PLANNING BOARD
May 2, 2007 – Joint Meeting with Board of Selectmen
The meeting was called to order at 6:34 p.m.
Roll Call (Planning Board): Tim Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman (left 9:50 pm); Robert Zukas; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Barry Weymouth was excused.
Roll Call (Board of Selectmen): Michelle Curran, Chairman, Lawrence Gil, Vice-Chairman; John Sherman; Charles Blinn (arroved 6:50); and Daniel Poliquin.
Also present: Jason Hoch, Town Manager and Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator.
Minutes of the April 18, 2007 Meeting
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2007, meeting.
There was discussion regarding a number of changes in the minutes suggested by M. Curran. It was decided that the minutes would be postponed to the next meeting so that the changes could be incorporated. The motion and the second were withdrawn.
Discussion with (potential new owners) about use of the building at 31 Main Street for use as combined Real Estate/Counseling Offices.
Sue Fyfe, Remax Alliance Real Estate, was present for the discussion. She explained that she was in the process of purchasing the property located at 31 Main Street to use for her real estate business. Ms. Fyfe noted there would be sixteen (16) part time agents with no more than four (4) in the office at one time, with the exception of a once a month meeting that all would attend.
R. Zukas asked how many parking spaces there were.
S. Fyfe responded that there were twenty-four (24).
L. Komornick added that they were not doing anything with the outside of the building, just filling in offices. She noted there was no site plan on file in the Planning Office.
M. Curran offered that to be consistent with what had been asked of other commercial sites when there was no site plan on file that an as-built plan is done so there would be something in the Planning Office files.
S. Ranlett suggested a minor site plan revision.
L. Komornick noted this was not an appropriate application for the minor site plan review process.
R. Zukas asked if there were any septic issues.
L. Komornick replied the septic was still under review.
S. Fyfe added that they planned to fix up the building.
M. Curran noted that if there was a septic issue identified than the discussion should come back to the Board.
There was consensus that an as-built plan should be submitted for the site.
Tentative --- Discussion with about selling wood flowers at Conte site
L. Komornick explained that a gentleman had come into the office to request permission to set up to sell wooden roses on the Conte property on Route 125. She noted that he was asked to get permission from the property owner. L. Komornick added that he was intending to sell for Mother’s Day and since he had not contacted the office again it was assumed that he had decided not to go forward.
Discussion with Peg (Marcelonis) regarding picnic tables at the Stillwell’s Ice Cream site
L. Komornick explained that she had spoken with Ron Pica regarding the site. She said that R. Pica had explained to her that the picnic tables were considered seasonal and did not affect the septic calculations. She added that there could be issues with the placement of the tables and the proximity of them to Route 125.
M. Curran asked if the property owner had been contacted regarding the picnic tables and their location.
L. Komornick replied that she had insisted to Ms. Marcelonis that the property owner be involved in the decision of the placement of any picnic tables, particularly since there was talk about placing a fence around the tables.
R. Zukas noted there was not much grass between the building and Route 125.
C. Blinn arrived at 6:50 p.m.
Requested Meeting with the Board of Selectmen (BOS)
T. Moore noted the presence of the members of the BOS for the purpose of discussion regarding the recently approved Elderly Housing Ordinance.
T. Moore read from prepared notes regarding the Elderly Housing Ordinance. He noted the following topics:
- Overview of the former Affordable Elderly Housing Community (AEHC) Ordinance
- Major differences between the newly adopted ordinance and the former AEHC ordinance
- Status of currently elderly housing projects including Chandler Ave, Ron Brown, Fairway Oaks and Harriman Road
- Revenues that could be associated with the new ordinance if the full capacity of units allowed under the ordinance was reached
- Costs of providing services, including trash pick-up, pubic safety (emergency services), roadways, and school-aged children.
J. Sherman noted there was no specific reference to 62+ housing in the new ordinance.
T. Moore agreed, noting that it was only given as a definition in the ordinance and nothing else was done with the 62+ designation. He added that in a different version of the ordinance there was something done with the 62+ designation, but not in this final product.
D. Poliquin asked if there was no way to preclude children living in these communities by ordinance how was it expected that the Planning Board could require it to be included in condominium documents (condo docs).
M. Curran noted that all condo docs are reviewed by Planning Board council.
D. Poliquin asked again how it could be enforced to be included in the condo docs.
S. Ranlett noted that the government did not allow for the restriction.
M. Curran added that it was a constitutional right to procreate.
L. Gil offered that it was the word “must” that implied that the restriction could be forced to be included in condo docs.
R. Zukas noted that Fairway Oaks in Haverhill had the restriction in their condo docs for the Haverhill, MA, portion of their project and it had been tested without issue.
J. Sherman noted that not all units are mandated to be condos.
M. Curran added that it was up to the developer.
J. Sherman suggested that if a community was not developed as a condo community that it would not be enforceable.
T. Moore offered that there were a large number of these types of developments already operating and he was not aware of one that had been an issue thus far.
J. Sherman questioned what the advantage was to a developer to propose elderly housing.
T. Moore answered that the only advantage was the density bonuses offered.
J. Sherman asked if the trade off to have elderly housing built in Plaistow was to allow them to be more densely built.
T. Moore confirmed, adding that there were no guarantees that full densities could be reached, as there were other provisions in the ordinance that required that septic calculations be considered as part of the density calculations. He used an example that based on simple density requirements a property may be able to have ten units, but based on the soils and what can be designed for a septic system only eight units may be built and the septic took precedent
J. Sherman asked if there were any traffic studies required.
L. Komornick noted that whether or not a traffic study was required was at the discretion of the Planning Board. She added that the developer would submit a traffic study which would then be reviewed by the Board’s engineers, who would give a written report with comments and concerns.
M. Curran added that the developer paid the Board’s engineer for the review.
L. Gil asked if there was review of the elderly housing ordinance by the Board’s counsel.
L. Komornick confirmed that there had been.
L. Gil inquired as to what kinds of comments were offered from counsel.
L. Komornick replied that other than some minor phrasing corrections there was nothing cursory to alert the Board that there were any problems with the density. She added that there had been a number of workshops with counsel regarding the ordinance as well to assemble the ordinance in a legally defensible as well as practical way that was based on the pros and cons of this type of a community.
L. Gil questioned how complete the review was and whether or not the review was just of the language or of the potential for there to be differences in interpretations. He noted that the issue of accessibility was one that could be interpreted differently.
M. Curran noted that accessibility was a great concern to her and thanked resident Dan Hooper for providing her with information regarding the Fair Housing Act (federal) which would supersede any State ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. She added that ADA covered the interior construction of a unit, but the Fair Housing Act (FHA) addressed the exterior accessibility.
J. Sherman suggested that the legal advice that was given to the Board was most likely based on what question was asked. He asked if the Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) had reviewed the ordinance.
L. Komornick replied that they had not.
J. Sherman asked if the ordinance was in line with what other towns had.
L. Komornick explained that the Town’s ordinance was similar to what was successfully operating in Londonderry.
T. Moore added that the Board had reviewed the ordinances of a half dozen similar towns.
J. Sherman inquired if there had been any conversation with other towns regarding enforcement.
L. Komornick offered that she had spoken with the Londonderry planner and the community was working wonderfully, which she added was another reason that there was no anticipation that anything would be problematic down the road. She reminded that the ordinance was enacted to provide housing for a specific age group.
L. Gil offered that he wasn’t arguing that it had been voted in. He noted that his concern was for how it could be interpreted and what issues would arise from those interpretations. L. Gil suggested that when counsel looks at an ordinance there should be as much review for potential negatives as there are positives. He added that ordinances should be crafted in such a way to limit openings for interpretations. He asked if the Planning Board could have ever conceived that they would immediately get applications that would just about fulfill the unit cap of the ordinance.
L. Komornick replied that she wasn’t sure if it could have been perceived to go this way.
J. Sherman explained that the BOS were reacting to a number of emails and personal contacts from residents with concerns over the new ordinance, as well as M. Curran reporting to the Board that the Planning Board was having trouble with some of the enforcement aspects of the ordinance and the Board’s interest in perhaps changing or rescinding the ordinance. He noted that the BOS was offering an opportunity for the Planning Board to make changes, and not have to wait until the fall, with the scheduling of a special town meeting (STM).
M. Curran noted that she said at the BOS meeting that she did not speak for the Planning Board. She explained that she did have a conversation with the Planning Coordinator regarding some concerns and that this would be a trial process for the ordinance. M. Curran continued that it did come to light as part of the Fairway Oaks discussion that whether or not the ordinance language mandated affordability was unclear. She reiterated the she had said that she did not speak for the Planning Board and did not know if it would be their pleasure to schedule a STM to address some of the issues, but that based on the number of concerns expressed to her from residents, she supported providing the Planning Board with the opportunity.
L. Komornick expressed concern that this meeting was requested without any consultation with Chairman Moore. She added that the 15% affordability was something that could be leveraged with any developer as part of their plan approval process. L. Komornick continued that T. Moore worked “excruciatingly hard” on the ordinance and there were numerous public hearings held. She added that the ordinance had gone through proper legal review and that she didn’t feel bad about the process. L. Komornick added that the only reason that abutters are not happy is because it’s in their backyards.
M. Curran noted that abutters had the right to respond.
L. Komornick expressed frustration, noting that if the market were there for PRDs (Planned Residential Developments) then that would be what would be proposed. She reminded that there were issues with PRDs in the beginning as well, such as allowing Greenfield Drive to be a private road and then later petitioned to be public.
L. Gil noted that issue with the PRD was identified and what led to the rules being changed so that now all roads are to be built to town standards and be public.
L. Komornick reminded that it was the Planning Board that recognized the need and made the change regarding the road profile. She suggested that it was somewhat accusatory for one board to come to another in this fashion.
L. Gil offered that it was not intended to be accusatory but they were looking at what was in the best interests of the Town.
L. Komornick asked if the BOS had the same interests when there were problems with the PRD ordinance.
L. Gil suggested that was irrelevant to the current questions.
T. Moore reminded that there were no restrictions on density in the original ordinance and that how many units could be built was completely based on what the soils would allow. He noted that when Fairways Oaks came in with a conceptual plan based on the former ordinance they would have been able to build 106 units, where now they were proposing forty-four. T. Moore continued there was no way he would have ever anticipated this many applications as there had not been one in twelve years. He related that they knew of some of the projects out there but that it was “mind boggling” that there would be applications for over 300 units. T. Moore noted that a recent change to the State’s RSAs (August 14, 2006) locked in applications as far as protections from zoning changes as soon as they are advertised. He added that the legal notices for all four of the mentioned projects had been sent and the Board would be obligated to consider them under the ordinance as written.
D. Poliquin offered that no one was trying to attack the Board they were only responding to issues that had been brought to their attention. He added the intention was to give the Planning Board leverage and the option not to look at any more plans until the issues were resolved.
R. Zukas quoted from the new ordinance regarding affordability. He reminded that the if the new ordinance was rescinded and it reverted back to the previous ordinance then there would be no unit caps in place and developers could come in with 150 units.
D. Poliquin reminded that they would need to get HUD (Housing and Urban Development) financing.
L. Komornick added they could get a variance.
R. Zukas offered that an application for 114 units could turn into one for 200 units if the previous ordinance was returned to. He added that they Board does take into careful consideration that the concerns of the abutters. R. Zukas reminded that there would be testing of the wells and what the results turned out to be would be a big part of the approval of the plan. He reminded that the Board was not required to grant waiver requests, which offered them another way to keep any plan in check. R. Zukas questioned exactly what people wanted to see changed in the ordinance. He suggested that the discussion would not be happening if it weren’t for one project.
C. Blinn acknowledged that all that was being said made sense but they were responding to concerns of the abutters.
L. Komornick explained that she had discussed the situation with the Board’s counsel and it was advised to her that this discussion be regarding the ordinance exclusively, not about any project specifically.
M. Curran added that all four of the projects currently legally noticed had been vested and nothing would be changed for those four proposals before the Board.
L. Komornick said that was why the discussion needed to be relative to the ordinance and not a project.
J. Sherman reiterated that the key point in suggesting the meeting was that they had heard from M. Curran that the Board had concerns that there were parts of the ordinance that they would not be able to enforce.
M. Curran offered that she had no conversation with the Planning Board where it was mentioned that a STM was being requested, she added what was talked about was the possible need for revisions as part of the fall zoning update season.
J. Sherman noted that if the Planning Board felt that they wanted to make changes in the ordinance, and didn’t want to wait until fall, the Board of Selectmen wanted to provide them with the vehicle to do so.
L. Komornick suggested that a list of changes be discussed and then it could be determined if there was any immediacy about any of them.
T. Moore offered that once the Board started applying the ordinance there were some ambiguities discovered and would need to be cleared up in the ordinance. He added it needed to be carefully considered whether or not it was worthwhile to hold a STM. T. Moore suggested that more careful discussion was needed on that but the Board was locked into the current ordinance as far as working with the four projects and that he felt all the developers would be willing to work with the Board.
J. Sherman suggested that to wordsmith the current ordinance would be time consuming and may not be practical. He suggested that if there was any kind of vote it would be to rescind the current ordinance.
T. Moore noted that he didn’t want to rush into any changes that might substitute one ambiguity for another one.
The discussion turned to identifying potential areas for change listing the following:
- What the definition is of what qualifies as a reasonable accommodation regarding making a unit accessible without major interruption or loss of parking
J. Sherman offered that was the kind of change that wasn’t urgent.
- The wording of the intent of the ordinance needed to be strengthened a little so that affordability was not a suggestion but a mandate
T. Moore noted that it depended on where the pause or the comma was interjected that changed the interpretation of the statement of intent.
- Making sure that the affordable units are made available to Plaistow residents first and whether or not that would be enforceable
L. Komornick noted that she had been advised that it was illegal to restrict first residency to Plaistow residents.
There was discussion regarding residency restrictions being imposed in Haverhill as part of the Fairways Oaks project in that town. It was noted that project was in a different state where different laws would be applicable.
T. Moore noted that if a town has a housing authority some things were more enforceable.
- Enforceability of condo docs
L. Komornick noted that each project must agree to annually review and certify of terms of the condo docs including any age restrictions that might be included.
M. Curran asked who enforced that requirement.
L. Komornick said whoever the Board designated, noting it could be the BOS, the Planning Board or the Code Enforcement Officer for examples.
J. Sherman reiterated that it was the intent of the BOS to provide the Planning Board with a way to address any immediate concerns if they felt changes couldn’t wait until fall.
L. Komornick offered that they had anguished over so many aspects of the ordinance including the age issue, affordability and accessibility.
C. Blinn asked why the Board rushed into the ordinance and didn’t wait longer and have more discussion.
L. Komornick noted that this ordinance had been in discussion for two years and was not rushed into. She added that she only saw two issues that had been identified that may need further clarification from legal counsel, those being whether or not the 15% affordability could be mandated and what would be considered readily made accessible.
D. Poliquin offered that the 10% cap on the number of units needed some additional clarification.
T. Moore suggested that every ordinance on the book could be looked and someone could find an issue with them based on how they are being applied.
D. Poliquin reiterated that was why he was in favor of bringing forward the idea of a STM to give the Planning Board breathing room to work on the things that needed to be changed. He added that wordsmithing the density issue would put a hold on future projects being vested.
T. Moore reminded that there were four projects already in the process that once approved would essentially defunct the ordinance as the cap would be met.
L. Komornick added that all four projects were vested under the August 2006, change in the RSAs. She noted that changing the language in the ordinance to better tie it to assessing data had no meaning to these applications and agreed that the approval of these projects would defunct the ordinance. L. Komornick noted that the current applications exceeded the present ordinance unit cap of 288 but approximately 73, which the Board will have to decide how to deal with if not enough units are eliminated upon site plan review.
M. Curran offered that the information of the number of units in the process and the effect on the ordinance was not available previously.
T. Moore explained that if a fifth application were to come into the Planning Office they would have to be informed that the unit cap had already been met and the application could not be accepted.
There was discussion regarding the unit cap and how phasing a project or withdrawal of a project would affect the ordinance. It was again noted that once the cap was met under the ordinance as written, the ordinance would be defunct and the discussion a moot point.
D. Poliquin questioned the number of police calls that were quoted in the earlier information. He noted that Police Chief Stephen Savage was in the gallery and asked for a comment.
S. Savage noted that the numbers submitted were relative to the Haverhill Fairway Oaks project and he wasn’t certain how those numbers were considered. He added that the numbers didn’t refer to increases in “off-site” calls that would occur in other areas of town such as shopping plazas and other roadways with the increase in traffic. S. Savage noted that he would predict an increase in the number of walk-in calls to the station as well but could not speculate on a number.
T. Moore offered to check with the source of the emergency services data, acknowledging that there was probably not consideration of off-site calls in the numbers presented.
R. Zukas reiterated that the issues that needed to be discussed for potential change, offering that in light of the fact that the number of units in the application process had already reached the cap and making the ordinance moot, did not warrant the expense of a STM.
J. Sherman questioned if all the discussion this far had only occurred to reach the conclusion that a STM would be a moot point because the number of units had already reached the cap.
M. Curran reiterated that the information on the number of units applied for had not previously been available.
Joe Andrade, 33 Greenfield Drive, suggested that it was still important to consider changes in the event that an application is denied.
J. Sherman noted there were applications for 366 units well over the 288 unit cap and that even one denial was not likely to have enough of an impact to the cap. He added that other applicant could increase their number with the denial of other units.
L. Gil asked if there were any court challenges to the unit cap issue.
L. Komornick replied that she did not know of any. She noted a case in Pembroke where it was tried (and defeated) to block a project’s acceptance.
J. Hoch noted there had been a reference to the change in the RSA in the recent legislative bulletin.
D. Poliquin asked when the legal notice had been sent regarding the recent applications.
L. Komornick noted that they had been mailed the previous morning (Tuesday) and due to postage availability issues the remaining were mailed this morning. She added that the mailing of the legal notices was consistent with the typical fashion that all legally submitted applications were handled. L. Komornick offered that the last applicant (Harriman Road) had been informed that this discussion would be taking place and they decided to proceed.
There was an unidentified call from the audience protesting that the last applicant had not been locked in as vested until this day.
There was a brief discussion regarding the noticing process and the August 2006, change in the RSAs that vested the applicants in this matter. It was reiterated that all the applications and legal notices were handled in a manner consistent with all other applications to the Planning Board.
There was additional discussion of the BOS’s intention to offer the Planning Board the option of a STM if that was the pleasure of the Board. Issues that had been previously identified as being in need of additional review and or potential change were discussed again. Whether or not the unit cap being reached provided the Board with enough time to hold ordinance changes to the fall while determining whether or not change would be moot point was also discussed. It was noted that not all units, even if immediately approved by the Board could be built all at once and it would be some time before the unit cap would be built out.
L. Gil asked if the wetlands ordinance was considered as part of the unit cap decision.
B. Blinn suggested that the STM would give a voice to the people who he felt did not understand what they were voting for at the time the ordinance was approved. He added that a STM would assure that changes could be made and is a gage of “how you’re doing” with the people. C. Blinn added that the burden on the Town that approving 300 units in one year might bring was irresponsible. He suggested that the ordinance be pulled and the needs of the elderly in Plaistow be reassessed.
L. Komornick noted that the BOS could post for a STM without the Planning Board.
R. Zukas added that even holding a STM meeting to lower the unit cap would not affect the applications already received. He added that going back to the previous ordinance completely removed any unit caps.
There was discussion of the impact of reverting to the previous AEHC ordinance. It was noted that under the previous ordinance there were no plans submitted and it was suggested that the lack of availability of HUD financing was what prevented development under that ordinance and would be a viable hardship in any variance application. It was reiterated that no matter what changes were proposed either in the fall or as part of a STM the current four applications would not be affected. It was also noted that the Planning Board review process would most likely reduce the number of units that could be built once the other restrictions of the ordinance were applied.
T. Moore suggested that rescinding the ordinance would be a step backwards, but acknowledged that changes needed to be considered. He added that if changes were discussed and addressed at a STM then there would be less work to be done in the fall, but extensive public hearings needed to be held to discuss changes that would be made before anything could be posted for a STM.
D. Poliquin added that he felt it was important to take a hard look at the idea of a STM and he didn’t have a problem with taking a couple weeks to discuss the changes.
J. Hoch noted that the unit cap language was in the current ordinance and it did not restock or renew in the next year so there was the real potential that the ordinance would be completely dead in six months. He added that considering all that the need for a STM perplexed him. J. Hoch noted that he had read all the concerns expressed in the emails and he noted that the challenge would be in how the Planning Board thoughtfully applied the ordinance. He likened trying to change the ordinance under all the current circumstances as “heart surgery on a dead man” which might give people false hope that change can be made and the applications already received stopped.
There was discussion regarding some of the costs that would be related to either changes or enforcement of the ordinance. It was noted that there was the potential for sizeable legal costs to be incurred. There was also concern expressed for the increase in inspection costs during the construction of the 300 units.
T. Moore noted the scheduling of the Planning Board meetings and suggested that the Board be allowed time to consider the BOS offer of a STM. He added that he felt it was owed to everyone to carefully consider whether or not the additional cost of a STM was justified.
R. Zukas offered that he was not in favor of a STM at this time, noting that it would not affect the four projects in the process and would be wasting $2,000 to $3,000 dollars while creating a tight time line that might not produce the best product. He added that not having a STM did not mean that there weren’t changes that needed to be discussed, but it was his opinion that they would do just as well to be discussed in the fall. R. Zukas noted that the information that T. Moore provided tonight suggested to him that there were adequate offsets for some of the issues that the additional units would create. He acknowledged that some of the issues were of far more of a concern to the abutters and offered that he was not trying to minimize that.
D. Poliquin suggested that the reason driving these kinds of developments were being proposed was to create a boom in the market and it would affect every tax payer as assessment values would increase.
There was discussion regarding the potential market for these units and trends that had been demonstrated with other types of housing, such as condos.
M. Curran asked what the consequences of approximately 300 units flooding the market at the same time would create if the market fell and they were not sold. She added that phasing would be important.
It was noted for the public that there would be no decision regarding a STM at this time but that the Planning Board would consider the possibility at a near future meeting and notify the BOS as to whether or not they felt there was a need.
Keith Cornell, 5 Ridgewood Road, expressed concern over the discussion that the Town would be at a loss to enforce terms of condo docs with regard to any project. He suggested that the lack of enforceability was a “fatal flaw” in the ordinance which would call for its repeal. Mr. Cornell noted that he belongs to a home owner’s association and it was very difficult for them to even enforce their own association docs and that he didn’t see one neighbor being asked to evict another for non-compliance.
T. Moore reiterated that even if changes were proposed for a STM the four projects already in the process would not be affected.
K. Cornell questioned if that was still true if the ordinance was found to be fatally flawed.
T. Moore responded that something would have to be found patently illegal or contrary to the RSAs.
There was discussion regarding what Mr. Cornell meant by fatally flawed and other enforceability issues, particularly with age criteria.
L. Komornick reminded that people who did not meet the criteria would not be eligible to purchase a unit. She expressed doubt that a bank would finance someone under those circumstances.
There was a discussion as to whether or not financial institutions would finance applicants who didn’t meet the criteria expressed in a housing association’s documents. It was general consensus that restrictions and covenants would not be a consideration for financing. It was noted that these types of communities tend to be self-selecting in that people with children find them too small and not an appropriate child-raising community.
T. Moore noted that the restrictions included in the covenants of Haverhill portion of Fairway Oaks project were working well for them and he was not aware of any issues. He added that he was not aware of any situation where children were noted to be an issue in these communities.
K. Cornell suggested that all the evidence of these communities successfully restricting children was anecdotal and not enforceable. He added that what was important was to consider controlling the growth.
L. Komornick noted that the mechanisms for restricting these communities were in place and accountability to the Town was mandated in the ordinance in the form of annual reporting.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, questioned the information gathering and what independent professional advice was included in the researching of the ordinance.
L. Komornick offered to allow Mr. Donovan access to the drawer that was full of the research involved in the ordinance. She noted that she holds a Master’s Degree in Environmental Planning’ cited consultation with the Board’s attorney; review of ordinances from other like communities; information from other planners; minutes of Planning Board meetings and public hearings, T. Moore’s +/- 25 years of experience in crafting ordinances; input from developers of similar projects. L. Komornick noted that she felt strongly that there was due diligence done in the research of this ordinance. She expressed frustration that people don’t come in to talk about the ordinance until there is a project next door to them.
D. Poliquin expressed concern that the financial impact discussion did not include impact to town hall services such as building permits and inspections.
D. Hooper, 26 Partridge Road, expressed interest in the process and offered that a STM at this time would be like “shutting the door after the cows are out.” He suggested that as a tax payer it was a moot point. Mr. Hooper suggested that what was discussed this meeting was what could be seen out the back door and it was important to separate the ordinance from the projects. He offered that it was more important at this time to work with the Planning Board and not expending tax dollars for a STM for an ordinance that was soon to be moot. He noted that there was a difference in accessibility under ADA and FHA requirements and offered it was his belief that it was required that the federal law prevailed.
S. Becht, 20 Ridgewood Road, offered that the change to the ordinance was market driven and with the single-family housing market in the tank developers were looking for ways to increase density and maximize profits. He asked what safeguards were in place if a 55+ community were to fail and if others would be allowed in at that time.
T. Moore noted that as far as site work there would be bonding in place that would allow for the stabilization of any site. He added that as far as whether or not someone else would be able to take over the project that would be up to an attorney to decide but he would assume that they would have to abide by the same approved site plan.
J. Sherman noted that if a developer and application failed it would put those units back in the availability pool.
S. Becht offered that possibility negated the idea that changing the ordinance would be moot.
D. Hooper suggested that it was the STM that was moot, due to the length of the application review process, not changing the ordinance.
T. Moore reminded that an applicant had one year to achieve active and substantial development and was protected from zoning changes for four years. He added that if there is not active and substantial development within one year then the plan can be revoked.
S. Becht offered that he recalled that the Beede Waste site was under consideration for elderly housing. He questioned how this ordinance affected that plan.
There was a discussion regarding the Beede site and how at the time of those public discussions it was determined that the Town expressed desire to potentially use the site in the future for elderly housing had an impact of the level of clean-up of the site that would be imposed by the Record of Decision (ROD). It was noted as part of the discussion that elderly housing on the Beede site assumed that the Town would own the site, which has since been determined not to be in the Town’s best interests.
Harry Birmingham, 3 Tamarack Road, expressed frustration that elderly housing on the Beede site was essentially locked out by this ordinance. He also expressed concern over people who were losing their homes or having to move out of Town due to the increase in taxes, which he felt these projects would adversely impact. Mr. Birmingham suggested the growth needed to be slowed down and the needs of the residents considered.
There was discussion back and forth with Mr. Birmingham regarding the use of the Beede site for elderly housing. It was reiterated that expressing desire to use the site for elderly housing was to have the site be eligible for the highest level of clean-up as part of the ROD.
L. Komornick noted that many of the people in the room lived where they currently lived by developers being allowed to build under the Town’s ordinances. She noted that had the Board not approved those plans at the time they were proposed people would not be living there now. L. Komornick offered that it was a case of “not in my back yard” and asked where all these people were when the ordinance was discussed.
D. Donovan suggested that the people that were here were those with selfish interests.
L. Komornick said that she wanted to take the opportunity to make the pitch and note that the Board discussed possible changes to the ordinances each fall and invited all residents to be participants in the process.
H. Birmingham offered that the publicity for the process was inadequate.
There was additional discussion regarding the feasibility of the use of the Beede site for elderly housing. It was noted that even if it were ever practically considered it was many years away and there were many things that would need to be considered. It was reiterated that suggesting the site be used for elderly housing put it in line to be cleaned-p to the highest level.
T. Moore directed that the discussion needed to be focused back to this ordinance.
J. Andrade noted that no matter what happened to the ordinance the number of applications already exceeded the cap. He offered that the other issue that should be looked into was the idea of governance. Mr. Andrade also expressed concern as to what protections would be in the ordinance for the abutting residents; of particular concern to him was the impact on water supply. He suggested that there be a mandate that well testing be conducted at the driest time of the year for it to truly identify any potential impact to the neighbors. He added that they were counting on the Board to protect their interests. Mr. Andrade reiterated his concerns over governance of these communities, noting that there had already been rules broken with reference to a project of interest to him.
Henry Shea, 16 Main Street, expressed additional concerns about the Town’s ability to enforce restrictions that are placed on projects and developments. He noted some frustrations with the Town’s ability to force the Shaw’s Plaza site to be maintained, adding how the trash frequently ends up on his property.
R. Zukas asked what Mr. Shea’s recourse is if he feels he is not getting effective enforcement.
J. Hoch offered that Mr. Shea should turn to the Town Manager for resolution.
D. Poliquin reiterated that he didn’t feel that impact to departments, like the Building Inspector’s Office were being considered in this ordinance.
There was discussion regarding those kinds of impacts. It was acknowledged that the revenue and budgeting pieces of the ordinance needed to be revisited.
Jodi Schramm, 28 Greenfield Road, noting the quoted $1.2M in revenue, offered that there was no consideration if there were children who managed to end up in these communities. She said the potential impact of 300 children in the schools needed to be considered.
T. Moore reiterated that he had not heard of any other elderly community in the state that was experiencing problems with children living there.
There was additional discussion regarding the 15% affordability component and the 55+ restrictions.
T. Moore offered that life happens and he couldn’t ever say that there would never be children in these communities for short periods of time, but he didn’t see that there would be 300 but something more on the order of single numbers. He reminded that the Haverhill Fairway Oaks reported that there were no children living there.
J. Schramm expressed concern that covenants were not adequate to restrict the children in the developments and she offered it was naïve to expect that neighbors would turn each other in. She reiterated the concerns of others noting her concerns to be water and children.
M. Curran offered that the BOS would respond to the pleasure of the Planning Board with respect to the STM.
J. Sherman added that the door was open and that it was understood that there would be additional discussion regarding the need.
M. Curran adjourned the BOS meeting at 9:50PM and noted that discussion regarding whether or not to post a STM would wait until after the Planning Board reported the results of their own discussion for the need.
T. Moore noted for the BOS that the next item for discussion on the agenda was a continuation of a public hearing of the Ron Brown elderly housing project.
The chairman called for a break at 9:50PM. The meeting was called back to order at 10:07PM.
S. Ranlett left the meeting at 9:50 PM.
Continuation of a Preliminary Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation Plan and Site Plan Review Application for a proposed +/- 40-Unit Elderly Housing Complex Project. The lot line adjustment and consolidation plan involves the merger of Tax Map 62, Lot 41-4, Tax Map 62, Lot 41-5 ,Tax Map 62, Lot 41-6 and a portion of Tax Map 62, Lot 41-7, all lots located off of Gunstock Road at 64 Sweet Hill Road in the LDR district. The total acreage of the merged parcels will be +/- 14 acres and will have a frontage of +/- 900 feet. The owner of record is Ronald Brown Investments.
Terry Trudel, SEC Associates, Attorney Thomas MacMillan and Ron Brown were present.
There was discussion as to whether or not there was a need for this continuation in light of the new application for the build-out of the entire site. It was noted that this project would be folded into that application and the 30-units would be moot. Mr. Brown expressed that he would like to move forward with the discussion regarding the 30-units.
L. Komornick noted that the build-out of the entire parcel (except to the extent that it answered the Planning Board’s request for an overview of what was planned for the remainder of the parcel relative to the 30-unit application) could not be discussed as it was not legally noticed for this meeting and abutters who are noticed would not anticipate the discussion happening at this meeting.
A number of abutters suggested that the plan be continued and included in the discussion of the entire parcel at the meeting on May 16.
It was decided that there would be an update of the 30-unit parcel only and anything that showed the rest of the parcel could only be discussed in the context of the Board’s request to see how the rest of the parcel was intended to be developed.
T. Trudel explained that Bruce Lewis had committed to be involved in the design and testing of the water system (2 wells) as well as the permit application to New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). He offered they were having difficulties getting the well truck out on the site because of the rains but that they would be working on that as soon as possible. T. Trudel noted that traffic counts had been taken on Sweet Hill Road and on Greenfield Drive and were being reviewed and were analyzed by a traffic engineer and written report would be submitted to the Board. He noted the four additional phases that represented the potential build out of the whole parcel as requested by the Board, noting that it would take approximately five years for the project to be built.
L. Komornick noted that the five years to phase the build-out of the project was one of the questions she had for legal counsel.
There was discussion regarding the road profile and whether or not the road would be constructed to 22 feet or 24 feet. It was decided that there would need to be further engineering review of the whole site as well as the traffic study before any determination could be made on the road profile.
L. Komornick reminded that the traffic study and the plan for the water would be reviewed by an independent 3rd party selected by the Town.
M. Curran noted that all the elderly housing community projects would undergo the same review process.
R. Zukas suggested that the enforcement of the unit cap needed to be figured out with reference to phased projects.
M. Curran asked about the location of the community center.
T. Trudel located it on the plan. He noted that they were looking to temporarily use one of the units as the community center while the other phases were built out.
There was discussion regarding the community center and whether or not it would meet the ordinance once other parts of the community started to be built out. The location was also discussed as to whether or not it would be convenient for all and accessible.
R. Brown noted that the community center would be completely accessible and would exceed all the regulations. He noted that eventually there would be the club house (community center) a pool and tennis courts.
M. Curran congratulated Mr. Brown for his considerations of all the amenities that residents would be looking for.
T. Trudel added that people would probably not be interested in purchasing units unless the amenities were included.
R. Brown outlined more of the plan noting the 700-800 foot cul-de-sac which he noted was not going to be connected to another roadway. He offered that they may even be looking for a gated community. He discussed the road profile, noting that despite showing the road to be 22 feet wide the road base was constructed to 24 feet.
M. Curran reminded that approvals for the 15-lot subdivision did not carry over to this project as there were other variables to be considered as part of the new plan.
There was additional discussion regarding the road profile and the pros and cons of a 22 foot minor road that would match up with the dimensions of Ridgewood Road and a 24 foot road which may be warranted with an increase in traffic with the greater density. It was determined that having the traffic study and some engineering review would be helpful in making the decision on the road profile, including locations and size of sidewalks. R. Brown noted that ADA requirements called for a five-foot sidewalk.
R. Brown noted that they were not asking for any waivers on the plan as presented.
M. Curran asked if the wetlands setbacks had been double checked.
T. Trudel replied that they had.
R. Brown offered that he would like to have walking trails incorporated into the sidewalk plan.
There was a brief discussion regarding the depiction of the entire parcel.
J. Schramm asked if the two wells were for the thirty-four units only or for the entire community.
T. Trudel noted they were for the entire community.
J. Schramm offered that it was her understanding that cul-de-sacs were not allowed.
M. Curran noted that cul-de-sacs are allowed and the plan would be reviewed by police and fire departments to make sure they were adequate. She added that the regulation read that a road shall connect whenever possible to connect.
D. Donovan asked if Gunstock were to be designated as a “main” road if that would change the designation of Ridgewood Road as well.
T. Moore replied that there needed to be more discussion on the road profile and the whole thing would be reviewed once there was more information regarding the traffic and the connection to Ridgewood.
S. Becht asked if a traffic study should be done at the completion of each phase as there may be changes when there are more units added.
T. Trudel explained the process that traffic studies are completed, noting that there were specific guidelines for 55+ housing that would be applied.
M. Curran added that they could revisit traffic issues at later dates if it proved to be an issue.
J. Andrade asked if any irrigation systems were being included in the water system design.
R. Brown noted that the irrigation system was not planned to be part of the domestic water supply.
S. Becht offered that he didn’t believe that the State would allow a separate well for irrigation.
T. Trudel suggested that all those issues would be addressed as part of Bruce Lewis’s design.
S. Becht added that the State would govern the well testing.
There were concerns expressed by the abutters regarding the drain on their water supply were reiterated. There was discussion regarding the fact that they were having trouble with enforcement of their own covenants, which included a clause for property maintenance.
D. Donovan asked if the Attorney General’s (AG) office would have to approve the number of units and the phasing.
T. Moore replied that the AG would review and have to approve the condo docs.
Jim Viens, 18 Partridge Lane, questioned the set backs from wetlands.
T. Trudel explained the different set backs for hydric A and hydric B soils.
J. Viens asked which type of soils would be considered for a retention pond.
T. Trudel said that they would have to be looked at to be determined.
D. Donovan reminded that the request had been made at the last discussion to compare the wetlands mapping of the 15-lot subdivision versus the wetlands mapping for the elderly housing community.
R. Brown noted that they are the same.
L. Komornick offered that CLD would review that as part of the plan review.
There was additional discussion regarding the road profile.
T. Moore suggested that the traffic study would show whether or not there was a trigger for a 24-foot road.
R. Zukas reminded that Mr. Brown had said that the road base was already in place of r a 24-foot road and the pavement was for a 22-foot road.
M. Curran agreed that the size would be determined by the review of the traffic study.
T. Moore stated that the hearing was continued to May 16, 2007.
Other Business – Ron Brown request for a bond reduction on his existing project for work already completed
R. Zukas questioned why the Board was even entertaining a bond reduction if there was a new plan coming in.
L. Komornick suggested with the filing of the new application the Board was not bound by any stipulation to release any of the monies for the old plan.
R. Brown offered that the bond was established for 3,000 feet of roadway and he should be able to draw down on that as that roadway is completed.
L. Komornick noted that she had discussed the matter with the Board’s counsel who did not support the release of the bond.
M. Curran reminded that the new project was proved to be vested by notification.
T. MacMillan suggested that the roadway should be dealt with separately as it was staying the same with the new plan.
M. Curran reminded that it would stay the same if the Board agreed as part of the plan review that it will stay the same.
T. MacMillan noted that it was built according the plan of record.
L. Komornick reminded that Mr. Brown was just given vesting status on a new plan. She added that if he were continuing to build the 15-lot subdivision there would be no issue with the release.
There was back and forth discussion regarding whether it was prudent to release any bond based on completion of the roadway according to the 15-lot subdivision plan or whether the new plan would require the bond be held.
R. Brown reminded that he had been double bonded for off-site improvements by NHDOT and asked that portion of the bond ($48,000) be released.
L. Komornick confirmed that there had been a double bonding issue and that portion of the bond could be released.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to release $48,000 of the bond being held for Ron Borwn’s project, that amount representing the amount that had been double bonded for off-site improvements. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran suggest that the Board take no action on the release of any other bond monies unless and until there was something in writing from the Board’s attorney.
Other Business – Correspondence and Department of Building Safety
M. Curran noted copies of a number of letters that the Department of Building Safety had followed-up on from the last meeting.
It was noted for the record that the apartment rental banner on Danville Road was dealt with via phone call and not letter.
Other Business – Request by WalMart for a Carwash
T. Moore read a letter from WalMart requesting permission to hold a car wash on their property. It was noted that a diagram of the location was included with the letter.
M. Curran asked where the used water runoff would flow.
R. Zukas noted that the runoff from the plant sprinklers was sloped into a catch basin.
M. Curran expressed concern over the soap running into the catch basins.
R. Zukas offered that there were environmentally friendly soaps that could be used.
M. Curran reminded that the cookout would have to be approved byt the Health Officer.
There was brief discussion of the last event that was run at the WalMart store. R. Zukas reported that he had heard that they raised $400.
It was the consensus of the Board that it would okay to allow the car wash provided that environmentally friendly soap was used.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to adjourn the meeting at 11:31 PM. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
