Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
May 17, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas Vice-Chairman; Steve Ranlett; Barry Weymouth (arrived at 6:37 p.m.); Dennis Marcotte, Alternate; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
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 63, Lots 40, 41-1, 41-2, 41-3 and 41-5 by Ron Brown. The owner(s) of record is Ron Brown Investments, IIC.
Ron Brown, Ron Brown Investments, LLC, was present for the application.
L. Komornick reported to the Board that she had received a request for a continuance in this matter as additional information was needed.
T. Moore stated that the hearing would be continued to June 21, 2006.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan 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 is 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 of Appledore Engineering, Inc (AEI) was present for the public hearing.
J. Viarengo offered an overview of the entire project to bring all members of the Board up to date with what had been discussed at previous meeting. New traffic patterns, lighted intersections, landscaping, drainage, truck routes and building footprints were outlined. Ms. Viarengo explained that traffic studies were still being reviewed. She also noted that they had been able to resolve some of the items that they were previous seeking waivers for, particularly landscaping, and they would no longer be asking for those waivers. Ms. Viarengo reminded that they had been to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and had been granted four (4) variances.
There was discussion regarding progress with the City of Haverhill, MA (Haverhill). It was reported that discussion were ongoing and Ms. Viarengo was confident that all issues would be resolved.
The Board also discussed improvements to the intersection of Hazeltine Street and Route 125. Ms. Viarengo noted they would be making the improvements that related to the redevelopment of the Stateline Plaza, such as widening was is within the right-of-way, alignment of the signalized intersection and adjustments to the curb cut. It was also noted that other access points, aside from the signalized intersection, would be designated and constructed as right in/right out heading southbound on Route 125.
L. Komornick noted that between now and June 21, it would be important to assess what the Town’s response would be to reconstruct Hazeltine Street.
J. Viarengo offered the plans could be shown to the Regional Planning Commission (RPC) and they would be willing to work with them regarding the area.
L. Komornick asked if AEI had heard from Heavenly Donuts.
J. Viarengo replied that they were not part of this project.
There was a discussion regarding traffic and parking issues between Heavenly Donuts and the Stateline Plaza. Ways to potentially designate or share the parking, including cross easements, were discussed. J. Viarengo offered that it would be useless to designated and separate the parking, since most people are not going to move their vehicles to get a coffee at Heavenly Donuts and then a haircut at the salon in Stateline Plaza. She added that should it be an issue for the any of the businesses in the Plaza they should notify the landlord for potential police enforcement. (It was noted that the affected businesses were in Haverhill and therefore there would be no liability to Plaistow.)
D. Marcotte asked if the gas station would be staying in its current location, noting concerns over traffic patterns for trucks servicing the station.
J. Viarengo reminded that they would have to prove their delivery route as park of their traffic study calculations.
D. Marcotte questioned the access and delivery route for the proposed CVS store.
J. Viarengo explained the new truck route from Route 121 and noted that CVS would continue to use their existing rear doors for deliveries where the trucks can easily back in and would not interfere with traffic to the pharmacy drive-thru.
There was discussion regarding the intersection with Route 121 and Wentworth Ave and the possibility of it being designated right in/right out only. It was decided that it would be best to wait for the results of the traffic review before suggesting any additional changes.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters who with questions or comments. There were none. He stated that the hearing would be continued to June 21, 2006.
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider a Design 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).
Terry Trudel, SEC and Associates, was present for the hearing. He reminded the Board that this was a conceptual hearing regarding a commercial 1.3 acre property on the corner of Route 121A and Walton Road. Mr. Trudel offered the plan was for a single building with four units. He noted that an application had been made to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) for a curb-cut on Route 121A, which was denied, therefore the access was shown from Walton Road. Mr. Trudel added that there had been discussion with the owner of the adjacent property (All Tune and Lube) for a shared access, which was denied by the corporate office. He also noted that the requested traffic study would be part of the final application made to the Board.
There was discussion over the requested traffic study and the need to have it to assess where other potential problems would be with the site. It was noted there wasn’t much reason to send the traffic study to CLD (Planning Board engineers) since the NHDOT had already refused to grant a permit. The reason stated for the denial was the distance from the intersection was less than 200 feet.
M. Curran asked if putting the driveway on Walton Road would mean the address would change and therefore the zoning.
M. Dorman reminded that the zoning line was the centerline of Walton Road.
There was discussion of ways to restrict the traffic on Walton Road, such as posting sections, but since any traffic to this site would not be “thru traffic” it was decided that it wouldn’t change any of the current issues with traffic on Walton Road.
T. Trudel noted that while he understood the issues with Walton Road, his client was entitled to have access to his site. He added that they would also prefer the access from Main Street but there wasn’t much they could do since the NHDOT refused the permit.
T. Moore asked what kind of business this site would be used for.
T. Trudel explained there would be a front office and a rear area for storage and retail display.
M. Curran asked if there were any tenants currently in mind for the site. It was confirmed there were none yet.
M. Curran acknowledged that the property was zoned commercial at the time of purchase and there is a driveway on Main Street for the residential use. She offered that if NHDOT wouldn’t allow a commercial driveway on Main Street then perhaps the residential use would be the best use for the property. M. Curran suggested that it would not diminish the current value of the property or deny use of the property; changing the use would be a hardship to the neighborhood.
S. Ranlett reminded that the property was commercially zoned and the owner was entitled to make a commercial use of the property. He offered it would be better to look at ways to make the drive off Walton Road safer and maybe make it unattractive to do anything other than turn towards Main Street.
There was discussion of possible ways to configure or construct a driveway off Walton Road that would discourage traffic on Walton Road.
Donald Clark, 10 Walton Road, asked if the NHDOT might grant a permit if the scope of the project was downsized.
T. Moore said that the question could be asked.
M. Dorman reminded that reason for denial wasn’t the size of the building, but the distance from the closest intersection.
A number of residents expressed concerns and opposition to the project. Those speaking were:
Donald Clark, 10 Walton Road
Sheila Clark, 10 Walton Road
Maria Gilbert, 209 Main Street
Jams Convery, 7 Walton Road
The concerns that were expressed:
- Increased traffic, particularly truck traffic, on Walton Road
- Speed of traffic on Walton Road, noting it was already of concern with the high school traffic
- Lack of police enforcement of traffic laws; posted speed limits and “no thru trucking” restriction on Walton Road
- Noise that would be created from a commercial business
- Safety of children and elderly in the neighborhood
- Impact to the sense of community with the increase of traffic
- Increase in accidents
- Infrastructure of Walton Road
- Impact to property values
M. Gilbert also noted that she didn’t want to see people who miss the driveway to the commercial property using her driveway as a turn around.
The Board discussed a number of circumstances that would affect traffic on Walton Road, some adversely and some would help. Those items were:
- Vehicles entering or exiting the site would not be traveling at a high rate of speed
- Changes planned for Route 125, including a median, would make it less attractive to use Walton Road
It was also noted that denying access to the property as a commercial site could put the town in a lawsuit situation that would be difficult to defend.
R. Zukas reminded the residents that it was suggested to them a few years ago that they petition the voters to change the zoning in that area and they took no action. He added that you couldn’t deny a person access to a property for the zoned use, essentially making it landlocked.
S. Ranlett recalled that there had been discussion in previous years about closing the north end of Walton Road. He questioned M. Curran as to why the Board of Selectmen (BOS) didn’t take that action at the time.
M. Curran offered that the Police and Fire Departments noted a number of safety issues with closing the end of the road. She added that it was important to have two points of access to an emergency situation whenever possible. She reminded that the roads in Plaistow were all town roads and everyone had the right to use town roads.
The abutting residents expressed a number of concerns regarding the current improper use of the property, noting a number of violations including:
- Use of an illegal driveway on Walton Road
- Selling of cord wood without a home occupation
- General property maintenance issues
M. Dorman offered that he had sent letters addressing the problem after the last meeting and this was the first time he was hearing from anyone that there were still issues with the current site.
S. Ranlett suggested constructing the driveway as a right turn in, left turn out only situation. He drew an example on the white board in the meeting room. He suggested that business could be required to have delivery route instructions added to all their bills of lading to instruct drivers to approach from Main Street to Walton Street only.
M. Gilbert expressed frustration that there was now concern over this matter going to court, but there was less concern with taking the resident/owner to court to gain compliance with enforcement of the current violations.
D. Clark offered that he “couldn’t emphasize enough” his interest in seeing the size of the project reduced.
T. Moore said that there was no action to be taken by the Board on this matter at this meeting. He offered that the applicant would now have to decide whether or not to go forward with the application as is stands. T. Moore noted there were a number of issues and concerns with the project that the Board would have to give careful consideration to.
The hearing was closed.
The chairman called for a break at 8:10 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 p.m.
A Preliminary Design Review Application on a proposed 400 Square Foot Ice Cream Take-Out Facility to be located at 129 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 29, Lot 57 totaling .25 acres and having 282 feet of frontage. The owner of record is the Estate of Tavitian
Peg and Peter Marcelonis, buyers of the property, were present for the application.
Ms. Marcelonis explained that they would like to open a small ice cream take-out place at the property located on the corner of Jesse George Road and Route 125. She noted that initially they had thought the property to be larger but since they purchased it they found it to be .25 acres. Ms. Marcelonis noted the features of the site including:
- 10 parking spots
- 20’ X 20’ ice cream stand with walk-up service
- Seasonal operations with 203 employees at a time
- 200 gal septic system – The intent was for a 300 gal system, but there isn’t room with the well radii
Ms. Marcelonis explained that they had problems designing a septic and a well placement plan. She noted that the abutting property owners refused to grant any types of waivers for radii. Ms. Marcelonis added that the 50 foot setbacks from the street fronts and the 12 foot landscaping buffers presented additional challenges.
The Board expressed concern over this use on this small a lot, noting the following concerns:
- Traffic and parking problems. Parking overflow could not be allowed on either the abutting property or the streets. It was noted this would be difficult to enforce
- Not enough parking, noting the success of the Marcelonis’ current ice cream stand, it was felt that the parking on the plan would not be sufficient.
- Narrowness of Jesse George Road as far as access and those trying to park on the street
- Number of waivers and variances would be hard to justify
Ms. Marcelonis suggested an alternative to walk-up service, offering they could have a location for bulk sales of ice cream, ice cream cakes and slush. The idea would be to sell to parties.
S. Ranlett offered that bulk sales had a far better chance of working with the size of the property than a walk-up service would.
The Board continued to express concern with this use on this location. They cited the success of the Marcelonis’ other store as an indication that this site was too small for this use.
T. Moore reminded that they Board had increased the minimum lot size in the Commercial 1 (C1) district to 80,000 sq. ft. because it was felt that it was best considering landscaping, parking and buildings on a commercial lot.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak.
Pauline Young, representing her mother at 11 Jesse George Road, offered there was already a lot of traffic on that road and this use would increase that traffic whether it was bulk or take-out. She added that they were opposed to the plan because of traffic, trash and noise concerns.
Mr. Marcelonis suggested posting Jesse George Road for “No Parking” on the side of the street with the residential houses.
M. Curran noted that the site plan would also have to include a lighting plan.
S. Ranlett offered that by the time all interested departments, including Police and Fire Departments, have input it would be extremely difficult to get this site plan passed.
Ms. Marcelonis asked if the Board would approve a different use of the property.
M. Curran replied that would depend on the use and the plan presented. She noted that all plans are looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Ms. Marcelonis noted that it is very difficult to get a 400 sq. ft building to fit on this lot and that they would be very disappointed if someone were to come in and get approval since they were being discouraged.
S. Ranlett answered that anyone else would be facing the same issues with this site. He added it was just a very small lot and it would be difficult to put anything there.
R. Zukas suggested the Marcelonis’ were looking for something that could go on this lot.
S. Ranlett offered that he couldn’t think of anything without someone coming in with some kind of brainstorm. He added that winter uses of the property would have additional issues, such as snow storage.
T. Moore suggested the only use he could see were if the lot was included in some kind of lot configuration with abutting properties.
Tyler Pentoliros, grandson of the owner (Hope Pentoliros) of the abutting property, noted the concerns of the owner would be that parking would overflow onto her property. He added that there were also concerns about the septic and the well.
A Public Hearing on A Site Plan Amendment for Shaw’s Plaza located at 9 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 24, Lot 38, totaling 20.38 acres to add parking to accommodate an additional restaurant
Mark Donahoe, Taurus Investments, owner/managers of the property, was present for the application. He explained they had purchased this mall, which he noted to not be well run, with the intention of bringing it up to date for re-sale. Mr. Donahoe noted the he had added a small Chinese restaurant to the plaza, which maxed out the parking for the rest of the plaza and there were still open storefronts that couldn’t be filled without additional parking. He noted the spaces would be designated on the back of the building, where there was already pavement and would be for employee parking. Mr. Donahoe added that new leases were being written that required all employees to park at the rear of the buildings. He noted that the regulations required that he have 620 spaces (including the restaurant) and they
were looking to add spaces to bring the total to 629.
M. Dorman noted that the septic was adequate and in working order and that the new calculations were done on a tenant by tenant basis based on the current use.
M. Curran asked how this would help the current congestion of the parking lot.
M. Donahoe explained that the additional parking, particularly by putting it to the rear of the buildings, should free spaces for customers in the front. He added that none of the new spaces were in conflict with any egress doors.
R. Zukas agreed that putting the employee parking around the back should free spaces in the front and relieve some congestion.
T. Moore reminded that this was an application to amend a site plan and the only issue before the Board was the additional 48 parking spaces.
M. Donahoe noted that the restaurant was already in progress, he noted that by adding the restaurant it limited his ability to rent the remaining vacant stores.
M. Dorman noted that the site was short in parking before this change.
M. Curran asked if the new parking spaces would interfere with any of the dumpsters.
M. Dorman replied they may have to move a couple to accommodate the parking spaces but it wouldn’t be an issue.
M. Donahoe noted that the site was “under-parked” to begin with and with the addition of the restaurant they talked to the engineers to make sure there were no issues with traffic or firelanes.
The question was asked regarding what would happen at the plaza once Shaw’s moved out.
M. Donahoe replied that since Shaw’s owned the building, leasing the land, it was up to them to fill the space or take advantage of a buy-out option and pay penalties. He said that in either event there would not be another grocery store at the location.
L. Komornick asked if they had officially talked to Haverhill regarding sewer negotiations, noting if that occurred it would open up the site to more pavement.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters who wished to ask questions or comment.
Joan Pichowicz, 24 Chandler Ave, asked where the restaurant was located.
M. Donahoe showed where the parking was to be located and where the restaurant was.
M. Dorman reminded that the area for the new parking was already paved.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the amended site plan for parking at Shaw’s Plaza, 5-9 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the amended site plan for parking at Shaw’s Plaza, 5-9 Plaistow Road.
There was a discussion as to whether or not an as-built plan should be submitted.
M. Donahoe noted the only real change was to the markings on the pavement.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
T. Moore said that all the details of the previous site plan should be on this new plan.
M. Donahoe noted for the Board that they would be willing to work with the Town with the what ever changes will need to be made to Hazeltine Street.
L. Komornick asked if there would be a letter sent to the employees regarding parking in the back of the building.
M. Donahoe replied that it was now in the lease agreements and it will be enforced.
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 the complex will be through the extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow and a roadway in Haverhill, MA that currently serves the existing senior housing development owned by Fairway Oaks, LLC and which abuts this property. The total acreage is 23.1 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
Philip Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi, and Nels Palm of Fairway Oaks, LLC, were present for the application.
P. Christiansen gave an overview of the proposed complex, noting the parcels involved, the 56 detached, single-family dwellings, all with septic systems and wells, additional parking for the storage of RVs, a pool and a club house. He noted the access points in Haverhill and in Plaistow. Mr. Christiansen noted they have already done soils mapping, topography and wetlands mapping. He added that there were problems with the way the town’s elderly housing ordinance was written in that it was for apartments, not for single-family detached buildings. Mr. Christiansen explained that they would need a number of variances from the elderly housing ordinance in order to make this project work. He listed:
- They would like to use private funding versus HUD (Housing and Urban Development)
- Single-family detached dwellings versus apartment style and larger and the square footage allowable
- They would like all the units to be two-bedroom as opposed to the maximum of twenty-five two-bedroom units
- Instead of a common laundry area each dwelling to have a laundry
- They do not want to have to have sidewalks and there is no need for handicapped accessibility for the units.
M. Curran suggested that just listening to the list of variances needed so far the complex sounded more like a PRD (Planned Residential Development).
M. Dorman offered that they talked about that when they were doing the checklist for the plan. He added the applicants wanted to work under the elderly housing ordinance in order to get more density, which they would not be able to do under the PRD ordinance.
There was a staff report in the member’s packet that listed a number of issues and concerns developed as a result of in-house staff review.
S. Ranlett asked if this housing would be “affordable.”
P. Christiansen replied that the success of the portion of the property that is in Haverhill shows that there is a need for this type of housing.
M. Curran offered that they wanted to bend all the rules and then they would be tax exempt, adding there was no benefit to the Town.
N. Palm noted there would be no additional strain on the schools.
P. Christiansen added it could be private roads that would not have to be maintained. It was noted that private roads were no longer allowed in Plaistow.
M. Dorman offered that with the easement that would need to be deeded to the Town the property would be cut in half, creating two non-conforming lots. He added they were trying to circumvent the Affordable Elderly Housing Community (AEHC) Ordinance.
P. Christiansen reminded the Board that they had come in previously with a plan and at the time there were no concerns expressed.
S. Ranlett offered there was nothing discussed for or against the project.
R. Zukas recalled that plan was for 32 units and now the plan is up to 56.
There was continued discussion of the plan and the issues with the number of variances that would be needed as well as whether or not the plan complied in any way with the Town’s AEHC or PRD ordinances. It was consensus that the applicant was trying to gain the benefits of both ordinances without the restrictions of either. It was also expressed that there probably would not be a lot of support for the number of variances that would be needed.
L. Komornick reminded that when the Board was looking at a conceptual of the project it was proposed to be on Haverhill water and sewer.
M. Dorman questioned if there was anything that was in compliance with the AEHC ordinance.
P. Christiansen expressed surprise at the Board’s reaction, noting that he felt they had received a favorable response at their initial meeting with the Board.
S. Ranlett offered that review of a conceptual design doesn’t guarantee approval. He added there was a difference between a conceptual and a preliminary, particularly when a plan changes.
There was continued discussion of the variance request.
P. Christiansen acknowledged that the Town had rules to follow, but noted that the kind of housing that the rules allowed was not what people wanted as a product.
M. Curran replied that no one was saying that it wasn’t a great project, but they were saying that it wasn’t a AEHC project; it was more a PRD with a deed restriction for age.
M. Dorman added that they wouldn’t get the density they wanted with a PRD without a variance.
T. Moore estimated there could be a ten-unit PRD on the property without any problem, adding it didn’t come close to meeting the AEHC requirements. He added the ordinances were what they are.
S. Ranlett suggested that whether or not they get the support of the Board they could continue on to the ZBA.
T. Moore suggested the next step would be a cost/benefits analysis and if there are favorable results then the Board may want to consider options such as changing zoning or supporting variances.
The consensus of the Board was that just looking at the AEHC ordinance there were a lot of variance requests.
P. Christiansen requested a continuance in order to go back and review all the comments.
T. Moore noted that it was a public hearing and asked if any abutters wish to be heard.
The abutters speaking for the record:
Michael Willey, 7 Hillcrest Avenue
Linda Willey, 7 Hillcrest Avenue
Lola Gani, 14 Country Club Lane
John Kelly, 8 Hillcrest Avenue
Cliff Clark, 6 Hillcrest Avenue
The concerns expressed were:
- Crossing of the wetlands to connect this project to a town road
- Increases in traffic through the neighborhood
- Decreases in property values
- Disruption to wildlife
- Adverse effects to local wells and water supplies
- Children being able to play
- Number of houses planned
- Protection of the neighborhood
It was noted that any request for road acceptance would have to go through the BOS and there were a number of issues to be considered.
T. Moore added that there were no rules or regulations that would prevent building because it would increase traffic. He also noted that there would probably be some kind of split in the traffic between Plaistow and Haverhill, adding that Hillcrest would need to be widened as part of any project.
C. Clark asked if the developer was going to continue to “swallow up land” and potentially expand even further.
Nels Palm replied that short of purchasing the Haverhill Country Club all other options had already been explored.
M. Curran reminded that this was a preliminary hearing and there had not yet been a formal application made.
T. Moore added there had been a lot of strong comments voiced and the applicant would have to give them careful consideration as part of any application. He noted that preliminary hearings will not be continued indefinitely.
J. Kelly noted that he was told it took 2½ acres for a lot in this area (district). He asked if it was the AEHC that allowed them more houses.
T. Moore explained the AEHC would give them more density where the PRD would probably bring the number of houses down somewhere around ten.
P. Christiansen reminded that if the rules were strictly applied they could build a number of apartments instead of the single-family dwellings.
L. Gani noted that she didn’t think that these would be affordable to any elderly.
M. Curran reiterated the this project was more like a PRD seeking AEHC density. She noted there were many issues facing these applicants and it wasn’t going to be a quick and easy process. She assured that the Board would listen to all that was said.
T. Moore stated that the preliminary hearing would be continued to June 21, 2006.
Request for Bond Reduction by Little River
T. Moore read a letter from Torromeo Industries requesting a reduction in their bond amount for work done at 187½ Main Street.
L. Komornick noted that there was no report from Phil MacDonald (Underwood Engineers, Inc.) so the request will be on the agenda at the next meeting.
Request for Project Approval Extension by Danos
T. Moore read a letter requesting a two month extension of the approval for 113 Plaistow Road.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the request for a two month extension of the approval for 113 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 (Ranlett was not in the room).
FYIs
- Letter of intent from a dance studio to occupy the space above Bradford Shoe Store, 216 Main Street
- Letter of intent to occupy 11 Garden Road from Recesso Physical Therapy
 R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to adjourn the meeting at 10:14 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
