Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
April 5, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas Vice-Chairman; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:45 p.m.); and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Steven Ranlett was absent.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator
Minutes of the March 15, 2006 meeting
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2006, meeting. It was noted that the date at the top of the minutes was incorrect and the motion was amended to include that change. The vote was 3-0-0.
Discussion with Erica Noonan and Justin Kryskow regarding Valleyfield Condominiums
T. Moore read a letter from Erica Noonan and Justin Kryskow requesting to appear before the Board to discuss issues with the commercial site plan approval at Valleyfield Condominiums (Valleyfield). He also read a letter from Planning Board Attorney, Bruce Marshall, which indicated there were no issues with the Board’s approval of the commercial site plan for SEC Associates (SEC).
T. Moore explained that the bottom line was that the landowner made changes to the property and there was no legal obligation to notify the tenants when such changes are made.
There was a discussion of the order of events leading to the condo conversion and the commercial site plan for SEC at unit #33.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:45 p.m.
L. Komornick noted that at the time of the original condominium conversion it was noted that unit #33, which was the maintenance building, would remain a commercial entity, it just wasn’t indicated who would occupy the space. She reiterated that the Board’s attorney had reviewed the minutes from both meetings and it was their opinion there was nothing illegal in the Board’s passing of the commercial site plan for SEC. L. Komornick added that there was no legal obligation to notify the property owners as Mr. Larochelle was the owner of the commercial unit.
A number of residents of Valleyfield expressed concerns over the handling of the commercial site plan and the notification process. Some alleged that Mr. Larochelle misrepresented the extent of his ownership of the property. It was also alleged that there were sufficient numbers of individual unit owners that Mr. Larochelle was no longer the majority holder and the individual owners should have been notified. It was offered that the site plan that was approved for SEC violated a number of provisions of the condominium documents including increased parking, removal of landscaping and lighting; the unit being subdivided and to possibly be used by another entity, and an enlargement of the septic. It was noted that the increase in the septic could create an unequal burden of the residential members who were not increasing
their use. There were allegations that Mr. Larochelle intentionally misled the Board and that it was improper that the same engineering company who now owned the unit was the engineering company who submitted the plans. The residents offered that they would like to avoid a protracted court situation and were looking to the Planning Board for some relief. The asked that the Board look into revoking the commercial site plan and asked that SEC reapply so that they could have input into the plan.
The Valleyfield residents who spoke on the record were:
- David Jones, Unit 14 (Valleyfield Board Member)
- Erica Noonan, Unit 12 (Valleyfield Board Member)
- Carrie Mazzaglia, Unit 17 (Valleyfield Board Member)
- Justin Kryskow, Unit 12
- David Jones, Unit 7
- Steve Halloran, Unit 16
- Cathy Graham, Unit 19
Plans for both the condo conversion and the commercial site plan were reviewed by the Board. They discussed the allegations made by the residents of Valleyfield. It was suggested that a number of the issues that were brought up by the residents were civil matters and the Board had no jurisdiction over such things.
L. Komornick defended the staff’s and the Board’s actions with reference to both the condo conversion plan and the commercial site plan. She offered that she had scrutinized the Valleyfield plans very carefully after issues were raised with the role of the condo association with the Home Depot commercial site plan. L. Komornick reminded that at the time of the SEC commercial site plan no homeowners association had been formed and there was no legal obligation to notify the individual unit owners.
C. Graham asked if the Board would accept proof that there were twenty-one owners at the time of the SEC site plan approval, therefore Mr. Larochelle was not the majority owner and had no authority to make the application without notifying the unit owners. Ms. Graham offered that the Board had been misled by the applicant. She suggested that the Planning Board’s attorney was not given all the information that he would need to offer and opinion and requested that the Board submit the information that they had offered at this meeting to him for additional review.
The Board expressed concern over the allegations and issues expressed by the residents. After discussion as to which issues were civil matters and which issues were Board matters it was decided that L. Komornick would bring the matter, including the concerns expressed by the Valleyfield residents, back to the Board’s attorney for further review.
T. Moore offered that if it were found that there were misrepresentations made to the Board that could potentially be grounds for a revocation hearing. He requested that a list of the owner’s names and addresses be submitted so that should there be such a hearing then all owners could be notified, though he did not promised that it would be by certified mail, noting that the RSAs only provided for certified notice to the homeowners association. He added that whatever information or any opinion that was received from the Board’s attorney would be forwarded to Ms. Noonan.
Discussion with Dick Johnson regarding Ethan Allen project and bond reduction request
Dick Johnson was present for the discussion.
T. Moore read the request from Dick Johnson for a bond reduction regarding the Ethan Allen project at 26 Plaistow Road. He read a letter from Phil MacDonald, Underwood Engineering, Inc. (UEI) that offered a different amount for the reduction of the construction bond.
D. Johnson offered that he had discussed the difference in the numbers with P. MacDonald and was satisfied with the explanation. He noted the reason he was before the Board was to ask that the Board entertain the possibility of granting certificate of occupancy permits (COs) for the four units now being built before all the work was complete on the existing Ethan Allen building. Mr. Johnson explained that all the site work would be done with the exception of a small portion of the sidewalk in front of the Ethan Allen building, which would be a grassed area while construction was being finished. He added that since they would be closing the current entrance that would allow them to use the front of the building for the 4-5 parking spaces displaced by the Ethan Allen building construction.
M. Curran asked if there would be any safety issues.
R. Johnson explained that the area would be grassed and shouldn’t be a safety concern.
L. Komornick offered that Mike Dorman, Building Inspector, was adamant that the Board make the call on whether or not COs could be granted before absolutely everything was completed.
T. Moore suggested that Mr. Johnson’s request was not unreasonable and if M. Dorman wanted a letter from the Board for his file it could be provided at the time.
 M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to reduce the construction bond being held for Ethan Allen at 26 Plaistow Road by $57,850.00, leaving a balance of $120,750.00 as recommended by P. MacDonald. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Des-Con Companies regarding 51 acres off Harriman Road
Doug Yasika and Rafik Papilian were present for the discussion.
R. Papilian explained that they were looking into purchasing 51 acres of property on Harriman Road with the intent of developing a 55+ project. He said they were struggling with some of the current requirements outlined in the Affordable Elderly Housing Community (AEHC) Ordinance. One of the items he particularly noted was the unit sizing of 800 sq ft and suggested that the Board look into increasing that to 1200 or 1600 sq. ft.
L. Komornick offered that in her discussions with these gentlemen that three major hurdles were identified:
- Size of the units
- Public versus private funding requirements
- Affordability and leasing requirements
R. Papilian offered that the current restrictions do not make it feasible to bring this much needed housing to town.
L. Komornick noted that she had explained the zoning ordinances could not be changed until the fall, adding that Mr. Papilian and Mr. Yasika were looking for the Board’s support should they decide to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) seeking variances if they decide to proceed before changes could be made.
T. Moore noted that the Board would be reviewing the AEHC ordinance. He suggested that the gentlemen look at developing the property under the Planned Residential Development (PRD) ordinance and sell the units with a deed restriction that would keep the property limited to 55+.
There was discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of such a project developed under either the AEHC or PRD ordinance. It was suggested that Mr. Papilian and Mr. Yasika seek the services of an engineer to look at the site and determine which would be the best course of action for the particular lot and the goals they wanted to achieve.
Other Business – Signature of Voluntary Lot Merger Form for James Zanello
L. Komornick noted there was a voluntary lot merger submitted on behalf of James Zanello that would combine two properties, one that fronted on Main Street and one that fronted on Old County Road.
It was suggested that there were two dwelling units on the property, in which case they could not be merged as they would violate zoning.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the voluntary lot line merger of 269 Main Street and 86 Old County Road with the following condition:
- It is verified that there are not dwelling units on each property the merging of which would violate Plaistow zoning.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Letter from Walton Road Residents
T. Moore read a letter submitted from the residents of Walton Road as a follow up to the preliminary hearing on 207 Main Street.
M. Curran asked that the record reflect there is a corresponding letter from the Department of Building Safety to the property owner of 207 Main Street that addresses the issues and concerns of the Walton Road residents.
Other Business – Request for Release of Escrow Account for Mears Tractor
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to release the remaining balance of the escrow being held for Mears Tractor. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Request for Return to General Fund of 3 Unclaimed Escrow Accounts
L. Komornick noted that she had done repeated mailings and due diligence on trying to return funds of three escrow accounts and had been unsuccessful in making any contact.
There was discussion on how best to handle releasing the monies to the general fund. It was decided that notice of a public hearing to release would be posted before the escrows would be released.
Other Business – Equipment Auction
L. Komornick explained that she had been working with Mark Cyrulik on a location for an equipment auction like the ones formally held at Mears Tractor and MB Tractor. She noted the he had received permission of Senter Auto Parts (124 Plaistow Road) to hold it at their location and had pledged to make sure that all the tenant’s equipment and property will be moved out of the way for the event. L. Komornick added that she had made Mr. Cyrulik aware that he would have to file for a minor site plan review. She added that the major concern was the parking and where the equipment would be placed. Leigh said that there had been discussions with a number of the abutting commercial sites for the possibility of additional parking. It was noted the only one who had granted permission was Senter Brothers on Old
Road.
M. Curran noted there was always a problem after the auction with left-over equipment and equipment, waiting for pick-up, being left on the site for weeks after the event.
R. Zukas echoed the parking and storage concerns, suggesting the satellite parking would be needed and perhaps a stated time limit for pick-up enforced by not allowing the businesses at the location to open for business until everything is gone.
L. Komornick offered that he had hired a police detail.
There was continued discussion of the different alternatives for parking and equipment display. Concerns were expressed over enforcement to make sure there is no parking on Route 125 and people having to cross Route 125 if there was parking across the street. It was the consensus of the Board that Senter Auto Parts was not a good location for such an event as it posed too many safety concerns not only for the site but for the public.
Other Business – Stateline Plaza Update
L. Komornick offered that an application for the redevelopment of Stateline Plaza (Stateline) had been filed and a copy had been sent to CLD (planning board engineers). She explained that there were still issues as far as Haverhill was concerned and that she had noted to Appledore Engineering, Inc. (AEI – engineers for Stateline) that these issues would need to be worked out before the plan could be approved. Leigh added that they would be in at the next meeting.
M. Curran questioned why they were coming in, recalling that they were going to wait and make all necessary changes so as not be confusing and waste time.
L. Komornick replied that she was getting the sense that this was more at the client’s prodding.
T. Moore suggested that if the checklist is complete the Board could accept jurisdiction of the plan and start the 65-day clock.
The chairman called for a break at 8:45 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:56 p.m.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, April 5, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plaistow Town Hall located at 145 Main Street to hear a proposal to amend the “Rules of Procedure” and Subdivision/Site Plan Review Regulations
R. Zukas requested that the Board institute a concrete procedure for when a member is not going to make a meeting. He expressed concern that lack of notification may lead to there not being a quorum, or make it difficult to find alternates at the last minute.
There was a discussion regarding proper notification. The Board member must contact the Planning Coordinator as a first call, the Department of Building Safety Secretary as a second call. The member must either speak personally to one or the other or request a return call to confirm a message was received. This procedure has been incorporated into the Rules and Procedures that are reviewed.
There are 4 attachments to these minutes:
- Submitted proposed changes to Rules of Procedures
- Submitted proposed changes to Subdivision Regulations (§ 235)
- Final Copy of Rules of Procedure with changes as discussed
- Final Copy of Rules of Procedure with changes as discussed.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adopt the changes to Rules and Procedures (Attachments #1 and #3) including any changes as discussed. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adopt the changes to Subdivision Regulations (§ 235) (Attachment #2 and #4) including any changes as discussed. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
