Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
December06, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Steve Ranlett (left the meeting at 9:25 p.m.); Barry Weymouth; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Robert Zukas, Vice-Chairman; was excused.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the minutes from the November 01, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
« M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the minutes from the November 15, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-0-2 (Ranlett and Weymouth abstaining).
Discussion regarding use of silt fences versus filter sock
M. Dorman offered an explanation regarding the use of filter socks as opposed to silt fences. He noted that silt fences were not always offering the protection they were intended to as they were frequently not installed properly due to the difficulty in doing so.
Literature was passed around to the members. It was decided that more information should be provided and a presentation by a local vendor, as well as comments from CLD (Planning Board Engineers) would be helpful to the Board in deciding whether or not to make a change in the regulations.
Other Business – Update On Stateline Plaza
Jennifer Viarengo, Appledore Engineering, Inc. and Marjorie Hession, Northstar Properties, were present for the update.
T. Moore noted that the bond for the redevelopment of Stateline Plaza was received by the Planning Office on this day.
J. Viarengo offered that the only outstanding issue of the conditional approval was the receipt of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) driveway permit. She noted that she didn’t see any problems in obtaining a permit it and they were just waiting for comment from NHDOT. She added for the Board that the application was filed with NHDOT in May and there was no way that they could have anticipated that the approval would take over six (6) months.
M. Dorman added that he had spoken with Steve Ireland of NHDOT, District VI, who has assured that the permit will be granted and that it’s just going through the red tape.
M. Curran expressed concern with allowing the project to continue without each and every condition of the approval being met. She added that the Board had been generous in allowing them to do the work that they had but allowing them to continue or go further would be against the normal procedures of the Board. She added that deviating from normal policy also put undue burden on Staff putting them in the position of having to do daily checks and chase information that should be the responsibility of the developer.
T. Moore asked if they had found an underground tank on the property, which had been reported to staff.
J. Viarengo replied that they had, and that now that they had it would have to be removed in the name of safety. She added this was often the problem with redevelopment; things are found on the site that weren’t anticipated and need to be dealt with when they are discovered. Ms. Viarengo noted the work that had been done thus far was utility and site preparation work related, offering the buildings needed to be demolished for the underground utility work to be done.
There was discussion regarding what was being done of the site and whether or not it was within the scope of what the Board had permitted.
S. Ranlett asked for verification that the bond was in place, and it was verified. He noted that the demolition work was already done and that the Board did approve (noting the minutes of the August 16, 2006, meeting) the utility, drainage and site preparation work to begin.
There was additional discussion regarding how the open plaza was being affected by the work and concerns for public safety. There was additional discussion regarding what activity if any would be allowed to continue before receipt of the NHDOT driveway permit.
J. Viarengo reiterated that all the work done on the site as of this date was within the bounds that the Board had laid out in their August 16 motion. She stated that they were well aware that no building permits would be issued until all conditions of approval have been met.
M. Hession offered apologies to the Board for the delay in the receipt of the bond and the NHDOT permit. She noted that their major interest now, with the work in progress, was to make the site safe and reduce liability concerns.
M. Curran expressed concern with allowing any further work on the property with the NHDOT permit in place. She added that she felt it was important to adhere to the rules that all items of the checklist be completed.
T. Moore suggested that the demolition materials needed to be removed and the foundation made safe, noting that the site couldn’t be left in an unsafe condition.
M. Hession explained that they would like to be able to remove the building debris as there are contaminants and then smooth out the soils and leave it. She reminded the Board that this was a working plaza and would continue to be during the redevelopment. Ms. Hession noted that they would try to have as little disruption to operations at the plaza as possible and to keep the site as safe as possible.
There was a discussion regarding how to word any motion regarding what work, if any, would be allowed on the site until receipt of the NHDOT driveway permit.
«S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to allow the following with reference to the Stateline Plaza project at 4 Plaistow Road:
- The demolition materials may be removed from where the Golden Lion restaurant was and the site leveled out
- The tank found in the ground during other utility/site work may be removed
- There shall be no work done in any areas of the property other than those that were already being worked on (nothing past the jersey barriers in the parking lot or the electrical room on the back of the building – this does not include the work to make the Golden Lion demolition site safe)
J. Viarengo asked if the gas line trench could be dug to the electrical room, noting the importance of getting the line in to relocate that utility.
It was agreed that since it was within the areas already being worked on that the gas line could be worked on. It was reiterated that no work was to be done beyond the jersey barriers.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
A Public Hearing on a Subdivision and Site Plan Review Application(s) for an existing parcel to be subdivided into two lots, one industrial and one residential with an existing house. The industrial lot will be utilized for 12 commercial contractor units totaling 24,000 square feet of floor space. The property is located in the Industrial Zone at 27 Westville Road, Tax Map 40, Lots 9 & 10. The property totals 13.02 acres and has 1,235 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Richard and Norma Dickey.
Michael Garrepy, Westville Road Realty LLC; Jeffrey Dirk, Vanasse and Associates, Inc.; and Wayne Morrill, Jones and Beach Engineers, Inc. were present for the application.
M. Garrepy reminded the Board that they had previously seen the plan for 27 Westville Road in a conceptual format. He explained that there were two issues to be reviewed regarding the property, subdivision of the property and a site plan for one of those lots. M. Garrepy explained they intended to divide the property into two lots, one that would be wholly in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) zoning district and one that would be completely in the I (Industrial) zoning district, which would be the lot they sought site plan approval for. He noted the features of the lot including the location of a residential dwelling and significant wetlands. M. Garrepy offered that the Town was already recognizing these as two separate lots, with a slightly different lot line than what they sought, on the tax map but he could find
no deed that separated the parcels. He explained where the boundaries would be noting that since it was only a two-lot subdivision State approval would not be required. He added that they would only be seeking one waiver for the subdivision plan, which was for the scale of the plan, which would allow them to keep the entire plan on one sheet.
M. Garrepy explained the details of the proposed site plan. He explained the access off Westville Road noting the location met all sight distance requirements and was in the best place to provide maneuverability on the site. He added that he had met with Highway Supervisor, Dan Garlington, and he was satisfied with the location. M. Garrepy continued to explain the details of the site plan including the size of the two proposed buildings, noting there would be nine (9) units in one building and three (3) units in the other.
There was discussion of the wording of note #21 on the plan which described the permitted uses and required Planning Board approval for any change of use. It was noted that the uses would include light industrial and commercial contracting.
M. Garrepy offered that he felt they had addressed the concerns of the initial technical review and CLD and had recently submitted updated plans. Additional comments were not yet received on the updated plans.
M. Curran noted the flood plain designations on the plan asked how that affected the site.
M. Garrepy replied that none of the buildings were in the flood plain, only a small portion of the parking area.
There was additional discussion regarding the flood plain. It was noted the septic was not in the floor plain, and neither was the well head, but the well radius did include areas in the flood plain.
W. Morrill offered that there was nothing electrical, mechanical and no buildings were located in the flood plain. He added that wouldn’t be allowed under any insurance policies.
M. Curran, noting the often dangerous nature of Westville Road, asked if a sidewalk could be included across the front of the property.
W. Morrill responded that they had included a swale to collect water running off the road. He noted that a sidewalk would trap the water and could create an icing situation.
M. Curran questioned if drainage could be installed.
M. Garrepy suggested it would be costly for them to install a sidewalk that was unrelated to the development of their site. He added that he didn’t see the nexus to this site offering that people neither working on the site nor visiting the site would be making use of a sidewalk.
M. Dorman noted that Westville Road is an important collector road and there was high pedestrian traffic. He added that he would like to think that when the bridge was widened, that there would be provisions made for pedestrians.
There was additional discussion regarding whether or not a sidewalk should be part of this plan. It was decided that there should be nothing on the plan that would prevent a future sidewalk and the frontage would be sloped in such a way to accommodate such a future sidewalk.
J. Dirk explained how the site distance for the driveway was calculated and why the current location was best for the site plan. He noted that the minimum required would be 270’ and they were able to prove 285’ (it was noted the plan states 275’) of sight distance. He added that there was opportunity to do some additional clearing and removal of vegetation to increase that sight distance.
There was additional discussion regarding the potential for a sidewalk. It was noted that the Town would be upgrading Westville Road and it was important that nothing be done on this site that would prevent the addition of a sidewalk should the Town decide to put one in. It was noted that there would be no work done within the Town’s right-of-way. It was reiterated that the grading and swales would be done in such a way as to provide room for a future sidewalk.
Bob Peters, 22 Westville Road, offered that he would really like to see a sidewalk on Westville Road, noting there was ample pedestrian traffic.
Pat Peters, 22 Westville Road, echoed the need for a sidewalk, noting the danger of the “s” curve in the road. She added that in the winter time it was difficult to regain control of an automobile in a slide situation, no matter which direction someone was coming from.
L. Komornick noted they were still awaiting comment from CLD on the changes. She expressed concern of the wording of note #21, offering that the initial review of the plan was as contractor units. L. Komornick suggested that the wording was too “gray” in what it included.
M. Garrepy explained the he would like all the uses of the district (Industrial) to be permitted on the site. He noted that “contractor units” wasn’t specifically called out for on the list of permitted uses. He added that there was no way to know future uses and calculate parking based on each individual use. M. Garrepy reminded that staff could send anyone seeking occupancy to the Planning Board if they felt it was needed.
M. Curran suggested that it needed to be more specific as it could affect the parking calculations for the site.
M. Garrepy explained how he calculated the parking, noting the he didn’t expect that any of the light industrial uses or contractor unit use would change. He suggested the he would meet with L. Komornick and M. Dorman to work out better wording.
T. Moore noted that they needed to wait for and have addressed any comments from CLD regarding the approval of this plan. He added that the applicant should meet with staff regarding the wording of the note on the plan. T. Moore reminded that the occupancy of the site would be restricted by the septic and the number of parking as it is now on all other sites.
M. Garrepy asked if there were any additional comments regarding the plan (beyond comment from CLD) that the Board felt they should be addressing for approval of the plan. None were stated at this time.
« S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to accept the subdivision plan for 27 Westville Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to grant the request for a waiver from § 35-18T (plan scale). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the subdivision plan for 27 Westville Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
« S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to accept the site plan for 27 Westville Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore continued the public hearing on this matter to December 20, 2006.
The chairman called for a break at 7:57 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:10 p.m.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, November 1, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plaistow Town Hall, 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH to consider the following amendments to the Town of Plaistow Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations
A draft copy of proposed changed to the AEHC (Affordable Elderly Housing Community) ordinance was discussed. T. Moore provided a copy with hand written changes noted on it. Those changes were discussed and will be incorporated in a new draft copy to be provided to the Board for continuation of the public hearing on December 20, hopefully with language that can be posted to the warrant. Some of the changes included a formula for determining how many units could be built.
Jerry Coogan, Fairway Oaks LLC, asked if more consideration had been considered in the re-write.
T. Moore offered that was part of the dilemma as that was somewhat wrapped up in the financing piece of the ordinance. He explained the assistance that was available from agencies such as HUD (Housing and Urban Development) and NHFA (New Hampshire Finance Authority). He added there was still discussion regarding 55+ versus 62+; rental versus ownership and the definition of affordable.
Ron Brown, Brown Hill Estates, asked about the discussion regarding the number of units that would be allowed under a new ordinance. He questioned whether or not the market should decide how many units are built.
T. Moore replied that the market was not going to be the only determining factor for how many units were built. He noted that they didn’t want to make it so attractive that no standard housing was built. He added that it was the intent of the ordinance change that the numbers for determining the units allowed to be built would be reviewed every three years. T. Moore suggested that the proposed formula was intended to make it fair to as many developers as possible without over-developing for this type of housing.
S. Ranlett suggested that any developers who had suggestion for changes to this ordinance submit them in writing for the Board’s review.
T. Moore stated that this public hearing was continued to December 20, 2006.
Warrant Article Wording for
2006-2007 Zoning Amendments
Article Z-1 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section
§ 220-28., Establishment of Districts, by revising it as follows:
The Town of Plaistow is divided into the following districts as shown on the Zoning Map:
RC Residential-Conservation
LDR Low Density Residential
MDR Medium Density Residential
CII Commercial II
CI Commercial I
IND Industrial
ICR Integrated Commercial-Residential
The official Zoning Map is generated by a Geographic Information System (GIS) and is on
file in the Department of Building Safety and Planning Board offices in the Plaistow Town
Hall
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section § 220-29., Zoning Map, by removing it.
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate redundant text between § 220-28 and § 220-29.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
« M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to post the proposed change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-2 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning
board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32I,
Minimum Dimensions for All Districts, by adding a note at the end of the table that states, “For Commercial and Industrial site plans also see Chapter 230, Site Plan Review Regulations, Article III, Landscaping, Section 230-23, for additional buffer requirements for open space, screening, and landscaping.”
The purpose of this amendment is to add a reference to the site plan and subdivision regulations.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
« M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to post the proposed change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-3 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-28., Establishment of Districts, by revising the CI district boundaries on the zoning map to correspond with property lines as shown on the proposed diagram below:
The following sentences will describe the proposed rezoning of the parcels that are being removed from the CI Zone:
Lots with frontage on the south side of Chandler Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on East Rd. and Tax Map 14, Lot 35 (owned by the Town of Plaistow) will revert to LDR;
Lots with frontage on the north side of Old Rd. will revert to MDR. Existing lots with frontage on the south side of Old Rd. which currently have area in CI and Industrial will revert to Industrial. Lots with frontage on the south side of Old Rd. with area in CI and MRD will revert to MDR;
The back lot behind the lots with frontage on Rose Ave. will revert to LDR;
Lots with frontage on Greenough Rd. will revert to LDR;
Lots with frontage on Birch St. and Ash St. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Shady Ln. and Walton Rd. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on the south side of Old County Rd. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on the north side of Old County Rd. and lots with frontage on Sunview Park will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Howard Manor will revert to MDR;
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that each parcel of land is contained in no more than one zone.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
There was discussion of specific properties to be included and not included in these changes. A letter from residents Old Road was read for the record, requesting that their properties not be rezoned. The public hearing on this change was continued to December 20, 2006.
Article Z-4 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-28., Establishment of Districts, by revising the CII district boundaries on the zoning map to correspond with property lines as shown on the proposed diagram below:
The following sentences will describe the proposed rezoning of the parcels that are being removed from the CII Zone:
Lots with frontage on the north side of North Ave. will revert to LDR;
Lots with frontage on Chandler Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Spinney Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on West Pine St. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on East Pine St. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Tracey Ln. will revert to LDR;
Lots with frontage on Kingshaw Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Forrest St. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Bailey Dr. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Congressional Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on the south side of Bittersweet Dr. will revert to MDR;
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that each parcel of land is contained in no more than one zone.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
« M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to post the proposed change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett leaves the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Article Z-5 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-28., Establishment of Districts, by adding a new “Village Center (VC) District” to the list of districts in Section 220-28. The district boundaries on the zoning map will correspond with property lines as shown on the proposed diagram below:
Also, add a new Table 220-32D to read as follows:
Table 220-32D
“VC” – Village Center
A. Objectives and characteristics. The purpose of the District is to provide a pedestrian-friendly area where residents may live, shop, work, and conduct town business. Where possible traffic calming techniques should be applied throughout the district and sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the street. The District boundaries are shown in the diagram below.
B. Uses.
Permitted Uses Allowed by Special Exception
1. Retail business (maximum 12. Day-care center
2,000 square feet per lot) 13. Home occupation
2. Place of worship 14. In-law apartment
3. Business/professional office (owner-occupied only)
4. Funeral establishment
5. Public use, limited to
public safety and service
6. Single-family residence/duplex
7. Accessory use
8. Essential service
9. AEHC (Affordable Elderly Housing Community)
10. Multifamily
11. Mixed use where an owner-occupant may reside and establish a business in building(s) on the same lot.
C. Areas and dimensions.
(1) Minimum lot size:
(a) Area: 40,000 square feet (per family).
(b) Frontage: 150 feet. Exception: Duplex uses require 200 feet of frontage.
(2) Minimum yard dimensions: refer to Table 220-32I.
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 30%.
(4) Maximum height: 45 feet or three stories, whichever is less.
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-28., Establishment of Districts, Table 220-32I by replacing the text that says “Where Commercial II land…” with “Where Commercial II or Village Center land…”
The following sentences will describe the proposed rezoning of the parcels that are being removed from the Village Center District Zone:
Lots with frontage on the north side of Bittersweet Dr. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on the north side of Pollard Rd. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Evans Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on May Ray Ave. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Westville Rd. will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on David Park will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Center Circle will revert to MDR;
Lots with frontage on Duston Ave. will revert to MDR;
Tax Map 41, Lot 25 at the end of Kimball Ave. will revert to MDR;
Tax Map 47, Lot 13 and a portion of Tax Map 47, Lot 11 will revert to Industrial;
The purpose of this amendment is to create a “Village Center” District.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
DISCUSSION:
M. Curran expressed surprise that this was appearing as an ordinance as she had remembered it being discussed as an overlay district. She questioned whether the proposed changes offered enough protections for the existing properties in the proposed district.
T. Moore offered that making it it’s own district allows administrative changes to be made to the “Village Center” without concern for how the districts that it over lays affecting or conflicting with those changes.
The public hearing was continued to December 20, 2006.
Article Z-6 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, by adding a new district, Residential Conservation II (RC II) and by renaming the existing Residential Conservation district to Residential Conservation I; all occurrences of Residential Conservation in Section 220 shall be changed to Residential Conservation I.
Amend Article V, Section 220-28 by adding the new RC II district to the list of districts.
Amend Article V, Section 220-32 by adding the new RC II district to Table 220-32 by renumbering Table 220-32I to Table 220-32J and by adding a new Table 220-32I as follows:
Table 220-32I
Residential Conservation II
A. Objectives and characteristics. The purpose of this district shall be to make the most efficient use of the land and provide large contiguous areas for wildlife habitats (added as part of discussion: open space to be in center of district with the housing around the perimeter). All plans submitted in this district will follow the PRD guidelines as specified in Section 220, Article VI.
B. Uses.
Permitted Uses Allowed by Special Exception
1. Single-family and duplex 11. Nursing and convalescent
dwellings homes
2. Multifamily housing in 12. Home occupation
a PRD* 13. Fraternal, service and
3. Manufactured housing in charitable uses.
a PRD* 14. In-law apartment in
4. Accessory buildings owner-occupied
5. Private/public nonprofit single-family dwelling*
recreation
6. Essential services
7. Agriculture
8. Forestry
9. Churches
10. Cemetery/burial site and mausoleum
10.1. AEHC (Affordable Elderly
Housing Community)
*See Article VIII.
C. Areas and dimensions. The same as those required for a PRD project in the LDR district.
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-28., Establishment of Districts, Table 220, Minimum Dimensions for All Districts, by replacing “Where Residential Conservation abuts any other land use,” with “Where Residential Conservation I or II abuts any other land use.”
This table is currently labeled 32I but is proposed to become Table 32J.
The purpose of this amendment is to make the most efficient use of the land and provide large contiguous areas for wildlife habitats.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to post the proposed change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-7 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Chapter 220-2, Definitions, by adding the following new definitions:
PROCESSED RECYCLABLE MATERIAL - A recyclable material which has been physically sorted and separated by material type, formed into bales or otherwise physically processed and packaged in a manner satisfying the specifications for transportation to and acceptance by a market that will use the material for the production of certified waste-derived products.
RECYCLING – Means “recycling” as defined by RSA 149-M:4, XX, namely “the collection, storage, processing and redistribution of recyclable materials.” The term excludes the redistribution of recyclable materials for any purpose constituting disposal as defined in RSA 149-M:4, VI, incineration or another purpose not directly related to the production of certified waste-derived products.
RECYCLING FACILITY -- A collection, storage and transfer facility which collects, stores and prepares recyclable materials for market and transfers processed recyclable materials to markets for recycling. The term includes “recycling center.”
RECYCLABLE MATERIALS – Means “recyclable materials” as defined in RSA 149-M:4, XIX, namely “materials that can be used to produce marketable goods, including but not limited
to separated clear and colored glass, aluminum, ferrous and nonferrous metals, plastics, corrugated cardboard, motor vehicle batteries, tires from motor vehicles, and paper.” The term does not include:
(a) Hazardous waste, hazardous air pollutants, and other waste not regulated as solid waste, as identified in Env-Wm 101.03;
(b) Waste identified as non-reusable in Env-Wm 2600, including asbestos and infectious waste; and
(c) Wastes from an unspecified production or generation process, such as municipal solid waste incinerator ash and contaminated soils or absorbent media.
SELECT RECYCLABLE MATERIAL – A recyclable material comprised of one of the following materials: paper, cardboard, glass, plastic, ferrous metal, non-ferrous metal, or textile materials.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide necessary definitions for particular uses.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to post the proposed to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-8 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article XIV, Section 220-100 F, “Imposition of waterline fire suppression system capital expenditures impact fee”, by removing it. The expansion of the fire suppression system will be covered in Site Plan Review regulations by adding a new paragraph to Section 230.
The purpose of this amendment is to move requirements from zoning to Section 230-26 of the site plan review regulations.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
This proposed change was continued to the December 20, 2006, meeting pending discussion of changes to site plan regulations that would substitute for this ordinance.
Article Z-9 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article VII, Affordable Elderly Housing Community (AEHC),
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the AEHC ordinance.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
This proposed change was continued to the December 20, 2006, meeting as part of an earlier discussion.
Article Z-10 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article XI, Excavations, Section 220-70, Permit Required, Paragraph C, Other Exceptions, as follows:
1. Modify paragraph 1 to clarify the reference to the permit so that it reads, “No State permit …”.
2. Modify paragraph 2 to clarify the reference to the permit so that it reads, “No State permit …”.
3. Add a new paragraph 3 to read as follows:
(3). In cases where a State permit is not required for reasons specified in Paragraph C, a Local Excavation permit is required.
(a). The Local Excavation permit form shall be specified in the Subdivision regulations.
(b). All Local Excavation permits shall require a public hearing except for those cases where the applicant is also applying for site plan or subdivision approval in which cases the discussion and review of the excavation information will take plan during the normal site plan/subdivision approval process.
(c). In all cases a separate drawing must show the reclamation to be done at the completion of the excavation.
(d). In cases where excavation is coincident with site plan or subdivision approval, no excavation can take place until the site plan and/or subdivision has been approved and all conditions of approval have been met.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to post the proposed change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Subdivision Changes
1) Amend Chapter 230, Site Plan Review, Article IV, Fire Protection, by adding a new Section 230-26 as follows:
230-26. Waterline Fire Suppression System.
For all new site plans and for those showing major renovations or improvements and that have frontage on Route 125, the Planning Board shall require that the applicant tie into the existing fire suppression system or make provisions for such tie in at a future date. All plans for such tie in shall be reviewed and approved by the Water Superintendent and/or Fire Chief. All such improvements must also be consistent with the NH Department of Transportation, NHDOT, Route125 improvement plan. The NHDOT Route 125 improvement plan is available at the Planning Board Office. Improvements may include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Installation of waterline along the frontage of Route 125.
B. Installation of a fire hydrant.
C. Cross over – waterline installed under Route 125 such that a connection to an active
or proposed waterline can be made on the opposite side of Route 125.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, adopt the change to the site plan regulation §230-26 as stated. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
2) Amend Chapter 235, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Plats and Data for Final Approval, Section 235-23 by changing all occurrences of “Town Engineer” to “Planning Board Engineer”.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, adopt the change to the subdivision regulation §235-23 as stated. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
3) Amend Chapter 235, Subdivision of Land, Exhibit A, “Town of Plaistow Typical Road Cross Section,” by replacing it with a revised one that provides for sidewalks and a grassy median strip between the road and the sidewalk.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, adopt the change to the subdivision regulation §235 as stated. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
4) Amend Chapter 235, Subdivision of Land, Article V., Plats and Data for Final Approval, Section 235-23, Construction Bonds, by replacing letter A. as follows:
Upon final approval of a subdivision and prior to the Planning Board’s signature of a mylar, the applicant shall furnish a construction bond within 45 days in an amount that equals 10% of the total cost of construction. Subsequently, prior to a building permit being issued, work not completed in the right-of-way shall be bonded 100% per paragraph B. below.
Upon final approval of a site plan and prior to the Planning Board’s signature of a mylar, the applicant shall furnish a construction bond within 45 days in an amount that equals 10% of the total cost of construction.
The purpose of the construction bond shall be to hold an amount of money sufficient to insure that the health, safety, drainage, potential erosion and wetlands issues can be successfully addressed with no cost to the town.
The Planning Board reserves the right to require more than 10% total cost of construction, but, as a minimum, the following items must be bonded:
1. Make safe/secure all unfinished structures.
2. Restoration of the 25-foot “No-Cut, No-Disturb” wetlands buffer to its natural state,
including planting wetlands vegetation.
3. Loam and hydroseed all disturbed areas.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, adopt the change to the subdivision regulation §235-23 as stated. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
The public hearing on Z-10 was reopened.
Article Z-10 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the planning board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article XI, Excavations, Section 220-70, Permit Required, Paragraph C, Other Exceptions, as follows:
4. Modify paragraph 1 to clarify the reference to the permit so that it reads, “No State permit …”.
5. Modify paragraph 2 to clarify the reference to the permit so that it reads, “No State permit …”.
6. Add a new paragraph 3 to read as follows:
(3). In cases where a State permit is not required for reasons specified in Paragraph C, a Local Excavation permit is required.
(a). The Local Excavation permit form shall be specified in the Subdivision regulations.
(b). All Local Excavation permits shall require a public hearing except for those cases where the applicant is also applying for site plan or subdivision approval in which cases the discussion and review of the excavation information will take plan during the normal site plan/subdivision approval process.
(c). In all cases a separate drawing must show the reclamation to be done at the completion of the excavation.
(d). In cases where excavation is coincident with site plan or subdivision approval, no excavation can take place until the site plan and/or subdivision has been approved and all conditions of approval have been met.
DISCUSSION:
There was discussion as to whether or not it was necessary to include the actual application form as part of the change in the ordinance. It was decided that since no other application forms were included in zoning and since it would be problematic to make changes to that form it was consensus to drop the references to the form from the proposed change.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to post the proposed change to the warrant AS AMENDED. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
OTHER BUSINESS – ESCROW RELEASE 11 GARDEN ROAD
T. Moore read a request from Recesso Realty to release the escrow being held for 11 Garden Road.
M. Dorman confirmed that the work was completed.
« M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to release the balance of the escrow being held for 11 Garden Road . There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
OTHER BUSINESS - Seacoast Tent – Request for Extension for Preconstruction Meeting and Bond Posting
A letter from David Buhlman of TF Moran regarding requesting an extension of the 45-day clock for a preconstruction meeting and posting of a bond was read.
There was discussion that noted there was no site work to be done on this project and therefore a preconstruction meeting and bond posting was not necessary.
There was a brief discussion of the procedures that would be followed for reviewing of the remaining changes.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary.
| 
