Members Present:† Joe Sergi, Rick McHugh, Steve Themelis, Jeff Chabot and Nick Cate

Members Absent:†† No one


Chairman Sergi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.



The following vouchers were signed for:

        Inez M. Gove Ė payroll vouchers weeks ending 4/21/07

        Inez M. Gove - $ 17.51 (Staples)



A motion was made by Nick Cate to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2007 meeting; seconded by Jeff Chabot and passed 5 yeas, 0 nays.


Building Permit Applications (BPA)/Certificates of Occupancy (CO)

The Board signed the following CO:

        CO Ė 120 Chestnut St. (SP 2001-08)



        7:00 p.m. Ė Public Hearing on proposed zoning amendments for the Annual Town Meeting May 7, 2007

Chairman Sergi declared the public hearing open at 7:00 p.m.


Ms. Gove reviewed each proposed article.† Regarding the amendment to Sec. 5527, the Board read comments dated 3/26/07 from the Conservation Administrator.† The Board asked Ms. Gove to have Town Counsel take a look at Ellenís comments.† They also voiced concern with the impact this may have on the individual property owner if it is not for commercial use but for the homeownerís private use.


A motion was made by Steve Themelis to close the public hearing; seconded by Jeff Chabot and passed 5 yeas, 0 nays.


        7:30 p.m. Ė Public Hearing - SP 2007-02 Ė Special Permit application for (1) multi-family dwelling units (7); and (2) Major Site Plan review at 17-19 Tucker St. shown on Assessorís Map 23 as Lots 18, 19 and 20.† Applicant:† Kimberly Rogers, 5 Village Rd., Pepperell, MA01463

Chairman Sergi declared the public hearing open at 7:30 p.m.† He noted that Paul MacDonald from the press was taping the proceedings.† He also noted there was a full Board.† The chairman noted he had one more meeting left, but Associate Member Mark Marston was present who is the only name on the ballot on the 23rd for the Planning Board position so there will be 5 voting members available even after the chairmanís term expires.† Clerk Cate then read the public hearing notice.† The chairman then reviewed the purpose of the hearing and the order of the proceedings.† He also verified with the project engineer that there were no waivers requested.† The project engineer stated that was correct, there were not.


Jack Visniewski, registered professional civil engineer and owner of Cornerstone Land Consultants LLC introduced himself.† Mr. Visniewski noted the site was across from the recent condominium project the Board had approved by Mr. Colangelo.† The property, he noted, is that of Joe Czarnionka.† In terms of what exists, Mr. Visniewski noted it is all pretty much wooded with a house and driveway to the property in the back.† This proposal, he continued, was for a redevelopment of the property into seven units Ė one building with 3 units and two buildings with 2 units.† The site, he continued, is relatively flat and a bit rolling referencing a kind of knoll.† He then stated they propose buildings with parking areas in the middle.† He added that the person in the back can go through the parking lot for access.† The site, he added, will be served by Town sewer and water.† He then referenced the sewer manhole which ends where the Colangelo project took it.† Mr. Visniewski noted he had revised the plan based on comments he had received this week.† Water, he added, will come in form the existing waterline and another waterline will come in to service the existing property to the line in back.† He stated he needed to confirm how the rear property gets water.† There is gas on the site.† Mr. Visniewski stated the biggest thing is drainage.† He explained that the site is mostly sandy and when the rain falls, it goes in the ground.† He then pointed to a natural detention area and explained that they routed the water to the detention area.† He continued to explain that the size of the detention area has been enlarged and calculated so that water will fill up the pond and then go into the ground.† He stated they had a good perc rate in the area thus used leaching catchbasins to get the water into the ground.† He pointed out that all of the water from the parking lot goes in and also pointed out the stone lined swales.† He stated there are not formal catchbasins as this is a relatively small site.† For parking, Mr. Visniewski stated 18 parking spaces are required and they actually have 28 which is more than they need.† He added he feels it is good to have a little extra.† He then explained that the parking lot is arranged in a loop fashion.


Mr. Visniewski acknowledged that there were comments on what happens to the people in back with issues such as how will people know they are there.† Mr. Visniewski then described how they will access.† He also explained that they added a feature, a granite marker at the entrance with a picture of the buildings with numbers and the number of the building in the back.† He further explained that each unit will have a lightpost at the entrance to the walkway and a number on the lightpost.† He added that they will try not to lose the back property in the shuffle.


Mr. Visniewski stated it is a compact site but he feels it flows nicely.† He then added he has architectural plans to show the Board.


The clerk then read comments.† He began with comments from the Building Inspector/Zoning Officer.† Mr. Visniewski pointed out pole #2 and stated they will attach to that.† For this project, he noted, the utilities will be underground then connect to the pole for the back.† Clerk Cate then read comments from the Board of Health, DPW/Water whose comments Mr. Visniewski addressed on the revised plan.† The next comments read were from the DPW/Highway.† Mr. Visniewski noted the Highway questions regarding congestion he didnít really understand.† He also noted snow storage was on the original.


Planning Board member Steve Themelis asked about the width of the drive.† Mr. Visniewski stated it was a 24 foot travel way, 20 foot parking area then another 24 foot travel way.


Mr.Visniewski continued to respond to Mr. Shattuckís comments.† He noted they were open to the postal box but would need to speak to the Post Office.† In terms of the DPW/Highway comment regarding a hydrant, Mr. Visniewski noted a hydrant would require an 8 inch waterline versus 2 inch which would represent quite an expense to the applicant.† Mr. Visniewski also stated they did not address sidewalks on Tucker St.


Clerk Cate continued to read comments with those from the DPW Director/Town Engineer.† Ms. Gove stated she had just gotten these comments around 5 p.m. today.† She suggested perhaps waiving the full reading and she would make copies available to anyone interested.† Ms. Gove made copies available.† Chairman Sergi explained that the Board usually allows the applicantís engineer time to work with the Town Engineer and that the Town Engineerís comments are very technical thus they would waive the full reading and make copies available to anyone who read them.† Ms. Gove made copies available.


Chairman Sergi asked how deep the pond is.† Mr. Visniewski stated a little bit deeper than what is there.† Mr. Chabot noted they are grabbing the drainage on the right hand side and brining it over to the pond.† He asked why they donít let it flow back.† Mr. Visniewski stated that it doesnít do that now. He noted the soils are very sandy and it all percs.


The chairman next asked for any comments from board members.


Mr. Themelis asked about the parking area and if it was going to have any lighting.† Mr. Visniewski stated they added some islands with lights.


Planning Board member McHugh commented on the flow of traffic to the house in the back.† He noted it is a wide open path and he is concerned with safety and any kids in the area.† He wondered if a speed bump would be helpful.† Mr. Chabot said it seemed as if you almost wanted traffic to go right.† Mr. Visniewski said he felt that would be a disservice to the people in the back as they have always gone straight in.† Mr. McHugh wondered if maybe a guardrail system with pedestrian access would help to minimize the problem.† Mr. Visniewski suggested shrubbery or something may also have the same effect.


Mr. Cate asked about the detention pond.† Mr. Visniewski stated the pond has a 3 to 1 slope and someone could walk down it.† Mr. Cate asked if it needed guardrail and Mr. Visniewski said no, itís not that steep.


Mr. Chabot asked how many stories the buildings would be.† Mr. Visniewski stated a first floor, second floor and maybe a loft.† Mr. Chabot asked if there was any foundation so to speak.† Mr. Visniewski said yes there was.† Mr. Chabot asked if this was in the sewer district to which Mr. Visniewski said yes.† Mr. Chabot also asked where the nearest drain in the street was.† Mr. Visniewski said he didnít know.† Mr. Chabot then asked about snow removal and plowing and assumed it would be part of the condominium documents.† Planning Administrator Inez Gove asked that an operation and maintenance manual for drainage be incorporated as part of the condominium documents.† Ms. Gove also asked if the utilities will remain open and access assured for the back whether this project goes with a common drive or not.† Chairman Sergi agreed that there should be some coordination with the tenants in the back.


Mr. Chabot asked about an easement for the property in the back.† Mr. Visniewski stated there was.


Mr. McHugh asked about underground service.


Chairman Sergi asked for comments from those in attendance.


Mark Joubert, attorney for Mr. Gilbert who owns the parcel in the rear, spoke.† Atty. Joubert stated that it looks like a great design in many respects.† He stated that all apartments have 1 space per unit.† Mr. Visniewski stated that there is 1 space in front of the units, but that each unit has driveway space and 1 spot inside.† Atty. Joubert asked where they will back out.† Mr. Visniewski stated they will have to back out into the travel lanes.† Atty. Joubert stated the travel lane is now part of the easement.† He added the issues are simple, utilities, construction.† He stated the main thrust of his concerns have been echoed by the Board of Health and Highway comments.† He added the back property ahs enjoyed the right-of-way since the property has been around.† He added he has a problem with the parking area and its capacity to hold many cars.† He stated then even when it is not filled, the use of it encumbers the people in the back.† He added there is plenty of case law on the subject.† He stated the person who holds the right-of-way can enjoy it without encumbrances.† He stated he feels that this design is abridging Mr. Gilbertís right to use the right-of-way.† He added the right-of-way ahs always been in deeds and on the plot plan.† He stated he didnít know how the board can get around it without an alternate driveway.† He stated his office suggests a separate driveway.† Atty. Joubert stated law is their craft and you canít encumber someoneís use of their right-of-way.


Mr. Visniewski stated that it has been his experience that by providing a right-of-way doesnít mean that the lot on which the right-of-way is canít use their property.† He stated it was his understanding that they can use it so long as they donít prevent someone from using their access.† Atty. Joubert said thatís the dream and you may have an ambulance that needs to get through.† He stated Mr. Visniewski was partially correct.† He added people in front have the right to use it as long as they donít encumber the personís full use of the driveway.


Abutter Nancy Pink referenced the existing house on the property and noted she has concerns when it comes down.† She stated she is worried about asbestos and that it be taken down properly.† She stated she has also heard the house is loaded with rats and doesnít want them coming over to her property when the house is taken down.† She asked that an 8 foot fence be put up.† Board members interjected and stated they thought 6 feet could be done legally.† Mr. Visniewski responded by stated they did propose to eave many of the existing trees.


Abutter Stan Newsham asked if the property line had been marked out yet.† Mr. Visniewski referenced the retaining wall at the property line.† Mr. Newsham voiced concern with his understanding that drainage ponds can be very dangerous.† Mr. Visniewski showed where they dug holes.† Mr. Newsham stated standing water in a pond can be a problem.† Mr. Newsham then stated that trees are a big problem and are falling down, etc., and should be taken care of.† He also asked if the hill in back would stay.


David Herman, 21 Tucker St. Unit 8 asked what the height would be of the buildings from the grade to the ridgeline.† Mr. Visniewski stated that they could be no more than 35 feet but probably less.† He then asked about the pitch.† Mr. Visniewski stated it looks like a 9 or 10.† Mr. Herman then asked how far they would be set back.† Mr. Visniewski stated the zoning setback line is how close they can get.† Mr. Herman voiced concern with the value of their homes.† He also stated there was a large parking lot and paved area and voiced concern with water.† Mr. Visniewski stated he has seen water go onto Tucker St.† He added they are keeping all water on the site.† Mr. Herman noted concerns in relation to the main entrance and with kids.


Chairman Sergi asked if there were any different iterations of the parking design.† He stated he felt it was a fair request to ask them to come back with a couple of revisions.† Mr. Visniewski stated that, in terms of accommodating 7 units here that there is not enough land to provide another driveway.


Chairman Sergi mentioned the length of the driveway.


A motion was made by Jeff Chabot to continue the hearing to Monday, April 23, 2007 at 8:00 p.m.; seconded by Steve Themelis and passed 5 yeas, 0 nays.



        8:00 p.m. Ė Public Hearing - SP 2007-03 Ė Special Permit application for permission from the Planning Board under Sec. 8154 of the Zoning By-law, for access purposes only, to allow the reduction of the 100 foot restricted area in the WRPOD at 44 Maple St. shown on Assessorís Map 8 as Lot 49.† Applicant:† Andy & Lara Triehy, P.O. Box 967, Nashua, NH03061

Chairman Sergi declared the public hearing open at 8:47 p.m.† He noted the press was taping and that a full board was present.† He also noted there was a full Board.† The chairman noted he had one more meeting left, but Associate Member Mark Marston was present who is the only name on the ballot on the 23rd for the Planning Board position so there will be 5 voting members available even after the chairmanís term expires.† Clerk Cate then read the public hearing notice.† The chairman then reviewed the purpose of the hearing and the order of proceedings.† He also verified that there were no waivers requested.


Jack Visniewski, registered professional engineer and owner of Cornerstone Land Consultants, was present for this hearing.† He noted the project was on Maple St.† He stated the current property is a whole piece and the property owners are breading out a piece for Andy and Lara Triehy.† He added they have done soil testing on the property.† He added that where the driveway was going to be was wet so they have gone to a ďPlan BĒ putting the driveway in the skinnier section of the wetland.


The Board asked Ms. Gove to give a smaller copy of the alternative to Ms. Gove.


Ms. Gove explained that the issue is the Planning Board the place to be for permission to cross wetlands in the WRPOD.† A brief discussion ensued.† The Board asked Ms. Gove to get an opinion from the Zoning Officer and Town Counsel.


A motion was made by Jeff Chabot to continue the hearing to April 23rd at 8:30 p.m.; seconded by Steve Themelis and passed 5 yeas, 0 nays.



Item #1 Ė Decisions SP 2006-07

Ms. Gove stated she had not drafted a boilerplate.† The Board decided to hold off on the decision.


Item #2 Ė Discussion on update of Special Permit Rules & Regulations

The Board reviewed once again the proposed Special Permit Rules & Regulations.† Ms. Gove explained the biggest change was the fees being updated to have the appropriate zoning reference, etc.


A motion was made by Jeff Chabot to adopt the revised Special Permit Rules & Regulations dated April 9, 2007.† Ms. Gove said she would file them with the Town Clerk and get them on the website.


Item #3 Ė Discussion on update of the Comprehensive Plan

The Board said they wanted a bit more time to read over the final draft before taking any action on it.



The Board reviewed the mail and did not request any specific action on any of the items.



        Site Visit scheduled for 6:30 p.m. at 17-19 Tucker St.

All Board members were present as was Ms. Gove, the applicant and project engineer Jack Visniewski.† The parties met at the site and walked the site with Mr. Visniewski.




A motion was made by Steve Themelis to adjourn at 9:15 p.m.; seconded by Rick McHugh and passed 5 yeas, 0 nays.




Respectfully submitted,



Inez M. Gove
Planning Administrator






Joseph Sergi


Nicholas Cate







Jeffrey Chabot


Richard McHugh







Stephen Themelis