Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD
May 03, 2006
The meeting was called to order at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas Vice-Chairman; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:35 p.m.) and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Steven Ranlett was absent.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of the April 19, 2006 meeting
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the April 19, 2006, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0.
Discussion with Mike Murphy regarding proposed commercial use of property at 7 Old County Road in the residential district.
Mike Murphy was present for the discussion. He explained that he had the property at 7 Old County Road under agreement and that he would like to be able to live there and use the out buildings for his chimney cleaning and repair business.
M. Curran offered that he would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a variance.
M. Murphy noted there was already a business use there.
M. Curran replied that it was grandfathered for that owner but that grandfathering does not follow with the property like a variance does.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:35 p.m.
M. Murphy explained that it was a small three-bedroom house and if he had to use one of the rooms for the business there wouldn’t be much living space.
There was additional discussion about the existing conditions of the property and the way that it was currently being used. Consensus was that Mr. Murphy would have to make an application to the ZBA for a variance to allow the combined usage, since it wasn’t a true home occupation. It was also noted that at a minimum the Board would have to see an as-built site plan, which would call out the parking, hours of operation and buffers, before a certificate of occupancy (CO) could be issued. It was also noted that abutters would be notified when that plan is reviewed by the Board.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plaistow Town Hall, 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH to formally recommend that the following unclaimed escrow accounts be returned to the General Fund: Escrow Account Number 151 under the name of Morgan Realty, Escrow Account Number 161 under the name of Claudia Cox, and Escrow Account Number 219 under the name of Omnipoint. The Planning Board has not been able to contact these parties. The funds were originally established in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as part of various site or subdivision plan reviews.
T. Moore noted that this item would be moved to later in the agenda.
Other Business – Discussion with Wal-Mart regarding Antique Car Show
Tina Rodriguez, store manager, was present for the discussion. She explained that they would like to host an antique car show to benefits Children’s Hospital in Boston. A plan which showed thirty-two (32) parking spaces being used was shown to the Board. Ms. Rodriguez offered that the location was where they would like to hold the event but would put it where ever the Board wanted them to. She added that they could also be very flexible with the date, offering to hold the show earlier in the week when there is less traffic.
M. Curran expressed concern that this was already an overly congested parking lot and an antique car show could be quite a draw and make things far worse. She added that if it were to be held earlier in the week it might be okay.
T. Rodriguez noted that there really was no additional draw to the retail store with these events and they were testing this to see if it was worth doing. She added that should it be a success they would like to think about doing the show twice a year.
There was discussion regarding the proposed location for the car show. It was noted that there were no storage trailers currently on the property and the garden center corral had been moved back.
R. Zukas asked if there would be food vendors.
T. Rodriguez replied that Pepsi or Frito would usually come and do a cook-out for such an event. She added that the health officer would be informed.
There was additional discussion about the location of the show, it was suggested that it be moved farther back to allow more customer parking closer to the store.
M. Curran asked if there had been a letter from the condo association authorizing the event.
L. Komornick noted there had not been yet.
M. Curran questioned if there would be a police detail.
T. Rodriguez offered that this would only be a two-hour event and that in order to address traffic concerns they would be willing to hold it later in the evening, for example 7:00 to 9:00, when there is less activity in the plaza. She added that they would never be able to absorb the traffic on a weekend day.
R. Zukas reiterated that he would like to see the parking pushed further back to provide more customer parking closer to the store’s entrance.
M. Curran added that the show could be kept to a few hours on a weekday and if there was a duty officer she could be open to the idea.
L. Komornick recapped the concerns that Board would like to have addressed for them to approve an antique car show at the Wal-Mart store:
- The location of the event was to be moved further back to allow for more customer parking closer to the store
- The event would not be held on a weekend day
- Food would be allowed with the approval of the health officer
- Wal-Mart would need to hire a duty officer
T. Rodriguez offered that they would also be looking to do a craft fair in the same location on June 24.
M. Curran suggested they should look into doing a minor site plan change.
T. Moore offered that since it was such a congested plaza it would be better for them to come in each time so traffic and parking could be reviewed for each event.
R. Zukas noted the antique car show would be a test as to whether or not other events such as a craft fair should take place.
T. Rodriguez agreed to get back to L. Komornick with a date for the antique car show.
Review of Letter and Further Discussion with Arthur Caras and Eric Tetler re: Process Engineering Site.
Arthur Cara and Eric Tetler, Windfield Alloy, Inc. were present for the discussion.
T. Moore read a letter from Eric Tetler of Windfield Alloy, Inc., which noted the scope of activities they would like to do at 144 Main Street (Process Engineering Site).
R. Zukas said the only question that he had was whether or not there would be a baler.
E. Tetler replied they did intent to have a baler.
R. Zukas suggested that the baler be noted on any site plan.
M. Curran asked if L. Komornick had gotten information of federal permitting.
L.Komornick answered that she had not.
R. Zukas noted that the letter stated there would 10-12 trucks per day; he asked if that included the three trucks owned by Windfield.
E. Tetler offered that the 10-12 truck trips included their trucks.
L. Komornick asked if they had any future plans that included the railroad.
E. Tetler answered that they did not.
M. Curran said that she didn’t want to be perceived as being against this use at this site; she said that it would be a good use. She added that she still felt that it was a form of recycling and that it wouldn’t hurt to send them to the ZBA for a variance to clarify that. M. Curran reminded that at the time the changes were made to eliminate recycling there was no time to refine the definition of what would be allowable.
R. Zukas offered that he felt it fit into the light industrial definition.
There was additional discussion as to whether or not this use could be considered a form of recycling.
M. Dorman was asked how he felt and his reply was that if the Board denied the use saying that it was recycling and not light manufacturing he would be inclined to appeal that decision to the ZBA. He added that what they do fits the definition of light industrial in his opinion.
M. Curran reiterated that she was not against the use but she felt it would offer the town more legal protections to ask them to go for the variance.
M. Dorman offered that the should Board go back to what he suggested two weeks ago and ask Windfield to come in with a site plan, get the abutters in to see the plan and be part of the discussion and then if necessary get the ZBA involved.
There was additional discussion regarding whether or not the business was recycling or remanufacturing.
R. Zukas used an example noting that if Emerson sent a product to the company, who then removes or adds parts and sends it back to Emerson it’s not recycling, it is coming from and going to the same owner.
M. Curran suggested that not all of it goes back to Emerson.
E. Tetler noted that at that point in time they are working for Emerson, not to harvest parts to be recycled.
T. Moore offered that he didn’t have concerns about the electronics portion of the business but he did not quite understand the scope of the metals commodities.
E. Tetler explained that aluminum-litho comes in as sheets and in baled form. He noted that it was weighed and inventories and when a certain amount is accumulated it is shipped out. Mr. Tetler said the metals was strictly warehousing.
M. Curran suggested they don’t actually manufacture there, they take things apart.
E. Tetler offered they did put PCs together to be sold on the open market.
There was additional discussion of the scope of work Windfield intended for Plaistow.
E. Tetler noted that every business has at least 5% waste fallout as part of their process. He added the do other things like test monitors and if they don’t meet a certain standard they are sold to someone who does repairs.
M. Curran reiterated that she didn’t see this business as a negative thing, but she did see it as a form of recycling and just wanted to be on the record as to how she felt.
B. Weymouth noted that he had missed the previous meeting and was on the fence about the use. He added that it would be better if the definition of recycling was clearer. He noted that the letter said the company would like to eventually expand to 40-45 employees, he asked if that would mean more trucks.
E. Tetler replied that the 10-12 trucks were based upon 30-40 employees.
There was discussion regarding the level of site plan that would be needed for this existing site.
M. Dorman suggested that an as-built for the current site that listed the proposed activities on the site. He added there could then be a public hearing to get abutter feedback.
There was additional discussion as to whether or not this use fit the definition of industrial manufacturing.
L. Komornick suggested that the Board needed to take a vote and give direction regarding the use of this site.
 R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, that the scope of business described in the letter presented by Windfield Alloy, Inc. fits the definition of a light industrial use and is an allowable use. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plaistow Town Hall, 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH to formally recommend that the following unclaimed escrow accounts be returned to the General Fund: Escrow Account Number 151 under the name of Morgan Realty, Escrow Account Number 161 under the name of Claudia Cox, and Escrow Account Number 219 under the name of Omnipoint. The Planning Board has not been able to contact these parties. The funds were originally established in 1998, 1999, and 2000 as part of various site or subdivision plan reviews.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to return the noted unclaimed escrow monies to the General Fund. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Workshop on Zoning and/or Regulations
L. Komornick noted that she would keep this item on the workshop agendas to encourage members to continue to think about changes that need to be made in the fall.
Other Business - Status of Engineer Review Re: Assigned Firms for Hoyt Chandler Avenue Site Plan and Vantage 8-Lot Subdivision Engineer Reviews
L. Komornick provided updates to the Board on some sites and asked the Board to determine if the plan review will be done by Underwood Engineers, Inc. (UEI), the Board’s former engineers or CLD, the current engineers.
Vantage, 216 Plaistow Road, there has been no application filed; there was a preliminary review by UEI.
Chandler Ave Elderly Housing, 18 Chandler Ave, there has been no application filed; UEI did about $60.00 worth of review.
L. Komornick noted that both would be considered as new applications, and therefore should be reviewed by CLD; but the engineer for both projects would like them to be reviewed by UEI.
The consensus of the Board was that both plans would be reviewed by CLD.
Other Business - Request for Project Start-Up Date Extension by Kidder Concrete
T. Moore read a letter from Kidder Concrete, 22 Danville Road, requesting an extension of the start date for them to begin implementation of changes approved for their site plan.
M. Curran asked if the project was bonded.
M. Dorman explained that there was really no drainage for review, all they would even have to bond would be parking and landscaping.
T. Moore offered that he would have no objections to a 60-day extension.
 R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to grant a 60-day extension to Kidder Concrete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business - Discussion of Upcoming Agenda for May 17, 2006
T. Moore noted there are a large number of public hearings scheduled for the May 17, 2006 agenda.
There was discussion of each agenda item and the length of time it may take to discuss each item. There was discussion if the order should be changed and whether or not there should be an announced time to adjourn the meeting and continue any un-heard cases to the next meeting. It was consensus that the time to close the meeting would be 10:00 p.m.
Other Business - Letter re: Outdoor Dining at Halligan’s
The Board reviewed a request from Halligan’s Restaurant (93 Plaistow Road) to permit outdoor dining. There were a number of concerns expressed over allowing the outdoor dining, such as being able to restrict alcohol to the area and not have it all over the parking area and concerns for the residential units and other businesses. It was also noted that the plaza continues to have zoning and site plan violations, some of which are from Halligan’s.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to deny the request for outdoor dining at Halligan’s for the following reasons:
- Fire safety concerns
- Current zoning and site plan violations
- Lack of confidence that it can be contained to the area indicated on the request
It was noted that access to the second floor is through the proposed dining area. Concern was expressed over outdoor dining at any place that serves alcohol. M. Dorman was asked to get input from the Fire Chief and Health Officer.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that if the Fire Chief and the Health Officer were to provide input in favor of the proposal the Board could look at it again at that time.
Other Business - Letter of Request from Dave Hoyt for Occupancy Permits for Red Oak Complex #2 and Follow-up on request by interested unit buyer
T. Moore read a letter from D & H Construction requesting COs for two units at 1 Red Oak Drive before all work is 100% completed.
M. Dorman offered that the owner is trying to sell the units and needs to know if COs are going to be granted in order to close. He noted the drainage was done, and the only thing that wasn’t complete was the top coating and final striping. M. Dorman suggested that the Board could limit it to just these two units.
M. Curran noted that the Board did this same thing with Complex 1 at 2 Red Oak Drive.
M. Dorman added that it worked well in that case. He added that he had hoped that Phil MacDonald (of UEI) would be out to look at the site before the meeting, but he wasn’t able to get there.
There was discussion of the circumstances under which two COs could be approved to be issued for 1 Red Oak Drive.
 R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the issuance of two COs (for units A and G) at 1 Red Oak Drive with the following conditions:
- Satisfactory review by P. MacDonald and verification that the site is complete up to the top coat of paving.
- No other COs will be issued until all issues including top coat paving and final striping is complete.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Dorman explained the to Board that A & L Machines Shop, who were looking to occupy one of the units at 1 Red Oak Drive was not a manufacturing business as was earlier thought. He noted that they are a small two-man shop and so some small part soldering.
L. Komornick added that they would not be in violation of the condo documents, which would be administered by the condo association, once it is formed.
Other Business – Miscellaneous Site Discussion
L. Komornick noted that the extension granted for Telly’s Plaza at 113 Plaistow Road was soon to expire. She noted that she was looking into the status of the project.
R. Zukas asked what the status of the minor site plan review was for Hot Tubs and More (153 Plaistow Road). He noted there were a number of tubs on display at the location other than under the porch roof/sidewalk area.
M. Dorman said that he would look into the site.
R. Zukas listed a number of other sites where he had observed issues, including:
- Big Boys Toys, 5 Garden Road – more vehicles parked on the property than on the site plan
- Public Paving, 9 Garden Road – Parking paving trucks at Kohl’s parking lot.
- Off-site real estate signs
M. Dorman noted that all these issues were being looked into.
R. Zukas directed that L. Komornick send out a certified letter to all board members with a copy of the Rules and Procedures and the changes that were made regarding absences.
He suggested that if it was decided to request that the Board of Selectmen remove a member they wouldn’t have the excuse that they didn’t know the rules.
M. Curran suggested that “feelers” be put out to attract more alternates, suggesting that something be posted to the cable channel.
R. Zukas offered that his concerns were over not wanting to have to send people home because there wasn’t a quorum for a meeting and no one knew ahead of time so alternates could be called. He added that if someone ran to be elected to the Board they should make an effort to be at the meetings.
There was discussion as to whether or not to change the start time of the meetings to make it easier to start on time. It was consensus not to change the time of the meeting at this time.
 M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
