Town of Plaistow, NH Office of the Planning Board 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865 |
PLANNING BOARD
December20, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:39 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice-Chairman;; Steve Ranlett (arrived at 6:43 p.m. left the meeting at 9:29 p.m.); Barry Weymouth (left the meeting at 8:23 p.m.); and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present.
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 December 06, 2006 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Zukas abstaining).
Minor Site Plan Review for “Hot Tubs & More” located at 153 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 69 for modifications to allow outside display
Robert Agnello, Manager Hot Tubs & More, was present for the application. He apologized for the issues there had been on the site, explaining the he had only recently taken over management of the business. Mr. Agnello pledged to work within the site plan to correct the issues but noted he was asking to make some changes to the plan to accommodate outdoor displays of hot tubs, fire wood and patio furniture.
R. Zukas asked what affect the requested changes would have on the parking ratios.
L. Komornick noted that he would not meet the literal requirement for parking, but that it was rare that all the parking was used for this business.
(S. Ranlett arrived at 6:43 p.m.)
There was discussion of the existing parking and how it would be affected by the requested changes.
M. Curran noted that she was not in favor of the changes as requested. She added that the placement of the tubs caused visibility problems and since this was a retail location she didn’t see the reason for the wood pile, particularly in customer allocated parking.
There was additional discussion regarding placement and number of hot tubs the applicant would like to display. The applicant asked to place two hot tubs outside on the corners of the driveway for display. It was noted that they would be brought in each evening at the close of business and could not be placed on the grass area as that was State of NH (SNH) right-of-way.
M. Curran expressed concern over the placement of the tubs, especially in the winter as once there was snow it would decrease the driveway opening.
R. Agnello noted that his business was drastically reduced in the winter and the wood sales were important to its survival. He added that he wouldn’t be asking to keep more than ten (10) cord of wood and it was set thirty (30) feet off the road.
M. Curran offered that it was a small site and the location of Bresnahan storage trailers on the site made it yet smaller.
There was discussion regarding the trailers being on the site and what changes could be allowed if the trailers were not there. There was also discussion of an access gate for Bresnahan Storage business. It was noted that the gate was there to allow access for recreational vehicles that would be stored on the site.
There was additional discussion regarding the placement of the requested items. It was noted that there would be more room available if the Bresnahan trailer trucks were not being kept in the site.
M. Dorman noted that he would be following up with the approved site plan to determine if the trailers are allowed on the site. If added that if they were not he would be following up to have them removed and bring that part of the site into compliance.
T. Moore suggested that the changes be allowed for this business, but not done as a minor site plan change that way it would be easier to revisit the matter if there were any issues.
M. Curran moved, second by S. Ranlett, to allow the display of two (2) hot tubs as shown of the presented drawing; to allow patio furniture display in the spring and summer as shown on the presented drawing; and to allow ten (10) cord of wood to be displayed for sale. The wood shall be placed where shown on the presented drawing until the Code Enforcement Officer determines whether or not the trailers on the north side of the building are complaint. If the trailers are not complaint the property owner will be contacted regarding their removal and the wood will be relocated there.
There was discussion regarding the appearance of the wood pile.
M. Curran suggested that the pile should be neatly stacked. She added that it the wood is not neatly stacked it could interfere with snow removal.
R. Zukas suggested that that pile wouldn’t last that long and it would be impractical to require it be stacked each time. It was noted that the wood would be scooped up by bobcat and loaded into trailers or trucks for removal.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-1-0 (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.
Mike Garrepy, Westville Realty Investments, LLC and Wayne Morrill, Jones and Beach Engineers, Inc. were present for the application.
M. Garrepy updated on the progress of the plan noting that he felt that they had adequately addressed the items from CLD (Planning Board Engineers) letter of December 13. He noted that the last item for discussion was the wetlands set back requirements of the wetlands ordinance. M. Garrepy explained that they could maintain the twenty-five (25) foot no-cut, no-disturb setback. He offered that their interpretation was that the Planning Board could approve activities in the additional twenty-five and fifty foot no construction setback, noting that there was a need to do some grading around the detention pond for drainage purposes.
There was discussion of the issues outlined in the CLD letter.
Test pits – CLD requested that test pits be done in the wetland areas, noting the septic test pits were done in other open areas. It was noted that the areas were suitable for pond designs. There was a discussion regarding the drainage calculations.
Parking – It was noted on the plan that three (3) spaces were allocated per unit. CLD questioned the adequacy of this number.
M. Garrepy noted that it would be difficult to predict the number of exact spaces that would be needed without knowing actual occupants. He added that the parking would limit the types of businesses that would be allowed to occupy the site. He said that the number of spaces allowed would be included in lease agreements and that uses beyond the number of approved parking spaces would not be allowed without Planning Board approval.
Other details of the plan, such as the culverts; loading area for larger trucks (noting that most trucks would be small enough to use the overhead doors for each unit); and employee parking removed from in front of the dumpster location, were discussed.
M. Garrepy noted that he would be requesting a few waivers:
Lighting Plan – It was noted that the lighting on this site was minimal and fully compliant with the regulation. It was requested that a full lighting plan sheet be waived since the detail was clearly shown on other sheets in the plan set.
Landscaping Plan – It was noted that some trees would be removed from the front of the property for sight distance. M. Garrepy requested that they be allowed to not specifically locate the twenty-one (21) required trees on the plan in favor of a note that would say that once the trees are removed for sight distance; if there were less than twenty-one trees more would be planted to satisfy the requirement.
L. Komornick noted that CLD was looking for a stone dust path to the detention pond for routine maintenance of the pond.
M. Garrepy explained that the maintenance of the pond was limited, but they would comply if it was the decision of the Board.
S. Ranlett suggested that the access via stone dust path not be included in favor of a grassed area that would allow small Kubota-type machinery access. He noted that any damage to the grass could be easily repaired, adding that a stone dust path would be more difficult to maintain and wouldn’t look as nice as grass would.
There was discussion regarding the need for a stone path. It was noted that the pond was based on the seasonal high water table. It was consensus that a note on the plan regarding maintenance of the pond would be better than a stone dust path.
M. Garrepy noted that CLD questioned a second building on the site. He requested that the Board approve the second building as part of the plan as it was more aesthetically attractive than one larger building would be. He suggested that perhaps it was included as an item in recognition that all regulations were being reviewed. M. Garrepy noted that the two buildings allowed construction in a phasing fashion.
M. Curran asked if phased construction was anticipated.
M. Garrepy said that it was not and that if phasing was determined to be a better way to build they would be coming back to staff for further discussion.
There was discussion of the landscaping waiver request. It was noted that leaving all pine trees when the trees are removed for sight distance would not be acceptable to the Board, just so that natural vegetation remained.
M. Dorman read the regulation for the Board, which noted that deciduous trees were required.
It was determined that if there were any issues with the landscaping in the front M. Dorman could bring in a consultant as needed and note #20 on the plan, regarding the landscaping, would be modified as discussed.
R. Zukas expressed concern that three (3) parking spaces would not be adequate. He related it to the Red Oak site.
M. Dorman noted that parking has not been a problem at the Red Oak site.
M. Curran asked if there would be parking allowed outside.
M. Garrepy said it was an unknown at this time. He added that employees may be taking business vehicles home at night.
M. Curran asked if the units were going to be condominiums.
M. Garrepy replied that was not the intention at this time.
M. Curran questioned the loading area.
M. Garrepy responded that most of the units would just be making use of the overhead doors for loading. He noted that a parking area was provided for as a loading area for the rare times that deliveries would be made by a larger truck. He added that he didn’t think it would be used frequently if at all.
W. Morrill noted that it would be striped and signed for the intended use. He added that the dumpster would be signed to prohibit parking in front of it.
It was noted that the plan had previously been accepted as complete.
 M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to grant the waiver request for §230-18T (plan scale). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the waiver request for §230-11.C(2) noting the lighting detail on page C-4 of the plan was adequate. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Garrepy agreed to modify the note on the plan that would allow the Building Inspector discretion regarding the trees on the front of the property.
There was discussion regarding the wetlands and whether or not grading would be permitted in the no construction buffer. It was noted that this was the first test of the newly adopted ordinance. It was also noted that there would be no structures, just grading and landscaping. There was a discussion of how much fill would be removed and/or added to the site. It was noted that much of the fill being removed from one part of the site would be reused in other areas of the site and the nothing would be leaving the site. It was noted that the work requested would improve the site drainage.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to allow the grading and filling in the no-construction buffer, as shown on the site plan. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U.A,
L. Komornick asked if the plans included the test pit information.
M. Garrepy, noting that one more revision of the plan was being prepared, said that the information would be included.
L. Komornick questioned the fire protection plans.
M. Garrepy reminded that was part of the discussion at the last meeting and was determined that it would be part of the building design and the plan would be reviewed by the Fire Chief at the time of the building permit application.
R. Zukas questioned the lack of a cistern.
L. Komornick noted that it was determined there was enough water on the site.
T. Moore questioned if a driveway permit had been granted.
M. Garrepy, noting that it was a Town road, explained that Dan Garlington, Highway Supervisor, told him the Planning Board approval of the plan also included approval of the location of the driveway, which he had reviewed, and no formal permit would be issued.
L. Komornick requested that the requirements for a preconstruction meeting and bonding be noted for the record.
W. Morrill offered there was a note (#23) on the plan calling out that requirement.
M. Curran asked what had been decided with reference to sidewalks.
W. Morrill noted that a five-foot (5) strip was being sloped to accommodate any future sidewalk.
M. Curran asked if the roof drains were proposed to be tied into the underground drainage. It was confirmed that was the design intent.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the plan for 27 Westville Road, with the following conditions:
- Note regarding landscaping and ability of Building Inspector to consult
- Note regarding fire protection being approved at time of building permit
- Note that all State, Federal and Local permits (site specific, NOI and septic) will be received
- The 5 foot strip for future sidewalk will be noted on the plan
- A note to the plan regarding specific approval of all waivers.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Letter of Request Regarding Change of Location for Moonlight Reader
M. Dorman noted tht he believed this application would need to go to the ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) for a variance as it would be an adult-oriented business located within 500 feet of a residential use, despite the fact that the residential use was located in a commercial district.
Alfred Phanuef, King Realty, explained that the Moonlight Reader, currently a tenant at will at 111 Plaistow Road was looking for a new location.
T. Moore agreed that a variance would be required and once granted the request could come back to the Board.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the addition of 596 square feet to an existing commercial building located at 12 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 24, Lot 31. The property is located in the Commercial Zone and the property totals 1.31 acres and has 495 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Raymond and Donald Baron, 1993 Trust
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering was present for the application. He explained the details of the proposed change, which would put an addition on the front corner of the existing building, squaring it off. R. Pica noted that the loading area would be moved to the other side of the building and would be inside. He noted that the largest truck used by Baron’s on this site was thirty feet. R. Pica reported they had gone to the ZBA and were granted a variance for the side-line set back on the north side of the property to allow the addition. It was reported that deliveries averaged one per day and was mostly to change out or replace stock on the showroom floor. It was added that most deliveries were done from the distribution center at 95A Plaistow Road.
R. Pica added that the use of the site would not be changing, there would still be Baron’s, AutoZone and one additional retail business, so there would be no increase in water or septic use. It was noted that the retail and loading spaces were being reversed so there would be no increase in parking requirements, but the parking had been recalculated and outlined on the plan. It was noted that 44 was the minimum requirement and the plan called out 45 including 2 handicapped. It was noted that snow was removed from the site and the lighting was not changing except to include some additional shielding for the pole lights to bring them into compliance.
R. Pica noted that a waiver was being requested for the landscaping requirements. He noted that landscaping already on the plan and where additional shrubbery would be provided. R. Pica noted that there was a trench drain across the front of the property that didn’t allow for much landscaping. He also noted that the dumpster was being relocated further away from the residential properties that abutted the site.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the site plan for 12 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Waivers:
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the waiver request for §235-12rr (HISS mapping). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the waiver request for §230-23A (landscaping). It was noted there was not room for landscaping in the front and all natural vegetation would be called out on the plan. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A
 S. Ranlett moved, second by B. Weymouth, to grant the waiver request for §235-12ss (location of off-site wells and septics). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran asked if there would be a bond.
L. Komornick noted that there would be no site work done as part of the plan, only building construction so there was nothing to be bonded.
M. Dorman added there was no engineering review required either.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran to approve the site plan for 12 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion regarding 5 Garden Road – Big Boy’s Toys
M. Dorman reported that the site was approved by the Board to sell cars and pick-up trucks. He added that they had electrical issues that prevented them getting an occupancy permit, which then fell through the cracks. M. Dorman explained the issues came to light when they started selling bigger pieces of equipment but that the site had come into compliance two weeks previously and he would be issuing the certificate of occupancy (CO).
M. Curran agreed provided they continued to comply.
M. Dorman added that they may decide to come back to the Board for changes at a future date but they were aware that they had to maintain compliance.
M. Curran questioned that the business had been operating for over a year without a CO.
M. Dorman reiterated that there had been electrical issues and that it had fallen through the cracks, but the site was 100% compliant at this time.
Attorney Thomas Morgan, appearing for the DiBurro’s, owners of Big Boy’s Toys, affirmed that there had been issues with the electrical, adding that his clients had issues with the electricians themselves. He confirmed that the corrections had been made.
M. Dorman noted that he was now comfortable that the site was in compliance.
The chairman called for a break at 8:25 p.m. (B. Weymouth did not return to the meeting after the break.) The meeting was called back to order at 8:39 p.m.
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider amendments to the Town of Plaistow Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations
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)
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
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)
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
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 as reflected on the revised Town of Plaistow Zoning Map:
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;
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. and including 182 Plaistow Road, 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)
Charles Coleous, 18 Walton Road, noted that this was the first time he had been aware of the Board’s intention to change the commercial zoning line. He offered that he felt many of the people on the east side of Walton Road would want their property changed to residential if they were made aware.
T. Moore noting that there were concerns with properties that fronted on both Walton Road and Plaistow Road. He suggested that Mr. Coleous consult with his neighbors and consider filing a citizen’s petition regarding rezoning the property. He added that the deadlines for such filings had passed, adding that if one could be suggested in a timely fashion for the next year it may also be something the Board could review and consider supporting or posting as part of next year’s changes.
There was discussion of changes to the proposed amendment. It was noted that based on requests from the American Legion, owners of property on Greenough Road and after further review of property lines some of the changes did not need to be made. The changes resulting from the discussion are noted in italics and bold font in the above.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to post the proposed changes, as amended to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.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 and as reflected on the revised Town of Plaistow Zoning Map:
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;
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 ensure that each parcel of land is contained in no more than one zone.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
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. The Village Center District will be implemented as an overlay district.
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, rent additional dwelling units, and/or 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 purpose of this amendment is to create a “Village Center” District.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
T. Moore noted there had been concerns that this district be callout as an overlay, which this proposal was. He reminded that the words “owner-occupied” were to be deleted from the in-law apartment as it was already covered as part of the in-law apartment ordinance.
 S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Zukas, to post the proposed changes, as amended to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.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. 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)
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
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)
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
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 withdrawn in its entirety.
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),
ARTICLE VII
Elderly Housing Overlay District
§ 220-51. Objectives and purpose.
A. To provide housing for the elderly (55 years or older) residents of the Town of Plaistow in a clustered development that fits the characteristics of the surrounding area.
B. To the extent possible, the objective shall be to make these housing opportunities available to Plaistow residents, to make thirty percent (30%) of the units affordable, and to make rental units available.
C. The applicant/developer shall provide deed restrictions, use limitations, covenants, or some other legally enforceable instrument, which shall permanently restrict occupancy of these housing facilities to persons who meet all applicable restrictions regarding age, rentability and affordability.
D. . Nursing homes, convalescent homes, or assisted living facilities are not allowed under the provisions of this district.
E. This district shall be an overlay district.
F. . To assure a mix of elderly housing as defined in this section of standard housing allowed outside this district by providing a cap, that is, a maximum number of dwelling units that can be built in a given time period.
G. All proposals submitted under this section must be submitted as a site plan review application and must meet all site plan requirements. Provisions in this section will override any conflicting provisions found in Section 230 – Site Plan Review Regulations.
H. . Any proposal that includes some or all units that are to become condominiums must include a condominium subdivision plan and must meet all criteria specified in Section 235 for condominium developments/conversions.
I. . Any proposal submitted that includes 2 or more lots must submit a lot consolidation plan such that the entire project can be constructed on 1 lot.
J. As with all subdivision proposals submitted, all proposals submitted under this section must align roadways so that connection to existing Class V or better roadways can be made.
§ 220-52. Definitions.
As used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT - A dwelling unit where at least 1 occupant (owner/renter) is 55 years of age or older and where the mortgage/rent does not exceed 30% of combined income of all adult (21 years of age or older) occupants in the dwelling unit.
55-PLUS HOUSING UNIT – A 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling unit where at least 1 occupant (owner/renter) is 55 years of age or older.
62-PLUS HOUSING UNIT – A dwelling unit where at least 1 occupant (owner/renter) is 62 years of age or older.
§ 220-53. Building and Site Design Requirements
A. Site Design Requirements
1. Site must have 150 feet of frontage on an existing or proposed Town of Plaistow Class V or better road.
2. Roadways must be constructed to Town specifications.
3. All driveways must be a minimum of 24 feet wide plus a 5 foot sidewalk (paved or concrete) and a 5 foot grass median between the road and sidewalk.
4. A. One (1) parking space must be provided for each dwelling unit, plus:
Developments containing between 1 and 20 units:
One (1) additional space for every 2 units must be provided.
Developments containing greater than 20 units:
One (1) additional space for every 3 units must be provided.
Handicapped spaces must be provided to meet all ADA requirements.
5. Garages/carports are not required, but may be provided at developer’s discretion. The total square footage of a unit excludes the square footage of the garage.
6. The minimum lot size shall be 160,000 square feet. At least 50% open space must be provided and no more than 30% of this open space can be in a wetlands district or have slopes greater than 15%. Open space shall be owned in common by all unit owners. The Elderly Housing Complex and its open space must be on a single lot (includes all dwelling units, facilities, and parking).
7. A 50 foot buffer must be provided on all side and perimeter lot lines. A 50 foot front buffer must also be provided, however it must not interfere with driveway/roadway site distance. Buffers may consist of natural vegetation or planted vegetation. At the discretion of the Planning Board, a fence may be used in place of, or in addition to, a portion of the vegetation.
B. Building Design Requirements:
1. For Elderly Housing Complexes with nine or more dwelling units, a social room shall be provided. The social room must be a minimum of 200 square feet plus 30 square feet per dwelling unit.
2. Building height may not exceed 45 feet.
3. All dwelling units shall have a maximum of two (2) bedrooms.
4. Units may not exceed 1,800 square feet.
5. All dwelling units must be equipped with washer and dryer hook ups.
6. All buildings must have any emergency egress plan that must be submitted to the Planning Board, reviewed and approved by the Plaistow Fire Department, and copies made available to all building occupants
7. All units must be able to meet all ADA guidelines, e.g. all hallways, doorways, bathrooms must be ADA accessible, all be constructed with sufficient size to meet ADA guidelines. The bathrooms do not have to be equipped to meet ADA guidelines.
220-54. Density
A. All plans submitted under this ordinance must show calculations for the maximum number of bedrooms permitted on the site by NHDES septic loading criteria. This is to be used as a theoretical maximum number of bedrooms. Other criteria may significantly lower the number of bedrooms permitted.
B. A maximum of two (2) 55 plus housing units may be constructed per 40,000 square feet.
C. A maximum of three (3) 62 plus housing units may be constructed per 40,000 square feet.
D. An additional bonus of three (3) dwelling units per 40,000 square feet may be constructed if they are to remain rental units in perpetuity.
E. An additional bonus of three (3) dwelling units per 40,000 square feet may be constructed if they are to provide affordable units for the elderly occupants.
F. No more than three (3) bonus dwelling units may be constructed per 40,000 square feet.
220-55. Building Cap.
The Planning Board shall not accept for consideration any proposal that, if approved, would increase the total number of all elderly housing units, existing and proposed, above the number representing ten percent (10%) of the total number of dwelling units within the Town as determined by the Assessor.
The purpose of this amendment is to amend the AEHC ordinance.
(RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD)
There was discussion regarding proposed changes to this amendment. Input was contributed by Rafik Papilian, Plaistow property owner; Ron Brown, Plaistow property owner; Philip Christiansen, Christiansen, Sergi Engineers; Civil Engineer, Keith Coriello; and R. Pica regarding the proposed change. The concerns were for density, calculating unit pricing, road design, calculating bonus units,and for more definitive language regarding who qualifies for “adorable units.” Some questioned the need for affordable units at all. All were encouraged to put their suggestions in a written format for the Board’s review. Examples of how other towns and other states handle these types of projects were offered. It was determined that more researched, particularly in the area of affordability criteria and how to regulate these
developments once they are in place, needed to be done. The public hearing was continued to January 3, 2007.
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.
THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WAS VOTED TO BE POSTED TO THE WARRANT ON DECEMBER 06, 2006.
OTHER BUSINESS – Letter Regarding Use of Wilder Drive for Fraternal Organization
T. Moore read a letter of intent from Edward Hennessey, A-1 Computer Repair and Network Services, requesting to use a unit at Wilder Drive to locate his computer repair business. He noted in the letter he would also like to use the space for a gathering location of an internet Veteran’s group with an anticipated occupancy of up to 100 people.
The Board discussed how the use as a public gathering location would affect the other occupants of the building and whether or not it was an allowable use. It was consensus that it was not a permitted use and a variance would be required.
OTHER BUSINESS – Letter from Ashley MacLeod regarding use of unit at 207 Main Street Complex
T. Moore read a letter from Ashley MacLeod requesting to use a unit at 207 Main Street for a dance studio.
R. Zukas noted that most dance studios would require far more parking than what is provided for as part of this plan.
M. Dorman noted that the request was for 6-12 students per class.
M. Curran suggested that no one could survive on what is described in the letter of intent. She added that while some kids are in a drop off situation, many parents stay and watch the class, particularly those with younger kids.
M. Dorman reminded that it was an after hours (4:00 to 8:00 and Saturdays) situation.
The consensus of the Board was that this was not a good location for this use.
OTHER BUSINESS – Bond Reduction Request by D&H Construction for Red Oak Complex #2
T. Moore read a letter from D&H Construction requesting release of construction bond being held for the completed project at 1 Red Oak Drive (Complex #2).
It was noted there was UEI had not yet sent in a letter of recommendation on this matter.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to conditionally release the construction bond being held for Red Oak Complex #2, pending a letter of recommendation from UEI. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A. OTHER BUSINESS – Bond Reduction Request by Rockingham Church
T. Moore read a letter from David Peabody of the Rockingham Church requesting a partial release of construction bond funds for work done on the 90 Newton Road site. He also read a letter from Phil MacDonald, Underwood Engineers, Inc. (UEI), verifying the work completed and suggesting an amount to be released.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to release $85,481 as recommended by UEI. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A. M. Dorman suggested the Board consider starting revocation procedures for the site plans previously approved for 113 Plaistow Road (Telly’s) and 69-71 Plaistow Road (Davey). He noted that neither plan had a bond in place and it had been more than one year since approval.
The consensus of the Board was that letters should be sent to the applicants in each case to notify them of the Board’s intention to revoke the site plan approvals.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
