PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 19, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas, Neal Morin, Alternate; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Barry Weymouth and Merilyn Senter, Alternate, were excused. 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 B. Weymouth.
Due to inclement weather conditions a number of public hearings were postponed as follows:
Continuation of a Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49, 50 & 51, involving the redevelopment for a new 14,673 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy retail store. The parcel size is 2.076 acres and has 614 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
-and-
Continuation of a Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49 & 52, involving the redevelopment for a new 17,801 square foot retail building. The parcel size is 3.05 acres and has 219 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
This is a joint public hearing with the Board of Selectmen (BOS) and is continued to the Selectmen’s Meeting on January 7, 2008.
Continuation of a Final Public Hearing on a Commercial Site Plan Review Application for a proposed 3-story, 3,400 square foot professional office space addition to the existing building. The property is Tax Map 11, Lot 5 located at 23 Atkinson Depot Road. This is a 1.30 +/- acres parcel with 265.62 feet of frontage located in the CI Zone, and contains an existing 2,000 square foot building. The owner of record is Little River Properties II, LLC.
This public hearing is continued to January 16, 2008
A Public Hearing on a Final Site Plan Review application for a 40 unit Elderly Housing Condominium Complex to be located in the MDR District at 18 Chandler Avenue, Tax Map 38, Lot 4. The property totals 11.4 acres and has 360 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Hoyt Realty Trust.
This public hearing is continued to January 16, 2008
A Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation and Final Site Plan Review application by Fairway Oaks, LLC, who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 4, with Tax Map 58, Lot 6, and a portion of Tax Map 65, Lot 2, and to adjust the lot lines of Tax Map 66, Lot 3, for the construction of a 36 unit Elderly Housing Project. Access to this complex will be through an extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow. The total acreage is 23.1 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC, Fairway Realty Trust, and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
This public hearing is continued to January 16, 2008
Public Hearing on Zoning and Regulation Changes
T. Moore explained that the Board would review the proposed zoning changes that were posted for public hearing, make any changes based upon the discussion as well as decide whether or not to carry forward to a second and final public hearing to vote to post to the warrant.
(NOTE: The original language of each proposed change, as well as the changes discussed as part of this meeting, is posted below as it was presented to, and discussed by, the Board.)
Changes are noted as follows:
Additions are noted in bold and italics
Deletions are noted in bold and strikethrough
Discussions on the changes are noted below each proposed change. It should be also noted that the proposed changes were emailed to other committees and Boards prior to the meeting for their input. Peter Bealo, Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), offered some comments. Those are incorporated as discussed and approved by the Board.
Article P-08-1 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IV., Wetlands, § 220-24., Prohibitions in the Wetlands District., by revising letter A. as follows:
A. Septic systems and waste disposal systems.
(1) Septic systems or waste disposal systems are not allowed.
(2) No replacement septic system or waste disposal system on an existing lot of record shall be allowed in the wetlands district unless:
A) The new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities,
B) It is not possible and there is not room to locate the replacement system 100 feet or more from the wetlands area, outside of the wetlands district.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that septic systems are not allowed in the wetlands district and to specify the criteria for replacement systems.
DISCUSSION: There was discussion of the septic approval process, noting that the building inspector reviews plans before they go to the State of New Hampshire (State) for approval. Paragraph #2 was originally presented as one paragraph. After brief discussion and the reading of changes suggested by P. Bealo, which were incorporated as clarifying, the change was carried forward.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-2 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IV., Wetlands, § 220-26. (Currently Reserved):, by adding the following:
§ 220-26. Septic systems and waste disposal systems.
A. No new septic system or waste disposal system shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands area.
B. No replacement septic system or waste disposal system on an existing lot of record shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands area unless: the new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities.
A) The new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities,
B) It is not possible and there is not room to locate the replacement system 100 feet or more from the wetlands area, outside of the wetlands district.
The purpose of this amendment is to add specific language for the location of new or replacement septic systems in relation to the wetlands area.
DISCUSSION: It was decided that the same changes that were incorporated into the first proposed change to the wetlands ordinance were applicable to this proposed change as well.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-3 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article III., General Provisions, Section 220-9.1., Location of residential driveways, by removing the word paved, so that it reads as:
“All driveways in any residential district must be located within the frontage of the lot and comply with the setback required in that district.”
The purpose of this amendment is to specify that no driveway, whether paved or unpaved, may be allowed in the setback.
DISCUSSION: This proposed change was a result of previous discussions; therefore there was no discussion at this meeting.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-4 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II., Definitions, Section 220-2., Definitions., by adding a new definition for
“Service Repair Facility” as follows:
“Service Repair Facility: Building or other structure where the majority of inside space is used exclusively for the repair of motor vehicles, including auto body repair.”
The purpose of this amendment is to specify the definition of this use which is currently an allowed use in the CI zone.
DISCUSSION: Based upon a P. Bealo suggestion that the originally proposed language excluded some sales of after-market parts and/or common accessories, such as windshield wipers, etc., frequently found at most repair shops, the proposed language was changed as shown above.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-5 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, ~ 220-28., Establishment of Districts, Table 220-32A., Industrial, by removing all uses by special exception and adding Banks and Bank Kiosks, and Restaurants as permitted uses and by adding a paragraph D. to read as follows:
D. The intent of allowing some retail uses in the industrial zone is to provide convenient services for the employees of the industries in the industrial zone. No certificate of occupancy for any commercial use may be granted before one or more certificate(s) of occupancy are issued for an industrial use(s).
D. No certificate of occupancy for any commercial bank or bank kiosk use may be granted before one or more certificate(s) of occupancy are issued for an industrial use(s).
E. In an industrial development, no more than 10% of the total building footprint submitted can be used for commercial bank or bank kiosk uses.
F. The intent of allowing bank or bank kiosk in the industrial zone is to provide convenient services for the employees of the industries in the industrial zone.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove permitted uses by special exception and apply additional criteria for permitted commercial uses in the industrial zone.
DISCUSSION: There was discussion as to whether or not to include restaurant uses in the industrial district. There was concern expressed that, while a restaurant would provide a valued service to the employees of an industrial development, it could potentially draw patrons away from existing restaurants in town, as well as potentially draw customers into an industrial development, creating traffic unrelated to the day-to-day operations of the development. It was noted that for any restaurant to survive they would have to draw from the general public creating traffic and safety concerns in the industrial development. It was also discussed that banks and bank kiosks did not have the same issues related to restaurants, but would be a sensible convenience addition to an industrial development.
There was also discussion regarding how to insure that permitted retail kinds of uses didn’t get out of proportion to the industrial uses, possibly stressing septic systems and parking calculations. It was noted that the 10% of the footprint restriction, as well as Planning Board review, would keep the retail uses in check.
There was brief discussion as to whether or not more than one industrial use certificate of occupancy (CO) should be issued before a commercial CO is issued. It was noted that raising the number of industrial COs would be a problem in the instance of a single use industrial development. It was again noted that the 10% of the footprint restriction would help to insure that there was appropriate commercial uses.
There was discussion as to the need to define and limit the size of a bank kiosk. It was determined that the 10% footprint restriction would be self-limiting on the size of any proposed kiosk. It was also noted that a bank would probably take into consideration the amount of use a kiosk or branch bank would get before deciding what size facility to propose to the Board.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-6 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II., Definitions, Section 220-2., Definitions., by adding a new definition for
“Vehicular Brokerage Office” as follows:
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 are specifically prohibited.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for vehicular brokerages and to require the use be office space only.
DISCUSSION: This ordinance change, originally proposed by local property owner Patricia Bennett, was discussed at a previous meeting.
M. Curran expressed concern that allowing this use would be opening the door to fly-by-night auto dealers as well as other abuses of the 1,000 foot restriction between motor vehicle dealers.
It was noted that these types of businesses were already permitted as a home occupation and this was just allowing the same type of office-only use in a commercial office setting. It was also noted that these types of businesses were now more regulated by the State as well as the Town.
It was also noted that the in-home dealers were not charged an annual inspection fee and it was not intended that these office- only businesses would be either as it did not require annual inspections by the building inspector to insure compliance with a site plan.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
Article P-08-7 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article III, General Provisions, Section 220-16., Motor vehicle and trailer sales, by adding a new letter F. to read as follows:
F. Vehicular Brokerage Office may be located in the Commercial I District with no new/used motor vehicle(s) for retail/wholesale display and/or storage.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirements of occupying office space by vehicle brokerages.
DISCUSSION: After brief discussion it was decided that the intent of this change could be accomplished by simply adding “vehicular brokerage office” as a permitted use in the Commercial I (CI) district. So the change was edited to:
Article P-08-7 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V, Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Section 220-32B., Commercial I, by adding a new permitted use:
“Vehicular Brokerage Office”
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirements of occupying office space by vehicle brokerages.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
OTHER BUSINESS - Starbucks
Jonathan Cox, representing Starbuckswas present, in regards to the property located at 49 Plaistow Road.
T. Moore read three (3) correspondences for the record:
- E-mail from David Jordan, SFC Engineering Partnership, Inc., to L. Komornick
- Letter from David Jordan, SFC Engineering Partnership, Inc., to L. Komornick
- Letter from Steven Ireland, State of New Hampshire, Department of Transportation (NHDOT), District VI, to T. Moore
L. Komornick noted that once she re-read the letter from S. Ireland, regarding the status of a driveway permit, she didn’t see it to be the solid commitment to granting the driveway permit that she had originally seen it to be. She added that she had been trying, unsuccessfully, to reach S. Ireland for possible clarification of the intent of the letter. L. Komornick noted that in her discussion she was told that the State was working on easement access to allow work on the signal loop when necessary and the reference to a “plan” was not the Planning Board’s approved site plan, but a plan for the loop and any access easements.
J. Cox confirmed that was the discussion with the State. He offered that the delays in the actual issuing of the driveway permit were creating a financial hardship on Starbucks as costs were continuing to rise while waiting for the permit.
M. Curran expressed frustration that the Board was again being asked to bend on a condition of approval that an applicant agreed to in order to get approval of a site plan.
L. Komornick noted that she was trying to get a revised letter that would clearly state that the permit would be issued.
J. Cox added that the State was not reviewing the site plan, but the revised signalization plan for Route 125.
There was discussion between L. Komornick and M. Curran regarding an earlier conversation regarding the S. Ireland letter and whether or not the information was accurately exchanged between the two.
L. Komornick offered that the driveway permit delay was not the fault of the applicant, noting plans had been lost at the district level and there had been a retirement of the of the engineers at the district that further delayed the review and approval of the plan. She added that the applicant had done full due diligence in trying to get this permit approved and they were merely a victim of circumstances. L. Komornick said that she was emphatically not in favor of approving plans without all the proper permits but this was an exception and she was certain that there would be a permit issued. She added that she would continue to work on getting a new letter issued by S. Ireland.
There was additional discussion as to exactly what the State was reviewing in order to issue the driveway permit. It was noted that the State was only reviewing the access easement for work to the signal loop (underground wires and other equipment to operate a trip to change the traffic signal lights) and the size of that signal loop, not the Planning Board approved site plan.
J. Cox noted that they did a cost analysis on some of the upgrades that the State was requesting of them and while the changes were not needed according to their research the decision was made to make the changes as requested. He also noted that the State has asked their attorney to draw up the access easement (for work on the signal loop) which they will then review and both parties will come to agreement on.
T. Moore offered that if there is a new letter received from District VI that clearly stated that the only two remaining issues were that of the easement and the size of the loop along with a letter from J. Cox clearly stating intent to comply with the State then he could be amenable to allowing them to proceed.
M. Curran asked if there was a bond in place.
L. Komornick offered that none had yet been requested as they were waiting for the driveway permit to go forward.
M. Dorman added that there would have to be a pre-construction meeting and the bond amount would need to be set. He noted that the demolition of the building would come first.
L. Komornick noted that they were not going to take the building down if they could not go forward.
J. Cox noted that by not demolishing the building they were still in a position to re-use it. He added that they were seeking to accommodate a tenant (Starbucks) who had been leasing for ten (10) months.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to allow the building inspector to issue a building permit, site work to commence upon receipt of a bond, for 49 Plaistow Road once the following occurs:
- Letter from NHDOT clearly stating that the issues remaining for the granting of the driveway permit are the size of the signal loop and the access easement for the maintenance of that signal loop
- Letter from J. Cox clearly stating cooperation with NHDOT and agreement regarding size of the signal loop and consent to the access easement for the maintenance of that signal loop
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-1-0 (Curran dissenting)
L. Komornick issued an apology for the record for the manner in which she addressed M. Curran earlier in the discussion, noting her obvious passion for her job responsibilities.
M. Curran accepted that apology, noting that she did have respect for L. Komornick’s passion, adding that she was trying to avoid tracking headache for staff having to chase after additional conditions of approval.
There was additional discussion regarding the proceedings this evening with reference to the Board making additional concessions after a plan has been approved and a developer is unable to meet the Board’s conditions in order to start a project on their schedule.
RETURNING TO: Public Hearing on Zoning and Regulation Changes
Article P-08-8 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs, §220-59., Commercial I and Industrial Districts by revising letter A as follows:
A. Attached signs:
Delete the portion that reads:
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
And add a new portion to read:
Each business/industry shall be allowed up to two signs attached to the building façade that meet the following restrictions:
(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 facades then one sign shall not exceed 10% of the façade to which it is affixed and the other sign shall not exceed 5% 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.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirements for attached signage in the Commercial I and Industrial Districts and to remove the need for a special exception.
DISCUSSION: This proposed change was discussed at a previous meeting and there were no additional changes made at this meeting.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-9 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs §220-62., Temporary Signs., paragraph B., by deleting the portion that reads:
“No more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued for temporary signs on any lot in any thirty-day period.”
And adding the following new subsections:
1. 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.
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.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
And amending §220-62., paragraph C., by deleting the phrase
“except directional real estate signs.”
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
And further amend §220-62 by adding three new paragraphs:
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 owner’s written permission is required to issue a thirty-day temporary sign, banner or poster permit.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
The purpose of this amendment is to respond to numerous citizen complaints regarding the number and the seemingly permanent nature that some of the commercial temporary signs have taken on as well as give some restrictions to prevent over-use by any single business. The proposed deletion of the portion of §220-62C regarding real estate signs is to eliminate a conflict with wording in another section of Article IX.
DISCUSSION: M. Curran asked if the Board had previously discussed increasing the fee to $100 per sign. She added that she would be in favor of such an increase as was suggested in an e-mail from a resident.
T. Moore replied that was not proposed as part of this change.
There was discussion regarding a suggestion from P. Bealo that the number of times a business would be allowed to obtain a sign permit be reduced from the proposed six (6) time a year to three (3) times and the no more than three (3) consecutive months be reduced to a single month. It was consensus that the proposed change was already significant and it would be best to try it for this year and then see if additional changes were warranted next year.
There was additional discussion regarding taking all fees out of the ordinances and making them part of a fee schedule that would be more flexible when change was seen as necessary. It was noted that it was a more significant change and may not be in time for this change cycle. It was suggested that the change be posted and that the Board’s attorney be consulted as to whether or not it met the timing criteria. The legal notice would read that the Board was suggesting taking all fees out of the zoning ordinances and incorporating them into a single fee schedule.
M. Curran noted for the record that she had no conflict in any changes to the temporary sign ordinance as she had not ever put up a temporary sign at her place of business.
There was a discussion regarding breaking out of the proposed changes into separate warrant articles, therefore the vote to carry forward was taken on each section as proposed to be changed. It was also noted that in the proposed change to §220-62C regarding real estate directional signs that the entire paragraph should be included for clarity sake.
Article P-08-10 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article III., General Provisions §220-8.1., Residential Garages by revising letter B as follows:
Deleting the section that reads:
“Any proposed garage/barn greater than the permitted square footage shown in Subsection A of this section requires a special exception.”
The purpose of this ordinance is to require that any application for a garage larger than the permitted size, based on the district the residential property is located in, would have to obtain a variance.
DISCUSSION: This proposed change was discussed at a previous meeting. The discussion was related to clarifying how the square footage of the structure is calculated. It was noted that the verbiage “(footprint)” would be added after each instance of the words “square footage” in the table for clarification. This was determined to be an administrative change that would not require a reposting of the proposed change. There was also language deleted from the proposed purpose of the change explanation as it was thought to be unnecessary.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
The purpose of this ordinance is to require that any application for a garage larger than the permitted size, based on the district the residential property is located in, would have to obtain a variance.
Article P-08-11 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II, Definitions, Section 220-2, Definitions, by adding the following:
Restaurant – Any building or structure that prepares or serves food for purchase by the general public. It may include sit down service, take out service, and curbside service where a restaurant employee brings take out orders to a customer waiting in a vehicle. Specifically not included in the definition are drive-thru and drive-in restaurants.
(1) Drive-thru Restaurant – Any restaurant that offers drive-thru service where
customers remain in their vehicles and form queues to order and pick up food
packaged for take out.
(2) Drive-in Restaurant – Any restaurant where customers remain in their vehicles to
order and consume food and beverages. Restaurant employees typically take food
orders and deliver food to the customers’ vehicles.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide definitions for different types of restaurants in order to more clearly specify which types of restaurants would be allowed in different zones.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that this was to clarify certain definitions regarding restaurants.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-12 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32B, “CI” – Commercial I, by removing Drive-in restaurants from the list of uses allowed by special exception and by adding Drive-thru restaurants and Drive-in restaurants to the list of permitted uses.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow all types of restaurants in the Commercial I zone (Rt. 125).
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-13 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objective and Land Use Control, Table 220-32B, “CI – Commercial I,” by adding new paragraphs as follows:
D. Special Exception Criteria for the use “Care & Treatment of Animals”
1. The produce stand must be located on a vacant lot.
2. 1. There must be at least 1 employee for every 15 animals at the facility; exceptions can be made for very small animals such as hamsters, birds, etc.
3. 2. If animals are to remain overnight, there must be at least 1 employee at the
Facility overnight as well. Accommodations for such a care taker are permitted, although it is not the intent of the ordinance to allow the facility to be the care taker’s residence in all districts except as a combined use in the ICR District.
4. 3. The operator of the facility must present a plan that includes the type of animals that would be treated or cared for at the facility. There must be adequate exercise areas for the animals, if appropriate.
5. 4. Large animals whose normal weight would exceed 180 pounds are prohibited under this section of the ordinance.
6. 5. The operator of the facility must present a plan that describes how the animal waste is to be handled. disposed.
7. 6. If appropriate, a stockade fence may be required such that the animals are not disturbed by adjacent activities and likewise the animals are not disturbing the abutters.
8. 7. If animals are to be treated, all necessary licenses must be presented before an occupancy permit may be issued.
9. 8. The facility must also comply with all federal, state, and local health ordinances as applicable.
10. 9. No animals can remain outside overnight and if any animals are to remain outdoors during the daytime then adequate facilities must be provided for shelter and water.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the three (3) proposed additional subsections would be discussed separately and voted on separately. There was a question from P. Bealo as to whether or not the 100 foot buffer would be applicable for a veterinary business as it would for a home situation.
M. Dorman noted that these would be located in commercial districts and not be of the same concern as an animal treatment business in a residential district. He added the concerns over noise or other related issues would best be mitigated as part of a Planning Board approved site plan.
There was a correction made to the ordinance by deleting the first criteria, as it related to produce stands, not care and treatment of animals, and move it to the next paragraph, re-numbering both sections. There was an additional change made for clarity.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
E. Special Exception Criteria for the use “Produce Stand”
1. The produce stand must be located on a vacant lot.
1. 2. The proposed produce stand must be seasonal in nature, that is, it may not be in operation for more than 9 months during a 12-month period.
2. 3. If the operator of the produce stand is not also the owner, then written permission from the owner must be presented.
3. 4. Permanent signs are not permitted for produce stands under this section of the ordinance; temporary signs may be in place but must meet all the requirements for temporary signs as specified in the sign ordinance.
4. 5. The owner or operator of the produce stand must present a sketch, site plan, or some type of drawing that shows where all structures are to be located (including possible trash dumpsters), all parking spaces for customers and employees, and some indication of how customers are to enter and exit the facility. This includes compliance with all provisions of the Access Management ordinance as described in Article VIIA of the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance.
5. 6. The hours of operation must be presented either in a letter or as a note on a drawing.
6. 7. For the purpose of the zoning ordinance, produce stands shall also include the sale of Christmas Trees, except for those sold directly from tree farms.
7. 8. Where appropriate, provisions for snow storage must be shown on the presented sketch, site plan, or drawing.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. (Withdrawn)
DISCUSSION: There was discussion regarding the need for this provision in the ordinances. It was noted that it was developed in response to the ZBA requesting a list of criteria for approving uses requiring a special exception. There was discussion regarding the details of the requirements, including the inconsistency between the amount of time a farm stand is allowed (9 mos.) and the length of time a sign is permitted (3-6 mos.). It was also discussed that the list of requirements would all be under a site plan review and perhaps it wasn’t necessary to have a separate list, just make it a permitted use. It was noted that the list of restrictions was intended to discourage the transient “cart” type of produce stand.
There was discussion on the need for a site plan when it is more than a “cart” situation, and Christmas tree sales would also be handled on a case-by-case basis and could be included in that site plan.
It was decided that a special requirement for a produce stand wasn’t needed and that it would be best listed as a permitted use, noting that there wasn’t an overwhelming request for such uses, and then applicants would have to come to the Planning Board for review.
After the discussion the motion and the second were withdrawn and a new motion was made.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, that instead of the proposed paragraph E produce stand would be proposed to be listed a permitted use, and carried forward to the January 10, 2008, public hearing.
F. Special Exception Criteria for the use “Day-Care Facilities”
1. All federal and state licenses that are required must be presented before an occupancy permit can be issued.
2. If the operator of the day-care facility is not the property owner, then written permission from the owner must be presented.
3. The facility owner and operator must meet all federal, state, and local health requirements.
4. The operator of the facility must present a site plan that shows where all structures are to be located (including possible trash dumpsters), all parking spaces for employees and visitors, and a plan for how the children will be dropped off and picked up.
5. The hours of operation must be included.
6. If appropriate, plans for proper diaper disposal must be presented.
7. There must be adequate exercise area(s) for the children and those areas must be made secure. Typically this would include, but not be limited to, a fence totally surrounding the exercise area.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide criteria that must be met in order to allow a use by special exception where those criteria are not otherwise specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. (Withdrawn)
DISCUSSION: There was discussion as to whether or not there was a need to allow additional day cares in the Commercial I district or not. It was consensus that they were not appropriate in the CI district and therefore no list of criteria would be needed for the granting of a special exception.
There was additional discussion of the need for the ZBA to be any part of the process unless a variance was required. It was noted that it would be another “set of eyes” that would be part of the reviewing process. It was reported that the ZBA didn’t feel that they had the knowledge or training for reviewing site plans.
After the discussion the motion and the second were withdrawn and a new motion was made.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to post a change that would not allow day cares in the Commercial I District and would allow day cares as a permitted use in the Integrated Commercial Residential (ICR) District. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-14 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, ~220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32C, “CII” – Commercial II by adding “Fraternal, service, and charitable uses” as a permitted use.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for an additional use compatible with the Commercial II District.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-15 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32C, “CII” – Commercial II by adding by adding a new paragraph as follows a new permitted use:
“Day Care Facilities”
The purpose of this amendment is to add consistent criteria across all zoning districts for uses allowed by special exceptions.
DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance change was revised based upon earlier discussion regarding listing day care facilites as premitted uses in certain districts and eliminating the requirement for a special exception. The proposed change then became to make day cares a permitted use in the CII district instead of attaching the list of requirements for a special exception, as that list was earlier deleted.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-16 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32 E, F, and I, by removing “Nursing and convalescent homes” and “Private schools” as permitted uses by special exception” in the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Residential Conservation II (RC II) Districts.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the LDR, MDR and RCII zones.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-17 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32H, Residential Conservation I, Paragraph B., “All uses allowed by special exception,” by allowing Single-family residence, Forestry, Agriculture and Accessory Uses to be Permitted Uses, and by removing number 5, Private recreation.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove “Private recreation” as a permitted use, and to remove the special exception requirement for the four remaining permitted uses.
Article P-08-18 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32G, “Integrated Commercial- Residential District,” by adding “Bank Kiosk,” “Drive Thru Restaurant”, “Day Care Facilities”, “Produce Stands” and “Fraternal, service and charitable uses,” as permitted uses, and removing “Drive-In Restaurant,” “Fraternal, service, and charitable uses,” and “Nursing and convalescent homes,” as uses allowed by special exception; and to add footnote 6, 7, and 8 to reference the criteria for that particular use as a special exception as specified in Article V., Table 220-32B.,
paragraph D., E. and F. as proposed.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the ICR zone, add references to the special exception criteria for the remaining uses allowed by special exception, and to add to the list of permitted commercial uses.
DISCUSSION: The members of the Board were not in favor of allowing drive-thru restaurants in the ICR District. Day Care Facilities and Produce Stands were also added as a permitted use based on an earlier discussion. It was also noted that since the Board had decided not to post a specific list of requirements for day cares or produce stands, but to allow them as permitted uses, the reference to the requirements for the granting of a special exception could be deleted as well.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-19 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32G, “Integrated Commercial- Residential District,” by adding uses allowed by special exception under the Combined Uses section, including “Care and Treatment of Animals,” “Produce Stands,” and “Day-Care Facilities.” This includes adding the footnote to reference the criteria for that particular use as a special exception as specified in Article V., Table 220-32B., paragraph D., E. and F. as proposed.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the ICR zone, add references to the special exception criteria for the remaining use allowed by special exception, add uses allowed by special exception to the Combined Uses section of the ICR district.
DISCUSSION: The ordinance was cleaned up to include changes regarding produce stands and day care facilities being permitted uses, not ones requiring special exception as earlier discussed
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to carry the changes forward, as amended, for a January 10, 2008, public hearing. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO SITE PLAN REGULATIONS
Amend Chapter 225-6., Rules of Procedures, Section 225-6., Procedures, by adding the following new paragraphs:
G. All administrative decisions are made at public meetings and require a majority vote of voting members present at the public meetings. The decisions will contain a specific action or list of actions to be done by a developer, owner, or applicant and will include a date by which the action or list of actions must be completed and verified the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. The verification may be done by the Code Enforcement Officer, the Planning Board Review Engineer, or other organization specified by the Planning Board. The decision must also include the name of the person or organization that is to do the verification. The developer, owner, or applicant must respond to the decision in 1of the 2 following manners:
(1) Comply with the decision and request verification within the specified time
frame.
(2) On or before the last Planning Board public meeting that occurs 7 days before
the end of the specified time limit in the decision, the developer, owner, or applicant must submit in writing reasons why the action or list of actions can not be completed and verified within the time frame specified in the decision.
H. If the action or list of actions has not been completed and verified within the specified time limit and no written response has been received from the developer, owner, or applicant the Planning Board shall take a final action to resolve the issue or issues. This may include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Request the Code Enforcement Officer to issue a Cease and Desist to be in
place until the actions or list of actions can be completed and verified;
(2) Schedule a revocation hearing;
(3) Use available bond balance to complete the action or list of actions.
I. If the action or list of actions has not been completed and verified within the specified time limit and a written response has been received from the developer, owner, or applicant then the Planning Board may take 1 of the 2 following actions at a public meeting:
(1) Negotiate with the developer, owner, or applicant a satisfactory resolution to complete the action or list of actions and verify that the action or list of actions has been completed in a satisfactory manner.
(2) Not accept the reason stated by the developer, owner, or applicant in their written response and proceed with a final action such a those listed in Paragraph H above.
J. If the developer, owner, or applicant is present at a scheduled Planning Board public hearing, and the hearing is postponed or canceled, the Planning Board will take no further action until such time as the public hearing meeting is held. The appeal and response period will also be extended to the date the public hearing meeting is held.
The purpose of these changes to the Rules of Procedure is to add an appeal procedure for applicants to respond to Planning Board Administrative decisions.
NOTE: ~ 225-8. Amendments., states that these rules may be amended by majority vote of the members of the Board, provided that such amendments are read at two successive meetings and immediately precede the vote to be taken.
DISCUSSION: M. Curran asked why extensions of the appeal process should be granted if there is no action by the applicant by a certain deadline, regardless of whether or not there is a meeting of the Board.
T. Moore replied that is was because any action that would be decided by the Board would have to be at a public hearing forum.
M. Curran suggested that didn’t mean that they had to give additional time to the applicant, just take the needed action at the public hearing.
M. Dorman asked if the Board was going to dig their heels in and stop a project that might not have been started before the deadline but did start before a postponed public meeting.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the changes to the wording of §225-6 of the Site Plan Regulations as amended. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
OTHER BUSINESS – 24 Old Road
T. Moore read a letter from Vlasios Danos requesting that the residential dwelling at 24 Old Road be able to be rented (residentially) until construction on the commercial site begins.
M. Curran noted that the approved site plan called for that building to be for office use only and there could be no one living there.
M. Dorman added that a variance would be required to permit a residential use in the CI district.
L. Komornick offered that she had been asked by Mr. Danos to inquire as to what kind of grace period could be offered if the Board decided not to allow the use.
T. Moore stated that a letter should be sent to Mr. Danos noting that residential use is not permitted in the CI district.
L. Komornick reiterated her question as to when the tenants would have to be out of the building.
M. Curran suggested that the Board cannot answer that question since there isn’t supposed to be anyone living there at all.
There was additional discussion of the matter. It was consensus that if Mr. Danos wanted to residentially-use the building he would have to pursue a variance application to do so as the site plan called for office use only.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran to adjourn the meeting to a non-public session at 9:58 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3.II (a) – Personnel.
Roll Call Vote: T. Moore – yes
R. Zukas – yes
N. Morin – yes
M. Curran – yes
T. Moore noted that this would adjourn the public portion of the meeting and the Board would not be coming back to order after the non-public session.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
