Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 18, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Timothy Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Ernest Sheltry, Robert Zukas; Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio (arrived 6:51 p.m.) and Dennis Marcotte, Alternate were present.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of January 4, 2006 Planning Board Meeting
 R. Zukas moved, second by E. Sheltry, to approve the minutes of the January 4, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
A condominium conversion plan to convert 16 apartments into 16 condominiums located at 3 Barker Street, and 28, 30 and 32 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lots 9, 20, 21, and 22. The total square footage of the lots is 90,267 (+/-) and the frontage is 1027 (+/-) feet. The owner of record is Alan Daviduk, Jr.
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the application. He explained this plan was to convert existing 4 buildings with 4 units each from apartments to condominiums. Mr. Johnson noted the features of the as-built plans for the properties located on Danville Road and Barker Street. He reminded the Board that he had been in with a similar application for the apartments on Dalton and Barker Streets, noting that while these buildings were being purchased by the same entity they were not tied together as far as the application process.
A representative floor plan for the units was reviewed.
L. Komornick reported staff had completed a checklist for the plan and Mr. Johnson had addressed the outstanding issues. She noted the condo documents still needed to be reviewed by the Board’s counsel. Leigh added they were still researching whether or not State of New Hampshire (State) subdivision approval was needed and there was some dispute over the requirement.
T. Moore questioned what was being called the lot lines and questioned the sidewalks and driveway areas on the plan for 3 Barker Street.
D. Johnson showed the lot lines on the plan and he noted the driveway, walkway and patio areas for 3 Barker. He added there was nothing new proposed; the plans only showed existing conditions.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by E. Sheltry, to accept the condominium conversion plan for four buildings with 4 units each on Barker Street and Danville Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by E. Sheltry to grant a request to waiver the requirements for location of off-site wells and septics under § 235-12rr. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore questioned whether or not a conditional approval should be granted until the issue of whether or not State subdivision approval was needed had been answered.
M. Curran arrived 6:51 p.m.
L. Komornick suggested that a condition could state if such approval is found to be required that it is obtained for final approval.
 R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the condominium conversion plan for four buildings with 4 units each on Barker Street and Danville Road with the following conditions:
- Successful review by Board counsel of the condominium documents
- If State subdivision approval is found to be necessary, it will be obtained as a condition of final approval
L. Komornick asked that the applicant guaranteed to follow through with the Attorney General’s (NHAG) requirements for notification of the current residents. She noted that the applicants had followed NHAG requirements for notification on their previous project and she had every confidence that they would do so as part of this project.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Preliminary Consultation for the redevelopment, redesign and renovations to the Stateline Plaza including the demolition and construction of buildings, drainage, parking and utility improvements and associated landscaping The property is located is 4 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 24, Lots 44, 45, 46, and 47 totaling 14.96 acres and the frontage is 2,358 (+/-) feet. The owner of record is Plaistow Project, LLC.
Present for the discussion were: Gregg M. Mikolaities, PE, and Jennifer L. Viarengo PE, from Appledore Engineering, Inc. (AEI) and Marjorie A. Hession, Northstar Centers, LLC (Northstar), property managers at 4 Plaistow Road.
G. Mikolaities offered that this presentation would be to introduce some of the changes they were looking to make at the Stateline Plaza as well as introduce the team who would be working on the project. He noted there would be substantial changes to traffic and parking patterns, which had long been an issue at this location. Mr. Mikolaities explained there would be more green space, landscaping and updates to the façade, as well as improvements to the access on and off the property. He announced there would be one new major tenant as Shaw’s Supermarket would be relocating across the street and the CVS would be relocated on the property with a new pharmacy drive-thru. He added there would be a number of waivers and or variances required for the project to move forward.
J. Viarengo gave an overview of the site plan and highlighted the changes they were proposing. She emphasized the improvements to the landscaping, traffic circulation, signalization at Route 125 and improvements to the safety of the site. Ms. Viarengo noted that the buildings that currently housed KB Toys, Market Basket and Mattress Discounters would be demolished to make way for two new retails spaces, one for the relocation of Shaws. She continued, noting improvements to drainage and stormwater management, including new hook-ups to Haverhill (MA) water and sewer. Ms. Viarengo said there would be improvements to the aesthetics of the property, including signage, lighting and the façade of the building as well as the demolition of the Golden Lion Restaurant with new loading areas and parking on the back side of the
property. She added they were working with New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) regarding upgrades to the access points.
J. Viarengo asked for clarification of whether or not certain issues would require variances and/or waivers. She went over a list with the Board and guidance was given as to whether or not further applications (variances) or requests (waivers) would be needed.
R. Zukas asked if there would be changes to the location of anything at the Citgo gas station as part of the plan.
J. Viarengo responded that they were still working with NHDOT on that question, as to whether or not there is a need to relocate the pumps because of the proposed new driveway.
R. Zukas questioned if the proposed signalization would align with Hazelton Street. It was confirmed that it would be.
S. Ranlett said that what he saw as part of this plan looked really good but he questioned what Haverhill would and wouldn’t go along with.
G. Mikolaities explained that they had been working with the City Engineer from Haverhill over the past year, as well as the owners of the cemetery to the back of the property and issues on both sides of the border were being coordinated and addressed.
L. Komornick added that AEI had been specifically told that there would have to be agreement for the plan from both Haverhill and Plaistow before the plan would be approved. She noted there would not be coordination with one town and the other being told to deal with it.
J. Viarengo acknowledged that approval of both entities was part of the process.
M. Curran asked if the parking calculations were based on the Plaistow retail space only, or if the retail units on the Haverhill side of the property were included.
L. Komornick noted that Haverhill had the same 1 space/250 sq. ft or retail space as Plaistow.
S. Ranlett asked if there was a plan for the current CVS store once a new one was constructed.
M. Hession replied that they had no use or tenant planned at this time.
D. Marcotte questioned the configuration for the CVS drive-thru.
J. Viarengo explained the traffic flow.
D. Marcotte expressed concern that 18-wheeler truck traffic would interfere with CVS drive-thru traffic. He noted the pattern would clog traffic and as noted on the plan was a long way for a tractor-trailer to back up.
J. Viarengo offered they were still working on that situation and were considering such things as restrictions on deliveries during pharmacy hours.
E. Sheltry asked if the exit on to Wentworth Avenue would be both left and right turns or right out only.
J. Viarengo replied that at this time it was planned to be both ways, she added they didn’t anticipate any truck traffic at this access point.
D. Marcotte asked if it would be marked for no truck traffic.
R. Zukas added that it was a steep grade there and asked if it wouldn’t be wiser to restrict left turns. He also questioned the need for two access points on Wentworth Avenue, noting there would be problems with the access due to the queuing at the lighted intersection.
J. Viarengo noted they were still making considerations of the access points. She added that while there was a slope it wasn’t mountainously steep.
S. Ranlett asked if the parking in the back was intended for employees.
J. Viarengo responded that was the anticipation as patrons would not have building access from the back.
E. Sheltry questioned where the snow storage was proposed.
J. Viarengo offered they were still working on those requirements.
T. Moore went through the list of waivers:
- § 220-12 – drainage tie in
There was discussion as to whether or not this was a new condition which would require a variance or if it would be considered a pre-existing condition as the tie-ins were already in place.
T. Moore suggested there would only be an issue if it were shown there was an increase in the existing flow into the culverts.
J. Viarengo noted the tie-ins were created before the easements were required.
L. Komornick asked at what point in the process the Board would require finalization of the easements.
T. Moore replied that the easements should be shown on the revised site plan with the proper language for the easements and would be recorded as part of the site plan.
J. Viarengo reiterated the requirement reads that no one shall tie in.
S. Ranlett answered there was already a tie-in, there would just be improvements.
J. Viarengo reminded that they would not be allowed to increase off-site flow above the existing level.
There was continued discussion of drainage, including a pipe that goes under Wentworth Avenue to the Coach Company property across the street. It was questioned whether or not the Town owned the culvert in question and it was noted the applicants were working on a plan with Dan Garlington, Highway Supervisor. It was noted that the Town had installed the pipe.
The next item on the list of questions for variances/waivers was a wetlands issue.
T. Moore referred the applicant to the newly posted wetlands ordinance, which included many revisions over the current ordinance. He also suggested the applicant bring the plan to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) for review and comment on the wetlands.
- § 220-55.2F – driveways restricted to 36 feet in width
J. Viarengo explained the plan for the signalized access point was for a divided island and she questioned if the measurement was throat to throat and whether or not a variance would be required.
S. Ranlett offered that in this instance bigger was better.
L. Komornick added that this requirement hadn’t been followed in the past, more of an oversight than anything else.
T. Moore suggested that in the strictest reading a variance would be required.
M. Dorman noted the word “shall” in the ordinance and suggested that it intentionally gave the Board discretion for safety and traffic flow concerns. He reminded that this application was a preliminary hearing and the Board was not yet taking jurisdiction over the plan and there would still be many revisions to be made.
T. Moore offered a note could be on the plan explaining the driveway.
- § 220-55.2J – Prohibitions for access on a state road when there is frontage on a town road.
It was suggested that traffic studies would prove the need for consideration of continued access on Route 125.
J. Viarengo noted that Vanasse Associates, Inc. (VAI) was reviewing the traffic studies.
- § 220-133F(1) – Conditional use permits required for the Aquifer Protection District (Aquifer)
It was noted that there were no structures or other building proposed for the small portion of the property that was in the Aquifer. It was noted that the Board would have to look at the impact, particularly in light of the fact that the property operates on Haverhill water and sewer and determine whether or not it met the three criteria for a conditional use permit. It was suggested that this matter also be brought to ConCom attention.
J. Viarengo offered that there was a septic and well proposed for the new CVS unit, but that it was located far from the portion of the property in the Aquifer.
T. Moore said that he would suggest holding off on a definite answer until some homework could be done with ConCom.
T. Moore read a letter from Police Chief, Stephen Savage, who expressed concern over right in/out turns from the site as well as increase use of Wentworth Avenue.
L. Komornick noted those issues would be looked at as part of the review of the traffic study. It was also noted that Wentworth Avenue concerns would also be addressed in the traffic study.
T. Moore read a letter from Fire Chief John McArdle, offering cooperation in working with the applicants on a fire protection plan. The letter also requested details of the connections with Haverhill water and questioned if fire suppression would be fed from those connections.
J. Viarengo added those plans were still under discussion.
T. Moore read a letter from abutter Brian Levassuer expressing a number of concerns over traffic and noise on Wentworth Avenue.
S. Ranlett suggested that truck traffic be directed to Route 121 and a connection be made between that entrance and Haynes Boulevard to direct the traffic to the back of the site and off Wentworth Avenue.
J. Viarengo offered they would look at that option.
G.
Mikolaities added that this was only a preliminary hearing and they have heard all the concerns and comments and would be taking them all back for continued development of the plans.
S. Ranlett acknowledged that it was a preliminary hearing, but added that abutters had been notified and should be allowed to comment.
Carl Gleed, 7 Wentworth Avenue, noted a number of concerns including increased traffic, adding that he had the same thought about a connection between Haynes Boulevard and Route 121. His second concern was about drainage, noting there is already flow off the site to a field next to his property. Mr. Gleed expressed concern that there could be overflow affecting his property. Mr. Gleed also expressed concern for increases to noise, noting refrigeration trucks running all night or early morning deliveries. He requested that relocation of the loading areas be looked into or other mitigation for noise.
S. Ranlett noted that federal regulations stated that trucks cannot idle for more than five minutes.
M. Curran asked if Shaws had refrigeration units at its current location that ran all night. It was confirmed that it was.
C. Gleed said that calling the police when trucks idle for more than five minutes didn’t seem like a workable solution to the noise issue. He added that he was glad there would be changes to the lighting. He again expressed concern over traffic, noting there were already considerable back-ups with the current site. Mr. Gleed said that Wentworth Avenue wasn’t built for the heavy traffic and he hoped that upgrades to those roads would be considered.
L. Komornick asked how loud the noise was presently.
C. Gleed said it wasn’t that loud right now, but the loading area would now be located closer to his property.
G. Mikolaities offered that he had noted the concern and would work on designing mitigation for the noise of the loading dock areas.
Frank Frangedakis, 13 Wentworth Avenue, offered that his concerns were much the same as Mr. Gleed and emphasized concern over additional drainage.
J. Viarengo assured there would be no additional flow.
S. Ranlett noted that with the addition of the green space and improvements to the drainage there shouldn’t be any problems.
F. Frangedakis added that he had the same concerns for noise and for the breakdown of Wentworth Avenue.
Angie Waite, 9 Wentworth Avenue, noted the access point at the proposed CVS and suggested that it should be right in/out, not both ways as it was close to the current intersection and would stall traffic. She added that she already had problems getting out of her drive and suggested this would make that problem worse.
Peter Simon, Romell and Ross, noted that he didn’t have many objections to the plan, but did have concern over access to his location on the Haverhill side of the property.
S. Ranlett noted that it was a thirty-foot access.
There was additional review of the plan to show the access to Mr. Simon’s location.
Tammy Recesso, Recesso Physical Therapy, located in World’s Gym, asked if there would be additional renovations beyond the façade of the building. She questioned if there would be any demolition at her end of the plaza.
J. Viarengo responded that would not be as part of this plan.
T. Recesso noted there were leaks in the roof and asked if the flat roof would be changed or fixed.
M. Curran asked if Ms. Recesso considered the leaking a safety issue.
M. Hession noted there had just been a changes to reinforce the structure, which was necessary before any repairs could be done. She added that additional repairs and upgrades would be completed as weather permitted.
M. Dorman added the repairs were being done after hours, with police presence, and would probably not even be noted by the tenants.
T. Ress asked if the roof would be changed from being a flat roof.
M. Hession noted that it would always be a flat roof.
T. Recesso expressed concern over traffic flow and questioned positioning of stop signs and handicapped parking, considering the nature of the business at her location.
There was a discussion regarding the traffic flow and designation of handicapped parking. It was suggested that spots could be moved around to accommodate needs.
T. Recesso asked if there was a start and/or completion date for the redevelopment.
J. Viarengo replied there was still a lengthy permitting process and they were dealing with not only two different towns, but two states and the NHDOT.
T. Recesso questioned what would happen to the lease for World Gym.
M. Hession said that it was not a forum for that discussion and she would not talk about individual units or leases.
S. Ranlett offered the purpose of the meeting was to look at a preliminary plan, not to discuss tenants or leases.
M. Curran added the only way it would be of concern at this phase would be if there was a proposed change of use for the space. She used the example of World Gym being converted to a restaurant.
R. Zukas asked if the sidewalk would be brought up to code with regard to handicap accessibility, adding that where the cuts for wheelchairs were currently located didn’t make a lot of sense.
J. Viarengo said they would look at the whole front.
R. Zukas suggested that they look at the uses and place the wheelchair access cuts in front of the businesses where it made the most sense to have one.
J. Viarengo asked if they should wait before talking about the waivers.
L. Komornick said that it would be good to take back what had already been discussed and look at the plan again.
J. Viarengo presented the Board with letters of authorization from the owners regarding the combining of all the parcels as part of the final site plan. She noted that as of right now, for financing reasons, all the parcels were under different names of ownership. Ms. Viarengo added there was an understanding that if the financing and merging of the parcels didn’t work out there would be no application.
T. Moore noted they could advertise the site plan review and the lot merger as part of the same public hearing.
J. Viarengo asked if the Board would consider a conditional approval with the merger being one of the conditions.
L. Komornick replied the lot would have to be merged for the project to meet zoning requirements.
There was a discussion regarding further coordination with Haverhill to insure that the requirements of both Haverhill and Plaistow are met, as well as those of NHDOT. It was consensus that signatures from both Haverhill and Plaistow would be required on the final plan for approval. Haverhill City Engineer, John Pettis would be contacted for Haverhill’s input.
T. Moore called for a break at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 847 p.m.
Other Business - Discussion with Ron Pica regarding proposed Chandler Ave Elderly Housing project
Ron Pica, R.J. Pica Engineering Inc., explained that he was before the Board looking for a denial so that he could make application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a wetlands variance as the proposed driveway for the project is within twenty-three feet of the wetlands. He said that it was his understanding that a denial from the Board was required to send an application to the ZBA.
M. Curran asked how they Board could deny a plan that they haven’t seen.
T. Moore suggested the M. Dorman could make an administrative decision to send the application to the ZBA. He added as long as the Board was informed so that when they see a ZBA agenda with such an application on it they are not surprised.
There was discussion on whether or not Mr. Pica would need to present a full plan to get a denial to go to the ZBA or if a referral from the Board would be sufficient. The catch was on the word “denial” as some members objected to denying a plan they had not seen.
R. Pica noted that since he already knew he would need a variance he was hoping to come to the Board, without notifying abutters, and be sent to the ZBA. He added he was just looking for the referral to the ZBA.
M. Curran questioned why Mr. Pica would go to the ZBA before full plan review in case there were additional issues that would require ZBA action.
L. Komornick responded that if they can’t get the variance for the driveway then the project may not happen, so it was important to know the answer to this one.
R. Pica noted that although he didn’t want to notify abutters just to make this request, they would all be notified for the ZBA hearing.
T. Moore explained to R. Pica that the Board had recently posted a number of changes to the wetlands ordinance.
M. Dorman suggested that R. Pica take the plan to ConCom.
T. Moore said that he would talk to ConCom so R. Pica wouldn’t have to go to the meeting.
There was a discussion of the procedures for referring applicants to other boards and committees. The consensus was that the Board wanted to know what was going on and what plans were being brought into the Planning Office before everyone else knew.
There was a discussion of M. Dorman’s FYI list and how it was a good tool to keep the Board in the loop with the day-to-day goings on.
L. Komornick suggested there was a lot of talk about elderly housing, noting that the Rockingham Church was looking at the possibility. She noted that funding (federal v. private) was an issue and suggested the Board’s attorney make a presentation on elderly housing.
Other Business - Bond Reduction Request by Stateline Pet
M. Curran questioned the gutters on the new Stateline Pet building and questioned whether or not they were supposed to be underground.
M. Dorman replied that they would be as part of the final coat of paving in the spring. He added that was something that they would be looking for more closely on all plans.
L. Komornick left the meeting to get a memo from Underwood Engineers Inc. (UEI) regarding the Stateline Pet Bond release.
Other Business – ZBA Memo
T. Moore read a letter from the ZBA requesting clarification of why medical, dental and mental health professionals were limited as home occupations to the CII and ICR districts. He noted that the concern was that they would have more traffic than a normal home occupation.
Other Business – 11 Lynwood Street
M. Dorman noted a copy of a Waiver of Limited Municipal Liability for the new owners at 11 Lynwood. He explained that because no house has been built yet on the property he was asking the new owners for a new waiver. M. Dorman explained this was the process followed with the previous two owners.
L. Komornick returned to the meeting and the discussion returned to the Stateline Pet Bond Release.
There was a discussion regarding the amount to be release for Stateline Pet. Approximate values for work yet to be completed were discussed and the consensus was to release $100,000.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to release $100,000 of the bond being held for Stateline Pet at 137 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continued discussion on 11 Lynwood Street
T. Moore agreed that a new waiver should be in place.
M. Dorman noted that the access amounted to not much more than a long driveway.
L. Komornick added that it was important to make sure that no one is affected. She suggested that the Board of Selectmen should notify the abutters.
The consensus was that a letter would be sent to the Board of Selectmen noting the Planning Board had no issues with the waiver.
Other Business – Zoning Ordinance
L. Komornick noted that the ordinances were posted on the wall outside the Town Clerk’s Office.
Other Business – NHDOT Meeting re: 175 Plaistow Road
D. Marcotte indicated that he would be attending the NHDOT meeting in Concord regarding the driveway at 175 Plaistow Road.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
