Town of Plaistow w Planning Board
145 Main Street Plaistow, NH 03865
PLANNING BOARD MEETING MINUTES
DATE: August 16, 2006
PRESENT: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Vice Chairman; Steven Ranlett; Michelle Curran; Leigh Komornick, Planning Coordinator
EXCUSED: Barry Weymouth; Mike Dorman, Building Inspector
CALL TO ORDER: 6:33pm
MINUTES:
Motion by M. Curran and second by R. Zukas to approve the minutes of August 2, 2006 as amended:
T. Moore states the second paragraph on the last page should clarify that at 8:34pm the Planning Board members met with the Planning Board Attorney in the Planning Office after the public meeting was concluded.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
Continuation of Public Hearing on Site Plan Review Application for the redevelopment, redesign and renovations to the Stateline Plaza including the demolition and construction of buildings, drainage, parking and utility improvements and associated landscaping. The property is located at 4 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 24, Lots 44, 45, 46 and 47 totaling 14.96 acres and the frontage is 2,358 (+/-) feet. The owner of record is Plaistow Project, LLC.
Jennifer Viarengo, Appledore Engineering, Inc. (AEI) was present for the discussion.
Jennifer states she is present to review the last remaining discussion points and to hopefully vote on the waivers tonight and seek preliminary approval. She states last Thursday they met with representatives from the City of Haverhill, NHDOT, etc. regarding the traffic study. She states there were comments on implementing a raised island and this has been agreed to. She states this will also address the concerns of the Police Chief earlier in the year as well as many of the citizens. She states it was also requested to remove the directional islands at turning points and these will be removed. She states that the truck turning movements for the back ends making a turn were checked and this will be able to be done with no problem. She states a ‘no blocking’ sign will be put up to help prevent
people from blocking cars at the exit to the gas station. She states they can’t bring the island back as this would make for unsafe conditions. She states the other suggestion was to block it off and go through the drive aisle, but this would be driving over proposed tank locations and delivery trucks would be blocked. She states she isn’t sure they could get a tenant sign-off on blocking the entrance.
T. Moore asks if anyone has concerns about the traffic. He states if the Board makes a conditional approval tonight and then finds traffic is a mess it can be revised later to improve it.
R. Zukas states he hasn’t seen the way the stores are now that there is a curb. He states there are only two handicapped ramps to get into the plaza. He asks if every store will have a ramp at their entrance. He states this isn’t on the plans.
Jennifer states they are adding ramps and crosswalks. She states there are currently two or three ramps. She states the CVS area will be reconfigured and the entrance will have the sidewalk extended with a handicapped ramp.
R. Zukas asks about ramps for the stores located at the middle of the plaza. He states it looks as though people would need to use the ramp at the TJ Maxx entrance.
Jennifer states handicapped parking is controlled by the ADA. She states they’ve added ramps and parking where the criteria can be met. She states there is more handicapped parking than required by the ADA.
Mr. Henry Shea of 15 Main Street states he is concerned about Shaw’s trash at the current location and that the new location will end up the same way.
R. Zukas states the issue is when the store compacts the old milk cartons all the liquids are running across the pavement and pooling in the parking lot causing an awful stench. He asks whether there is a drain for the compactor at the new location.
Jennifer states it is a catch basin tray that collects liquids that can then be removed and operations is told they are going to be expected to maintain the system.
S. Ranlett states this was supposed to be the case with the current location.
Jennifer states sections of the plaza may be owned by a management company and not the grocery store. She states street sweeping takes place at least once a week.
S. Ranlett states the trash is an issue too.
Jennifer states it would be the management company’s responsibility and if things are not being maintained there are ramifications.
L. Komornick states it could be a note on the plan with conditions. She states a copy is required to be posted in the tenant offices.
M. Curran states the residents need to be assured that the ongoing problem is taken care of.
R. Zukas states Mr. Shea’s backyard faces what looks like a landfill now.
Jennifer states she will add that operation and continual maintenance are part of the overall approval of the project.
Waivers:
Jennifer states that the majority of the waivers are required due to the existing conditions on site and in most cases the proposed project incorporates improvements over existing conditions.
SEC 230-12 G: Number of Parking Spaces
Required: 796 spaces total
Proposed: 708 spaces total
Jennifer states there are 12 spaces for cart corral storage. She states interior landscape islands have been added instead of 20 spaces. She states the parking study was submitted to CLD to show the spaces not used.
M. Curran asks about a restaurant going in down the road.
Jennifer states it can’t occur and that any requested changes would have to go before the Board here in Plaistow.
M. Curran asks about the number of seats listed for D’Angelo’s.
Jennifer states this represents maximum allowed seating capacity and not what exists now.
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by M. Curran to grant the waiver for number of parking spaces.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 230-12 H(2)(b): Parking Setback from Property Line – Minimum Buffer
Required: 12 feet
Proposed: 0 feet at gas station (existing condition), 10 feet new
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by R. Zukas to grant the waiver for parking setback from the property line.VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 230-14 (S): Scale of Plan
Required: Scale of plans not to exceed 1” = 50’
Proposed: Scale of 1” = 60’
Jennifer states this was done to make the larger scale details for congested areas.
 Motion by M. Curran and second by S. Ranlett to grant the waiver for scale of plan.VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 230-14 RR: Data Requirements
Required: Cross section of proposed driveways/streets
Proposed: Enlarged views of the proposed grading at each drive location
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by R. Zukas to grant the waiver for data requirements.VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 230-23A: Landscaping Buffer Width
Where commercial abuts residential
Required: 25 feet
Proposed: 12 feet
Jennifer states this is along Wentworth Ave.
M. Curran states she is concerned about the dumpster.
Jennifer states if dumpsters are the issue there is landscaping and walls within 12 feet.
M. Curran states it is a traffic concern regardless
R. Zukas states he doesn’t have an issue with the buffer and it is wider there across from AutoZone.
M. Curran states there is a house on the corner that is part of the buffer (Gail Donovan’s home).
Jennifer states this then affects the parking counts, etc.
M. Curran states these buffers are in place to protect residents.
 Motion by M. Curran to deny the waiver for landscaping buffer width where commercial abuts residential.
No second – motion dies on the table.
M. Curran states the buffer in front of AutoZone would be a 25-foot setback.
Jennifer states this is residential use not zone.
S. Ranlett states truck deliveries were the biggest concern of the residents and that will be done from Haynes Blvd.
Jennifer states there will be no trucks exiting on Wentworth.
R. Zukas states he agrees with M. Curran but the layout is mostly in front of AutoZone.
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by R. Zukas to grant the waiver for landscaping buffer width where commercial abuts residential.
T. Moore asks if an extended buffer of 25 feet would wipe out parking. He states he’d be willing to get rid of some parking for a larger buffer.
Jennifer states she can’t go along with that tonight because this is the CVS plan for parking that was agreed to. She states there will be a retaining wall and fence. She states they have tried to give things that aren’t currently there either.
M. Curran states what is voted on at Town Meeting is what is supposed to be protecting the abutters.
R. Zukas states he is glad to see green space in the corner.
VOTE: 3-1-0; M. Curran-nay.
T. Moore asks Jennifer to check with CVS on fewer parking spaces for a larger buffer along Wentworth.
L. Komornick states it will compromise the layout of the area if parking spaces are taken away.
Where commercial abuts commercial
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by R. Zukas to grant the waiver for landscaping buffer width where commercial abuts commercial.
L. Komornick states they met with DOT on the area and no issues were found.
M. Curran states in this case there would be a negative impact to put a buffer there and it could cause more accidents.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
Along public right of way
 Motion by R. Zukas and second by M. Curran to grant the waiver for landscaping buffer width along public right of way.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
Mr. Shea asks where they’re going to put snow.
Jennifer states it will need to be taken off site.
SEC 230-23B (3)(b)[2]: Tree Quantity within Route 125 Front Buffer Strip
Required: 27 deciduous trees
Proposed: 13 deciduous trees
Jennifer states they’re proposing the same as what is across the street. She states they can put in 27, but they would be smaller trees. She states 13 would be more uniform looking.
L. Komornick states it hasn’t been reviewed by Billy Bartlett yet.
R. Zukas asks about proximity to power lines.
Jennifer states there are some in the area but they planned around it.
M. Curran states she’d like to see what is proposed for trees and shrubs.
Jennifer states the landscaping plan includes daylilies and the tree is a shade master honey locust that grows up to 17 feet.
R. Zukas states he doesn’t want 13 trees going in that will eventually be cut down because they’re growing too big or interfering with power lines.
 Motion by S. Ranlett and second by R. Zukas to grant the waiver for tree quantity contingent upon Billy Bartlett approving it.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 230-23B (3)(b)[4]: Interior Landscaping
Parallel Islands
Required: 10 feet wide not more than 180 feet apart
Proposed: 15 islands at ends of parking tiers
R. Zukas asks what it means by ‘where feasible’.
Jennifer states they can’t be installed next to handicapped spaces as it is too difficult to get out of the vehicle.
 Motion by R. Zukas and second by S. Ranlett to grant the waiver for interior landscaping of parallel islands.
M. Curran asks if there is an ordinance.
L. Komornick states there is and that Home Depot got a waiver for theirs due to parking space.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
SEC 220-133 (D)(E)(F): Conditional Use for Aqua Protection District
Jennifer states that this does require Planning Board approval because conditional use is permitted only after a permit from the Planning Board (industrial/commercial).
 Motion by R. Zukas and second by S. Ranlett to grant the waiver for conditional use for an aqua protection district.
L. Komornick asks if dry cleaning triggered this.
Jennifer states this is an existing requirement even though it is in Haverhill, MA.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
Jennifer states they’re willing to go with a conditional approval. She states they have the lot merger form and the NHDES site-specific permit, access permit, awaiting NHDOT, City of Haverhill acknowledgement, etc. She states John Pettis, City Engineer in Haverhill, MA has been involved in this project and has seen all the plans.
Jennifer states regarding Haynes Blvd. they need to go before the Selectmen since the road is a one-way now and needs to go to a two-way to get the trucks in and out of the plaza. She states this will be on August 28th. She states the drainage systems and sewer need to be done and they can’t do any of this without signoff. She states the NHDOT permit should come soon, but they would like to begin work that has nothing to do with access.
M. Curran states there are already cease and desist orders out there on other projects.
Jennifer states the demolition can happen beforehand. She states they are asking to do drainage, sewers, transformers, all things that have permits already in place. She states this has nothing to do with roadway improvements and is on-site only.
M. Curran asks if this is affected by Haynes Blvd.
Jennifer states she’d have to check with the Selectmen.
L. Komornick asks if the DOT required easements.
Jennifer states easements wouldn’t be needed that involve moving a drainage system. She states she can ask the State if they have a concern with drainage and utility work starting if that will comfort the Planning Board.
M. Curran asks if this affects Route 121.
Jennifer states signal work can’t begin until there is a State access permit for this.
L. Komornick states they will have to submit a mitigation plan to M. Dorman.
R. Zukas asks about a timeframe for removal of the Chinese restaurant.
M. Curran states it has been rumored that the Fire Department will burn it.
 Motion by R. Zukas and second by S. Ranlett to allow utility and drainage work and site preparation once the site specific permit is approved and received along with a concurrence from the City of Haverhill, MA, voluntary lot line merger in place and Selectmen approve modification of Haynes Blvd. to two-way traffic.
VOTE: 4-0-0.
Jennifer states she will have to check on whether the lot line merger form requires a plan. She states she could ask for a waiver that the lot line form be signed and completed upon conditional approval.
T. Moore states the hearing will be continued to September 20, 2006.
Continuation of a Preliminary Hearing on the consolidation of 4 existing lots and subsequent 8-lot general/light industrial subdivision off of a proposed new road located at 214 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 45, Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 totaling 40.5 +/- acres. The owner of record is Fred Miller, Trustee of 214 Plaistow Road Realty Trust.
Ron Pica states comments have been received from the hydro geologists and that the hearing can be closed in order to bring the project to conclusion and then re-file.
T. Moore states he will close the preliminary hearing.
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider a Site Plan Review Application by Duane Skofield for a 5,280 square foot office and retail building containing 4 units located at 207 Main Street, Tax Map 30, Lot 57, totaling 1.31 acres and 403.10 feet of frontage in accordance with RSA 674:41, I(d).
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates is present for the discussion.
Charlie states the comment letter from CLD and driveway permit from the Town were the only outstanding issues. He states they met with the road agent and got a driveway permit. He states they discussed the right turn entrance being more restrictive and Highway Supervisor Dan Garlington’s suggestion was to leave it as is. He states Dan didn’t want a turn prohibited in an emergency scenario. He states the ‘no right turn’ signs out of the property are still in place.
R. Zukas states residents say accidents happen frequently there and they need to be able to take a right turn.
Charlie states according to the accident reports there have been eight accidents in the last 5 years. He states he doesn’t think it is a bad intersection.
M. Curran states the recommended change shouldn’t impact it, as there is no median and cars could pull out to the left before going right around an accident.
T. Moore asks if Charlie has looked at the CLD comments.
Charlie states they are down to a few including the retention pond and right turn sign being added with the stop sign. He states nothing will change the layout.
L. Komornick states CLD had a diagram of the driveway that could resolve it.
T. Moore states they want the angle sharper and show an area to the right of the driveway to be grass only (kept free of shrubs, trees, etc. in case of emergency). He states this would also help the site distance issue.
M. Curran states using the driveway off of Main Street for construction is a great idea and residents will be happy.
L. Komornick states they have complied with other CLD comments except the driveway.
Charlie states they still need to address snow storage too. He asks if the Planning Board would consider conditional approval.
T. Moore states they still need to wait on a resolution and the hearing is continued to September 6, 2006.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for a 52 Unit Elderly Housing Complex to be located in the commercial I zone at 18 Chandler Avenue, Tax Map 38, Lot 4. The property totals 11.4 acres and has 360 feet of frontage.
Ron Pica is present representing Mr. Hoyt for the discussion.
Ms. Helen Finney of 10 Chandler Avenue asks if it is a conflict of interest if S. Ranlett is related to Mr. Hoyt, whose property is being discussed.
S. Ranlett states he is involved in the discussion but does not vote.
Ron states he has a conceptual rendering and they’ve not hired an architect yet. He states the name of the complex is Chandler Place, an adult living community. He states they are proposing 52 units, 6 of which are 2-bedroom and 46 are 1-bedroom. He describes the lot configuration and states there will be three separate buildings and each one will have its own laundry room. He states the last building will have a 1,600 square foot social room. He states the laundry room is 1,200 square feet. He states the 1-bedrooms are 700 square feet and the 2-bedrooms are 800 square feet. He states the units will be serviced with three wells for domestic water. He states there are wetlands on site. He states there are 94 parking spaces with 57 of them being 12 feet wide and 37 of them being 9
feet wide which exceeds ADA requirements. He states there are sidewalks along all units with crossings over to the other side of the driveway that then continues out to Chandler Ave. He states the water main will tie in on Plaistow Road for fire suppression. He states there will be retaining walls between 6-10 feet.
S. Ranlett recuses himself from the table at 8:44pm.
Ron states some of the units are set up for the handicapped. He states this is a 55+ community.
M. Curran asks about the stairs if there are no elevators.
Ron states there are three stairs and then a platform. He states this is based on the housing in Hampstead off of Rte 111. He states one building has units on the top and bottom.
T. Moore asks if each unit goes across the width of the building for the top floors.
Ron states yes.
M. Curran asks about fire escapes from the second floor.
Ron states the second floor has access to the sidewalk. He states if a wheelchair needs to be removed from the rear it will be through a window. He states windows will be partly below and above grade.
L. Komornick asks if Ron knows that the Fire Chief requests that it be sprinkled.
Ron states he hasn’t read the report but predicted that would be the case. He describes the landscaping plan with parking areas and islands. He states there will be sitting areas too. He states there will be lighting in the driveways and on the building.
Ron states they did have to get a variance on the driveway as it is near an easement. He states another variance is to allow housing in the C-1 zone and there is another for the driveway to be closer than 50 feet to the wetlands. He states they’re asking for one waiver which was brought up in review by CLD and that is that horizontal be 50 scale and vertical 5 feet per inch. He states they have applied for a site-specific approval with the State.
T. Moore asks if they will be rental units.
Ron states they’re not sure yet. He states their understanding is they get money from HUD to finance as required and he is hoping the Planning Board will change the ordinance for affordable elderly housing rental or sold. He states they’re going along with the ordinance as is.
L. Komornick asks how the units in Hampstead were handled in terms of Federal funding.
Ron states he’s not sure.
R. Zukas asks how many parking spaces there are for each unit.
Ron states the plans indicate 1 ½. He states the regulations in place now don’t dictate how many per unit, just to follow ADA requirements.
R. Zukas asks about a road going in.
Ron states it will be a private driveway.
R. Zukas states they will have to move their cars in the winter during snow removal.
Ron states if using HUD money whoever comes in to rent will pay 30% of his/her gross income and this includes utilities but not electric and cable. He states he will ask someone from the State Finance Office to talk to Planning regarding receiving money in Plaistow.
Ms. Elizabeth George of 12 Chandler Avenue states back when the two variances were granted the project was 48 units and 2 buildings.
Ron states that is correct.
M. Curran states they can’t apply for a variance and change the plans.
Ron states the variance was based on allowing housing in C-1. He states he can check to see if it needs to go back before Zoning.
L. Komornick states the variance runs with the land. However, Ron should check with Dee on the next step.
R. Zukas states he wants Ron to go back before the ZBA.
M. Curran states she’d like L. Komornick to write a letter from the Planning Board to the ZBA for clarification on the ruling and it should be heard again.
M. Curran and R. Zukas state the information presented at the time of the variance isn’t what is being presented tonight.
Ms. George asks if there is HUD money involved, does this mean Plaistow has to form a housing authority.
L. Komornick states it makes the Town more ready to receive it. She states this needs to be checked out
M. Curran states HUD money can still be applied for.
Ms. George asks how many people can legally live in a unit (i.e. can a family move in if a relative living there is ill).
Ron states as long as no one is under 55. He states if under 55, the individual is no longer exempt. He states if someone elderly needs care, a caregiver can be under 55 if proven.
Ms. George asks who controls this.
R. Zukas states if someone is 55 and marries a 20 year-old and they have a child you can’t discriminate. He states if not HUD funded, the same applies.
Ron states they presented evidence at Zoning from HUD that stated each resident needed to be 55 if not a caregiver.
L. Komornick states this will have to be looked into.
Ms. George asks who enforces the rules.
T. Moore states he thinks it would have to be a neighbor reporting it to the Town.
Ms. George states the original discussion was that the Town needed elderly affordable housing.
Mr. Henry Shea of 15 Main Street asks what percentage of the property is covered by housing.
Ron states the building is 4.7% and paving is 12.9% for a total of 17.6%.
Mr. Shea asks what percentage is wetlands.
Ron states about 5-6%.
Mrs. Shea states a brook runs through the property that isn’t on the map.
Ron states there is seasonal runoff and they’re showing all as wetlands.
T. Moore asks about the water test report from local wells.
Ron states it can be obtained from Hampstead Water Systems. He states they’re not changing the direction of flow.
M. Curran states a pictometry image should be able to be obtained too.
Ms. Joan Pickowitz of 24 Chandler Avenue states she has had problems with well contamination back with the condos in 1989. She states as they draw water the contaminants come forward. She states she is concerned about the size of this project and its impact. She states it was different contaminants for the condos and her property.
Ron states in the mid 80’s they presented a plan for condos on this lot and they drilled two wells. He states one wasn’t up to par on the volume of water. He states Bronstein owned the land at that time. He asks if the well for the condo is contaminated.
Ms. Pickowitz states yes. She states the contaminants come forward when the draw occurs.
Ron states DES has reviewed their wells including a low test.
M. Curran states if this project goes through and Ms. Pickowitz has proof beforehand of water quality issues that makes a big difference.
Ms. Pickowitz states she has no objections to the plans but she can’t take any more issues with the water. She states she has two more dams that need repair or her bridge will be in jeopardy. She states the covered bridge is on the national register and it would be a shame if it fell apart due to the water. She states any snow storage area is wetlands that will come onto her property and leach field.
Ron states the area was surveyed and isn’t showing as wetlands. He states they check soil and vegetation. He states this has been done twice.
Ms. Pickowitz states the rain runoff from the hot top and sprinkler systems will create more water on her property. She asks if a pipe could be inserted across the road to move the water downstream.
Ron states he wouldn’t ask the Board to approve something that would increase runoff during peak times.
Ms. Pickowitz states ponds are an attraction for people and she’d like a chain link fence on that side of her property to prevent people from coming near with any danger of drowning.
M. Curran states Ron should take that into consideration.
Ms. Pickowitz gives L. Komornick a packet of information including pictures.
L. Komornick states she will make copies for the Board to review with the minutes.
T. Moore states the Planning Board cannot accept the application as complete due to it needing to go back to the Zoning Board since it is not the same plan as originally presented.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the proposed reuse of 3 existing industrial buildings including the addition of loading docks and grading improvements located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lot 12, totaling 36.5 +/- acres.
George Chadwick, Eric Mitchell & Associates is present for the discussion.
George states they conducted a site walk and there was some discussion on pavement improvements. He states they propose to remove, repave and reclaim a 20-foot aisle around the rear and 24 feet around the side. He states they will also improve the entrance road. He states they plan on installing six loading docks in the rear along with associated grading. He provides the Board with a letter on drainage. He states there is no increase in runoff and water will still be directed to the same drainage areas. He states Windfield Alloy will be in the blue area on the colored plan. He states also on the 1st floor will be office space and Chart Industries will occupy space on the 2nd floor. He states other areas are marked ‘lease’ for additional tenants. He states parking is sufficient
but improved surfaces will be good for Windfield and Chart. He states no State permits are needed for the project. He states there will be 20 or fewer tractor trailer trips in/out per day. He states there will be 10 or fewer service vehicles per day.
M. Curran states when Chart occupied the building the trucks had to turn left out onto Main Street.
George states it is not on the plan, but they’d consider it.
M. Curran states it is rural and there are school children down the street. She states she thinks this is important.
George states he could add it to the plan with a sign.
R. Zukas asks about hours of operation.
George states it would be 7:00am-5:30pm.
L. Komornick states this would need to be addressed with new tenants as well. She states the railroad situation could be addressed with a note on the plan indicating railroad spurs can’t be used without coming before the Planning Board.
George states Windfield has no plans to use the railway.
M. Curran states it is Federal vs. State permits and it should still be on the plan to protect the Town.
George states they wouldn’t want a perceived notion for a future tenant that rail service would be cutoff.
Eric states he is not willing to put that restriction on the plans. He states Chart may use that rail again. He states it is a hindrance as an owner for value.
M. Curran states it is now a big concern of hers.
R. Zukas states a future tenant could come before the Board to seek using the rail.
M. Curran states it depends on tenants and what kinds of permits they hold and now she is not alright with this project going forward if they’re not willing to put a note on the plan. She states there are certain exemptions that will take the Town out of the picture.
Arthur states it isn’t right for the Board to suggest not using rail.
M. Curran states they should propose it now then.
Eric states a possible tenant may be interested in the rail. He states as investors the rail holds a larger value on leasing.
Peter Quinn (representing Chart) states Chart doesn’t want to lose rail privileges as a tenant.
Eric states Windfield was always going to occupy less than 50% of the building. He states the note would tie his hands.
Grant Adkins (representing Chart) states they have the rights to the rail now. He states the Town can approve of different uses but can’t restrict use entirely.
M. Curran states this is why it needed to go before Zoning for a variance for a particular use. She states the rail isn’t the problem. She states the zoning has changed and the use of the rail is affected. She states she’d like Sumner to review it.
Eric states Chart has railroad use right now. He states he is soliciting to future tenants that the rail is there. He states the railroad spurs don’t go into the site. He states access points will be sealed shut.
L. Komornick states they need clarification on the termination act.
M. Curran states they weren’t sent to zoning for a variance and it could be opening things up to liability and she wants legal counsel on this.
Eric states another extension will not be made if they can’t come to an agreement. He states during the walk he talked to M. Dorman about his concern about soliciting the railroad.
M. Curran states that was not brought before the Board. She states if it does go through it may still go through zoning in violation of zoning laws.
L. Komornick states it is a fear that there will be no control and it is the center of Town that needs to be protected.
Eric states the tenants can’t go to the Federal Government for exemption, it has to be the owner.
L. Komornick states she heard from Eric in the past that he didn’t care about the rail and Windfield didn’t intend to use it. She states she didn’t think a note on the plan would cause this reaction. She states it would have been addressed with the Town Attorney before tonight had this come up earlier.
M. Curran states she wants legal counsel because it is going from a single owner/tenant to multiple tenants.
Eric states prior to the site walk he didn’t know the rail was a concern to the Board.
R. Zukas states he believes Eric knew.
M. Curran states the owners of the property can file with the federal government. She states she is concerned about future tenants.
George states there is a note on the plan that those tenants will come before the Board.
M. Curran states she wants assurance from Sumner that the note on the plan will suffice and keep the Town’s rights in place.
T. Moore states if the note stayed on the plan, any new change of tenant has to come before the Board and rail use would be part of the review. He states he would be willing to do a conditional approval based on a positive response from Sumner within a couple days.
L. Komornick states note #25 on the plan has a change in wording. She states the original plan on file stated ‘change of use requires review’ and the new wording is ‘change of use may require review’.
George states the owner of Eric Mitchell & Associates Inc. changed the note.
M. Curran states TRC needs to review it.
R. Zukas agrees.
George states two notes were added including truck traffic and no increase in runoff.
M. Curran recommends continuing the hearing to September 6, 2006.
Eric states that will be past the deadline and they will walk.
M. Curran states there are some issues from the Police Chief that haven’t been discussed yet. She asks if there are notes from Fire Chief.
L. Komornick states no.
R. Zukas asks if they were on the site walk or where the comments come from.
L. Komornick states the comments are based on the plans. She states these came back on August 8th.
R. Zukas states he is available next week to meet.
T. Moore states he is also available. He asks about meeting again on either the 23rd or the 30th.
L. Komornick states the 30th would be better
T. Moore states the hearing is continued to August 30, 2006.
A Preliminary Design Review Application on proposed twelve unit commercial contractor buildings totaling 24,000 square feet on 7 +/- acres, 800 +/- feet of frontage. The property is located in the industrial zone at 27 Westville Road, Tax Map 40, Lot 9. The owners of record are Richard and Norma Dickey.
T. Moore states this hearing is continued to September 6, 2006.
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ron Pica states regarding the site plan for the auto body shop addition to save trees they want to remove 3 parking spaces and add them down below. He states they can do it on an as-built plan and there are no wetlands involved and no change in drainage.
T. Moore states the as-built is fine.
ADJOURNMENT:
T. Moore declares the meeting adjourned at 11:30pm.
| 
