PB Minutes 09-06-07

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

PLANNING BOARD &n= bsp; BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT &nbs= p; CONSERVATION COMMISSION

JOINT MEETING

September 6, 2007

Planning Board Chairman P= eter McNamara called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.

Secretary Paul Dadak call= ed the roll:

PLANNING BOARD:

PRESENT:

Peter McNamara, Paddy C= ulbert, Paul Dadak, Roger Montbleau, Jason Croteau, Tim Doherty, Alternate Joseph Passamonte, Alternate James McManus, Alternate Edward McGlynn, Selectmen Representative Robert Haverty, Planning Director Jeff Gowan

ABSENT:

None.

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

David Hennessey, Peter McNamara, Svetlana Paliy, Alternate Bill Kearney, Planni= ng Director/Zoning Administrator Jeff Gowan

Robert Molloy, Kevin O’Sullivan, Alternate Lance Ouellette, Alternate Ken Dunne

CONSERVATION COMMISSION:

PRESENT:

ABSENT:

Paul G= agnon, Paul Dadak, Glennie Edwards, Karen MacKay

Lisa Loosigian

Mr. McNamara gave a brief explanation regarding the proposal for the traditional and conservation pla= ns to be discussed and how the joint meeting would be conducted. He informed that a Planning Board sub-committee had been formed to explore/develop a conservation zoning ordinance for the March ballot. He asked that the Conservation Commission be provided with a brief explanation= of the plan so they could provide comments regarding such.

The Conservation Commissi= on and the Zoning Board of Adjustment then came forward to hear a presentation from the applicant regarding the traditional plan versus the conservation plan.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

JOINT CASE:

Map 4 Lot 9-138 Stadtmiller (Portner), Marie – Tallant Road – Pre-design Review of Proposed Subdivision for Discussion=

The meeting of the Conser= vation Commission began at this time. Chairman Paul Gagnon invited the members of the Board of Adjustment = to offer comments.

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchm= ark Engineering met with the Boards to discuss the proposed plans. He explained how the conservation = plan came about, noting that the number of lots remained the same, but the road footage was reduced from approximately 3000ft. down to approximately 1800ft. He said the only thing sacrificed between the traditional and conventional plans was the amount of frontage. Of the twelve lots,= nine have less than 200ft. of frontage (ranging from 71ft. to 150ft.). He said there were three lots that didn’t have the 150ft.x100ft. building block, but did contain 15,000S= F of buildable area outside the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’) area. Mr. Maynard said the bi= ggest benefit to the conservation subdivision would be the preservation of approx= imately 14 acres of open space and the minimization of the impervious area by close= to half. He said once they creat= ed the two plans they met with the Planning Board and showed them both plans and received positive responses; this lead to the joint meeting between the Boards. He said if they weren’t granted a variance for the frontage in the conservation plan, they would proceed with the traditional plan so it could be built in the Spring.

Mr. Dadak asked what land= area would remain in each plan. Mr. Maynard said under the conventional layout the entire area would be developed. The lots ranged in= size from one acre to five acres. = The conservation subdivision would preserve approximately fourteen acres for op= en space. Mr. Dadak asked for a comparison of the WCD effects/impacts.&nbs= p; Mr. Maynard said ultimately the WCD effects remained the same. He said in the conventional (traditional) layout there was a bit more WCD impact and showed the areas t= hat would be affected. He showed = that the conservation plan would have approximately 14,000SF less impact to the = WCD and approximately 1600SF less impact to the wetlands.

Ms. MacKay asked if the d= etention pond had to be built in the conservation plan or if it could be avoided. Mr. Maynard said they had alternate areas for the detention pond and felt comfortable that it could be kept out= of the WCD. Ms. MacKay confirmed= that the detention pond would still need to be built, and that it could be built outside the WCD. Mr. Maynard answered yes.

Mr. Gagnon asked if all o= ther regulations would be met, except for frontage. Mr. Maynard answered yes. He said there were a few waivers t= hat would be requested such as for well radius (into open space), also three lo= ts didn’t have the 150ft.x100ft. building box even though they contained 15,000SF of buildable area. <= /p>

Mr. Gagnon commented that= it was important to understand the thinking behind conservation subdivisions. He said the Town currently allowed builders one option. He said = there were numerous states that were adopting conservation subdivision amendments. He said it was a concept that Europe had used for hundred= s of years. Mr. Gagnon said the co= ncept of distributing homes evenly throughout the landscape is not necessarily an effective way to manage growth from a conservation perspective. He said the concept of a conservat= ion subdivision was to take a parcel and not put anymore homes on it, but put t= hem closer together (with a community feel) the remaining space would not be ow= ned by an individual, but rather by the community and possibly partially by the Town. He spoke about the conc= ept of having ‘little towns’/communities. He said there was a subcommittee t= rying to put an ordinance/regulations together and felt it was a step in the right direction. Mr. Gagnon went on= to say he didn’t like either plan because they each had a number of wetl= and crossings. He said out of the= two plans, he liked the conservation subdivision more. He said the challenge was the yiel= d of house lots. In summary, Mr. G= agnon felt there was a place conservation subdivisions in Pelham and they were friendlier to the environment and more amenable to services. He said if he had to choose betwee= n the two plans being shown, he would pick the conservation subdivision. He asked that the applicant’s attorney explain legal ways that the open spaces could be ‘tied up’ in perpetuity. He said people would have to be convinced that the open space wouldn’t be developed in the future.=

Ms. Edwards asked what th= e average acreage was for the lots. Mr. Maynard said in the conservation layout the lots were all one acre in size;= the lots contained in the conventional (traditional) plan averaged in size from= one acre to five acres, the majority being just over two acres.

Mr. Hennessey asked who w= ould own and control the conservation space. Attorney Paul DeCarolis (applicant’s representative) showed the Boards the land that would be dedicated permanently as conservation land ei= ther through an easement covenance or to create a conservation easement given to= the Town. He said the property ow= ners could own the title to the land, but the Town would hold the easement. He said another alternative would = be to make the open space lots separate and convey the title to the Town. He said the safest way was to conv= ey a conservation easement which would run forever and only the Town could relea= se it. Attorney DeCarolis said d= uring the variance hearing he wouldn’t be asking for any particular method = to secure that the land would never be developed, other than to say as a condi= tion of approval they would ask that the mechanism to preserve the open space be= subject to approval by Town Council. =

Mr. Hennessey said curren= tly there were no rules regarding the preservation of land and said as the Boar= d had their discussion it was normal/usual for them to impose conditions to ensure what the applicant states in their application (about preservation) remains true. He wanted to know what = the Conservation Commission felt the restrictions should be.

Mr. Dadak asked if the pe= ople in the development would also have an interest in the land and wording contain= ed in their deeds if the land was deeded.&nbs= p; Attorney DeCarolis said the wording could be flexible and provided an example of how it could be enforced. Ms. Edwards asked who would pay the taxes on the land if it was made available to the homeowners. Attorney DeCarolis said the homeowners would, but the taxes were minimal. It was similar to a condominium.

Mr. Dadak questioned how = someone would access the open space if they didn’t abut it. Mr. Maynard said there was only on= e lot that didn’t abut the open space.&nbs= p; He pointed out they would have the opportunity to access the open sp= ace from the road.

Mr. Hennessey asked if the recommendation being made was to impose a condition that the ownership and disposition of the land be left to the Planning Board. Attorney DeCarolis said the condit= ion could be worded as the preservation= of the open space area be determined by the Planning Board and Town Council. Mr. Gagnon said in this case, = he wished the plan could be ‘shelved’ for six months waiting to see the results of the Town vote. He said he would be willing to ‘wrestle’ through the issues if the only other option was to have the conventional plan. Mr. Hennessey said part of the Boa= rd of Adjustment request was that the applicant had to show hardship and as the v= ote gets closer he would argue that less hardship could be shown.

Ms. Paliy asked if it was possible to take the conventional plan, shrink the lots to one acre leaving 200ft. of frontage for each, and keep the remaining area as open space for conservation. She said she wasn’t from America and explained that Europe did their open= space more as parks, which the proposal before the Boards was not. She said the land was there, but n= ot really accessible. Ms. Paliy = said she would like to see the plan reworked because she felt the conventional p= lan could yield just as much open space (as the conservation plan) that no one could use. Mr. Maynard said to reduce the lots down to an acre other issues would arise, such as well radi= us and building areas. There wou= ld be more waivers requested. Mr. M= aynard said the 3000ft. of road (in the long term) would be a burden to the Town.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Ms. Paliy felt a better design cou= ld be done between the two plans. S= he said in reality the plan created space that couldn’t be used. She wanted to see a design that had buildings, a park and open area. Mr. Maynard said in the conventional plan every inch was developable= and homeowners could completely clear their parcel. He said with the conservation plan= , the lots were limited to one acre. He noted the open space in the conservation plan would be preserved in perpetu= ity.

Mr. Gagnon said even thou= gh he didn’t like either of the plans, he felt it was a ‘step in the right direction’. He fe= lt the exchange was excellent but noted the proposed plan was not one that would be held up as a ‘classic’ conservation subdivision. He agreed that it was hard to enfo= rce WCD when someone owned the land; people were unlikely to move off their property and clear land they don’t own, but were very likely to cut t= rees within their boundary lines. Attorney DeCarolis said they were trying to keep the land in its nat= ural state and felt the proposed plan was the best way to do so.

The Conservation Commissi= on members stepped away, with the exception of Mr. Dadak who read the abutter’s list aloud for Board of Adjustment Case #2384.

Case #2384 PORTNER, Marie (Stadtmiller) - Tallant= Road - Map 4 Lot 9-138 - Seeking a Variance to Article II= I, Section 307-12 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the creation of 9 lots with less than 200 feet of frontage on a public right-of-way.

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.&nb= sp; Mr. Dadak then excused himself.&nbs= p;

Attorney Paul DeCarolis, representing the applicant, met with the Board to discuss the variance requ= est for frontage of less than 200ft. for nine of the twelve lots being proposed= . He said in a conventional subdivis= ion without any wetland problems approximately 1300ft-1400ft. of road frontage would be needed for a 12-lot subdivision. He compared the proposed plan to the Willowvale subdivision across the street = and pointed out that the because of the location of the wetlands, on the propos= ed property, made it impossible = to have a traditional subdivision the access road had to come in from the left side of the property. He said= the total length of the roadway under a conventional plan would be 3100ft and if the variance was granted it would reduce the total length of roadway down to 800ft. He said the Chairman o= f the Conservation Commission indicated he was not in favor of either proposal because of the wetland issues. He said Town’s Zoning Ordinance allowed wetland crossing for right-of-wa= ys when necessary for the productive use of the land. He said they were trying to minimi= ze the wetland impacts.

Attorney DeCarolis under = the hardship criteria, cost (for the alternatives to the variance) was a factor. He said the average road cost was approximately $300 per foot and with the variance they would be able to red= uce the road frontage by 1300 feet and have a cost savings of $390,000. He felt the property was unique to= the abutting property in that those parcels appeared to be able to construct a = road with lots on both sides similar to Willowvale. He said in the variance request th= ey were not seeking to impose smaller lots on neighbors because it was a new subdivision. Attorney DeCarol= is said the front footage for the lots varied from 71-feet up to 150-feet. He noted that the frontage was on = the cul-de-sac radius and the width of the lots opened up in the location of the building with the minimum width being 125-feet.

Mr. Hennessey suggested i= f the variance was granted, the building envelopes would be important to planning. He wanted to know h= ow the building envelopes differed between the two plans. Attorney DeCarolis said the Board = could impose a condition that the lots sites could be regulated by the Planning Board. He said additional dis= tance could be done by moving the buildings back.

Attorney DeCarolis then a= ddressed the variance criteria; following is the criteria submitted with the application.

1. The variance will not be contrary = to the public interest because: The applic= ant proposes to create a 12-lot subdivision, which is currently allowed in the property. The only change fro= m a conventional subdivision would be the reduction of the road frontage which = will reduce the disturbance of the wetland and reduce the roadways, both of which are in the public interest.

2. Special conditions exist such that literal enforcement of the ordinance results in unnecessary hardship becaus= e:

“Area”

i. an ar= ea Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the prop= erty given special conditions of the property because: In order to develop the property as zoned there would be significant disturbance to the property. = The special conditions of this property are such that the property can be devel= oped as proposed in order to eliminate unnecessary disturbance of the wetlands a= nd the overall reduction of roadways. The benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by construction= of additional roadways and wetland disturbance, but these additional alternati= ve methods are not reasonable in that it provides no benefit to the future property owners or to the town and will only serve to impose additional bur= dens upon the town and upon the existing environment conditions. As such, the other methods are not reasonable as compared to the alternative proposed by the Applicant.

ii. The = benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because: = The alternatives to the proposed subdi= vision are not reasonable because it involves considerable and unnecessary disturb= ance to the wetlands and Wetland Conservation District. It also would require significant = amount of additional disturbance to the natural features and additional pavement. =

3. The Variance is consis= tent with the spirit of the ordinance because: The Applicant intends to comply with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordina= nce whereby the only deviation is in the length of road frontage. In all other respects, the propose= d use is entirely consistent with the ordinance as the property is zoned for residential use, each lot will be of minimum acreage as required by the zon= ing ordinance and all septic systems will be installed pursuant to the regulati= ons of the Town of Pelham and State of New Hampshire.

4. Substantial justice is= done because: Substantial justice is done because if the variance is granted it would reduce the required length of r= oad from 3100 feet to 1800 feet, reduce the overall wetland conservation distri= ct impacts from 41,000 sq. ft. to 34,000 sq. ft; and wetland dredge and fill impacts will be reduced from 11,000 to 9400 sq. ft. The open space area that is preser= ved in the event of the approval of the variance will be permanently dedicated with the appropriate easement documents.

5. The value of the surro= unding properties will not be diminished because: The proposed subdivision would benefit the surrounding properties in that by granting the variance it would condense the area where the homes are constructed and thereby position them even further from the neighbor’s property than what would be constructed pursuant to a conventional subdivis= ion. The value of the surrounding prope= rty would not be diminished to any degree by granting the variance.

Attorney DeCarolis explai= ned that the proposal was for single family residences which is what the area was zo= ned for. He said other than some = minor Planning Board waivers, the spirit and intent of the ordinance would be adh= ered to. He referenced a recent Su= preme Court Case (decided in March, 2007 - Malachy Glen Associates, Inc. v. Town of = Chichester) in which they found the pro= ject didn’t violate the ordinance’s basic objective by altering the essential character of the locality. He said they were trying to minimize the wetland crossings. He also noted they would not be deviating in any way from the character of the neighborhood which was single family housing. Attorney DeCa= rolis believed the site clearly satisfied the criteria based on the land’s special features. He continue= d the review of the criteria and noted they would be reducing 1300-feet of road frontage (with a cost savings of $390,000), reducing 7000SF of WCD disturba= nce, reduction of 1600SF of dredge and fill in the wetlands and reducing the pav= ing by 1.2 acres. He said denial = of the variance would result in the loss of the proposed open space to be dedicated and set aside. He said the To= wn and abutters would also not benefit from a denial. He said there would be no gain that outweighed the additional road expense or the additional environmental impact. In closing he said he wasn’t aware of any evidence of the diminution of property value and = felt the proposal met the criteria for a variance.

Mr. Hennessey asked if th= ere was expert testimony to bolster the second prong of the Boccia criteria. Attorney DeCarolis answered yes and asked Mr. Maynard to address the Board.

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchm= ark Engineering said he did a lot of developments in southern New Hampshire and in that process was involved with cost estimates. He said the average cost (at today’s rate) for road construction was approximately $300 per linear foot of roadway. Mr. Hennessey asked for the cost s= avings comparison of the two plans. = Mr. Maynard said the estimated savings (of the conservation plan) was $390,000.

Ms. Paliy understood that financial hardship dealt with the net amount at the end and questioned if people would pay more for a five acre lot versus a one-acre lot with forest behind them. Mr. Maynard said= in neighboring communities he found that conventional subdivision lots didn’t sell more for open space lots; he named the prices for develop= ments he had worked on. Mr. Henness= ey noted that the relative expense of alternatives must be considered per Boccia.

Ms. Paliy said she would = be more comfortable with the conservation subdivision containing nine lots versus twelve lots. Mr. Maynard expl= ained why there were certain lots with less frontage and said the Board should be reviewing the size of the buildable area for those lots.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Paddy Culbert, 44 Sim= pson Road asked if the ‘horse was before the cart’ because there was= a sub-committee currently reviewing this type of zoning. He wanted to know if something was= being approved that would set a precedent. He said he was an advocate for conservation zoning, but was not in f= avor of it right now because there were no standards to go by. He felt comparing Willowvale Avenue (which had 200-fe= et of frontage) was like comparing apples and oranges because the proposal had lo= ts with less than 200-feet of frontage. Mr. Culbert asked if the Planning Board would be locked into the pro= posed plan if the variance was approved. Mr. Hennessey said they were giving permission to the developers to reduce the frontage. Mr. Culb= ert believed once the developer went to them it would be a valid plan.

It was Mr. Gowan’s = opinion if the variance was given for the short frontage, it would give the Planning Board the authority to approve an open space plan. He did not feel it would encumber = the Planning Board from making their typical alterations to the plan. He said they would still have to g= rant the wetlands crossing by special permit.&n= bsp; Mr. Hennessey asked if the Board would be locking the plan into the number of lots. Mr. Gowan did= not believe the Board would be locking in the number of lots. He said if the variance were appro= ved it would allow the Planning Board to move forward on the conservation plan, ve= rsus the conventional. It was Mr. Culbert’s understanding when a variance was approved for less frontag= e, it would then go to the Planning Board and the lots could have 50-feet of frontage. Mr. Hennessey said = the Board could encumber an approval with restrictions. The applicant had agreed to a cond= ition regarding building envelope. = Mr. Culbert asked if it was possible to get Town Council reading on the topic o= f if the plan would be approved if the variance was. Mr. Gowan didn’t feel it was necessary, but would seek Town Council’s opinion if the Board request= ed such. Mr. Culbert felt giving= a variance for frontage would set a precedent. Mr. Hennessey said he was bothered= by the third criteria. Mr. Culbe= rt said he was in favor of conservation easements. He questioned if it might be bette= r for the developer to wait six months.

Mr. Roger Montbleau, 36 Spaulding Hill Road said he was reviewing the plan such that the benefits far outweighed the al= ternatives on the alternative plan. He s= aw a lot of benefit to the conservation plan and wanted the opportunity to review the plan so an opportunity wouldn’t be lost to review protecting wild= life habitat and the expense of road length.&nb= sp;

Attorney DeCarolis said t= hey were only requesting a variance from the specific requirement of 200-foot frontage. He said they had no intention of deviating from the spirit of the ordinance. He discussed the spirit of the ordinance. He noted that they= were entitled to have twelve lots and for the Board to say they wanted nine woul= d be a taking. With regard to sett= ing a precedent, Attorney DeCarolis said the Board had to look at the uniqueness = of the site. He said in discussi= ng Willowvale, it was his point that they were ‘apples and oranges’. He said the property was unique compared to Willowvale and couldn’t have a road constructed with houses on both sides.

Mr. Hennessey asked if At= torney DeCarolis agreed with Mr. Gowan’s interpretation that the Board’= ;s vote on the variance would not lock the Planning Board into making changes = to the plan. Attorney DeCarolis = said he did (agree with Mr. Gowan). He said the only thing the Board’s vote would do would allow the applica= nt to go to the Planning Board with lots from 71ft.-176ft. Mr. Hennessey also confirmed that = the Board would not be binding the Planning Board to the twelve-lot configurati= on as outlined on the proposal. Attorney DeCarolis said the Planning Board would be bound; the appli= cant still needed Planning Board review to prove that they were entitled to the 12-lots. Mr. Hennessey asked = if Attorney DeCarolis was speaking for the applicant when he said they would a= bide by the Planning Board decisions in accordance with the variance granting. Attorney DeCarolis said that was correct.

Mr. Culbert wanted clarif= ication of the frontage variance and what it entitled the applicant to. Mr. Hennessey confirmed that the Planning Board could not deny the plan based on frontage. Attorney DeCarolis said if the var= iance was approved, the Planning Board could not go to the applicant and comment about the lack of frontage. M= r. Culbert wanted to know what would happen if the frontage was approved and t= he applicant went to the Planning Board who decreased the number of lots. Attorney DeCarolis said there may = be other issues that would need to be addressed. He said if the variance was grante= d the lot sizes would then basically comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Culbert reiterated his concern= that if the variance was approved, the plan would also be approved. Mr. Hennessey said the Board was n= ot approving a plan. Attorney DeCarolis agreed that the Board was not approving the plan.

Mr. McNamara felt the conservation plan was superior to the conventional plan. He said normally the Board was ask= ed to grant a variance for one lot. In the case being presented the Board was being asked to grant a variance for = 75% of the lots on the property. = In essence the Board would be spot zoning and substituting their judgment for = that of the public. He didn’= t feel a variance would be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance as it prese= ntly existed. He said it seemed th= e only special conditions of the property were those being imposed by the plan. He said the plan was designed for a certain amount of frontage. M= r. McNamara discussed the second criteria and believed there were other ways to get around the cost associated with the conventional subdivision plan. He said there were advantages to t= he conservation plan, but felt the Board was overstepping its bounds by approv= ing nine separate variance requests. Attorney DeCarolis disagreed. He said that’s what the Board was for. Mr. McNamara said the applicant was asking the Board to rezone the area. Attorney DeCarolis disagreed that it was spot zoning because they weren’t seeking a use variance; they were requesting a variance for frontage. Mr. McNamara said s= pecial conditions were only being created because of the proposed proposal it was = not the land itself.

Mr. Hennessey informed th= at because there were only four members present, a 2-2 tie vote meant that the variance would be denied. He = said they were entitled to a full Board and if they requested, the case would be= put off to the next meeting. He s= aid they could hear the case at the meeting on Monday, September 10, 2007. Any Board members not present would watch a DVD recording of the meeting and review the notes.

The hearing was adjourned= to the September 10, 2007 Board of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Henne= ssey said the Board would discuss the case amongst themselves. There would be no further public input.

The Planning Board hearing for Map 4 Lot 9-138   Stadtmiller (Portner), Marie – Tallant Road – Pre-design Review of Proposed Subdivision for Discussion was date specified to Sep= tember 17, 2007. <= /p>

PELHAM PLANNING BOARD MEETING AGENDA

September 6, 2007=

NEW BUSINESS

Map 39 Lot 1-55, 55-1 & 54&= nbsp; LRL Development of Pelham – Sherburne Road – Seeking 6-m= onth extension of February 22, 2007 approval of a 66 Unit Senior Housing Complex= and Special Use Permit for Wetland Conservation District Crossing (Plan set to expire August 22, 2007 – application for extension received August 10, 2007)

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.&nb= sp;

Mr. Gowan advised if the = Board granted an extension, they handle it with wording that referred to the form= al approval so that all the formal conditions applied. Mr. McNamara noted that the plan h= ad been approved by the previous Board and there weren’t many members se= ated on the present Board.

Mr. Wes Aspinwall of Herb= ert Associates said to finalize the plans they had applied for a number of state permits which took time to have processed and had exceeded six months. He explained the sequencing of per= mit approvals. He said they were = requesting a six month extension which he felt would be a long enough period of time to resolve the issues. He provid= ed the Board with a summary of the plan.

Mr. McManus said when the applicant came to the Board they requested a wetland crossing to access the= ir parcel. He said the applicant= noted that there was an abutting parcel that would enable them access without a wetland crossing, but it wasn’t included in the proposal. Mr. McManus said the applicant cam= e in later with the parcel included in the proposal.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan discussed the proposal, what was originally proposed and w= hat was ultimately approved. Mr. McManus felt the applicant had ‘back doored’ the additional par= cel onto the plan. Mr. McNamara believed the Board was limited in its ability and was not allowed to make changes to the approved plan.

Mr. Culbert understood wh= at Mr. McManus was saying, but noted the plan being discussed was reviewed by the Board and the Board understood that the applicant was trying to acquire the land in question.

There was no public input= .

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To gr= ant the extension of the February 22, 2007 approved plan along with the language included. All conditions put into place ar= e to remain in place. Everything specified by the Board that had to be done would be done exactly the same.

VOTE:

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

Map 38 Lot 1-155 M= opar Construction – Sherburne Road – Seeking 6-month extension of Ma= rch 8, 2007 approval of a 40-Unit Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District Crossing (Plan set to expire September 8, 200= 7)

Mr. Dadak read the list of abutters aloud. There were no persons present who did not have their name r= ead, or who had a problem with notification.&nb= sp;

Mr. Wes Aspinwal of Herbe= rt Associates said they were awaiting some state approvals such as for public water systems, site specific, subdivision.= There were also some federal EPA noticing that would be done. Mr. Aspinwal said they expected the approvals to occur within the next six months and requested an extension fr= om the Board.

Mr. McNamara asked if it = was the applicant’s intention to have construction commence within the next s= ix months. Mr. Aspinwall believed development would commence within six months.

Mr. Gowan discussed the s= tatus of the project and the period of time it took for state permits to be approved. He noted when the drilling was done for the sustained yield some of the residents in the area= had some (temporary) issues with their wells and water not recharging. Mr. McNamara asked if the applican= t had heard back from the state regarding the test. Mr. Aspinwall didn’t believe= d they heard from the state yet. The= tests were done approximately three weeks ago.&n= bsp;

Mr. McGlynn said he would= like to step down from the Board particularly because approximately three weeks ago= his wells went dry. He was not an abutter, but resided on Sc= enic View Drive which is close to the development. =

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Mark Maglio, 32 Nicholas Lane said his well problem wasn’t new.&nb= sp; He said at the time the development was being reviewed he had diffic= ulty figuring out where his property was in comparison to the proposed wells; ho= wever, now that the wells have been put it, he knows exactly where his lot is. Mr. McNamara asked how far away Mr. Maglio was located from the property. Mr. Maglio said his well was approximately a football field away.

Mr. Dadak believed he sho= uld also step down from the Board because he lived in the general area and recently = his well went dry.

Mr. Gowan said if the Boa= rd members stepped down wanted to provide testimony, they would be able to as members of the public.

Mr. McNamara appointed Mr= . Passamonte and Mr. McManus to vote.

Mr. Maglio said he hadn&#= 8217;t come before the Board sooner because he wasn’t sure what the impact w= ould be to his property or his well. He said he no problem with the development, or the property being made into elderly housing. He felt the proposed development would be good for the Town. He said water was currently a conc= ern and had been in the past when the plan was being reviewed. He explained that when his house w= as being constructed a 900ft. well was put in and later a 500ft. well was installed. He said the static= level was at 210ft. well produces .375 gallons per minute. Mr. Maglio said when the developme= nt started drilling their wells; his well went dry for approximately two days. He said there might be a problem and went on to discuss the amount of water the development would be pulling from the ground each day.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Ma= glio if he was contacted by the state or the developer prior to the test. Mr. Maglio answered no. Mr. McNamara asked how far Mr. Maglio’s property was from the development. Mr. Maglio said he was approximate= ly 200ft. Mr. McNamara asked if = Mr. Maglio had any contact with the developer or the well company since they drilled. Mr. Maglio answered no. He said he spoke to the w= ell company before they did the yield test.&nb= sp; He noted that he had tested his own well to establish a base line.

Mr. Maglio noted that whe= n he had his water tested two year ago the arsenic level was extremely high. He said they spoke to the state at= that time and they were going to do a study, but nothing was done. He said they had put in a signific= ant mitigation system.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. Da= dak to explain the type of testing that had to be done. Mr. Dadak (speaking as a member of= the public) provided the Board with information regarding required testing. He said he lived in his house for approximately six years and had a lawn sprinkler system that he ran sometimes. He commented that = his well had temporarily run dry three times in the last month. Mr. McNamara asked how far the development was to his property. Mr. Dadak said he didn’t know the distance and was no approach= ed for the test. He said there w= as one person at the state that reviewed community wells and he had informed them = that four were being proposed within a mile.

Ms. Eleanor Burton, Sherburne Road said she didn’t have too much concern about the project when it originally came in for eight houses; but since it had been changed to the housing proj= ect she was concerned about how traffic would be affected. Mr. Gowan said there were four new subdivisions in the area that the Board required to make substantial contributions to the off-site improvement of the Sherburne Road/Mammoth Road intersection. Ms. Burton aske= d if there was only one egress from the project onto Sherburne Road. Mr. Gowan answered yes. He said it had been addressed by t= he Highway Safety Committee and there had been a lot of discussion by the Boar= d. Ms. Burton didn’t know how s= he would get out of her driveway. She didn’t feel it was very good planning on the part of the Planning Department to grant the plan.

Ms. Roula Johnstone, 20 Nicholas Lane said she and her husband had attended a lot of the meetings starting back w= hen the plan was for eight lots. = She said there concern had always been with the water and traffic. She said they decided to test their water at the point that their neighbor had problems. Mr. McNamara asked how far away Ms. Johnstone lived from the development. Ms. Johnstone said she lived approximately one hundred yards; the un= its would be constructed in back of her yard.&= nbsp; Mr. McNamara asked if she saw a difference when testing was done. Ms. Johnstone said they didn’= ;t see a difference in their pressure but they hadn’t been using it either.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> She said the well company came out= the next day and gave them a pump reading of .25. She said currently it was only her= and her husband, but they would like to have children and the water usage would probably increase at that point. She said they were speaking with the previous owners to find out how deep their well was. Ms. John= stone questioned why it should be the homeowners that requested the developer to monitor the wells. Mr. McNama= ra said typically this type of issue was addressed after a plan is approved. He said the state was the entity t= hat got involved. He said the Boa= rd was aware of the water problems in the area.&n= bsp; He believed Ms. Johnstone had done what she should have. He said matters such as this were typically civil matters between the applicant and abutters. Ms. Johnstone felt strongly that t= here should be some type of monitoring throughout the whole construction period. Mr. McNamara said Ms. Johnstone should express her concerns to the state as well. Ms. Johnstone said they never rece= ived notice from the state informing them that community well were going to be dug.

Mr. McNamara asked Mr. As= pinwall if he knew who conducted the test. Mr. Aspinwall said he didn’t know who the well company was.

Mr. Gowan felt in this ca= se, the Board had an opportunity to essentially to add a condition that wells be monitored. Mr. McNamara asked= what options the Board would have if the well was approved by the state and the Board granted the extension. = Mr. Gowan believed the Board had the leeway to have the wells monitored through= out the construction process. Mr. Aspinwall said they didn’t have the power to make an owner allow them= to monitor their well. He discus= sed the different issues that could be monitored.

Mr. Culbert felt there sh= ould be a retest done of the community wells so the yield rate could be tested for 24-48 hours. The developer/ow= ner monitor all the abutters (if they agree) within 1000ft. He noted that this past August was= the second driest since they started taking records.

Mr. Aspinwall said his co= mpany didn’t do the water testing and commented that maybe the test shouldn’t be redone if the test was a problem to the neighbors. Mr. McNamara said that was an argu= ment for not having a well there. = Mr. Aspinwall said they may have gotten the information they needed to analyze = it properly. He said if that was= the case, there wasn’t a need for extreme pumping. He said the state’s standard= flow rate was 150-gallons per bedroom per day; and in elderly housing projects t= he actual usage was approximately 40-50 gallons per bedroom, per day. He said they may want to explore if normal usage would have any adverse effect. He said it was speculation that ex= treme use for test purposes affected some people. Mr. McNamara said it was troubling= that people (two that the Board knew of) didn’t receive notice.

Mr. Doherty questioned if= an irrigation system (for the grounds) was proposed for the development. Mr. Aspinwall said he was not an advocate for irrigation systems. Mr. Doherty said he would like to see the well retested.

Ms. Johnstone said her ex= perience with housing and complexes was that most had irrigation systems. She said that was the appealing factor. She was concerned wit= h such drawing water from her well. = She reiterated her belief that monitoring should be done.

Mr. McManus asked if the = wells for the LRL development had been done.&nbs= p; Mr. Gowan said the wells had been drilled, but was unaware of the yi= eld information. Ms. Johnstone as= ked if any neighbors had issues. Mr.= Gowan said he was not aware of any.

Mr. Ted McGlynn (speaking= as a member of the public), 9 Scenic View Drive, who was not a direct abutter wa= nted the Board to know that his well had run dry for approximately three days. He said he was located approximate= ly half way up Scenic View Dr= ive. Mr. Aspinwall said it might be 1000ft. Mr. Montbleau asked i= f he had an irrigation system. Mr. McGlynn answered no. He said = he was always concerned about his water and had become even more concerned since t= hey had problems. He wanted to know i= f the radius of 1000-feet could be expanded because he knew his neighbor had also= had problems. Mr. McGlynn said he= would be interested in obtaining contact information for the state Mr. Gowan. He asked how the extension would be handled since the plan was due to expire in the next few days. Mr. McNamara said it could be held= in abeyance until obtaining further information.

Mr. Dadak said conditions= could be placed regarding use of water. He said this was an extraordinary situation and the state agent shou= ld be involved. He said it seemed every homeowner within 1000 feet should be aware when tests are being done. Mr. Gowan was sure recommendations could be made and Herbert Associates could have who ever did the drilling present at the next meeting.&= nbsp; He said with regard to the question of what would happen if the state didn’t grant the permit, the project at that point would be dead. Mr. McNamara said he was concerned= with the Board pushing its decision off a month and having the state, in the meantime, grant the permit. H= e said he wanted the Board to make its position clear. He said it seemed that there were = enough problems with the test and perhaps defects in notification and not strict compliance that the Board would want the test redone, at the minimum. Mr. Gowan had a strong feeling tha= t a question from him to the state on the topic would have an impact on the approval being granted. There= was a consensus of the Board to have Mr. Gowan inform the state of their concerns= . Mr. Gowan will contact the state o= n Friday, September 7, 2007.

Mr. Haverty wanted to mak= e sure that the mechanism of Mr. Gowan contacting the state would stop an approval because he didn’t want the Board to be stuck with an approval from the state. Mr. Gowan speculated t= hat the state would listen and put a hold on an approval. Mr. McNamara said if the state gra= nted approval, and the Board had significant concerns about the test and abutter notification of the tests, he felt the Board could deny the extension. He asked that the company that con= ducted the well tests be asked to contact Mr. Gowan.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 1, 2= 007 meeting.

OLD BUSINESS

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

A letter was received fro= m the applicant’s representative requesting a continuance.

The plan was date specifi= ed to the October 1, 2= 007 meeting.

MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSION

Mr. Gowan provided the Bo= ard with an update regarding the Co= llins Way/Longview Circle project. He said on March 8, 2007 the Board took a vote on= two projects to send a letter to the developer regarding things that needed to = be taken care of. He informed the Board that he recently met with the developer Mr. Jim Petersen, the Town’s Road Agent, and Stantec (Rene LaBranche and Seth Potter) on si= te and walked the entire area. H= e said Mr. Petersen had no objection to installing the guardrail per the BoardR= 17;s request. He said Mr. Petersen= asked for a ‘pass’ on fixing the areas privately owned.   There was a consensus of the= Board to allow Mr. Petersen to proceed with Mr. Gowan’s recommendations.

DATE SPECIFIED PLANS – October 1, 2007

Map 38 Lot 1-155 Mopar Construction – Sherbur= ne Road – Seeking 6-month extension of March 8, 2007 approval of a 40-Un= it Senior Housing Complex and Special Permit for Wetland Conservation District Crossing (Plan set to expire September 8, 2007)

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

MINUTES

June 16,= 2007-site walk

MOTION:

(Culbert/Haverty) To ap= prove the June 16, 2= 007 meeting minutes as written. <= o:p>

VOTE:

(4-0-= 4) The motion carried. Mr. Passamo= nte voted. Mr. Dadak, Mr. Montb= leau, Mr. Croteau and Mr. Doherty abstained.

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

July 28,= 2007

MOTION:

(Croteau/Doherty) To ap= prove the July 28, 2= 007 meeting minutes as written. <= o:p>

VOTE:

(5-0-= 2) The motion carried. Mr. Montble= au and Mr. Haverty abstained. <= /o:p>

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

August 2= 0, 2007

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = approve the August 20,= 2007 meeting minutes as amended. <= o:p>

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Montbleau/Croteau) To = adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

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

The meeting was adjourned= at approximately 10:20 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

=