PLANNING BOARD
May 16, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m.
Roll Call: Tim Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were present. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman was excused.
Also present: Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator; P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official and Craig Donais, Planning Board Attorney.
Minutes of the April 18, 2007 and May 2, 2007 Meetings
Approval of the minutes was deferred to the end of the meeting.
A Final Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for the expansion of the residential portion of a combined residential/commercial structure located in the CII/Village Center Overlay District with the address of 161 Main Street, and being Tax Map 41, Lot 34, totaling 1.3 acres and having 239 feet of frontage on Main Street and 274 feet of frontage on Maple Avenue. The total residential building expansion is +/- 410 square feet. The owners of record are James and Elizabeth Vitale
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the application. He explained that the owners would like to construct an addition between the residential and commercial structures on the property. D. Johnson noted that it would square off the residential portion of the dwelling. He added that they would also like to replace an existing shed with a slightly larger one.
M. Curran asked if the expansion was of the residential portion of the building, not the commerical. It was confirmed that it was.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. He asked if there were any abutters wishing to make comment or ask questions. There were none.
T. Moore asked if the checklist was complete.
L. Komornick confirmed that it was.
M. Curran stated that she was recusing herself from the voting.
The following waivers were requested:
§ 235-2.C(3) Waiver from full engineering review
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from §235-2.C(3). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
There was a request to waive the public safety impact fee. It was noted that the residential public safety impact was only applicable to new residential construction, not alterations, and therefore a waiver was not necessary.
§ 230-14.1.CC Waiver from locating the abutting septics and well on the plan. It was noted that there would be no changes that would impact the abutting wells and septics therefore locating them on the plan was an unnecessary additional cost.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from § 230-14.1.CC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.FF Location of a loading and unloading bay. It was noted that this was an small medical office and there were no large deliveries.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from §230-14.1.FF. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Town of Plaistow Checklist for location of dumpster. It was noted that there was no dumpster and this property was on a routine residential trash pick-up route.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from the Town of Plaistow checklist for the location of a dumpster . There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.LL Traffic circulation plan. It was noted that this was a low traffic impact site and there were no traffic concerns relating to these changes.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from §230-14.1.LL. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.HH Separate landscaping plan
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from §230-14.1.HH. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.II Separate lighting plan
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to grant the waiver request from §§230-14.1.II. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to accept the site plan for 161 Main Street as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth to apporve the site plan for 161 Main Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan Application for the redevelopment of a site located at 79 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 67 located in the CI Zone. The purpose of the plan is to show the replacemnet of the existing building (Dandilyons Ice Cream and Flower Shop) with a new 1,800 square foot building to be used for a coffee shop. The total parcel acreage is +/- 35,500 square feet and has +/- 213 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Scamps, LLC
David Jordan, SFC Engineering, was present for the application. He explained the plan to redevelop the site at 49 Plaistow Road into a 1,800 sq. ft. Starbuck’s location, with a drive-thru. Mr. Jordan noted that they would be working within the footprint of the existing paved surface, with new landscaping. He continued, noting that they would like to maintain the two existing curb cuts on Route 125 as well as the one on Garden Road, but the width of the one on Garden Road would be reduced. Circulation around the site was noted to be in a clock-wise direction, with parking included for eighteen (18) vehicles.
It was noted that there had been one set of comments from CLD which Mr. Jordan indicated had been addressed, and a second CLD letter with comments had been received.
D. Jordan noted there were minor technical issues that were being addressed and they were waiting driveway for a permit from the NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation). He indicated that he would be looking for one waiver from the height of a light pole.
L. Komornick offered that the she had spoken with Erin Lombardi at CLD who noted a couple of issues those being, completion of survey work and the lack of a perc test.
D. Jordan explained that they initially were just going to redevelop the existing building, which limited the need for a full survey. He added that the final plan that was sent to CLD included a full survey. D. Jordan offered that the building inspector did witness a test pit, where it was noted that the soils were very sandy and the perc rate was estimated to be faster than two minutes.
M. Dorman noted that he was the one who observed the test pit and waived the perc test as he felt it was not necessary. He offered that the rate was so fast that measures were needed to slow it down. M. Dorman reminded that septic systems were approved by the State of New Hampshire.
L. Komornick explained that CLD included review of the septic plan as part of their review.
There was discussion regarding the perc test.
R. Zukas asked why the driveway wasn’t being re-designed to align with Wal-Mart as part of the site redevelopment.
D. Jordan offered that it would require extensive work to the mast arm and the NHDOT would have to agree to the changes.
R. Zukas noted that customers coming in off Garden Road would have to go completely around the building to get to the drive-thru. He questioned what the traffic study recommended regarding this vehicle flow.
There was a discussion regarding the traffic flow around the building.
M. Curran asked if it had been decided if there would be WiFi connections offered to customers, noting that could have an impact on the amount of time people would spend there. She also asked if outside seating was planned as had been previously indicated.
D. Jordan noted that there would be three (3) tables with two (2) seats each and they were included in the parking calculations.
M. Curran offered that she had huge traffic concerns, some which may be addressed with the State’s implementation of the median strip on Route 125. She added that she also had parking concerns. M. Curran, noting the location of the snow storage, reminded that stock piling of snow could not interfere with any lines of vision in or out of the site.
D. Jordan explained that there was a note on the plan limiting the amount of snow that could be stored on the property and that all other snow was to be removed from the site. He added that the angle parking was designed to not conflict with the drive-thru. D. Jordan offered that he lost a few parking spaces to the angle designed but noted it to be a safer situation.
M. Curran reiterated that her biggest concern was the internal traffic circulation on the site.
L. Komornick noted there was a letter from CLD in the board member’s packets.
T. Moore asked if the traffic study addressed the potential of closing the southern Route 125 curb cut as it would eliminate a conflict.
D. Jordan stated that it did not adding that it was necessary for fire apparatus and delivery trucks who would not be able to negotiate a right turn if they entered the site from the northern Route 125 curb cut. He added that once the trucks made the turn into the parking lot they could maneuvre completely around the building.
L. Komornick questioned whether or not there would be an impact to the no-construction wetlands buffer.
T. Moore asked if the areas were already disturbed.
D. Jordan noted they were not going any further into the wetlands buffer and in fact would be removing pavement.
M. Curran inquired if the handicap parking spaces met the legal requirements.
D. Jordan responded that the spaces were eight (8) feet wide with an eight (8) foot van access space.
M. Dorman confirmed that those were the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements.
D. Jordan added that all regular spaces were the required nine (9) feet wide.
L. Gil asked about trash control.
D. Jordan replied that there was an onsite dumpster and that trash control would be managed by the employees.
L. Komornick suggested that a fence be put along Little River.
L. Gil offered that these types of businesses tend to generate a lot of trash and being located next to the river this may cause a problem. He added that there could be a safety issue, noting the slope to the river.
M. Curran agreed asking Mr. Jordan to consider fencing the area. She asked if there had been plans made to connect into the the town’s fire suppression line.
D. Jordan noted that the plans showed a connection to the fire suppression line and they were still consulting with the fire chief to finalize the details. He added that if connection was required by the town then they would comply.
M. Curran asked, since this was going to be new construction, what would be the reason not to connect.
D. Jordan offered that it was his understanding the archectural designs under 2,000 sq. ft. were not required to be sprinkled.
M. Curran noted Fire Chief John McArdle in the gallery and asked for clarification.
J. McArdle stated that NFP (National Fire Protection) requirement were for buildings greater than 12,000 sq. ft. to be sprinkled and Plaistow’s requirement was for buildings greater than 2,000 sq. ft. to be sprinkled.
T. Moore asked if the board members had any additional questions. There were none. He asked if there were any abutters who had questions or comments.
Dennis Deschene, 21 Harriman Road, asked how many gallons of water would be processed through the septic system.
D. Jordan replied that it would be a 480 gallon per day system.
T. Moore noted that the staff report indicated that all information had been submitted so as to consider the application complete. He said that he would like to hold off on acceptance pending further comments from CLD.
R. Zuksa moved, second by B. Weymouth, to accept the plan for the redevelopment of 49 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion regarding the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick noted that they would be seeking a waiver from the landscaping requirements; she noted that the site was existing and they would be making significant improvements to the site. L. Komornick asked if the Board determined they wanted to see a fence on the river.
M. Curran offered that she was strongly in favor of the fence.
L. Komornick asked what for the Board’s input regarding CLD’s comment about the lack of a perc test. She noted that CLD was recommending the perc test to make further determinations regarding leaching catch basins.
M. Dorman reiterated that the sands were percing too quickly and noted that something would need to be designed in order to slow them down.
D. Jordan offered that the septic plans were all stamped by an engineer who certifies that they meet all requirements.
M. Dorman added that he witnessed the test pit and it was he who made the determination that no perc test was needed.
M. Curran asked if it was a cost issue that the perc test was not done or if it were something else. She asked if there would be a drawback to just doing the test.
M. Dorman noted that it was that the ground was percing so quickly that he didn’t feel the test was necessary and it would be a waste of everyone time. He added that it just becomes a back and forth thing.
T. Moore suggested that the matter be further discussed with CLD and if they could be convinced there wasn’t a need that would be sufficient.
M. Dorman said that he would discuss the matter with CLD and asked L. Komornick to be part of that discussion.
R. Zukas added that they may have to slow down the perc so that there was treatment of the water before it got into Little River.
M. Dorman noted there was enough distance for proper treatment.
L. Komornick asked if the leaching catch basins would have an impact considering the perc rate.
D. Jordan replied that the leaching catch basins took advantage of the fast perc rate. He added that currently the site was all sheet flow for drainage and the leaching catch basins collected the water and returned it to the ground.
T. Moore noted that the public hearing was continued to June 6, 2007.
Elderly Housing Projects
T. Moore explained that there had been a number of discussions regarding the administration of the newly adopted elderly housing ordinance and the results of those discussions pertain to all three projects under review, (Chandler Ave, Gunstock Road and Harriman Road) of the four (the noted three and Hillcrest Ave) which were on this evening’s agenda. He recapped the discussions that had taken place so far, including a joint meeting at the request of the Board of Selectmen (BOS), who offered to post for a Special Town Meeting (STM) if the Board wanted to make changes or repeal the ordinance. T. Moore reminded that even if there was a STM held, whatever changes were adopted at that time the applications currently under review would not be affected. He added that how to deal with units over the cap still needed to be
determined.
M. Curran explained that the BOS was trying to assist the Planning Board to act in the best interests of the Town, knowing that the four (4) plans currently in the review process were vested and would not be affected by a change in the Elderly Housing Zoning Ordinance. She added that making changes to or repealing the ordinance would only come to matter if there is still room left under the unit cap (number of maximum units of elderly housing allowed) once all the plans are through the process. M.Curran noted that they didn’t want to rush to propose changes to the ordinance and potentially cause other problems.
R. Zukas questioned if the BOS was suggesting that the ordinance be completely rescinded rather than changed.
T. Moore reminded that the four (4) applications in the process must conform to the unit cap as it is written in the current ordinance. He added that if the ordinance is rescinded the unit cap is a moot point and new plans would have to come in as a single-family housing development or a PRD (Planned Residential Development).
R. Zukas asked if using the land under the PRD and clustering the homes would have the same impact.
L. Komornick reminded that a PRD would be based un current density requirements.
T. Moore added that a PRD had a 10 acre minimum requirement and there was no denisty bonus different than for single family homes.
B. Weymouth inquired if the BOS was leaning towards posting a STM.
M. Curran said that they were to allow the people to vote, she added that it needed to be reminded that none of the four applications currently under review would be affected by zoning changes.
R. Zukas suggested that if the current applications could not be affected by the Town rescinding the ordinance, and thus the cap, that the door would be open for something worse.
M. Curran reminded that future applications would have to be under an ordinance such as a PRD, which didn’t have density bonuses.
R. Zukas offered that the current ordinance offered protections for the issues raised by the Town.
M. Curran said repealing it would take it off the books for future applications.
R. Zukas suggested that holding a STM for something that was on the verge of being moot, since it appeared that the cap would be met, is spending money for nothing, when the same vote could be scheduled for March.
M. Curran offered that the BOS felt that it was worth spending the money.
T. Moore polled the Board and asked that it be noted for the record that there was consesus to ask the BOS to post for a STM. He added that the language for the warrant would be the subject of a public hearing on June 6, 2007. He added that was the portion of the process that the Planning Board would be responsible for.
M. Curran added that the BOS would discuss the date at their next meeting, noting the the STM could be scheduled for as early as August or September.
T. Moore explained the unit cap under the current ordinance, noting that under the current assessing information there were 2,880 dwelling units in the Town of Plaistow, which meant that there could be 288 units (10%) of elderly housing unitstotal. He noted that there were currently 24 units at Pine Park (Walton Road) leaving 264 units available for development under the current ordinance’s cap. T. Moore added that units would be deducted from that total once the Board accepted a plan as complete, noting that none had been accepted thus far.
T. Moore noted some of the other issues of the elderly housing ordinance that had been questioned such as affordability, noting that it was the intent that there be 15% of the units made affordable; ADA versus FHA (Fair Housing Act) standards and language which are applicable; Age restrictions being included in home owners associations documents and how they are enforceable.
L. Komornick suggested that since the ordinance did not specifically call out for a definition of what is considered easily handicap access adaptable that it would be up to the Board’s discretion.
T. Moore added that all the issues noted could be addressed as part of specific plans. He reminded that once a plan had reached approval the developer had one year to implement active and substantial development, the definition of which was discussed, and four (4) years protection from zoning changes. He noted that if these conditions are not met then the Board has the option to revoke the plan.
J. McArdle asked what was considered the start of a project.
T. Moore read the definition of active and substantial development.
David Antczak, 4 Ridgewood Road, asked what would be defined as substantial completion of all the phases.
T. Moore noted that there were no provisions in the ordinances for phasing, adding that no plans would be approved with phasing.
L. Komornick reminded that a trigger for the Board taking action to revoke a plan can also be the lack of posting of a bond and a preconstruction meeting.
Steve Becht, 20 Ridgewood Road, asked if a plan were to be revoked, would the number of units included in that plan go back into the unit cap pool.
T. Moore said none would, assuming that the ordinance is changed or repealed at a STM.
M. Curran reiterated that if the ordinance were repealed the four plans in the process were the only ones who would be able to avail themselves of the ordinance.
T. Moore noted that there would be a 10 minute break after which they would begin the scheduled public hearings on the Elderly Housing projects.
The chairman called for a break at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m.
T. Moore noted that the Board was aware that there were a number of issues common to all the elderly housing development applications. Noting the lack of time, he asked, in the interest of allowing every one to have an equal chance that if something has already been brought up on the record that the comments be limited to new concerns. T. Moore noted that the concerns that had been voiced to this point were regarding water, traffic and stress on public services. He added that there would be additional future opportunities to speak on the record regarding these applications and anyone unable to attend a public hearing was welcome to write a letter.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for a 41 Unit Elderly Housing Complex to be located in the CI Distrcit at 18 Chandler Avenue, Tax Map 38, Lot 4. The property totals 11.4 acres and has 360 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Hoyt Realty Trust.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc. was present for the application. He reminded that the Board had seen the plan before and there were questions about accessibility, so he was providing a plan to the Board that showed ramp access for all the units in order to give the Board a choice of which they would prefer. He showed the conceptual of the alternate design.
M. Curran noted that all applications would be reviewed regarding the same issues, such as accessibility and whether or not there was space that could be converted to additional bedrooms.
R. Pica noted that his plan was for two-bedroom units and there was no way in the floor plan for additional bedrooms. He reiterated that he was giving the Board two options to consider with reference to accessibiltiy. R. Pica provided information regarding chair lifts that he had received from a commercial provider of accessibility equipment. He noted that the costs differed greatly depending on the model. R. Pica explained the details of how a unit would be set up if it were to be left lift-conversion ready.
M. Curran said that she had the same concerns that she has had all along, the biggest one being the financial burden on an elderly person, particularly in a short term situation.
R. Zukas said that the lifts would only be installed if there was a need for one to be there, if a ramp could not be installed.
M. Curran offered that the law required that it be considered at the time of construction.
C. Donais offered it would depend on which accessibility interpretation applied, the ADA or FHA.
R. Pica said that it was impossible to do individual ramps to every single unit, adding that if the Board was not going to allow the lifts then he would submit the design with the ramps at each end of the building to a deck area. He reminded that eighteen (18) of the proposed forty-one (41) units were in question here. R. Pica said that he would like to design with the lifts for these 18, noting that all other units had direct access. He noted that he wouldn’t want to put construction costs in that may never be needed, suggesting that the probability of these particular 18 units all needing to be made accessible was remote.
M. Curran made the point that these units were targeting a specific and aging community and there should be concern with how easily they can be converted to accessible no matter which units they were.
R. Pica explained the design with ramps at each end.
R.Zukas offered that this applicant needed to be given direction and answers to the questions he was bringing forward.
M. Curran said that there may not be answers tonight as there needed to be a legal answer to the ADA versus FHA question and which were applicable. She offered that this project was a clean slate building-wise and she wanted to make sure that it was done properly. M. Curran noted that Mr. Pica could have designed one building with an elevator access for all and it was his choice not to do so.
C. Donais noted that if the buildings were designed with ramp access then all would be accessible without further accommodations being needed.
M. Curran added that it would answer her concerns and would leave no worries about later cost increases.
There was a discussion regarding the appearance of the new design and the access.
R. Zukas suggested the new design was less aesthetically appealing with the looks of a motel rather than condos.
M. Curran suggested that the builder had the option to build everything to grade level.
R. Pica noted that if everything was built to grade then the back side of some of the units would be underground.
M. Curran offered that just because an ordinance allowed for “X” number of units to be built did not mean that all those units had to be built. She added that if the 18 units could not be aesthetically and affordably included then they may choose to not grant those units.
R. Pica requested guidance on which design the Board wanted him to proceed with. He noted that if the State accepted the lifts for accessibility and the Board was still adamantly opposed he would go with the ramps.
R. Zukas noted that he understood the accessibility issue, but he felt the aesthetic issue was important as well. He reminded that were 23 units at grade and the others could be set up with the concrete pad for a lift that they may or may not ever need. R. Zukas suggested that buyers would take all that into consideration when they were looking at the purchase of a particular unit. He added that some may choose to not purchase a unit with a ramp and would prefer that it be lift ready. R. Zukas suggested that a lot was being made over eighteen units.
M. Curran offered that it was setting a precedent. She questioned how the lift would affect the window visibility.
R. Pica noted that adding the concrete lift pad would not affect the windows and the lift once installed would not block the windows.
M. Curran suggested that the Board did not have to allow those 18 units to be built and she was asking that the Board consider the future impact of those 18 units.
R. Zukas asked what eliminating the 18 units did to the design.
M. Curran replied that it became up to the developer to redesign the building. She reiterated that if they cannot be made easily accessible they shouldn’t be built. M. Curran reminded that these complexes were targeting an aging population.
R. Zukas said that for the 18 units he didn’t like the motel look. He noted that he was in favor of giving the buyer the option or they would have the option to move.
M. Curran expressed that it wasn’t always an option for someone who comes down with a devasting disease to move and that it’s not always financially feasible to do so.
There was a discussion regarding financial options for a home owners association to escrow funds for future lift fit outs.
M. Curran reiterated that these units were targeting a specific population and she felt it was the Board’s responsibility to consider all options and potential hardships.
L. Komornick noted that she and C. Donais had been looking at the ADA and FHA requirements during the discussion and lifts and ramps were called out as being easily accessible.
R. Zukas added that as long as the pad and the rough wiring for a lift were installed that was more than adequate for the 18 units.
R. Pica noted that pads would be provided once there was a need for the lift. He noted the stairs would have to be removed for the installation of the concrete pad and that there would be money set aside for this purposes.
R. Zukas reminded that at the last discussion it was said that pads and electic would be pre-installed.
M. Curran offered that the Board should consider 23 units that are already accessible and not the 18 that aren’t easily accessible.
There was a discussion regarding the potential of lifts and to what level infrastructure would be provided at construction.
R. Pica noted that if the Board did not want to allow for the lifts then he would submit the plan that called for the ramps and made all units accessible.
M. Curran offered that ramps on the ends of the deck did not provide adequate privacy for those units as someone would have to pass to get to their unit.
R. Pica noted that they would prefer to go with the lifts, but the decks provided full access.
L. Komornick questioned the aesthetics of having the lifts at construction.
M. Dorman said that he had a problem with lifts that might be there for years and never used.
R. Pica said that he would rather go with the ramps at the ends of the deck than with a ramp at every unit. He said that they would have to alter the landscaping plan to accommodate the ramps.
R. Zukas offered that he didn’t like the motel style of the building and asked if there was a more aesthetic way of doing the design.
M. Curran said that she was more in favor of reducing the number of units in favor of resident’s privacy. She noted that the design was a surprise to her and that she felt these units should be something that people could be proud of.
R. Pica replied that he didn’t think that privacy would be an issue, adding that the deck was offset from the building.
T. Moore offered that separate steps could be provided for each of the units.
M. Dorman questioned how a wheelchair would be prevented from accidentally going down the stairs.
M. Curran suggested that all the stairs be gated.
M. Dorman noted that the gates would have to be self-closing, adding the he didn’t think the stairs could just be left open.
R. Pica offered to work with the Building Inspector and the State (ADA Office) on the design of the ramps.
There was a brief discussion regarding the ramp and deck construction materials.
T. Moore suggested that R. Pica return with another proposal regarding the access.
R. Pica noted that the traffic study had not yet been completed. He offered that the traffic from the 55+ development would not have the same peak traffic times as the adjacent street.
T. Moore offered that should be detailed in the traffic study.
R. Pica stated that he would like the Board of accept jurisdiction of the plan but that he was not yet seeking final approval.
M. Curran suggested that the issues discussed this evening regarding accessibility and number of units should be worked out before the Board accepted the plan for jurisdiction.
T. Moore noted that all the technical details of the plan were complete and accepting a plan for jurisdiction did not commit the Board to a final approval. He noted there were still outstanding concerns regarding traffic.
It was noted for the record that the State well permits had been obtained.
R. Pica added that they surveyors went back to the site and did not locate a stream that had been on concern at a previous meeting.
M. Curran reminded that there had been concerns over an easement or a road.
R. Zukas added that it had been a paper road that was now someone’s driveway. He suggested that it should be verified that it was no longer a road and was now privately owned.
R. Pica noted that all the surrounding lots were private property.
Joan Pichowicz, 24 Chandler Ave, brought an album forward to the Board. The book chronicled issues that she had been having with her property through the development and use of the property now known as Shaw’s Plaza. Most of the issues were drainage and septic related. Mrs. Pichowicz said that she wanted the Board to know all the problems they had on that side of the property and expressed concern that putting the 55+ housing on the other side would give them additional issues. She asked that the Board make sure that they wouldn’t be even further adversely affected.
T. Moore asked for a motion from the Board regarding acceptance of the plan as complete. There was none. He stated that the public hearing would be continued to June 6.
R. Zukas suggested that R. Pica take note of Mrs. Pichowicz’s concerns and do as much as possible to mitigate them.
R. Pica answered that the design for the drainage system more than met the Town’s regulations and the site would have no impact to the Pichowicz’s.
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, was present for the application.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, reminded that at a previous meeting it was said that the Board was not going to permit two open plans on the same property to go forward.
T. Trudel stated that he was withdrawing the application for the forty units.
A Preliminary Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment/Consolidation Plan and Site Plan Review Application for a proposed +/- 144-Unit Elderly (55 Plus) Housing Complex Project, Phases 1, 2, 3 and 4. The lot line adjustment and consolidation plan involves the merger of Tax Map 6, Lots 41-1 through 15 (64 Sweet Hill Road) and Tax Map 62, Lot 40 (62 Sweet Hill Road). The total acreage of the merged parcels will be +/- 52 acres and will have frontage of +/- 3,000 feet. The owner of record for 62 Sweet Hill Road is Sweet Hill Investements, LLC and the remainder of the lots are owned by Ronald Brown Investments.
Terry Trudel, SEC Associates, was present for the application. He explained that the plan was for 144 units of two-bedroom eldery housing. He noted that they would be configured in different ways from free standing to five units attached. T. Trudel explained the phasing that they were proposing and approximated how many units would be part of each phase. He noted that Bruce Lewis had been contracted to work on the well plan and there was progress with the process for obtaining a State well permit, adding that the abutters would be notifed as part of that process. T. Trudel explained that the traffic study was not yet completed and it would be included in the final application.
T. Moore noted that there would be a meeting of the Conservation Commission (ConCom) the next evening and part of the discussion would be how best to communicate concerns over the testing process to the State.
T. Trudel asked to be copied on any correspondence that was sent to the State.
T. Moore noted that the Planning Board would be copied on any correspondence as well. He added that there were no provisions in either the ordinances or the regulations to permit phasing.
There was a discussion regarding the terms “active and substantial development” and the need to take any references to phasing off the plan.
M. Curran reminded that once a plan is approved a preconstruction meeting must be held and bonding must be in place within forty-five (45) days and that there was a one-year deadline to meet active and substantial development.
R. Zukas asked if there was proposed to be only one club house for all the units.
M. Curran added that the club house needed to be accessibly built and available before the first person moves in.
L. Komornick asked if there was any work being proposed to be done in the wetlands buffer, noting that some appeared close on the plan.
T. Trudel noted that all town wetlands ordinance requirements were met.
Stephen Savage, Plaistow Police Chief, questioned if the club house would be rented out to others or groups, noting that he felt that could have a higher impact on his departmental services as well as traffic.
L. Komornick offered that the Board had the discretion to declare as part of the plan that there be no outside rental of the club house. She added that they would also be restricted by the available parking.
Jody Schramm, 28 Greenfield Drive, questioned when the traffic counts were taken in the area, noting that she had not seen any cables across the road to collect data. She also expressed concern regarding the well monitoring and the maintenance of green spaces areas.
T. Moore noted that once the traffic study was received it would be reviewed and if it was found to be inadequate or unsatisfactory it would be repeated at the applicant’s expense. He added that the study would include details on how it was conducted.
Dan Schramm, 28 Greenfield Drive, asked who was doing the traffic study.
T. Trudel answered that it was being done by Gregsak Engineering and they did not have a report as yet.
There was discussion regarding how the traffic study should be conducted and what should be included in it.
D. Schramm expressed concern that it was being reported that the information had been gathered was complete but that there was no report for this discussion. He asked if the comparision of the wetlands from the inital (15-lot subdivision plan) to this plan had been done.
M. Curran noted that this was the first time they had seen this plan.
Ron Brown, property owner, noted there were no changes to the wetlands from the previous plan to this one.
Courtney Scott, 60 Sweet Hill Road, noted that she had heard that there would be monitoring of the wells for the two abutting home owner’s associations and requested that her well be monitored as well during the well testing for this new plan. She asked if an irrigation system was included in the plan.
T. Trudel said that there was not an irrgation system planned.
Susan Whittaker, 3 Windsor Court, offered that she thought that cul-de-sacs were not allowed under the ordinances.
T. Moore noted that cul-de-sacs are permitted with a maximum length of 2,000 feet.
There was discussion regarding vesting of an application and whether or not changes to that application can be made in light of the fact that there will be a public hearing regarding the ordinance. Order of appearance on the agenda was questioned at to whether or not where an application was placed on the agenda gave it a particular standing. L. Komornick noted that it did not.
C. Donais offered that the three applications that were on this evening’s agenda were properly and legally noticed for this meeting and if the applications were deemed technically complete they could be accepted by the Board.
D. Donovan questioned if plans that showed units that exceeded the cap stated in the ordinance could be accepted.
C. Donais reminded that they were accepted for notification purposes only and that nothing had been accepted for jurisdiction by the Board that would start to diminish the number of units available under the cap.
There was a discussion of terminology and the difference between acceptance of an application to be notifed for a public hearing and one that is accepted by the Board for jurisdiction. It was noted that the change in the RSAs in August 2006, defined when a plan was vested for notification purposes.
D. Donovan stated that he did not believe that the Board should have accepted the application for these 144 units.
D. Schramm questioned the greenspace noted on the plans.
T. Trudel offered the intention that much of the greenspace remain natural vegetation.
D. Schramm asked if there was still intented to be a swimming pool.
T. Trudel confirmed that there would be as well as a tennis court.
D. Schramm asked if there was a maintenance plan for the pool.
R. Zukas offered that the pool would most likely be filled by a tanker company and not from the well.
D, Schramm said that he saw people filling their pools from their wells everyday.
M. Curran noted that the Board had heard loud and clear that there were concerns among the abutters regarding the water and she assured that the Board would be taking a very hard look at that. She suggested that the Board mandate a hydrogeological study, which the ordinance allows at the Board’s discretion.
L. Komornick explained that what ever report was submitted would be subject to peer review by the Board’s engineers.
R. Zukas asked if there was a specific mandate for who gets monitored as part of the testing for the wells.
T. Moore noted that there was a mandate from the State.
T. Trudel offered that he believed it to be 1,000 feet.
D. Schramm asked if there would be individual septic systems.
T. Trudel replied that there would be shared septics and noted proposed locations on theplan.
M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, that the Board mandate that a hydrogeological study be done and submitted. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore stated that the public hearing was going to be continued to June 6.
T. Trudel noted that they would be filing a final application.
S. Becht, 20 Ridgewood Road, asked how a final could be filed for without the input that would be coming from ConCom.
T. Moore noted that no determinations were being made and that changes could still be made to any plan up until final approval.
Keith Cornell, 5 Ridgewood Road, asked what was the significance of a preliminary plan compared to a final plan.
T. Moore noted that a preliminary plan may not include all the reports that a final plan would and was basically a way for an applicant to get input from the Board and abutters before filing a final plan. He added that it was information gathering and no votes for approval were taken and there was nothing binding the Board or the applicant.
A letter from Fire Chief John McArdle was read regarding the need for the units to have sprinkler systems.
T. Moore stated that the preliminary hearing was closed and the applicant would be making a filing for a final plan.
S. Becht questioned the parking requirements.
T. Trudel noted that each unit was required to have two parking spaces, adding that there were two in each garage as well as two in the driveway.
A Prelimnary Hearing on a Site Plan Review Application for a 132, two-bedroom unit elderly housing project located at 17 Harriman Road, Tax Map 50, Lot 78. The project is located in the LDR district and is being proposed on an existing 49.16 acre parcel with 315.27 feet fo frontage on Harriman Road. The owner of record is Gerald E. Holt.
Todd Connors, Sublime Civil Engineers, was present for the application. He noted that there were still a lot of details that needed to be worked out with this plan. Mr. Connors offered that they were still working on the configuration of the units, which would be in mulit-family buildings of differing sizes. He stated that he had heard the ADA, water and traffic issues of the other projects loud and clear. Mr. Connors noted that there were concerns regarding sight distance issues on Harriman Road, but offered that their current driveway met the applicable standards.
There was a discussion as to whether or not Harriman Road was considered to be a collector or a secondary road since the designation would be a consideration in the sight distance requirement.
L. Komorick noted that Harriman Road was a posted 25 mph zone and suggested that a speed test be done as part of the traffic study.
T. Connors said that it would all be looked at in the study. He questioned the Board’s road profile, noting there was more than one reference in the regulations.
L. Komornick noted there was a new cross-section road profile and that all the issues had been resolved.
M. Curran moved, second by B. Weymouth, that the Board mandate that a hydrogeological study be done and submitted as was done for the Brown application.
M. Curran showed pictures of wetland areas that had been submitted to her. There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Dennis Deschene, 21 Harriman Road, noted that there were vernal pools and many different animal species, including one they believed to be endangered, that inhabited the parcel in question.
T. Moore offered that protections would be taken for endangered species.
D. Deschene offered that he had contacted the State of New Hampshire.
Paul Dupuis, 34 Harriman Road, noted that there was proposed to be 3200 feet of new roadway and asked if it would be salted in the winter time.
T. Connor noted that it would have to be paved as per the Town’s requirements and it was up to the Town to decide if safety dictated it be salted.
Mark Gilroy, 35 Harriman Road, submitted a letter from an abutter (Lisa Withee) who was unable to attend the meeting. The letter voiced similar concerns to the ones being raised by those present at the meeting.
Joe Cunningham, 23 Harriman Road, expressed concerns for traffic on Harriman Road. He noted that there were frequently accidents in that area and suggested that even cutting trees would not improve the sight distance. Mr. Cunningham suggested that adding well over 200 cars to the road would be a major problem.
L. Komornick noted that all traffic studies would be reviewed by CLD and Dan Garlington, Plaistow Highway Supervisor, would be consulted as well.
Leslie Wyman, 94 Forrest Street, suggested that the streets feeding into Harriman Road, such as Forrest Street and Pollard Road, needed to be included in any traffic study.
T. Connors offered that when there were ready to undertake the traffic study they would work with the Town to develop the scope of that study.
L. Komornick reminded that an escrow account needed to be established for plan review.
Elwood Paradis, 15 Harriman Road, explained that the Planning Board, as well as the Police Department, was notified in 1996 of the traffic and safety issues regarding Harriman Road. He added that he himself has made many calls over the years regarding the road.
T. Moore noted a letter of petition that was addressed to the Highway Safety Committee in 1996.
Gerry Holt, 17 Harriman Road, noted that the proposed road would be pushed up to meet the sight distance requirements and the existing driveway would not be used.
Ken Higgins, 25 Harriman Road, noted the pitch of the hill in the new location would mean the same problems.
Don Watts, 24 Harriman Road, offered that he could hear cars engines kick into another gear when coming around the curb. He expressed similar concerns regarding building in the wetlands.
T. Moore gave a detailed explanation of the wetlands ordinance including the protections of the buffers and distances that septic systems had to maintain. He assured that the wetlands would be protected.
Diane Cunningham, 25 Harriman Road, expressed additional concerns regarding the need to protect the wildlife, noting they would have no where to go if the land is developed.
P. Dupuis expressed concern that there would be a diminishment of his property value and stated there would definitely be an impact to the peaceful enjoyment of his property.
T. Moore noted the hearing was continued to June 20.
Minutes of the April 18, 2007 and May 2, 2007 Meetings
M. Curran requested that voting on the minutes be postponed to the next meeting, noting that she was still to provide information regarding some changes she requested be noted in the April 18 minutes.
Other Business – Real Estate Signage
It was noted that there was a memo from the Department of Building Safety regarding real estate sign permits.
M. Curran noted that it had been her intention when suggesting property addresses appear on a real estate sign that it be easy for a passerby to know the address when calling the realtor.
Other Business – Fire Chief’s Suggested Regulation Change
L. Komornick asked if the Board wanted to schedule a public hearing to review the Fire Chief’s suggestion that sprinkling requirements be clearly spelled out in the regulations.
T. Moore suggested that it be scheduled for June 6.
It was suggested that hydrants, whereever applicable, be mandated in the regulations as well.
R. Zukas moved, second by B. Weymouth, to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________.
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
