Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 04, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were: Tim Moore, Chairman; Ernest Sheltry; Robert Zukas; and Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio (arrived at 6:50 p.m.). Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman, was excused.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of December 21, 2005, Planning Board Meeting
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to approve the minutes of the December 21, 2005, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0.
A Public Hearing on a lot line adjustment and easement relocation plan for properties located at 10 Hillcrest Avenue, Tax Map 66, Lot 3 and Tax Map 58, Lot 4. The owners of record are Peter Gosselin and Victor McKinney
Present for the application were Charlie Zilch, SEC and Associates, and Peter Gosselin, owner 10 Hillcrest Avenue.
C. Zilch explained that there were three purposes for the application; the first was to adjust the boundary between the two properties. He gave a brief history of the subdivision which led to the creation of the lot at 10 Hillcrest. Mr. Zilch added that the property at 10 Hillcrest was recently purchased by Mr. Gosselin and the back land was owned by Mr. McKinney. He noted that the structures located on the property did not conform to the current setbacks and the lot line adjustment would cure that situation.
C. Zilch continued that the second purpose of the application was the relocation of the easement across the property which would continue to allow Mr. McKinney access to his land in back of 10 Hillcrest. It was noted that a garage had been constructed in the current easement, when the property was owned by relatives of Mr. McKinney. Mr. Zilch noted that this was a private easement and they didn’t need Town approval, but was being noted on the plans (Note #4) for future reference.
It was offered that the third intent of the plan was to provide the Town with a drainage easement for anticipated improvements to Hillcrest. C. Zilch noted there were three deeds being prepared, one for each of the owners and one for the Town.
L. Komornick added that the deeds were being drawn to be recorded at the same time, which would effectuate the plan. She added that she didn’t think it was necessary to have the deeds reviewed by Board Counsel.
C. Zilch noted they were requesting a waiver of to have the back area of Mr. McKinney’s 4+ acre property surveyed, as it didn’t affect the land swap and would only add costs for the applicant.
T. Moore offered that such waivers had been granted in the past, assuming the lot line area had been surveyed. It was noted that the back land so far remained vacant.
T. Moore asked if the drainage easement was at the request of the Town.
M. Dorman confirmed that it was by the Highway Department in anticipation of Hillcrest being accepted as a town road.
C. Zilch added that the language in the easement was based upon a draft provided by the Town.
M. Dorman offered an explanation for why the house was allowed to be built in the property line. He noted that at the time of permitting the tax maps did not show the violation and the plans showed the proper set backs. He added that if there was an easement in place at the time of permitting his office was not informed and since it was a private easement there would have been no requirement for the applicant to inform him.
R. Zukas asked how the tax maps were updated when changes such as these were approved.
M. Dorman explained that plans were forwarded to the Assessing Department so the maps can be updated.
L. Komornick noted that Hillcrest and Woodridge roads were going to become town roads. She added it wasn’t good precedent to continue to allow building on non-town roads. Leigh noted that the drainage easement was also recommended by Town Engineer, Phil MacDonald, before the road was accepted.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters with questions or concerns. There were none.
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to accept the lot line adjustment and easement plan for Tax Map 66, Lot 3 and Tax Map 58, Lot 4 as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to grant the request for a waiver from § 235-18E(1) (survey) for the lot line adjustment and easement plan for Tax Map 66, Lot 3 and Tax Map 58, Lot 4. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to approve the lot line adjustment and easement plan for Tax Map 66, Lot 3 and Tax Map 58, Lot 4. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on a condominium conversion plan for an existing duplex located at 2 Upper Road, Tax Map 17, Lot 21. The owners of record are Richard and Nancy Pierce
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application.
J. Lavelle explained that this was an existing duplex and the plan illustrated the existing conditions and a survey of the property. He continued, noting the location of the dwelling, the driveway and commons areas, adding the sheds, which were in compliance when constructed, were to be moved to be in compliance with current setback requirements. Mr. Lavelle offered that Attorney Sumner Kalman drew up the condominium documents (docs).
The staff review of the plan was read as well as Mr. Lavelle’s comments addressing the concerns.
M. Curran arrived at 6:50 p.m.
T. Moore noted there wasn’t a walkway noted from the driveway to the second unit.
Shawn Pierce, son of the property owners, explained the driveway and walkways. He offered the sheds were already moved.
J. Lavelle noted that the parking for Unit B was shown to be in the right-of-way, noting it was not an uncommon condition.
There was discussion regarding the parking for the property. It was noted the original subdivision showed an unusual configuration for the right-of-way.
L. Komornick offered that she and M. Dorman had spoken with Dan Garlington, Highway Supervisor, who noted this was a long existing situation.
R. Zukas questioned the notation that the attic space was not to be shared.
L. Komornick confirmed that it was not shared as part of this plan.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters present with questions or concerns. There was no one.
There was discussion regarding the need for an equitable waiver for some of the set back issues that pre-existed applicable zoning ordinances. The need for an equitable waiver as a permanent housekeeping measure to legalize existing conditions was noted, as was the process to obtain one. The Board strongly encouraged, while noting they couldn’t mandate, the acquiring of an equitable waiver.
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to accept the condominium conversion plan for 2 Upper Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to approve the condominium conversion plan for 2 Upper Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
A Public Hearing on a citizen’s petition to allow an amendment to §22-16(B) re: Motor Vehicle and Trailer Sales
T. Moore read the citizen’s petition for an amendment to §220-16(B).
It was noted that this was the same language the Board had previously considered, and ultimately decided to not post, for its own amendment, but was now being filed by citizen’s petition.
T. Moore explained that the Board of Selectmen had approved the language of the petition and it will appear on the Town Warrant. He added it would now be up to the Planning Board to decide whether or not post a recommendation with it.
R. Zukas asked if the warrant would show the words “Not Recommended” should that be the Board’s decision.
M. Curran replied that it wouldn’t show anything either way, where the other changes would show as being recommended by the Board. She added there could not be any negative implications on the warrant for a citizen’s petition.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, that the citizen’s petition not be shown on the Town Warrant as being recommended by the Planning Board.
M. Curran noted that she would state all the same reasons that the amendment wasn’t approved by the Board previously.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on an amendment to Article IV, Wetlands by revising various sections
T. Moore explained that the Conservation Commission (ConCom) had spent considerable time going over the entire Wetlands Ordinance in an effort to bring consistency to the language and provide better definitions of buffers and the uses allowed in those areas.
NOTE: Additions are noted as bold italics
Deletions are noted as bold strikethrough
Article IV
220-18. Authority and Purpose.
By the authority granted in New Hampshire RSA 674:16 to 17 and RSA 674:20 to 21 and in the interest of public health, safety, and general welfare, the Plaistow Wetlands Ordinance is hereby enacted to regulate the uses of [the lands subject to standing water or extended periods of high water table.] [a Wetlands District.] The regulations are intended to:
A. Protect persons and properties from danger of floods by preserving natural floodwater storage areas.
B. Prevent the Town of Plaistow from incurring the costs of constructing sewer lines and treatment facilities which will be necessitated by the unwise use of [or] development of unsuitable areas.
C. Prevent development on soils which will contribute to the pollution of surface and ground waters necessary to supply domestic needs.
D. Preserve recharge areas necessary to regulate groundwater supply and augment stream flow during dry periods.
E. Protect existing water quality.
F. Protect existing natural wildlife habitats.
G. Discourage chronic stress on wetlands environments contributed by modification of water flow patterns and rates.
H. Encourage uses that can be safely and appropriately located in wetland areas.
I. Encourage uses that can be safely and appropriately located in green spaces and open spaces.
[220-18.1. Wetlands District.
A. A Wetlands District is an overlay district that may occur in any zone as defined by the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance.
B. A Wetlands District contains all wetlands areas as defined in Section 220-19.B and all wetlands buffers as defined in Section 220-20.
C. Where a Wetlands District overlays another zone or district the more restrictive regulations shall apply.]
There was a discussion about what was meant but a district. T. Moore noted that a district was the actual wetlands and the surrounding buffer and was not a new district such as a residential zone like Medium Density Residential, more on the idea of an overlay.
220-19. Wetland[s and wetlands] boundaries.
[A. The Wetlands Ordinance shall address all wetlands areas.]
[B.][A.] “Wetlands” means an area that is inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal conditions does support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
[Amended 3-8-2005 ATM by Art. P-20]
[B.] The Wetlands boundary shall circumscribe the wetlands area as defined in Section 220-19.A.
C. [Soil surveys for determining wetlands must conform to High Intensity Soil Survey (HIS) Standards.] [Saturated soil conditions are defined by the High Intensity Soil Survey (HIS) Standards. The HIS Standards define soil types by 6 drainage classes; 2 of those classes, 5 and 6, define saturated soil conditions. Class 5 soils are poorly drained soils and Class 6 soils are very poorly drained soils. All soil surveys for determining saturated soil conditions must be done using HIS standards.
D. A vernal pool is a special type of wetlands and shall be considered a wetlands area for the purpose of this ordinance. Vernal pools have either bedrock or a hard clay layer in the soil that helps to keep water in the pool. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring but may be completely dry for most of the summer and fall.
E. Wetlands vegetation shall be defined as vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For those wetlands areas defined by the prevalence of vegetation the area may be extended beyond the Class 5 or 6-soil boundary to a point where the wetlands vegetation is less than 50% of the total vegetative mix.]
220-20. Wetlands [buffer zone] [buffers].
[There shall be a buffer zone adjacent to all wetlands districts that shall extend to 100 horizontal feet beyond the wetlands district when the buffer zone is also adjacent to any septic system or waste disposal system. The wetlands buffer shall extend to 50 horizontal feet beyond any wetlands district when the district is comprised of poorly drained soils and shall extend to 75 horizontal feet beyond any wetlands district when the district is comprised of very poorly drained soils and the buffer is also adjacent to any road, driveway, or structure not part of any septic system or waste disposal system.]
[There shall be buffers adjacent to all wetlands areas and shall exist to protect the wetlands areas and their surrounding vegetation and wildlife habitats. The buffers shall include the following:
A. No cut, no disturb buffer
There shall be a 25-foot buffer immediately adjacent to all wetlands areas that must be left in a naturally vegetated state. No cutting of vegetation shall be permitted unless a study (approved by the Planning Board and Conservation Commission) is done that shows the existing vegetation is having a negative impact on the wetlands areas, vegetation or wildlife supported by the wetlands areas.
No additional plantings are allowed and no fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides may be applied in this buffer. Town, State, and Federal regulated mosquito and pest control are exempt from this restriction.
B. 25-foot no construction buffer
There shall be a 25-foot buffer immediately adjacent to the “No cut, no disturb” buffer (total of 50 feet from the outer edge of the buffer to the wetlands boundary). No buildings, structures, driveways, roads, or paved surfaces are allowed in the “25-foot no construction buffer”.
This buffer shall apply only in those cases where the wetlands areas are defined by poorly drained soils or by wetlands vegetation.
C. 50-foot no construction buffer
There shall be a 50-foot buffer immediately adjacent to the “No cut, no disturb” buffer (total of 75 feet from the outer edge of the buffer to the wetlands boundary). No buildings, structures, driveways, roads, or paved surfaces are allowed in the “50-foot no construction buffer”.
This buffer shall apply only in those cases where the wetlands areas are defined by very poorly drained soils or by vernal pools.
D. Wetlands buffers diagram
Wetlands boundary |
|
|
|
|
|
Wetlands area |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
25-foot No cut, no |
| |
25-foot No |
| |
|
|
| |
disturb buffer |
| |
construction buffer |
| |
|
|
| |
<------------------------ > |
| |
< ----------------------- > |
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| |
50-foot No |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
construction buffer |
|
| |
| |
|
| |
< ------------------------------------------------------ > |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
220-21. Boundary appeals.
In the event that the Code Enforcement Officer, the Conservation Commission, or the Planning Board questions the validity of a wetlands boundary, or a wetlands buffer on a specific parcel of land, the Board may call upon the services of a qualified [soil] [wetlands] scientist, biologist, or botanist, as applicable, to examine and report the findings to the Planning Board [and Conservation Commission] for [its] determination of the boundary. Any necessary soil testing procedures or vegetation determination procedures shall be conducted at the expense of the applicant. Any costs associated with such an appeal shall be borne by the applicant.
[220-22. Relation to other districts.
Where wetlands are superimposed over another zoning district, the more restrictive regulation shall apply.]
220-23. Permitted uses in [wetlands areas] [a Wetlands District]
All uses not specifically mentioned in this article are not permitted. Permitted uses are those compatible with the purposes specified in Section 220-18 of this article, those in compliance with other municipal and state regulations, and those which do not involve significant altering of the wetlands including:
A. Forestry and tree farming in accordance with a certified professional forester.
B. Water supply sources.
C. Wildlife habitat and habitat development.
D. Conservation areas, passive [and active] recreational uses, and nature trails providing the activity has not significantly altered any part of the district or wildlife habitat.
E. Agriculture, including grazing, hay production, truck gardening, and silage production, providing that such uses are shown not to cause increases in surface or groundwater contamination by pesticides or other toxic or hazardous substances and that such uses will not cause the soil to erode.
220-24. Prohibitions in [a] Wetlands District [and buffer zone].
[A. No septic system, waste disposal system, or replacements of any kind shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands area unless a new design has been approved by appropriate state and municipal authorities on existing lots of record.]
[A. Septic systems and waste disposal systems
1. No new septic system or waste disposal system shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary.
2. No replacement septic system or waste disposal system on an existing lot of record shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary unless the new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities.]
B. Building activity[;] includes but is not limited to all [roads, driveways, and structures] [buildings, structures, driveways, roads, and paved surfaces].
C. Deposits of fill unless approved by state and municipal authorities. A conditional use permit may also be necessary; see Section 220-26 for the conditional use permit requirements.
D. Deposits of hazardous materials regardless of state or municipal approval.
E. Relocation or disturbance of a wetlands area.
[220-25. Minimum lot size. [Amended 2-10-2001 ATM by Art.P-32]
Wetland areas may not be used to satisfy minimum lot size requirements. Upland areas being used to satisfy minimum lot size must be contiguous.]
Proposing to move this section (220-25) to 220-34.A. Add a new paragraph.
220-26. Conditional uses.
A. A conditional use permit may be granted by the Planning Board (RSA 674:21, II) for the construction of roads and other access ways and for pipelines, power lines, and other types of transmission lines provided the following conditions are met:
(1) The proposed construction is essential to the productive use of land not within [the wetlands] [a Wetlands District].
(2) Design and construction methods will be such as to minimize detrimental impact upon [the wetland] [a Wetlands District] and will include restoration of the site as nearly as possible to its original grade and condition.
(3) No alternative route [which] [that] does not cross a [wetland] [Wetlands District] or has less detrimental impact on [the wetland] [a Wetlands District] is feasible.
(4) Economic advantage alone is not reason for the proposed construction.
(5) [A written report from the Conservation Commission regarding the Conditional Use permit is received by the Planning Board.]
B. Prior to the granting of a conditional permit under this section, the applicant shall agree to submit a performance security as determined by the [Board of Selectmen][Planning Board], The security shall be submitted in a form and amount with surety and conditions satisfactory to the [Planning Board] [Selectmen and approved by Town Counsel] to ensure that the construction has been carried out in accordance with the approved design. The security shall be submitted and approved [by the Planning Board] prior to the issuance of any permit authorizing construction.
DISCUSSION: There was discussion as to whether or not this meant the establishment of an additional bond beyond the construction bond. It was noted that wetlands are most often protected by the construction bond in a large development. This particular bonding would be applicable in temporary or conditional use situations, such as the example of the temporary road that was constructed as part of the Red Oak project, which was later removed.
C. The Planning Board, with the concurrence of the Conservation Commission, may require the applicant to submit an environmental impact assessment when necessary to evaluate an application made under this section. The cost of this assessment shall be borne by the applicant. The Planning Board may also assess the applicant reasonable fees to cover the costs of other special investigative studies and for the review of documents required by particular applications.
T. Moore noted this would only be applicable for conditional uses as there would be no other place that would require a study, except for the Aquifer. He added the ordinances there had not yet been reviewed.
[220-27. Special exception for nonconforming lots.
A. Upon application to the Board of Adjustment, a special exception shall be granted to permit the erection of a structure within the wetlands on vacant lots provided all of the following conditions are found to exist:
(1) The lot upon which an exception is sought was an official lot of record, as recorded in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds, prior to the date on which this amendment was posted and published in the Town (March 1985).
(2) The use for which the exception is sought cannot be feasibly carried out on a portion of the lot which is outside the wetlands boundary.
(3) The design and construction of the proposed use will, to the extent practical, be consistent with the purpose and intent of this article.
(4) The proposed use will not create a hazard to individual or public health, safety, and welfare due to the loss of wetland, the contamination of groundwater, or other reason.
B. The Board of Adjustment may itself, or upon petition from the Code Enforcement Officer, Conservation Commission, or abutters, hire a qualified consultant or consultants to prepare such studies as are necessary to determine whether the conditions set forth above have been met. The cost of such studies shall be borne by the applicant.]
Proposing to remove section 220-27 in its entirety.
Additional change needed to for consistency
T. Moore noted they could find to reason to keep this section. He added that in light of the proposed changes in the wetlands ordinance it would be necessary to change Article V, as well.
Article V. Section 220-34. Dimensional requirements.
The following dimensional standards shall apply:
A. Minimum lot area. For any main use the minimum lot size shall be specified in Section 220-32 and measured as provided for in the definitions for lot measurement. Compliance with minimum lot size requirements shall be based on on-site soils survey analysis conducted by a qualified soils scientist using the High Intensity Soil Map Standards developed by the Society of Soil Scientists of Northern New England, 1986. With the exception of lot lines [which] [that] must merge to meet the geometric configuration of an adjacent existing lot, opposing lot lines which define the perimeter of a subject lot shall be a distance of at least 50 feet apart.
Change to read:
A. Minimum lot area.
1. For any main use.....at least 50 feet apart.
2. Wetland areas, defined in Section 220-19, may not be used to satisfy minimum lot size requirements.
3. Upland areas being used to satisfy minimum lot size must be contiguous. [Amended 2-10-2001 ATM by Art. P-32]
There was discussion as to whether or not Article V could be changed as it was not specifically advertised. It was noted that it was consistent with the advertised changes being made to the wetlands ordinance and there would be conflicts if the changes were not made.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to post the changes to the wetlands ordinance and the associated changes to Article V §220-34. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
A public hearing on an amendment to Article X, Home Occupation by revising various sections
M. Dorman explained that the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) was asking for some clarification as to where such businesses as massage therapists and personal trainers would fit into the home occupation ordinance. He suggested that personal services as defined in Article II of zoning be added as allowable uses under §220-66A.
T. Moore read the current list of allowable uses and the definition of personal services.
The consensus of the Board was that it was reasonable to allow personal services as a home occupation.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to amend §220-66A by adding “personal services” as an allowable home occupation. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Misc. Notices, Letters and other Correspondence
M. Dorman offered his FYI list, which notes the ongoing and proposed development in the town. He added that he would periodically provide the Board with updated list.
There was a discussion of some of the items on the list.
M. Curran asked that it be noted for the record that there was still no clock in the meeting room.
Other Business – Ethan Allen Bond Reduction Request
T. Moore read a letter from Underwood Engineering, Inc. (UEI), recommending a bond reduction for 26 Plaistow Road of $51,500 and outlining the progress made on the site.
 M. Curran moved, second by E. Sheltry, to reduce the construction bond being held for 26 Plaistow Road by $51,500 as recommended by UEI. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen (BOS)
T. Moore noted there would be a joint meeting with the BOS on January 23.
There was discussion regarding some potential topics for discussion including low impact development and redevelopment of Stateline Plaza.
L. Komornick suggested there also be a discussion on the structure of the office with a possible eye to realigning Planning and Building into more of a Community Development Office, where M. Dorman would be the lead. She added that it would also resolve the salary v. hourly issues for M. Dorman in a way that made more sense in how the positions actually function.
There was lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the idea. Some members expressed concern that L. Komornick would not feel as free to express an opinion should it be contrary to M. Dorman’s. Others felt that since both Mike and Leigh were okay with the idea there wasn’t a problem. The Board decided it could be one of the topics discussed with the BOS.
Other Business – New Planning Board Attorney and Engineer
T. Moore announced that Bruce Marshall of Getman, Stacey, Schulthess and Steere, PA, was selected as the new Planning Board attorney and CLD Engineering was selected as the new Board engineer. He praised the work of Mitchell and Bates and Underwood Engineering and noted the change was not a reflection on the quality of their work. Tim also noted that Sumner Kalman would continue to be the Town’s attorney and Underwood Engineering would continue to be the Town’s engineer.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:07 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
