PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 28, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m.
Roll Call:
Planning Board: Present were Timothy Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth; Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio; Neal Morin and Merilyn Senter, Alternates. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman was absent.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator, and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett.
Approval of the Minutes of the November 7, 2007
T. Moore noted that approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2007, meeting would be held off until the next joint meeting of both boards.
POSTPONMENTS
T. Moore noted that the following applicants had submitted requests for continuances:
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49, 50 & 51, involving the redevelopment for a new 14,673 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy retail store. The parcel size is 2.076 acres and has 614 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49 & 52, involving the redevelopment for a new 17,801 square foot retail building. The parcel size is 3.05 acres and has 219 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
These hearings and the joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) were continued to December 19, 2007.
A Final Public Hearing on a Commercial Site Plan Review Application for the proposed reuse of the existing “Camp America” site located at 222 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 45, Lots 5 & 6. The existing site is located in the CI Zone and totals 10.5+/1 acres with an existing 16,720 square foot building located on it. The proposal is for a change of use from a recreational vehicle sales and repair site to three businesses (Used Car Sales, Pool Sales and Construction Yard). The owners of record are David and Carol Forestell (DCF Realty).
This hearing was continued to January 16, 2008.
A Final Public Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the ICR Zone at 134 Newton Road, Tax Map 70, Lot 20, involving the addition of a drive-up Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) kiosk. The parcel size is 2.95 acres and has 498 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Northland Mall, LLC.
Dennis Quintal, Civil Construction, Inc., and John Meserve, Merrimack Savings Bank (MSB), were present for the application.
D. Quintal recalled some of the issues that were raised at the last public hearing. He showed a new plan that located the proposed ATM (Automated Teller Machine) kiosk on an island in the parking lot. D. Quintal offered that it centralized the location of the ATM for people using the stores at the plaza. He added that as part of the proposal five parking spaces needed to be relocated to maintain the needed 84 parking spaces. Mr. Quintal noted the traffic flow pattern around the kiosk and how it would interact with the rest of the plaza flow. He noted that the kiosk would have a gravel walk to the rear of it for service access and would have concrete bollards to protect it.
M. Curran acknowledged the effort made by the applicant to answer the Board’s concerns about the former plan, adding that the new centralized location would relieve congestion. She asked if the ground would be striped to direct traffic patterns.
D. Quintal replied that there would be “no parking” designations as well as directional arrows for the drive-thru.
B. Weymouth asked if the relocated parking spaces would all be designated for employee parking.
D. Quintal answered that they would be, noting that employees were now parking in the customer areas. He added that he has also discussed with the Building Inspector the possibility of adding employee parking to be on the back side of the buildings if needed in the future. D. Quintal offered that this plaza did have a big demand for long term parking.
R. Zukas noted that there was a fitness center and a dance studio, adding that they probably had the need for longer customer parking. He offered that he had been at the plaza on a Saturday and it was busier then but not so busy as to be a problem.
There was discussion as to where it would be best to locate future and the relocated parking on the site. Many potential parking areas in the rear of the building were identified. Concerns were expressed about the proposed relocated parking spaces, displaced by the kiosk and now designated as employee parking and the potential conflict for employees walking across traffic into the buildings. Additional concerns were voiced that employee parking located on the back side of commercial buildings rarely was effectively used, particularly in plazas where there is no employee access from the rears of the buildings.
There was additional discussion regarding whether or not the displaced parking spaces were needed to meet site plan requirements. It was noted at the time of this plan parking requirements for retail space was a 1/300 sq. ft. ratio (parking space/building square footage) and the current regulations require a 1/250 sq. ft. ratio.
There was further discussion regarding the viability of employee parking in the rear of the building and where to locate such spaces so as to not interfere with business deliveries, snow storage or dumpster and restaurant grease trap pick-ups. Concern was expressed that parking spaces not be located so as to put employees in danger crossing high traffic paths to enter the building.
D. Quintal offered that he felt that he understood all the Board’s concerns and opinions regarding the placement of the displaced parking spaces.
There was a discussion regarding how to proceed with the approval process. It was decided that Mr. Quintal would submit a revised plan to show parking locations based on the evening’s discussion. The plan would then be emailed to all members for review before the next meeting (December 5, 2007).
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to accept the revised site plan for the location of an ATM kiosk at 134 Newton Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion.
There was discussion regarding the site plan and the need for all the notes, including the parking calculations, from the previous plan to be carried forward to this plan.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Dorman offered that he would be talking to Alan Daviduk (property owner) regarding paving to the rear of the building. He noted that should not hold up this applicant. He added that it was a well traveled area with deliveries and dumpster pick-ups and turned into a mud hole in the spring.
The hearing was continued to December 5, 2007.
A Final Public Hearing on a Commercial Site Plan Review Application for a change of use from an attorney’s office to a chiropractor’s office at 5 Main Street, Tax Map 24, Lot 40. The parcel is located in the CII zone and is .35 +/- acres with 77.30 feet of frontage. The lot currently contains a building totaling 2.806 square feet. The owner of record is Dan Diemand Real Estate Investments, LLC.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, and Dr. Jonathan Luscomb were present for the application.
C. Zilch described the existing conditions on the site, noting that no exterior plans were proposed with the exception of one parking space for better traffic flow. He added that there was already adequate septic and well on the property, but a new septic design, with a leach field under the pavement, was being review by the NHDES (New Hamsphire Department of Environmental Services). C. Zilch noted that there were no additional State permits needed.
L. Komornick noted that this would be the first site plan done for this site.
R. Zukas asked if the parking spaces would be striped.
C. Zilch offered that since the new leach field would be going under the pavement the disturbed areas of parking would be upgraded. He added that constituted about 1/3 of the existing parking.
R. Zukas noted a utility shed on the plan and asked what was stored there and if it would be staying on the plan.
M. Dorman explained that was where the former occupant stored lawn maintenance and snow removal equipment.
It was noted that the shed would remain as part of the site plan.
M. Curran asked how many people were employed with the business.
J. Luscomb answered that it was himself and one additional employee.
M. Curran questioned if there were any living accommodations in the building.
J. Luscomb replied that there would be no one living on the property.
M. Curran offered that she thought it was a great use of the property, noting there was plenty of parking even with growth of the business. She thanked C. Zilch for submitted colored pictures that showed the landscaping on the property.
R. Zukas noted that there were two free-standing signs noted on the plan. He asked if both were proposed to remain.
There was discussion as to the second free-standing sign. It was determined that the second sign had been on the property for some time but would be removed as part of this plan, as would be the real estate sign located on the property to advertise the sale.
M. Senter proposed that the handicapped parking space be located closer to the door.
M. Dorman noted that relocating the parking space nearer the door had been discussed but was rejected due to the fact that the closer space would not accommodate a van. He added that a parking space not specifically designated for a handicapped person could still be used by one.
M. Curran asked if there would be a dumpster on the site.
M. Dorman offered that trash was put out curbside at this location.
M. Curran noted that there had been discussions with the BOS regarding commercial businesses using the curb side pick up services and the costs to the Town.
R. Zukas reminded that the day care on Danville Road had been told that they would have to get a dumpster. He added that a fire truck would be able to get to the site but he wasn’t sure that a trash truck could get on the site to pick-up a dumpster.
M. Dorman agreed noting that each site would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
M. Curran offered that this site would probably not be generating a lot of “smelly trash” so it probably wouldn’t be a problem. She noted that she just wanted to make sure that it became part of the discussion with each site plan review so that businesses would not be feeling like the Board was picking and choosing.
C. Zilch added that this business would probably generate less trash than the average household.
M. Curran suggested that she would be in favor of waiving a dumpster for this location.
T. Moore offered that requiring a dumpster should be included in the site plan regulations so as not be considered on an ad hoc basis.
L. Komornick noted the dumpsters are referenced in site plan review. She asked if the intent was to develop a criteria for when a dumpster would be required.
T. Moore said yes that a policy and criteria needed to be developed as to who would and who wouldn’t be required to have one.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the site plan for a chiropractic business at 5 Main Street as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
WAIVER REQUESTS
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the request to waive §230-23 (open space).
It was noted that this was an existing site and much of the landscaping was pre-existing, well established and adequate.
There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the request to waive §230-14II (separate lighting plan)
It was noted that the lighting was pre-existing on the site and no changes were being proposed. It was also noted that lighting was shown in other places on the plan set.
There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the request to waive §230-14FF (loading and unloading area)
It was noted that there were no deliveries to this site that would require a loading or unloading area.
There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the request to waive §230-14XX (location of dumpster)
This item was previously discussed.
There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the site plan to locate a chiropractic office at 5 Main Street with the following conditions:
- Removal of second free-standing sign post and all associated lighting from the plan
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran praised the plan, adding that it was in keeping with what the Town wanted to see on Main Street.
A Final Public Hearing on a Commercial Site Plan Review Application for a proposed 3-story, 3,400 square foot professional office space addition to the existing building. The property is Tax Map 11, Lot 5 located at 23 Atkinson Depot Road. This is a 1.30 +/- acres parcel with 265.62 feet of frontage located in the CI Zone, and contains an existing 2,000 square foot building. The owner of record is Little River Properties II, LLC
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates; Adam Pappalardo and Anthony Pappalardo, Little River Properties II, LLC, were present for the application.
C. Zilch gave a brief history of the property noting the following:
- It was subject to a taking (approx 60 feet) by the NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) with the recent reconstruction of the Route 121 bridge
- The existing building has a 2,000 sq. ft. footprint with approx 4,100 sq. ft. of office space over three floors
- There are seven offices in the existing building, with 17 to 19 employees overall
- The property is serviced by onsite well and septic
- The property fronts onto Route 121 and is surround by wooded area, the Town of Atkinson and the railroad tracks
- All wetlands have been mapped out by Tim Ferwerda
- The property is located in both the aquifer protection area and a floodplain
C. Zilch explained that the proposal was to expand the office use noting the following:
- A free-standing addition (as in not accessible through the existing building) would be attached to the existing building, separated by a firewall
- The new building will have its own entrance and egress and is proposed to be 3,400 sq. ft. of office space consisting of fourteen (14) new office spaces.
- The existing septic will be abandoned for a new one. The proposed new septic design would max-out the site, so this plan would preclude any future expansion
- The existing parking in the front of the exiting building would be expanded to service both buildings.
- There was a drainage plan provided that was designed by Gregsak Engineers and was noted to be simple sheet flow into a detention pond and then through a treatment swale before ultimately flowing into existing wetlands. The roof drains would flow into the same design
- All zoning items are compliant and no variances are needed
- There will be three (3) State permits required: NHDOT driveway permit; septic approval; and a water supply permit.
C. Zilch noted that the septic plan had already undergone initial State review and they had made a re-submittal based upon the State’s comments.
C. Zilch explained that they had received a copy of CLD’s (Planning Board Engineers) initial comments and were in the process of addressing them all. He added that he didn’t see anything major in the comments and referred to them as needing “minor tweaking.” C. Zilch noted that the plan was reliant on a number of waivers.
C. Zilch noted for the Board what information was contained on each of the plan sheets.
C. Zilch added additional information about the proposed building as follows:
- No common access for the two buildings, they will be attached by a firewall
- The main entrance to the new building will be at ground level for handicapped accessibility and will face the driveway
- The type of building proposed does not require an elevator under current ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements
- There will be a conference room on the first floor which will also be used for offices on the upper floors to meet with handicapped clients/customers who cannot access their offices
- There will also be a handicapped access bathroom on the first floor
M. Curran asked for confirmation that no elevator was required.
C. Zilch explained that if there is less and 3,000 sq. ft. of space per floor or if the space is defined as “marketplace” an elevator is not required.
R. Zukas noted that would limit accessibility to the upper floors for persons who are handicapped.
M. Dorman responded that the information was right out of the ADA handbook, adding that they were making accommodations on the first floor.
C. Zilch added that there were not a lot of requirements for this sized building.
R. Zukas asked if that was the reason for keeping the buildings separate, so that ADA requirements would be less.
M. Dorman noted that because of the design of the existing building there was no way to tie into it anyway, since the building elevations were off.
M. Curran questioned how it could be considered an addition and free-standing at the same time.
M. Dorman suggested that was up to this board to decide whether or not that was correct.
L. Komornick likened it to the new CVS being constructed at 4 Plaistow Road.
M. Dorman added that it was physically attached to the other building and was an addition to the site. He said that he didn’t feel they were trying to circumvent anything and that they had looked at many ways to try and tie into the existing building.
C. Zilch offered that the slopes, grades and differences in the water table on the property made it impossible to match the elevations. He added that the addition was proposed at ground level to make it handicapped accessible. C. Zilch noted that there would be a rear access to the building that would be tied into the other building and covered. He reiterated that the plan was dependent on several waivers, mostly related to the parking.
R. Zukas, while reviewing the plan, noted that the Board was now leaning towards the use of the silt sock for siltation controls and asked that it be considered for this plan.
M. Curran noted that the board was not promoting “Silt Sock” as a brand name or any other brand name of siltation control, but the concept of that type of product.
There was a brief discussion regarding conventional silt fencing and the silt sock controls.
M. Curran noted that there were fourteen (14) proposed office spaces, which at a minimum would mean 14 employees and require at least 14 parking spaces be on the plan for those offices. She noted that didn’t include any potential clients/customers for those same offices. M. Curran added that she thought the parking calculations were greatly underestimated.
C. Zilch offered to take a look at the building floor plan again, taking into account the number of offices, and try to bring it more in line with the available parking.
L. Komornick informed that one of CLD’s notes was that if the Board did grant a parking waiver that a conceptual design should be provided to show where additional parking could be installed if it became needed in the future.
C. Zilch noted that they had shown where future parking could be located if needed in a previous plan. He added that the location did not require a variance. C. Zilch also added that this was a very low use site as it exists now and that he didn’t see that changing with an addition.
L. Komornick suggested that all the information from the previous plan, including the notes and parking calculations, needed to be brought forward to this plan.
M. Curran expressed concern that even if the floor plan was proposed with fewer offices, it could be changed once the plan was approved.
C. Zilch reminded that the plan was at a maximum sewage usage limit, which meant they were not going to be able to put high office usages in the building.
L. Komornick suggested that a note be put on the plan that there would be no uses that were inconsistent with septic capacity.
M. Curran offered that giving the site three (3) additional floors of office space was going to further congest the site. She added that engineers could not guarantee the Board that once owners got their approvals they wouldn’t just go away and do what they want anyway.
C. Zilch requested to go through the list of waivers to get an idea from the Board whether or not they would be inclined to grant each of them.
L. Komornick noted that parking was listed as an item of concern in the CLD letter.
C. Zilch suggested that CLD was incorrectly calculating the available square footage of usable office area in the existing building. He noted that it seemed that they took the footprint of 2,000 sq. ft. and multiplied it by the three (3) floors. He noted that due to the shape of the building there was only 4,120 sq. ft. of usable office space.
L. Komornick asked if the existing building were to be constructed today would it meet the current parking calculations or would a waiver be needed. She asked if the parking for the current building was functioning well.
C. Zilch noted that they were not maxing out the current parking on the site.
R. Zukas asked if the current eight (8) trash barrels would be changed to a dumpster.
C. Zilch responded that they would be.
M. Curran reiterated her concern that fourteen (14) new offices would mean fourteen (14) employee parking spaces at a minimum and the parking calculations submitted on the plan did not support those numbers.
Adam Pappalardo offered that he didn’t think that M. Dorman would allow a business to go into the building that would be a problem.
M. Curran repeated that the building didn’t meet current parking requirements as is.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not each of the individual offices needed their own separate entrances and egresses. It was noted that they did not.
C. Zilch noted that the parking was seventeen (17) spaces off the minimum calculations. He asked if the Board would entertain any waiver request.
M. Curran asked if the applicant would consider having only two (2) floors instead of three (3).
C. Zilch offered to further review the plan and see if he could combine offices and find more spots for parking.
M. Curran expressed frustration that the Board was being asked to grant more and more to developers that wanted to max out their sites and applicants were not willing to give up anything on the other side. She added that so many rules were being bent and once an applicant leaves the meeting with their approval they are doing whatever they want on the site anyway. M. Curran added that if applicants want more from the Board they should be willing to give some more.
C. Zilch offered that he never expected that the Board would give up something. He added that he did have more work to do to the plan in light of the Board’s comments this evening.
R. Zukas noted that the conference room could be converted to something else in the future.
M. Curran suggested that if the Board didn’t look at plan for what could happen in a maxed out situation then they would be doing a disservice.
R. Zukas noted that there were some businesses, such as an accountant, that had seasons that where they were busier than normal, which could be a concern, particularly for parking.
C. Zilch offered that he hoped there would be room for some kind of a waiver. He noted that they would not have gone this far forward with the plan if he had not gotten the impression at previous meetings that there would be some room for one.
R. Zukas suggested that fifty-six (56) parking spaces would be pretty intense on this site.
The Board discussed the waiver requests for this application. The Board indicated that no approval for any waiver was implied or would be voted on until there was a final plan for review. The waivers requests are as follows:
- §230-12.H.(2)(b) – 12 foot parking buffer. It was noted that the State had installed a rather large retaining wall across nearly the entire front of this property and that a landscaping buffer would be a moot point as it would never be seen.
L. Komornick noted the CLD’s letter suggested that a curb-stop be put at the edge of the pavement.
C. Zilch agreed that could be provided. He added that he had been assured by the State that they could park in the right-of-way.
The consensus of the Board was that this waiver was a possibility as long as the curb stop was included.
- §230-23.B.(3)(b)[4] – interior landscaping strip and buffer.
T. Moore noted that in light of the way the parking was currently laid out on the site he didn’t have a problem with this waiver.
N. Morin asked what if the parking changed.
M. Curran noted that there was no landscaping at all proposed in the parking areas. She added that she would like to reserve comment of this one until she saw what would be proposed in lieu of the interior landscaping.
T. Moore suggested that the interior landscaping was intended for the larger malls and plazas.
R. Zukas added that it would make it difficult for fire apparatus and trash trucks to navigate the site.
M. Curran offered that she agreed with the discussion, she would just prefer to reserve comment until she could see what other landscaping was proposed.
- §230-23.B.(3)(b)[2] – landscaping buffer. Existing wooded areas that would remain undisturbed and that provided partial screening were noted.
C. Zilch reiterated that the retaining wall in the front precluded landscaping across that area. He noted that there would be landscaping provided at the ends of the wall.
M. Curran said that she was not in favor of this waiver request unless there was additional landscaping offered in other areas in lieu of landscaping the front.
There was discussion of where additional landscaping could be placed.
M. Curran suggested that she would like to see a more detailed plan showing where landscaping of other green areas could be taken advantage of.
C. Zilch offered that they were proposing generous sideline buffers all the way back to the treeline. He added that there was natural vegetation on the other side.
There was discussion as to where additional landscaping could and should be placed. Where the property line with respect to the Town of Atkinson and what landscaping could be provided in that area was discussed. No consensus for approval of a landscaping waiver was given at this meeting.
C. Zilch offered to further review the landscaping plan based upon the discussion.
M. Curran reiterated her suggestion that something should be offered in lieu of what the Board was being asked to waive. She suggested that it was important to “enhancify” the property.
- §230-14FF – Loading and unloading area. The use of this building is office and therefore a loading and unloading area shouldn’t be needed.
The consensus of the Board was that this waiver would probably be grantable.
Jack Paley, property owner of 4 Hilldale Ave., offered that he had nothing vested in the pending application but he couldn’t ever recall a time when parking had reached maximum or overflowed on this site. He added that as a developer he knew that it wouldn’t be in his best interests to try to rent to someone who needed twenty (20) parking spaces, when he only had three (3) to provide, but he understood the Board’s concerns. Mr. Paley added that the railroad would not allow any parking along the railroad tracks and encouraged it to remain clear of vegetation.
M. Curran offered that there were other areas of the property where landscaping could be provided.
J. Paley added that this parcel got the short end of the deal when the State reconstructed the Route 121 bridge noting that “I got the land and he got the wall.”
There was a brief discussion of some of the other businesses in the area and whether or not parking had been an issue with them.
L. Komornick noted that the Board was charged with matching the uses to the sites and that it was only human nature to want more on any site.
T. Moore stated that this hearing would be continued to December 19, 2007.
Payment of Public Safety Impact Fees Invoices
Request from Chief Savage
T. Moore read a letter from Police Chief Savage for a request to authorize payment for invoices connected to the new office trailer at the safety complex.
Ken Ray Electric $1,957.27
Beacon Electrical Supplies $1,009.56
M. Curran noted that the Board was being asked to authorize a lot of invoices out of this account and asked if they were all in keeping with the ordinance.
L. Komornick offered that they were related to the setting up of the new office trailer for the police department.
M. Dorman added that it was based on the need for the expansion of the safety complex, which was based on growth.
L. Komornick explained that the ordinance was specifically for the expansion of the safety complex so it was related, but taking the money for these invoices was taking it away from the bigger project of expanding the building.
M. Curran asked who inspected electrical jobs that were done by the Town’s Electrical Inspector (Ken Ray).
M. Dorman replied that he inspected those jobs.
M. Curran asked if the job was put out to bid.
M. Dorman answered that he didn’t think it had been.
R. Zukas questioned if it was required to be put out for bid.
M. Dorman replied that he didn’t think that it was.
T. Moore reminded that the Board was only to determine if it was in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
Wetlands Preservation Invoice $1,075.00
M. Curran offered that the Wetlands Preservation invoices were adding up.
L. Komornick noted that they were all directly related to the expansion of the site.
M. Dorman asked if the process wasn’t being done backwards and shouldn’t there be a decision made to authorize spending the money before it is spent and not just paying invoices.
There was a discussion regarding the disbursement of monies from the impact fee accounts. It was suggested that there be a memo to the Planning Board before a purchase is made.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve all three of the invoice presented to the Board as being in line with the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – 3 Garden Road
Pat Bennett, property owner 3 Garden Road, was present for the discussion. She presented evidence that there had been a certificate of occupancy (CO) previously granted (2002) to this site for an auto broker. She noted that the CO specifically stated that there would be no retail or wholesale display of motor vehicles from the site and there had not been any problems on the site related to the use.
L. Komornick noted that the file had been rechecked and the CO was found.
R. Zukas asked what the space was being used for since the dealer left.
P. Bennett replied that it was being used as a conference room for her real estate business, also located in the building.
R. Zukas asked when the auto broker left.
P. Bennett noted that the lease expired in December of 2006. She requested that the use be continued as not being abandoned for more than one year. Ms. Bennett suggested that the same restrictions be added to the CO and that it be allowed to be used as an administrative office. She noted some of the restrictions that the State of New Hampshire placed on such businesses. She reiterated that there had been no abuse in the 4½ years that the business was there.
M. Curran questioned that the CO was dated in 2002 and the lease in 2004.
P. Bennett explained that this was the second lease agreement when it was renegotiated and renewed after a dispute between the tenant partners.
L. Komornick recalled that they had come to the Board for this request and it was initially thought to not have happened. She added that with the discovery of the CO she felt that it was important to bring it back to the Board. L. Komornick said that Ms. Bennett was made well aware of the Board’s concerns over auto dealers.
P. Bennett reiterated that there had certainly not been any abuse.
There was a discussion regarding the potential impact to the intent of the ordinance that required 1,000 feet (1,000 foot rule) of separation between motor vehicle dealers, which did not discriminate between those with vehicle displays and those without.
M. Curran offered that the language of the ordinance could not be ignored and that a lease that didn’t expire until December 2006 didn’t offer proof that the actual use continued until that same time.
P. Bennett suggested that if there was a problem with display then the CO could be revoked.
T. Moore noted that the ordinance missed the little niche of the administrative office use when the 1,000 foot rule was written.
M. Curran reiterated that the ordinance forbid the sales, not just the display.
L. Komornick offered that this unfortunately became the test case of this type of situation. She noted that in the past it had been permitted based on it being office space.
M. Dorman added that the ordinance needed to be cleaned up.
P. Bennett asked for confirmation that if she was looking to display vehicles it would have to be added to her site plan. It was confirmed. She noted that she wasn’t requesting that.
M. Curran reminded that the language was “sales” whether there was display or not.
There was a brief discussion of the State’s licensing procedures and how they had become more restrictive over time and there was a lesser likelihood that some of the situations that cause the current concern would happen now.
L. Komornick reiterated that the wording in the ordinance needed to be looked at.
M. Curran offered that she saw room for abuse if it were to be allowed.
M. Dorman noted there were many different kinds of dealer licensing.
L. Komornick offered that it could be the office space that was allowed, not the display/sales of the vehicles.
The discussion of the restrictive wording of the ordinance continued.
P. Bennett asked if the Board was considering making a change to the ordinance to allow this use.
M. Curran replied that it was not on the radar screen and that she was not sure that it was a bad thing not to allow it.
T. Moore said that the difficulty would be in coming up with the wording that would allow the use and protect the Town in this situation. He added that Ms. Bennett could apply for a variance. He asked if there was a site plan for this parcel.
P. Bennett said that there was and it basically just showed 12 parking spaces for the building.
T. Moore offered that unless there was something to work with about the continued use not being abandoned for more than a year then it would only leave a variance as an option at this time; the Board’s hands were tied.
Other Business – Site Walk 144 Main Street
After a brief discussion it was decided that the site walk (to address a concern of one of the neighbors) for 144 Main Street would be Monday, December 3, at 9:00AM and everyone attending should meet in front of the Town Hall.
Other Business – Length of Meetings
M. Curran noted that the length of the agendas and the discussions were getting very long and consequently the meetings were going well into the evening. She questioned if there were any ideas on limiting the length of the meeting. M. Curran suggested that the quality of the decision-making declined as the meeting hour grew later.
There was discussion regarding possible solutions to the meetings running late. It was noted that the backlog in the agenda was due in part to a number of meetings being missed for lack or quorum in the summer, which appears to be caught up at present.
Other Business – Attorney
T. Moore noted that Attorney Craig Donais, who was assigned to the Planning Board by the firm Getman, Stacey, Schulthess & Steere, was now leaving that office to start his own law practice. He added that it was consensus of the Board, as discussed in a non-public session, to remain with Attorney Donais in his new practice.
Other Business – Bond at Rockingham Athletic Club (RAC)
T. Moore noted that a request from RAC to allow them to pave in the spring was discussed in a recent non-public session and the consensus was that it would be allowable, particularly in light of the fact that there was a bond in place for the site. He added that it was to be made clear to the RAC that this was a final deadline and that if it is not complete then the bond will be pulled and the paving completed.
M. Curran offered that she would like to see a deadline date set, noting that there had been previous letters with deadlines and the job was still not done. She suggested that a May date is the final deadline for completion.
The Board asked that updates be provided for the next meeting of other sites, including Stateline Pet and B&J Auto Body, with outstanding site plan issues.
M. Curran suggested that the RAC also needed to come in to update their site plan if they are going to continue to expand the activities, particularly the outside ones, on the site. She noted that she didn’t have problems with most of the activities on the site, but they needed to be included on the site plan.
R. Zukas agreed, adding that it needed to be a public discussion and reminding that there were abutters present during the plan review who had concerns about outside activities.
M. Curran said that it wasn’t fair to the abutters since it was proposed to them that most of the activities would be inside, no overnights were discussed and nothing outside. She suggested that if there were activities going on inside and outside at the same time the parking calculations wouldn’t be correct. M. Curran expressed frustration that the RAC was expanding the use of the site without consulting with the Board and yet was unable to pave to complete their current site plan.
Agenda items for the next meeting were discussed, including:
- Final review of ATM kiosk at 134 Newton Road
- Zoning Ordinance and other regulation changes workshop
- List of sites that are still not complete due to paving issues
There was a brief discussion on how to set up the agendas and to have a deadline schedule to avoid adding people on at that last minute.
B. Weymouth moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
