Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
April 19, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas Vice-Chairman; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Steven Ranlett and Barry Weymouth were absent.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Non-Public Session
T. Moore noted that the Board would be entering into a non-public session to discuss a legal issue before beginning the public portion of the meeting.
Non-Public Session Minutes (reported by L. Komornick)
The Board discussed the letter from the Attorney and determined that they would not release it to the public. The Board was comfortable with their initial position that the application had been properly acted on. Tim Moore would explain this to the audience upon reentering the meeting.
 A motion was made by Michelle Curran, seconded by Bob Zukas to adjourn the non-public session at 6:47 p.m. So VOTED.
Roll Call Vote:
Tim Moore – yes
R. Zukas – yes
M. Curran - yes
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas to enter into non-public session at 6:41 p.m. under NHRSA 91-A:3 Legal.
Roll Call Vote:
Tim Moore – yes
R. Zukas – yes
M. Curran – yes
The public meeting was called back to order at 6:49 p.m.
Follow-Up from April 5, 2006 Planning Board meeting Regarding Valleyfield Condominiums
T. Moore explained that all the information had been resubmitted to the Planning Board Attorney for additional review. He noted that the letter was privileged attorney-client communication and would not be read for the record or released. T. Moore reported that it was the opinion of the Board’s attorney that the Board acted properly in regards to the commercial site plan application and the there was no condominium home owner’s association in effect at the time of the application. He added that he understood that the residents would not be happy with that decision, but it is how it will stand.
Erika Noonan, 134 Newton Road, Unit 12, offered that she felt there was still an issue with the condominium conversion date as reported. She asked for a copy of the attorney letter that she said was read to her on the phone.
M. Curran responded that the Board’s attorney is confident that everything was done correctly.
E. Noonan asked if that included the deed and the application.
M. Curran replied that all relevant information was forwarded to the attorney.
E. Noonan questioned why they cannot have a copy of the letter, since when it was read to her over the phone it noted there may be civil issues.
M. Curran answered that they had been advised that it was attorney-client privilege and it would be the choice of the association whether or not to pursue the matter in the courts.
Request from Steve Drelick for Water Line Impact Fees Credit
S. Drelick was present for the discussion.
T. Moore read a letter from Steve Drelick that explained the fire protection improvements, totaling $92,350.00 that would be made to his commercial site at 174 Plaistow Road that will benefit the area, not just his site. The letter requested that credits toward the assessed water line impact fee be given for the improvements.
T. Moore read a letter from Fire Chief, John McArdle, which supported Mr. Drelick’s request for credits.
It was noted that the name on the plan was different than was part of the original presentation. There was a brief discussion regarding the name change. It was noted that the mylar plans to be recorded had the correct name on it, so it would be easy to reference at the registry of deeds.
T. Moore offered that he had to problem with the credits requested, particularly with the support of the Fire Chief.
R. Zukas agreed, adding the amount invested exceeded the fees associated with the project.
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Drelick would still be paying Public Safety Impact Fees.
M. Curran asked what the assessed fee would have been. It was reported to be $72,000.00.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the request for waterline impact fee credits for the stated improvements to the property at 175 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider a Design Review Application by Duane Skofield for a 5,280 square foot office and retail building containing four units located at 207 Main Street, Tax Map 30, Lot 57, totaling 1.31 acres and 403.10 feet of frontage in accordance with RSA 674:41, I (d).
It was noted that a request for a continuance had been received as the applicant had not yet completed the traffic study requested by the Planning Board.
T. Moore stated the public hearing is continued to May 17. 2006.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Application 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.
Jennifer Viarengo and Greg Mikolaities of Appledore Engineering, Inc (AEI) were present for the public hearing.
J. Viarengo questioned whether or not the absent board members would be able to vote at a future meeting.
T. Moore explained the fact that there was a quorum allowed the Board to conduct business and anything that is decided at this meeting is legally binding.
J. Viarengo expressed concern that other members might not get the benefit of the presentation and she didn’t want it to be held against the project.
T. Moore reiterated the decisions made at this meeting will stand. He added that wasn’t to say that other board members, whether at this meeting or not, may come back with something that was overlooked which could warrant further discussion.
J. Viarengo said that she wasn’t anticipating any major decision, just the possibility of the plan being accepted as complete.
L. Komornick reported that everything had been submitted except the lot merger plan so technically the application is not complete.
J. Viarengo explained that it is their intention to merge the lots once they get a real good feeling that the project is going to be able to go forward. She added that they had made it clear from the very start that it was their intention to merge the lots, but that there were complicated title issues that needed to be dealt with.
L. Komornick reminded that Little River had done a consolidation plan before doing their subdivision plan.
T. Moore recalled that Little River had so many different pieces that it was difficult to see the whole site without the consolidation plan.
There was a discussion of the time table for a merger plan.
G. Mikolaities suggested a separate lot consolidation plan application would be submitted and run parallel to the application for the commercial site plan.
L. Komornick noted that a separate plan would also make an easy reference at the registry of deeds.
J. Viarengo asked if they would need to wait for that plan to be submitted before continuing with this plan.
G. Mikolaities offered that it was still important to bring everyone up to date, particularly the abutters, which he noted they were trying to work with.
There was a discussion of the notification process for future applications.
J. Viarengo presented an update of what changes had happened since the plan was last seen by the Board noting the following:
-Truck access now to be off Route 121, not from Wentworth Ave
-More of the natural buffer on the Wentworth Ave side would be preserved
-Signalized intersection at Route 121
-A new underground storm water detention area so that more of the natural buffer can be left undisturbed
-Additional four-season vegetation
-Reworking of the parking to address the concerns of the CVS loading area
M. Curran asked if the big box loading area concerns had been addressed.
J. Viarengo replied that there will be better screening for the area.
-There were some slight modification to the gas station to accommodate the fueling trucks and traffic flow
-More greenspace
-All Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) variances have been granted
-All comments received regarding the traffic study have been received and are being addressed with Vanasse Associates, Inc. (VAI) and New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) as well as with the proper counterparts on the Haverhill side of the border.
J. Viarengo presented conceptual elevation drawings of the plaza from a number of different perspectives. She added that she would like to address the waiver list, which she noted to be mostly needed for existing non-conformities.
M. Curran asked if the abutter’s concern regarding runoff had been addressed.
J. Viarengo noted the drainage calculations had been submitted for review. She added that they were controlled by state, city (Haverhill) and town standards regarding runoff from the site, noting that the impact had to be equal to or less than the current. She added the drainage plans were still being reviewed and she would be bringing them back at another time for review.
M. Curran offered that she was just trying to make sure that the abutter’s concerns were being heard.
Waivers Request Review:
-§ 230-12G – Number of required parking spaces
J. Viarengo noted that since the last time they were before the Board they had been able to pick up a number of parking spaces. She said that they would be able to show adequate parking for the tenants while adding landscaping to a site which had none.
-§230-12H(1) – Parking Stall Size
J. Viarengo noted that they would be okay with this requirement and no longer needed to ask for the waiver.
-§230-12H(2)(b) – Front Setbacks
J. Viarengo explained where there were no buffers or less than the required buffers noting them to be mostly existing conditions.
-§230-14S – Plan Scale
J. Viarengo offered that they were asking for a waiver from 1” = 50’ to 1”= 60’ to be able to show the whole overview of the plan on one plan sheet.
-§230-23A – Landscape Buffer
J. Viarengo noted a number of existing areas where the landscaping buffer didn’t exist and where it would be difficult to install a buffer, such as between the project and Heavenly Donuts, where it would interfere with traffic flow.
-§230-23B(3)(b)[2] – Landscaping
J. Viarengo stated that they may be removing this waiver request as they think they have been able to move some trees around and change the type of the tree to be able to meet the requirement.
-§230-23B(3)(B)[4]
J. Viarengo explained that they were trying to meet all the parking needs as well as provide ample landscaping and greenspace. She added that the parking had been broken up to insert landscaping islands and that all the rows had been endcapped.
L. Komornick offered that the parking stall size had been addressed in the CLD (Planning Board Engineers) review report.
J. Viarengo continued that some of the parking spaces in front of the proposed Shaw’s location had been designed to be bigger to where shopping carts tend to be left between the vehicles.
M. Curran questioned why parking spaces were being made bigger meaning less in number and therefore requiring a waiver.
J. Viarengo replied that it would leave more room for maneuvering and safety at the expense of twelve parking spaces. She added that it would take reducing the size of eighteen parking spaces to gain one, which she felt wasn’t a good exchange for the safety the wider spaces provided.
M. Dorman noted that CLD appeared to be going along with the wider spaces in their report.
J. Viarengo added there was still review being done on the traffic study results.
R. Zukas asked if there were any plans to give the gas station a face lift.
J. Viarengo replied that it had not yet been decided.
R. Zukas questioned the traffic flow on Haynes Boulevard (Blvd) and where it converted from one-way to two-way traffic.
J. Viarengo explained the configuration for Haynes Blvd, noting that it would be much as it is today except moved a little to meet the new truck entrance. She added that they would be going to the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to discuss the matter.
R. Zukas suggested that Haynes Blvd be narrowed to prevent illegal cut-throughs from people using the one-way road in the wrong direction.
M. Dorman offered that it was important to have the width to accommodate the passage of emergency vehicles.
There was a discussion of traffic calming measures that could be used on Haynes Blvd. It was noted that most people are already trained to use Haynes Blvd as a one-way street.
There was also discussion of the entrance on the Route 125 side of the project in front of D’Angelo’s. It was noted that Police Chief Steve Savage had concerns about it remaining a two-way in, two-way out situation and suggested that it be a right in/right out only for those going southbound. It was suggested that a median at that location would solve the problem. That suggestion led to a discussion of the Hazeltine Road-Route 125 intersection and what would need to be addressed there as part of this project. It was noted that impact fee monies had been collected that could potentially be used on Hazeltine Road as part of the improvements.
J. Viarengo offered that they have been to the scoping meetings with NHDOT regarding improvements to Route 125. She added that they had designed their plan so as to not interfere with anything the State may be doing and to facilitate the overall improvement of the 125 corridor in that area. She offered, with respect to the Police Chief’s concerns regarding the D’Angelo’s entrance that perhaps the island could be shaved as to only accommodate right-in/right-out movements.
M. Curran noted that improvements to Hazeltine Road would be a BOS matter.
M. Dorman added that it would go to the BOS as being recommended by the Planning Board.
J Viarengo offered that they were addressing all the VAI comments regarding the traffic study and she was reluctant to talk about it in a piecemeal fashion.
M. Curran replied she just wanted to make sure that they were hearing that there would be an impact to Hazeltine Road.
T. Moore suggested a joint BOS-Planning Board meeting to facilitate the review of the plans.
There was discussion regarding where in the process that would be most beneficial.
M. Curran noted there was no snow storage located on the plan.
J. Viarengo noted that was something that VAI commented on. She added that the owners were just going to have to be committed to removing any snow from the site.
T. Moore read a letter from Police Chief, Stephen Savage, which noted the concerns that were discussed earlier regarding the entrance in front of D’Angelo’s. The letter also noted there would be a yet undetermined impact to the Police Department with the improvements to the plaza.
T. Moore read a letter from Beverly Reed, 120 Newton Road, Unit 2D, which requested the drive-up pharmacy window proposed of the CVS not be approved. The letter cited environmental concerns with idling vehicles that would be making use of the drive-up. T. Moore noted there were no regulations or ordinances in Plaistow that would prevent any business from putting in a drive-up window. He added that the Board could look at the potential for a zoning change in the future should it be proven to be an issue. T. Moore said that air quality in general was an issue that the town could address.
R. Zukas offered that he was also concerned about air quality, but felt that there would be more impact from a bank ATM machine on a Saturday morning than this pharmacy drive-up would have.
There was a discussion about how the pharmacy drive-up worked and who it benefited.
R. Zukas asked if the CVS would be 24-hour.
J. Viarengo replied that they didn’t know that yet.
M. Curran reminded that hours of operation should be noted on the plan.
R. Zukas added that if it were determined at a later date that they would be 24-hour, they would need to come back to the Board.
M. Curran asked if Shaw’s would be 24-hour.
L. Komornick noted that Shaw’s had tried that before without success.
Carl Gleed, 7 Wentworth Ave, asked about noise that would be generated by the tractor-trailer trucks idling while using the loading area.
J. Viarengo explained that she had spoken with the people at Shaw’s and they informed her that they didn’t use the refrigerator trucks to store product like had been done in the past. She added that trucks are not supposed to idle more then 15-minutes.
M. Curran asked if that were true for the holiday season as well.
J. Viarengo replied that the smaller stores were doing that but this store would be a larger one and would not need to do that.
C. Gleed recalled that the previous residential owner of a residential property had to erect a fence to mitigate the noise from the trucks at the loading area. Noting the larger store and that it was right across from his home, Mr. Gleed asked what was being done so that he wouldn’t hear the trucks. He added that he already heard the trucks at the bus company and although the trucks are not supposed to be left to idle they frequently were.
J. Viarengo explained that the intent was to address those concerns right up front by adding new four-season vegetation to the existing screening. She added that the trucks would be scheduled during the day to lessen the impact. Ms. Viarengo offered they could look into a small wall to also offer some relief.
C. Gleed noted that he was just asking that the noise issue be addressed.
Francis Frangedakis, 13 Wentworth Ave, asked how late the Shaw’s would be open.
J. Viarengo replied that the typical Shaw’s was open until 11:00 p.m.
F. Frangedakis asked if there would be deliveries that late at night.
J. Viarengo offered that she didn’t have the delivery schedule with her but she would look into addressing the concerns with late date/night deliveries with the Shaw’s people.
F. Frangedakis suggested the loading area be relocated to face the cemetery.
R. Zukas responded that would mean bringing the stock through almost the whole length of the store.
F. Frangedakis added that he felt it would be difficult to resolve the drainage problems.
M. Curran offered that the Board’s engineers would be looking at the plans from the applicant to determine that they have properly addressed the drainage. She added that should it be found in the future that there is an increase in the runoff the issue can be addressed at that time.
F. Frangedakis asked where the water would now be directed.
J. Viarengo replied that it would be going the same place as before, but that it would now be controlled. She added the whole intent would be to install a workable system.
T. Moore offered that was all that the Board could do for this meeting.
J. Viarengo noted they would come back with a lot consolidation plan and proper abutter notification for the May 17 meeting.
The chairman called for a break at 8:24 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:30 p.m.
Discussion with Arthur Caras and Eric Tetler re: Process Engineering Site
Arthur Cara and Eric Tetler, Windfield Alloy, Inc. were present for the discussion.
E. Tetler explained that they were at this meeting to seek affirmation from the Board to allow them to bring their business to Plaistow in a portion of the former Process Engineering site at 144 Main Street. He added that they felt their use would be in accordance with current zoning.
M. Curran offered that she disagreed that the business fell within zoning as the Town had just recently removed recycling as a use in the Industrial District.
E. Tetler responded that, while some of their operations at other locations involved recycling, the division they wanted to bring to Plaistow was a light manufacturing and storage warehouse function.
There was a review of the site walk that had been attended by M. Dorman, L. Komornick, M. Curran and R. Zukas. The Board looked at pictures R. Zukas had brought on a laptop computer.
E. Tetler offered the following information regarding the business they sought to locate in Plaistow:
-They intended to occupy 80,000-90,000 sq ft of the 180,000 sq ft building (a floor plan of the operation was provided to the Board).
-The division would involve asset management of electronics and metals that would be warehoused at the site until distributed to consumers. It was noted that often these would be the same consumers who provided the initial products that were refurbish or reallocate.
-Materials are brought by truck, commonly 24-foot box trucks or 48/53-foot tractor trailer trucks, typically twelve runs per day. 80% of the trucks were their own; the other trucks were common carrier
-Hours of operation were 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, with a rare Saturday depending on how business was going.
-The business would initially employ 12-15 people, with the potential to employee 30 people in the future.
-All operations would be inside the building; the only thing outside would be a legally registered trailer.
There was brief discussion as to whether or not a variance for this use would be required.
L. Komornick read the definition of light industry from the Plaistow Zoning Ordinances. It was suggested that the business as described would fit the definition.
R. Zukas noted that everything was completely inside the building. He offered that, when they approached the building where the operation was, there was no noise, once inside they could hear a fork-lift truck moving about the building. He added that he didn’t think the operation would make as much noise as the former Chart Industries business. R. Zukas offered that he didn’t see any trash or debris on the site.
There was a discussion as to which division, of the three that were observed on the site walk, was more like what was intended for Plaistow.
E. Tetler explained that 80% would be inventory warehoused and remarketed; noting the major volume of their product was brand new equipment.
M. Curran offered that she was neither for nor against the operation and she wasn’t saying whether she agreed or disagreed that it was a good use for the site. She added that for her the bringing in, stripping and sorting of the parts of items brought in, and storing them reminded her more of a transfer station and more like a recycling process.
E. Tetler said that they considered what they do to be de-manufacturing and remarking, nothing was going to scrap, the electronics were being stored and warehouse. He added there would be no handling of hazardous materials.
A Caras offered that they would be investing in the property, improving it and renting the portion they would not be using. He said that he felt that it would make it more attractive and desirable property and more beneficial to the Town. Mr. Caras added they were sympathetic to concerns about outside storage and impact to wetlands.
M. Curran said she felt the building was perfect for the use but she felt that more was needed to be known about the business. She added that she felt that it fell close enough to recycling that a variance would be warranted.
T. Moore offered that he didn’t think anyone would be hurt by a variance.
A. Caras offered they were opposed to having to make a variance application as they felt the use was permitted under current zoning and they feared it would complicate things for potential tenants.
T. Moore noted that whether or not this business would require some action by the ZBA would not insure that future business uses would not require additional ZBA action.
E. Tetler suggested that the Town’s past experiences with this property was interfering with a good opportunity.
There was continued discussion and debate as to whether or not this business fit into the recycling category and would require a variance. There was also discussion as to their permits and whether or not federal permitting would take control out of the hands of the Town. Concern was expressed that once the company got into Plaistow with one use they would then expand to include recycling. The owners noted that they lived within a half hour of the Town and living that close they wouldn’t try to do anything that the Town was against. They added it would be cost prohibitive and cumbersome to relocate the recycling portion of the business to Plaistow.
There was additional discussion of the use.
T. Moore suggested that a letter be provided to the Board to be reviewed at the next meeting. He asked that the letter define the full scope of the business and define the use. T. Moore said the Board would then review the letter and determine whether or not a variance or other ZBA action would be necessary. He reiterated that whether or not this business needed a variance would not preclude other tenant uses from needing a variance.
E. Tetler stressed that it was important that the Board understood and used the proper terminology.
T. Moored offered that could be outlined in their letter. He said the Board would give careful consideration to what was included in the letter.
M. Dorman noted that should the Board determine that a variance was needed and if the owners disagreed, they could appeal the Board’s administrative decision to the ZBA as well.
M. Curran added that just because the Board sends them to the ZBA doesn’t mean that they couldn’t send a letter of support to that board. She offered that she felt it was her responsibility to play “devil’s advocate” on behalf of the residents. M. Curran reiterated that she wasn’t saying that it was a bad use just that it was not completely inline with current zoning.
M. Dorman offered that the business provide the Board with a site plan that clearly notes the intended uses of the property which would then lock them in to those uses. He added the Board could then decide whether or not it was within zoning and whether or not a variance would be needed.
T. Moore reiterated that he would like to see a letter that defined the scope of the business and would allow them to determine whether or not a variance or other action would be necessary.
Minutes of the April 5, 2006 meeting
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0.
Other Business – A & L Machine, 1 Red Oak Drive
T. Moore read a letter from A & L Machine, LLC, which indicated intent to locate a small machine shop at the commercial condos at 1 Red Oak Drive.
L. Komornick noted that the site plan called for contractor business and small storage facilities.
There was discussion of the proposed manufacturing use and the impact it would have on other businesses. It was decided that the condominium documents needed to be reviewed to see if this was allowable and what kind of notification would be required and/or if variance would be required.
Other Business – Request by Wal-Mart to Hold a One Time Antique Car Show Event
L. Komornick explained that she had been contacted by Wal-Mart to hold an antique car show in the parking lot as a one-time event. She noted that they still had not received a minor site plan review for the garden center.
M. Curran offered that the site was just too congested for such an event.
T. Moore said that he didn’t think he would be in favor of a minor site plan review for this to be annual, but that he could look at a plan for a one-time event.
There was a discussion of the activity on the site and what would be involved in an antique car show. It was noted that most of these events do not involve just a few cars, but there are vendors as well. It was offered that most people don’t just come and go to these events; they park and spend the day, which would add to the congestion of the site.
T. Moore asked L. Komornick to write Wal-Mart a letter requesting a letter from them that outlined the scope of the event, including provisions for additional parking, vendors and crowd control as well as the days and hours of the event. He added that, in fairness, he would like Wal-Mart to be told that the consensus of the Board was that this was not a good site for such an event, with an explanation as to why.
Other Business – Review of letter to NHDOT Re: Ron Brown’s Subdivision Amendment and 207 Main Street Site Plan
L. Komornick offered a draft letter for Board review regarding the Ron Brown subdivision amendment and the site plan for 207 Main Street.
The Board reviewed the letter and T. Moore signed it.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 9:43 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
