Ms. Killam called the meeting to order at 7:40 PM.

Correspondence

Meeting minutes of 8/16,9/20 and 10/4 were not available for review. It was discussed that the minutes had previously been approved at the 11/1/06 workshop.

Voting Members: Sue Killam, Paul DiMaggio, Joe Guischard; Chuck Earley, Mike Fletcher, Sue Miner is an alternate, and Harold Morse is recused.

Robert Jones, Building Inspector made a request to increase in size Extended Family Accessory Living Unit from 500 sq. ft. to 750 sq. ft. in Zoning Section 460. Chuck Earley does not know what is compelling the question of the increase. The feeling is that 500 ft seems small for a living space. Sue Killam feels holding at 500 ft is not proliferate rental property. The Zoning Ordinance requires a deed addendum to the specific family living in that space. These types of apartments are supposed to be for kin, they have no doorway to the front of the house. Sue Miner feels the accessory living unit is comparable to assisted living with your dining in the main part of the building and that 500 ft is big for the accessory living unit. It was discussed that the living areas would be in the main part of the house and not in the accessory living unit. The Board discusses the fact that just because houses are getting larger, why does the accessory living unit need to be larger as well. Sue Miner brought up the point that it may be increased due to handicap accessibility. The Board discussed if there is full access to the remainder of the house, why does the accessory living unit need to be increased. Mr. Jones was not present at the meeting to answer these particular questions.

The Abutter's List was read.

At the 10/18/06 meeting, the application was discussed, but not taken under jurisdiction.

Glenn Greenwood previously reviewed Vollmer Associates memorandum of 11/14/06 and bold-faced what needed to be discussed and struck through what was resolved. He found no substantive issues. He felt what issues that were unresolved could be worked through. The following are Mr. Greenwood’s comments:

Discussion of Mr. Rollins Site Plan Peer Review of 11/14/06. Mr. Rollins feels the plans are in good shape, and there are no serious issues. The following are Mr. Rollins’ comments:

Ted Stewart met with Andre Betit and identified four locations where minor improvements could be made due to the increase in traffic.

The Town of Salem’s issues are traffic-related. Need supporting documentation. Have not met with Ross Moldoff yet regarding the traffic study. Have met with Chris Frye and Steve Cummings to discuss the traffic study. Vollmer is looking for direction from the Board on how to proceed with this issue. Chuck Earley would like to hear comments from Ross Moldoff rather than Vollmer meeting with him. Sue Killam will call Ross Moldoff and see if he can provide something in writing.

The Board discussed whether to take this plan under jurisdiction. There are no major issues for jurisdiction, although it may be still premature to vote for jurisdiction because of the traffic impact study. Felt there needs to be more input from the other communities. Mike Fletcher suggests writing a formal letter to the other communities.

Chuck Earley asks if Vollmer has talked to Lewis Builders. No, this is the beginning of talks.

Paul DiMaggio does not want to take this plan under jurisdiction. Vollmer has presented two issues besides the current sewer/water issue and feels there is no rush. He would consider taking it under jurisdiction but with conditions, but does not feel this is a good idea. Chuck Early wants to take it under jurisdiction. Joe Guischard wants to take it under jurisdiction. Sue Miner feels there are still outstanding septic issues and traffic issues and does not want to take it under jurisdiction. Sue Killam is concerned with the septic/water issues and feels there is no rush for jurisdiction. Paul DiMaggio feels the Town engineers should have discussions with the other engineers.

Chris Frye’s understanding is that if the plans are complete than the plan can be taken under jurisdiction. He will accept conditions placed on the large groundwater withdrawal plan and feels there is a sufficient water supply. Hampstead Water is already obligated to supply water to residents in the area. They are State regulated utilities with the obligation to provide water within the residential areas.

There are four issues that may prevent taking the plan under jurisdiction: Road Study, Water Supply, Sewage Disposal and Traffic Study. Paul DiMaggio does not believe it is time take this under jurisdiction. Chuck Earley asks the question that if the Board still does not have the water/sewer information, will jurisdiction be held up again? Paul DiMaggio inquires as to whether the Board has resolved certain issues regarding the water/sewer. Sue Killam comments if the septic approval is on the permit, the signed plans have approval by the State.

Harold Morse is concerned about the process. He feels the plans should not go to the department heads until they are under jurisdiction. He feels in order to move ahead on the plan, it must be under jurisdiction and a zoning change should not hold up jurisdiction.

Sue Killam informs the Board that once the plan is under jurisdiction, the Planning Board has 65 days to accept or reject the applicants request for an extension.

Ms. Rossio discussed the traffic impact with Ross Moldoff and Steve Keach. They discussed Clubhouse Drive, Country Club Drive and seven additional intersections. The peak hours of traffic are the morning commute, the evening commute and Saturdays. She forecasted her traffic counts to 2008. The access points involved are Providence Hill Road and Shannon Road. Traffic counts were done in July/August when the golf course is open. There are two Atkinson intersections and five Salem intersections proximate to the site. She feels the primary route of travel will be through Salem and Shannon Road. She feels a closer route to the major roads will through Shannon Road and that more shopping is available in Salem. She has determined that 40% of traffic will be through Atkinson and 60% of traffic will be through Salem. She feels there will be no capacity issues looking at the volume in these areas. Does not foresee capacity issues in the Providence Hill/Sawyer Avenue areas. She does not expect any impact in intersections further away if there are none expected at the proximate intersections. It is difficult to do traffic counts now because the golf course is closed and cannot obtain summertime counts at this time. The Board feels that Sawyer Avenue/Route 121 is used more by Atkinson residents for shopping in Plaistow.

Trip generation numbers:
AM Peak: 104 trips
PM Peak: 130 trips
Saturday Peak: 130 trips

40%: Atkinson
45%: Shannon Road - South
15% Shannon Road - North

No impact or little impact at intersections. Vegetation issue in Atkinson was a concern. Also, the relocation of utility pole and adding a pole-mounted street sign on Salem Road/Sawyer Avenue/Providence Hill Road was recommended.

Sue Miner asked how it was determined where the traffic goes out? It was determined on where the residents work, and a majority work in Massachusetts. Also, what the traffic patterns are like, how the intersections are being used, and where the opportunities are, such as shopping, etc.

The applicant’s overall plan indicates the possibility of another three areas to be developed. When considering the traffic study, may need to look at full buildout and how it will impact traffic, which may include signals. Sue Killam feels the Planning Board is looking only at the buildings being proposed at this time, and should deal with what they have now. Paul DiMaggio agrees, but would like to have input from Andre Betit. Another traffic study can be done if there are more buildouts.

Sue Miner raised the question of an increase in traffic at North Broadway/Sawyer Avenue. She suggested that more people in the PM peak travel time are coming from North Broadway and turning left onto Sawyer Road to get to Atkinson Heights. She is concerned with the increased traffic count and the impact it will have for cars trying to take the left-hand turn onto Sawyer Avenue.

Site distance measurements are not typically taken at every intersection. No plans on doing that. Will deal with Vollmer and Ted Stewart with regard to this matter.

Paul DiMaggio asked what the current trip count is? 100 trips per hour in the PM peak. This number will double in four different directions. Close to a 25% increase in all directions. A rough count of trips per day on a full day is about 1000-1300. About 100 single-family houses produces 1000 trips a day.

The existing traffic in the Providence Hill Road/Shannon Road is about 200 cars passing Country Club Drive in peak hours. That number should increase 50%

The 55+ school impact fee and essential services was discussed. It was determined that issue was settled at the workshop meeting. Sue Killam will work on wording for a proposal change and try to do for the next workshop meeting.

Paul DiMaggio asked Peter Lewis if he walked the nonresidential areas with the concerned abutters. Mr. Lewis walked the area of Spickett Valley Road. Mr. Copani was fine with the walk through. Mr. Lewis is looking to put a practice area/teaching facility in the area abutting Mr. Copani’s property. Paul DiMaggio requested full-size drawings.

Chris Frye informed the Board that the utilities infrastructure is in place for sewage. Half of the project could be served with the existing infrastructure. Regarding the water supply, the Hampstead Water Supply’s main pipe goes by the project and they have started the large groundwater withdrawal approval.

Planning Board takes a break at 10:00 p.m.

Harold Morse returns to the Board. Harold is a voting member, Sue Miner is a non-boting member.

Brooks Properties has been utilizing the site without a site plan. Appeared before the Zoning Board and was granted a variance for storage. Brooks Properties cleared the land of trees and is storing equipment without a site plan review. Need a well end permit for the wetlands that was crossed. The Planning Board did not take jurisdiction. Brooks Properties received a variance from the Zoning Board and now wants the Planning Board to take jurisdiction.

The question is asked if all parcels of land are for sale? Mr. Jordon replies that all parcels are owned by Brooks Properties and he has no knowledge of a sale of any of the parcels.

The Planning Board informs Mr. Jordon that if one lot is sold and the remaining lots are not owned by the same person, the variance and the site plan will be null and void.

Appropriate stamps need to be on the plan. Issues of concern include, fencing, bins, lighting in storage yard. Recommends having wetlands permit referenced on plan. How many vehicles being stored on site? Operation hours, nature of yard area, is general public allowed in yard area. This information should be part of the site plan or application. Mr. Greenwood feels all of these questions need to be answered.

Mr. Greenwood discussed his letter of November 15, 2006. The following are his comments:

All professional endorsements should appear on the plan set; type of equipment being stored; will fueling be involved in the storage area; lighting at night, including location and type of lighting; any further grading of placement of gravel; surface runoff flows to the wetland area on the west side of the drive access from Route 111 and this area has no outlet by overland flow, pipe or catch basin, drainage calculations should be revised to model this condition.

Mr. Jordon requests that the Board take this plan under jurisdiction and then he will provide answers to the questions.

Chuck Earley is concerned that these questions have been asked for many months and Brooks Properties has not been forthcoming with their answers. He will not vote for jurisdiction. Glenn Greenwood believes it is premature to take jurisdiction. He believes there are too many unanswered questions. Harold Morse suggested taking it under jurisdiction and start working on it.

Voting Members: Sue Killam, Paul DiMaggio, Joe Guischard; Chuck Earley, Mike Fletcher, Harold Morse. Sue Miner is an alternate.

This issue was discussed a couple of months ago. This amendment has been requested by Ted Stewart. Bill Rollins has recommended the road go two seasons. Ted Stewart would like to see 60%-70% of the homes built because of the heavy equipment using the road, but the with house market, it is taking longer to finish developments. It was suggested that the developer bond for the damage to road during construction. It was also suggested that the regulation be modified to put in an escalation clause to be subject to annual adequacy and change the bond amount if not adequate.

Planning Board workshops scheduled for the first Wednesday of the month will not longer be televised. Only the public meetings will be televised.

The meeting was closed at 10:35 PM.

Next scheduled Public Hearing meeting December 20, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

Raelene McBride