PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 17, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Timothy Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman, and Barry Weymouth were excused.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett and M. Senter as a voting member for B. Weymouth.
Approval of the minutes from the October 3, 2007, meeting was postponed to the next meeting.
A Preliminary Public Hearing on a Site Plan to construct a 1,250 square feet of professional office on property located in the CI Zone at 129 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 29, Lot 57. The total parcel size is .25 acres and has 282 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Keith and Marjorie Weston.
Keith and Marjorie Weston were present for the hearing.
K. Weston explained that he and his wife had purchased the property two months prior and they owned an engineering company called “American Engineering” and they would like to build themselves a small office building. He acknowledged that the lot had some drawbacks, since it was small in size, but offered that he felt he had a workable plan with a couple of setback variances. Mr. Weston noted that he had brought plans in for review and had been given a list of notes from the Planning Staff. He explained that he would like to erect a two-story office building, 625 sq. ft. per floor. Mr. Weston outlined some of the features of the plan including:
- Parking, including two employee and one handicapped space
- Landscaping buffer, including areas that will be taken by the State for the future widening of Route 125
- Setbacks from Route 125 and Jesse George Road
- Drainage swale and recharge area
K. Weston noted that he has made application to the State of New Hampshire for a septic system and has located where the well will be.
M. Curran asked if the setbacks were measured from the property lines.
K. Weston confirmed that they were, noting that variances would be needed for the building setbacks from Jesse George and from the rear property line. He added that he had done a lot of research on the history of the lot, including previous proposals for the use of the parcel.
T. Moore asked what kind of tenant they would be looking to lease the office space to.
K. Weston replied that they would be occupying the building for now, to branch out their business.
T. Moore noted that if another kind of professional business were to look to occupy the building, such as a dentist, then there could be different impacts to the traffic and parking considerations.
K. Weston offered that he has had an office in Durham for the past twenty-five years and has averaged two clients in the office a week, adding that most of their work is conducted at the client site.
M. Curran asked if there was a sign to be proposed.
K. Weston replied that he would like to have one but it was not included at this time as this was a preliminary hearing in order for him to be able to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for his variance requests.
L. Komornick noted that good use of the property would be one without a lot of customer traffic, adding that a dentist might not be suitable for that reason.
T. Moore explained that he was thinking more that uses with a higher septic impact wouldn’t be workable.
K. Weston offered that there was a note on the plan (#9) that required Planning Board approval for any change of use of the property.
T. Moore added that retail would be of a real concern for the Board.
M. Curran noted that she would be reserving comment until after Mr. Weston could make his applications to the ZBA and a more complete plan was submitted for the Board’s review.
L. Komornick offered that they had identified two variances that would be needed and asked if the Board could see any additional issues with the proposed use.
It was noted that Danny Garlington, Highway Supervisor, would have to be consulted regarding a driveway permit for an entrance on Jesse George Road.
M. Curran questioned if the septic was completely contained on the lot.
K. Weston replied that it was.
M. Curran noted the well on the corner of the property and questioned whether or not there were concerns regarding salt runoff from the road.
K. Weston answered that the well for Eggie’s Diner was similarly located and was frequently tested and there was no salt contamination noted. He added that he could find nothing in the State’s RSAs against a well radius intruding into a State’s roadway.
L. Komornick asked if Mr. Weston had checked with NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) to see if there would be any impact to the parking with the widening of Route 125.
K. Weston replied that he had.
There was a discussion regarding the parcels around the subject lot and where the septic and wells were located and whether or not there would be any impact.
M. Curran asked what the zoning was for this parcel.
L. Komornick replied that it was Commercial I zoning.
K. Weston reiterated that it was a small lot and that he understood that variances would be needed. He added that he had consulted with New Hampshire Soils Design and the soils were very good on the site.
T. Moore asked if there was anyone in the audience who had a comment or a question. There was no one.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to reject the application and send Mr. Weston to the ZBA to request variance for two intrusions into the set backs, one to the rear of the property and one for the setback from Jesse George Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
There was a brief discussion regarding the construction of the building. It was noted that would be reviewed further into the process.
A Final Public Hearing on a Site Plan to convert an existing Professional Office Building to a Daycare Facility located in the CI Zone at 16 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 87. The total parcel size is 1.41 acres and has 150.07 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Paul Lavallee.
Terry Trudel, SEC and Associates, and Diane Allen, owner of proposed daycare, were present for the application.
T. Trudel noted that the Board had previously seen this proposed plan at a preliminary hearing and since then Ms. Allen had gone before the ZBA and was granted a special exception to permit the daycare in the Commercial I district.
T. Trudel offered the following information regarding the proposed plan:
- The parcel is 1.14 acres
- The property is located in the Commercial I district, surrounded by other commercial as well as residential uses
- There is 150 feet of frontage on Danville Road
- The building was previously an office building and a single-family dwelling before that
- There was existing paved parking and a horseshoe driveway would be added for drop off access
- NHDOT (Steve Ireland) had seen the application for a driveway permit and would make a determination after they did a site walk
- A septic permit has been approved by NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services)
- There would be up to twenty-four children and five staff
- The building could hold more children, but that would require a different permit for the water supply
T. Moore asked if the occupant count (with reference to water supply) included the staff.
T. Trudel replied that it only referenced the children and that was all that was required.
M. Curran confirmed, noting they had just completed similar applications with reference to the new Town recreation fields.
D. Allen noted that she had personally spoken with the State and she would be allowed up to twenty-four children, not including staff with their current water supply.
T. Trudel offered that they would be seeking some waivers, including:
- A dumpster, suggesting that the business would not generate enough trash to justify a dumpster
- Separate landscaping and lighting plans as both are existing on the site
D. Allen added that there was sufficient lighting on the building, particularly considering that they intended to close the business at 6:00 p.m.
- Loading area, there would be no deliveries to the site that would require a loading area and there was fifteen minute parking and additional stacking for the dropping off of the children
M. Curran asked if all the kids would be dropped off and picked up at the same time like a school.
D. Allen said that they would not and that times of arrival and pick up would be staggered.
M. Curran questioned where parents would park for open houses and similar events.
D. Allen replied that open houses would be scheduled at staggered times.
M. Curran noted that there was no parking available on Danville Road.
D. Allen offered that she didn’t anticipate parents having to actually park as the staff would meet the children at their vehicles and escort them into the building.
There was discussion on how that process would work and the need to provide adequate parking for those parents who may wish to go into the school. Parking and stacking areas were noted on the plan.
N. Morin asked if it had been considered to restrict turns into the driveway to “right-in, right-out” only.
T. Trudel replied that they were not proposing right turns only.
There was discussion regarding the traffic in the area, particularly before and after school, the traffic patterns and delays in the area and whether or not restricting turns to the daycare site would be warranted.
M. Curran asked the distance of the building overhang to the parking area.
T. Trudel answered that it was fifteen feet.
L. Komornick noted that the fire chief had seen the plan and had no comment regarding parking or turns. He did not say if he wanted firelanes delineated.
T. Trudel offered the size of the parking spaces would be 9’ X 18’ with stacking for three additional vehicles.
L. Komornick added that she didn’t recall showing the plan to the police chief. She suggested that the Board could place a condition on the approval similar to that recently imposed on the Starbucks approval that would call for a traffic review after a six month period to see if the drop off and parking plan was working.
R. Zukas said that he didn’t see the need for right-in and right-out turn restrictions, suggesting it would just cause traffic back up in other areas as people drove routes to get access to the business.
R. Zukas, noting that he knew it wasn’t a requirement, asked if the building was sprinkled.
T. Trudel answered that it was not at this point and there wasn’t a plan to do so.
L. Komornick asked if the State required the business to be sprinkled.
D. Allen replied that they did not, provided they were not using the second floor.
M. Curran recalled that the ZBA had been told that the second floor would be used for offices.
D. Allen said that only her office would be located on the second floor.
M. Curran, noting there were three offices on the second floor, asked if there was intentions of renting the others.
D. Allen answered that she would not be renting offices as there was not enough parking.
M. Senter suggested that the location of the handicapped space be moved to a spot labeled for parking space #5 on the plan. She offered that would relieve conflicting pedestrian movements for anyone having to use the handicap parking spot.
T. Trudel replied that he would make that change.
M. Curran asked how many of the twenty-four children would be toddlers.
D. Allen offered that they were allowed (by the State’s requirements) to have four babies at the daycare.
M. Curran suggested that she would like to see a dumpster on the site, adding that the kind of trash generated by a daycare, i.e. food scraps and diapers, would attract animals if not properly disposed of. She added that the Town should not have the burden of disposal.
D. Allen noted that their business hours were 6:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and that the children would be bringing their own food.
It was noted that the business hours on the plan were stated to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. It was suggested that the closing hour remain at 7:00 p.m. to give Ms. Allen that option in the future.
D. Allen offered that she intended to take the trash off the premises at the close of each day.
M. Curran suggested that isn’t the best practice as it can get old and people stop doing it. She added that it could be neglected at times when Ms. Allen isn’t there, like vacations. M. Curran offered that there are small dumpsters that would be suitable for this site.
D. Allen noted that there may have been a dumpster previously located on the site.
L. Komornick added that it would eliminate the need for that waiver.
R. Zukas asked if there was an outdoor play yard.
T. Trudel indicated where it was on the plan, noting a stockade fence on the sides.
T. Moore asked if there were any additional questions.
R. Zukas noted that his only concern was the traffic stacking, despite the plan for staggered drop off times and scheduled open houses.
There was discussion regarding the staggered drop off times for a daycare versus the more structured time schedule for a school.
T. Trudel noted that the lot coverage was only at 12% and if parking and stacking became a problem there was room to extend the parking area.
M. Curran questioned the location of a storage building and whether or not it affected a line of sight.
T. Trudel noted that it was already there and was behind an existing bush. He pointed it out on the plan.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters with comments or questions. There was no one.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the site plan for a day care at 16 Danville Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
WAIVERS:
M. Senter moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14FF (loading and unloading zone). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14II (separate lighting plan).
T. Moore noted that the existing lighting was included on the plan; there was just not a separate plan sheet for the lighting.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14HH (separate landscaping plan).
T. Moore noted that, just as the existing lighting was shown on the plan, so was the landscaping and a separate plan was not needed.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
There was a discussion of what conditions would be placed on the approval of the plan.
M. Senter moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the site plan for a day care at 16 Danville Road with the following conditions:
- Receipt of NHDOT driveway permit
- Location of dumpster on plan
- Change in the note for the hours of operation
- Note that additional paving for parking would be proposed, by an amendment to the site plan, should the queuing prove to be a problem
- Favorable review from the police chief
M. Curran asked that Planning Staff be directed to forward the plan to the police chief for his review.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore called for a break at 7:34 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:45 p.m.
Discussion with Ron Brown (By Request)
Ron Brown, owner of the property at 62 Sweet Hill Road, was present for a discussion.
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Brown had called the office earlier in the day and requested to be on the agenda. She added that she coordinated with T. Moore regarding the request.
R. Brown reminded the Board that he had a current approval for a sixteen-lot subdivision for his property. He added that he had submitted plans for a 144 unit 55+ housing plan approximately seven months ago. Mr. Brown noted that he had done all the studies that the Board had requested he do, including traffic and water studies, to forward his application through the process. He reminded that he had initially come before the Board with Phase I of his project which proposed 30-40 units of 55+ housing and it was at the request of the Board that he show the entire concept and withdraw the plan for Phase I. Mr. Brown continued that he had drilled wells to accommodate the 144 units and then came back to the Board to proceed in May only to find that there was a challenge to the ordinance which stopped him from proceeding. Mr. Brown explained that he had thousands of dollars tied up in this project, which had stagnated and he was looking for direction on how to proceed, particularly in
light of the recent ZBA decision regarding the Board of Selectmen’s (BOS) challenge to the Planning Board’s interpretation of the elderly housing ordinance.
T. Moore explained that the BOS asked the ZBA to decide whose interpretation was correct and that hearing was in September. He continued that there was a thirty-day appeal period by RSA during which the Board could not start re-hearing plans in case there was a request for a re-hearing. T. Moore added that they were seeking legal advice on how best to proceed based on the ZBA’s recent decision. T. Moore offered that barring any requests for re-hearing and after considering legal advice, the Board might be in a position to begin hearings again in November. He added that once it was determined how the Board would be proceeding that he assumed that letters to the same would be sent to all the current applicants.
R. Brown asked if the ZBA decision dictated an order for the applications and when he would be able to know what that was so that he could make a decision on how he should move forward with his project.
T. Moore offered that there was some confusion involving the Harriman Road project and that conflict needed to be resolved before that question could be answered.
R. Brown suggested that the answer was more critical to him than to anyone else.
T. Moore noted that it was also critical to the Harriman Road applicant. He added that as soon as the Board had an answer they would let all the applicants know what the course of action will be.
R. Brown asked when the information would be made public.
T. Moore offered that the Board would not be intentionally withholding any information and there was no intent to delay the timing of anything. He added that the status of each application would have to be carefully reviewed, especially considering the amount of time that had lapsed. T. Moore noted that the Board would be consulting with legal counsel as to the best way to start up the review process again.
There was discussion regarding the ZBA process with reference to requests for re-hearings and the criteria for reviewing and granting such a request.
R. Zukas asked why hearings couldn’t be scheduled starting in November.
L. Komornick offered that they would also be discussing with counsel the possibility that this board could be appealing the ZBA decision.
T. Moore noted there were a number of scenarios and they would have to wait until the appeal period expired to determine the next course of action. He added that there would be a conference call with legal counsel directly after the meeting.
L. Komornick added that depending on if there is an appeal this could change what a letter to the applicants would say.
T. Moore reiterated that the Board needed to talk to their attorney as to the best way to proceed and how to start up again.
M. Curran added that was the best that the Board could offer at this time.
T. Moore said that they would let Mr. Brown know as much as they could as early as they could. He noted that the order of the applications would be provided before the public hearing started again and apologized for not being able to be more specific.
R. Brown offered if the Board was not going to decide on the order of the applications before the expiration of the ZBA appeal deadline that wouldn’t give him the time to decide if he wanted to appeal himself. He suggested that his decision to appeal the ZBA’s decision could be based on the order that the Planning Board decided to hear the applications.
There was additional discussion regarding the ZBA request for re-hearing process. It was suggested to Mr. Brown that if he was going to make an appeal to the ZBA for a re-hearing it should be based upon their decision that was made and if he disagreed with the way the Planning Board interpreted that decision he would need to appeal that decision, not the first decision of the ZBA.
R. Brown expressed frustration with the ZBA process, noting that part of the delay was the applicant requesting continuances because there was not a full five-member board to hear the matter. He reiterated that he initially applied for between 30 and 40 units and that should have preserved his place in line even when he changed the plan to the 144 units.
T. Moore acknowledged Mr. Brown’s frustration but added that they had been advised by legal counsel that they could not pick up the hearings again unless and until the appeal period passed without a request for a re-hearing.
R. Brown noted that left his project stagnant again and all he was trying to do was to move forward.
Request for Payment of a Public Safety Impact Fee Invoice
There was a memo regarding payment of two invoices to Wetlands Preservation, Inc., with reference to the expansion of the Public Safety Complex.
T. Moore noted that the invoice was in line with the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to approve the request for payment of Public Safety Impact Fees to Wetlands Preservation, Inc. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Request for Waiver from Waterline Impact Fees by Stateline Pet Supply
T. Moore read a letter from Attorney Bruce Marshall requesting a waiver of the Waterline Impact Fee for the construction of the second building at 137 Plaistow Road (Stateline Pet Supply). The letter suggested that since the second building was an expansion of the use the ordinance states that it is not subject to the Waterline Impact Fee.
T. Moore noted that the Planning Board also used the services of the same legal firm where Bruce Marshall was employed.
L. Komornick added that Stateline Pet was a client of Attorney Marshall before the Planning Board hired the firm.
M. Curran offered that she disagreed with the argument presented in Attorney Marshall’s letter. She reminded that the site plan was originally approved with both the retail building and the storage building and there was no phasing of the project, since that wasn’t allowed. M. Curran added that the fees should apply to both buildings as proposed on the approved site plan. She reminded that the second building needed to be completed within four years of the original approval in order to be protected (from zoning changes). M. Curran reminded that there were still a number of outstanding issues with the site such as the final coat of paving and the curbing. She added that an overhang that was included on the plan had not yet been constructed.
There was discussion regarding whether or not all impact fees for a complete site plan should be collected up front. It was noted that would be a tracking nightmare if funds should have to be refunded at any point in time.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to deny the request for a waiver of the Waterline Impact Fees for the second building at 137 Plaistow Road (Stateline Pet). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the reason for denial was noted to be that the second building was approved as part of the original site plan and therefore was not an expansion.
Letter of Intent for Use of Building at 3 Garden Road
T. Moore read a letter from Oyekunle (Peter) Oyaronbi, requesting to use an office at 3 Garden Road for the business office for a wholesale auto dealer’s license.
M. Curran asked if this administrative office use would violate the Town’s ordinance that required 1,000 feet of separation between motor vehicle sales locations.
There was discussion regarding the strict interpretation of the ordinance and whether or not it applied to all sales, internet, phone, etc., or just to sales where vehicles are being displayed.
N. Morin asked if sales/display implied that there would be customers on the site.
T. Moore recalled the reason that the ordinance came about in the first place, noting that it was intended to keep the entire length of Route 125 from becoming nothing but used car lots. He added that while the ordinance was intended to apply to the display of vehicles that he could see that the wording didn’t exempt administrative offices, which was a “different animal” from the restriction. T. Moore added that they were technically selling cars as the ordinance prohibits even if it is internet sales.
L. Komornick offered that allowing administrative offices gave a dealer a foot in the door and she suggested that may be how the situation at Dick’s Auto Body, where there is no documentation in Town records that the site was approved for motor vehicle sales display, yet the State had still issued a dealer license.
T. Moore noted that the letter specifically stated that there would be no sales or display of vehicles on the site therefore there wouldn’t be customers going to the site.
It was noted that such a restriction would be noted on any certificate of occupancy that would be issued for the business and that the State of New Hampshire required that there be a physical street address for any dealership licensing.
R. Zukas asked if someone called in an order for an entire lot of vehicles over the phone would that be considered selling from the site.
T. Moore suggested that the strictest interpretation of the ordinance would seem to prohibit all sales not just those with a display of vehicles. He suggested that perhaps a solution would be to ask the applicant to come back with a proposed revision to the site plan with a note that might state “Administrative office only for auto dealership.” T. Moore suggested that such a note would clearly state the intent of any approval.
L. Komornick cautioned that one only needed to look up the street to see how these things can evolve into problems.
M. Curran agreed that it might be a technicality, adding that she was not in favor of authorizing the use.
M. Curran moved, second by M. Senter, to deny the request for the location of an administrative office for a motor vehicle dealer at 3 Garden Road.
R. Zukas asked if there wasn’t something that could be done that would clearly state “administrative offices only.” He used the example of a Dunkin’ Donuts corporate office, which would be only an administrative use, there wouldn’t be donuts or other products made there.
M. Curran questioned why any business would pay the prime rates to have visibility on Route 125 if they only wanted an administrative office, which they could get anywhere else for half the rent.
L. Komornick suggested that the Town signing off and allowing the State to issue a dealer’s license, even for just an administrative office, could be seen as tacit approval on the part of the town.
M. Curran added that it had proved difficult enough to get everyday compliance with the existing (motor vehicle dealer) sites.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran suggested that the State be consulted regarding their requirements for wholesale dealer licensing as well as their signage requirements.
Review of Revised Application Form
L. Komornick noted a copy of the revised application form. She noted that it had been cleaned up to clarify exactly what the application was for.
There was a brief discussion regarding what kind of changes triggered an application for a minor site plan review. It was decided that topic should be put on the workshop agenda to be discussed with potential zoning changes.
Letter from Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) Requesting Payment of Dues
T. Moore read a letter from RPC requesting payment of annual dues in the amount of $6,958.00. It was noted in the letter that there had not been an increase in dues since1998 and that future dues requests would include an increase for inflation adjustments. T. Moore encouraged the Board to vote to support payment of the dues and noted a number of services that the Town receives from RPC.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to support the payment of dues to RPC in the amount of $6,958.00.
M. Curran suggested that a letter accompany the support of payment that explained the exact benefits that the Town gains from being a member of RPC.
M. Senter noted a number of other reasons to remain a member of RPC including the interaction and support of other member towns in different projects.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Update on Route 125 Widening Project Schedule
T. Moore reported on the progress of the Route 125 widening project, noting a number of issues that had delayed specific projects. He noted revised timelines for some of the scheduled projects and the reformation of the Route 125 Advisory Task Force (ATF) to review road projects and reprioritize them. He noted that it may be suggested that the project be broken down into smaller segments that might be more financially manageable.
There was additional discussion regarding the progress of the Route 125 projects.
Other Business – Important Meeting Dates
It was noted that there would be a joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen on November 7, where there would be a discussion of the proposed project at 31 Garden Road (Casey’s Plaza).
It was noted that the third Wednesday in November was the night before Thanksgiving. It was decided to reschedule that meeting to the following Wednesday, November 28.
Other Business – 176 Plaistow Road
M. Curran asked if the hair salon at 176 Plaistow Road had received septic plan approval.
L. Komornick confirmed that they had. She added, as a follow up, there had been resolution regarding any impact the State’s Route 125 widening project would have on the site and whether or not there needed to be changes made to the site plan to accommodate those future changes. L. Komornick noted that the owner had met with the State DOT and it was discovered that the State didn’t have the most recent plan. L. Komornick suggested that the lesson learned was that all applicants on Route 125 that could be affected by State road plans should be required to meet face-to-face with NHDOT staff.
T. Moore noted that once the meeting was adjourned the Board would have a conference call with legal counsel. He noted that this did not qualify as a non-public meeting and there would be no votes taken during this consultation. T. Moore added that the Board would not be coming back into session after the conference call.
M. Curran noted that the applicable RSA was 91-A:2(c).
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to adjourn the meeting to a conference call with legal counsel at 9:20 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Senter abstaining).
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
