Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
August 2, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice Chairman; Barry Weymouth; Dennis Marcotte, Alternate and Michelle Curran (arrived 6:40 p.m.), Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Steven Ranlett was excused.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
 T. Moore appointed D. Marcotte as a voting member in place of S. Ranlett.
The Minutes were deferred to later in the meeting.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment and an Amendment to 5 lots of a 15-Lot residential subdivision approved by the Planning Board on August 20, 2003, 64 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 62, Lots 40, 41-1, 41-2, 41-3, 41-15 by Ronald Brown. The owner(s) of record is Ron Brown Investments, LLC.
Terry Trudel, SEC Associates; Ron Brown, Property owner, and Thomas MacMillan, attorney for R. Brown were present for the discussion.
T. Moore noted that the amended driveway permit for the project had been received.
T. Trudel explained that he had been in contact with New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) regarding the amended site specific permit, which he reported to be in the review process and he expected the permit within two weeks. He reminded that they did have a waiver request (§235.32.C(4) pending regarding the slope of the road transition.
T. Moore offered that the waiver could be addressed, reminding that there had been a report received from Underwood Engineering, Inc (UEI) in support of the waiver request.
 R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to grant the request for a waiver of §235.32C(4) (road transition slope). There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the last item to be resolved was a proposed agreement between the Greenfield Estates Homeowners Association (GEHA) and Mr. Brown regarding issues of commercial traffic and use of Greenfield Drive.
T. MacMillan offered that he felt there was some confusion as their position had not changed since the last meeting; they were not willing to commit to any additional conditions from the original approval as they felt it would not be preserving their rights.
M. Curran arrived at 6:40 p.m.
T. MacMillan continued that he felt many of the issues outlined in the agreement would be dealt with as part of the amended site specific plan with the NHDES and it would be redundant and unnecessary to include them as conditions of an approval.
T. Moore noted that he composed the agreement in an effort to move the project along. He expressed disappointmnet that despite the Board’s request at the last meeting that the two parties had not gotten together and come to some kind of understanding that it had not been done.
R. Zukas asked if Attorney MacMillan had drafted something on his own.
T. MacMillan said that he had not as it would look like “this”, holding up a blank page of his notepad. He reiterated that they were not willing to consent to the conditions being proposed by GEHA or expressed in the proposed agreement. Attorney MacMillan offered that signs were not included in the original subdivision plan approval and he didn’t see the need for it to be part of this approval. He noted that the barriers being required didn’t make sense as it was not even practical that construction vehicles go out of their way to use Greenfield Drive.
S. Somers offered that the issues of the GEHA were discussed as part of the original approval process. She added that some minutes noted not restricting truck traffic on Greenfield Drive as an oversight at the time. Attorney Somers suggested that the conditions outlined in the agreement were reasonable and protected the residents of GEHA as well as the Town’s roads, which were scheduled to be paved this summer.
There was continued discussion, each side restating their position. Attorney Somers requested the stated protections for GEHA; she suggested that instead of the boulders a gate could be installed, at Mr. Brown’s expense, and a key given to a town official who could be contacted when the gate needed to be opened. Attorney MacMillan offered that his client was not willing to commit to anything beyond what were the original subdivision approval conditions and what was required to clear the Cease and Desist Order of NHDES.
R. Zukas asked if the proposed agreement had been drafted with the Board, noting that he had missed a couple of previous meetings.
S. Somes answered that she believed it was modeled after some correspondence she had sent to the Board.
R. Zukas offered that he was not comfortable with many o f the listed items. He said a gate was unnecessary since the boulder were already in place. He added that putting the key with a town official was not appropriate. R. Zukas noted that paving the cul-de-sac was part of the original plan.
M. Curran noted the paving discussion was essentially resolved in that the Town would pave to a certain point and Mr. Brown would match that point.
R. Brown explained that the only time they used Greenfield Drive was for the logging. He noted that he had given GEHA everything they asked for as part of the original approval and that he felt they were taking advantage of this opportunity to get additional considerations from him. Mr. Brown reminded that Greenfield Drive was a public road and as such he had as much right to use it as any other person, but he was not using it, it was impractical for him to do so. He noted it had already cost him a great deal of money negotiating with GEHA and it would be unfair to ask him to continue to do so. Mr. Brown added that the conditions imposed by NHDES had nothing to do with GEHA and all he wanted to do was get on with his project. He added that he had no objections to GEHA putting up signs, he didn’t want to be
asked to pay for them since he was not and did not even want to use that (Greenfield Drive) road. Mr. Brown said he didn’t want to be excluded from using the public road if the need arose but that he could not see any reason to use the road on a continuing daily basis.
T. MacMillan reminded that this was not a plan for a brand new subdivision but for the relocation of a driveway for an already approved one, and that driveway was being relocated to please abutters.
M. Curran reminded that when an applicant comes in with an amendment to a plan it opens that entire plan up for Board consideration.
T. MacMillan suggested that the Board could not pander to one single group.
M. Curran offered that had the property been developed as approved Mr. Brown would not be in this situation.
T. MacMillan countered that his client had been back and forth for three years unable to build due to abutters who did not hold to original agreements.
M. Curran replied that was not the Board’s issue. She noted that she as a Board member was sympathetic to both sides of this discussion, suggesting that there needed to be give and take on both sides to move this project along.
S. Somers reiterated her client’s concern over truck traffic on Greenfield Drive. She reminded the Board that it was just as much their responsibility to protect the abutters as it was to approve a developers plan. Attorney Somers offered that she was still willing to discuss the situation with the applicant, but that she was getting the impression that they were unwilling to accept any conditions.
R. Zukas noted that he had reviewed the minutes as well and in all cases the concerns of the residents of GEHA were well discussed. He suggested that Mr. Brown had been true to his word and had not be running trucks on Greenfield Drive, since the logging, even when it was muddy and in difficult winter conditions. R. Zukas added that if Mr. Brown were not keeping the trucks off Greenfield Drive his phone would be ringing as it does when anything happens out there. He added that he wanted the neighbors to report when there is anything improper going on out there.
There was additional discussion of the use and the restriction of the use of Greenfield Drive. Representatives of GEHA reminding that their water system was located under the road, expressed concern over the safety of the neighborhood and for the wear and tear on the road itself. Representatives of Brown Hill Estates reminding that this was a town road and as such they should be allowed to use it if necessary, but pledging to only use it when there was no other option but to do so.
R. Zukas reminded there were already heavy trucks using the road listing oil trucks, landscaping vehicles and tankers that fill swimming pools. He noted that he would have more concern over an oil truck dumping product on the ground that could infiltrate the water system, then he would about the over-road traffic.
Steve Becht, 20 Ridgewood Road, reminded the Board that the water distribution system was under the road. He asked who would be responsible for fixing the water system if it were broken by this traffic.
M. Curran reminded that Greenfield Drive was once a private road that was heavily petitioned by the residents to become public. She added that, with all due respect, the residents assumed the risk of such damage when they petitioned the road to be accepted.
D. Marcotte questioned whether the road could even be legally blocked since it was a public way.
There was a discussion regarding the original approval of the plan and the placement of the boulders at the connection between Gunstock and Ridgewood Roads. It was noted that Gunstock is not yet a completed or public road and that was where the boulders were, they were not blocking access to any public. Mr. Brown again pledged to only use Greenfield Drive when there was no other option.
R. Brown asked if he agreed to post the two signs requested would all the other issues being requested as conditions go away.
M. Curran offered they would still have to note the conditions involved in the NHDES approval.
S. Somers suggested that it was important to include specific language regarding the signage and the road access. She added not to do so would be too vague to be enforceable.
R. Zukas reiterated that Mr. Brown was not promising to never use Greenfield Drive, but that he would refrain as much as possible from doing so.
R. Brown stated that he would not use Greenfield Drive unless absolutely necessary.
There was a discussion regarding listing of potential conditions of approval.
L. Komornick noted that she had reviewed the proposed list of conditions, including the agreement between GEHA and Mr. Brown, with Planning Board Counsel (Bruce Marshall) and there was no reason that the signing of the agreement couldn’t be included as a condition.
S. Somers reiterated that would be the recommendation of her clients.
T. MacMillan noted that Mr. Brown had stated over and over that he would voluntarily refrain from using the road and he had proven to be a man of his word thus far.
R. Brown asked M. Dorman how many calls had been received regarding trucks on Greenfield since the logging.
M. Dorman replied that there had been none.
L. Komornick noted that there had been calls regarding materials being removed from the site, which may have been in violation of the NHDES order.
M. Dorman added that when those calls came in NHDES was called and they didn’t come down to enforce their own order.
There was additional discussion regarding what conditions should be part of any approval.
T. Moore noted beyond signage what else could be done to exclude truck traffic on Greenfield. He noted that repairs to the road caused by the construction vehicles would be the responsibility of the applicant.
L. Komornick questioned the Board’s hesitation to include signing of the proposed agreement as a condition of approval.
T. Moore offered that he didn’t see how anyone could be prevented from using a town road.
It was noted there were no existing trucking restriction in place on Greenfield Drive at this time.
There was discussion of potential circumstances that would require the use of Greenfield Drive.
L. Komornick compared development of this project to Little River Village, which only has one access and therefore everything had to be done from that end. She questioned putting a community water system at risk.
R. Zukas offered that he had a problem with what precedent is set by denying access to a public road.
D. Marcotte questioned what would be considered an emergency situation.
M. Curran offered that putting in language regarding “emergency access only” left too much room for interpretation or put the Board in a position of now defining what an appropriate emergency situation would be. She suggested that R. Brown wasn’t going to abuse the situation since he knew it would only bring him back before the Board.
D. Marcotte noted that this was a temporary problem and that the project needed to be moved along.
Dennis Donavan, 39 Greenfield Drive, noted that all these same concerns were expressed to the Board as part of the initial plan review and GEHA asked that they be included as approval conditions at that time. He suggested that many of Mr. Brown’s issues over the past three years were self-inflicted and he questioned why he wasn’t willing to put clearing them as part of a condition of the approval.
T. Moore offered that reason that it couldn’t be included as a condition of the original approval was that it was learned that Ridgewood abutted directly to the property and since it was a public way access could not be denied.
D. Donovan questioned why Mr. Brown was unwilling to put into writing his pledge to limit use of Greenfield Drive.
D. Marcotte reiterated that it was a temporary situation. He reminded that it was the “beautiful people” of the neighborhood that petitioned to make the road public and now the Board needed to make a decision regarding this project moving on.
There was additional discussion as to when the boulders could/should be removed.
S. Somers asked that it was noted in the record that Mr. Brown had verbally pledged not to use Greenfield Drive unless needed and that the residents of Greenfield Drive were encouraged to contact the Board if they felt there was abuse.
 T. Moore moved, second my M. Curran, to approve the amended subdivision plan for 64 Sweet Hill Road with the following conditions:
- Receipt of an approved amended site specific plan from NHDES
- Receipt of an approved amended subdivision plan from the State of New Hampshire
- Installation of two signs to direct construction traffic onto Gunstock Road. One to be installed at Greenfield Drive and one to be installed at Gunstock Road.
There was no additional discussion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Preliminary Design Review application by Fairway Oaks, LLC who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 6 with a portion of Tax Map 65, Lot 2, and Tax Map 58, Lot 4 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 56 unit senior housing condominium complex. Access to this complex will be through the extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow and a roadway in Haverhill, MA. The total acreage is 23.1 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
Present for the discussion: Steve Dougherty, Nels Palm, Jerry Coogan, principals of Fairways Oaks, and project engineer Phil Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi.
T. Moore noted that this would be a workshop discussion regarding Elderly Housing. He introduced Planning Board Attorney Bruce Marshall.
J. Coogan distributed handout versions of the larger boards used for presentation purposes.
There was discussion regarding examples of how the subject property could be subdivided under current ordinances and regulations and how the applicant would like to see the property subdivided. It was noted that this property was being used as an example to open a discussion for potential changes to the Zoning Ordinances regarding Affordable Elderly Housing Communities (AEHC) A Planned Residential Development (PRD yielding eight single-family dwellings; an AEHC, yielding 108 one and two bedroom units (both using current regulations and ordinances); and a proposed 55+ single-family detached community, yielding 56 two-bedroom units (not compliant with current regulations and ordinances) were given as examples of what could be done with the existing property. A breakdown of the financial, impacts benefits and losses were presented and
suggestions given as to what the market was looking for regarding elder housing at both the 55+ and 62+ age levels. It was noted that Plaistow offers tax relief for elder residents and it was asked if those specific benefits had been taken into consideration when calculating financial benefits to the town. Questions were asked regarding services the town would have to provide and whether or not the road to such communities should be public. Examples of other communities the applicants were involved in were noted.
John Kelly, 8 Hillcrest Road, noted that his major concern was for increased traffic through his neighborhood.
Cliff Clark, 6 Hillcrest Road, echoed the traffic concerns and noted that the levels of arsenic had significantly risen in his water with other recent construction in the area. He questioned whether or not additional construction would make this situation worse.
M. Curran noted that much of the water in New Hampshire had high levels of arsenic.
C. Clark reiterated that the increases of the levels in his water were after the construction and he suspected the disturbance to the underground was the reason.
J. Kelly noted a number of issues with increasing the traffic on Hillcrest Road. He explained that the road wasn’t very wide now and to widen it would mean taking most of the front yards of the residents. He also offered concern regarding the wetlands. Mr. Kelly added that houses that sold for over $300,000 didn’t sound affordable.
T. Moore suggested that as part of the review of the ordinances that there would certainly be an affordability component. He explained that the examples that were given were not meant to be intimidating, noting that the applicants were asked to provide the Board with some examples and input to be used as part of a workshop discussion.
C. Clark asked that consideration be given to existing neighborhoods and the families with children who live there, when any changes are discussed.
M. Curran noted they were not specifically reviewing this plan at this time but they were looking at examples to help them decide what if any changes needed to be made to the ordinances. She added that it was important to gather as much information as possible to make decisions that are in the best interests of the Town. M. Curran added that these developers were asked to provide examples to allow the Board to access the impact of different kinds of development.
Sean Redferan, 6 Woodridge Road, added his concerns regarding increases in traffic to the discussion.
T. Moore noted that the public hearing for the preliminary design review for Fairway Oaks would be closed. He suggested that the applicant hold off on any additional plans to see what changes might be proposed to the AEHC ordinance.
There was a discussion regarding the process when changes are proposed to zoning ordinances, including the public hearing process.
It should be noted for the record that at 8:34 p.m. the Board adjourned the meeting and following met in the Planning Office with the Planning Board attorney regarding elderly housing.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
