Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
October 18, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice-Chairman; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:35 p.m.); and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Steve Ranlett was excused
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of October 4, 2006 Meeting
« M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the October 4, 2006, Planning Board meeting. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 2-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
Discussion with Bryan Pappas regarding use of a portion of the building at 95A Plaistow Road
Bryan Pappas and Peter Fregeau were present for the discussion.
B. Pappas explained that they would like to lease space at 95A Plaistow Road to bring a Planet Fitness to Plaistow and was seeking the Board’s permission to move forward with that plan.
The Board discussed what would be considerations for such proposal, including assurances there would be sufficient parking and that the septic is adequate for the use.
B. Pappas noted that the landlord was working with engineers to make upgrades to the septic and that they would initially be opening the facility as a “dry gym” until the septic upgrades are completed.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:36 p.m.
L. Komornick noted that the building was converted to condominium ownership in 1987 and the site plan and condo docs would need to be brought up to date with current requirements.
There was discussion regarding the truck traffic and parking on the site. It was noted that the Budget rental trucks were park of 95 Plaistow Road, not 95A Plaistow Road. It was further noted that there was ample parking on this location.
R. Zukas asked how much of the building would be used.
B. Pappas replied 12,000 sq. ft.
There was a discussion of the need for this type of facility with the closing of World Gym and that this location would offer the business opportunity for expansion should they do well.
There was discussion regarding potential traffic and how upgrades to Route 125 could effect this location.
M. Curran asked about signage.
B. Pappas noted they would be looking into signage.
There was discussion as to whether or not it was necessary that the revised site plan and condo docs be received before a certificate of occupancy (CO) permit was issued. It was suggested that holding the CO pending receipt of plan might be incentive to get other documentation submitted.
A Public Hearing on an Amended Site Plan Review Application for the expansion of an existing business located in the Commercial II/MDR zones at 5Chadwick Avenue, Tax Map 40, Lot 76. The project involves the construction of a 5,805 square foot addition to the south side of the existing building, additional parking spaces, and the relocation of existing utility pole and service. The property totaled 8.24 acres and had 30 feet of frontage. The owner of record is James D. Whitney/Sam Nominee Trust.
Daniel Blais, Project Manager with TF Moran, we present for the application. He explained the details of the proposed amended plan, noting the preexisting conditions and what improvements were proposed. Mr. Blais explained the discontinuation of Chadwick Ave by the Town, which created the lack of frontage for this property. He noted the following regarding the amended plan:
- All building set backs would be maintained
- There was no expansion of the business, just the structure, so there would be no increase in the traffic
It was noted that that majority of the business was repeat customer and institutional clients and that was not expected to change.
- Twenty-five spaces would be provided for parking
- There is no change in drainage as this addition would be built on the existing pavement replacing an impervious surface with another impervious surface
- The addition would be to move the tent and other equipment cleaning and drying operations, currently be done on the existing pavement, inside the building.
- A special exception to expand the use and a variance for the lack of frontage were both granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
There was a request for three waivers:
- Landscaping plan
The addition replaces existing pavement and there will be no change in the existing plantings or landscaping.
- Lighting plan
There would be a couple lights relocated from the current building to the addition, an additional light will be added, but there are no other structures that will be affected by the additional light as the lot is heavily treed.
- Identification of offsite well and septic
There will be no changes to the drainage that might affect offsite wells or septics; therefore there should be no impact.
There was a discussion as to where the new light was to be places. The location was shown on the plan. It was noted that the request was not to waive compliance with the lighting plan, but to waive the requirement for a full page (separate sheet) plan to be included in the amended plan set. It was noted that the lighting was included on other pages of the amended site plan.
M. Curran asked what the height of the addition would be.
D. Blais explained the structure and pointed out the features of the building on the plan. He noted it would match the existing roofline.
M. Curran asked if there would be additional plumbing.
D. Blais noted that the cleaning operation was done by hand-spraying and the cloth rags were sued to wipe them down. He noted that the cloths were taken off site for laundering.
R. Zukas inquired if the area would be storage only.
D. Blais replied that the cleaning would be done in the addition as well, adding there was no additional office space proposed.
R. Zukas noted the additional parking spaces and asked what spaces those would be replacing.
D. Blais answered that those spaces would be to replace the spaces that are currently where the addition is proposed to go.
There was discussion of the current operations, which involve the cleaning and drying of the tents on the pavement, and what benefits the addition would provide, which is to move the cleaning and drying functions inside. It was noted that putting the cleaning and drying inside would make the business less dependant on good weather conditions and be a better work environment for the employees.
R. Zukas asked where the snow storage would be.
D. Blais noted it was in the same location.
M. Curran questioned the location of the dumpster.
D. Blais replied that it was not located on either the existing or the amended plan.
M. Curran inquired if there would still be enough room for fire apparatus.
D. Blais noted that the new section of the building would be sprinkled, as the rest of the building was, and is tied into a hydrant.
M. Curran asked M. Dorman if he had any concerns with the plan.
M. Dorman replied that it was a good plan.
M. Curran asked if there was any kind of landscaping plan.
D. Blais noted the landscaping that was shown on the existing plan.
M. Dorman offered that there have not been any complaints from any abutters regarding this operation.
L. Komornick noted that the review of the checklist was done and returned to the applicant a little late, but she had confidence that all items would be added on to the final plan. She recommended conditional approval to include the checklist items.
« M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the amended site plan for 5 Chadwick Avenue as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A,
« R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approved the request for a waiver from §230-14C(c) (location of offsite wells and septics). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approved the request for a waiver from §230-23 (landscaping plan). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approved the request for a waiver from §230-22 (lighting plan). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the amended site plan for 5 Chadwick Avenue with the following condition:
- Completion and inclusion of the noted items on the checklist on the final plan submission
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Review of Proposed Master Plan, Zoning and Regulation Amendments for posting on November 1st
L. Komornick explained that she had included a number of additional definitions (Article II of Chapter 220) based upon discussions with previous applicants and the lack of certain definitions.
L. Komornick noted a list of items (attached) that she and M. Dorman had been compiling over the past year. The list was generated by discussion over the year that identified items that should be discussed for review and potential zoning change. The list was discussed and items determined that would require additional verbiage for posting and which would did not need changing. Many items were noted to be housekeeping items.
The item that was most discussed was the proposed change of the zoning district lines to follow along property lines instead of distance from the center line of the main road through the district. The zones that were proposed for discussion were the CI and CII districts. It was noted that careful consideration and input from abutters would be important before any re-lining of districts happens. Consideration should be given to what loss might be suffered by a property owner before a district line is redrawn. Parcels on Westville Road were the focus of much of the discussion. Consensus was that before anything is proposed for posting it would be important to make sure that every district line could be justified.
Another item that received significant discussion was regarding the Village Center District. It was suggested that it would make more sense to make changes to areas of the CII district, which may include a change to permit small scaled mixed uses in portions of district, as opposed to creating an entire new district of an overlay district. It was noted that the Town Manager was asking that the Board look into creating traffic calming features in what might be described as the village district.
There was also discussion regarding the Waterline Impact Fee. T. Moore noted that under the State’s RSAs impact fees must be based upon growth and there was a question as to whether or not there was that component in Plaistow’s ordinance. It was consensus that there needed to be some way to collect funds for the expansion of the waterline project and there was discussion regarding the possibility of including it as a site plan regulation change.
There was discussion of where it was seen the waterline would be expanded to in the future and it was noted that there needed to be input from the Fire Chief on that discussion.
T. Moore noted that changing a site plan regulation only required a public hearing to change but the impact fee currently in zoning should be removed.
There was additional discussion on what other changes may need to be made to other impact fees such as the school impact fee, particularly in light of changes that could be made to the elderly housing ordinance. How impacts fees are calculated was also discussed and the need for professional input on recalculation.
The Board discussed how tax considerations should be factored into how an elder housing ordinance is crafted.
L. Komornick noted that information regarding census data age breakdowns that the Board requested was included in the member’s packets. She noted that it would be updated and included in the Master Plan updates.
There was a discussion regarding a letter from Jerry Coogan that questioned whether or not a multi-unit plans fell under site plan review regulations for subdivision regulations.
L. Komornick referenced a letter from former Planning Board attorney Mitchell and Bates that noted when an application is for a condominium conversion plan it falls under subdivision regulations. She added that there was a good amount of cross referencing between site plan and subdivision regulations.
L. Komornick noted there were also additional copies of the revised vision statement as well as the updated draft copy of the proposed elder housing ordinance so that all members could review them before the November 1 meeting.
Other Business – Duane Skofield (207 Main Street) Bond Posting Amount
T. Moore read a letter from CLD recommending a bond amount be posted for the commercial site at 207 Main Street in the amount of $89,501.50.
« R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to set the construction bond amount at $89.501.50 for the project at 207 Main Street as recommended by CLD. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Misc. Notices, Letters and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety and Planning
There was a copy of the Department of Building Safety’s FYI list, which tracks ongoing projects, given to the members.
There was a discussion regarding the hot tub shop on Route 125 and the lack of compliance with the approved site plan.
M. Dorman noted that he would have to go to the next level of enforcement with this site.
M. Dorman reported that they would be pulling the bond money from the account for Major Lane and getting the as-built plans and deed work completed so the road could be accepted by the Board of Selectmen (BOS). He requested that a motion be made to allow the bond to be pulled.
« R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to pull the bond being held for Major Lane to complete the work for road acceptance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore requested that a letter be sent to the Town Manager as well as Wayne Couture notifying them of the Board’s decision to pull the bond.
M. Curran asked if the roof drains had been fixed at Stateline Pet (137 Plaistow Road).
M. Dorman replied that it had not as Mr. Post was in litigation and that was also why the final paving and curbing had not yet been completed.
M. Curran expressed concern that the Town would be liable if the work was not completed and someone was to be injured.
M. Dorman noted that the roof drains where not part of the plan therefore he didn’t think it was a problem for the Town.
M. Curran suggested that a letter be sent so that the Board is on the record as asking the roof drains be fixed.
M. Dorman reported that he had been in contact with Pentucket Bank regarding the bond for the Danos site at 113 Plaistow Road and was assured that the bond was coming the next week.
M. Dorman noted that with reference to the Edelstein application there was an abutter request for a re-hearing regarding the ZBA variance decisions.
Other Business – Atkinson Planning Board Legal Notice
It was noted there was a legal notice from the Town of Atkinson that referenced a public hearing on a 55+ housing community.
There was a discussion regarding some of the proposed changes to the Elder Housing Ordinance for Plaistow. Some of the issues discussed were about affordability, living space, number of bedrooms and the size of garages.
L. Komornick noted that she had spoken with Glenn Greenwood of the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) who informed her that surrounding communities were all over the map regarding the size of the units and that much of what was being built was based on market demand.
R. Zukas suggested that the Board needed to seriously look at whether or not they were being too restrictive.
Larry Craig, noting that he was involved in many communities considering and building elder housing asked to address the Board. He offered the following trends for the Board’s information:
- Most are looking for 1400 to 1800 sq. ft. of living space
- If a 1-car garage is offered the purchaser tends to be in the 65-70 year old age range
- If a 2-car garage is offered the purchaser tends to be in the 55-70 year old age range
- 1 bedroom units are not popular in the real estate marketplace
- A community center does not appear to be cost effective until there are more than 50 units in the community
T. Moore asked if there were generally laundry facilities on site or in each individual unit.
L. Craig replied that they were generally located within the units. He added that people generally still wanted a full kitchen and two bathrooms. The idea being that they could still have company.
There was a discussion regarding how affordability was determined, what the criteria should be and how who got a unit was decided.
M. Curran noted that a builder could still build whatever they wanted to build as long as it complied with the Town’s ordinances. She suggested that it was not up to the Board to design an ordinance to suit the builders but to suit the needs of the Town of Plaistow and its residents.
R. Zukas offered that they couldn’t be so restrictive as to prevent a builder from developing.
M. Curran added there needed to be a happy medium between making a developer rich and the best interests and impact to the Town and its resources.
There was continued discussion of the need to develop and where it complimented or contradicted the needs of the Town.
« M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
