than allowed). He said they w= ould prove to Stantec that there was a possibility to connect to Greenmeadow and believed the proposed was a ‘win/win’ situation for everyone. Mr. McNamara asked if there was a = projection as to when Greenmeadow would come on line.= Mr. Gowan said last time he spoke to the owner and engineer, they planned to come during this summer. He discussed the fact that the proposed project would be high-end and unique to Pelham.

Mr. Doherty discussed the cul-de-sac length. He believe= d when developments were in the outskirts of Town, the cul-de-sac length should possibly be lengthened to free up property. Mr. McNamara said the Board had mu= ltiple discussions regarding cul-de-sac lengths and said when it was set at 2400ft there was a lot of criticism that it was too long (and potentially created = an emergency situation for fire and police), both from Fire and Police and som= e residents. He felt any further expansion of t= he length would lead to an exacerbation of the situation, which he was not in favor of. He said the Board h= ad to review projects on a case-by-case basis it would have to be considered. In this case, Mr. McNamara thought= there was a fair amount of justification. Mr. Culbert was okay with the proposed plan because it was more of a ‘loop’ road and would provide two accesses off it. Mr. Domenico said there was a lot = of history with this project and a lot of discussion regarding connectivity and suggested that the new Board members review such. Mr. Doherty felt the Board should consider allowing longer roads in the outskirts of Town to be able to achie= ve connectivity. Mr. Zohdi said = he may have a problem with his calculation; it may be less than specified but want= ed the opportunity to review and come back to the Board.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Caradonna, 11 Marie Avenue said there was a lot of information submitted to the Board and asked that i= t be made available to the new Board members.&n= bsp; Mr. McNamara said it would be.

Ms. Rosemary Fischer, 19 Scenic View Drive said there were some very serious erosion and drainage issues coming off th= e property. She recalled a discussion about gr= anting a buffer/no-cut zone along the property line. She requested that it be recorded = on the plan and include as a deed restriction.&nb= sp; She was concerned about the water volume and hoped there would be an option to tie into a community well. Ms. Fischer said there was a well test done in November, 2004 where = the community well was proposed and discussed there would be an additional test done in the summer months. She asked if it had been done; if not, she asked that it be done this summer. Mr. McNamara said the Board was aw= are of the water situation in the area. He didn’t know if it would be feasible for her to connect to the water.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said the no-cut zone would be n= oted on the plan.

Mr. Culbert asked how muc= h of a buffer Ms. Fischer had on her side. Ms. Fischer said they were up against the property because of ledge = and erosion. Mr. Culbert didnR= 17;t know how the applicant would provide a buffer if the area was ledge. Mr. Gowan said there was an existi= ng buffer along the (applicant’s) property edge. Mr. Zohdi recalled that during the= site walk they agreed to a no-cut/no disturbance buffer of approximately 100ft.;= he wanted to check his notes and discuss with his client. He said in reference to the existi= ng wells and believed copies of the tests were provided to the Town. He said he would have his water en= gineer attend the next meeting to discuss further.

Mr. Bob Lamoureaux, Blueberry Circle said he received a call indicating there was an existing trail issue. He wanted the opportunity to speak= with Mr. Zohdi, Mr. Gowan and the Park & Recreation Director to research and come back.

Mr. Zohdi asked that the = plan be date specified to have the opportunity for Stantec to review and discussion= s to occur.

The plan was date specifi= ed to April 16, 2007.=

Mr. Montbleau returned to= the Board.

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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates, representing the applicant requested that the Board postpone the hearing April 16= , 2007. The Board granted the request.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the April 16, 20= 07 meeting.

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

Mr. McNamara said at the = previous meeting the abutter list was read, but no testimony was taken. He then step= ped down from the Board. Vice Cha= irman Culbert took over as Chairman for this hearing.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herber= t Associates presented the plan and reviewed each of the pages with the Board. He noted that the edge of the flood zone, 100-year flood zone, edge of wet and wetland and were all flagged by = Gove Environmental. He said there = would be a Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) impact of 590SF which was approved by the Conservation Commission. He said the Zoning Board of Adjust= ment had approved the encroachment of the building within the WCD (Case #2348 – July 10,= 2006). He said the proposed doctor’s office was 8400SF. He explain= ed that the proposed rain garden detail and drainage study had been submitted = (at the meeting) to Stantec (Town’s engineer) for review. Mr. Zohdi noted that they submitte= d a waiver for the number of parking spaces; 34 spaces were shown. There would be two accesses to the= site; one being close to Livingston Road, the other being approximately 150ft.-17= 0ft. from the Dutton Road intersection. He continued review of the plan set. He said the plans (septic system) = had been sent to the Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski who didn’t have= a problem with the plan; however Mr. Zarnowski had not sent the plan to the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) because he was wai= ting for the Board to grant the waiver, or give direction to send to DES. Mr. Zohdi said the erosion control detail was provided. The buil= ding elevations were shown and the architect was still working to modify a couple items. Mr. Zohdi said the lan= dscape architect would be present at the next meeting to explain his work.

Mr. Zohdi said the follow= ing waiver requests: 1) Section 248-32.a.- number of parking spaces reduction of parking spaces from 95 to 33 spaces which they felt was sufficient for the = size of the building; 2) Section 248-34 Drainage D – they are proposing sh= eet and gutter flow to a rain garden to the east of the property; and 3) Section 248-41 Sewage Disposal System E(2) – septic system under pavement.

Mr. Domenico asked how fa= r the septic tank and leach field was from the lot line. Mr. Zohdi said it was approximately 20-feet. Mr. Domenico noted p= er Section 248-E,1 there was a 20-foot setback limitation that would have to be met. Mr. Zohdi was aware.

Mr. Montbleau questioned = what the difference was between a rain garden and a detention pond. Mr. Zohdi said most of the drainag= e from a rain garden infiltrates into the ground; the soils are sandy. He said a rain garden wouldn’= ;t work if a site had a lot of ledge. Mr. Gowan explained that ‘rain garden’ was sort of a bra= nd name for a bio-retention system; it recharged ground water. He said the system was embraced by= the Town’s environmental consultant.&nbs= p; Mr. Dadak asked if the rain garden could be planted. Mr. Zohdi answered yes. Mr. Gowan suggested that Mr. Zohdi= have someone address the rain garden and provide comments.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = Board was going to reserve comment regarding the brook and culvert until the landscape architect was present. Mr. Zohdi said the landscape had nothing to do with the brook and culvert. Mr. Doherty asked if= it was possible on the culvert and brook area to add a section fence to stop debris from blocking the culvert. Mr. Zohdi said they could add a fence, but they wouldn’t be ab= le to physically work there. He = said Dr. Kodali didn’t mind if the Board wanted to walk the site.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Michael Grant, 6 Dutton Road said he and his wife were very concerned about the project. He said it concerned him that nobo= dy had talked about flooding. He sai= d the way the plan looked more than 50% of the building would flood. He asked what the elevation of the bottom floor was. Mr. Zohdi s= aid the top of the footing was 132. Mr. Grant said that was the base flood elevation for the site. He confirmed the proposed area for= the rain garden and showed a photograph of the location with 3-feet of water on= top of it. He said there was also= a drainage problem with the large culvert that went under to the post office = and down to Beaver Brook. Mr. Gra= nt said the 2006 Mother’s Day floods were devastating to his property and the Post Office. He said his problem was flooding and was told by the Zoning Board of Adjustment Chairman (Peter McNamara) that it would be looked at by the Board and that flooding = was very serious. He said the cur= rent building had flood problems; the building was put in it’s present location for a reason. Mr. Cu= lbert asked how often Mr. Grant’s house floods. Mr. Grant said it had flooded once= . He said water came up to his back = door often. Mr. Culbert said the B= oard would pay particular attention to the drainage. Mr. Grant ended by saying that the culvert was the lifeline to his home which he believed it was currently in failure. He said he was not a= gainst the project but would like to see a more reasonable, smaller building.

Mr. Culbert asked where t= he culvert Mr. Grant spoke of was located.&nb= sp; Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan and showed the location of the culvert a= nd where it connected to Beaver Brook. Mr. Culbert asked Mr. Zohdi to address the culvert when he came back= to the Board. Mr. Zohdi answered= yes, he would bring all the materials.

Mr. Doherty noticed that = the parking spaces had been reduced which would possibly help the water situation. He questioned if i= t was possible to add gutters to the building and put the roof water into the area. Mr. Zohdi said they were bringing the roof water to the rain garden. Mr. Doherty confirmed that Mr. Zoh= di was alleviating the entire water situation (by having the rain garden) that cou= ld be done. Mr. Zohdi answered y= es.

Mr. Dadak questioned if t= here was information/data of similar operations that had less parking. Mr. Zohdi said he could show the B= oard other town’s regulations. He believed there was an error made (in typing) the regulations for the parking requirements. Mr. Culbert sai= d he didn’t have a problem with the request for reduced parking. Mr. Doherty said it would help the= lot considerably.

Mr. Doherty addressed the= third waiver request (septic under pavement) by asking if there would be any adve= rse effects to the water situation. Mr. Zohdi said it wouldn’t have an affect on the ground water. He said the regulations were writt= en when there were only stone systems; practically 95% of commercial buildings= had their leach beds under pavement. Mr. Doherty wanted to know if it would add to, or take away from the ground water situation. Mr. Z= ohdi said it had no affect.

MOTION:

(Domenico/Montbleau) To= accept, for consideration, waivers to Sections 248-32.a (parking spaces), 248-34.d (drainage) and 248-41.E.2 (sewage disposal systems located under pavement= ).

VOTE:

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

Mr. Zohdi asked if it was possible for the Board to give the Planning Director permission to speak wi= th the Health Agent, and that the Health Agent could send the septic system (design) to DES. He also requ= ested that the Board date specify the plan.

Mr. Culbert said Mr. Zohd= i had to come back with particular information regarding the culvert. He wanted Mr. Zohdi to understand = that any problems shouldn’t be exasperated and he should try to fix it if = it wasn’t working well.

The plan was date specifi= ed to April 16, 2007.=

Mr. McNamara returned to = the Board and resumed as Chairman.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS- April 16, 2007

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

March 8= , 2007

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To appr= ove the March 8, 2007 = minutes as amended. <= /p>

VOTE:

(3-0-= 4) The motion carried. Mr. Domenic= o, Mr. Montbleau, Mr. Doherty and Mr. Croteau abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 11:18 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

=

=