Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
July 19, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Robert Zukas, Vice Chairman; and Barry Weymouth were excused.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of June 21, 2006, Planning Board Meeting
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the June 21, 2006, meeting.
T. Moore noted that on page 2 of the minutes a sixty-day clock is referred to, with reference for time for the Board to act on a plan which is accepted as complete. He reminded that the time for action is sixty-five days.
It was noted that the discussion was about a sixty-day clock but the minutes would be noted to reflect that the actual time frame is sixty-five days.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-0-1 (Moore abstaining).
T. Moore noted a request from an applicant for a continuance.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Preliminary Design Review application by Fairway Oaks, LLC who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 6 with a portion of Tax Map 65, Lot 2, and Tax Map 58, Lot 4 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 56 unit senior housing condominium complex. Access to this complex will be through the extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow and a roadway in Haverhill, MA. The total acreage is 23.1 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
Continuation of a Preliminary Hearing on the consolidation of 4 existing lots and subsequent 8-lot general/light industrial subdivision off of a proposed new road located at 214 Plaistow Road, Tax Map, 45, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 totaling 40.5 +/- acres. The owner of record is Fred Miller, Trustee of 214 Plaistow Road Realty Trust
T. Moore explained that the preliminary hearing on this matter would be closed and the applicant would be filing for a final hearing.
It was noted that the minutes of the last meeting showed the preliminary hearing was closed at the previous meeting.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Preliminary Design Review Application for the redevelopment, redesign and renovations to the Stateline Plaza including the demolition and construction of buildings, drainage, parking and utility improvements and associated landscaping. The property is located at 4 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 24, Lots 44, 45, 46, and 47 totaling 14.96 acres and the frontage is 2,358 (+/-) feet. The owner of record is Plaistow Project, LLC.
Jennifer Viarengo, Appledore Engineering, Inc. (AEI) was present for the application.
J. Viarengo offered an update of changes that had been made to the plans since their last appearance before the Planning Board. She noted that they were continuing to respond to comments made by CLD (Planning Board engineers) as well as coordinate with state and local boards in both Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Ms. Viarengo provided detail about the approval process in both states and what permits were yet outstanding as well as what changes had been made in response to different peer reviews.
There was a discussion regarding how photo processing chemicals would be handled at the new CVS store.
J. Viarengo explained that they were waiting documentation from CVS outlining how chemicals are to he disposed of as well as a contingency plan.
M. Dorman added that he expected it would be similar to the system in place at the Wal-Mart.
T. Moore requested that the Fire Department be made aware of what chemicals are used in the process. He added that he noted there was no septic plan for the new CVS.
J. Viarengo answered that they were still hoping for an arrangement with the City of Haverhill regarding sewer. She added that if that did not happen they would go through the normal approval procedures for the CVS septic.
There was a discussion of the ownership of the parcels that will eventually be combined to make up this site. An issue between the Fire Department and the owners regarding practicing rescue procedures in one of the buildings was noted.
J. Viarengo showed a map which summarized the ownership of the parcels that make up the site. She reminded that all parcels would be combined into one once they felt that the approval process had positively progressed far enough that their rights of individual ownership would no longer need to be preserved. Ms. Viarengo reminded that there were written authorizations from each owner entity allowing AEI to represent the application filed with the application.
J. Viarengo offered that she would leave a revised list of waiver requests with L. Komornick. She noted that they had been able to revise the plan so that some requests were no longer being asked for.
T. Moore noted that he hadn’t seen any issues to this point that would be a show stopper. He stated that the hearing was continued to August 16, 2006.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment and an Amendment to 5 lots of a 15-Lot residential subdivision approved by the Planning Board on August 20, 2003, 64 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 62, Lots 40, 41-1, 41-2, 41-3, 41-15 by Ronald Brown. The owner(s) of record is Ron Brown Investments, LLC.
Terry Trudel, SEC Associates; Ron Brown; and Attorney Thomas MacMillan were present for the application.
T. Trudel reminded that the Board accepted the amended plan, which relocated the curb cut off Sweet Hill Road, for a 15-lot subdivision. He showed the five lots that would be affected by the relocation of the driveway. T. Trudel explained that this new plan negated the need for easements on the abutting properties because there would no longer need to be the same kind of improvements made to Sweet Hill Road. He added that they would be requesting a waiver for the slope of the road, which is 9% instead of the regulated 3%. Mr. Trudel noted that Phil MacDonald, Underwood Engineers, Inc. (UEI) submitted a letter stating they didn’t have an issue with the waiver request. T. Trudel offered that they had applied for the amended site specific plan from theNew Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
and were awaiting their approval, noting a back-log of four to six weeks. He added that the issues of the Cease and Desist order were being addressed as part of the amended site specific plan.
There was a discussion regarding whether or not approval of the subdivision plan would address the issues and violations of the Cease ad Desist order.
M. Curran expressed concern over granting the slope waiver, reminded the Board that homeowners in other subdivisions had drainage issues when there are severe slopes. She added that severe slopes make for dangerous situations.
T. Trudel noted that the slope wasn’t for the road, it was for the transition (connection) to Sweet Hill Road. He added that P. MacDonald had consulted with Dan Garlington, Plaistow Highway Supervisor, regarding the slope and he found them to be acceptable.
S. Ranlett questioned why the regulations called for 3% if UEI felt that 4% was okay.
M. Dorman replied that 3% was better, but 4.5% was acceptable.
There was discussion as to whether or not this regulation should be under review for change.
Courtney Scott, 60 Sweet Hill Road, asked for clarification as to how the amended plan would now affect her property line.
T. Trudel showed her on the plan, noting that the driveways would be 90 feet apart (centerline to centerline).
Attorney Sharon Somers, representing the concerns of the Greenfield Estates Homeowners Association (GEHA), expressed a number of concerns of those residents. She noted that despite the fact that the new driveway permit had been approved from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) the NHDES permit and related issues were still outstanding. Attorney Somers requested that all those issues be included in any Board approval. She offered a list of conditions that her clients would ask be included as part of any approval of the amended plan.
- The large boulders that currently close access from Ridgewood Road to the new Gunstock Road be left in place until the first Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued
- Construction truck traffic be directed not to you use Greenfield Road, signage to that affect to be posted and maintained on Greenfield Road at Mr. Brown’s expense. It was reminded that the water system for GEHA was located under the roadway and there was fear the it could be damaged should there be frequent heavy equipment traveling the road.
- The paving schedule for Gunstock Road be coordinated with the Town’s paving of Greenfield Estates. The paving transition at the cul-de-sac to be carefully monitored by the Town Engineer and D. Garlington.
S. Somers added that many of these issues were based upon safety as well as infrastructure concerns of the residents. She suggested that there was no need for secondary access to the road unless and until there were houses there and people living in them.
S. Ranlett reminded that there would be construction workers on the location and secondary access could be important if one of them should be injured and work was being done on the Sweet Hill Road connection.
S. Somers offered that would only be an issue if Gunstock were impassable and she didn’t see why that would be the case.
There was continued discussion of need for access to the property from both ends, for construction as well as emergency purposes and how it affected the GEHA and the roadways. A gate was suggested between Ridgewood and Gunstock Roads to allow for access when necessary. It was reminded that the Fire Chief was opposed to a gated entrance, though he might be amenable on a short term basis.
T. MacMillan suggested that there wasn’t a lot of difference of opinion on either side of the discussion; he just noted that his client wasn’t prepared to be locked into the conditions sought by the GEHA.
- The rocks were initially put there as a safety issue, but they were placed there voluntarily
- There was no need for additional signage directing contractors to use Gunstock Road. It would not be practical for construction equipment to use either Greenfield Drive or Ridgewood Road to access Gunstock, however they did not want the site to be shut down should there be work being done at the Sweet Hill end of the road and no access for short periods of time. It was reminded that both Ridgewood Road and Greenfield Drive were town-owned roads and there were currently similar sized vehicles, such as oil trucks, using the roads now
- The rocks would be a logistical problem with paving and it was everyone’s goal to have the best product possible. It was suggested that it would be difficult enough to coordinated the differing schedules as is, having to work around the rocks would add to the difficulty
There was additional discussion of what conditions that GEHA would like to see as part of any approval by the Board. Attorney Somers reminded that the roadway had originally been designed as a private road. Pros and cons of leaving the boulders in place, or gating the connection between Ridgewood and Gunstock Roads, were discussed. Attorney MacMillan stressed that his client saw the conditions as delayed the project and Attorney Somers stressed the concerns of the residents of GEHA for their neighborhood and infrastructure.
T. Moore asked when the NHDES approval of the amended site specific permit was anticipated.
T. Trudel said he thought it would be in 4-6 weeks.
T. Moore suggested that the Board not rush into a hasty list of conditions and that everyone work together on a list of conditions that everyone can live with and are enforceable. He offered that the hearing be continued to August and in the meantime an agreement be worked out.
T. Trudel objected, noting it would put them in the same position as last month, if the State approval comes in they would be losing time waiting for the next Planning Board meeting.
T. Moore offered that there didn’t seem to be a consensus about the conditions and it wouldn’t be appropriate to spend most of the meeting trying to work them out.
M. Dorman suggested that while the new section of Gunstock Road was being built the old section could be used as access while building the new road.
L. Komornick questioned whether nor not the NHDOT would allow the use of the old section.
M. Dorman added that he wasn’t aware of anything in the permit that required the closure of the first driveway before building of the first one. He suggested that no COs would be issued until the road was complete. M. Dorman offered that this would solve a site access issue while securing the site.
M. Curran suggested that it be locked in with a condition and ensure that the boulders didn’t get removed until the binder is in place.
There was discussion of how much Greenfield Drive was used during initial construction. Mr. Brown noted that it was only used during the logging process, others rebutted that it made a mess of the road during that time. Mr. Brown added that they did clean up roads immediately, noting that they only wanted the option of use of the road available for when there was no other access so he wouldn’t have to shut the site down. Ms. Somers offered that M. Dorman’s proposal was one the GEHA could live with, asking that the boulders still remain.
S. Ranlett noted that he had worked on a lot of construction sites and when they were told not to use a certain road or route they did not use it. He added that he felt Mr. Brown would be using reputable companies and the expected they would act in the same manner.
There was additional discussion of the possibility using the existing curb cut while the road was being relocated and the new curb cut installed. L. Komornick raised the question of the Town’s liability if the curb cut is used without NHDOT permission. M. Dorman offered to check on the matter with NHDOT. It was noted there would be no residential traffic on the old curb cut, just use while the new access was constructed. The representatives for GEHA reiterated their list of requests for conditions of any approval. The representatives for Brown Hill Estates noted that any further conditions or delays would only make it more difficult to begin construction this year.
T. Moore suggested that the interested parties get together and work on potential verbiage for any suggested conditions of approval and that the hearing be continued to August 2, which was only two weeks away. He noted that it wasn’t anticipated that NHDES approval would be received in that time anyway. T. Moore added that if everyone could agree on the language it could be a five-minute approval. He stated that the hearing was continued to August 2, 2006.
The chairman called for a break at 8:00 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:06 p.m.
A Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan Review Application by Duane Skofield for a 5,280 square foot office and retail building containing four units located at 207 Main Street, Tax Map 30, Lot 57, totaling 1.31 acres and 403.10 feet of frontage in accordance with RSA 674:41, I (d).
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates and Steve Cumming, engineer, were present for the application.
C. Zilch updated the Board regarding changes that had been made to the plan in light of previous discussion with the Board and the abutters as well as the decision of the NHDOT to not grant a driveway permit on Main Street. He outlined the features of the site plan, including the parking, building style and drainage. Mr. Zilch explained what each sheet of the plan depicted including the plan notes, existing conditions, recordable sheet, grading and drainage, utilities, traffic flow, landscaping and signage, building plan and other details. He added they had received state approval of their septic design and were awaiting their final driveway permit and any questions from the Fire Chief. Mr. Zilch offered that he had reviewed the comments from CLD and there was nothing there that couldn’t be easily addressed,
mostly housekeeping issues.
T. Moore noted that the CLD letter seemed to suggest more traffic than would have been anticipated.
S. Cummings replied that the total volume was the same, there were just differences in the traffic counts at peak hours. He noted that they used the calculations from the National Standards of the Institute of Traffic (which is considered the standard).
There was discussion of some of the details of the traffic report.
S. Ranlett asked what kinds of businesses were expected to occupy the site.
C. Zilch answered that not all the four units were spoken for yet. He added that they were anticipating that one would be taken by a nail business (not cosmetic nail) perhaps something else like a cabinet maker.
S. Ranlett asked if everything would be contained in the building.
C. Zilch confirmed that everything was intended to be kept inside the building.
There was discussion of the driveway placement, which was as far from the Route 121A/Walton Road intersection as possible as well as the residential driveway across the street. The curb cut to Walton Road was noted to be constructed in such a way as to make turning right, while exiting onto Walton Road very difficult.
James Convery, 7 Walton Road, presented a petition signed by a number of the residential neighbors expressing opposition to the commercial site plan, particularly on the issue of traffic.
Sheila Clark, 10 Walton Road, asked to see where the location of the driveway was. After being shown on the plan she questioned the safety of the proximity to the intersection.
C. Zilch noted that it was 125 feet from the intersection, suggesting that it wasn’t as close as the plan may depict it to be.
S. Clark asked if the drainage, noted to be sloped to the Walton Road corner, would be a problem for the neighborhood. She offered that they already had problems with water in their yard as is.
C. Zilch explained the proposed drainage detention area that would allow the water to seep into the ground.
S. Cummings offered a more detailed explanation of the drainage, providing more technical detail.
S. Clark asked what the height of the building was to be. It was reported to be approximately 25 feet high.
S. Clark questioned what kind of lighting was proposed.
C. Zilch replied that there wasn’t a large amount of lighting required by this site. He said there would be some lighting on the front of the building, under an awning, and some floods on the back near the overhead doors. He added the delivery times would be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and that the dumpster would be in an enclosed area on the All Tune and Lube side.
S. Clark suggested that a nail business would mean trucks coming in to get nails and then leaving to go to a job site.
C. Zilch offered that was included as part of the traffic study.
There was additional discussion of the traffic study.
S. Clark questioned why the applicant would not have checked to make sure they could get a curb cut on Main Street before purchasing the property.
C. Zilch explained that there were some assumptions made based upon the existence of the residential curb cut. He added that it would be impossible for anyone to know all the NHDOT laws unless they worked for NHDOT. C. Zilch reminded that it was their first choice to use the Route121A curb cut and second choice to share a curb cut with All Tune and Lube, neither of which was approved. He added they were doing everything they could to keep traffic off Walton Road.
S. Clark offered there was already too much traffic on Walton Road.
M. Curran asked what the lot coverage was.
C. Zilch replied that it was 56-57%.
Rick Sullivan, 11 Walton Road, suggested that the Town take additional measures to prevent and prohibit commercial traffic from those trying to avoid the lights on Route 125, using Walton Road, noting the number of children on the road and the already heavy and fast traffic on the road. He also suggested that the curb cut from the site be turned even further to make it impossible to turn onto Walton Road.
C. Zilch noted that most of the site traffic will be related to the business and no business owner would want to do anything to upset the neighbors.
M. Curran added that Walton Road was already posted for no-thru trucking, but anyone using this site would be destination trucking, which would be allowed.
There was discussion of trucking patterns on Route 125 as well as what changes might occur with the redevelopment of Route 125 in the area. The issues with traffic on Walton Road as well as ways to restrict it were reiterated.
J. Convery asked if the State would grant a curb cut on Main Street if the project were downsized.
T. Moore replied that it had to do with proximity to other driveways and the intersection, not the size of the project
M. Curran added that it was not a safe situation to add another commercial driveway on Route 121A.
J. Convery asked if there was a process to request a variance from the State, noting again the petition from the neighborhood against the Walton Road curb cut.
M. Curran answered that she understood the frustration of the neighbors and had experienced it herself, but that this owner had rights to use the property.
J. Convery suggested that the Board just not approve the plan.
M. Curran replied that it wasn’t as easy at it sounded. She added that if they met the regulations and it was an allowable use they were bound by law to approve the plan.
Maria Gilbert, 209 Main Street, echoed the traffic concerns already expressed at the meeting. She added that this project would add to the traffic concerns already existing on Route 121A, noting that she had observed a number of traffic accidents at this intersection. Ms. Gilbert asked if Walton Road would be widened to prevent turning trucks from going on her lawn.
C. Zilch assured that the road was already wide enough to accommodate turns without going on her lawn. He added that there was a landscaping plan in place that would provide a visual barrier between the residents and the site.
There was additional discussion of the traffic and the anticipated type of use of the property.
S. Ranlett offered that considering the type of business that would use this site and the configuration of the driveway and parking, he didn’t see that there would be any trucks bigger than a box truck using the site. He said a box truck would have no difficulty leaving the site, making a left towards Route 121A and not having to go on Ms. Gilbert’s lawn.
J. Convery asked about the screening to his property.
C. Zilch noted there was a stockade fence proposed as well as additional landscaping buffer.
M. Curran added that if it proves to be inadequate, then Mr. Convery should bring it to the Board’s attention to see if changes are warranted.
T. Moore added that if trucks come off the site and tear up Ms. Gilbert’s lawn then the Board would see that it was repaired at the site owner’s expense.
S. Clark thanked M. Dorman for his increased presence on the site.
M. Curran noted that when all was said and done she felt this would be a better situation than what was currently there.
S. Ranlett offered that the neighbors to the Plaistow Cabinet location on Danville Road expressed many of the same concerns as these residents. The Board worked with them and the abutters and they had been proven to be good neighbors with no issues or complaints.
J. Convery asked for a higher fence to prevent diesel fumes wafting to his property while the trucks are idling. He suggested a 10 foot fence instead of the proposed six foot one.
M. Dorman noted that would violate State law regarding fencing height.
There was discussion of the proposed buffer between the site and Mr. Convery’s property.
J. Convery made the point that what is being proposed at this time did not guarantee what would occupy the site in the future, noting that the now All Tune and Lube automotive service center was originally proposed as storage.
M. Curran reminded that any changes to the site plan would have to come back before the Board and the abutter’s would have to be notified.
There was additional discussion of the buffer to Mr. Convery’s property.
M. Curran questioned the adequacy of the septic.
C. Zilch explained the septic plan and reminded that they already had State approval.
C. Zilch noted that no variance requests were needed and there were no comments from CLD that couldn’t be easily addressed and he was asking the Board to accept jurisdiction of the plan at this time.
J. Convery asked for additional distance measurements from the building to his property and an explanation of the paving and buffer.
C. Zilch provided the details.
 M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to accept the application for site plan for 207 Main Street as complete. There was no additional discussion of the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the hearing was continued to August 16, 2006.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Amendment Application for a proposed modification including replacement of the existing 1,118 square foot building with a two story structure and associated parking and site work upgrades. The property is located at 28 Old Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 14 and is 0.2 acres with 99.9 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Harold and Faith Edelstein.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, was present for the application.
R. Pica gave an overview of what he was proposing for redevelopment of the existing site. He explained that he was seeking to use the same footprint, adding a second floor, for storage of records, and a reconfiguration of the parking. He noted that he was seeking the Board’s denial in order to allow him to seek application for variance to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
There was discussion regarding the existing conditions of the site and what improvements were proposed with the new plan. Access around the site as well as the parking configuration was discussed as well as the need to provide additional records storage with changes in privacy laws.
Val Danos, 113 Plaistow Road, questioned if the building could go down instead of up.
R. Pica said there were issues with putting working office space in a basement, suggesting it wasn’t a good working situation as there could not be adequate windows for such a use. He added that they could build a split if it weren’t for access requirements under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
Dr. Andrew Edelstein noted that their offices were intended to be on the second floor.
T. Moore questioned the lot coverage.
R. Pica noted it to be 52.5%
T. Moore offered the Board was only trying to make sure that all issues that would require ZBA action were being identified.
R. Pica added that it was a safer situation and provided better access to Old Road as well as queuing to Route 125. He noted they had a small space to work within and they would not be increasing the use of the business only the efficiency at which it was run. R. Pica noted that advanced in technology also required that room be made in the exam rooms for different equipment, again pointing out the need for relocation of records storage.
L. Komornick asked if the State’s changes to Old Road were taken into consideration at the time this plan was drawn up.
R. Pica replied that they were.
V. Danos stated that he had a problem with the height of the building.
L. Komornick asked if it would exceed that maximum allowable by ordinance.
R. Pica noted that allowable was 45 feet and this building was proposed to be between 26 and 28 feet high.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to refer this plan to the ZBA for issues with the side and rear set back requirements. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
A Site Plan Amendment Application for Tami J. Recesso, for the conversion of an existing one story 1,930 square feet veterinary medical office building to become “Recesso Physical Therapy Business”. The parcel is Tax Map 25, Lot 24 located at 11 Garden Road, totaling .492 acres and having 150 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Dr. Dean Wallace.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering and Tami Recesso, Recesso Physical Therapy, were present for the application.
R. Pica noted there was a letter in the file from Dr. Wallace that authorized the application. He explained that they were not looking to change the existing building and offered they would be looking to install a handicap access ramp. He noted an existing conditions plan of the site and outlined the features.
M. Curran asked how the existing septic (which is to be replaced) would affect the new well location.
R. Pica replied that the old septic would be completely removed. He added that this plan was the same plan as had been previously approved for Dr. Wallace’s veterinary practice with one additional catch basin in the front and the addition of the ramp. R. Pica offered they were requesting a few waivers for the plan.
-§230-14b – location of offsite wells and septics
- §230-23b – landscaping plan (they were maintaining much of the natural landscaping with some additional plantings)
M. Curran asked why they were requesting the landscaping waiver.
R. Pica noted that the size of the existing trees and shrubs was adequate and leaving them in place would look better than taking them down and replacing them. He added they do not interfere with the drainage.
M. Curran questioned what kind of signage there would be.
R. Pica said that it was not addressed on the plan.
T. Recesso added that she would probably go with the size of the existing sign on the building.
R. Pica added that he did not detail the types and number of plantings on the plan.
There was a discussion of the existing landscaping.
R. Pica indicated there was one additional waiver request:
-§230-23a – pavement in the buffer (3 locations)
R. Pica offered that they would have to disturb vegetation in the wetlands buffer but reminded that the new wetlands ordinance allowed for them to do so without ZBA action or Conservation Commission (Con Com) consultation if the Board agreed that doing so was a better situation.
T. Moore added that felt that it would be better to remove the old leach field and then do some minor sloping of the already disturbed soils.
 M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to accept the amended site plan for 11 Garden Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14b (location of offsite wells and septics). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-23b (landscaping plan) and §2230-23a (pavement in the buffer). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the amended site plan for 11 Garden Road with the following conditions:
- The landscaping would be detailed on the final plan
- A free standing sign would be located on the plan for future use
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Request for Bond Reduction and Grand Opening Event by Ethan Allen
T. Moore read a request from Richard Johnson, and a report from UEI, for a reduction on the construction bond being held for Ethan Allen.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to reduce the bond being held for Ethan Allen by $74,266, leaving a balance of $46,464. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Request for Project Continuation by Telly
M. Dorman reported that he had been told the property owner was having difficulty in securing a contractor.
There was a discussion of how many extensions had already been granted.
M. Curran suggested that if an extension is granted it be limited to October 01, 2006 and no further extension be granted.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran to grant an extension for construction to begin at 113 Plaistow Road until October 1, 2006. No further extension will be granted. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Hoyt Elderly Housing – Request to Proceed with Engineering Review
L. Komornick noted there was a request, from R. Pica, with reference to the Elderly Housing Project on Chandler Avenue. The request was to move forward with engineering review on the Chandler Avenue project.
M. Curran confirmed that this plan would be reviewed by CLD. The consensus of the members was that it should proceed.
Other Business
L. Komornick noted that she had received the requested as built plans for 7 Old County Road.
Notice of Project Withdrawal by Kidder Concrete
It was noted that a letter had been received from Kidder Concrete, 22 Danville Road, requesting to withdraw their recently approved amended site plan.
Letter from Planning Board Attorney Regarding Question of Town Line as a Boundary Line
L. Komornick noted the question had come up regarding the use of a town line as a boundary when subdividing a parcel that is in two towns and this was the reply from the Board’s Attorney.
The correspondences in the member’s packets were noted.
There was a discussion of a date for a site walk for 144 Main Street (Process Engineering) with representatives from Windfield Alloy. The date was set for Wednesday, July 26, 2006, at 5:00 p.m.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
