Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
October 4, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice-Chairman; and Steve Ranlett were present. Barry Weymouth and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were excused
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of September 20, 2006 Site Walk and September 20, 2006 Planning Board Meeting
« R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2006, site walk. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 1-0-2 (Zukas and Ranlett abstaining).
« R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett to approve the minutes of the September 20, 2006, Planning Board meeting. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 1-0-2 (Zukas and Ranlett abstaining).
Other Business – Baron’s Request for Tent Sale
Evan Gilfoyle was present to represent Baron’s.
T. Moore read a letter from Baron’s Major Appliances at 12 Plaistow Road. The letter requested authorization for a tent sale at that location.
T. Moore said that he didn’t see any issues with the request and asked if there would be a police detail.
E. Gilfoyle said that he was not aware of any plans for a police detail.
There was discussion regarding the need for a police detail. Noting the holiday weekend and the busy nature of Route 125 on the weekends the consensus of the Board was that there was no problem with the event provided there was police detail for the hours of the three-day tent sale. It was also noted that should this become an annual event then a minor site plan review would be called for.
Other Business – Request for Paving at Great Elm Plaza
Tim Barry was present to represent Great Elm Plaza. He explained that they would like to put asphalt down on an area that was currently block pavers. Mr. Barry offered that at the time the original site plan was done the maximum lot coverage was 50%, therefore the lot was done with the pervious pavers. He added that the maintenance of the lot was difficult with these pavers and they would like to asphalt the lot, which would bring the lot coverage to 71.6%, which is below the current 75% lot coverage.
L. Komornick asked if the drainage would be impacted.
T. Barry noted that the lot would still drain into an existing catch basin at the entrance to the property. He said that there should be less issues then current, noting that the settling of the pavers had caused puddling issues. Mr. Barry added that he could provide calculations that the catch basin is adequate.
There was a discussion regarding the proposed Route 125 improvements along this part of the road.
« R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett to approve the request to pave the parking area at The Great Elm Plaza that is currently covered with pavers. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Workshop on MasterPlan and Zoning and Regulation Amendments
T. Moore explained that there wasn’t much support for elderly housing noted in the MasterPlan. He noted the addition of a line to the Vision Statement to read:
Residential growth must include housing opportunities for elderly and handicapped residents at all levels of affordability.
T. Moore suggested a time line for continued review of proposed changes and public hearing for the changes in sufficient time for March Town Meeting.
The Board read through a proposed Elderly Housing Overlay District ordinance, which would completely replace the Affordable Elderly Housing Community ordinance (copy attached to these minutes).
T. Moore opened the discussion on the proposed changes.
Terry Trudel, SE Cummings and Associates, asked about the overall process for acceptance of any changes.
T. Moore noted that this meeting was a workshop and that the public hearing would most likely be in November. He added that if comment at that public hearing was significant enough to indicate that changes in the proposed ordinance was in order there would need to be an additional public hearing.
There was additional discussion of the procedure for posting of changes.
T. Trudel noted that the proposal was for 1 and 2 bedroom units in combination, but not a specific amount of each.
T. Moore replied that the proposal was that there will not be more than 80% of either type.
T. Trudel suggested that basing the density on the septic design could make designing these communities difficult.
T. Moore explained that developers should know that there will not be any more units than what could be allowed under a New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) septic plan, but that there would be circumstances when the density could be less based upon other variables.
Jerry Coogan, Fairway Oaks, asked if plans should be submitted as “site plans” or “subdivision plans.” He asked if common land areas would be held on common ownership.
There was discussion on the difference and which an Elder Housing Community would be. It was noted that it would be a subdivision plan and common lands would be equally owned be all property owners.
J. Coogan noted that there was no percentage of affordable defined in the proposed ordinance.
It was consensus that some minimum number of affordable units should be defined. It was noted that the current ordinance called for all units to be affordable, this ordinance does not.
S. Ranlett suggested that all units should be affordable.
R. Zukas noted that there was a market need shown for some upscale elder units as well.
There was discussion of affordable versus upscale types of elder units and the need or desire for both. The market for upscale and the need for affordable units was discussed as well. It was noted that there is a need for affordable that indicates that building completely upscale communities would not be appropriate for Plaistow.
There was discussion regarding how proposed bonus densities would be calculated as part of the proposed ordinance. It was again noted that bonus densities could still not exceed septic loading as per NHDES requirements.
Ron Brown, Brown Hill Estates, questioned the need or capping the size of any unit. He noted that if affordability was based on a person’s income, not on the size of the unit why should the size of the unit matter or be restricted. R. Brown added that someone could potentially get more housing for the same money.
T. Moore noted that it could mean a higher tax assessment, but acknowledged the point that Mr. Brown was making.
S. Ranlett offered that the changes were going to be beyond the reach of many of the elderly. He said he didn’t want to cater to those looking for upscale communities.
T. Moore noted that there appeared to be a market for upscale units, but he didn’t want to see the less affluent to be excluded.
There was discussion on the need for a balance of upscale and affordable and the market for each type of housing.
L. Komornick suggested that larger sized units could potentially encourage more children, which was not the intent of this community.
R. Zukas noted that the number of bedrooms, more than the size of the units, would limit the number of children living in the dwelling. He noted that it had been demonstrated that there was a market for upscale units for those who were downsizing from regular single-family living but still wanted to maintain a certain level of style.
There was discussion of other communities that were built as strictly one and two bedroom units where additional bedrooms had been added by unit owners.
S. Ranlett suggested there should be a cap on the size of the units. He added that there was no way to write a perfect ordinance that would make everyone happy, offering that some would like parts and others won’t.
T. Moore noted that the point that was being made was to allow the market to decide the kind of housing to be built.
R. Zukas offered that the market went up and down too frequently and there should be something in place to keep the units from becoming enormous.
S. Ranlett suggested that it should be the market that determined how the Town wrote its ordinances. He added there should be a happy medium between upscale and more expensive and the affordable.
R. Brown noted that he understood the objective to be to bring 55+ housing to town.
S. Ranlett replied he still didn’t think that the market should influence how the ordinances are written.
R. Brown added that the market would always influence what is actually built.
R. Zukas asked where the number for the size of the units came from.
T. Moore replied that it came from reviewing ordinances from other towns and taking an average.
There was discussion regarding some of the ordinances from other towns.
R. Brown suggested that the more rental units were required that it would probably translate to an increase in children in the schools, as renters were more likely to have children.
T. Moore noted that while that may be a by-product the ordinance, the intent of the ordinance was for 55+ housing.
R. Zukas reiterated that the number of bedrooms would limit the number of children, plus the nature of the community itself would be less appealing to people with children.
R. Brown repeated that it makes it a different type of development.
T. Moore noted that by the ordinance the primary occupant had to be 55+ years old. He added that there was no way to exclude children from these developments. T. Moore also noted the need for rentals units and suggested that at a later date there may be something proposed to preserve rental units.
S. Ranlett added that the number of bedrooms would definitely limit the number of children, particularly when the children are of different genders and cannot be in the same bedrooms. He did acknowledge that there would be those who might try and occupy the buildings illegally, but that would be a minority and difficult to police.
There was additional discussion of the unit size restriction.
L. Komornick offered to do a table of the unit sizes noted in other town’s ordinances.
There was discussion as to which towns should be surveyed. It was suggested that they be as close to Plaistow for population and size (land) as possible.
There was discussion as to how the affordable units would be sold and whether or not a lottery system could be used or if that was exclusive to HUD (Housing and Urban Development) funded projects. It was determined that issue would require more research.
There was additional discussion as to whether or not all the units could be owned or if there had to be some minimum of rental units. It was determined that there needed to be more thought on that issue as well.
Review of Updated 2007-2011 CIP Spreadsheet
T. Moore noted the 2007-2011 CIP spreadsheet in the member’s folders. He suggested that all members review the document and be prepared for a public hearing to approve the same
The Board also reviewed and commented on the proposed 2007 Planning Board budget.
Town Center/Village District
T. Moore said that he had reviewed a number of samples of ordinances for Town Center and Village Districts and couldn’t find anything that applied to Plaistow. He noted the main concern that people had was to allow mixed-uses in the center of the town and he couldn’t see the need to create a whole overlay to accomplish that when it could be done as an amendment to the CII (Commercial II) district requirements. T. Moore added that what really needed to be determined if the mixed-uses were to be restricted to the area surrounding Town Hall or if it should extend the whole district.
R. Zukas suggested that it be confined to a specific smaller area, which could always be expanded later if needed.
T. Moore offered to try and craft language for the change for a future meeting.
T. Moore said that there needed to be changes made to the Waterline Impact Fee ordinance. He noted that impact fee ordinances were required to be based upon growth and this ordinance was not. T. Moore suggested that there be something included in site plan regulations that would require either new developers or those making significant changes to an existing site be required to extend and connect to the waterline.
Other Business – ZBA Results
It was noted that relief had been granted from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for 86 Main Street, to allow a combined residential and commercial use; and special exception and variance for 5 Chadwick were granted to permit the expansion of Seacoast Tent.
Other Business – Most Current Timeline for Route 125 Projects
The Board reviewed a chart that updated the timeline for proposed improvements to the Route 125 corridor. It was also noted that the changes to Old County Road, scheduled for 2006-07 included improvements all the way to Walton Road.
Other Business – Galloway Driveway Permit Application
A letter from Town Manager Jason Hoch to Alan Garland of New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) District VI was read. The letter noted that no easements or rights-of-way over Town property had been granted to Andy Galloway for properties located on Route 121A.
Other Business – Telly’s Bond Posting Amount
T. Moore read a memo from CLD (Board’s engineers) recommending a bond amount for the project at 113 Plaistow Road.
« S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to set the required amount of the bond for the project at 113 Plaistow Road at $349,431.61 as recommended by CLD. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 U/A.
Other Business – Request for One-Time Outdoor Sales Event for Dover Saddlery
T. Moore read a letter from Dover Saddlery requesting a one-time tent sale event at the location on Route 121.
There was discussion regarding the parking and location of the tents. The consensus of the Board was that it was okay for the event to run as proposed in the letter.
Other Business – FYIs
It was noted there was a letter from L. Komornick to the bank who issued the letter of credit for the Rockingham Church bond. The letter requests a one-year extension of the bond.
A letter from Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC), noting a decease in dues, was included in the member’s packets.
T. Moore requested that a letter be sent to the Board of Selectmen in support of renewing the Town’s membership with RPC.
« R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
