PB Minutes 08-06-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 6, 2007

Chairman Peter McNamara called the meeting to order at= 7:00 pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak called the roll:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paul Dadak, Roger Montbleau, Jason C= roteau (arrived shortly after the meeting commenced), Tim Doherty, Alternate Jam= es McManus, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

Paddy Culbert, Alternate Edward McGlynn

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr. Passamonte to vote in Mr. Culbert’s absence. Mr. McManus was appointed to vote in Mr. Croteau’s absence (Mr. Croteau arrived shortly after the meeting had commenced).

ADMINISTRA= TIVE

Map 21 Lot= s 3-102 & 102-1 Jim Petersen, Pet= ersen Built Homes – Goldfi= nch Drive – Request for Bond Reduction

Mr. Gowan informed that the roadwork had been substant= ially completed. The applicant requ= ested a bond reduction; Stantec rev= iewed the project and provided an estimate. The current surety is $211,854.50; Stantec recommends reducing the surety to $93,812.85 wh= ich represents a reduction of $118,041.65.

MOTION:=

(Montbleau/Haverty) To reduce the bond from $211,854= .50 to $93,812.85.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

NEW BUSINE= SS

Map 4 Lot 9-138 Marie Stadtmiller – Tallant Road – Pre-Design Review of Proposed Subdivision for Discussion

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

Mr. Croteau arrived.

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchmark Engineering and Mr. J.R. Gauthier (applicant’s consultant) presented two plans for the Board to review. Mr. Gauthier said to = make good on a promise he made to the Board in late May, two plans would be presented; a conventional plan (based on current regulations) and an open s= pace concept plan.

Mr. McNamara said a plan was previously presented for conceptual consideration and questioned if the current presentation was different from that plan. Mr. Maynard said he was not involved in the past presentation and didn’t exactly agree with their proposals; he took a fresh look at the project and believed he had come up with a more viable plan. Mr. Gowan noted that the previous = plan had an aggressive entry into the landing terms of wetland impact which is why t= he current plan was being presented.

Mr. Maynard began review of the conventional plan. He said the entrance to the proper= ty was situated to have the best site distance onto Tallant Road. The access road was taken out of t= he Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) as much as possible to minimize the impacts. He cont= inued to review the plan and show where the wetland impacts were located. It was noted that the existing hou= se would remain on one of the lots; lot would be designed around it to accommo= date the setbacks associated with zoning. Mr. Maynard showed two roads; one of which (road A) ending in a cul-de-sac (approximately 1263ft. to center) and a second cul-de-sac extend= ing (to the center of which) approximately 1200ft. from the access road and approximately 2000ft. from Tallant Road.&n= bsp; Other than the waivers for WCD impacts, there would be no additional waiver required.

Mr. McNamara asked for further discussion regarding the cul-de-sac lengths and questioned if the footage (length) of the two would be combi= ned with regard to calculating the required maximum length. Mr. Maynard said road A was the lo= ngest at 1263ft. He said it the road layout was ‘lollipop’ shaped the length to the center couldn’t exceed 2400ft.; the plan before the Board was not designed in such a manner.

Mr. Maynard then showed the Board what the project wou= ld look like if it were done in an open space design. He said the biggest difference was= that the subdivision didn’t have the 200ft. frontage as required per the Ordinance. He continued discu= ssion and showed some areas that had well radiuses that didn’t fall complet= ely on the property. The cul-de-s= ac (to the center) had a length of just under 1600ft. of road. The other difference was that the conventional plan contained approximately 2.8 acres of impervious surfaces; where as the open space concept had approximately 1.6 acres.

Mr. McNamara asked for discussion regarding the differ= ences in WCD impacts. Mr. Maynard s= aid in the conventional plan the total WCD impact was just under an acre; in the o= pen space plan, there would be approximately a 32,000SF. of WCD impact. The open space plan had less wetla= nd impacts by approximately 1500SF.

Mr. McNamara informed the public that the open space p= lan was not allowed under current zoning. He said the Planning Board had formed a sub-committee who was lookin= g at potentially putting an open space amendment to the zoning laws on the March ballot. He said Mr. Gauthier = had agreed to show the Board that type of development and how it could be implemented. Mr. Gowan noted = that Mr. Gauthier and Mr. Maynard were involved in a couple of the zoning sub-committee meetings and brought the plan in as a ‘before/afterR= 17; plan. He pointed out that wit= h some waivers and the benefit of some zoning relief, the (open space) plan could = be built today.

Mr. Gauthier suggested (per the recommendation of the = Board of Adjustment Chair) the possibility of conducting a joint meeting between = the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board. He said the applicant (Ms. Marie ‘Stadtmiller’ Portner) was his sister and a proponent of the op= en space plan. He pointed out the areas in the open space plan that would end up being Conservation District. Mr. Maynard noted t= hat 45% of the land mass would be open space.&= nbsp; Mr. Gauthier said if a joint meeting could be done in the next 30-da= ys, they would consider supporting the open space plan; in absence of that they were ready to move forward with the conventional plan.

Mr. Gowan indicated that the Regulations allowed the B= oard to conduct a joint Planning Board/Board of Adjustment meeting. He briefly outlined how the joint meeting could be conducted, i= f the Planning Board had some interest in such.&= nbsp;

Mr. Doherty asked that Mr. Maynard highlight the areas= (on the open space plan) that wouldn’t be disturbed. Mr. Gauthier discussed the problem= s with the current regulations with regard to WCD areas being cut.

There was no public input.

The Board discussed the comparison between the two pla= ns. Mr. McNamara was concerned and tro= ubled that each lot in the open space plan would require a variance for frontage. He said the Board of Adjustment would be asked to re-zone the entire parcel. He agreed that the open space plan= would be a preferable way to develop the land, but it seemed to him it was the decision of the voters whether or not they wanted a conservation subdivision. There was further discussion regarding the current zoning regulations.

Mr. Gauthier said they were willing to give the Board 30-days to have a joint meeting, but didn’t want the plan to go on and on. Mr. Maynard requested the Board’s comments regarding the conventional plan, so if something didn’t happen in 30-days, they wouldn’t have to re-apply for another conceptual hearing. M= r. McNamara felt it would be more productive to conduct a joint meeting. He felt it was fair for the Board = to comment on the conventional proposal. He confirmed that no variances would be requested. Mr. Maynard said they wouldn’= ;t request any variances. He ask= ed what waivers would be needed. Mr. Maynard said they would only request a waiver for WCD crossing.

Mr. Montbleau asked if the house positions (on the conventional plan) were site specific.&nbs= p; Mr. Maynard answered no. He said he put the house and driveway locations where they could possibly be placed. He said the driveways= would meet sight distance. Mr. McNa= mara said the Board could request site specific. Mr. Montbleau said it would be imp= ortant for the Board to know where the house placements would be based on the amou= nt of WCD areas.

There was a brief discussion regarding what date the p= lan would be continued to and how it would be presented. Mr. Maynard requested that the pla= n be date specified to September 6, 2007. He said = he would do a separate notification for the Board of Adjustment.

The plan was date specified to September 6, 2007. It was understood by the Planning = Board and Mr. Maynard that this meeting would be a continuation of the conceptual plan for the Planning Board and an actual request for variance through the Board of Adjustment. At the e= nd of the meeting, if variances were granted, a full application would be made for the open space plan.

Map 16 Lot 13-125-15 Judy Cooke – = Orchard Lane, Pineridge Road & Surrey Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Seeking a Special Permit for a Wetland Conservation District crossing

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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates presented the pl= an for a 2-lot subdivision. He said = Gove Environmental had flagged the wetlands and done site specific soil mapping.= He noted that the existing house s= hown on the plan was actually a du= plex with frontage onto Orchard= Lane. Both lots have a minimum of five a= cres; one being 5.19 acres the other being 6.216 acres. All the existing drainage that abu= ts the boundary was shown. The water solution plan was also included in the plan set. All the test pits were inspected b= y the Town’s Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski. Lot 17 doesn’t have 200ft. of frontage, but had been in front of the Board of Adjustment and was granted a Variance (Case #2351).

Mr. McNamara asked if a well radius waiver was needed = for the second lot. Mr. Zohdi sai= d he moved the well and didn’t need a waiver. He said he had a revised plan that showed the change and the note regarding the duplex. He noted that the duplex lot conta= ined 56,849SF of contiguous high and dry land.&= nbsp; He circulated revised plans for the Board to review.

Mr. Zohdi said he would be requesting the following wa= ivers: 1) Section 10.04,a 1 inch =3D 60ft. (instead of the required 1 inch =3D 50f= t.); and 2) Section 10.03,f – locating leach beds, wells, etc. on abutting lots.

Mr. McNamara asked if the proposed subdivision applica= tion was in sufficient detail for the Board to accept for consideration. Mr. Gowan answered yes. He asked if the proposed driveway = would meet the new driveway regulations. Mr. Zohdi said the driveway was existing.

MOTION:=

(Montbleau/Croteau) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

MOTION:=

(Croteau/Montbleau) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.04,a – to reduce the drawing scale from 1in.= =3D50ft. to 1in.=3D60ft.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

MOTION:=

(Croteau/Montbleau) To accept, for consideration, the waiver to Section 10.03,f – to not show the location of existing structures, wells, septic systems within 75ft. of the site.

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara discussed what had been represented at the Board of Adjustment meeting. = He said they had some concerns that were articulated in the conditions; particularly having the drain= age study. He didn’t believ= e they were aware of the house being a duplex.&nb= sp;

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Mark Belanger was concerned that the Board approved waivers. Mr. McNamara said the Board had accepted the waivers for consideration. Mr. Belanger said the property had= been walked with a Conservation Officer because of the concerns about wetness. He said there was a drainage probl= em in the area. He also noted there= was a considerable amount of wildlife in the area. Mr. McNamara said the plan was not= being approved. The Board was doing= a preliminary review; if the Board asks, the plans would be reviewed by their engineer; the Board may request a drainage study and the Board may/may not = walk the land.

Ms. Ethel Kelly, 17 Surrey Lane, said she had seen men on the prop= erty putting tags on bushes. She s= aid it was all wetlands. She discuss= ed the wildlife in her yard when the brook rose.&= nbsp; She said they used to see deer, but didn’t anymore because the area was being interrupted. S= he said she was fortunate not to have water into her home but informed there w= ere other people on her street that did have water problems. Ms. Kelly was concerned about addi= tional water once construction began. Mr. McNamara said the Board would require a drainage study.

Mr. Gary LeBlanc, 12 Surrey Lane said it was the first he hear about the duplex. Mr. Zohdi showed = Mr. LeBlanc the location of the existing duplex located on Orchard Lane. Mr. LeBlanc questioned why the dev= eloper wouldn’t show the location of the surrounding buildings and septics.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara said the waiver reque= st was to not survey the surrounding properties.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi said the regulation essentially told him to go to abutter’s properties who may not want them on their property. Mr. McNamara said based on the sen= sitivity and severity of the drainage problem the Board may request that they go to abutter’s properties. M= r. LeBlanc said there wasn’t a lot of dry land and was concerned with the locations of the septics and the wells.&nb= sp; Mr. McNamara said the Board would probably request site specific so = they would know where the house was going.

Mr. Dick Matte 16 Surrey Lane wanted to know if it had= been shown that there was naturally occurring 35000SF contiguous high and dry to build a home. Mr. Zohdi showe= d the lot and confirmed it had adequate high and dry land. Mr. Matte asked if there was any discussion or request for a dredge and fill now or in the future. Mr. Zohdi answered no. Mr. McNamara reiterated that Stant= ec would review the plan. Mr. Da= dak noted that the Variance stipulated that an appropriate screening be preserv= ed and a new drainage study be requested.&nbs= p; Mr. Matte asked if there would be buffers between all the abutting properties. Mr. Dadak didn= 217;t see that. Mr. Gowan read the = Notice of Decision that stated the Variance was granted subject to: 1) single fami= ly home only with a rear buffer of 50-feet from the property line with the appropriate screening at the discretion of the Planning Board; 2) no further subdivision of parcel; and 3) recommend that Planning Board request a new drainage study.

Mr. Doherty asked where the screening would be located= . Mr. McNamara believed the screening would be behind the proposed home. <= /span>It was Mr. Zohdi’s understanding that the Board wanted the proposed hous= e to be 50ft. from the property line to buffer it from the abutters on Surrey Lane= . He said they would show site speci= fic when they came back.

Mr. Gowan asked that the Board be clear about what the= y were requesting from the applicant. Mr. McNamara said drainage, buffering of the two adjoining properties and site specific lot was a concern. M= r. Zohdi suggested that the Board have Stantec review the drainage. He said he would bring his landsca= pe architect come to the next meeting and submit information prior to the meet= ing.

The plan was date specified to the September 17, 2007 meeting. <= /p>

Mr. McNamara confirmed that a drainage study would be submitted to Stantec for review prior to the specified meeting.

Map 35 Lot 10-315 Lehane Chiropractic &#= 8211; 70 Bridge Street, Unit #3 – Limited Site Plan Review of Change of Use from a Carpet Store to a Chiropractor/Doctor’s Office<= /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. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associates reviewed the pro= posed plans with the Board. He said= the Board had approved a site plan years ago; one of the tenants was a carpet s= ales store who has moved out. He s= aid the owner of the (Stone Cottage) building would like to rent space to a chiropractor who would stay there; and Dr. Kodali who will temporarily stay there until her building is constructed.

Mr. Gowan said this plan was brought in because of the= part of the Regulations that requires Planning Board approval for change-of-use = or occupancy. He said it was a m= inor site plan and saw no issues with regard to impact on the site from the form= er tenant to the proposed present tenant.&nbs= p; He said there was additional parking for employees behind the site.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. McNamara asked if there was any change in the exte= rior of the building. Mr. Zohdi an= swered no. Mr. McNamara asked if the permanent occupant would have more traffic than the carpet store. Mr. Zohdi said between the two doc= tors there would be more traffic. = Mr. McNamara confirmed that what was being proposed would remain and there would not be changes to the exterior. Mr. Zohdi said that was correct. = Mr. McNamara asked if the hours of operation would be like a standard physician’s office. Mr.= Zohdi said that was correct. Mr. Mc= Namara confirmed that lighting would not change.&= nbsp; Mr. Zohdi said the lighting would not change.

Mr. Haverty asked if the chiropractor would remain aft= er Dr. Kodali moved. Mr. Zohdi answe= red yes. He said they estimated D= r. Kodali as being in the building for 8mo to one year. If there were any changes, they wo= uld come back to the Board.

Mr. McNamara asked if there were any problems with sep= tic use. Mr. Zohdi said they didn’t have any problems. Mr. McNamara asked what the square footage would be for the doctor. Mr. Zohdi said it would be 1800SF.= He provided the Board with a letter indicating the square footage.

Mr. Montbleau asked if the applicant was proposing any changes with the square footage of the signage. Mr. Zohdi said they weren’t proposing any changes.

There was no pubic input.

Mr. Gowan suggested&n= bsp; that the Board accept the proposal for consideration and then take a vote to approve the plan.

=

MOTION:=

(Montbleau/Croteau) To accept, for consideration, the limited site plan review of change-of-use.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

=

MOTION:=

(Haverty/Croteau) To approve the limited site plan r= eview of change-of-use.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

Map 35 Lot 6-115 Hammar & Sons, Inc. – Site Plan Review of Proposed 4500SF Addition to be used for Retail

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. Dave Brouillet of SFC Engineering Partnership, who= was representing the applicant, discussed the proposed plan. In summary the proposal was a 1500= SF building addition to the applicant’s existing retail building. The addition was proposed in an ex= isting parking area. Mr. Brouillet discussed the current tenants within the existing building. He said they were requesting a wai= ver to the parking requirement of 1 space for 100SF. He said they didn’t want to increase the impervious surface or parking if they didn’t need to. He discussed the businesses within= the building that would offset each other’s hours and noted that Hammar &= amp; Sons didn’t serve a lot of the public going to the facility. Mr. Brouillet said they had met wi= th the Fire Department to discuss the plan, work out the detail and find out what their expectations and requirements would be. He said the only issue was to add = a fire alarm system in the existing building and the proposed as well. He said they would address any iss= ues brought up. Mr. Brouillet then discussed the septic system, which was the original from when the building = was built. He said they would be in contact with the Town’s Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski and obtain necessary state permits. He said if the system is found to = be inadequate, they will replace it. Mr. Brouillet said he would like the Board’s input regarding t= he parking requirements. He said= the plan demonstrated where additional parking could be added.

Mr. McNamara wanted to know how many parking spaces we= re required based on the existing regulations and what was being suggested. Mr. Brouillet said based on the bu= ilding being 4500SF, 45 spaces would be required; they were proposing eighteen spaces. Mr. McNamara asked wh= at sort of retail would be going in. Mr. Brouillet said the Cigar shop was looking to expand and occupy 3000SF of the area. He gave t= he Board members a color rendering of the proposed addition which appeared to = be a continuation of the architecture currently existing. Mr. McNamara asked what was curren= tly in the location of the proposed addition.&nbs= p; Mr. Brouillet said there was a retaining wall in the location and th= en a drop of about 10 feet to a bottom parking area. That bottom parking area is access= ed by an existing driveway.

Mr. Doherty asked if the water runoff from the proposed addition would go in the same direction as the current runoff. Mr. Brouillet said they wouldnR= 17;t change the patterns. The new addition may give them the opportunity to collect the water and provide som= e sort of treatment. Mr. Dadak asked= if the current runoff was ‘sheet’ drainage. Mr. Brouillet answered yes. Mr. Dadak noted there was concern = along parts of Route 38 that the water no be increased due to the Beaver Brook prime wetlands. Mr. Brouillet said essentially they wouldn’t be increasing the intensity because they wouldn’t be adding any impervious area. He noted there was vegetation whic= h acts as natural treatment. Mr. Doh= erty asked if the direction of the current drainage flow would remain, or if it would flow in another direction. Mr. Brouillet said the water sheet flowed off toward the left and ti= ed into a wetland area which had been flagged by Gove Environmental (and shown= on the plan). He said the plan a= lso showed the required 50-foot buffer.

Mr. Haverty said while the Board was reviewing the num= ber of parking spaces, they should be cognizant that the proposed retail tenant may change in the future. Mr. Bro= uillet said if there was any change of use, they would have to come back to the Bo= ard.

Mr. Montbleau asked if the area shown on plan (in dark green) was a recession (down gradient).&nb= sp; Mr. Brouillet said it sloped at about a 10% grade. To the left of the grade was the driveway access to the rear of the proposed addition. Mr. Brouillet described how the pr= oposed building would be situated. M= r. Montbleau asked how many parking spaces there currently were. Mr. Brouillet said they were propo= sing 40 spaces, without an expansion of the parking. He said with the expansion there w= ould be 53 spaces. The proposed sp= aces would be placed over the leach field, which would require waiver.

Mr. McNamara asked if the existing septic was sufficie= nt to handle the increase of use on the parcel.&= nbsp; Mr. Brouillet said it was possible they would need to make improveme= nts once they knew what the use would be. Mr. McNamara asked if there was space on the property to replace it. Mr. Brouillet answered ye= s. He said there were three potential locations it could be located. Mr. McNamara saw there was a proposed dumpster and asked where it was currently located. Mr. Brouillet said i= t was currently in the front of the building and they would like to put it in the back. A concrete dumpster pad= would have to be added.

There was further discussion regarding the parking. Mr. Brouillet said they would revi= ew to ensure the number of spaces was adequate.&= nbsp; They didn’t want to add the parking if it was not necessary.

Mr. Gowan was concerned about the addition and any add= ition of impervious surfaces. He sa= id if there was any ‘overflow’ parking considered behind the proposed addition that it be gravel/non pervious and possibly limited to employee parking. He thought it would = be a good goal for the project to capture water and provide filtration and relea= se it slowly so as to not have the impact of the current impervious surface. He encouraged thought be given to = the top floor and continuing the green awing and possibly have dormers on the windows. Mr. Gowan asked if t= he first floor was going to be designed to have two tenants. Mr. Brouillet said the final architecture had not been designed. They would work with the tenants and what they wanted. Mr. Gowan asked that consideration= be given to the restroom facilities and how they would be set up.

Mr. Brouillet said if they increased the impervious ar= ea they would also provide treatment for the water. He said he would pass the structure comments on to the architect.

Mr. McNamara asked what waivers would be requested. Mr. Brouillet believed the waiver = for parking would be the only one required. Mr. Dadak noted if the Board wanted the additional parking another waiver would= be required. They would also nee= d a waiver if they replaced the system.

=

MOTION:=

(Montbleau/Doherty) To accept the plan for considera= tion.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. McNamara asked if the waiver for the parking had b= een requested in writing. Mr. Bro= uillet said he hadn’t submitted it yet, but would do so.

PUBLIC INPUT

Ms. Jan Fornier, 9 Chagnon Lane discussed the history of her prop= erty which she had owned for approximately forty years. She discussed what impacts surroun= ding developments had on the water drainage and the action taken by the state. She noted how the rain storms affe= cted her property last year at which time her sump pump ran for 90 hours straight. She wanted to know = how the Board could legally approve businesses that sent water in the direction= of her home. Mr. McNamara said t= he Board could only hold the developer’s responsible to comply with the Town’s laws and regulations. <= /span>He said the developer was not allowed to exceed existing drainage, post development. He said if the engineer presented a drainage plan showing there would be no net increase a= nd the Board’s engineer agreed with the plan the Board, by law, would be required to approve it. Ms. F= ornier said each time developments came in they say they won’t flood her. With each development she’s = been affected. Mr. McNamara said t= hey were sympathetic to the problem. He said the Board’s duty was to follow the laws in place. He said they couldn’t prohib= it development if the development was legal under the regulations and the Board’s engineers said it was. Ms. Fornier said if the Town granted a building permit they couldn’t protect them. = Mr. McNamara said the Town would try to protect the property owners as best as = they could by making sure that the applicant followed the Site Plan Regulations = and an engineer looked at the drainage facilities (or whatever was proposed) and certify that there was no net increase of runoff.

Ms. Fornier questioned when the driveway was put in th= at accessed the back of the lot. Mr. Gowan believed it took place prior to him taking the position. He said he reviewed the file and f= ound there had been a wetlands violations; the state had reviewed the site and w= ere satisfied that the situation there didn’t rise to a wetlands violation. He said under his = watch if there was an expansion like that he would put the work to a halt and bri= ng the people in front of the Board. He noted that he had walked Ms. Fornier’s property and said the neighborhood’s situation had come up before. He said the developments (in the a= ggregate) had impacted to the wetland. = He said he intended to propose a net gain of something in the negative when the Site Plan Regulations were revised. He said the Board’s review engineer would do a plan compliance monitoring to ensure the drainage was appropriately built. Mr. Gowan believed there may be opportunities to capture and reduce the impact (in the field) from what they were today.

Mr. Bill Fornier, 9 Chagnon Lane wanted to know why there had not = been a long-range plan created to address the cumulative water flow coming down = into his back yard as opposed to doing development one at a time. He wanted to know what legal recou= rse he had from development affecting his property. Mr. McNamara understood the situat= ion which was similar to incremental versus cumulative increases in traffic. He reiterated that as long as the applicant met the regulations, they would be allowed to develop. With regard to drainage the Board = had to rely on its engineers to certify that proposed plans were sufficient. Mr. Dadak noted that any developme= nt around the Beaver Brook prime wetland system would affect drainage; the Boa= rd could only enforce the regulations in Pelham. There was no control over developm= ent that occurs in Dracut. Mr. Fornier felt that anyone build= ing in a low spot had no recourse when something occurred. He said they had complained for ye= ars to other Planning Boards and Officials and nothing had been done.

Mr. McNamara said the Board could only address the pro= posed plan before them at this time and make sure it is engineered to ensure ther= e is no additional runoff. There w= as a brief discussion regarding the measures the Board had taken over the past y= ears to pass zoning to help with situations similar to the Fornier’s. Mr. Gowan said the Board may want = to consider take a broader view of how the development would impact the surrounding.

Mr. Fornier understood that he had no recourse. Mr. McNamara said the recourse was= to appear before the Board and voice concerns. He said the Board was not ignoring= his concerns. He said the Board was limited in w= hat they could do and would do as much as they could to ensure there was no additional drainage from the development downstream.

Mr. Brouillet submitted a written waiver request to Se= ction 248:32 – reduction of required parking from one space per 100 SF feet= of retail space to one space per 250 SF feet of retail space.

=

MOTION:=

(Montbleau/Doherty) To accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 248:32 – required parking spaces.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carried.

Mr. Brouillet discussed the concerns regarding drainag= e, which he believed the magnitude of which fell beyond the scope of the propo= sed site plan. He said their prop= osal was if they increased the impervious surface, they would comply with the regulations.

Mr. Montbleau said the Board needed to get their engin= eers involved and tell them exactly what the concerns were down stream. He said they should review ‘= under a microscope’ and instruct what the Board could do.

Mr. McNamara asked that the applicant present drainage= based on alternative proposals and the Board would have Stantec review. He asked that the applicant also a= ddress parking, septic, alternate locations for the septic and the roof redesign proposal.

The plan was date specified to the September 6, 2007 meeting.

Map 22 Lot= s 7-271 & 272 John Alosso –= Main Street & Route 38 – Seeking re-approval of Site Plan that was originally approved in 1989 for a 25,000SF Retail Building

The applicant requested, and was granted, a postponeme= nt to the August 20, 2= 007. Mr. McNamara informed that abutter= s would receive no further notification.

DISCUSSION=

Based discussion that occurred during a recent Board of Selectmen meeting where Mr. Gowan was asked to provide a proposal regarding= the selection and use of engineering consultants that the Planning Board uses, = Mr. McNamara composed a letter that summarized the law and what the Board’= ;s past practice had been. He asked that the Board review the letter and asked= for a consensus of the Board stating their opinion. He explained that the selection an= d use of expert consultants (i.e. engineers, planners, architects) were governed = by RSA 673:16 which was very specific that land use boards, specifically plann= ing boards, are the only boards that are responsible for hiring and use of engineers. He discussed the f= act that a past Board requested legal opinion regarding this matter and were to= ld by Attorney John Rattigan (reference meeting minutes dated December 16, 2002) that it w= as the Planning Board’s responsibility and authority to hire consultants; th= at power is derived from state statute. Mr. McNamara didn’t want to cause controversy, but felt it was important that the Selectmen understand the position of the Board.

The Board discussed the letter. Mr. Gowan said he had completed a proposal (directed at the issue of cost) that would be presented to the Selectmen at an upcoming meeting and then he would share it with the Board.

There was a consensus of the Board to have Mr. McNamar= a send the letter he composed because it represented the Board’s views.

DATE SPECI= FIED PLANS:

August 20, 2007 –

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 272 John Alosso – Main Street &a= mp; Route 38 – Seeking re-approval of Site Plan that was originally appro= ved in 1989 for a 25,000SF Re= tail Building

September 6, 2007 –

Map 4 Lot 9-138 Marie Stadtmiller – Tallant Road – Pre-Design Review of Proposed Subdivision for Discussion

Map 35 Lot 6-115 Hammar & Sons, Inc. – Si= te Plan Review of Proposed 4500SF Addition to be used for Retail

September 17, 2007 -

Map 16 Lot 13-125-1= 5 Judy Cooke – Orchard Lane, Pineridge Road & = Surrey Lane – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision and Seeking a Special Permit for a Wetland Conservation District crossing

MINUTES

July 2, 2007

MOTION:<= o:p>

(Montbleau/Croteau) To approve the July 2, 2007 minutes as amen= ded.

=

VOTE:

(6-0-1) The motion carri= ed.   Mr. Haverty abstained.

June 16, 2007 – Site walk minutes deferred.

July 16, 2007 – the Board did not address these.

ADJOURNMEN= T

MOTION:<= o:p>

To adjourn the meeting.

=

VOTE:

(7-0-0) The motion carri= ed.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:57 pm

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

Charity A= . L. Willis

   &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;    Recording Secretary

=