Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
September 6, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice Chairman; Barry Weymouth and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. It was noted that Steven Ranlett had called and left word he would not be available.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Continuation of a Preliminary Design Review Application on proposed twelve unit commercial contractor buildings totaling 24,000 square feet on 7+/- acres, 800 =/- feet of frontage. The property is located in the Industrial zone at 27 Westville Road, Tax Map 40, Lot 9. The owners of record are Richard and Norman Dickey.
Mike Garrepy, Westville Realty Investment, LLC, was present for the discussion.
There was discussion regarding a date for a site walk. It was determined that it would be on September 20, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
M. Garrepy explained the conceptual proposal for a twelve-unit commercial/industrial site to be located at 27 Westville Road. He outlined the property features and boundaries, noting that part of the parcel was located in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district and could be subdivided to a residential lot. Mr. Garrepy explained that there was only one lot of record at the Registry of Deeds (Registry), but that the town maps showed two lots. He added that as part of the plan they may decide to subdivide the lots to match the town maps. He noted the wetlands delineation done by a soils scientist. M. Garrepy said that he didn’t think they would need any variance relief but might need some waivers. He offered that the buildings would be contractor’s offices with storage and warehousing, which
he said would not be a high traffic generator. M. Garrepy added that it would be a single access point on Westville Road and that there had been traffic assessments done and they would be submitted with the application.
There was discussion regarding the sight distance and traffic generation of the proposed site. It was noted that there would be two buildings and the traffic circulation around them was discussed as was the location of the parking.
M. Garrepy noted that they would have full landscaping plans and other drawings to submit for the final application. He added that there would be adequate buffer provided for transition from the industrial to the residential district.
T. Moore reminded, noting the explanation of the discrepancy between the records at the Registry and the town’s maps, that a lot could not be created that didn’t meet zoning or was non-buildable.
M. Garrepy explained there was already a house on that section of the lot, which would be +/- 7 acres with frontage.
L. Komornick noted that they would need to see a subdivision plan as part of the application.
M. Garrepy said there would be a recordable copy as part of the plan set.
M. Curran requested that Dennis Marcotte (Board Alternate) be notified of the pending site walk to provide input on truck turns and circulation.
There was discussion regarding some of the features of the site and where the boundaries are. There was also discussion on the traffic report that would be from Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VAI).
B. Weymouth suggested that having another curb cut and an awareness of the business would cause people to slow down.
M. Garrepy offered that there were discussions with the traffic consultants regarding appropriate signage.
There were additional discussions regarding the proposed site, including septic and well locations and test pits as well as location of the buildings.
M. Garrepy reminded that the design presented was conceptual and there could be changes once final engineering, traffic reports and other factors were considered.
There was additional discussion regarding the traffic potential on Westville Road and sight distance issues. Specific site distances were discussed from each direction and it was noted that they would be pointed out on the roads at the site walk. It was also noted that typical truck templates were used as part of the design for the access to and from the site and the plan was being reviewed by VAI.
L. Komornick offered to notify Dan Garlington (Highway Supervisor) of the site walk.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters with questions or concerns to express.
Claire Boucher, 12 Whitton Place asked questions about the access to the site and whether or not there would be restrictions from any direction on Westville Road.
There was discussion regarding the traffic on Westville Road. It was noted that no restrictions were planned for Westville Road regarding truck or traffic access to this proposed site.
C. Boucher expressed concern with putting additional traffic on Westville Road, noting that the existing road was very narrow and traffic was pretty heavy. She added that those traveling Westville Road now used excessive speeds and didn’t think that additional signage would resolve the problem.
There was discussion regarding traffic issues on Westville Road and the age of most of the drivers involved in accidents. It was noted that more attention needed to be drawn to the existing conditions and any proposed changes. It was suggested that visibility of any new buildings would be important signals to oncoming traffic. It was added that CLD would be doing the peer review for the traffic study on this plan.
R. Zukas agreed that there were traffic issues on Westville Road adding that the types of businesses that were located on the site would impact the traffic on Westville Road at different times during the day and that it was important to look at that.
L. Komornick offered that this site would be similar to the one at Red Oak where it was mostly contractor and not customer or retail intensive.
R. Zukas added that it would be key that this site not be customer based.
M. Garrepy replied that the traffic study was based on contractor use, not customer. He reminded that the Board would have the opportunity to review any proposed use changes.
There was additional discussion regarding the traffic study. It was noted that there would be a peer review by the Board’s engineers. Other local businesses and uses on Westville Road were noted and potential impacts discussed. It was noted that VAI should be well up to speed on the traffic in the area, having done work for the Town regarding Garden Road.
L. Komornick noted that she had responded to VAI regarding questions they had about projects in the area.
T. Moore closed the Preliminary Design Review hearing, noting that a site plan should be submitted for the final approval. He added that the site walk would be posted for September 20, 2006, at 6:00 p.m.
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan Application by Duane Skofield for a 5,280 sq. ft. 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)
T. Moore noted that a written request for a continuance had been received in this matter and it was continued to September 20, 2006.
Approval of Minutes
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Weymouth abstaining).
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the August 30, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Weymouth abstaining).
Discussion with Industrial Tower and Wireless (James George and Donald Cody) Regarding Proposed Cell Tower in Plaistow
There was no representation for this discussion.
Other Business – Letter from Greenfield Estates Homeowners Association
T. Moore read a letter from the Greenfield Estates Home Owners Association regarding recent discussions of changes to the Brown Hill Estates site plan.
Other Business – Bond Reduction Request from Ethan Allen
A letter requesting a bond reduction for the project at 24-26 Plaistow Road was read as was a recommendation from Underwood Engineers, Inc. (UEI).
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to release all but $5,000 (to be held for final record drawings) of the bond being held for Ethan Allen.
There was discussion as to what was not completed on the site and whether or not the $5,000 would be sufficient. It was reminded that there was still an addition to be completed on the original Ethan Allen building, which could have some impact on the site. It was also noted that some monies should be reserved to insure that the landscaping survives the winter.
M. Dorman suggested that record drawings would not be necessary until the completion of the addition to the existing building.
 M. Curran amended her motion, second by R. Zukas, to release all but $40,000 of the bond being held for Ethan Allen, the remaining balance to be held for record drawings, insuring the survival of the landscaping through the winter and any potential damage to the site as a result of the completion of the addition. There was no discussion on the amended motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Letter of Request by Beckwood Service, Inc, for a Benefit Yard Sale
A letter from Beckwood Services, 27 Hale Spring Road, was read. It requested permission for a benefit yard sale on September 9.
M. Curran noted that she had spoken with someone from Beckwood and this was not intended to be an annual event.
The consensus of the Board was that it would be okay for the event to take place.
Other Business – Letter from Howard and Elizabeth George
T. Moore noted a letter from Howard and Elizabeth George regarding the proposed elderly housing plan on Chandler Avenue. He added that it would be read at the public hearing on that matter as would the memos from M. Dorman and the Zoning Board of Adjustment on the same subject.
Other Business
Upcoming training opportunities and seminars where noted and discussed.
Planning Board Workshop on Zoning Amendments
The Board discussed the possibility of making changes to the Affordable Elderly Housing Community Ordinance. It was noted that the MasterPlan would need to be reviewed along with any proposed changes to Zoning. There was discussion on the potential to categorize and make provision for Affordable Elderly Housing, Elderly Housing (age, but not income restricted) and Handicapped Accessible housing. It was also noted that statistical analysis would be needed to assess the needs in each category and the numbers in the MasterPlan would need to reflect any changes since the last update.
Different scenarios were discussed including requiring a percentage of affordable units be included with each elderly housing plan submitted and restrictions and covenants in deeds to ensure that the sites would remain age restricted. Definitions of affordability would have to be created and acceptable modes of funding (HUD or private) would be determined. There would also need to be decisions as to how densities would be calculated and whether or not bonuses for providing elderly housing would be permitted.
T. Moore discussed a number of examples from other communities. It was noted that other members of the Board had not yet received copies of the ordinances from the other towns and he would make sure that they got them for the next discussion.
There was additional discussion regarding layout and density of elderly housing and whether or not it could be modeled after the Town’s Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance with the potential for density bonuses.
The size of dwelling units was discussed. It was noted that the current maximum of 800 sq. ft. was probably insufficient. There was discussion as to whether or not to set a maximum or to let the market determine what is desired. Some members expressed concern that not imposing a maximum square footage would end with buildings that were too big. There was agreement that the current limitations were too small for what most were looking for. It was suggested that most people who would be looking for this type of housing would be those seeking to downsizing rather than looking for their first primary housing. It was agreed that three-bedroom dwellings would be inappropriate in this kind of housing.
There was discussion regarding when and if units should be made handicapped accessible and what should be included in any ordinance changes. The proposed development on Chandler Avenue was used as an example and a point of discussion. Whether or not including or requiring elevators in two-story and higher buildings was discussed as was the posting of emergency escape routes in multi-unit buildings.
Whether or not and when children would be allowed in this type of housing was discussed. It was suggested that there would be peer pressure that would naturally restrict children from the developments as well as age covenants in the deeds. It was noted that most of these communities would not be attractive for people with young children. It was also noted that according to the Board’s Attorney it would be illegal to prohibit children
Parking, number of spaces per unit as well as guest parking and handicapped parking, was discussed. Laundry facilities, centrally located as opposed to in unit facilities, were talked about as well.
C. Boucher expressed concerns about some of the discussion regarding the elderly housing. She noted that some of the proposed changes were sounding like “snob zoning” and would eliminate a lot of elderly from gaining housing. Ms. Boucher cautioned that it could be seen as discriminatory in nature.
T. Moore responded that certain housing couldn’t be disallowed but there could be limits placed on the number of units built.
C. Boucher suggested that there also needed to be discussions on how to bring about more housing opportunities for the “working poor.”
T. Moore noted there was nothing currently in the ordinances that prevented it, but it didn’t seem to be cost effective to build low-income housing and that was probably what was preventing it at this time.
There was a brief discussion of the rental market and what could and could not be restricted. There was also brief discussion regarding whether or not modular construction and trailer parks are allowed.
The Board had a discussion regarding the time table for addressing zoning changes and the priority for what changes should be discussed. There was discussion as to whether or not it was wise to discuss more than one major change at a time and where the focus should be. Some members felt that making changes to the Elderly Housing was a more pressing issue and others expressed disappointment that the Village District might be put off another year. It was thought that there had already been substantial research done for the Village District and therefore it should proceed.
There was discussion as to when to make the presentation to the Board of Selectmen regarding the Build Out Analysis. There was also discussion as to how to best proceed to get input regarding the Village District and what changes people would like to see.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
