PB Minutes 08-20-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD MEETING

August 20, 2007

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

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PRESENT:

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

ABSENT:

Alternate James McManus= , Alternate Edward McGlynn

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr= . Passamonte to vote in Mr. Croteau’s absence.&nb= sp; Mr. Croteau arrived after the meeting had commenced.

NEW BUSINESS

Map 38 Lot 1-133 Rita L. Louf – 15 Spaulding Hill Road – Prop= osed 2-Lot Subdivision

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 said the Boa= rd had received a letter from the applicant Rita Louf who indicated she would not = be able to attend the meeting due to a family matter. Mr. Gowan said he spoke to Ms. Louf subsequent to the receipt of the letter; Ms. Louf mentioned her attorney may also have a conflict with the meeting date. He told her there wouldn’t b= e a problem proceeding as long as she was represented by someone.

Ms. Cynthia Bouviert, Cuo= co & Cormier Engineering discussed the site.&nb= sp; She said Ms. Louf would like to subdivide her 4.5 acres into two lot= s; one containing 1.31 acres, and a back lot containing 3.19 acres. Ms. Louf received a Variance from = the Board of Adjustment (Case #2373) to have two lots with less than 200-feet frontage each. The existing h= ouse would be contained on the front lot (1.31 acres). Waivers to Landscaping, Storm water Management and Site Specific Soil Analysis were requested with the applicat= ion (by letter of Aug= ust 1, 2007).

Ms. Bouviert said a letter supporting the subdivision had been submitted by the Roys at 15 Spaulding Hill Road. She provided the Board with a copy= of the letter. Mr. McNamara read= the letter aloud. He noted an add= itional letter of support was received on August 16, 2007 from Madeline Annis (Map 38, Lot 1-151).

Ms. Bouviert informed the= Board that a Wetland Scientist had gone to the site to map any wetlands. She read from a letter which indic= ated Elliot Berman walked the entire parcel and did not observe any wetlands. She had the original and would pro= vide the Board with a copy for the record.

Mr. Gowan said the submis= sion constituted a complete application and recommended that the Board accept su= ch for consideration.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt the plan for consideration. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert asked where t= he proposed well would be located. Ms. Bouviert said the test pits were shown on the state subdivision plan. They did not show a proposed well = on the back lot because of its size. They had a building block, but did not want to implicate where the well or house would be placed. It was reite= rated that there were no wetlands. = Ms. Bouviert said they could add it to the plan. Mr. Culbert asked where the septic = system would be located. Ms. Bouviert indicated where two test pits had been dug for the proposed lot. Mr. Culbert asked if there was a s= tate approval for the septic system or placement of the well. Ms. Bouviert said they wouldn̵= 7;t at this point. They had applied = for state subdivision approval, but they weren’t designing the septic sys= tem for the lot; the applicant might be selling the raw land. Ms. Bouviert said at the point tha= t the lot is going to be developed is when the state septic approval would be obtained. The state makes the decision based on the soil data. She said they weren’t required to do a design at the time of subdivision. She said the sep= tic system would be located where the two test pits had been done. She then said the lot had not prob= lems and they would show a proposed well. Ms. Bouviert said Ms. Louf would have to relocate her septic system = and would have to dig another test pit on her lot. Mr. Culbert asked if the test pit = data was near the proposed building envelope.&n= bsp; Ms. Bouviert said when plans were submitted, the test pits were not dug. They wanted to meet the Town’s deadline for submission; however, the plans that went to the s= tate showed the test pits on it. <= /p>

Mr. Gowan said the 4K are= a, septic area, and replacement area would need to be shown on the plan. He suggested that those features, = and a well radius within the property line/side setbacks be shown on the plan.

Mr. McNamara confirmed th= at the existing home on Map 38 Lot 1-133 would remain and septic would relocate. He asked where the septic was curr= ently located. Ms. Bouviert said the existing home would remain and pointed out where the existing septic was located.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. John Nelson, 10 Applewood Road was concerned with the water situation. He believed Mr. McNamara was aware of it because he was also on the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Nels= on said he had his water tested which included the number of gallons per minute and the quality. He said ever= yone knew that there were water problems in that section of Town. He said every couple months someon= e was drilling a new well. He said = two homes were being proposed in his backyard.= Mr. McNamara said only one new home was proposed. Ms. Bouviert said the proposal was= for a two-lot subdivision; the existing home would remain and one lot would be created. She showed where the= new lot would be located. Mr. Nel= son questioned if Ms. Louf had put her house up for sale.= Ms. Bouviert didn’t know.&nbs= p; Mr. McNamara said that wasn’t part of the case. Mr. Nelson said the neighbors were= very concerned. He said he didn= 217;t know letters from abutters could be submitted to the Board. He said he could have gotten ten letters. Mr. Nelson then ques= tioned how Mr. McNamara was able to be on both boards (Board of Adjustment and Planning Board). Mr. McNamara= said the voters chose to elect him to the Board. Mr. Nelson wanted to know how some= thing could be turned down at the Board of Adjustment, then ‘shuffle the deck’ and bring it back and run it through.

Mr. Culbert said if Mr. N= elson had something to address it could be done through the Planning Director. He said Mr. Nelson may be upset, b= ut the Board/Chairman didn’t deserve abuse.= Mr. Nelson said he knew that the people in the neighborhood had gone through abuse. Mr. Haverty st= epped in and said it appeared that the plan had gone through due process with the Board of Adjustment and now it was here before the Planning Board. He said the Planning Board was the= re to review a plan and asked that the comments be limited to what was before the Board. He said there was no n= eed for personal attacks.

Mr. Nelson said if he los= t his water and had to drill another well because of the proposed home, or the quality of his water was affected by another leach field going in or another septic system it would be a civil matter and he would sue the Town.

Ms. Gretchen Brunelle, 12 Applewood Road said the house would be directly behind her. She said she had her water tested = to cover herself for a civil matter later on.= She wanted to know what would happen if she lost water and couldn’t sell her home. Mr. McNamara believed it was discussed at the Board of Adjustment and indicated= it would become a civil matter. = He said the applicant had to design the plan such that, in terms of surface runoff, that there is no greater runoff after construction than there was pre-construction. He said the applicant also had to demonstrate that they could get water to the property= . Ms. Brunelle wanted to know what h= appened if the applicant got water and her water dried up. She said her house would be worthl= ess and wanted to know what she could do in the mean time. Mr. McNamara said she would need t= o show a base line of what she had now. Ms. Brunelle said at that point she wouldn’t be able to reside= in her home and a civil matter would take a couple years. She said the neighbors were very f= earful of the water situation. She t= hen indicated that in the Spring her yard had puddles. She didn’t know when they re= viewed the wetlands on the property. Mr. McNamara said if a wetland scientist stamped a survey, they would risk their license. He said typically th= ere was vegetation consistent with a wetland (or Wetland Conservation District)= even if the land was dry. Ms. Brun= elle wanted to know if the developer would take the topography into consideration. Mr. McNamara s= aid the design had to be such so there was no more runoff after the fact than before development. He said i= n some cases, it was designed to have less runoff; this was done with engineering = and drainage studies. Ms. Brunelle asked if the plan would be backed to ensure it didn’t happen. Mr. McNamara said the plan would h= ave to be designed such that the drainage was shown.

Mr. Gowan said with regar= d to runoff, it would be calculated based on impervious surface. Because there was no specific house proposed, it would be difficult to calculate the runoff. Mr. Gowan said the 4K area had to = be shown on the plan. He said th= ere was no proposed home at this time, but some detention downhill may be appropriate with a guess of the approximate size of the home; this was with= in the Board’s purview.

Ms. Brunelle said her oth= er concern was the buffer area and wanted to know if it would be enforced. Mr. McNamara said the Board would = not make a decision on the plan at this time.&= nbsp; He noted that a buffer area was a condition of the Variance. Ms. Brunelle commented that the Roys submitted a l= etter because they would be coming back to do the same thing at the top of the st= reet.

Mr. McNamara provided the= Board with a summary of what had occurred at the Board of Adjustment with regard = to the proposed parcel. He said = the applicant originally came forward with a proposal for a two-lot subdivision which was turned down. Several months later the applicant came back with the present configuration and req= uested a variance for the single lot. After taking a lot of comment, the Board of Adjustment approved the variance requ= est. He said the applicant could have d= ecided to subdivide the parcel into more than one lot and put in a road which would have to be accepted by the Town; the alternative was to grant a variance. He said the Board thought there wo= uld be fewer disturbances with one lot as opposed to two. Mr. McNamara said there were sever= al properties in close proximity along Spaulding Hill with lots that have less than 200ft of frontage.

Mr. Culbert asked what si= ze buffering was proposed. Mr. McNamara be= lieved the Board of Adjustment discussed 50ft., but it was not their province to m= ake that decision.

Mr. Gowan asked if the 10= 0ftx150ft. building envelope was in the proposed location for a specific purpose. He said if it was moved forward it= would give the buffer. Ms. Bouviert= said the lot was very flexible. Sh= e said the reason they put the envelope in that location was because they didnR= 17;t have any specific plans for building. They would need to have the space for emergency vehicles to access t= he lot and be able to turn around. She said they could be flexible with the house location. She said then reviewed the variance condition.

Mr. Doherty was concerned= with the requested waivers based on the testimony of the abutters. Ms. Bouviert discussed the request= ed waivers and the reasons for such. Mr.= Gowan couldn’t recall the Board requiring landscaping for a two-lot subdivi= sion except for requiring a buffer.

Mr. Culbert said he would= like to see the house and well locations and the buffer (around the back edge of the property) and the 4K area. He requested that the lot not become clear cut. He wanted a well drilled and proof= of potable water prior to a building permit being issued. Mr. Gowan said the well and state approved septic system would be something they would have to show prior to = an occupancy permit being issued. Mr. Culbert said he would like to know the information prior to building.

Mr. McNamara believed the= Board understood that the lot wouldn’t be built at this time, but felt it was a large enough area and sensitive enough area the Board wanted to see where it was going. He said he would like = to keep the area of cutting to a minimum.&nbs= p;

The Board then addressed = the waivers. The first being a wa= iver request to Section 12.02 – Storm Water Management and Plan. Mr. Culbert asked if the storm wat= er management included all drainage. Ms. Bouviert answered yes. She said they hadn’t been hired to do the septic design. She then discussed the type of dra= inage plan they would recommend. Mr. Culbert agreed that they may not need a full Storm Water Management Plan, b= ut wanted to ensure that post- and pre-development drainage wasn’t great= er.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To de= ny the waiver request to Section 12.02 – Storm Water Management and Plan. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert said he denie= d the wavier to not have a full Storm Water Management Plan; however, he had no problem with a partial Storm Water Management Plan. The Board was in concurrence with allowing the applicant to do a partial Storm Water Management Plan.

The Board addressed the s= econd waiver request – To Section 11.07 – Site Specific Soil Mapping. Mr. Culbert made a m= otion to accept the waiver for consideration.&nb= sp; Mr. Dadak seconded the motion. Mr. Culbert said he would need a site specific done for the house (b= uilding envelope) for the septic and the well.&nbs= p; Mr. Dadak clarified that it was for the soil mapping. There was a brief discussion regar= ding the request and the following vote was taken.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the Site Specific Soil Map.

VOTE:

(3-4-0) The mot= ion failed. Mr. McNamara, Mr. Montbleau and = Mr. Passamonte voted yes. Mr. Culbert, Mr. Dadak, Mr. Doherty and Mr. Haverty voted no.

The Board then addressed = the last waiver request.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Dadak) To acce= pt, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.07 – Landscaping De= sign and Plan. =

VOTE:

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

Mr. Gowan discussed what = would be expected of the applicant when they returned in front of the Board. He said with the denial of two of = the waivers, the applicant would need to do the site specific soil map. He said it may make sense to turn = the building box to provide a buffer for abutters and turning for emergency vehicles. He said a decision = would also have to be made whether or not the driveway is paved. He said there would have to be som= ething to contain the water from the roof and driveway on site. Ms. Bouviert said they would like = to stay away from a retention/detention basin.

Mr. McNamara reviewed the= conditions discussed by the Board such as showing the location of septic, well and home. There was a request for= a 50-foot buffer along the property line on the westerly side. Ms. Bouviert said they had to have= the correct turning radius as they were coming into the site and may have to go into the 50ft. portion for access. Mr. Gowan asked for clarification of where the buffer would be placed. Mr. Culbert said he w= ould like it along the property line where the eight abutting parcels were located. He said the common s= ense would prevail with regard to the turning radius. Ms. Bouviert believed the Board al= so wanted confirmation on the plan from the wetland scientist. Mr. Culbert said all he had to do = was put a note on the plan indicating he found nothing on the site.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 17= , 2007 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Croteau arrived.

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & 221&nb= sp; George Jr., George III & John Harris – Ledge Road & Po= plar Hill Road – Proposed 36-Lot Subdivision with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Special Permit for Wetland &= WCD Crossing

Mr. Passamonte recused hi= mself.

Mr. Peter Zohdi of Herbert Associated came before the Board to discuss the proposed plan. He said at the last meeting road connectivity was discussed and they were asked to work with the Planning Director. He said he met with= the Planning Director numerous times and come up with the proposal currently in front of the Board. He said i= f the Board decided they didn’t want a connection to Stonepost his client didn’t object to not making the connection. Currently the proposal was for thi= rty buildable lots. Mr. Zohdi said there were two non-buildable lots that would be deeded to the Town. He said they finished the drainage= and submitted everything to the Planning Director and Stantec (Planning Board’s engineering consultant). Mr. = Zohdi said the traffic report and the environmental impact analysis had been submitted and he wanted representatives from the companies to talk to the Board. He also wanted the Boa= rd to take jurisdiction on the waiver requests.

Mr. Robert Layford of CLD Engineering provided a quick opinion regarding the connection through to Stonepost Road. He said he hadn’t done a rec= ent traffic study, and noted that CLD had done a traffic study a few years ago before t= he area had grown and was probably no longer valid. He believed there would be very li= ttle cut through traffic, perhaps 10-20 vehicles during peak hours. Most of the traffic going through = the developments would likely be originating from within the developments.

Mr. McNamara said the las= t time the Board met to discuss the proposal they requested a study addressing tra= ffic flow with and without a connection. He understood that a study was not done, but asked for an opinion ba= sed on the study that Mr. Layford did. Mr. Layford said he did a viewing of the roads themselves, reviewed the area maps of the roadway system and reviewed= the study previously done (area wide study done approximately five years ago).<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara asked if he had anyth= ing in writing to submit to the Board. Mr. Layford answered no.

Mr. Culbert asked if he understood correctly that the cut through road would make no difference. Mr. Layford said there would be so= me additional traffic in between the two developments and guessed it would be 10-20 trips during the (afternoon) peak hour. Mr. Culbert asked if Mr. Layford recommended, or didn’t recommend a through road. Mr. Layford said it seemed that a = small amount of traffic would use it; it wasn’t necessary for the two developments to be connected in order to serve traffic. Mr. Haverty didn’t believe t= hat the engineer was being asked for a recommendation if there should be a cut through; he was asked what the implications of a cut through would be. He understood it was 10-20 cars du= ring the peak hours and a number significantly lower off the peak hours. Mr. Layford said that was correct.= Mr. Gowan asked that something be submitted for the file containing an estimate that Mr. Layford felt comfort= able with.

Mr. Doherty asked if the = other roads in the neighborhood would be affected by the additional traffic. Mr. Layford said he would look at = it in more detail. He wasn’t = sure of the exact numbers until reviewing further. Mr. Zohdi suggested allowing Mr. L= ayford the opportunity to do a study and come back before the Board. He said the area-wide traffic stud= y was done approximately five years ago. <= /span>The Board thought it would be acceptable for the area to be studied. Mr. McNamara asked if the area-wide study anticipated the number of homes.&nbs= p; Mr. Zohdi answered yes. He said there was a map included with the study which he would review with Mr. Gowan.

Mr. James Gove of Gove Environmental said they had done the Environmental Impact Analysis (‘= EIA’) on the parcel and had some follow up information previously requested by the Conservation Commission. He reviewed the site with the Board and showed the wet areas, discussed the ve= getation and pointed out where the Town property was located. He indicated that the state would = be having new criteria for vernal pools and provided the Board with a copy.

Mr. McNamara asked if the= report had been submitted to Louis-Berger (Planning Board’s environmental consultant). Mr. Gowan = said the report had been submitted and an estimate for review had been received.

Mr. McNamara asked the sq= uare footage of the wetland impact. Mr. Gove said they were trying to have this be a minimal impact project at 3000= SF. Mr. McNamara asked if this was one reason why the 12.68 acres was left out of the development. Mr. Zohdi said the owner didn̵= 7;t have any intention to sell them, he wanted to keep them over ten acres to k= eep them in the current use. Mr. McNamara asked if the plan had been reviewed by the Conservation Commission. Mr. Gove said the= y had been to conservation and provided them with the EIA. He said they requested that the ve= rnal pools were reviewed more closely, which they had since done.

Mr. McNamara then read a = letter aloud that was submitted by the Town Forestry Committee dated June 24, 2007.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The letter indicated that the ‘thumb’ portion of the parcel being reviewed is a suitable loca= tion for entering the Town’s property for forestry activities. Mr. Zohdi said initially there wer= e two lots on the ‘thumb’ but they had since combined them and left a 100f= t. access point from the Town land to the land being deeded to the Town.

Mr. Zohdi showed the Boar= d a diagram of a round about that would be used for traffic calming at the connection between the Stonepost cul-de-sac and the new development. Mr. Gowan said at the last meeting= he made a recommendation to have a gravel connection road, but was informed by= the Road Agent that within two years gravel roads became dirt roads and would c= ause other issues. His point was questioning how traffic would be slowed down and the applicant’s resp= onse was the round about. Mr. Zohd= i then showed the Board the traffic calming measures that were being proposed for = the roadway. These were reasons f= or some of the waiver requests submitted to the Board. Mr. Zohdi also showed where parking areas were located for accessing Town and deeded to Town land. He then showed the open space area= s that were being proposed. The ‘thumb’ area was flat and contained no wetlands.

Mr. Montbleau was in favo= r of the round about being proposed. H= e felt it satisfied the need for traffic calming into the new development.

Conservation Commission C= hairman Paul Gagnon came forward and acknowledged the fact that six houses had been removed, four of which had been located in a wet area. He said he would also like to see = the house located on the ‘thumb’ removed. He discussed the wildlife in the a= rea and the importance of having connecting parcels for the wildlife corridor.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He wanted to provide a wider (than 100ft) connection to the Town parcel for the wildlife.

Mr. Doherty wanted to kno= w who owned the lots that were no longer included on the plan. He questioned if those lots would = be included in a subdivision later. Mr. Zohdi said the owner didn’t want to subdivide those parcel= s at this time. Mr. McNamara belie= ved everyone recognized the parcel would remain subject to development. Mr. Gagnon appreciated the clarification; he believed it was going to be a separate parcel not develop= ed or that contained an easement. Mr. Zohdi said Mr. Harris was keeping ownership.

Forestry Committee Chairw= oman Deborah Waters echoed the appreciation for the loss of the lot on the ‘thumb’. She said= the plan would be brought to the Town Forester Dan Cyr for an opinion regarding= the adequacy of the 100ft. for forestry operations. She said if the lot on the ‘thumb’ was removed it would make access easier.

Mr. Doherty asked if the applicant had considered moving some of the lot lines and going in front of= the Board of Adjustment for frontage. Mr. Zohdi understood about wanting connectivity to the Town land. He said he didn’t have a pro= blem going in front of the Board of Adjustment, but felt it was unlikely they wo= uld grant a variance for a new subdivision.&nb= sp; He said he would discuss it with his client.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Joseph Passamonte, Stonepost Road discussed the connectivity issue and the safety. He said the Police and Fire Chief = spoke in general regarding the connectivity and asked if they would submit a lett= er indicating which route they would use to access Stonepost; either down Lann= an or through the new connectivity part. He also wanted to know why the Town parcel (Lot 12-210) couldn’t be us= ed for a connection to Ledge Road= . He asked if the Board would consid= er the option of connecting through the Town parcel. Mr. McNamara said the Board review= ed a couple different options for connections. <= /span>Mr. Zohdi said he did the subdivision approximately eighteen years ago and didn’t recall the topography. He said he would look at the option.

e sHe

Mr. Shawn Houlihan, 39 Stonepost Road said there seemed to be a lot of opposition to the connectivity from conservation and forestry with regard to wildlife and also from the residen= ts. He said the builder also didn̵= 7;t care, so the main reason for connectivity is fire and rescue. He asked that the Fire and Police = Chiefs clarify their reasoning. Mr. McNamara said connectivity is for fire and safety and had been a general te= nant of the Board for years. He said the more connectivity that could be made, the better off the Town was = for safety, health and the convenience of the residents. He understood that the residents of Stonepost have been against the connectivity, but the residents of Lannan a= nd other areas are in favor of the connectivity. Mr. Houlihan said there was also m= ixed data regarding connectivity. = He noted that the traffic consultant said there would be ten cars. Ten cars wouldn’t alleviate = the concerns of residents in the other areas.&= nbsp; Mr. Houlihan reviewed a portion of the Master Plan and the resident&= #8217;s feelings regarding the importance of conservations lands. He then reviewed the portion of the Master Plan regarding traffic and the protection of children. He noted there were forty children= in the area.

Mr. Gowan said the testim= ony given by the Fire and Police Chiefs was built upon the consensus of the Hig= hway Safety Committee. He said it = was not about one access over another access, but was about having two accesses. He reviewed other a= spects of the Master Plan that the Board should also consider, such as bike paths = and pedestrian sidewalks.

Mr. Aiden Fallon, Stonepost Road recapped what he had heard. H= e said Mr. Harris didn’t mind about the road connectivity, and neither did t= he builder didn’t, the thirty eight residents and forty-four children, the resid= ents of Brett Circle and along with the Conservation Committee.= He struggled to understand why the connection was proposed even thou= gh he had heard it was in the best interest of the residents of Stonepost Road because of safety. He appreciated the concerns of the surrounding residents, but felt it was a separate issue and road calming sh= ould be reviewed for them. He said= from what he heard no one really wanted the road except for the Planning Board.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McNamara wasn’t under the impression that the Conservation Commission was against connectivity. The issue of connectivity was disc= ussed further and Mr. Fallon said he didn’t want the Planning Board making decisions for his family. He = felt it was in his best interest that a cul-de-sac was safer for his family. He questioned if there could be a = gated access versus a connection. M= r. McNamara said it had been considered in the past and always been frowned up= on both by the Fire and Police Departments and the Road Agent for reasons such= as maintenance, access in an emergency, and vandalism.

Mr. Haverty said during t= he last meeting he presented some statistics that said a cul-de-sac was less safe t= han through streets. He wanted to= know what gave the residents of Stonepost the right to tell the landowner what t= o do with his property. Mr. Fallon= said no one on Stonepost Road was opposing the construction of the property, it was just the road connectivity. Mr. Haverty sai= d the Board was making a recommendation based on what was best for the Town. Mr. Fallon said the Town had alrea= dy told the Board that they would prefer the protection of wildlife corridors. Mr. Haverty said t= he Town was trying to make progress and still protect the wildlife, the corrid= or, and still met the goals of connectivity for safety. He said as an elected official he = had to be a voice for the people on neighboring streets as well. Mr. Fallon wanted statistical information rather than just an opinion regarding the traffic. He said the residents wanted to he= ar from the Police and Fire Chiefs that the connection was really in their best interest, because if the road went through. He said when they met with the Boa= rd they spoke in general terms. = Mr. McNamara said the Chiefs also spoke about the proposal because the whole ar= ea was subject to very restricted ways for emergency vehicles to access it. He said one of the main points of planning has been to try and balance the competing interests and decide what was in the best interest long term for the Town. Mr. Fallon asked if the builder wo= uld consider another round about between Stonepost and Trailside to slow traffic down. He also felt there shou= ld be traffic calming measures for the residents of Shephard Road and Lannan Drive.

Mr. Ray Brunelle, 3 Matthew Drive, was concerned with the number of houses that had already been added to the area with recent developments. He = said no one had brought up the safety concerns with the intersection of Route 38= and Ledge Road. Mr. McNamara said the Safety Commi= ttee and the Fire and Police Departments were aware that the intersection was getting worse but the problem was one of money and the availability of fund= s to improve the conditions and further it was a state road. He said the state had a 10-year pl= an for capital improvements on roadways and noted that the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road interse= ction was failing and not listed on the state’s plan. He said anything that got done to = that intersection would have to be done by the Town. The Town was in the process of wor= king on a couple strategies to compile funds to address the situation. Mr. McNamara said the same concern= existed on Ledge Road, but at this time, there was no money. Mr. Brunelle said with all the work to acquire the conservation land= he didn’t feel Mr. Harris did everything he could to work with the Town = to acquire more land and have less of an impact.

Mr. Gowan said he had been working with the state regarding the Old Gage Hill Road North and Route 38 intersection. He said they are trying to figure out a way to lessen the impacts. He said there may be some interim measures taken such as adding a yellow beacon light at the top of the hill.

Mr. Brunelle discussed the wildlife corridor and commented that once it was gone, it would be gone. Mr. McNamara said the Board was wa= iting for comment from their consultant regarding Mr. Gove’s report. He said there would also be further opinion regarding the traffic concerns.

The Board then reviewed t= he waiver requests (dated August 20, 2007) and made the following motions:

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.04,B,5 – Lot Sh= ape – lot with less than 50ft. in width. Lots 12-221-7,15 & 21.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.04,C,1 – Lot Sh= ape, Design Standards, building envelope being 100ft.x150ft. Lots 12-221-1, 6,= 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21, 26 & 12-221-3.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Section 11.11,B,2 – Water, Wells, On-Site Sewage and Hydrological Studies; Well Radius Placement = 211; well radius being located within the lot boundaries and outside the 15ft. building setback. Lots 12-122-3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 12-215-1 &a= mp; 2.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Appendix I,BB,13 – Roadway Design; Street Construction Standards - Maximum Horizontal Curve. 150ft. requested, not the requir= ed 200ft.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Appendix I,BB,15 – Roadway Design; Street Construction Standards -&= nbsp; K Factor of 15.6, not the required 30.

VOTE:

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

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

MOTION:

(Culbert/Montbleau) To = accept, for consideration, the waiver request to Appendix I,BB,21 – Roadway Design; Street Construction Standards – Maximum Grade (vertical alignment) on intersection approach.

VOTE:

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

Mr. Culbert wanted to make sure tha= t the plan would be done as site specific. Mr. Zohdi said they were in the process of doing the plan as site specific and would be submitted for engineering consultant review.

The Board wanted the oppo= rtunity to review revised information at least one week prior to the next scheduled hearing of the plan.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 15,= 2007 meeting. If the Board doesn&#= 8217;t receive information at least one week prior to the meeting the applicant wi= ll request a continuance.

Mr. Passamonte returned t= o the Board.

Map 41 Lot 6-126 – Nashua Redimix – Bridge Str= eet (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant **Applicant requests continuance to 9/17/07 **

Mr. McNamara informed tha= t the applicant requested a continuance to the September 17, 2007 meeting.

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 272&nbs= p; John Alosso – Main Street & Route 38 – Seeking re-ap= proval of Site Plan that was originally approved in 1989 for 25,000SF Retail Build= ing

Mr. Haverty informed the = Board that someone in his family (not his immediate family) owned property across= the street from the proposed. He = said he had no financial interest in the plan and if it came to a point where he= or any Board member felt he should recuse himself, he would. At this point he wanted to remain seated. There was no objectio= n by the Board or the applicant to Mr. Haverty remaining seated.

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. John Alosso, a Windham, NH resident, said he was a commercial builder and developer who was in front of the Board to review a plan that was twice approved called Petersburg Square located on Route = 38 and Old Gage Hill Road. He said he was seeking approval to= build the site as it had been previously approved. To his knowledge there had been no changes in the code since the previous approval. The building would be a total of 25,000SF and comprised of a bank, restaurant and retail space. An artist rendition of the buildin= g was provided to the Board. Mr. Al= osso said the current tax revenue for the property as it currently existed was $6295; the projection, if approved, the complex would generate $30,788 as w= ell as possible future jobs etc. = He saw the proposition as a ‘win-win’ situation for the Town.

Mr. Gowan believed it was accurate to say the plan was approved by the Board in 1988. He thought the applicant was corre= ct that not much had changed in the Town’s Site Plan Regulations. His concern was not what had chang= ed in the Town’s Regulations, but what had changed in the State’s Regulations with regard to wetlands etc. given the proximity of Beaver Brook.

Mr. McNamara reviewed RSA= 248:18 Expiration of Approval. He sa= id because the plan dated back twenty years, the Board would need time to study the proposed. Mr. Gowan sugge= sted having Stantec provide limited review to assess what might have changed in = the state’s regulations. He= would work with the applicant regarding what had changed with the Town’s regulations. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposal. Mr. Alosso said he was prepared to work with the Board. There was concern that a twenty ye= ar old site plan may not address all items.

Mr. Culbert said when McDonalds came in the Board sort of ‘fast-tracked’ the plan. He would be in favor of fast-tracking the proposed plan as long as a= ll the regulations were met.

Mr. Gowan noted that the = plan was originally done by Cuoco & Cormier and it might be difficult to modify = the plan because it was hand drawn. Mr. McNamara said the wetlands were a concern and because the location was prominent he wanted the engineer to review to make sure concerns were addressed. Mr. Montbleau beli= eved he was on the Board when it originally was approved. He believed the drainage issues we= re very different from what was shown.

Mr. Doherty asked if the applicant was familiar with any waivers that might have been granted when t= he plan was submitted. Mr. Aloss= o said he was not. Mr. Gowan said he= would review the meeting minutes. He suggested having Stantec provide an estimated cost for reviewing the propos= ed plan and provide input about the difference with an electronic version and = how the plan would be modified.

Mr. Dick Hertrich of Stan= tec discussed what was being requested and confirmed that the Board wanted them= to compare the proposed plan against the regulations item by item. He said they would provide a lette= r for such.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Brett Young, 23 Main Street wanted to know what was being prop= osed for the retail space and the restaurant.&n= bsp; Mr. Alosso said at this point, they were speaking to a couple banks.= Mr. Young asked if there was anyth= ing requested in regard to an entertainment or liquor license. Mr. Alosso answered no. Mr. McNamara said that would be up= to the tenant. Mr. Young asked w= here the entrance/exit would be located. Mr. Alosso showed where they proposed and noted they had not yet gon= e to the state.

Mr. Brian Duarte, 44 Old Bridge Street North told the Board he had resided in Town for seven years. He said any type of building would= have an impact on his property. He discussed the problems he had during the rain storms of 2006. He said the whole area had problem= s and every time the road was raised, it trapped the water into his house. Mr. Duarte agreed that it was the perfect area for the proposed, but wanted the Board to protect the people on the other side of the brook. = Mr. McNamara said there was a known drainage problem and noted there was an existing problem with the culverts. He said the Board would look for more engineering and explained that= the post-development runoff from the site had to be equal to or less than the p= re-development runoff. He said the BoardR= 17;s obligation was to make sure the applicant was not adding to the flow after construction. Mr. Gowan discu= ssed a recent case where the Board asked the applicant to create more of a flood storage area within the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) t= han naturally existed on site to begin with.&n= bsp; He said there may be a possibility to improve drainage with some enlightened techniques. Mr. D= uarte said with every storm the brook would raise.

Ms. Joyce Sherman, 38 Old Bridge Street North said she had lived in Town a very long time even prior to Route 38 going in. She said they never flood= ed before Route 38 went in and after the rain storms of 2006 the layer of the = road were visible. She said the st= reet had been raised two feet. She= said the whole area was a basin and if more fill and buildings were added the neighbors had no hope. Ms. Sh= erman said she had recently done a renovation to move their electrical, heating, = etc. up above ground level; they no longer had a basement. She said there was nothing that an= yone could come up to help, they just kept hearing about more building occurring. She condoned the v= alue that the building would bring to the Town, but felt the Town would lose in = the long run because it would have to keep re-building the street and bridges.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She said the Board wanted to push = the plan through as quickly as possible and suggested they so a survey during f= lood season. Mr. McNamara said the= Board wasn’t going to push the plan through. He said the Board would have addit= ional studies done and would also conduct a site walk. He said the comments that were mad= e were in general.

Mr. Young asked if the ab= utters would be notified upon approval of each retail section. Mr. McNamara said if the plan were approved it would be done as designed; if there was a change of tenant (cha= nge of use), the proposed tenant would have to come before the Board. Mr. Young asked if the initial ten= ants would come before the Board. = Mr. Gowan said if the use was specific (at the time of approval) there would be= no further requirement for them to come before the Board, if it wasn’t specific, they would likely come back to the Board for a limited site plan review and abutters would be notified.&nbs= p; Mr. Young was concerned with noise levels, hours of operation and traffic. Mr. Gowan said where commercial property abutted residential property the Board reviewed those issues deeply.

Ms. Sherman asked if it w= as possible to have the Conservation Commission walk the site to see the wildlife. Mr. McNamara said t= he Conservation Commission would be involved.=

Mr. McNamara said there h= ad to be several things done, the first of which was coordinating with Stantec then moving forward the Board would decide what, in addition to the plan, they n= eeded. He said the plan would also need t= o be reviewed by the Conservation Commission.&n= bsp;

Mr. Gowan said the Board = should figure out if they wanted to accept the plan for consideration so it would = then be submitted to Stantec. Mr. McNamara suggested that the Board accept the plan for consideration conditi= oned upon the information that was provided may, or may not be sufficient.

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To ac= cept the plan for consideration. The= plan is complete, however, the applicant may have to change the plan completel= y. (There may be additional information/studies required. )

VOTE:

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

The plan was date specifi= ed to the September 17= , 2007 meeting.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS:

Septembe= r 17, 2007 –

Map 38 Lot 1-133 Rita L. Louf – 15 Spaulding Hill Road – Proposed 2-Lot Subdivision

Map 41 Lot 6-126 – = Nashua Redimix = 211; Bridge Street (Route 38) – Site Plan Review of Proposed 100ft.x40ft. Concrete Batch Plant

Map 22 Lots 7-271 & 2= 72 John Alosso – Main Street &a= mp; Route 38 – Seeking re-approval of Site Plan that was originally appro= ved in 1989 for 25,000SF Reta= il Building

October 1= 5, 2007 -

Map 24 Lots 12-215 & = 221 George Jr., George III & John = Harris – Ledge Road & Poplar Hill Road – Proposed 36-Lot Subdivisi= on with 2 Open Space Lots to be deeded to the Town of Pelham and Seeking a Spe= cial Permit for Wetland & WCD Crossing

MINUTES

July 16= , 2007

MOTION:

(Passamonte/Doherty) To= approve the July 16, 2= 007 meeting minutes as written.

VOTE:

(4-0-= 3) The motion carried.

August = 6, 2007

MOTION:

(Dadak/Croteau) To appr= ove the August 6, 2007= meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(6-0-= 1) The motion carried. Mr. Culbert abstained.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(7-0-= 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