PLANNING BOARD
April 18, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman (left 8:03pm); Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:56 p.m.) and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of the April 4, 2007 Meeting
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2007, meeting. R. Zukas noted a typographical error on the first page of the minutes. The vote was 3-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
Discussion with Dan Johnson re: Brandy Brow Site Plan for Parking Cars for Sale
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the discussion. He explained that Brandy Brow had come before the Board a few years previous for a lot line adjustment and would now like to merge two lots and relocate their used car sales to in front of the abandoned storefront, using that building for the used car sales office. Mr. Johnson noted that his question was how extensive the Board wanted the site plan to be for this use. He offered that he was hoping that he could do a plan that would only show the areas being changed, adding that eventually, once property line issues were resolved, they would be coming in with a revised site plan for the entire site.
M. Curran asked if there was anything current in the files and suggested this would be an opportunity to get something current in the files.
There was discussion on what future changes, such as the relocation or the construction of a new building on the site and what the time line might be for such a change.
D. Johnson offered that there were some questions with the property line survey that needed to be resolved before any other changes to the site were decided. He added that the dispute was over lines on the other side of the property, not that portion that he was asking the Board to look at for parking the vehicles for sale.
M. Dorman noted that he thought that Brandy Brow had permission for +/- thirty (30) vehicles in front of the junk yard.
M. Curran suggested that the store may be too close to the road to be able to display that many cars.
R. Zukas questioned where the customer parking was proposed to be located and where the loading and unloading of vehicles would be.
M. Curran reiterated her suggestion that this would be a good opportunity to get a plan in place for the site.
There was a discussion of the proposal that D. Johnson was making.
D. Johnson noted what areas would be paved, adding that since there were cars moving in and out of the site all the time the site was constantly changing.
T. Moore questioned if it was all one lot.
D. Johnson reminded that the lot line adjustment made the property all one lot. He again asked how much of a plan the Board would need to permit them to use the store front area for use car sales.
R. Zukas suggested that the proposed handicapped parking was located too far away from the proposed sales office.
M. Curran asked if there was a Pictometry picture available.
M. Dorman replied the he could make one available.
There was additional discussion on how detailed a plan would have to be in order to allow the use of the store front and that area of the site.
M. Curran noted that the Board had been consistently asking for full plans when there were no plans on file. She added that it was her suggestion that there be a whole plan submitted in this case.
D. Johnson reiterated that there were issues with unrelated property lines that made a site plan of the whole property difficult to do at this time. He asked if there was a plan that the Board could use to allow the store front to be used until the issues could be resolved.
R. Zukas expressed concern about the closeness of the building to the road and questioned how useful it would be if there was no room to park cars.
T. Moore suggested that any plan submitted needed to clearly show how traffic flow and parking would work not only for the used car sales area, but for the junk yard as well to make sure there are no conflicts between the two.
There was discussion regarding the potential parking on the site.
M. Curran asked if the used cars sales on this location would be an additional business to the used car sales on the existing salvage yard, reminding that there was a 1,000 foot separation mandated in zoning.
L. Komornick informed that there was a copy of an old salvage yard license in the planning file issued by the town that limited the number of used vehicles for sale to ten (10).
M. Dorman noted that it (the used car sales) would be associated with Brandy Brow and not a separate business.
D. Johnson confirmed that it would all be part of the same business and under Brandy Brow.
R. Zukas asked how many vehicles for sale were being proposed to be located on the site.
T. Moore offered that it would have to be under the same restrictions as the existing license and the sales would be run from the storefront and not from the salvage yard.
D. Johnson added that this was part of the effort to clean up the site more.
M. Dorman noted that they were willing to pave as well. He asked if using a different name for the used car sales would be a problem as long as the number of cars didn’t change.
There was discussion regarding traffic flow, emergency access and parking locations related to the proposed changes.
M. Curran expressed concern over changing a precedent and not taking advantage of an opportunity to get an updated site plan for the file. She added the Board had been burned in the past saying they were only working on one corner of the site and the whole site being affected.
D. Johnson noted that they were trying to clean up the site as much as they could until the boundary line issues can be resolved.
T. Moore suggested that it was important to work towards a complete site plan that is recordable. He added that a plan could be submitted that showed the entire site and indicate where the boundary issues are still being worked out, but would show how the whole site would work (traffic, access, egress) in the meanwhile.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:56 pm
D. Johnson noted there was quite a bit of storage in the Haverhill portion of the site.
M. Curran reminded that the business portion that is operating in Haverhill is being accessed through Plaistow and therefore was a concern of the Planning Board. She agreed with T. Moore that it was important to see a site plan that indicated how the whole site functioned and work towards a recordable site plan.
T. Moore reiterated that it was important to see the whole site on the plan despite the fact that it could not be recorded until all the boundary disputes are resolved.
There was a discussion regarding driveway access and whether or not NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) would allow the existing driveways.
D. Johnson noted that NHDOT was closing some driveways.
The discussion was closed.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application fir the redevelopment if a site located at 79 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 located in the CI Zone. The purpose of teh plan is to show the replacement of the existing building (Dandilyons Ice Cream and Flower Shop) with a new 1,800 square foot building to be used for a coffee shop. The total parcel acreage is +/- 35,500 square feet and had +/- 213 feer of frontage. The owner of record is Scamps, Inc.
T. Moore noted that a written request to continue was received and the hearing was continued to May 2, 2007.
A Preliminary Design Review application by Fairway Oaks, LLC who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 6 with a portion of Taxa Map 65, Lot 2, and Tax Map 58, Lot 4 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 44 unit senior housing complex. Access to this complex will be through the extention of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow with and emergency access through a roadway in Haverhill, MA that currently serves the existing senior housing development owned by Fairway Oaks, LLC and which abuts this property. The totage acreage is 22.7 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
Gerald Coogan, Planning and Development Consultant for Fairway Oaks; Steve Dougherty, Principle Partner for Fairway Oaks, LLC; and Philip Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi, Inc. were present for the hearing.
G. Coogan introduced the people who would be speaking to the Board. He reminded that they were at the meeting for a Preliminary Design Review hearing to share information on 55+ housing, get input from the Board on their conceptual design, as well as identify where there may be issues. Mr. Coogan noted that they had been working with staff regarding concerns of the former plan.
S. Doherty gave a brief history of the project and the number of plans that had been reviewed over a four-year period. He noted they had multiple discussions with staff, police and fire departments regarding access and services for the project. Mr. Doherty discussed the lay out of the property and how they had acquired more land to change the access for the formerly land-locked parcel to be through Plaistow. He talked about the number of versions that the project had taken based upon the ordinances in place at the time of each plan. Mr. Doherty showed a conceptual layout of the community they would be proposing and noted that he felt it would be a workable plan for both the Town and the developer.
G. Coogan recalled that one of the concerns that were voiced with the former plans was the impact to the school system. He passed out copies of the condominium documents that are in place for the existing Fairway Oaks community that is currently located in Haverhill. He highlighted the portions of the documents regarding who can live in the community. Mr. Coogan distributed a second handout that addressed another concern that had been voiced with previous projects, that of an increase in emergency services, by providing statistical information from other 55+ communities. He also discussed the financial revenue that the Town will receive from the community with a reported little to no increase in services, noting that the roads were intended to be private and there would be no school aged children.
T. Moore thanked Mr. Coogan for the information that he provided and noted that the members would need time to review and digest the data.
R. Zukas noted the information Mr. Coogan provided was for three-bedroom units and reminded that Plaistow only allowed for two-bedroom, two-bathroom units.
P. Christiansen gave a presentation of the more technical aspects of the project, noting the following:
- 44 two-bedroom units
- Two-car garages with an additional two-car parking in the driveway
- 15 units of parking at the club house
- 1800 sq. ft. living space in the units
- 1520 sq. ft. for the club house
- 1500 feet of gated (at the Haverhill end) roadway
- Roadways built to Plaistow specifications
- 50 foot buffer around the project
- The plan meets open space requirements
- Served by septics and a community well system
- Pictures of what a typical unit (taken from a project in Londonderry) may look like were shown
L. Komornick asked how much tree clearing there would be.
P. Christiansen replied that in order to build the project approximately 15 of the 22 acres would be cleared. He located the area to be cleared on the plan and noted that it would be selectively cut to retain the good trees.
M. Curran suggested that they may want to take another look at the wetlands ordinance and make sure that they were in full compliance with the ordinance.
T. Moore asked if there were floor plans available.
P. Christiansen stated that he did not have them with him at this meeting but offered to provide them.
T. Moore noted that he would like to know if there were large open areas that were designated as storage but could potentially be converted to living space.
M. Curran reminded that the units would have to be built to as to be able to be modified for ADA accessibility if needed in the future. She added that she also had concerns about the gated access, since emergency services departments had not been in favor of them in the past.
P. Christiansen noted that the roadway was intended to remain private and the association would be paying for the maintenance of the roadway. He noted that if it were to become public there would be right-of-way issues that would impact the project.
T. Moore noted that was why it was required that all roadways be built to Town specifications.
There was a brief discussion as to how wide the roadway would need to be.
M. Curran asked if there were any waiver (or variance) requests anticipated.
P. Christiansen noted that they would be looking for one for the proposed RV (recreational vehicle) parking lot, planned to be located in the 50 foot perimeter buffer.
M. Curran expressed doubt that the wetlands setback would be met under the current ordinances.
Lola Gani, 14 Country Club Lane, asked to be shown on the map where this project was located in proximity to her parcel. She was shown on the map.
There was discussion regarding the location of the cul-de-sac that connected the proposed project to Hillcrest Avenue.
T. Moore asked if the roadway would cross wetlands.
P. Christiansen indicated that it would.
T. Moore noted they would have to file for all the proper permits for that to happen.
John Kelly, 8 Hillcrest Ave, asked if the road would come straight off Hillcrest Ave.
S. Doherty informed that they would be adding a cul-de-sac to the end of Hillcrest Ave and the new roadway would be built off that.
L. Komornick asked if the condo documents provided would be good in New Hampshire, since they were written for Massachusetts.
S. Doherty offered that they could be reviewed by the Board’s attorney for compliance with the State and the Town.
L. Komornick questioned if they were the same as what were being used in Londonderry.
S. Doherty said that they were similar. He noted that there were protections in the documents that kept the community as 55+ by requiring that at least one occupant, as opposed to owner, but over 55. He explained what happened in the event of the death of the 55+ occupant and how children were restricted to staying on the property for no more than three months in any nine-month period. Mr. Doherty noted that the enforcement was in the form of the submission of affidavits that confirmed that the covenants were being followed. Different living scenarios and what protections were in place were discussed.
L. Gani asked what the traffic impact of Hillcrest would be. She noted that even though she didn’t live there she had concern for the children on the street.
S. Doherty reiterated that there was intended to be forty-four (44) units, but suggested that it would be a low impact as this would not be a through way and only those with reason to be there would be driving down Hillcrest.
M. Curran reminded that Hillcrest was already in poor condition and was a substandard road.
L. Komornick noted that it had been accepted as a Town road and there was some drainage work done to the road.
M. Curran suggested that there was the potential for as many as eighty-eight (88) cars going back and forth each day and that it was bound to have an impact on the roadway.
There was additional discussion on the condition of Hillcrest and it was noted that roadway improvements to Hillcrest Ave may be required as part of this project and that there would probably be a lot of damage to the road in the process of building the project. It was noted that there would be a bond held for the road to insure that the Town property is protected.
There was discussion as to why there was a cul-de-sac and what other alternatives may be possible. It was noted that since the roadway in the community was intended to be private there would be no town services and providing a cul-de-sac gave room for trash truck, school busses, and the town’s plows to turn around.
L. Gani expressed concern that the snow would be plowed into the wetlands.
P. Christiansen assured that they would have to meet storm water management regulations.
G. Coogan listed the concerns that had been voiced at this meeting as follows:
- Wetlands ordinance compliance
- Request for floor plans of the proposed units
- Ability to be converted to meet ADA requirements
- Whether or not the road would be private and how wide it would be
- Whether or not there should be a gated access from the Haverhill end
G. Coogan said that they would like to get a detailed plan submitted as soon as possible to be submitted for engineering review.
There was a brief discussion on the gating issue. It was noted that residents would be provided with remote control devices to open and close the gate and that such a device could also be provided for Fire and Police access. It was also noted that input from Police and Fire on the issue would be beneficial.
M. Curran asked if the City of Haverhill would be notified for the public hearing on the final site plan.
L. Komornick confirmed that they would be.
T. Moore closed the preliminary design review hearing.
The chairman called for a break at 7:53 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:03 p.m.
T. Moore noted that S. Ranlett was recusing himself from the public hearing on the Chandler Ave Elderly Housing community and had left the meeting.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for a 41 Unit Elderly Housing Complex to be located in the CI 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.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering Inc. was present for the hearing. He explained that since the last meeting there had been some changes to the design, elimination of the laundry room and the addition of one more unit, so it had been decided to legally re-notify and re-advertise the public hearing so all abutters received a new certified mailing.
R. Pica explained the plan, noting it had been seen by the Board a number of times before. He noted the following features:
- Three buildings with a total of 41 units
- Two of the buildings would be 2-story
- There is a walkway all the way around each building
- Sidewalk from the community entrance to Route 125
- Crosswalks over every driveway
- Septic systems and leaching fields (no longer in the well radii)
- Shed and dumpster locations
- Pump house
- Fire suppression line and hydrant location
R. Pica noted that the Fire Chief requested a 12” fire suppression line tie into Route 125 and that was now noted on the site plan. He added that it was still being discussed whether or not the line into the project would be 8” OR 12” pipe, but the lines into the units would be 6”. R. Pica explained that this was a fire suppression line and would not be mixed with the domestic water.
R. Pica continued to explain the plan, noting the following:
- Location of retaining walls
- Delineation of wetlands, including a brook that was previously not noted on the site plan
- Three wells and the radii for each
R. Pica noted that there were five wells, two that were not going to be used and one would be sealed per the State’s regulations. He offered that they had addressed the first set of comments from CLD, most of which were drainage issues and that all issues of the Police, Fire and Highway Departments had been addressed as well.
M. Dorman asked if R. Pica was meeting with Dan Garlington (Plaistow Highway Supervisor) on the site.
R. Pica confirmed that he would be to review the side walk plan as well as the trimming of the trees for sight distance. He added that there was a utility plan but that sometime changes are made to that in the field.
M. Curran questioned if the utility changes were on the site or the street. It was confirmed that the changes would be on the site if any changes needed to happen.
R. Zukas said that he assumed Dig Safe would be consulted for utility location.
R. Pica assured that they would but noted that they didn’t always have the location of town drainage.
M. Curran noted that anything to do with the fire suppression line should be okayed with the Fire Chief. She asked R. Pica what kind of field changes he was anticipating.
R. Pica said that he wasn’t looking for any but was always prepared for the possibility.
There was a discussion regarding the waterline location.
R. Pica noted that any of the units that have stairs will meet ADA accessibility requirements with the installation of a chair lift and room has been provided so that one can be installed.
M. Curran asked what about a ramp.
R. Pica answered that some of the units could not be made accessible with a ramp as there wasn’t room for one. He added that he had expressly asked if chair lifts were acceptable as a means to meet the requirements when the new ordinance was being crafted.
M. Curran stated that people couldn’t be forced to go with a chair lift and that it wasn’t with keeping to the intent of the ordinance, which was to make these units easily ADA accessible.
R. Pica suggested that the price for a chair lift wasn’t much more than for a ramp and the only way to handle the accessibility issue with some of the units was with a chair lift.
M. Curran expressed concern with the design if it included outside chair lifts, adding that she didn’t think it was in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance.
R. Pica reminded that he was explicit in requesting that a chair lift would meet the ADA requirements when the ordinance was being discussed.
R. Zukas recalled a discussion regarding the units that had ground access on the back side.
There was lengthy discussion regarding whether or not a chair lift could be used to meet the ADA accessibility requirement of the ordinance. Minutes from the meeting the R. Pica was talking about were reviewed. M. Curran suggest that the minutes (from the meeting of the meeting where revisions to the ordinance were discussed) did not indicate a lengthy lengthy discussion on whether or not a life would be acceptable. Costs of a ramp versus an outside lift were discussed as well as whether or not a chair lift was consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
M. Curran was adamant that a chair lift was not in compliance with the intention of the ordinance as she understood it to be, which was that the units had to be easily converted to accessible, adding that she didn’t think it was fair to put the financial burden of a chair lift on an elderly person. She also noted that a chair lift was an undue financial burden in the case of someone who might only need a ramp on a temporary basis. M. Curran noted that there were not only installation costs associated with a chair lift, but maintenance of the lift and increases in electrical bills as well. These cost wouldn’t be the same with a ramp. She was frustrated that the affordability aspect for the elderly residents of Plaistow who wanted to stay in town was getting lost in the project. M. Curran suggested,
since the project had not yet been built, it could be redesigned so that all units could be made to comply to the ADA requirements with a ramp. She added that a ramp would always be preferable.
R. Pica offered that he had expressly asked the Board as part of the discussion on the new ordinance whether or not a chair lift would be acceptable for the ordinance. He offered that they could install a concrete slab and the electrical infrastructure associated with a chair lift as part of the construction. R. Pica reminded that need for ADA compliance wasn’t an inevitable need for everyone that would be living in this community and that the ordinance only mandates that the unit had to be constructed in such a way to be modified for accessibility without recontruction of the building. He noted that it was only 18 of the 41 units that could not be ADA compliant with a ramp and needed a chair lift. He added that the aesthetics of a chair lift over a ramp would probably be favorable to many of the residents.
R. Pica suggested that there could be an escrow put aside for installation and maintenance costs of the chair lifts or inclusion on home owner association fees.
M. Curran said that she didn’t think it was fair to place the burden of the costs associated with a chair lift for one unit on the home owners association.
R. Pica noted that if the project were built as one building there would be an elevator the costs would be shared by the entire building, including those on the first floor who wouldn’t use it.
Henry Shea, 18 Main Street, asked if the project could be restricted from handicapped residents living there.
M. Curran replied that they could absolutely not, but she felt they were being restricted by not having ramp access.
R. Zukas suggested that someone with handicapped accessibility concerns could buy one of the units that could have a ramp.
M. Curran asked what would happen if all the units were sold.
T. Moore reminded that the accessibility issue was intended to be something that could be done if the need arose. Any unit could be made accessible without redesigning the entire building or encroaching on a neighbor whether it was by a ramp or a lift.
There was continued back and forth discussion regarding a ramp versus a chair lift to make a unit ADA compliant.
M. Curran strongly suggested that since the project had not yet been built it could be re-designed so that all the units could have ramps if needed. She added that residents would be stranded in the event of a power outage.
R. Pica replied that due to slopes it would be impossible to design the project with all ramps. He added that in order for the living spaces to be at least 50% above grade this is how the design worked best. R. Pica also noted that chair lifts could be equipped with a battery back up for when there is a loss of power. He offered to provide the Board with specifications on power usage and construction design.
M. Curran reiterated that she didn’t think that a chair lift was in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and that she would like to get a legal opinion on the matter. She expressed frustration that the ordinance did not meet the intent of an affordable place for Plaistow residents to live in their elder years, stating that she felt the ordinance bent too far the other way from the ordinance that was in place. M. Curran added that other developers had designed their projects as one-level buildings for accessibility.
L. Komornick advised that building on one level was not required in the ordinance.
There was additional discussion regarding the accessibility issue and whether or not the new ordinance met the intention that the Board was seeking to achieve by way of elderly housing. The possibility of splitting the ordinance into two separate ordinances, one for 55+ housing and one for a more strict affordable elderly housing was discussed. It was noted that change could not happen without a vote of the town at either Town Meeting next March (2008) or by a special Town Meeting.
There was again discussion regarding the chair lift versus a ramp and whether or not it met the requirements as intended, as well as discussion on the need to make changes to the new ordinance to protect the intent.
R. Pica noted that this was the same plan that had been presented to the Board even prior to the change in the ordinance.
M. Curran asked if the platforms on the steps were ADA compliant.
R. Pica answered that they were. He reiterated that the ramps would not be as aesthetically pleasing as the chair lifts would be on the units.
M. Curran expressed concern that aesthetics were being considered over affordability and accessibility. She reminded that these are fire exits and there was a concern with them being on the second level. M. Curran suggested that some developers were taking advantage of the way the ordinance was written to get the density they wanted but not the considering the intention that it was written for. She said that it was important that the Board be very careful with these test cases since this would be the only time they would have complete control over the plan.
Dan Poliquin, 126 Main Street, offered that he agreed that the fact that the project is not yet constructed meant that changes could be made to accommodate ramps instead of chair lifts, the grades could be changed and buildings redesigned so that the costs for some units to be ADA accessible are not borne by all in the home owners association. He added that it was not the intent of an affordable 55+ housing community.
T. Moore noted that anything that was in the condo documents would be known to all buyers prior to purchase.
D. Poliquin agreed that there was the choice whether or not to buy a unit, but the design of these units took away the choice for there to be a less expensive ramp installed.
R. Pica reiterated that an elevator in a multistory building was paid for by all in the building including those on the first floor. He reminded that it was 18 units out of 41 that needed a chair lift versus a ramp for ADA accessibility.
D. Poliquin reiterated that he felt that the chair lifts made the units less affordable to the elderly.
R. Pica offered that the 15% designated affordable units be those that would be able to have ramps or have direct access. He added that he couldn’t do this design any better with out making it one building with a long corridor and an elevator.
M. Curran said that she would find that design preferable to one that would call for outside chair lifts. She asked if the proposed plan met all other requirements, including open space.
R. Pica replied that the plan did and they have received all the variances for where things didn’t meet the ordinances.
M. Curran asked if the building was less than the 45 feet height requirement.
R. Pica answered that it wasn’t even close to 45 feet.
R. Zukas questioned why there wasn’t a more recent letter from the Police Chief regarding 41 units on Chandler Ave when he had many issues with 30 units on Sweet Hill Road. He requested that the Police Chief be requested to submit an updated letter and explain the difference between the impacts of the two projects.
John McHugh, 21 Chandler Ave, expressed concern over the location of the driveway and the visibility for traffic turning in and out.
R. Pica noted that the plan met all required site distances and that there was no other location for the driveway with consideration of the wetlands and the grades on the road. He suggested that additional cautionary signage could be installed on the roadway.
R. Zukas asked if it could be a three-way stop there.
M. Curran responded that would be up to the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
J. McHugh stated that he thought it was too dangerous a location for a three-way stop.
M. Curran asked if the plan met the wetlands ordinance.
R. Pica said that it did with the exception of the driveway and he had already received a variance.
M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, to not accept jurisdiction over this plan and recommend that the developer come back with a plan that better shows the units as easily ADA accessible.
R. Zukas suggested that the Board hold off and seek legal advice as to whether or not it meets the requirement.
M. Curran said that she didn’t want to start the time clock, the Board can still consult with legal counsel and Mr. Pica could decide whether or not he wanted to re-examine his design based upon the discussion.
R. Zukas asked for confirmation that the intent of the motion was to give time to seek legal advice by not taking jurisdiction.
M. Curran confirmed that it was as well as to get additional information from Police and Fire Departments. She added that it might not be doing the Town justice by cramming this many units on this site.
R. Zukas asked if there had been a traffic study done.
R. Pica answered that there had not been.
L. Komornick asked if the Board was officially requesting one. She cautioned the Board that the application met all the technical requirements for a complete application.
R. Pica asked where it left his application if the Board didn’t accept jurisdiction.
L. Komornick said that there would be room for R. Pica to contest that he submitted a complete application that the Board did not accept.
R. Pica said that he would rather continue the hearing and gather the information that the Board was looking for with reference to the chair lift.
M. Curran withdrew her motion and B. Weymouth withdrew his second.
M. Curran said that she didn’t have a problem with continuing the hearing to gather more information.
R. Zukas added that he would like to see a traffic study and an updated letter from the Police Chief.
M. Curran asked if all the units were two-bedroom.
R. Pica replied that they were.
L. Komornick pointed out that the Fairway Oaks project did not include any affordable units. She read from the ordinance noting that the 15% affordability was not stated as a mandate, just gave a density bonus.
M. Curran said that it was another example of how the ordinance changed too much in the other direction.
T. Moore added that it was always the intent of the ordinance that the 15% be a mandate.
There was a discussion regarding whether or not the 15% affordability was intended to be a mandate. It was noted that the rental units were never intended to be a mandate but the affordability was.
Elizabeth George, 12 Chandler Ave, noted that other projects had more than one access point and asked if that would be required of this project.
T. Moore explained that the requirement was that if a roadway can be connected to an existing roadway then it shall be connected and how that wasn’t the case with an elderly housing community. He noted that if there was a roadway that ran parallel to Chandler Ave then they may have been required to connect.
H. Shea noted that there was a road of record that was parallel to Chandler.
It was noted that it was a paper road that was now part of private property. There was a discussion regarding the paper road and the need to officially discontinue it. M. Curran requested that L. Komornick research the status of the road.
T. Moore noted that there needed to be a note on the site plan regarding the mowing and maintenance of the roadside for visibility.
M. Dorman reminded that there is a landscaping plan.
R. Pica added that there was a sight distance plan and a note that it needs to remain clear.
H. Shea noted that there were two more brooks other than the one located on the plan.
R. Pica said that the property had been surveyed and the brook located. He said that he would ask them to go out again and look for the brooks that Mr. Shea mentioned.
L. Komornick inquired who the surveyors were.
R. Pica replied that it was James Lavelle Associates.
L. Komornick asked who the soil scientist was that designated the wetlands.
R. Pica answered that it was Tim Ferwerda.
R. Pica asked if the Board wanted to discuss the waivers that he would be requesting at this time or at the next hearing.
It was consensus that it would be best at the next meeting.
B. Weymouth suggested that the plan be further reviewed to see if there was a way to avoid the lifts.
R. Pica reiterated that there was no way to make the units ADA modifiable without the lifts and that was why he asked about them while the ordinance was being amended.
M. Curran said that the Board had heard Mr. Pica “loud and clear” that he didn’t want to look at other options. She reminded that this was a test case of the new ordinance and she wanted to make sure that everything was done in the best interests of the Town.
R. Pica said that he would get the information that would hopefully prove to the Board that the lifts are compliant with the ordinance.
T. Moore said they would also be looking for an emergency egress plan approved by the Fire Department.
R. Pica offered that all the windows were compliant with the 5.7 sq ft. opening that was required by the building code for emergency egress.
T. Moore said that they needed a separate document for emergency egress.
R. Pica asked if the Board wanted him to run it by the Fire Chief.
M. Curran said that L. Komornick would be talking to the Fire Chief.
R. Pica added that he had discussed building design and egress with M. Dorman.
H. Shea asked if the windows would be kick-out design. It was noted that they would be compliant with the code.
T. Moore stated that the public hearing was continued to May 16, 2007, and that there would not be another certified mailing as this was the official notice of continuance.
M. Curran noted that there was discussion at the last BOS meeting and it was requested that all meeting agendas be posted on the Plaistow website so people will know when matters they are interested in will be happening.
T. Moore added that those who cannot make a meeting are always welcome to write a letter to the Board.
L. Komornick asked if there would be selective or clear cutting of trees.
R. Pica noted that it was the intent that as much of the property remains as natural as possible. He added that there would have to be some clear cutting and that there was a full landscaping plan.
Other Business
L. Komornick noted that teh Town of Plaistow MasterPlan noted the need to provide a variety of housing opportunities.
M. Curran stated that there was supposed to be some affordability.
L. Komornick noted that the word “affordability” is not included and there was no wording that mandated affordability. She reminded that the question was not brought up at all with the Fairway Oaks discussion and that she didn’t think that affordability was even on their radar.
M. Curran stated that their plan should then be considered as a PRD (Planned Residential Development).
L. Komornick reminded that this was a 55+ housing project with no children and no impact on services.
M. Curran said that the changes in the ordinance were intended to be a happy medium between what was on the books and what the developers wanted the Town to allow. She added that until everything was clear it was up to the discretion of the Board as long as they were consistent with the interpretation.
L. Komornick offered that it needed to be made clear to all the developers what the interpretation is. She reminded that all the developers with plans before the Board tonight were part of the process to develop the new ordinance and were present for all the public hearings. She cautioned that there should no ulterior motives ascribed to any of the applicants or that there is any mal-intent. L. Komornick said that all the developers had been in discussion with staff and were acting on the best interpretation of the ordinance that they could offer. She added that there was no discussion that defined “easily accessible.” L. Komornick suggested that if the Board didn’t want development then they should be considering a growth control ordinance.
There was additional discussion regarding what needed to be done with the Elderly Housing Ordinance and how quickly any changes could be made.
L. Komornick cautioned against accusing any applicant of trying to bend the ordinance, adding that the applicant did not come in thinking this was even an issue.
M. Curran reiterated that it was an un-built plan and that she felt accommodations could be made to change the design.
L. Komornick noted that staff are the ones to meet with the developers day in and out and it was important for them to know how the Board was interpreting things.
R. Zukas suggested it was important to break this ordinance out for 55+ housing and affordable elderly housing.
M. Curran offered decisions on waivers and being consistent unless and until there are changes to the ordinance will be very important.
Other Business – M. Dorman’s FYI list
Shaw’s Plaza – employees are not parking out back as was proposed as part of plan
Pentucket Plaza – detention pond not being maintained free of trash and other debris
Dalton Street Condos – Banner, no permit
M. Dorman will be addressing these issues with either a phone call and/or letter.
Davey Site (69-71 Plaistow Road) – Mr. Davey is 3 days into site work construction.
L. Komornick reported that the Dalton Street Condos were unable to obtain State Subdivision approval due to issues with water supply approval and they were now being rented again.
L. Komornick added that Cottage Plaza (93 Plaistow Road) had reverted back to two condo units instead of all separate condo units.
M. Curran requested that a letter be sent to Brandy Brow notifying them that they are limited to ten (10) vehicles.
M. Dorman offered an apology for missing the ten car number and noted that it had been missed for many years even when the inspections were being done with the Board of Selectmen.
L. Komornick noted that they would have to go to the BOS to get the permit amended.
Other Business
R. Zukas asked if anything had come of Kristen Lewis-Savage’s email that suggested there be a Budget Committee representative on the Planning Board.
M. Curran noted that the number of times that a matter comes before the Board that would affect the budget process is so few that it would not justify a full-time appointment. She added that with respect to the questions raised with the Brown site it was explained that Mr. Brown currently has an approved plan and could build the road this weekend if he wanted to as long as he did it according to that plan.
L. Komornick added that if he was doing anything that was contrary to the plan that he was submitting he would have to make it fit together with the new plan.
R. Zukas offered that it only appeared that he was grading the site and making it look better.
L. Komornick expressed a concern that Mr. Brown had been in the office and bouncing ideas around regarding the road and appeared to be under the impression that the road that was part of the original plan was what the Board wanted and that road is a twenty-two foot road with sidewalks to match with Ridgewood Road, not a twenty-four foot road as in the regulations.
M. Curran stressed that it was important that all projects are treated consistently.
There was a discussion regarding staff and day-to-day discussion with developers.
Other Business – Rockingham Church request for bond reduction
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to deny the request from the Rockingham Church for a bond reduction.
L. Komornick noted that this was the scenario that the Board’s attorney’s warned could happen. She added that the site work for this project was nearly complete.
M. Curran asked if there was a letter from the engineer as was customary.
L. Komornick replied that this was not a reduction request based on work completed but upon the new regulation that allowed for 10% bonds. She added under the new regulation the bond would have been approximately $17,000 from the start.
There was additional discussion regarding the impact of granting the request. It was noted that the other active sites were all at 10% bonding and there were no other sites in the same situation as the Rockingham Church.
R. Zukas withdrew his motion. M. Curran withdrew her second.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the request for a bond reduction from the Rockingham Church. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Stateline Plaza
M. Curran expressed concern that staff was out at the site dealing with a runoff situation that should have been handled by the developer.
M. Dorman explained that it was an extraordinary circumstance in that the siltation control let go after five inches of rain. He said that they were working out there for less than an hour and it was dealing with one of the Town’s culverts. M. Dorman added that it was more evidence that the Board should be considering including a silt sock in the regulation as silt fencing doesn’t work well.
L. Komornick added that CLD did not catch the fencing as an issue on a recent inspection either so everyone was caught off guard with it.
M. Dorman noted that where it broke out was not where it would have been expected to break out.
There was discussion regarding the silt sock versus silt fencing.
Other Business – 176 Plaistow Road
L. Komornick reported that she had received a call regarding the possibility of putting a hair salon at 176 Plaistow Road. She added that they were asked to bring in supportive calculations regarding parking and septic. L. Komornick asked if the Board wanted to talk to them as well.
M. Dorman added they would still have to get a State approved septic design.
M. Curran asked what the traffic impact would be.
M. Dorman suggested that it would be minimal since there were only four chairs planned for the salon.
R. Zukas agreed noting there would eventually be a median in front of the property on Route 125. He added it was a big building for a four-chair salon.
M. Dorman noted there would still be offices on the second floor.
M. Curran said there was no issue if they met the requirements.
L. Komornick said they would let the Board know if there were any issues identified.
M. Dorman explained the he had been taking each project on a case by case basis and picking those uses that needed to be sent to the Board. He noted that if he didn’t see that there was a change of use then he didn’t send the applicant to the Board.
M. Curran asked what the difference was between a dance studio and karate studio.
M. Dorman said that he wasn’t sure that there was one.
M. Curran questioned why M. Dorman would request that she bring a minor site plan update to the Board before he would give an occupancy permit when she was replacing a karate studio with a dance studio in her building.
M. Dorman said that he couldn’t recall the exact circumstances at the time since it was five (5) years ago but he would suspect that it had to do with there not being a site plan on file for the location, as was suggested for Brandy Brow this meeting.
M. Curran left the meeting declining to discuss the issue further.
B. Weymouth moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at10:42 p.m. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
