Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
November 01, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice-Chairman; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:37 p.m.); Dennis Marcotte, Alternate; 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.
« D. Marcotte was appointed as a voting member for the meeting.
Minutes of October 8, 2006 Meeting
« R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the October 18, 2006, Planning Board meeting. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1 (Marcotte abstaining).
Workshop on the AEHC Ordinance – Continued from October 18, 2006
T. Moore recapped a few of the questions that were answered at the last workshop in the AEHC (Affordable Elderly Housing Community) ordinance noting the following:
- In all cases plans for new construction of an AEHC would be submitted as a site plan. In instances where there is some form of subdivision of the land there would also need to be a subdivision plan submitted.
T. Moore noted that he had had the opportunity to attend an informational meeting at the New Hampshire Finance Authority (NHFA). He offered that if the project is age restricted then NHFA cannot provide financing assistance, but HUD (Housing and Urban Development) can, if they have monies available. T. Moore added that NHFA can still assist with the management of the project and assistance with the process.
T. Moore offered that there were still issues with what, if anything, to offer the voters this year as proposed changes in the best interests of the Town, noting the lack of consensus among the Board members on the topic. He reminded that there was still debate over the percentage of housing that should remain “affordable” and what is meant by that term. T. Moore noted the receipt of the updated population numbers, explaining that full analysis of the numbers had not yet been done. He suggested that the data and all input received be analyzed and language finalized for a public hearing. He cautioned that they may not be able to accomplish what is hoped for in time to put it on the ballot for Town Meeting, but added he would rather not rush something that might negatively impact the Town just to have
something on the warrant.
R. Zukas expressed that he would like any ordinance to include a cap on the number of units that can be built in town. He added that the consideration should be given to how these communities impact town emergency services and not just the fact that they do not have a high impact on the schools.
M. Curran agreed noting that while elderly housing seems to be attractive now they may not always, particularly if the surrounding communities are also developing this type of housing.
Jerry Coogan, Planning Consultant for Fairway Oaks, offered a survey of the surrounding and other like communities that noted the kinds of elder housing that was being developed under market conditions. The survey noted items such as number of bedrooms, 1-car versus 2-car garage, square footage of living space, price ranges and which were more desirable under current market conditions.
There was discussion regarding a time table for anything that might be posted to the warrant.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering Inc., offered additional input on what was marketable and what was considered as affordable. He added information regarding HUD financing, how they calculate affordability and what additional assistance they provide.
There was additional discussion regarding marketability, financing, activity levels of the different age groups, amenities that are looked for in an elderly community, and potential ways to define affordability. It was noted that more elders were looking to live closer to community services.
M. Curran reminded that anyone can build a 55+ housing community under the Town’s current PRD (Planned Residential Development) ordinance, they just cannot put as many units on a parcel as they would like. She added that they ability to build and how many units can be build were two separate issues.
There was discussion regarding the possibility of staff and or the board members meeting with representatives from NHFA for additional input and information.
Other Business – Letter of Request for Use of Property Located at 9 East Pine Street
Stephen Pascoe was present for the discussion.
T. Moore read a letter from Stephen Pascoe regarding the use of the existing building at 9 East Pine Street.
There was discussion regarding how Mr. Pascoe wanted to use the site, which was office space (one employee) for his business as well as a small workshop for himself. It was noted to be a pre-existing non-conforming use and that the existing building was in decaying condition and an eye-sore in the neighborhood. Mr. Pascoe pledged to clean up the property; make significant improvements to the building (making it appear residential in keeping with the neighborhood) and to not park any construction vehicles outside the building.
There was discussion as to whether or not to notify the abutters. It was noted that the property was currently being used in a similar fashion. It was also noted that the building formerly had an industrial use.
S. Pascoe questioned whether or not there would be an issue with restructuring the roof.
M. Dorman noted that the footprint of the building could not be changed.
M. Curran asked if a new site plan should be required.
M. Dorman offered that there was no change of use that would trigger a new site plan.
M. Curran reminded that many of the older sites that did not have site plans were being asked to submit an as-built as a minimum to put something in the Planning Office files.
There was discussion regarding what should be submitted for the files. It was consensus that some form of an as-built plan, not necessarily a full blown engineered plan, should be submitted for the in-house files.
S. Pascoe asked if he needed to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
M. Dorman offered that he didn’t see any issues that need ZBA relief.
D. Marcotte question what were Mr. Pascoe’s intentions should his business expand.
S. Pascoe offered that his business was located in Massachusetts and this location was intended to be more for personal use. He added that he was moving more into a real estate business and there would be nothing expanding at this location.
There was additional discussion as to what business would be conducted from this location. It was noted there would be a secretary to do administrative work.
R. Zukas noted there was really no room to expand on this location.
M. Curran asked that it be noted for the record that this property was never a residence and would not be split and a portion used as a residence.
L. Komornick questioned if the new roof would create a runoff issue.
M. Dorman noted that the side was all gravel and should drain properly.
S. Pascoe offered that his intention was to improve the property and make it look more residential.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 6:30p p.m. at the Plaistow Town Hall, 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH to consider the following amendments to the Town of Plaistow Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations
See attached list of proposed changes to Master Plan, Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulation.
Other Business – Notice from Ron Pica for an Ice Cream Parlor to Occupy Unit #1 in Plaistow Commons, 160 Plaistow Road.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc. was present for the discussion. He offered a letter that explained the septic calculations for the property, including the loading of the proposed ice cream shop. He noted that the calculations from the vacating doctor’s office were used in determining the viability of the use. R. Pica offered that this new business would be using less water than the doctor’s office’s current use.
There was discussion regarding the proposed use. Parking was the main concern expressed, noting the location to already be a busy retail parcel.
R. Pica noted that the ice cream shop would be open different hours from the other heavy users in the plaza.
There was discussion regarding existing conditions in the parking lot, including dips in the pavement that caused water to pool and create unsafe conditions.
M. Curran offered that since staff had reviewed all the appropriate calculations and noted that everything was compliant, she didn’t have an issue, only concern with the parking.
R. Pica pledged to bring the conditions of the parking area to the owner’s attention.
L. Komornick asked if there were going to be picnic tables outside.
R. Pica replied there would be nothing outside.
Revised Roadway Cross Section from CLD for Subdivision Regulations
There was a hard copy of revised roadway cross section for the Board’s review. It was noted that the revised plan was consistent with what the Board requested at Little River Village and would be posted for public hearing on December 6.
M. Dorman suggested a change of verbiage for pavement width to be shown as “variable.”
Other Business – Misc. Notices, Letters and Other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety (DBS) and Planning
Copies of letters sent to commercial businesses from the DBS were noted.
Other Business – Stateline Plaza Bond
T. Moore read a letter from Planning Board engineers, CLD, regarding an appropriate bond amount for the project at 4 Plaistow Road.
L. Komornick noted that they still have not received a driveway permit from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT). She added that the plans could not be recorded without that permit.
M. Dorman added that the Stateline Plaza principals were working diligently to get the permit in place.
L. Komornick offered that it was important to know that the permit was imminent before allowing them to proceed.
« M. Curran moved, second by D. Marcotte, to set the required bond amount for the Stateline Plaza, 4 Plaistow Road project at $1,495,505.55, as recommended by CLD. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick noted that she had received a voluntary lot line merger form for the properties included in the Stateline Plaza project.
Other Business – NHDOT Driveway Permit Application for Sumner Kalman’s property on Route 125
It was noted that correspondence had been received from NHDOT regarding an application for a permit for Sumner Kalman’s property on Route 125.
L. Komornick offered that the plan for the property is now defunct and asked if the Board wanted her to right a letter of response to the NHDOT stating that.
M. Dorman suggested the question was whether the application was based on the existing (now defunct) plan or on the creation of a new one. He noted that the application could be just to find out if a curb cut could be approved prior to developing a plan.
L. Komornick requested direction from the Board.
M. Dorman offered that a plan was needed.
T. Moore suggested that should be the response to NHDOT.
Scheduling Issue: Westville Road Site Plan Public Hearing on December 6
It was noted that, due to a scheduling issue, the public hearing for the industrial site on Westville Road would be on December 6.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
| 
