PLANNING BOARD
September 05, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth (left the meeting at 8:35 p.m.) and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Steven Ranlett was absent.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator; P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official and Attorney Craig Donais, Planning Board Attorney
T. Moore introduced Neal Morin, applicant for alternate to the Planning Board.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to appoint Neal Morin as an alternate to the Planning Board.
T. Moore noted that N. Morin can participate in all discussions of the Board but cannot be appointed to vote until he signs his warrant with the Town Clerk’s Office.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Minutes of the July 18, 2007
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the minutes of the July 18, 2007, minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
A Final Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the proposed reuse of industrial buildings including the establishment of a contractor’s yard including outdoor storage, office space, and warehouse/office commercial space, and tenant space for tradesmen and others utilizing a mix of office and warehouse space. The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13 and Tax Map 27, Lot 55, totaling 58.7 acres.
Present for the application were: Charles Zilch, SEC and Associates; Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell, attorney for the property owners; Stephen Chicatelli, attorney for Testa Corporation; Margaret Probish, attorney for Chart; Peter Quinn and Ken Paul from Chart Industries.
B. Campbell gave an overview of the application, noting the location of the property and the intent of Testa Corporation (Testa) to operate from the facility. He offered the following information regarding the site and the proposed site plan:
- 36 acre parcel occupied by Chart Industries since the late 1960’s
- The existing building is +/- 167,240 sq. ft.
- Testa does not propose any additional buildings
- There would be maintenance to and repair of lighting and fences
- There is an onsite well and septic
- Access to the parcel is by a deeded right-of-way from Main Street across Town owned property
- The main building was the site of Process Engineering, which manufactured and shipped cryogenic tanks
- Two existing out buildings that were used for storage would be designated for new uses
- Process Engineering operated three (3) shifts, employing between 350-400 people at its peak and creating significant traffic on Main Street
- There is a railroad spur on the property that was used by Process Engineering
- Chart still has an office on the property
- Testa is a significant construction company, based in Wakefield, MA. They primarily do site work and demolition for government and municipalities, mainly in the Boston area, though they have contracted nationally and internationally. This site would allow them to expand their business into southern New Hampshire and Maine.
- The parcel is in the Industrial District and the use that Testa is looking for is a permitted use (Contractor’s Yard)
- Specific aspects of the plan including proposed uses for Testa and locations of those proposed uses were noted as follows:
o storage and parking of equipment
o dry storage; some storage of construction materials (i.e. jersey barriers, landscaping materials, signage, construction horses)
o storage of non-motorized equipment (i.e. work trailers, flatbed trailers)
o water line
o overhead bays for loading of equipment (some of which needed to be partially disesembled for transporting) and accessibility to bring equipment inside the building for repairs
o area for future office and warehouse rental to related trades (i.e. electricians; plumbers and framers) all consistent with the permitted uses in the district
o parking calculations were noted to be based upon a ¼ office use and ¾ warehouse use (for Testa as well as any potential tenants) (182 spaces required by the regulations and 200 spaces provided on the plan)
o lot coverage is 32%
There was discussion regarding some of the notes on the plan, particularly the ones pertaining to uses of the tenant space; number of employees that Testa will have on site; hours of operation; deliveries to the site as well as other standard site plan notes.
B. Campbell noted the following list of waiver requests:
- §230-14L (Lot size in in square feet and acreage) – it was noted that this was such a large parcel, bounded by Little River on one side that it was extremely difficult to calculate exact square footage
- §230-14 II (Lighting plan that complies with all requirements of the Town’s lighting regulation) – there are not going to be any new buildings or new lighting. All existing lighting will be repaired as needed and maintained. It was noted that Police Chief Savage had expressed some concerns regarding the non-functioning lighting which would be addressed.
- §230-14CC (Existing and proposed septic systems (and proposed replacement areas) and wells (with protective radius for proposed) located on the site plan and for abutting properties) – the property is surrounded by the railroad, Little River and Town owned property
- §220-14HH (Landscaping plan that complies with all requirements of the Town’s landscaping regulations) – The site is isolated and will not be seen by abutters, while the site will be cleaned up the request is to waive a formal landscaping plan
- §230-14BB (Existing and proposed structures located on the site and for abutting properties) – Again, the parcel is large and surrounded by the railroad, Little River and Town owned property
- §230-14Z (Topography contours at intervals not exceeding two feet, with spot elevations where grade is less than 5%. Datum should be National Geodetic Verical Datum (GVD) 1929) – There are no proposed new structures or changes to the existing grades
B. Campbell offered that he was not aware of any additional State or Federal required permits to operate from this site, unlike some previous applicants for the site.
R. Zukas noted that he had been to the Testa website and saw that they did some recycling (he noted that part of the website was unavailable). He asked what part of the business was recycling related.
B. Campbell replied that there were no provision for recycling on this site.
S. Chicatelli noted that when sites are dismantled the materials are brought directly to a recycling site; no recycling will be done at this location.
R. Zukas asked if there would be any storage of recycling materials on this site.
S. Chicatelli answered that the intent is to have all the equipment to be at a job site, not on this property. Materials to be recycled are transported directly to recycling facilities.
M. Curran repeated the question, asking if there would be any storage of recycling materials on this site.
S. Chicatelli explained there may be rare instances where a truck might not make it to a recycling facility by closing and the truck would be parked on this site fully loaded waiting for the facility to open the next day.
M. Curran reminded that the Town had very specific definitions for recycling and that recycling was not a permitted use. She noted that it was important for the Town to know ahead of time if there would be anything like that intended for this site.
There was discussion regarding the definitions of recycling and where they could be found in the ordinances.
B. Campbell offered that there would be no processing for the purposes of recycling on this site. He added that there may be times when large steel beams (i.e. from bridge demolition) were brought to the site to be stored for use in other projects.
R. Zukas noted that the concern was over leaching of materials into the ground water and the wetlands.
T. Moore asked if Testa was a sole corporation or if they were a subsidiary of another company.
S. Chicatelli replied that there was a sole owner.
T. Moore inquired if all motorized equipment would be parked on paved areas.
B. Campbell assured that it would and that only non-motorized equipment would be parked on non-paved areas.
T. Moore questioned if equipment repairs would be limited to inside the building.
B. Campbell answered that repairs would be inside for the most part, the expectation being a flat tire, or something of that nature, may be repaired in the yard.
T. Moore noted that the concern was that gas, oil and grease not be allowed to soak into the ground or to leach off the pavement. He added that he assumed there would be proper grease and oil traps provided inside the building.
There was a discussion regarding the Town’s right-of-way, which is the access to the property and another right-of-way located on an former plan for the site. It was noted that the access to the site across Town-owned land was a deed access.
R. Zukas asked if there would be storage of diesel fuel for the trucks on the site.
S. Chicatelli explained that there would be no construction debris taken back or stored on this site, with the expection of the steel bridge beams noted earlier. He added that the building would be alarmed and that all fencing and lighting would be repaired or replaced.
R. Zukas asked if there was fencing at the rear of the site.
M. Dorman replied that there was not, but it was backed by the river.
S. Chicatelli added that if there was any storage of diesel fuel on the site it would be done in accordance with all proper permitting and licensing requirements.
R. Zukas noted that there was nothing on the plan regarding tanks or fuel storage and if they were going to have fuel storage it would need to be noted on the plan.
B. Campbell noted that the large unpaved area for non-motorized equipment would be fenced off by a chain-link fence for security.
C. Zilch added that the area for storage of non-motorized equipment was graveled.
R. Zukas asked the status of the outstanding DES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) issues.
M. Curran noted that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) requested that information months ago, along with status updates from other sites.
L. Komornick asked if there was going to be a transfer of the responsibility for the clean-up.
B. Campbell answered that there was not going to be such a transfer, adding that the agreement specifies that the current owners remain liable for completing the remediation. He added that it was in Testa’s best interest to enforce that stipulation of the agreement to avoid inheriting any liability. Mr. Campbell noted that all permits applicable to the remediation would remain in the name of the current owners, but the State will be notified of the change of the ownership of the property once Testa purchases it.
S. Chicatelli confirmed that his client had been fully advised of the remediation issues, as had their bank. He added that they had also consulted with an environmental engineer.
M. Curran asked if the newly discovered area of contamination had been included in the current remediation plan.
B. Campbell introduced Margaret Probish, attorney for Chart Industries and Jim Weeks, environmental engineer with GZA.
J. Weeks noted that the newly identified area was near the original area of contmination and was considered to have leached from the original area. He noted that it had similar source of contamination and that it was thought that it would remediate with the clean up of the original area.
M. Curran asked if DES had records of all the clean up.
L. Komornick noted that the monitoriing wells were shown on the plan and suggested that the areas of remediation be shown as well.
S. Chicatelli offered that it was all a matter of public record.
J. Weeks added that all plans were provided to DES.
There was a discussion regarding the need to locate the areas of remediation on this site plan. It was decided that GZA would provide a copy of the remediation plan, which would then be included in the Town’s plan set for this site.
J. Weeks added that the areas of remediation are recorded with the deed.
M. Curran noted that she had walked the property and that the asphalt was in bad shape and needed to be repaired. She added that digging up that much asphalt would trigger a site specific permit.
B. Campbell offered that would depend on the method of repair. He agreed that if large areas were left open then it could, but added that there were ways that the pavement condition could be improved without doing so.
L. Komornick asked if there could be other environmental issues stirred up with what’s under the pavement.
J. Weeks replied that if the pavement was being simply repaired there would not be.
S. Chicatelli noted that the intent was not to dig up the pavement, but to patch and resurface it.
M. Curran suggested that the condition of the pavement had deteriorated to a point where patching and resurfacing may not be sufficient.
M. Curran asked about combined residential and commercial usage.
L. Komornick noted that if people were going to be living there a risk assessment would have to be done. She added there would have to be further study if there were to be a retail use on the property as well.
M. Curran expressed concern that note #9 on the plan was asking to allow empty spaces to be filled by the owner without Planning Board approval.
B. Campbell explained that if the uses were consistent with the approved uses for the site then there would not be a need to return to the Board as those uses are approved as part of the plan. He added that uses outside that list would be referred to the Planning Board for review and approval. Mr. Campbell further noted that uses that are not permitted in the district would be expected to be referred to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. He gave the example of “publishing” offering that while it was a permitted use in the Industrial district it was not a use specifically called out on the plan and therefore would trigger a review of the site plan. Mr. Campbell noted that the parking calculations were determined based on a ratio of office to warehouse space and that those ratios would be maintained when
a tenant leased space. Such a tenant business would have to be one of the approved types listed on the plan.
M. Curran suggested that how space was broken up to accomodate additional tenants could have an effect on parking and septic as well as increase the traffic to and from the site.
B. Campbell offered that the ratios of office to warehouse square footage would be maintained no matter how the units were divided or not divided. He suggested that if the ratios remained the same then how the units were divided would have no impact on the parking and septic calculations.
S. Chicatelli noted that the approval was only for the uses listed, not for all the permitted uses in the district. He added that being able to know that certain uses were approved was critical to marketability as well as financing.
B. Campbell added that the ordinance did not catagorize by the number of units but the overall square footage and the use of that square footage. He added that if anything went outside of that ratio then they would be required to come back to the Board for additional review. He suggested if they keep within what they have committed to the Board to do they should not have to return to the Board.
M. Curran noted that there was a lot of equipment outside storage areas noted on the plan, when there was more then enough room for it to be stored indoors. She asked Attorney Donais if it was within the Board’s jurisdiction to require that all storage be inside the building.
C. Donais answered that he would have to further review the ordinances.
M. Curran offered that she felt that the outside of the property was being overburdened and there was room to contain the storage inside.
B. Campbell suggested that whether or not the exterior of the property was being over burdened was regulated through the lot coverage.
M. Curran asked if Testa would be purchasing the entire parcel.
B. Campbell answered that they were purchasing Map 41, Lot 12, while holding options to purchase the surrounding parcels, which would then be combined into one.
R. Zukas asked if there would be proper easements to access the other parcels from this parcel.
B. Campbell replied there was no need as the other parcel had access to Route 125.
S. Chicatelli explained the problems that would be created in securing financing if each tenant would have to come back to the Board for approval. He offered that banks would see the remaining portions of the building as non-usable space. Mr. Chicatelli added that the Planning Office and Building Inspector would be involved in tenant being granted occupancy.
R. Zukas asked if their trucks would be limited to left turns only out of the property to avoid trucking into the Village District.
B. Cambell offered that it would be noted on the plan.
M. Dorman added that there should still be signage on the property that states left turn only for trucking.
M. Curran asked if deliveries would be taken in by the bays.
B. Campbell explained that deliveries would be taken in at the appropriate areas. He said that they weren’t proposing any changes to the dock configurations.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters wishing to ask a question or make a comment.
Chris Kurlis, 134 Main Street, noted that it was true that the property could not be seen when there were leaves on the trees but when the foliage was off he said he could see the whole site. He suggested that the Board not allow Testa to put in tenants without their approval, no matter how reputable a company Testa was. Mr. Kurlis said that this would not be a pretty site and he didn’t expect a construction company to beautify the property but they should be made to keep the site in a professional manner.
T. Moore suggested that there be a site walk when the leaves are off the trees to determine if there needs to be a visual barrier provided for the abutters.
S. Chicatelli offered that he thought his client would be ammenable to doing so. He reiterated the importance of not having to come back to the Board to put tenants in that were on the list of uses specifically approved by this plan in order to prepare a zoning letter to secure financing. Mr. Chicatelli reminded that this site would be not merely rental units but would be occupied by Testa and they would take pride in that ownership.
M. Curran noted that this building was always owner occupied and she questioned (Board’s counsel) if the Board could contain it to that standard. She suggested with the railroad spur it opened it to other uses that may not be compatible with the Town.
C. Donais offered that it was within the Board’s purview to limit the uses of the building.
There was continued discussion about how different uses could effect parking.
B. Campbell offered that it would be a considerably less intense use than Chart was.
K. Paul noted that they employed several humdred people up until three and a half years ago.
M. Curran replied that she has been in the building across the street from the entrance to the parcel for five years and there hasn’t been traffic from the site in all that time.
B. Campbell reminded that the regulation bases the parking on the use and the square footage. He added that he was not aware of any New Hampshire Land Use Law that prohibited rental or mandated owner occupied use.
M. Curran suggested that additional rentals would impact traffic and saying that so much of the space will be office and so much warehouse does not account for the number of potential employees. She added that all plans have always included a note that stated “changes of use require Planning Board approval.”
B. Campbell used an anecdotal illustration of how the ordinance is catagorized noting a small breakfast coffee shop could sell to a Dunkin Donuts and since the use did not change they would not need Planning Board approval.
There was additional discussion regarding a list of approved uses to be included as part of the site plan that would not require a tenant returning to the Board and whether or not that would be acceptable to the Board.
S. Chicatelli reiterated that Testa could not use the entire building, that some of the space would continue to be leased to Chart and they wanted to be able to lease the remainder of the building. He reminded that the building would be owner-occupied and that it was important to securing financing that there be a list of uses approved for those tenants.
C. Kurlis offered that he thought that the Board would be within their rights, and he felt would be backed by the Supreme Court, to insist that there be one owner-occupied-single business at the site.
B. Weymouth questioned if the bank would lend to Testa if they couldn’t get the Planning Board to approve other tenants.
S. Chicatelli replied that they would not, they would consider it a vacant building and would not loan on a vacant building. He added that banks prefer multi-use buildings.
B. Weymouth suggested that it wouldn’t be good to scare off a bank.
M. Curran noted that it was currently not a multi-use building, that it was one building, one use.
There was additional discussion regarding the use of the building and the potential leasing to other tenants.
S. Chicatelli suggested that the ratios (office to warehouse) and the specific use catagories be more clearly stated on the site plan.
M. Curran offered that she couldn’t approve anything that came close to a blanket approval, which would also make enforcement a future issue. She said it would require constant monitoring and review to insure that things didn’t grow out of control.
S. Chicatelli offered that if there was any proposed use that the Building Inspector felt did not comply with the list of Planning Board approved uses he would still have the discretion to send that applicant to the Planning Board.
M. Curran asked if Testa owned a “crushing machine” similar to one proposed to be used by fomer applicant CBI.
S. Chicatelli reiterated there is no intention for any crushing, recycling or processing of materials on this site.
M. Curran asked if there would be stockpiling of materials.
S. Chicatelli answered there would not be, anything that couldn’t be taken immediately to its end destination would be left on the flatbed. He added the only recycling they did was of concrete and that would not be done on this site and all construction materials would be clean materials.
M. Curran asked if there would be any mulch stored on the site and if so would it be in bins or in random piles.
B. Campbell offered to have a note added to the plan that mulch products would be in proper bins.
L. Komornick noted that §230-12 required that all off-street parking, which would include the motorized vehicles and equipment needed to have a marked (as opposed to assigned) space, not just a designated area.
M. Curran asked if the dry storage would intrude into the wetlands envelope.
C. Zilch noted that it was beyond the twenty-five foot, no cut, no disturb boundary.
M. Dorman asked if the floodplain was delineated on the plan.
C. Zilch replied that it was.
L. Komornick suggested that they take a good look at the definitions for recycling to avoid being cited in the future for violations.
T. Moore asked again if there were any more questions.
B. Weymouth asked if the president of Testa could be at the next meeting in case there were questions specific to the business.
T. Moore continued the meeting to September 19, 2007.
The chairman called for a break at 8:35 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:58 p.m.
It was noted for the record that B. Weymouth left the meeting on the break.
T. Moore apologized for the delay in reconvening the meeting noting that they had been in a discussion with the Board’s attorney.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at 147 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 71, involving one 120 square foot addition and one 1,636 square foot addition to the existing building. The parcel size is 2.66 acres and has 150 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Pierre Sader, Quick Stop Tire Stop.
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application. He explained that they did the original site plan for Dick Taylor’s Tire and Truck Sales on this parcel. J. Lavelle offered that this application was to include two (2) additions, one to square off a jog in the building and one that would be to the rear of the building. He noted that he had met two times with staff regarding the plan and had addressed all the items that were raised in those discussion. J. Lavelle added that he would have to make an application for a variance as the proposed addition would extend the building parallel to the property line and would be 26.3 feet from the property line where 30 feet is the set back. He noted that the area where the proposed additions would be is already paved and so there would be no change
in the lot coverage. The only other changes would be relocation of the dumpster; a fenced-in tire area; and moving of the septic tank.
M. Curran asked what kinds of siltation controls would be used.
J. Lavelle replied that it would be standard siltation controls.
There was a discussion on the use of a siltation sock and how it could possibly become part of the regulations in the future.
M. Curran questioned what kind of dust controls would be in place, noting there had recently been issues with dust at other sites.
J. Lavelle noted there would be proper dust controls, but this would not be a large open area.
M. Curran asked if replacing the tanks (septic) required a new permit.
J. Lavelle answered that changing the tanks did not require a new permit. He noted that the site was previously bisected by a zoning line (CI/MDR) but the entire parcel was now located in the Commercial I district.
M. Curran inquired how the new space would be used.
J. Lavelle replied that it would be additional work space.
M. Curran asked if there would be additional hydraulics and if they would start providing other services such as oil changes.
J. Lavelle said that it was his understanding that it would be strictly tires.
M. Dorman noted there needed to be two applications for relief to the ZBA, one for a special exception for the expansion of a non-comforming lot and the other for the setback variance.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to send the applicant to the ZBA for a special exception for the expansion of a non-comforming lot and a setback variance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore closed the preliminary hearing on this matter and noted that they would have to file a final application for approval.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for a change of use to the existing building for property located in the CI Zone at 176 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 31, Lot 60. The total parcel size is .82 acres and has 393.55 feet of frontage. The owner is proposing a conversion of some of the office space to a hair salon. The owner of record is AFGC, LLC.
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application. J. Lavelle explained that the application was for a change of use (beauty salon) and small expansion of an existing commerical lot. He gave a brief history of the site explaining that it had once been approved for a restaurant use and the septic had been approved for that at that time. J. Lavelle noted that the septic was a chambered system and was located under the driveway. He continued that a new septic plan had been approved by DES for the new use and would still be located under the driveway. J. Lavelle outlined the existing conditions of the site and passed out pictures of the subject and abutting properties. He noted that the road work being done by the State ended at the edge of this property and the front of the property remains
untouched.
L. Komornick noted that plans for this site and the 147 Plaistow Road site have both been sent to NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) and she expected to have the comments on both before their final hearings.
J. Lavelle offered that the current septic could accommodate a four (4) chair, two (2) operator beauty salon as well as the offices on the second floor, which remain as part of the plan. He added that the new site plan included a larger (approved) septic; more chairs in the salon; additional parking to the south of the property (to total thirty (30) spaces, one of which is designated for handicapped parking) J. Lavelle noted that the existing parking is within the twelve foot buffer and they would be requesting a waiver for that; all proposed parking is compliant. He added that the landscaping to the north was in the State’s right-of-way; the landscaping to the south was not; the existing lot coverage was 30% and 39% with the new parking.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any questions.
J. Lavelle added that he did meet with staff twice on this plan as well and the one for 147 Plaistow Road.
L. Komornick anticipated good solid input from NHDOT with a sense for the right-of-way impact.
T. Moore noted that this was a preliminary hearing, noting he didn’t see any glaring issues. He asked if there were any abutters who wish to ask questions or comment. There were none.
J. Lavelle offered that it was a change of use without doing anything to the site. He noted that the owner would like to get into the site as soon as possible and was seeking permission to open with just the four (4) chairs until the new septic system was installed for the seven (7) chairs.
M. Curran offered that allowing the new business to operate without the new septic was proving to be an enforcement issue at other sites.
J. Lavelle reiterated that the existing system was rated for four (4) chairs and two operators and that the new system was for seven (7) chairs and four (4) operators. He noted there was adequate parking in the lower lot.
T. Moore asked if the existing site supported the four (4) chairs and two (2) operators as well as the parking.
J. Lavelle replied that it did, adding there were sixteen (16) parking spaces on the lower level and seven (7) more on the top level.
R. Zukas said that he didn’t see why they couldn’t operate at the lower use.
M. Curran asked when the new septic would be installed.
M. Dorman answered that it would be before he would be approved for seven (7) chairs.
R. Zukas offered he met all the requirements for the four (4) chairs.
M. Dorman noted that the Board just needed to approve the change of use (to a hair salon).
L. Komornick added that the use went down from the restaurant.
There was a discussion regarding the septic, it was noted that it was apporved for 792 gallons per day (GPD) and the proposed use was for 790 GPD.
M. Curran suggested that it was a very close margin.
J. Lavelle explained that the numbers were straight out of the books, which he felt were probably inflated.
L. Komornick asked if the septic plan accounted for the chemicals that may be used.
J. Lavelle said that it did, adding that the list of chemicals had to be disclosed as part of the ground water discharge permit.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the change of use at 176 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Approval of Impact Fee Payment (Public Safety and Route 125)
D. Voss explained that there were some invoices that needed the Board’s approval in order to be paid out of the impact fee accounts. Three (3) invoices from SEC and Associates, totalling $9.968.75 relating to projects at Haseltine Street and to the expansion of the Safety Complex, would be paid from the Route 125 Impact Fees and the Public Safety Impact Fees respectively.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to pay the $9,.968.75 to SEC and Associates from the respective impacts fees. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Bond Reduction Request by Rockingham Athletic Club (175 Plaistow Road)
T. Moore read a letter from Stephen Drelick of the Rockingham Athletic Club requesting that his bond be reduced. The staff report indicated that $22,780 would be 10% of the intitial bond amount posted for this site and would be inline with the bond that would be collected with the current regulation.
M. Curran asked if the outstanding landscaping issues had been resolved.
R. Zukas reminded that the owner didn’t want to do much on the front of the property until the completion of the State’s roadwork. He noted that there may be an area on the northern corner of the property where additional landscaping could be done without interfering with the State’s work.
M. Curran inquired if her previous questions about possible alternatives to the plantings that were originally proposed in the drainage areas had been resolved.
M. Dorman answered that he had spoken with landscaper Bill Bartlett who informed him that there could be no plantings in the drainage areas as they needed to be periodically dug up and cleaned out.
M. Curran noted that there are now volleyball courts outside in the open areas.
M. Dorman reminded that the as-built plans had not yet been submitted.
M. Curran expressed concern over things continually popping up on the site that are not on the plan.
L. Komornick offered that it had been explained to her that he (Drelick) was trying to get an extension on his financing. She reminded that there would still be a bond and added it was intended that the paving would be done by Thanksgiving.
There was discussion regarding where additional landscaping could be placed.
M. Curran suggested that the landscaping on the site may need to be reviewed again once the State was done with their work.
L. Komornick offered that it wasn’t that Mr. Drelick didn’t want to follow the plan.
R. Zukas noted that he was not being asked to put in all forty missing bushes, but to fill in a barren area.
T. Moore suggested that the bond be reduced to $30,000, which should insure that the landscaping would be taken care of as well.
M. Dorman suggested that receipt of an as-built plan be part of the reduction.
M. Curran asked if there were erosion controls in place for the State’s work.
R. Zukas offered that Mr. Drelick had done the best that he could.
L. Komornick suggested that the volleyball courts were to bring in more business, which she conceded was not the Planning Board’s concern.
M. Curran expressed concern that there would not be adequate parking if all the events were to happen simultaneously and with the fact the Mr. Drelick did not bring any of this to the Board before implementing it.
L. Komornick offered that it was to balance off when it wasn’t basketball season.
M. Curran noted that she understood the reasoning, but it still wasn’t what the Board approved for the site and there was no chance to review parking and traffic for the additional uses.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to reduce the bond for 175 Plaistow Road to $30,000. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Bond Reduction Request by Duane Skofield (207 Main Street)
Duane Skofield was present for the discussion..
M. Curran expressed great concern over the way the Board was polled to allow one of the units to be occupied on the word that CLD had signed off on the site, which she felt was not the case at the time.
M. Dorman explained that Erin Lombardi (CLD Engineering) went back to the site with the as-built plans and the letter was noting the differences between the original plan and the as-built.
T. Moore noted that it is common to have the original site plan be different from the as-built plan, adding what was important was that the site match the as-built plan.
M. Curran suggested that the fence was not approved on the plan.
D. Skofield offered that he didn’t think the fence was a big deal.
R. Zukas noted that it was a big deal with regards to access.
D. Skofield replied that all the tenants had access and that the gate could be left open.
M. Dorman added that there was a key to the gate in the knox box for use by the Fire Department.
M. Curran reiterated that she was told that the site was in compliance.
M. Dorman offered that he didn’t say the site was compliant with the original plan but that Erin was okay with the site.
M. Curran asked why there was all the stuff in the back of the property and why was the Board put in the position of approving something so different from what is out there.
D. Skofield noted that the only thing that wasn’t done at the time of the occupancy permit was the top coat of paving, which was now completed.
M. Curran stated that the site looked beautiful, but she was concerns about the number of changes.
D. Skofield answered that he didn’t think the changes he made were a problem and that they made the site better.
M. Dorman noted that no plan would ever be 100% of the original approval; there are always going to be field changes.
M. Curran reminded of all the probelms with the abutters.
D. Skofield offered that the abutters thanked him for the changes he made.
M. Curran reiterated her concerns regarding the amount of debris on the site, especially with children (at the dance studio) on the site.
D. Skofield offered that the yard was fenced and someone would have to be snooping to see what was in the back yard.
M. Curran replied that she didn’t have to snoop, just turn her head to see it all.
D. Skofield suggested that M. Curran should not be sitting on the Board as she had a conflict of interest having a dance studio in her own buidling.
M. Curran answered that her building had nothing to do with this location.
D. Skofield said that there was the fear that business would be taken away.
M. Curran offered that the occupancy permit should not have been issued.
T. Moore asked if the site was in compliance with the as-built plan.
M. Curran reiterated that there was all kinds of things in the back of the site, noting two vehicles, cord wood and trailers.
D. Skofield offered that he never said there wouldn’t be vehicles on the site overnight and it wasn’t noted on the plan that they couldn’t be. He added that the storage container was on the as-built plan and was used to store the lawn mowers and bobcat for winter plowing.
R. Zukas asked about the location of the propane tank.
D. Skofield answered that there was natural gas to the site.
M. Curran asked if the signage for no right turn onto Walton Road was in place.
D. Skofield said that was done.
L. Komornick noted that she spent a couple of hours on the site with Duane and his partner. She added it was their choice to add the storage trailers and the wagon, the junk will have to be removed, but everything else that was done was a logical field change.
T. Moore suggested that any release be conditional of the removal on all the debris.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to release the balance of the bond once all the debris is removed from the site. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Bond Approval for Telly Danos
There was a memo in the packets from CLD suggesting the the bond amount for the site at 113 Plaistow Road (Danos) be set at $26,900, which represented 10% of the cost of the site work.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to set the bond amount for 113 Plaistow Road at $26,900. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran asked if the bond had been posted.
L. Komornick noted that if it was not posted by Friday the Board could post to revoke the plan again.
Attorney Theodore Xenakis, representing Mr. Danos, offered that the bond would be posted by the end of the week.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, that if the bond for 113 Plaistow Road was not posted by close of business on Friday that the revocation process be started. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Ron Pica re: Status of Planet Fitness and Joseph Bresnahan re: Storage Trailers
L. Komornick noted that the storage trailers on the Bresnahan site had been moved and this item could be taken off the agenda.
There was discussion on whether or not the site was in current compliance.
M. Dorman said that he would check on the site.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc., was present for the Planet Fitness discussion. He discussed a number of issues that had held up approval of the public water supply, which was in turn holding up the new septic approval. R. Pica estimated that the issue would be resolved within the next two weeks and then the applicant could go for the final septic and subdivision approvals. He added that Joe Scott (property owner) would be installing half the system, which was in excess for the current uses and the system was designed for a maximum usage.
R. Pica provided the Board with some water readings from the site and there was a discussion regarding the same. It was noted that there were a number of days that the usage went above 1500 GPD, which is what the current system was designed for.
M. Curran asked if the showers were turned off as the Board requested.
Paul Wescott, representing Scott Companies, offered that the gym (Planet Fitness) had been sent a letter, which included a copy of the Board’s letter. He said that looking at the readings he assumed that they had.
R. Zukas suggested that the readings showed that they had not shut them off, adding that he had been there and knew first hand that they had not.
R. Pica reminded that the moving company (Allen and Coles) had left the site resulting in a reduction in water use.
L. Komornick noted a letter she had received from Mr. Scott and she said that she was unsure as to whether or not to respond to it or to view it as venting on Mr. Scott’s part. She offered that it suggested that the Town was doing something that they were not supposed to be doing. L. Komornick suggested that Mr. Scott has issues with the process and that she was very clear about what had to be done and why it had to be done.
R. Pica offered that he thought the main purpose of the letter was to inform the Board of the number of violations that existed on the site when he purchased it and how had he had worked to get the site to where it is now.
L. Komornick suggested that Mr. Scott bought the site knowing, or should have known, about the violations.
R. Pica agreed, adding that he didn’t think Mr. Scott knew the full extent of the violations.
L. Komornick offered that was no reason to project that onto the Town or the Planning Board.
M. Curran noted that from the beginning the Board had been open and honest and the wet system was only conditionally approved, conditions which were not met. She offered that since it had been stated that the conditions were not being met she said that she would ask the Town Manager for enforcement.
R. Pica said that he was not defending the letter and that he knew what rights the Board had, he was just explaining that there was a lot on the site that Mr. Scott didn’t anticipate.
There was additional discussion regarding the letter sent to the Board by Mr. Scott.
M. Curran noted that criteria for the showers had been set over a number of meetings and the terms were set.
R. Pica offered that Mr. Scott was not fighting the Board but was under the mistaken impression that he didn’t have to replace the system until this one failed.
There was additional discussion regarding the condominium documents (condo docs) and why it was important that they be updated to the conditions on the site.
M. Curran suggested that the bottom line was that the site was no closer to meeting the conditions of approval for the showers.
R. Pica reminded that they had a legal community well, which was what was needed for the septic and subdivision approvals.
M. Curran asked that a letter be sent to the Board of Selectmen requesting that the “no showers” order be enforced unless and until the water issues are resolved.
P. Wescott offered that he heard everything the Board said, but he reminded that there had not been opportunities for them to come in and discuss the issues with the Board over the last few months since there were no meetings due to holidays and the lack of quorums.
M. Curran replied that the Board didn’t ask them to come in, they asked for the showers to be shut off. She said the numbers don’t support them being on at this time.
R. Zukas reminded that everyone had said that summer was the slowest period for the gym and therefore the numbers for water usage could only be expected to increase.
M. Curran added that there was still another unit to rent.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to ask assistance from the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager in enforcing that the showers be shut off until there is approval and installation of the septic system and approval of the public water system. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore asked when the other tenant (moving company) left the building.
R. Pica offered they were asked to leave over the parking of their trucks all over the site. He added that Mr. Scott inherited that tenant.
T. Moore suggested that the water usage continue to be monitored and if there was a substantial reduction the issue could be revisited. He added that there should be no new tenants until all the issues are resolved.
P. Wescott asked what the procedure was when they were ready to put a new tenant in there.
M. Curran suggested that if it was a change of use they would have to come back to the Board.
L. Komornick added that if the parking and the septic were a greater use they would have to come back to the Board.
There was a discussion regarding the process to get new tenants approved.
There was also discussion regarding the striping of the parking spaces on the site as well as the dumpster location.
Other Workshop Items/Business – Updating Impact Fees
L. Komornick noted that Bruce Mayberry had been hired to review and provide input on the updating of the impact fees. It was noted that the financing for the work came from a balance in an account Eastern Development (Pentucket Plaza) released to the Town.
Other Workshop Items/Business – Route 125 Improvements and Traffic Calming
There was a brief discussion of traffic calming measures that may be considered for Main Street, such as a four-way stop at the intersection of East and West Pine Streets and Main Street, once the Route 125 work is completed.
R. Zukas asked if there was any additional progress with Stateline Plaza and Route 125 improvements.
L. Komornick noted that they would be following “Alternate 5” as was developed with Haverhill, which was doable without the agreement of the owners of Haffner’s gas station.
M. Dorman offered that he was waiting for Taurus Investments to deed a small amount of land from the Shaw’s Plaza before proceeding with the Haseltine Road improvments. He added that Steve Ireland (District VI, NHDOT) was on board with making Haseltine the new Main Street.
R. Zukas asked what impact there would be to the ongoing project at Plaistow Road and Old County Road with the State losing construction financing.
It was noted that the financing issues applied only to Route I-93 projects.
Other Workshop Items/Business – CIP Updates
L. Komornick noted that the Town Manager was looking for time and dates for meetings on updating the CIP.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to adjourn the meeting at 10:49 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
| 
