PLANNING BOARD
June 20, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman and Barry Weymouth were excused.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator; P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official.
Minutes of the April 18, 2007, May 2, 2007 and May 16, 2007, Meetings
Approval of the April 18, 2007, minutes was postponed.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2007, minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the May 16, 2007, minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. to hear a proposal to amend the Town of Plaistow Zoning Ordinance. A second hearing, if necessary, will be held on June 20th at 6:30 p.m.
T. Moore read the legal notice for the public hearing regarding the repeal of the Elderly Housing Ordinance. He explained that once the matter goes to public hearing then a yes vote would repeal the ordinance, a no vote would mean the ordinance stands.
R. Zukas asked for clarification that if the vote to repeal passes then everything (regarding the elderly housing ordinance) would be off the books, 100%, and there would be no elderly housing ordinance.
M. Curran reminded that the proposals in the review process would not be affected.
R. Zukas added that no further applications could be accepted.
Pauline Dupuis, 35 Harriman Road, offered that while she thought it was a wonderful idea to have elderly housing, she felt the ordinance should be repealed. She noted that Plaistow would be overwhlemed with all the elderly housing and would lose its charm and character. Ms. Dupuis added the she felt the four that were currently being proposed were way too overwhelming.
Mark Gilroy, 35 Harriman Road, said the he also thought the elderly housing was a great idea, but the density requirements needed to be addressed so that properties and neighborhoods were not over developed.
Rod Cole, 7 Squirrel Run, questioned why the ordinance was proposed to be completely repealed, adding that it seemed a little drastic.
M. Curran explained that it would be easier to start from a completely clean slate than to try and amend in a short time.
T. Moore noted that there were never any applications filed under the former Affordable Elderly Housing Community (AEHC) Ordinance. He explained what he felt may have been the factors as to why there were applications. T. Moore added that if the ordinance is repealed there were be no Article VII.
R. Cole offered that there did seem to be a lot of units being proposed for a small neighborhood (referring to Harriman Road).
M. Curran cautioned that no specific projects, only the proposed repeal of the Elderly Housing (EH) ordinance could be discussed.
R. Cole added that the current ordinance allowed for a slippery slope of over development.
M. Curran reiterated that the applications currently under review would not be affected by any repeal of the ordinance.
R. Cole stated that he was in favor of repealing the ordinance.
R. Zukas explained that whether or not the ordinance is repealed the number of units in the current applications have already exceeded the unit cap and they were grandfathered.
R. Cole questioned if there were units numbering over the cap of the ordinance how could they be grandfathered.
R. Zukas responded that the Board would have to find a way to work out which units will get approved.
T. Moore explained the cap and how many elerly housing units were available under the current ordinance. He noted that under the ordinance the Board cannot approve more that the unit cap and how those are distributed would be determined as part of the process.
M. Gilroy asked what a PRD (Planned Residential Development) was.
T. Moore explained a PRD, noting that it clustered the dwellings of a project but it did not increase the density.
Diane Scamporino, 35 Pollard Road, asked if the vote rescinded the ordinance what then would be the process.
T. Moore explained what would be the result of the ordinance being repealed on the current application, noting they would all be vested for their current applications but if some units were not approved for one project, those units could not be added to another or different application.
D. Scamporino asked what would be the result in future years.
T. Moore reminded that if the ordinance was repealed there would be no further applications.
M. Curran added that they could apply for a variance.
T. Moore noted that the variance would have to be from the density of a district, as there would be no elderly housing ordinance to vary from. He also noted that the four-year protection from zoning changes on an approved plan could have an effect if all the units were not built within that time frame.
D. Scamporino asked if the four years was a certain time frame.
T. Moore replied that it was explained in the RSAs.
M. Curran added that there was also a provision that there needed to be active and substantial development within one year.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, noting that he had arrived at the meeting late, asked if the vote proposed for a Special Town Meeting (STM) would be an all or nothing to repeal the ordinance.
T. Moore read the legal notice again.
R. Cole said that he still didn’t quite understand how the four projects under current review were grandfathered.
There was an explanation and discussion of how the current projects were vested to be heard by the Board. The August 14, 2006, changes to the RSAs that vested a project once the legal notices are sent. It was noted that in other states projects are not vested unless they are granted a building permit.
M. Curran noted that no applications have been accepted by the Board as complete.
M. Gilroy asked if that was because of the potential that the ordinance may be repealed.
M. Curran offered that the only issue to be resolved was when the unit cap came into consideration and when units should start being deducted from that number.
There was discussion regarding the unit cap and the application to the ZBA to determine when units are deducted from the total.
D. Scamporino asked if the ordinance is repealed does that mean that the wording goes away all together.
T. Moore noted that only for Article VII, he added that when the updates to the code book were sent those for the EH ordinance were not included in the printed version. He noted that this was a cost awareness measure, since it was likely that the ordinance would be repealed.
D. Donovan asked in what order the current applications would be considered (with reference to the cap).
M. Curran responded that was the issue that the ZBA was going to be deciding. She noted there was an application by the Board of Selectmen (BOS) that would soon be before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) which may help clarify how the units are considered under the cap.
John Beacher, 80 Forrest Street, asked if there were any applications that were close to being condidered as complete and how many units were part of that plan.
L. Komornick replied that the one that was the closest was on Chandler Ave and there were forty-one (41) units.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to post the proposed change, repeal of the Elderly Housing Ordinance in its entirety, to the warrant for the Special Town Meeting. There was no discussion on the motion.
It was recommended that all persons interested in the Special Town Meeting read the posting board at the entrance to the building, or listen to the Board of Selectmen’s meeting for the specific dates of the Special Town Meeting.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the redevelopment of a site located at 49 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 located in the CI Zone. The purpose of the plan is to show the replacement of the existing building (Dandilyons Ice Cream and Flower Shop) with a new 1,800 square foot building to be used for a coffee shop. The total parcel acreage is +/- 35,500 square feet and has +/- 213 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Scamps, Inc.
David Jordan, SFC Engineering, Inc, and Robert Bohlinger, Bohlinger Engineering, were present for the application.
D. Jordan updated on the history and progress of the project noting a number of correspondences with CLD and changes they had made to accommodate the suggestions made. He explained that they had done a traffic study and discussed what changes, such as posting for no semi’s or tractor-trailers, the relocation of the handicapped parking space, and a note to the plan that calls for trash pick-up at non-operational hours that were made as a result of that review. There was a discussion regarding the curbing around the site, noted to be around the entire parking area. D. Jordan reported about the questions CLD raised about the septic and doing a perc test, noting that while they didn’t think they needed one, they had one done and the results were as they expected and would work with the leaching catch basins they had
designed into the drainage system. He noted that inconsistencies in the drainage report pointed out in the CLD letter were just an error in the number and had been corrected. D. Jordan noted that they had one waiver request for the height of a light pole. He reminded that the lot was pre-existing and they he felt they were making it better than how it is right now.
L. Komornick asked if the the waiver request would appear as a note on the plan.
R. Bohlinger reported that he had supplied written comments to CLD regarding the traffic study earlier in the day.
L. Komornick noted that CLD’s main concerns were with queuing and stacking of traffic, particularly at the Route 125 traffic light.
R. Bohlinger explained that they would be tying into an existing four-way signal. He added that the trip generations were based upon other existing Starbucks.
There was a discussion regarding the traffic flow, stacking at the signal intersection and the drive-thru line. Changes, resulting from the traffic study and CLD comments were outlined and discussed. It was noted that the Pentucket Plaza has the actual control of the intersection, but that there would be some impact from this new site. There was also discussion on the potential impact that current work being done on Route 125 would have on the site.
L. Komornick noting the Mr. Bohlinger had just recently submitted comment on CLD’s report, suggested that CLD be given a chance to review and comment on Mr. Bohlinger’s response.
R. Bohlinger offered that the timing on the signal was 120 seconds and should be plenty time enough to clear out the Starbucks.
L. Komornick added that the only place for vehicles to queue to the light was towards the drive-thru line.
R. Bohlinger suggested that there would be occassional times when there might be some back-ups but that everytime the light cycled it would completely clear the vehicles in the queue.
There was discussion comparing this proposed Starbucks with one newly constructed on the corner of Route 125 and Rosemont Ave in Haverhill, MA.
R. Zukas questioned why it wasn’t included in the site plan to align the intersection and move the signal north of it’s current location. He suggested it would create less of an angle for those looking to cross the street from the Pentucket Plaza. R. Zukas said that he felt that the ten feet that would be gained would improve the safety of the intersection.
D. Jordan noted there was an issue with the abutting property line.
R. Zukas suggested that the 120 seconds of green-light time might change with the synchronization of all the traffic lights on Route 125.
M. Dorman noted that the signalization project was essentially complete.
There was additional discussion regarding the signalization of the intersection. It was noted that the synchronization does occassionally get interupted by the walk signal.
R. Zukas asked if the new Starbucks in Haverhill was included in the traffic model.
R. Bohlinger said that it was not since it had not been established that long.
R. Zukas reported his observations of the Haverhill Starbucks noting that frequently, at least at the times when he is driving by there, the parking is very busy and the drive-thru is backed up, with a store half the size of the one proposed for Plaistow.
M. Curran noted that she had been watching the site as well and reported much of the same observations. She expressed additional concerns for queuing being backed up on Garden Road at the proposed Plaistow location. M. Curran offered understanding that this site offered certain constraints and suggested that it might not be the best location for a Starbucks in Plaistow because of the huge traffic impacts. She asked if either the police or fire chief had any comments on the traffic impact or public safety.
M. Dorman responded that they only offered minimal comment.
R. Zukas expressed additional concern that what he saw occurring at the Haverhill location would be repeated and perhaps even worse at the Plaistow location. He noted that should a customer get in the drive-thru line with a camper or pulling a trailer or try to park on the site with either that it would create additional stress on the site.
R. Bohlinger complimented the Board on there “astute observations” of the Haverhill Starbucks but cautioned that there was a novelty factor with a new business that wouldn’t make it a good example of how it will function a year from now. He added that he used the information found in nationally recognized traffic manuals to compile the traffic report for this site. Mr. Bohlinger continued that consumers will always have a choice and if they find a location is too congested or too difficult to navigate then they will not go to that business.
R. Zukas noted that with only two Starbucks in the area that brand loyalty would have an impact as well.
D. Jordan suggested that having a Starbucks in Haverhill and one in Plaistow they would balance each other off, each getting different traffic patterns at different times of the day. He noted that Starbucks currently did half the business that Dunkin Donuts does.
M. Curran noted that the Boston area stores seemed to do a very high volume. She added that the concern was not what went in there but the amount of traffic in an already busy area and the difficulty of maneuvering around the site. Mr. Curran said that the Board needed to consider long term impact and growth of the business as well. She suggested it was a lot to put on this site.
D. Jordan offered that the NHDOT was still reviewing the traffic study, adding that they would not tolerate any impact to Route 125, and their review should allay any fears that the Board may have about that.
M. Curran asked if they would be reviewing Garden Road impact as well.
L. Komornick replied that Danny Garlington (Plaistow Highway Supervisor) would be reviewing that and had already noted that he does not want delivery trucks on that road.
M. Dorman noted there was already a vehicle weight restriction on Garden Road.
T. Moore suggested that anyone who would be using Garden Road for access already was using Garden Road. He added that he agreed that moving the signal pole ten feet would help with the egress from the site.
D. Jordan noted that it would be a monumental undertaking.
R. Zukas said that while it may be difficult, it would improve safety, adding that he wasn’t sure why it had been put there to begin with. He suggested that the State be brought into that discussion since they created the problem putting the light there is the first place.
L. Komornick suggested that she could write a letter to NHDOT asking it to be looked at.
R. Zukas added that the letter should suggest in the strongest terms that the light pole be moved.
L. Komornick offered that the Board needed to let the applicant know whether or not this project was viable as it was unlikely that there would be any significant changes as they have already explained that they have done about all they can do. She noted that a lot of the concerns being expressed regarding this site were the same with the Home Depot site and have leveled out over time.
M. Curran noted that she didn’t think it was the safest use for this site.
R. Bohlinger noted the concerns with the queuing to Route 125 and added that it was not expected to be an all day occurrance.
R. Zukas suggested that it couldn’t happen at all and traffic could not be backed up onto either Route 125 or Garden Road.
R. Bohlinger explained that all the queuing would be internal to the site and would not be all day. He noted that observations were made at stores in Concord and Nashua, NH as well as Billerica MA and no more than eight (8) cars had been observed stacked at the drive-thru at anytime.
There was additional discussion regarding the traffic flow, stacking and employee parking at the proposed site. Comparisons were made to traffic at existing Dunkin Donuts.
R. Bohlinger cautioned about comparing Starbucks to Dunkin Donuts noting it was not an apples to apples comparison.
R. Zukas agreed, asking what the recourse was if the Board granted site plan approval and in time it was determined that it wasn’t working.
M. Dorman suggested that NHDOT would not grant a new driveway permit if they felt there would be issues with the site.
D. Jordan added that there was nothing in the traffic analysis that indicated there would be problems on Route 125 or Garden Road.
T. Moore noted that if in the future it was shown there were problems navigating the site then the drive-thru would have to be shut down.
M. Curran suggested that would not be an easy task.
There was additional discussion comparing this site to the Haverhill Starbucks. It was conceded that it was a new site and that things would settle out over time. Concern was expressed over people accessing the site from the southern Route 125 driveway and trying to cut into the drive-thru line instead of circling the building and getting in line at the end. There was discussion regarding placement of curbing that would force the traffic entering that driveway around the building.
M. Curran offered that it all sounded great on paper but that she had serious concerns as to how it would actually function.
D. Jordan suggested they bring everything to CLD for discussion. He suggested that it could be a condition of approval that after one year of operation they would have to reappear before the Board and offer a status report on the operations of the site, noting that the Board will also have their own observations.
R. Zukas suggested that the review time be decreased to six months.
L. Komornick added that would be sufficient time to note the difference between summer and school time.
T. Moore noted that it needed to be clear to the applicant that if things are not working out at that review time they would be looking to eliminate the drive-thru.
R. Zukas offered that six months people would have established a routine.
M. Curran said that she would like to see draft language regarding the review process and the potential loss of the drive-thru.
L. Komornick added that there would have to be a note on the plan that referenced the agreement regarding the six month review.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to accept the plan for a Starbucks at 49 Plaistow Road as complete.
L. Komornick suggested that the review agreement be run by Jonathan Cox for his okay.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the hearing was continued to July 18, 2007.
The chairman called for a break at 8:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:33 p.m.
A Preliminary Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for a proposed 3-story, 3,400 square foot professional office space addition to the existing building. The property is Tax Map 11, Lot 5 located at 23 Atkinson Depot Road. This commercially zoned parcel is 1.30 acres, contains a 2,000 square foot building and has 265.62 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Little River Properties II, LLC.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates and Anthony Pappalardo, Little River Properties, were present for the application.
C. Zilch offered an overview of the existing conditions on the property, noting that the NHDOT took a portion of the parcel as part of the redevelopment of the Route 121 bridge and the access to the property was an easement through property owned but the Town of Atkinson. C. Zilch noted the property to be 1.3 acres with 265 feet of frontage and was currenlty being used for 7 professional businesses with 17 to 19 employees and was serviced by a septic and well. He reminded that they had previously cme in with a conceptual plan for a second building but there were considerable wetlands concerns. C. Zilch explained that they would like to propose a 3,400 sq. ft. three-story office space addition to the existing building, which would meet all set back requirements and have far less impact to the site. He added that the
well would have to be relocated and a new septic design submitted for State approval. C. Zilch noted that they would be seeking two waiver requests, one for parking density and the other was for the landscaping buffer, adding that the State was constructing a large retaining wall and any landscaping would not be visible. He added that they would need two State approvals, which are a NHDOT driveway permit for the increased use and for a new septic design; he noted that site specific permitting was not required as there would not be any impact to the wetlands so no dredge and fill permit would be needed.
R. Zukas asked what the lot coverage was.
M. Curran noted there wasn’t much detail information on the plan.
C. Zilch reminded that the plan was a conceptual design.
R. Zukas expressed concern over how different types of businesses, such as a doctor or a dentist, would impact the parking calculations.
C. Zilch noted that it was a small site and the site loading for septic would not allow for any high flow businesses.
R. Zukas questioned what would prevent it (high volume business) on the site.
C. Zilch offered to provide a break down of the sewage loading business by business.
M. Curran asked, noting the three floors, if there would be an elevator in the building.
A. Pappalardo noted that it had not been considered yet.
M. Curran offered that the building would need to be ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant.
M. Dorman offered to review the plans for ADA compliance.
C. Zilch noted that there was additional area that could be available for future parking but he didn’t see the need for it at this time and didn’t want to add additional paving that wouldn’t be needed.
M. Curran asked about the landscaping waiver request.
C. Zilch explained that they would carry forward the exisiting landscaping, noting the additional woodlands around the site. He added that the area where the septic would be was to be grassed.
M. Curran asked if anything was planned to offset the loss of the buffer in the front.
C. Zilch said they would look at it.
L. Komornick asked about the driveway easement.
C. Zilch noted that he had been able to locate the easement agreement with Atkinson. He noted that some of the area near the easement access had recently been used as staging area for the bridge construction. He further added that he had also spoken with the Atkinson Conservation Commission (ConCom).
A. Pappalardo added that they (Atkinson) were fighting with the State for some paving of the area.
C. Zilch offered that they had taken the graveled area into consideration with the drainage calculations.
Jack Paley, owner of the property at 4 Hilldale Ave, updated the Board as to what he knew about the paving and what other plans the State had as he knew them
T. Moore asked if the proposed three story addition would still be under the forty-five foot height limit. It was assured that it would be.
M. Dorman noted that if it was over 2,000 sq. ft. it would need to have a fire suppression system.
C. Zilch said that he would submit a full set of archetectural plans.
T. Moore asked that the Fire Chief be consulted.
J. Paley said that in all the years that he had been across the street he had never seen any overflow in the parking. He added that the felt the project was worthy of consideration and as a neighbor he welcomed it.
T. Moore stated that he was going to close the preliminary hearing. He asked if the Town of Atkinson was listed as an abutter to the project for notification.
L. Komornick offered that she would be a letter from the Atkinson ConCom.
Review of As-Built Plan for New Real Estate Offices at 31 Main Street
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, was present for the discussion. He offered for review an as-built plan for the new real estate office proposed for 31 Main Street. He noted there were no changes planned for the outside of the building at this time.
There was a review of the plan. It was not clear whether or not the building would be completely occupied by the real estate office or whether Dr. Silverman would still have a practice there and to what level. Since it was determined that answer would effect the parking calculations it was decided to table the review and get the answer from Sue Fyfe the new owner.
Discussion with Stephen Drelick re: Landscaping and Other Issues at the Rockingham Athletic Club
Stephen Drelick, property owner and owner of the Rockingham Athletic Club was present for the discussion. He reported to the Board that he had finished landscaping at the site. Mr. Drelick explained that some of the trees were shown on the plan to be planted in the drainage swale areas and after consultation with area landscapers (Bill Barlett and Ron Reardon) he was told they wouldn’t survive, since the parking lot moved so much water, so he did not plant them there. He noted that he had hyrdoseeded the grass areas and the site looked great.
M. Curran asked how many trees were not planted.
S. Drelick said that he had planted twenty-eight (28) out of the fifty (50) trees.
M. Curran inquired if there was a plan for the placement of the trees that could not be placed because of their location in the drainage.
R. Zukas noted that he had been out to the site and that the trees were evenly spaced, were not all pines and looked nice. He added that the plan for fifty (50) trees was aggressive.
S. Drelick offered that the trees planted were all pears and hard woods.
R. Zukas added that more trees would be overkill and what was there would be good fill once matured.
There was a discussion where the tress could be placed.
R. Zukas suggested that the plan be revisited once the NHDOT was done with their taking in relation to the Route 125 work.
M. Curran offered that landscaping was done for a reason, soften the building, screening and that there was a significant loss of trees on this plan.
There was discussion regarding the placement of landscaping trees and whether or not there were other locations where trees could be located.
M. Dorman noted that Mr. Drelick has tried to put trees elsewhere, noting that they could not be put in the swales.
M. Curran suggested there could be plantings around the free standing sign.
S. Drelick responded that there would be plantings around the sign.
There was discussion regarding how the trees in the swale was missed in the plan review phase.
M. Dorman offered that he brought Bill Barlett to the site, since he was part of the writing of the current landscaping regulation.
R. Zukas suggested that the site was maxed out with trees.
S. Drelick noted that he had installed a sprinkler system to help insure the survival of the trees that were planted.
T. Moore suggested the the landscaping be given the chance to stabalize and ask Mr. Drelick to report back in the fall.
S. Drelick added that he didn’t want to plant trees just to stick trees in the ground. He added that Al Hoyt and Sons (Hoyt) had scheduled the final topcoat paving for the first week in September, noting that was when his contractor said it should be done.
L. Komornick noted there was a difference of opinion as to when the topcoat should be done.
R. Zukas noted that there needed to be better erosion controls around the retention pond and near the road as there were gullies where the water was running off.
M. Dorman responded that Hoyt was working with Mr. Drelick to resolve the runoff problems, noting there had been a rather extraordinary large amount of rain this past spring.
There was discussion regarding ways to control the runoff and address the erosion issues on the site. It was agreed that the heavy rains were unusual but such weather needed to be addressed.
S. Drelick noted that the rains came before much of his landscaping was being installed or had set enough to be effective. He added that he also was at the mercy of the NHDOT and their plans on Route 125 as well.
There was discussion about products on the market that may be effective in helping the erosion situation on the site.
M. Curran asked what the hours of operation of the business were, noting that she had received a flyer that advertized for overnight camp, which she did not recall being part of the plan. She reminded that the neighbors had concerns in the planning phase for this project regarding noise at night.
S. Drelick explained that it was a night where 5th, 6th and 7th graders had a sleep over. He noted they served popcorn and showed movies, no one was over the age of 13 and they were shut in the building.
M. Curran noted that she had also received a menu for a take out restaurant offering a delivery service, which she said was far more than the snack bar the she recalled being part of the plan.
R. Zukas agreed that he recalled that the plan called for a snack bar that would be available for those at the sporting events. He suggested that having a restaurant on the premises would have an impact on the parking calculations.
M. Dorman noted that the septic and parking were not designed to include a full fledged restuarant, but was designed for a food service to accommodate the facility. He added that it was designed for approximately 400 people and if twenty (20) came in off the street it wasn’t going to make a big difference.
S. Drelick added that septic had been over-designed to use 6,000 gallons per day.
M. Curran suggested that the food service had been taken to a higher level than what was suggested during the plan review.
S. Drelick offered that the take-out (delivery) service was developed from imput dropped in a customer suggestion box onsite.
M. Curran reminded that a traffic review was to be completed within the first six months of opening.
S. Drelick replied that he had already hosted some larger tournaments without issue.
M. Curran offered that a traffic monitoring study needed to be scheduled. She added that she did not recall any outside activities being approved as part of the plan.
R. Zukas recalled that baseball fields were talked about as a something that might be done down-the-road.
S. Drelick offered that he had talked to the Board about summer recreation programs and outside activities. He added that without having these programs he may as well close his business.
M. Curran noted that it was not indicated on the plan adding that Mr. Drelick should have come to the Board before going ahead with something not on the plan.
R. Zukas said that when there is nothing on the plan for summer recreation then it is not etched in stone.
S. Drelick reiterated that he had spoken with the Board regarding the fields. He added that it was also included in his business plan, which he had also submitted to the Board as part of his application.
There was review of the approved site plan, which was noted to locate ball fields.
M. Curran asked if all these activities had been factored into the parking calculations. She noted that she didn’t feel Mr. Drelick had been forthright with the Board, adding that a business plan was not part of a site plan.
S. Drelick offered that he had submitted everything to the Board and had hired architectural and civil engineers to design a good site and never tried to hide anything from the Board.
There was additional discussion regarding the restaurant versus snack bar situation and what impact that has on the site.
T. Moore suggested that the concern was what would happen if the restaurant/take-out service goes well and whether or not that would adversely impact the site during tournaments.
S. Drelick noted that the summer recreation camp was in progress at this time and he didn’t think there was any adverse affect to the site.
There was discussion regarding the proper procedures to be followed regarding adding new activities, not included on the site plan, to any commercial site.
L. Komornick offered that there was conflicting information in the file. She specifically recalled discussion that noted should Mr. Drelick want to do any additional activities, that they needed to be noted on the plan.
There was continued frustration expressed that there were activities currently happening on the site that were not part of the site plan and the fact that there should have been specific discussion with the Board and the opportunity to review the plan before they were allowed to start. It was noted there was a fenced in play area indicated on the plan which had not yet been contstructed.
S. Drelick noted that there were trees planted there instead.
The discussion turned to how many additional employees were now on the site as a result of these expanded activities and how that affected the parking calculations.
S. Drelick reviewed the number of employees for the Board.
T. Moore asked that Mr. Drelick write a letter to the Board that explained activities such as the overnight sleep overs and help the Board know what is going on onsite. He added that the parking should be revisted to make sure that it still works as intended.
S. Drelick noted that there were 150 parking spaces in the front part of the building alone.
T. Moore suggested that the day camp would be okay provided that it was over by 6:00 p.m.
S. Drelick reported that there would be a big tournament the next evening and the lot would be really full.
R. Zukas reiterated his concerns regarding adequate erosion controls for the site.
S. Drelick noted that Hoyt was concerned over what impact the Route 125 widening would have on the site. He asked if he could put signage on the poles and was told that he would have to take the matter to the ZBA.
There was discussion about the late paving of the site and it was decided that the Board would address the paving if not completed by the third week of September.
M. Curran said that she would like to look at different options for the trees that were not planted.
S. Drelick offered that they had looked at all other options.
L. Komornick recapped the discussion this evening regarding the site noting the following:
- S. Drelick will write a letter to the Board regarding the sleepovers
- The parking calculations will need to be reviewed to make sure there are no issues caused by additional activities on the site
- Erosion controls need to be addressed and the right-of-way to be taken care of, possibly with matting
- M. Dorman will consult on site with Erin Lombardi of CLD regarding the issues raised at this meeting (availability of escrow monies to be verified)
T. Moore suggested that if the plan showed adequate parking and septic there would be no additional need to review the restaurant. He added that if a problem is noted it would be discussed at that time and Mr. Drelick would need to come back before the Board.
Other Business - Status of Temp. Occupancy Permit for Planet Fitness
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering Inc. and Paul Wescott, representing the property owners, were present for the discussion.
R. Pica reported that Planet Fitness had distributed information with their bills regarding water use and that he was still working with NHDES regarding approval of a new septic design. He reported that part of the issues were the number of employees and the location of the well (noted to be 45 feet where 50 feet was required). R. Pica noted that the well could not be moved and he had been told by the State that they could approve the design as long as it could be shown that there would be no infiltration. He explained that Prescott Pump had completed the testing and it would be about eight weeks (two weeks remaining) to get the results, at which time he would submit the results to NHDES. R. Pica explained that he could then go back to the State for subdivision approval for the condoization of the building. He
noted that because of the wetlands on the property the well radius did go over onto the adjacent Marino property. R. Pica added that once the well was approved then the septic design plan and subdivision plan could be approved. He noted that State approval of the well was required because it was considered to be a public water supply.
M. Curran asked when it was anticipated the new septic would actually be installed.
R. Pica noted that the current system was approved for 1,000 gallons per day and the new system would be for 1540 per day. It was noted that 1200 gallons were used in May and those numbers would likely be higher in the winter months.
M. Dorman suggested that it would most likely be two months before the State would approve the new design. He added that the system was designed to handle the Allen and Coles moving company, who he understood would be leaving in August.
T. Moore offered that the owners definitely needed to plan on installing the new system ASAP as the site was already operating past capacity.
P. Wescott explained that Mr. Scott (property owner) believed the system is operational and working well. He added that the new system was designed for bigger uses but what is in the ground now is adequately handling the uses and Mr. Scott didn’t agree that he needs to install the new system immediately.
M. Curran responded that if Mr. Scott wasn’t willing to replace the system once approved then Planet Fitness may need to cease and desist operations as that was a condition of approval. She reiterated that the facility is already exceeding the numbers.
R. Pica offered that the well had to be approved and no matter what the new septic design would be approved.
L. Komornick suggested that they make a date to meet in the office.
M. Curran suggested that the options for the site were that they shut down Planet Fitness as of tonight or Mr. Scott agrees to put the septic in the ground as soon as it is approved. She asked M. Dorman if pumping receipts are submitted for all sites.
M. Dorman replied only when a system is deemed to have failed.
P. Wescott offered that they felt that the over usage of the water was a grand opening scenario.
R. Zukas suggested that, considering the number of times that water usage has exceeded the recommended numbers, a deadline be set and the new septic system be installed within ninety-days of approval.
R. Pica offered that he would give the Board constant updates regarding both the well and septic approvals from the State.
It was asked why the dumpster had not yet been relocated.
R. Pica asked if they could move the dumpster further onto the grassed area instead of around to the side of the building.
R. Zukas suggested that wasn’t feasible as it would continue to interfere with the parking. He added that people were parking up the driveway and in other places where there was not supposed to be parking. R. Zukas noted that he felt they were off on their parking calculations. He suggested that the dumpster be moved down by the trucks where it belong.
T. Moore offered that the parking spaces needed to be clearly delineated according to the plan.
M. Curran suggested that no more occupancy permits be granted until all the issues raised tonight are addressed.
The discussion was closed with the note that R. Pica would return when there was more information.
Other Business - Report on Bresnahan Site
T. Moore questioned what was happening with the hot tub business at 153 Plaistow Road. He asked if there would be a minor site plan done to allow them to keep the box trailers there.
L. Komornick noted that it couldn’t be a minor site plan.
M. Dorman added that he expected that Mr. Bresnahan would have been at this meeting to discuss the matter.
There was consensus amoung the Board members that the trailers would need to be relocated to the back lot unless and until there was a change approved to the site plan.
Other Business - CIP and Master Plan Update
L. Komornick noted that both these documents were being updated.
Other Business – RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission) Reappointment
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to reappoint Larry Gil as the Board’s representative to the RPC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Other Business - Misc. Notices, Letters, Newspaper Articles and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning and ZBA
M. Curran questioned the existing conditions at the CampAmerica site.
M. Dorman replied that they had been sent a letter regarding non-compliance issues.
Other site issues discussed:
- JR’s Used Car Corral has a blocked driveway
- Wally’s Auto World (corner of Rose Ave and Route 125) needs to cease parking along the side of the road
- Stateline Plaza construction needs better dust controls
M. Dorman noted that they were nearly completed with the work that was raising the dust but agreed it has been a problem.
T. Moore suggested that something be added to the regulations regarding dust control of construction sites.
R. Zukas asked what was being done to bring the real estate signs into compliance.
M. Dorman noted that there had been a list compiled of all real estate signs in Plaistow and letters were begin prepared.
T. Moore offered that there was no permit required for rental properties and for signage that did not display the name of a real estate company. He noted that all signs must display the address of the property and be permitted.
R. Zukas reported that Shaw’s was not enforcing their employee parking in the rear of the building.
M. Dorman asked the Board how they wanted him to enforce some of these actions. He noted that he had already spoken with property owners and that the next step would have to be court.
M. Curran asked if a letter had been sent.
M. Dorman replied that it had not and that he would see that one was sent right away.
M. Curran expressed frustration that all these plans go through a review process and things are promised that never happen. She questioned why the Board should bother to review plans.
R. Zukas noted that the drainage issues at Shaw’s Plaza needed to be fixed.
M. Dorman responded that he had been talking to them about that issue as well and was asking that they dredge and clean out the pond. He added that the drainage was supposed to go to catch basins on Route 125 and it never happened.
There was additional discussion about the drainage concerns at the Shaw’s Plaza and what measures were being taken to address and correct the situation, particularly on the side that affected the Pichowiczs.
R. Zukas asked what the pump was that was on the side of the road on Chandler Ave.
M. Dorman replied that he did not know.
There was discussion regarding progress on the Route 125 median project, the project on Westville Road, Hazeltine Street and a possible NTB store on Garden Road.
Other Business – 113 Plaistow Road – Danos – Engineering Review
There was a discussion as to whether or not the previously submitted plan for the 113 Plaistow Road (Danos) would have to have a full engineering review. It was the consensus of the Board that CLD review the plans. It was suggested that it be reinforced to Mr. Danos that there be adequate dust controls in place and that there be no construction prior to Planning Board approval.
Other Business – Training Opportunities
L. Komornick noted a Planning Board Training being held Monday, June 25 in Exeter. R. Zukas and T. Moore said that they would be attending. M. Curran said that she would if she did not have a meeting scheduled. L. Komornick said that she would contact S. Ranlett and B. Weymouth regarding attending the meeting.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 11:27 p.m. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
