PLANNING BOARD
October 03, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Neal Morin, Alternate; Merilyn Senter, Alternate; and Lawrence Gil, Selectmen Ex-Officio Alternate were present. Barry Weymouth and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were excused. Steven Ranlett was absent.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator.
T. Moore appointed M. Senter as a voting member to replace S. Ranlett and Neal Morin as a voting member to replace B. Weymouth.
Minutes of the September 19, 2007
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2007, minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-2 (Zukas and Gil abstaining).
A Final Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the proposed reuse of industrial buildings including the establishment of a contractor’s yard including outdoor storage, office space, and warehouse/office commercial space, and tenant space for tradesmen and others utilizing a mix of office and warehouse space. The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13 and Tax Map 27, Lot 55, totaling 58.7 acres.
Present for the application were: Charles Zilch, SEC and Associates; Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell, attorney for the property owners; Stephen Chicatelli, attorney for Testa Corporation; Eric Johnson, Testa Corportation; Margaret Probish, attorney for Chart; Peter Quinn and Ken Paul from Chart Industries.
B. Campbell reminded that there were some issues from the last meeting that needed to be resolved, most notably being the list of proposed conditions regarding tenants on the parcel. He explained that he had been working back and forth with Planning Board Counsel (Craig Donais) and staff to reach an understanding.
B. Campbell explained that an issue had arisen during this day regarding the noticing of an abutter (Mark and Paula Marino, 95 Plaistow Road). He noted that the plan had been presented to those abutters and releases were obtained.
A list of 31 notes to be included with the site plan were discussed. It was noted that for the most part there was agreement between all parties regarding the wording with a few exceptions to be discussed this evening.
8) The perimeter of the “no disturbance” buffer areas surrounding the unpaved outside storage area at the northerly portion of the site shall be delineated by installed granite posts/steel bollards or other comparable permanent material marker with a vertical projection of at least 48”, spaced at intervals no greater than 250’. The intention being to prevent intrusion into the “no disturbance” area.
There was discussion regarding the need for the bollards to be closer than 250’. It was noted that there was a treeline that nearly mimicked what would be the 25’ no disturb buffer on part of the area in question.
L. Komornick noted that a “bus could be driven through 250’ “ and perhaps 50’ would be more appropriate.
L. Gil asked how high they would be.
B. Campbell replied that they would be 4’ vertically above grade. He added that they were not intended to be a physical barrier but a visual trigger as to where the no disturb buffer was.
10) All unconsolidated Landscape materials (bark mulch, loam, sand, stone) stored in the northerly storage area shall be stored within concrete bins or holding structures to prevent migrating or siltation into adjoining wetland areas and will be covered.
B. Campbell suggested that a workable wording could be “and all such materials that could leach (i.e. dyed back mulch) will be covered” instead of mandating that all the materials be covered.
29) No generators are allowed to be used on-site due to air quality contamination issues. When power supplies are interupted, temporary emergency replacement power may be utilized to maintain operation of the site as long as a permit is obtained for NHDES.
B. Campbell expressed concern that operations would have to be shut down in the case of a power outage, noting that this wording allowed for generator use on a temporary basis.
B. Campbell noted that they had addressed most of the Town’s concerns, the waivers had been acted on by the Board at a previous meeting, and they were seeking conditional approval of the plan this evening.
R. Zukas asked if there were plans to put fuel storage tanks in the building.
B. Campbell explained a rack system would be installed indoors to store some diesel as well as some non-fuel products.
R. Zukas clarified his questions, asking if there would be bulk fuel stored in underground tanks on the property and fuel pumps installed.
B. Campbell replied that there would be no underground tanks on the property.
E. Johnson noted that the largest tank in the rack system would be 1,000 gallons.
L. Komornick added that the Fire Chief was aware of the type of fuel storage that would be on the property.
B. Campbell listed other permits that would be needed for this location:
- Building Permit – for interior changes and fit up for Testa’s use.
- NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) dirveway permit
B. Campbell noted there was some confusion as to whether or not this use would trigger a new driveway permit from the State. Mr. Campbell offered that it was their assumption that the current permit for Chart would be sufficient given that the traffic use for Testa would be lesser than Chart’s was, while the trucks would be of similar weight and character. He added that the plan was to contact NHDOT for a determination on the need for a permit.
L. Komornick explained that she was given the discovery regarding the use of a right-of-way, which may require the issuance of a new driveway permit. She added that Steve Ireland (NHDOT, District VI) suggested that at the very least the permit be reissued for the files.
B. Campbell noted that the right-of-way over the Town’s land was shown on the plan. He added that L. Komornick had found reference to a potential second easement, which was news to the applicant. Mr. Campbell noted that it wasn’t shown on the plan and the applicant was not planning to make use of the easement, suggesting that it may be a utility easement and reference had been made to it on the plan. He added that language in note #4 included the following reference for the protection of the Town from there being a different and unapproved point of access.
“The approval related on to the right-of-way depicted on the submittal plans, and all access from Main Street shall be via that access. Any subsequent discovery or creation of alternate proposed access points shall require further Planning Board approval.”
After some discussion it was decided that the bolded portion of the phrase would be deleted.
C. Zilch noted some of the changes that he had made to the plan and what still needed to be changed.
- The title block would be changed to read “site plan”
- Old Note #5 was deleted
- Note #10 expanded the parking calculations for 9’ X 12’ spaces
- Re-wording of Note #19 regarding consolidation of materials
- Note #22 was to be incorporated into the plan list of conditions
- Error that showed the parking on the railroad spur had been corrected and the spaces relocated
o Parking allocation now gives the ratio of each area of parking so that not all would be taken by one business
§ Chart 8 spaces
§ Testa 18 spaces
§ Future tenants 17
There was additional discussion regarding Note #18
18) The pavement of parking lots or the expanding of parking lots requires approval from the Planning Board.
B. Campbell suggested that the term “of parking lots” be replaced with “of graveled areas,” suggesting that the applicant should be able to make repairs to the parking lot without having to come back to the Board.
L. Kormornick noted that the existing pavement was in very poor condition and if it were to be paved the drainage could be affected.
T. Moore offered that he didn’t see this to be a problem as it had been recently determined that hard pack could be nearly as impervious as asphalt.
B. Campbell reiterated that he didn’t feel that they should have to come back to repave existing areas, but agreed that if there was to be any expansion then they should come back to the Board. He added there was a presumption that any drainage issues were dealt with as part of the approval for the paving on the original site plan.
L. Komornick noted that she had talked to NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) and questioning whether or not reclaiming the broken pavement could potentially stir up the contaminants that were in the ground.
Jim Weeks, GZA, offered that they were not aware of there being any contaminants beneath the concrete parking areas.
L. Komornick noted that it came up as part of the discussion regarding site specific permitting information.
J. Weeks explained that if it had been found that there were contaminants in those (paved) areas then appropriate remediation procedures would be included with the plans.
B. Campbell added that the current ground water management (GWM permit) plan had provisions for any excavations as did the note on the site plan itself.
T. Moore offered that his concern would be someone coming in the future and saying that they weren’t adding parking, just a fifty (50) foot fire lane. His suggestion was that the words “of parking lots” be removed and it just be left that the expansion of any pavement would be the trigger for Planning Board review.
L. Gil asked if the area below the pavement had been tested for contamination.
J. Weeks noted that specific locations, not every inch, had been tested. He suggested that capping off the pavement by resurfacing would probably deter further migration.
L. Komornick explained that her concerns arose from there not being much documentation in the files regarding the remediation of the contamination.
J. Weeks replied that the State had been involved with the site for some time and all their reports were a matter of public record. He added that there had been annual reporting, which included historical data.
There was a brief discussion on how the reporting of the contamination on the site and the remediation efforts had been handled.
L. Gil asked if any early testing indicated potential problems on the site and if any of those studies were ever documented.
J. Weeks answered that it was all contained in the NHDES monitoring program reports. He noted that they also included data on the improvement of water quality and mitgation. Mr. Weeks added there were two areas of soil contamination identified and remediation plans were summarized in the report that is part of the public record.
L. Komornick asked if there were plans for drilling of additional wells in the GMZ (Groundwater Management Zone).
B. Campbell referred to Note 25 (27):
25) (27) No uses will be allowed that would require drilling of any new wells for additional water use, whether in the Groundwater Management Zone(GMZ) area or outside the GMZ area, without the approval of the Planning Board.
T. Moore noted there had not been resolution on Note #8 regarding the spacing of the bollards around the no disturbance wetlands buffer. He suggested that 250’ could easily be missed and that distance needed to be reduced.
C. Zilch noted that there was approximately 1,200-1,300 feet wrapping the perimeter of the no-disturbance buffer.
T. Moore suggested there was no need to put bollards along the natural treeline barrier.
R. Zukas agreed that they needed to be closer than 250’ and suggested that a chain of some kind be run between the bollards to further prevent encroachment to the buffer.
S. Chicatelli offered that the area that abutted the no disurbance buffer was delinated as the storage area for the non-motorized equipment. He added that there would be no motorized parking in this area and the bollards were only intended as visual markers for parking limits.
T. Moore suggested that 100’ would be an appropriate distance along the areas not included in the natrual treeline. He added that it would show the intent.
There were discussion regarding the addition of a sheet to the site plan that would show the extent of the entire parcel. It was noted that the large wooded areas of the parcel were not included as part of this plan.
B. Campbell reminded that the Board had waived the requirement for lot sizing and acreage to be shown on the plan.
C. Zilch offered that it wouldn’t be difficult to add a sheet that would depict the perimeter of the entire parcel.
T. Moore conceded that some of the issues being discussed could appear to be piciune but that they usually turned out to be the ones that five years down the road drove the Board crazy.
T. Moore asked if there were any further questions from the Board or any abutters.
L. Komornick suggested that there were still two issues that had been part of previous discussions:
- Abutter concern over visibility once there was no foliage on the trees. Addressed in Note #16 calling for a Fall 2007 site walk to make that determination.
- Note #13 added to clarify the ownership of the MA/NH locations.
S. Chicatelli offered an explanation of the history and the ownership of Testa Corp. LLC. He noted that the NH location would be Testa Realty, LLC, with the sole managing member being Stephen D. Testa.
L. Komornick noted that she had been on the website and there was a reference to Marilyn Testa.
S. Chicatelli explained that Marilyn Testa ran the company many years ago when her husband was ill. He added that it had always been a family owned company.
There was a brief discussion regarding the history of the family owned company.
L. Gil, noting that he had not been involved with the discussion regarding this site from the beginning, asked what if any issues the Town of Wakefield, MA, would report as issues with the Testa site there.
S. Chicatelli said that they wouldn’t have any issues to report. He added that there are rarely vehicles on the site since his client can’t make money if his vehicles are sitting there.
L. Gil asked if the State of Massachusetts would report any issues.
S. Chicatelli replied that there would be no issues for the State of Massachusetts to report either. He added that his client operated in so many states with Wakefield being their home base. He noted the intention was to make Plaistow a second home. Mr. Chicatelli added that his client took a great deal of pride in the condition of his property, noting there had been many renovations made to the building in Wakefield.
Note #13 was amended to read:
13) Testa Corporation is an independent corporation and is not a subsidiary of any other company. Testa Corp. may take title to this site through an wholly owned subsidiary LLC with the same principal. Testa Corp. is not affiliated, associated with or engaged with any railroad companies or activities.
R. Zukas, noting the absence of M. Curran, asked if all the issues that she brought up regarding future tenants had been addressed.
L. Komornick explained that the concern had been over what tenant uses would be and a criteria had been established as to the square footage and parking requirements based upon use. She added it would be similar to those of a strip mall.
M. Senter reminded that M. Curran had questioned the parking on the west side that is encroaching on the railroad right-of-way.
B. Campbell offered that if rail service was ever established for this site then those spaces would have to be relocated or vehicles moved for delivery purposes.
M. Senter expressed delight that the rail services may be used in the future.
B. Campbell agreed, noting there were lots of advantages to keeping trucks off the roads.
T. Moore noted that Note #10 showed that there were 182 parking spaces required under the regulations and that 200 spaces were shown on the plan. Therefore the rail spur could be used and those spaces affected would not be required.
Bobbie Kurlis, 134 Main Street, asked if the site walk previously discussed would still take place.
T. Moore replied that it would, once the leaves were off the trees.
B. Kurlis inquired what the hours of operation would be.
L. Komornick noted that the plan stated: Monday through Saturday, 6:00 am to 7:00 pm.
There was a discussion regarding how to proceed with the approval of the site plan and the adoption of the Summary of Findings.
L. Komornick requested that all the notes (as amended at this meeting) be included on the plan that would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
C. Zilch offered that he would amend page two to show the complete parcel boundary and to list all the amended notes.
L. Komornick said that it would be preferred to have the notes included on the site plan as opposed to having three separate documents to track. That way there would only be the Summary of Findings and the site plan.
A list of conditions for approval of the plan were discussed resulting as follows:
- Second sheet of the plan would be modified to show the perimeter of the parcel
- The Summary of Findings was to be adopted
- All redundant notes would be removed and all other notes (as amended this evening) combined to be added to the plan
- New or modified driveway permit or re-issuance of the existing driveway permit, if required by NHDOT
T. Moore noting the length of time that it has been taking to obtain driveway permits suggested that the issue of whether or not to allow certificates of occupancy (COs) to be issued prior to a driveway permit may need to be re-visited once there is a determination from NHDOT. He offered that it might be appropriate to issue a temporary driveway permit.
M. Senter offered that she didn’t see any reference to “left turn only” out of the site to prevent trucks from entering what is now known as the “Village Center District.”
R. Zukas noted that it was indicated on Page #2 of the site plan.
B. Campbell added that it was also included in the summary of findings.
T. Moore again noted the waiver letters from Mark and Paula Marino resolving a potential abutter notification issue.
M. Senter moved, second by R. Zukas, to conditionally approve the site plan for 144 Main Street with the conditions as were previously listed.
B. Campbell asked to confirm some specifics:
- Note #8 the intervals between bollards, excluding the area where the natural treeline conincides with the no-disturb wetlands buffer, would be 100’
- Note #10 any material that may leach would be required to be covered
- Note #11 would show the company to be an LLC with the same principal
- Note #18 expansion only of the pavement would require additional Planning Board approval
It was confirmed that these were the changes as discussed.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continuatuion of a Preliminary Hearing on a 4-lot subdivision for property located in the MDR Zone at 27 Westville Road, Tax Map 40, Lot 10. The parcel size is 6.01 acres and has 679 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Richard and Norma Dickey.
Mike Garrepy, Westville Realty Investments, LLC, was present for the application.
T. Moore read memos from the Police and Fire Chiefs voicing objections to the concept of a shared driveway for this subdivision.
M. Garrepy reminded that the preliminary hearing was continued to obtain feedback from police and fire departments. He explained that this was the first time he was reading their comments. He added that the continuance was also to give staff the time to further review the plan and provide technical comment. M. Garrepy added that he would like to have the opportunity to meet with fire and police himself and see if there was a way to address their concerns regarding the shared driveway.
L. Komornick explained that she did not provide advanced copies of the comments from police and fire before they had been reviewed by this Board as they were addressed to the Board. She referenced the ordinance that required all paved driveways to be within the setback and noted the strong objections of both chiefs. L. Komornick added that in the past this Board had required that all communications to other departments and committees be through the Planning Office.
R. Zukas noted that feedback from police and fire was always requested and that shared driveways had never been permitted as he could recall. He suggested that the request for shared driveways would substantially increase and there would be many access problems caused if they were permitted.
L. Komornick suggested that the ordinance be changed to read “all driveways” not just paved driveways to better reflect its intent.
M. Garrepy offered that the shared driveway would minimize curb cuts as was outlined in the Town’s Access Management Ordinance. He suggested that it was desirable for landowners to use their property in this fashion for the increase in privacy; adding it did not add to the infrastructure or maintenance costs to the Town either.
M. Senter questioned how the individual lots would be identified for a rescue vehicle trying to find an individual house. She asked if residents would be parking on the driveway of if there would be driveways off the driveway.
M. Garrepy suggested that what was currently shown may not be the final location of the driveway, that would depend on the topography of the parcel. He noted that there would be mailboxes and other signage at the end of the driveway that would identify the parcels. Mr. Garrepy added that was why he felt it was important to have direct discussion with police and fire to get their input on access and how to design the infrastructure. He added that he felt this was a good design and was in the best interests of the Town.
R. Zukas offered that if there was ever a fire that the trucks would have to back all the way out, noting there would be no way for one emergency vehicle to get past another one without doing so.
L. Komornick added that there would also be the need for waivers of liability.
M. Garrepy agreed that there wasn’t enough room for the passage of two vehicles, that was why he was looking for input from police and fire.
There was additional discussion regarding the access to the individual parcels being through a shared driveway. The Board expressed that they did not like the idea, particularly from an emergency access perspective. There was discussion regarding what latitude the Board had in waiving road construction design. It was noted that the ordinances require that all roads now be made public roads.
M. Garrepy reiterated his request to be able to work with staff and police and fire on the road design.
L. Komornick suggested that it was not the Town’s job to work with a developer on road design, but to review what is submitted.
M. Garrepy offered that he would like to get the input from the Town’s experts and staff and that he was not suggesting that a whole day be spent working on design details.
T. Moore offered that M. Garrepy should have consistently heard that the Board was not in favor of a shared driveway, adding that no matter what it was called, it would have to be built to the Town’s specification.
L. Komornick reiterated that the Town’s Ordinances did not allow for private roads.
M. Garrepy asked if there were allowances for alternate designs for turn arounds and whether or not the Board would allow a lesser pavement width.
L. Komornick continued to express concern regarding the need for staff to remain in a reviewing postion, rather than a designing position so as not to give the impression that what might come from such a meeting would be interpreted as something that the Board would automatically approve.
There was additional discussion regarding the shared driveway, with the Board continuing to express that they would not be in favor of the idea. M. Garrepy again asked to speak directly with police and fire. It was decided that since there had already been initial contact with the Board that M. Garrepy could request to meet with police and fire, but that those departments had the right to refuse to meet or comment, except through the Planning Board.
M. Garrepy offered that requiring a road and a fifty foot right-of-way would require that a lot of good trees be cut down.
L. Komornick suggested that the focus should be on the subdivision of the property adding that the property may not even be subdividable as there were a great deal of wetlands. She added that the Access Management Ordinance, previously referenced by M. Garrepy, pertained to access on Route 125.
M. Garrepy offered that it was unlikely that he could obtain individual driveway permits for these lots.
L. Komornick suggested that was not a problem for the Town.
M. Garrepy noted that he had heard that this plan was “not desirable” but he was not hearing if it was “not approveable.”
L. Gil said that considering the memos from police and fire and the considerable safety issues with the site he didn’t think it was approveable.
R. Zukas expressed concern over the Town’s liability to the homeowners in an emergency situation as well as trying to fish emergency equipment out of the property.
M. Garrepy reiterated that was another good reason for him to speak with police and fire to address their concerns.
Dawn Lewis, 17 Westville Road, asked how far a road would be set from her property.
There was discussion regarding a 25 foot access between the Dickey property and the abutting Lewis property and how far from the Lewis property a road would come, if that was what the Board required.
M. Garrepy noted that a fifty foot right-of-way would be the edge of a shared lot line and that the road infrastructure might be closer than a driveway.
M. Garrepy said that they would go back and rework the plan after discussion with police and fire.
T. Moore closed the preliminary hearing.
The chairman called for a break at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for a change of use to the existing building for property located in the CI Zone at 176 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 31, Lot 60. The total parcel size is .82 acres and has 393.55 feet of frontage. The owner is proposing a conversion of some of the office space to a hair salon. The owner of record is AFGC, LLC.
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application. He reminded that they had been given approval for the change of use (office to beauty salon) at the last meeting they attended. J. Lavelle continued that application was for a lesser amount of chairs, four versus the seven asked for in this application. He gave a history of the site, noting that there used to be a restaurant on the property and that was how the septic had been designed and installed, based on that use. Mr. Lavelle informed that a new NHDES approved septic plan, approved for a seven-chair hair salon, had recently been installed. He added that the other change that the revised site plan called for was an increase in the parking from fifteen spaces to twenty-three spaces. Mr. Lavelle noted that the grades were fairly flat and there shouldn’t be any impact to the drainage, which was currently directed to a culvert. He noted a small wet area at the inlet to the culvert which he reported to be totaly
dry. Mr. Lavelle also provided pictures of the current landscaping.
J. Lavelle noted requests for the following waivers:
- Architectural renditions of the building. The building is existing and there is no proposal to change it.
- Separate lighting plan as part of plan set. The lighting is existing and there is no proposal to change it.
- Separate landscaping plan as part of plan set. The landscaping is existing and there is no proposal to change it.
- Location of offsite wells and septics. All these structures are at a signficant distance and no changes are proposed that would impact them.
R. Zukas questioned if there would be any changes to the landscaping.
J. Lavelle offered that he had been talking with NHDOT and reminded that there was State road construction going on just to the north of the property on Route 125. He noted they were lifting the road 12 to 18 inches, adding that the State was asking them for some lifting so not proposing any landscaping changes would make it less work for the State as part of the Route 125 project. He added that they may have to make improvements to the driveway to match the entrance to the State road once those changes were made. Mr. Lavelle also noted that the parking was at walk-in level and therefore they had no changes based upon what the State was planning to do.
L. Komornick noted a letter from engineer Steven Cummings (Concord) to the Planning Board that stated the existing 15 inch culvert had a large enough storage capacity to accommodate the increased area in the pavement for all storm events.
J. Lavelle added that the lot coverage would increase from 30% to 39% with the increase in the pavement.
L. Kormornick explained that the letter from S. Cummings was in lieu of a full fledged engineering review.
T. Moore asked if there were any further questions from the Board.
L. Gil questioned a monitoring well on the plan.
J. Lavelle explained that was put there by the State of NH and that he didn’t know if it was related to the redevlopement of Route 125 or something else.
L. Gil asked if it could be related to the Beede Waste Oil site.
It was requested that L. Komornick follow-up and find out what the wells were for.
George Kalil, owner 176 Plaistow Road, offered that it was a recent installation and was related to the Route 125 roadwork.
L. Gil noted that the septic plan noted there was to be no garbage grinders or water softners and questioned how the applicant was able to get septic approval for the hair salon. L. Gil noted a hair salon would be using chemicals and the limits placed on the disposal of chemicals into septic systems.
J. Lavelle explained that they had to provide a list of chemicals that the salon would be using in order to obtain a ground water injection permit for the State septic approval.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters who wished to comment or question.
R. Zukas moved, second by Neal Morin, to accept the site plan for 176 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Waivers:
§ 230-14CC (offsite location of wells and septics)
M. Senter moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14CC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§ 230-14HH (separate landscaping plan)
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14HH. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14YY (architectural rendition of building design)
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14YY. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14II (separate lighting plan)
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14II. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
J. Lavelle noted that all information had been submitted to the Planning Office.
L. Komornick confirmed adding that she was not aware of any conditions that were needed for approval.
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the site plan for the change of use at 176 Plaistow Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining)
Discussion of Reuse of Camp America site. Ron Pica and the DeLuccias
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering Co; Dave Forestell, property owner 222 Plaistow Road (Camp America); Jeffrey DeLuccia and Rocky DeLuccia, potential buyers for the property, were present for the discussion.
R. Pica offered an as-built plan for 222 Plaistow Road with changes to accommodate three businesses occupying the site; a construction company, used car lot and swimming pool retail location and the associated changes to the existing parking and storage/display areas for the proposed uses. He noted how the layout of the existing building would be utilized for the new uses. R. Pica also noted that addition of some plantings to the existing landscaping, reminded that there had been some waivers granted as part of the Camp America site plan. He offered that they were looking for feedback from the Board regarding the new uses of the property. Mr. Pica explained that despite the increase from one business to three there would be fewer employees and less septic use. He noted there were changes to the parking to include 9’ X 18’ parking for customers and employees, 12’ X 18’ handicapped parking and 8’ X 18’ display parking for the used cars.
T. Moore noted that the change of use from one to three businesses was a sufficient enough trigger, along with reconfiguration of the parking, for Planning Board review.
L. Komornick added that there would be waivers for the parking.
R. Pica noted that the 8’ X 18’ spaces would only be used for used car display parking and the Board traditionally had accepted that.
T. Moore reminded that this was on the agenda as a discussion only and they couldn’t make comment on an actual site plan review without notification to the abutters, not even on the parking. He noted the plan would need to come back for a public hearing.
R. Zukas questioned how often construction vehicles may be entering and leaving the property, suggesting that the retail uses (swimming pool and used vehicle sales) would be conflicting to pedestrian traffic. He offered concern over the construction use with the retail uses.
T. Moore noted that should be explained as part of a public hearing.
R. Zukas asked if it were intended that there would be an outdoor display area for the pools.
R. DeLuccia offered that the pools would be displayed indoors, noting the large showroom area.
L. Gil agreed that there could be potential safety issues with the incompatible uses.
R. Pica offered that ideas on how the uses could work together would be presented at a public hearing.
Request for Reuse of Couture’s Real Estate Offices at 3 Main Street
L. Komornick noted that she had received a letter of intent from an auto glass company seeking to locate at 3 Main Street. She noted that the only problem was that there was no site plan in the file. She reminded that the Board had been taking advantage of such requests in order to update the files for missing plans, by requesting that an as-built plan be the minimal submission before a new business is allowed to occupy a parcel where there is no site plan available.
T. Moore agreed, noting it would be a good opportunity to update the file.
L. Komornick suggested that once that was received it would only be one meeting for review.
Request for Payment of Invoice from Public Safety Impact Fee Account
It was noted that there was a copy of an invoice from Wetlands Preservation for review of plans related to improvements to the Public Safety Complex.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter, to approve payment of the invoice from Wetlands Preservation. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Request from Wal-Mart for a Sidewalk Craft Fair with Cookout
T. Moore noted that application for a special event form had been filled out.
R. Zukas expressed concern over the location of the cookout, noting it to be a busy traffic area and suggesting that there would be people forced to stand in the fire lane to participate in the event.
L. Komornick added that Wal-Mart was working with Dennise Horrocks (Health Officer) for the cookout.
R. Zukas offered that it was extremely narrow there and already a busy area. He suggested that a better location for the event would be down by the lawn and garden center, where an area of the side parking lot could be cordoned off for the craft tables and the cookout could be just to the left of the entrance to the lawn and garden center.
There was discussion regarding the safety of the proposed location for the Wal-Mart craft fair and cookout. The unanimous concensus of the Board was that if the craft tables are located to the side of the lawn and garden center, even cordoning off parking spaces, and the cookout is located to the left of the lawn and garden center entrance door, that it would be okay for the event to take place. If not there was no approval for the event.
Request to utilize property at 9 Walton Road
T. Moore read a request from Peter DeJager to use the property at 9 Walton Road, which is the back portion of 166 Plaistow Road and currently a residential dwelling, for commercial storage.
T. Moore noted that the residential dwelling was currently vacant.
L. Komornick asked why the commercial use of the residential portion of the parcel would be allowed without a site plan revision. She added that the abutters needed to be notified.
It was agreed that in order for Mr. DeJager’s request to be granted he must revise the site plan.
Follow-up on Request to Sell Christmas Trees at 19 Garden Road on Site at a Residence
L. Komornick noted that she had received input from police and fire regarding the sale of Christmas trees at 19 Garden Road. She offered that both were okay with the idea provided that there is no parking on Garden Road and a police detail is there if traffic becomes an issue. L. Komornick added that the home owner was okay with that.
N. Morin asked who would determine if there was a need for a police detail.
T. Moore answered that if complaints were received or if the police should drive by and see an issue.
L. Gil noted there was very little parking there, others agreed that there wasn’t.
L. Komornick reminded that this was a one-time approval only and if it were to continue there would be further Planning Board review.
T. Moore added that if it were to continue further then variance (combine residential/commercial use) would also be needed.
M. Senter asked if Dan Garlington (Highway Supervisor) had been consulted.
L. Kormornick replied that he had not, offering that she assumed that his issues would be the same as police and fire.
M. Senter noted there could be plowing issues as well.
L. Komornick agreed that it could be if there is snow before Christmas.
Other Business – FYI Memos for the Board
- Memo from Jason (Hoch) on Timing of Land Use Change Taxes
- Application to the Atkinson Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) regarding a sign application for 23 Atkinson Depot Road in Plaistow
- Notice from Haverhill, MA
Other Business – ZBA
It was noted that the Board of Selectmen’s appeal of the administrative decision of the Planning Board was decided in favor of the Selectmen, meaning the units of elderly housing were to be deducted from the unit cap at the time of initial application.
D. Voss also noted that the ZBA had some requests that there be clarfication of some zoning ordinances, particularly with reference to signage and criteria for the granting of a special exception.
R. Zukas moved, second by L. Gil, to adjourn the meeting at 10:02 p.m. There was no discussion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
