PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 5, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call:
Planning Board: Present were Timothy Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth; Neal Morin and Merilyn Senter, Alternates. Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio, was excused and Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman, was absent.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator, and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett.
Approval of the Minutes of November 7 and November 28, 2007
T. Moore noted that approval of the minutes of the November 7, 2007, were being held for a joint meeting between the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and the Planning Board. There was discussion that it may be some time before that meeting will be held. The minutes will be forwarded to the BOS for them to approve their portion and then this board will vote whether or not to approve them in their entirety.
The minutes for the November 28, 2007, meeting were deferred.
A Final Public Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the ICR Zone at 134 Newton Road, Tax Map 70, Lot 20, involving the addition of a drive-up Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) kiosk. The parcel size is 2.95 acres and has 498 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Northland Mall, LLC.
John Meserve, Merrimack Savings Bank (MSB), was present for the application.
J. Meserve presented the Board with a plan that showed the relocation of the five parking spaces as discussed at a previous meeting. He offered that he had discussed their placement with Alan Daviduk, the property owner, who requested that they be located behind Louie’s Pizza as the tenants were already parking there. Mr. Meserve noted that an 18-foot paved access road would be paved behind the building, as suggested by M. Dorman. He added the only place where that wasn’t proposed was where there was a wooden guard rail.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any questions, there were none. He asked if there were any abutters with questions or concerns. There were none.
T. Moore noted that the revised site plan had previously been accepted by the Board as complete. He asked if there were any outstanding permits related to this site. It was confirmed that there were none.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to approve the plan to add a kiosk to the site at 134 Newton Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Workshop Items – Pat Bennett Citizen’s Petition for Wholesale Dealers being allowed in the CI Zone
[IT SHOULD BE NOTED FOR CLARITY THAT ALL DELETIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD STRIKETHROUGH AND ALL ADDITIONS ARE HIGHLIGHTED AS BOLD ITALICS.]
Patricial G. Bennett, property owner 3 Garden Road, was present for the discussion.
P. Bennett offered a written proposal for changing current zoning to permit vehicular brokerage offices, without vehicle display, to be a permitted use in the CI zoning district. The proposal was to add a definition for “vehicular brokerage (office)” and to modify Article III, §220-16, to permit the newly defined entity.
P. Bennett’s proposal is as follows:
VEHICULAR BROKERAGE - That portion of a lot or structure devoted in whole or part to:
A. The sale of one or more than one new/used motor vehicle with no retail/wholesale display; or
B. The display or no more than one new/used motor vehicle for the purpose of sale.
ADD to 220-16 Motor vehicle and trailer sales.
F. A Vehicular Brokerage may be located in the Commercial I Dstrict as an administrative office with no new/used motor vehicle for retail/wholesale display.
CHANGE 220-16
C. Annual inspections with the required fee of $100 shall be completed by the Code Enforcement Officer for the renewal of the Certificate of Occupancy for a vehicular dealership.
There was discussion regarding the proposed ordinance changes.
The following changes were proposed:
- The proposed paragraph “B” is in conflict with the intent of there not being any display and should be deleted.
P. Bennett explained that she had left that in there for the home occupations that may be allowed to display a vehicle.
M. Dorman noted that if a resident decided to apply for a home occupation for a dealership they would lose the right to have the one vehicle display that residents are allowed.
- The word “lot” should be deleted from the definition to get completely away from any perception of a display.
There was discussion regarding the intent of the ordinance to provide an office address for the administrative functions of a wholesale vehicle dealer and what language would best allow that to happen. Language was also discussed that would protect the Town from any of the vehicluar brokerage administrative offices turning into businesses that would have display vehicles.
It was discussed that the proposed paragraph C wouldn’t be necessary as that was related to the annual site inspections of those motor vehicular dealerships that did have displays.
VEHICULAR BROKERAGE OFFICE - That portion of a lot or structure devoted in whole or in part to:
A. The sale of one or more than one The administrative functions related to new/used motor vehicle sales with no retail/wholesale display; or storage
R. Zukas suggested that the word “purchasing” be added after the word sales to cover instances where vehicles are obtained by a dealer and could be potentially stored on the site until moved for sale.
There was discussion regarding the suggestion. It was decided that the word “sales” included the entire process, including how a vechile would be obtained to be sold. There was additional discussion regarding specific language to prohibit display and storage of any vehicles. As a result of the discussion the following sentence was proposed to be added to paragraph A:
Retail /wholesale display and/or storage of motor vehicles is specifically prohibited.
The language of the proposed paragraph F was discussed. There was some redundant language corrected.
R. Zukas proposed that (s) be added after the word vehicle in paragraph F for clarity.
After the discussion the following language was proposed:
VEHICULAR BROKERAGE OFFICE - That portion of a lot or structure devoted in whole or in part to:
A. The administrative functions related to new/used motor vehicle sales with no retail/wholesale display or storage. Retail /wholesale display and/or storage of motor vehicles is specifically prohibited.
ADD to 220-16 Motor vehicle and trailer sales.
F. Vehicular Brokerage Office may be located in the Commercial I District with no new/used motor vehicle(s) for retail/wholesale display.
T. Moore noted that there were two different ways to proceed. He explained that the Board could take the ordinance as discussed and changed at this meeting and post it to the warrant or could ask Ms. Bennett to proceed with the suggested changes as a citizen’s petition now that she had the feedback from the Board.
It was consensus of the Board that they would continue on with the process regarding this proposed ordinance. It would be considered for posting to the warrrant with whatever other changes would be suggested for other ordinances and after the appropriate public hearing on all changes.
Workshop Items – Sign Ordinance Changes
T. Moore read two suggestions for changes to §220-59 regarding attached signage:
Suggestion #1:
§220-59. Commercial I and Industrial Districts
A. Attached signs. An “attached sign” is defined as a name, identification, description, display, or illustration which is affixed to, or painted, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building. Each business or industrial plant may have two attached signs. One may have an area on one side of up to 30 square feet, the second may have an area of up to 15 square feet. No one dimension shall exceed eight feet on either side. Signs must pertain to enterprises conducted within the structure to which the signs are attached. Attached signs having an area of over 30 square feet, or dimension of over eight
feet, shall not be erected or maintained without a special exception from the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that:
(1) The sign will be attached to a wall surface of a building and will not cover more than 10% of that wall surface.
(2) The special exception, if granted, will comply with all the requirements of Article XX. [Amended 3-11-2003 ATM by Art. P-16]
(1) In lieu of both the 30 square feet and the 15 square feet attached signs a permit may be granted for one attached sign, not to exceed 10% of the building’s façade. The building façade is calculated by measuring from roofline to foundation and subtracting out any glass.
Suggestion #2:
§220-59. Commercial I and Industrial Districts
B. Attached signs. An “attached sign” is defined as a name, identification, description, display, or illustration which is affixed to, or painted, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building. Each business or industrial plant may have two attached signs. One may have an area on one side of up to 30 square feet, the second may have an area of up to 15 square feet. No one dimension shall exceed eight feet on either side. Signs must pertain to enterprises conducted within the structure to which the signs are attached. Attached signs having an area of over 30 square
feet, or dimension of over eight feet, shall not be erected or maintained without a special exception from the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that: Each business shall be allowed up to two signs attached to the building façade, not to exceed 10% of any building façade.
(1) If both signs are attached to the same building façade then the total square footage of the both signs shall not exceed 10% of the building façade to which they are affixed.
(2) If the signs are attached to different building façades then each sign shall not exceed 10% of the façade to which it is affixed.
(3) The building façade is calculated by measuring from roofline to foundation and subtracting out any glass.
T. Moore noted that these changes were being proposed to answer a request from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to clarify some of the ordinances.
It was consensus of the Board that the second suggested change was the more clear proposal of the two suggested and discussed making some minor changes.
N. Morin asked if there was a reason why “industrial” was not included in the sentence Each business shall be allowed up to two signs attached to the building façade, not to exceed 10% of the building façade.
There was discussion of how to clarify that statement to insure that it included industrial uses. The following was proposed:
Each business/industry shall be allowed up to two signs attached to the building façade, not to exceed 10% of the building façade.
M. Dorman suggested a change to paragraph (2) to permit one sign not to exceed 10% of the building façade and the second one not to exceed 5% of the façade when the two attached signs are attached to different building façades.
It was consensus that this would be more in line with the current ordinance’s ratio of one sign to the other.
T. Moore noted that the changes would be posted for public hearing.
The proposed ordinance, if approved, would read as follows:
§220-59. Commercial I and Industrial Districts
C. Attached signs. An “attached sign” is defined as a name, identification, description, display, or illustration which is affixed to, or painted, or represented directly or indirectly upon a building. Each business/industry shall be allowed up to two signs attached to the building façade, not to exceed 10% of any building façade.
(1) If both signs are attached to the same building façade then the total square footage of the both signs shall not exceed 10% of the building façade to which they are affixed.
(2) If the signs are attached to different building façades then the first sign shall not exceed 10% of the façade to which it is affixed and the second sign shall not exceed 5% of the building façade to which it is affixed.
(3) The building façade is calculated by measuring from roofline to foundation and subtracting out any glass.
Workshop Items – Temporary Sign Ordinance Changes
T. Moore read a proposed change to the temporary sign permit ordinance.
§220-62. Temporary signs
A. Permits may be issued for posters and banners, securely attached to the building, which describe a special sale or promotion. Total area of such signs shall not exceed 30 square feet and the number of occasions shall not exceed 8 times per year. Securely means attached to the flat portion of the building wall with all four corners secured to the wall. [added 3-11-03 ATM by Art. P-19]
B. Portable or wheeled sign permits may be issued for a period of 30 days. Temporary signs shall pertain to the business conducted on the premises upon which they are to be located. Temporary signs shall be no larger than 32 square feet. The fee shall be $50.
1. For business locations with 10 or fewer businesses, no more than one thirty-day permit shall be issued at the same time.
2. For business locations with 11 or more businesses, no more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued at the same time.
a. No single business shall be issued a permit for a temporary sign more than 6 times in the same calendar year or for more than 3 consecutive months.
b. No single business shall be issued more than one thirty-day permit at the same time.
No more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued for temporary signs on any lot in any thirty-day period.
C. All signs shall pertain to the business conducted on the premises upon which they are to be located, except directional real estate signs.
D. Temporary signs shall not be installed on in-ground posts or anything else of a permanent or semi-permanent nature.
E. Temporary signs may be internally lit; no permanent or temporary external lighting is to be installed to illuminate temporary signage.
F. If the business owner is not the property owner then the property owner’s written permission is required to issue a thirty-day temporary sign, banner or poster permit.
R. Zukas suggested that paragraph B.2(a) also be inserted in B.1 as paragraph (a) as it would be applicable in plazas where there are 10 or fewer businesses.
T. Moore noted that the changes would be posted for public hearing.
The proposed ordinance, if approved, would read as follows:
§220-62. Temporary signs
A. Permits may be issued for posters and banners, securely attached to the building, which describe a special sale or promotion. Total area of such signs shall not exceed 30 square feet and the number of occasions shall not exceed 8 times per year. Securely means attached to the flat portion of the building wall with all four corners secured to the wall. [added 3-11-03 ATM by Art. P-19]
B. Portable or wheeled sign permits may be issued for a period of 30 days. Temporary signs shall pertain to the business conducted on the premises upon which they are to be located. Temporary signs shall be no larger than 32 square feet. The fee shall be $50.
a. For business locations with 10 or fewer businesses, no more than one thirty-day permit shall be issued at the same time.
a. No single business shall be issued a permit for a temporary sign more than 6 times in the same calendar year or for more than 3 consecutive months.
b. For business locations with 11 or more businesses, no more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued at the same time.
i. No single business shall be issued a permit for a temporary sign more than 6 times in the same calendar year or for more than 3 consecutive months.
ii. No single business shall be issued more than one thirty-day permit at the same time.
C. All signs shall pertain to the business conducted on the premises upon which they are to be located.
D. Temporary signs shall not be installed on in-ground posts or anything else of a permanent or semi-permanent nature.
E. Temporary signs may be internally lit; no permanent or temporary external lighting is to be installed to illuminate temporary signage.
F. If the business owner is not the property owner then the property owner’s written permission is required to issue a thirty-day temporary sign, banner or poster permit
B. Weymouth questioned what he would have to do to propose changes with reference to the real estate sign ordinance, noting that fees were only being passed on to the residents.
The history of how there came to be a fee for real estates signs was explained. The process that B. Weymouth would need to follow to propose any changes was outlined. It was noted that if B. Weymouth came in with a written suggested change, just as P. Bennett had done, it would be considered by the Board and the same options, either the Board posting changes for public or citizen’s petition, would be available to B. Weymouth. It was additionally noted that time was running out for either possibility.
There was additional discussion on whether or not there was a need for permitting and collecting fees on real estates signs.
B. Weymouth offered that Plaistow was the only town that he knew of that charged such a fee.
L. Komornick noted that Plaistow was one of the few towns that had a full time code enforcement officer.
R. Zukas added that charging a fee discouraged real estate agencies from leaving signs out on a property long after a sale is completed. He added that real estate agencies were less likely to put multiple signs on the same property as it was a per sign fee. He added that many real estate agents were able to write off the costs of the permit fee.
B. Weymouth replied that many agents don’t want to pay the fee.
L. Komornick suggested that was the idea behind the citizen’s petition. She added that it wasn’t always appropriate that a change come from the Planning Board, but was more appropriate to be proposed by those directly affected.
It was noted that the fees collected were deposited to the Town’s General Fund.
L. Komornick offered that she was surprized that there were no real estate agents asking to come before the Board to request a change.
The Board discussed whether or not to propose a change to the real estate ordinance or to rely on those affected to propose a citizen’s petition. It was consensus that a citizen’s petition would be the appropriate action.
T. Moore noted that the deadline to submit a citizen’s petitions was close of business on December 12, 2007.
Workshop Items – Silt Sock
It was noted that this would be a change to site plan review and subdivision regulations and didn’t have the same public hearing/posting deadline as the zoning ordinances.
L. Komornick noted that they had reviewed the ordinances and there was nothing that spefically called for silt fences so any proposed change would tighten the wording about Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion controls.
There was discussion regarding some of the current problems with silt fence installations and maintenance practices.
M. Dorman suggested that when there is some language proposed that someone could be invited in to talk to the Board about different options in erosion controls.
L. Komornick added that more and more towns were supporting the silt sock technology. She offered that the Board might want to also consider some language regarding dust controls on roadways. L. Komornick noted there is language regarding controls on sites, but not the roadways.
T. Moore noted there were a few more site plan review and subdivision regulations items on the workshop agenda but that no language was ready to be reviewed at this time.
Workshop Items – Garage Size Restrictions
T. Moore read the proposed change to §220-8.1, regarding garages as follows:
§ 220-8.1. Residential garages. [Added 3-12-2002 ATM by Art. P-37]
A. For the construction of an attached or freestanding garage/barn in a residential zone:
Lot Size (square feet) |
Permitted Square Footage |
Up to 40,000 |
900 |
40,001 to 80,000 |
1,200 |
80,001 to 120,000 |
1,500 |
120,001 to 200,000 |
1,800 |
B. Any proposed garage/barn greater than the permitted square footage shown in Subsection A of this section requires a special exception. Any garage/barn constructed in a residential zone must be utilized for residential purposes only. [Amended 3-8-2005 ATM by Art. P-8]
Amend Article III, §220-8.1 by deleting “Any proposed garage/barn greater than the permitted square footage shown in Subsection A of this section requires a special exception.”
Explanation: The ZBA questioned what criteria should be used for the granting (or denial) of a special exception for a garage/barn greater than the allowable square footage noted on the table in the ordinance. Since this ordinance is for residential garages and is based upon what the land should be able to support residentially, it should be that a variance is needed for a garage/barn greater than what is allowed, thus minimizing the opportunity for it to be converted to a commercial use in the residential district.
T. Moore noted that the question came from the ZBA asking what criteria they were to be using in reviewing special exception requests for garages that would exceed the maximum allowable under the current ordinances.
M. Dorman asked if when the total square footage of garage/barn space is being calculated should garages under be included in those calculations.
There was discussion regarding instances when it was appropriate and when it was not appropriate to subtract out the square footage of a garage under for the purposes of this ordinance. It was noted that when a garage under was converted to legitimate living space then it should not be subtracted from the calculations.
N. Morin asked if the square footage was calculated as just the footprint of the garage/barn of it was calculated as the usuable square footage.
M. Dorman replied that he was using the footprint.
There was a discussion comparing calculations using the footprint only versus the total usable square footage. It was noted that such structures could be 45 feet in height under the Town’s ordinances. Concerns were expressed that there would be abuses of this ordinance if the footprint was the calculation used to determine how large a structure could be permitted. It was further noted that the ordinance had been in place for some time and there were no such requests for overly large structures being received.
Workshop Items – Driveway Setbacks
T. Moore noted that the change that was being suggested for this ordinance was to remove the word “paved” and require that all driveways meet the setbacks for the district in which it is located. He added that the word paved had been added to insure that a driveway wouldn’t cause drainage problems for an abutting property.
Workshop Items – Define criteria for various special exceptions called out in ordinance
T. Moore explained that another request from the ZBA was for clarification as to what criteria was to be reviewed when there was an application for a specific use only to be allowed by special exception.
There was discussions regarding review of the permitted uses list and determine whether or not the uses, currenlty allowed only by special exception, should be moved to the permitted uses list, or if a criteria could be developed for instances when a special exception review is needed.
T. Moore offered that sometimes the special exception review by the ZBA was a mechanism for there to be “another set of eyes” looking at any plans. He said the issues would be related to traffic and safety concerns.
The list of uses permited by special exception, in all districts, would be reviewed.
Workshop Items – Add Appeal Periods and Specific date/time deadline to request in writing when to be on an agenda in our Rules of Procedure (Bylaws)
T. Moore noted the the bylaws didn’t currently specify a cut off to be put on any given meeting agenda. He added that it has been suggested that there be one to limit the length of an agenda, allowing L. Komornick more time to prepare for the meetings.
L. Komornick offered that she had been reconsidering whether or not there should be a deadline. She noted situations where other related deadlines would be missed if there was a filing deadline for non-public hearing related issues. L. Komornick offered P. Bennett’s discussion earlier as an example, adding that she would have missed the deadline for filing a citizen’s petition (if the Board had not chosen to post the proposed changes for public hearing) if she had adhered to a submission deadline. She explained that she would prefer to keep the flexibility of adding something last minute to a not-so-full agenda. L. Komornick added that a strict deadline didn’t allow her the flexibility to balance agendas as she would be obligated to add all requests meeting the deadline to an agenda, no matter how
full it might be.
R. Zukas noted that he didn’t know how flexible scheduling could be done without sometimes being seen as favoritism.
L. Komornick explained that if there was a question about putting an item on the agenda then she always consulted with T. Moore, and with the Board’s counsel if directed by T. Moore to do so. She added that she had learned at a training conference once that agendas were merely to notify the public of the time and place of a meeting and it was not necessary to list the items for discussion.
N. Morin suggested that currently listing an item on an agenda doesn’t guarantee that it will be heard, adding that if a deadline was involved that would almost obligate the Board to hear it on that agenda.
L. Komornick offered that most people have been cooperative with scheduling and that she would prefer to leave things as they are for the time being.
Workshop Items – Requested Change from MDR to CII at 4 Kingshaw Ave
T. Moore reminded that the property owner at 4 Kingshaw Ave (Robert Loeffler) had come before the Board with a request that his property, which was split into two zoning districts, not be zoned completly MDR. He added that the reuqest was made at the end of the zoning ordinance review process last year, too late for the Board to act. T. Moore continued that L. Komornick sent Mr. Loeffler a letter inviting him to come discuss the matter with the Board and suggesting that a citizen’s petition would be the proper course of action in this matter. He added that Mr. Loeffler had not responded to the letter.
R. Zukas reminded that there were many public hearings on the realigning of the zoning district.
L. Komornick added that all the properties involved in the realigning of the district were treated the same and it wasn’t appropriate for the Board to act on a single request and if the property owner wanted to get the line changed he should file a citizen’s petition.
Other Business – Notices from Department of Building Safety, etc.
There was a brief discussion regarding a landlord/tenant dispute at 20 Plaistow Road.
Other Business – Status of unfinished site plans (Stateline Pet Supply, Rockingham Athletic Club and B&J Auto Body)
Stateline Pet
T. Moore reminded that an letter from Dana Post’s attorney requesting that the waterline inpact fee be waived for the construction of the storage building at 137 Plaistow Road. He continued that the Board denied the request, noting that the building was part of the original site plan and not an expansion of the approved use and therefore the fees was valid.
T. Moore noted that the way that the current impact ordinance reads, assessing the impact fees at the time of the building permit application is contrary to the State’s RSAs that assess the fees at the time an certificate of occupancy (CO) is requested.
L. Komornick added that the State’s RSA also states that if there is no CO required then the fee would be collected when work was done and ready for its intended use.
T. Moore offered that the Town’s ordinance was in place before the State made its change to the current one and the Board may want to consider making the change to be consistent with the State. He added that in the meantime he didn’t have a problem issuing a building permit.
L. Komornick related the she had a conversation with Mr. Post and questioned why he didn’t come forward with his waiver request when the first building was built. She noted that he related a number of other issues that he was dealing with at the time, such as problems with contractors and trying to get the building finished before the State began the bridge project at his former location. L. Komornick added that she had spoken with Michelle Curran (Selectmen Ex-Officio) who expressed concern that if a building permit was issued then there would be no leverage for collecting the impact fees. L. Komornick reminded that there was still a bond being held for this project.
M. Dorman suggested that a separate bond could be establised to insure the impact fees would be paid as well.
R. Zukas agreed, reminding that the current bond was to cover the final paving and drainage issues on the site.
There was discussion regarding the disposition of a lawsuit between Mr. Post and his contractor regarding the drainage. It was noted that the roof drains being tied into the drainage system was not indicated on the site plan and that the parking lot would have to be torn up to install it.
M. Dorman offered that he had requested that the roof drains be tied into the drainage early in the construction process and the contractor didn’t do it as he had requested.
T. Moore asked if the requirement was in the regulations.
M. Dorman replied that it was not, but that it was in his building code, particulary for flat roofs.
T. Moore suggested that if the requirement is in the building code it’s irrlevent whether or not it’s specifically on the site plan.
L. Komornick asked if the drainage was currently working properly.
M. Dorman replied that it was working adequately for routine storm events as the water was running off into a green space, but when it’s a heavier storm the water is running into the parking lot.
R. Zukas expressed concern that such a condition could result in water freezing on the pavement.
L. Komornick noted that it would not be the Town’s liability if such a thing happened.
T. Moore asked if the currently held bond would be adequate to cover the finish paving, the roof drain tie-in, as well as bond the waterline impact fee.
L. Komornick reported the waterline impact fee to be +/-$9,000.00 and reiterated M. Curran’s concern that allowing the building permit to be issued would take away the leverage to collect the impact fee. She noted that she didn’t not have the time at the time of her conversation with M. Curran to discuss the possibility of bonding the waterline impact fee.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to allow a building permit to be issued for the storage building at 137 Plaistow Road if a bond is posted for the waterline impact fees. Use of the storage building is denied unless and until the waterline impact fee is paid.
L. Komornick noted this would not prohibit Mr. Post from pursuing a waiver of the fee with the Board.
There was discussion as to what would be requrired for Mr. Post to include bonding of the waterline impact fee with his currently held bond. It was suggested that he would have to redo the bonding worksheet to show that the number was sufficient to cover all outstanding issues and the waterline imapct fee amount.
L. Komornick added that Mr. Post also had the option to request that the currently held bond be reduced for work completed.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Rockingham Athletic Club (RAC)
L. Komornick reported that she had spoken with Kim Drelick regarding finishing the paving of the site and the response was that they would not be able to do it until spring.
T. Moore explained that the same letter had been sent to all three of the projects in question noting a May 1, 2008, deadline for paving to be complete or bonds will be pulled by the Town and the projects completed. He added that RAC had other issues, such as mulitple uses of the site not specifically called out on the site plan and not approved by the Planning Board which they needed to come in and resolve.
R. Zukas asked what the avenue for enforcement would be if they refused to come in and talk to the Board about their site plan.
M. Dorman answered that he would have to take it to Sumner Kalman (Town Counsel).
There was discussion regarding what the Board wanted RAC to come in and discuss with them. The issues that were specifically mentioned were:
- Outside activities not specifically designated on the site plan
- Concurrently running activities that could affect parking calculations
- 24-hour operations
L. Komornick said that she had discussed these points with K. Drelick and the RAC on notice that they would have to make the needed changes. She added that she had been informed that a response would be forthcoming after the holidays.
Other Business – Next Meeting
There was a discussion regarding whether or not to meet on Januray 02, 2008. It was suggested that unless there were dramatic changes to zoning ordinances that would require a second public hearing, which would be known by the December 19 meeting, then there would be no reason to meet. It was also noted that it might be difficult to have a quorum available for January 2, 2008.
Other Business – Payment of Public Safety Impact Fee Invoices and Summary Spreadsheet
The Board reviewed a request from the Police Chief for payment of invoices from five vendors from the Pulbic Safety Impact Fee account. The total of the invoices is $3,856.51 related to the installation and equipping of the mobile office trailer being used until the safety complex is expanded. The Board discussed whether or not the expense falls within the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee ordinance.
R. Zukas asked if the trailer was all set now or if there were more expenses expected.
M. Dorman replied that to the best of his knowledge they were done, adding if there were any other expenses they should be minor.
T. Moore added that there could be more activity expected in the spring as the project moved forward.
R. Zukas questioned if they would be able to use the equipment purchased in the new building.
M. Dorman offered that the trailer was expected to be used by the Highway Department once the Police Department was done with it. He added that he expected the trailer to be on the site of the safety complex for a long time.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, that the expenditures invoiced are in keeping with the intent of the public safety impact fee ordinances. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0.
M. Dorman read the RSA regarding procedures for expending monies from any of the impact fee accounts. The RSA described that proposals for expenditures should be coming to the Planning Board to insure that they are compliant with the intent of the ordinance before the expense is incurred.
R. Zukas suggested that the Board had already said that they wanted to be part of the discussion before the monies were spent. He suggested that a written letter be sent to the BOS specifically stating that all proposal for expenditures from impact fee accounts come to the Planning Board before monies are spent.
M. Dorman reminded that the Planning Board only looks at the proposal to see if it is appropriate to be paid from impact fees. The BOS would still decide who gets the job.
R. Zukas said that he just felt it was important for the Board to be in the loop before the money is spent.
T. Moore offered what would have made sense would be for the proposal for the trailer to come to the Board first to approve the intent and then the invoices could be paid.
L. Komornick inquired if the Board should be brought up to date on the expansion of the safety complex in general. She added that she wasn’t implying that any funds were being inappropriately spent, just that it would be nice for the Board to see the bigger plan.
M. Dorman offered that SEC Associates, Inc., and Wetlands Preservation, Inc.,.were still working on the plan and suggested that they be asked to come in after the first of the year.
R. Zukas responded that would help him make an informed vote for the expenses being incurred.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
