PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
JOINT MEETING WITH BOARD OF SELECTMEN
November 07, 2007
The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call:
Planning Board: Present were Timothy Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Michelle Curran, Selectman Ex-Officio; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman and Barry Weymouth, were excused.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planning Coordinator and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett.
T. Moore explained that this meeting’s agenda will include a joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen to begin after the first public hearing.
Approval of the Minutes of the October 3, 2007, and October 17, 2007, Meetings
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes of the October 3, 2007, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the October 17, 2007, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
A Final Public Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the ICR Zone at 134 Newton Road, Tax Map 70, Lot 20, involving the addition of a drive-up Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) kiosk. The parcel size if 2.95 acres and has 498 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Northland Mall, LLC.
Dennis Quintal, Civil Construction, Inc., and John Meserve, Merrimack Savings Bank (MSB), were present for the application.
D. Quintal explained that MSB had entered into an agreement with the plaza ownership to install an ATM near the existing Dunkin’ Donuts (DD) drive-thru. He offered that the ATM was proposed to be installed on the grassed area and drive-up access would initially be using the same paved access for the DD, would then fork-off to the actual ATM machine, rejoining the drive-thru driveway to exit. D. Quintal added that there was paved parking close by that would allow customers to park and walk up to the teller machine. He noted that other than the addition of the ATM machine they were proposing no other changes to the site.
J. Meserve offered that the ATM would be a common drive-up style, with bollards to protect it. He said that there would only be minimal lighting needed since the DD and the parking lot stay lit. J. Meserve added that the machine would be alarmed.
R. Zukas questioned why the machine couldn’t be moved to the edge of the grassed area that would allow it to be a park and walk up ATM, completely avoiding any conflicts with the DD drive-thru traffic. He suggested that the rapid traffic flow of the DD drive-up would be a dangerous conflict with ATM traffic and other than someone not getting wet he didn’t see a big enough advantage of a drive-up ATM that was placed in a quick-flowing traffic area over one that customers could safely walk to.
D. Quintal offered that the drive-up ATM also offered better security to the users than a walk-up ATM would.
R. Zukas suggested that the ATM could be placed in another location in the parking lot that would allow drive-up access and not conflict with the DD drive-up window traffic. He expressed concern over putting additional traffic in the area of the DD drive-up.
J. Meserve offered that the exit for the DD drive-up traffic was two lanes that should mitigate concerns over departing traffic from either drive-up. He added that people with children in their vehicles did not want to have to get themselves or their children out of the vehicles to use the ATM.
R. Zukas said that while he understood the desire to have a drive-up ATM he didn’t understand why it had to be in conflict with the DD drive-up window.
M. Curran asked what the width of the drive-thru access was.
D. Quintal replied that it was fourteen feet, twelve feet on the curved area. He added that it was one-car wide for travel and two-car wide at the exit.
M. Curran inquired if there would be a paved pathway from the parking area to allow for the people that might walk-up to the ATM. She offered that she agreed with R. Zukas in his concerns about locating the ATM near the DD drive-up. M. Curran echoed the idea that the ATM might be better placed elsewhere in the parking lot.
J. Meserve noted that locating it somewhere else in the parking lot would mean a loss of parking needed spaces to the plaza.
M. Curran expressed concern about traffic confusion, particularly before driver’s had their first cup of coffee.
R. Zukas suggested that a paved walkway would increase the need for maintenance as it would need to be shoveled to provide access. He added concern about people crossing the access road to walk up to the ATM. R. Zukas noted that it was his understand that was why most ATMs with a drive-up access didn’t allow for wall-up traffic.
D. Quintal noted that they didn’t want to promote walk-up access for exactly that reason. He suggested that access to the ATM and the coffee window could be separate lanes. D. Quintal offered that he didn’t really see where he could place it in the parking lot without losing the security provided by it being located closer to the building.
R. Zukas offered that he thought it was better security to be located in the parking lot, where there was no place for anyone to hide, than it was in that corner of the lot, which was near the dumpster and a wooded area, providing plenty of cover for someone. He offered that it would be easier to see someone approaching if the ATM were placed in the parking lot.
There was continued discussion regarding concerns over the proposed access to the ATM by using the DD drive-up. Security and traffic concerns were continued to be points of concern for members of the Board.
There was additional discussion regarding impact to parking numbers if the ATM were to be located somewhere in the parking lot. It was noted that the drive-up lanes could be made wider without losing parking spaces.
L. Komornick suggested that one of the unknowns was when peak time for each of the uses would be and whether or not there was actually a conflict.
D. Quintal offered that he didn’t see a high demand for the ATM.
R. Zukas noted that he frequents this plaza and the ATM currently located in the variety store is often empty.
J. Meserve offered that the variety store wanted to get out of the ATM business.
R. Zukas expressed additional concern with the location of the designated snow storage area in front of the ATM decreasing visibility and increasing security concerns.
D. Quintal explained that snow would not be piled high in front of the machine as they didn’t want to obscure visibility of the ATM.
R. Zukas questioned who would monitor the snow storage.
L. Komornick asked how permanent ATM installations were.
J. Meserve answered that hopefully they were very permanent.
M. Curran offered that she wasn’t comfortable going with a “try it and see if it works” approach the proposal.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none. He asked if there were any abutters with questions or concerns. There were none. He suggested to the applicant that the Board would be willing to continue this public hearing so that they could consider the concerns expressed by the Board regarding the location of the ATM and perhaps return with a different configuration.
D. Quintal offered that he could try to look at the plan again.
J. Meserve added that it made the most sense to locate the ATM where it was on the plan, noting they didn’t want to lose any of the parking for the merchants.
L. Komornick asked if a site walk would allow the Board a better sense of the property and where the ATM was proposed to be located.
A number of the Board members expressed that they felt there were familiar enough with the site to review the proposed plan.
M. Curran offered that she would prefer to look at the site on her own. She suggested that if DD didn’t have the customer volume that it did or if it were located on the other side of the building she would have less concerns. She added that there was just too much potential for human error to cause a conflict at this location.
There was additional discussion regarding the proposed location of the ATM in traffic conflict with the DD drive-up as well as security concerns being located so closely to the treeline and the dumpsters for security issues.
M. Dorman noted that he thought it was a good idea to keep the conflicting traffic flows separated. He suggested that curbing between the lanes and a yield sign be added to the proposal.
R. Zukas suggested that it could create a plowing problem.
M. Dorman replied that it wouldn’t be any more difficult to plow than the newly developed Stateline Plaza.
D. Quintal offered that he would look at the curbing suggestion.
There was a brief discussion regarding the flow of delivery traffic for the businesses in the plaza. It was determined that this proposal would not impact that flow.
T. Moore explained that, while the Board had made a number of suggestions to the applicant, there was no consent or agreement implied until they could fully review any resulting revisions on a plan. He noted that the public hearing was continued to November 28, 2007.
JOINT MEETING WITH PLAISTOW BOARD OF SELECTMEN
M. Curran called the meeting of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to Order at 7:15 p.m.
Roll Call:
Board of Selectmen: Present were Michelle Curran, Chairman, John A. Sherman and Daniel Poliquin. Lawrence Gil, Vice-Chairman; and Charles Blinn, were excused.
Also present was Jason Hoch, Town Manager.
M. Curran noted that for duration of the joint meeting she was yielding to T. Moore to conduct the meeting.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49, 50 & 51, involving the redevelopment for a new 14,673 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy retail store. The parcel size if 2.076 acres and has 614 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
A Preliminary Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49 & 52, involving the redevelopment for a new 17,801 square foot retail building. The parcel size is 3.05 acres and has 219 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
Present for the preliminary hearing were: Jack Soraghan, Soraghan Realty Trust; Stephen DeCoursey, P.E. and James Cranston, Bohler Engineering, P.C.; Arthur Scarneo, Sr. Vice President, Greenan-Pederson, Inc.; Michael Todd, Principal, Excel Construction Mgmt, LLC; David Sanderson, Newland Development; and Scott Vlasak, Senior Associate, Bruce Ronayne Hamilton Architects.
T. Moore offered that this preliminary hearing is in regard to tow parallel development projects and there are issues that involve both the Planning Board and the BOS and therefore it was decided it would be best to hold a joint meeting.
S. DeCoursey explained that this project was proposed to consolidate four existing lots (two dwellings, a garage associated with one of the dwellings, a small building where the tarot reader was currently located and a retail building) and the construction of a +/-14,600 sq. ft. Rite-Aid and a +/- 17,000 sq. ft. retail space, where Casey’s Diner and other retail will be located. He added that there were two items for discussion at this meeting:
- The existing access easement through the parking lot for the existing residential condominiums (condos).
- Inter-phase access to Garden Road and Route 125
Easement:
S. DeCoursey offered that they had met with representatives of the Condo Association and discussed with them the relocation of the easement through the new parking lot, with a second access around the back of the retail building. Access via Westville Road would be maintained as well.
Access to Garden Road and Route 125:
A. Scarneo explained the reconfiguration of the inter-phase of Garden Road and to be unified with the driveway access to the parcel and connection to Route 125. He added that they had been in discussion with NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) trying to get access incorporated into the current project to expedite the process, as well as limit the interruption to those using Route 125. Mr. Scarneo offered that they were here to see the viability of an easement over town-owned land, noting that if the access is contained on Mr. Soraghan’s property then there would be set back issues for the buildings. He added that all construction work would be done by the proponent at no cost to the Town. Drawings of the proposed access were shown to the boards.
There was discussion with the Planning Board and the BOS.
D. Poliquin raised the following concerns:
- Access to Garden Road from the parking lot
- Lack of the ability to go south on Route 125
- Queuing concerns on Garden Road merging on to Route 125
Another concern that was raised was regarding the stacking of vehicles on Route 125 and stopping on the hill in inclement weather (when the signalized lights are turned to flashing)
The applicants noted the following responses:
- The realigned access creates a near four-way intersection with Garden Road, the new plaza and Route 125
- The new median installed by NHDOT prohibits access to Route 125 south without going to the intersection at Westville Road
- The proposed access intersection meets accepted design standards for sight distance
- The proposed design meets accepted design standards for traffic queuing
- Operations at the intersection at Westville Road should not be degraded with this project
- Traffic stacking and storage capacity is enhanced at all approaches
- Allowing the traffic signal at Westville Road to be changed to flashing in snow storms is illegal and creates an unsafe situation as there is a change in driver expectation
A. Scarneo offered that his firm had been involved in the study that looked at a four-way intersection with the Pentucket Plaza (Home Depot project) and it was determined to be unachievable. He added that the median strip currently being installed was taken into account as part of that study.
M. Curran noted that this plan would force travelers on Garden Road into the plaza.
A. Scarneo responded that regardless of any development at the plaza this would be a safer situation for the Town as it would increase the size of the throat on the approach, increase all traffic radii and provide a four-way intersection with 100% correct traffic movements, under the stop-sign control and a cycle that completely clears all traffic.
J. Sherman asked to see where the stop signs were placed.
A. Scarneo showed them on the plan.
J. Sherman asked for confirmation that it was a four-way intersection with three stop signs.
A. Scarneo confirmed that it was that configuration, noting the yield prevented traffic back-up to Route 125.
J. Sherman asked why the Garden Road needed to be moved at all and why it just wasn’t improved as part of this proposed project.
A. Scarneo offered that they wouldn’t have frontage on Route 125 and that would impact them being able to meet setback requirements. He added that the proposal kept traffic in the proper lanes, limited u-turn attempts and was a better configuration for tractor-trailer and emergency vehicle access.
L. Komornick expressed concern that “no U-turns” signs had not yet been posted on any of the new medians.
A. Scarneo offered that he wasn’t sure why that was or if there would be one at the Westville Road intersection, adding that some people will make a u-turn regardless of any prohibitive signage.
J. Hoch questioned if the request was for a new easement and not a deeded right-of-way for access to Garden Road.
A. Scarneo explained that the easement would be needed in order to maintain setbacks. He said that they would be asking for rights to traverse as well as maintain and plow.
R. Zukas asked if the Town was going to be expected to maintain and plow the new driveways.
There was discussion regarding where the Town’s responsibilities would be with regard to the proposed new access point if it were an easement over town-owned land.
A. Scarneo offered that the current intersection did not offer safe and efficient accommodation of the existing traffic whether or not the parcel is developed.
R. Zukas noted that the Town could improve the intersection on their own, since they would be the ones maintaining the road.
A. Scarneo reminded that the Town would be held to the same design standards as the developer was because they would be intersecting with a State roadway. He added that they were in discussions with NHDOT to make certain that their design matched the State’s plan and requirements.
J. Sherman suggested that he didn’t see a reason why the intersection (of Garden Road with Route 125) couldn’t be slid down closer to its current location.
A. Scarneo explained that would not make the intersection a standardized four-way intersection.
D. Poliquin noted that it would also not direct traffic from three directions directly into the project.
A. Scarneo offered that the proposed intersection would take traffic off Route 125 and Garden Road into a standardized intersection, admitting that Route 125 traffic would have the ability to come straight into the plaza.
There was additional discussion of the placement of the easement to the condo units that is proposed by the applicant.
M. Curran expressed concern that one of the access plans is to have people travel behind the retail building.
J. Sherman asked what the plan was for the existing area that goes into Garden Road would be if the Town agreed to the proposed relocation of the intersection.
A. Scarneo replied that it would be loamed and seeded.
J. Hoch suggested that the proposed intersection would mean an increase in pavement, which looked as if it would be difficult to maintain.
A. Scarneo noted that the intersection was designed to accommodate fire apparatus, which was a requirement for them to obtain a NHDOT curb cut.
J. Hoch suggested that there wouldn’t be the same maintenance issues for the Town with the increased pavement, and that fire apparatus can be accommodated with the access to Garden Road in its current location.
A. Scarneo offered that if the intersection was moved down there would not be a standardized intersection once the plaza was developed.
J. Hoch asked if the intersection could be moved back closer to the current location and an access provided to the back of the plaza for the condo units.
A. Scarneo suggested that it would be very unlikely that people seeking to access the condo units would choose to go behind the buildings if they can go in front of them.
R. Zukas said that the project should be completely taken out of the discussion as that is not the proposal being discussed. He added that the only reason to create a four-way intersection, instead of a three-way with Garden Road, was for exclusive access to the plaza. He said that the three-way intersection would not mean a significant increase in maintenance costs to the Town.
A number of different scenarios that would mean no increase or little increase in asphalt and town maintenance costs where proposed. One of the proposals included dedicated in/out access points to Route 125.
D. Sanderson offered that Rite-Aid did not believe they would be in a position to redevelop this parcel without this proposed intersection. He added that Rite-Aid not only considered it a convenience to their customers but a matter of safety as well.
M. Curran reminded that they were not taking the buildings into consideration as part of this discussion.
J. Soraghan asked if the major issue for the Board was the maintenance of the intersection. He added that he had been maintain the Garden Road access for the past six (6) years, noting that if he had not it would not have been maintained.
M. Curran replied that it would be maintained just perhaps not on the time table that Mr. Soraghan would like it to be.
L. Komornick suggested that the access be made private.
A. Scarneo responded that created different liability issues in the case of an accident.
L. Komornick suggested that the Town could be willing to sell a portion of property to the developer and this would mean there would be no need for an easement.
R. Zukas asked if that would create an issue relative to access for the condos at the rear of the parcel.
L. Komornick replied that it would not as that would still be covered under a different easement agreement. She offered that the area in question had been a “no man’s land” for years, which no one has been “chomping at the bit” to maintain.
A. Scarneo asked for the opportunity to explore the option with his client and come back with a plan.
D. Sanderson asked about the process of acquiring the land from the Town.
A. Scarneo added that it had not been his experience that Town’s usually want to sell of property.
There was a discussion regarding the potential and the process to covey the parcel in question. It was noted that the BOS did have the authority to sell the property or it could go to a vote at Town Meeting.
A. Scarneo offered that they would most likely not want to pursue the purchase of the property if it involved going to Town Meeting. He added that he would like the opportunity to discuss the options with his clients to see if it was palatable.
M. Curran questioned what happened when the Town plowed their owned portion and the property owner doesn’t plow the private area.
L. Komornick noted that the same scenario was already happening on Haynes Boulevard.
M. Dorman added that the same situation was all over town, noting Crystal Hill Road as another example.
J. Soraghan offered that he had always plowed the roadway before.
M. Curran offered that she was “playing Devil’s Advocate” adding that she knew the area was well maintained.
J. Sherman asked if there were any changes proposed for the access from Westville Road.
A. Scarneo offered that it had been pushed back as far as possible to provide the proper sight distance.
L. Komornick noted that she had received a call from a business on Garden Road expressing concern over how they and their clients will have access to Garden Road.
A. Scarneo responded that they had been looking at how many other people would need to be using the plaza as a means to access.
L. Komornick asked if a decel lane was being consider for the access on Westville Road.
A. Scarneo replied that they were not as the current traffic information didn’t warrant one.
M. Curran questioned if there would be a decrease in the incline.
A. Scarneo offered that the whole access was being redesigned.
S. DeCoursey added that they were reviewing not only the access to the plaza but access easements for the condos.
Frank Ahern, 33 Garden Road, asked how close the proposed new access to the parcel would be to the intersection at Route 125 and Westville Road.
A. Scarneo replied that it would be approximately 125 feet from the signalized intersection, noting that the State minimum is 100 feet.
F. Ahern expressed concern that would not be enough distance in inclement weather when the lights are flashing at the Westville Road intersection.
L. Komornick offered that it would be paramount that the road be maintained in that area, including adequate salting.
A. Scarneo reiterated that he had discussed that light being turned to flashing during inclement weather and had been told by Doug DePorter (NHDOT, District VI) that it was not the State that was turning it to flash.
L. Komornick recommended finding out who was actually turning the signal to flashing. She added that if it was the Police Department that was doing it that she was certain there was a good reason behind it.
M. Curran added that they did not want to encourage a back up on the road.
A. Scarneo suggested that the signal at Westville Road be changed to a constant flashing, noting that would not adversely affect driver expectation like changing it from full signal to flashing would. He added that it would be the State’s decision to make.
T. Moore offered that it makes sense considering all the information that was discussed this evening to continue this joint public hearing. He encouraged the applicants to come back with sketches that would illustrate all the scenarios that were discussed as part of this meeting for review by both boards.
L. Komornick reminded that at some point in the process plans should be reviewed by CLD (Planning Board Engineers). She added that the applicant had intended to file for a final for the next meeting.
M. Curran added that the BOS would also need to meet and discuss the options.
There was discussion regarding the best way to continue the joint hearing. It was noted that the Planning Board’s next meeting would be November 28, not the 21st, as that would be the night before Thanksgiving.
S. DeCoursey formally asked for a continuance to allow them to review the information this meeting and get a new plan to L. Komornick.
L. Komornick noted that if a final plan review is filed for then she would need time to notify abutters and once abutters are notified there has to be a plan in the office for review.
A. Scarneo asked that CLD be ask to hold their review on the current plan in the event that there are changes to that plan based if this evening’s discussion.
J. Sherman noted that all proposals discussed this evening were definite improvements over the current conditions even if the plaza is not developed, but particularly in light of the likelihood that the plaza will be developed. He added that more importantly he didn’t see how any of the scenarios would hurt the residents of Plaistow.
T. Moore stated that the preliminary joint hearing was continued to November 28, 2007.
The chairman called for a break at 8:40 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:50 p.m.
Presentation of Build-Out Analysis By Rob Pruyne of the Rockingham Planning Commission
Rob Pruyne, Rockingham Planning Commission, gave a Power Point presentation of the recent Build-Out Analysis. The presentation explained how the information was gathered, what filters were applied to separate buildable parcels from non-buildable ones, conservation areas and Town-owned properties, to show what areas, based on current zoning, could be built on.
The presentation lasted approximately 40 minutes and hard copies of the Power Point presentation are available in the Planning Office.
M. Curran adjourned the Board of Selectmen Meeting at 9:40 p.m. at the conclusion of the Build-Out Analysis presentation.
Workshop on Zoning and Regulation Changes Including:
- Memo from Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA)
- Jason’s (Hoch) Memo
T. Moore read a memo from J. Hoch, regarding the temporary sign ordinance. The memo was precipitated by a resident complaint regarding the not-so-temporary nature that some of the so-called temporary signs had taken on and suggested a change for the ordinance.
T. Moore read a memo from the ZBA noting some issues that they had encountered in the Zoning Ordinances over the past year and requested that the Board consider some clarifications and/or changes. The topics were:
- Special Exception for a 10% of the building façade sign
- Specific requirements for the granting of listed special exceptions
- Housekeeping issue with the renumbering of Article V, §220-31I to §220-32J
L. Komornick submitted an updated application form for the Board’s review, noting that a submission date field needed to be added before the form was finalized.
T. Moore submitted a list of changes to the by-laws that would better describe a time table for responding to a decision made by the Planning Board, such as pulling bonds and revocation hearings, as well as an appeal procedure.
Other Business – 3 Garden Road
L. Komornick offered a follow-up on the property at 3 Garden Road, owned by Patricia Bennett. She noted that Ms. Bennett had provided her with information that a wholesale dealer had previously been issued an occupancy permit for the same location that the Board recently denied a request for. L. Komornick added that she was doing some additional research to provide the Board with a list of requirements and restrictions the State of New Hampshire placed on these types of dealers.
Other Business – Release of Public Safety Impact Fees
The Board reviewed a request for the release of public safety impact fees for the payment of fees to the State of New Hampshire for wetlands related permits.
It was clarified that the request was for the payment of certain permitting fees and that no site plan had yet been approved.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, that the payment of the requested Public Safety Impact Fees was in keeping with the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – 144 Main Street (Testa Corp Site Plan) Site Walk
There was a brief discussion regarding the need to hold a site walk for the property located at 144 Main Street. The site walk was approved by the Planning Board based upon concerns expressed by an abutter during the approval of the Testa Corporation’s (Testa) revised site plan.
L. Komornick offered that she would contact the concerned abutter as well as the attorney for Testa and get a list of acceptable dates.
M. Dorman suggested that a remedy to the concern might be the planting of evergreens the whole length of a fence on Town-owned property. He noted that he felt Testa would be willing to do this.
Other Business – Correspondence
L. Komornick noted a list of upcoming educational opportunities.
M. Curran, noting a letter from CLD regarding being asked for a signature on the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the new Shaw’s (4 Plaistow Road), asked why they reported being given short notice on the signing of the same.
L. Komornick offered that it was the first time CLD had been asked to sign the actual CO and not just provide a report. She added that there were a few details with the plaza, such as a low spot in front of the CVS store where water collects, but they were not an impediment to the opening of the Shaw’s store.
Other Business – Ron Brown – Elderly Housing Project on Sweet Hill Road
Ron Brown, property owner of 62 Sweet Hill Road, asked to be heard by the Board. He noted that he asked to be included on this agenda, as well as the agenda for November 28, but was told that he could not be.
There was a discussion as to whether or not the matter should be discussed as part of a non-public session.
T. Moore noted that when there was a question as to whether or not someone’s reputation would be damaged then it should be discussed in a non-public session. He added the personalities should be kept out of all discussions.
R. Brown expressed concern that he would not be allowed to attend a non-public session and requested that it be kept in a public forum.
M. Curran offered that he would be allowed to stay for the non-public and say what ever he wanted to; it would just not be televised.
R. Brown recapped the history of his attempts to develop his property located at 62 Sweet Hill Road as an Elderly Housing project. He noted that it had always been his expressed intent to have 144 units in a phased development. R. Brown made claim that unauthorized changes had been made in the Planning Office regarding the number of units he applied for.
L. Komornick questioned whether or not she should have an attorney present.
R. Brown continued the history of his application, noting that on February 28, 2007, the number of 78 units was on an application for his parcel. He offered that he had discussion with L. Komornick regarding the 78 unit number where it was admitted that the change was made to 40 in the Planning Office. Mr. Brown stated that when he questioned the change he was told that “if he didn’t like it he could sue.” He state that he felt there was as serious ethics issue and suggested that the State of New Hampshire be asked to investigate. R. Brown expressed frustration that he had been trying to get this project before the Board for approval for over seven (7) months.
T. Moore explained that Mr. Brown’s project was not the only project that had been delayed by a number of procedural issues. He added that they were working out the best way to proceed with the help of counsel and that all applicants would be notified of that decision, as well as the number of units they can apply for based upon the recent ZBA decision in a letter. T. Moore noted that due to the lapse in time since the projects were heard that all abutters would have to be re-notified, which would be done that the Board’s expense.
L. Komornick explained that the reason that Mr. Brown was not included on the agenda was that there was no written request. She added that no plans had been submitted for review nor had a new abutters list been submitted for the notification process. L. Komornick noted that she could not put a plan on the agenda without abutter notification or a plan in the office for review.
R. Brown noted that he had previously submitted three applications, which all included abutter labels.
L. Komornick noted that there was a plan for 144 units submitted before all applications were suspended, which was not what would be allowed under the ZBA decision. She reiterated that she could not send out abutter notifications without a corresponding plan in the office for review.
M. Curran added that based on all the procedural delays all applicants were being asked to re-submit applications, based upon the numbers that were worked out as part of the recent ZBA decision.
R. Brown reiterated that he had already made previous application for 40 units, 78 units and 144 units.
M. Curran asked if a full application, including abutter labels and a plan had been submitted for the 78 units.
R. Brown replied that it had.
M. Curran recalled that she had heard plans for 40 units, but had no recollection of 78 units ever being mentioned at any meeting.
R. Brown responded that he had come in with a Phase I plan, which showed a proposed expansion area.
M. Curran reminded that the Board does not permit phasing. She questioned why Mr. Brown or his attorneys wouldn’t have spoken up at any of those meetings if the application was proposed to be for 78 units.
R. Brown said it was the Town that asked that he show all the units on the plan.
L. Komornick noted that it was Mr. Brown who chose not to withdraw the 40 unit proposal in favor of the 144 unit plan.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, offered that it was his recollection and that it was in the record that the 40 unit plan was withdrawn. He asked how Mr. Brown could be allowed to submit a plan for 40 units now after it had been withdrawn.
M. Curran explained that the procedure was defined by the recent ZBA decision.
D. Donovan suggested that the withdrawal of 40-unit plan should put the 144-unit plan in a last place position.
T. Moore explained that all projects would be heard in accordance with the letter that will be sent to all the concerned applicants.
R. Brown said that there was no consistency in the Board’s procedures.
L. Komornick offered that it was totally consistent and that she was within all rights to cross the number “78” off the application as there were never any plans submitted for 78 units and no legal notices were ever sent.
R. Brown replied “or they were thrown away.”
L. Komornick noted that it was comments such as that one that caused her to ask Mr. Brown to leave her office.
R. Brown stated that L. Komornick could not control herself.
L. Komornick responded that she would no longer directly deal with R. Brown, adding that she would continue to deal with his engineer (SEC Associates).
R. Brown stated that L. Komornick could not do her job and should be replaced.
T. Moore noted that the letters would specifically explain the number of units that each applicant would be allowed to apply for in light of the ZBA decision. He said that all applicants would be notified in the same manner.
R. Brown complained that all the delays were costing him thousands of dollars.
T. Moore replied that they would be getting the information to the applicants as soon as possible.
R. Brown asked if he could be on the next agenda.
L. Komornick reiterated that she could not put Mr. Brown on the agenda without a full application, including abutter labels, for the 40 units.
R. Brown suggested that it shouldn’t matter what an application says that he should be on the agenda and the fact that it was for 40 units was a moot point.
T. Moore noted that there were a number of applicants in different stages of the process at the time that they had to be suspended. He added that time and consultation with legal counsel was needed in order for the Board to develop a plan on how to proceed in re-starting the review process in the best interests of all parties.
M. Curran reminded that Mr. Brown still had an approved plan for a 15-lot subdivision which he could proceed with at any time, adding that if he wanted to have his 40 unit elderly housing plan go forward he would need to re-submit an application for checklist and engineering review.
R. Brown offered that he had previously been unsuccessful at having his plans reviewed.
L. Komornick replied that nothing had been submitted for checklist review. She added that all Mr. Brown has to do is to submit a plan for his proposed 40-lot elderly housing project and she would be happy to put it on the agenda and send it for engineering review.
R. Brown stated that he was not spending any more money to have any more plans drawn up if they were going to have to be changed again.
L. Komornick responded that if Mr. Brown did not want to submit any more plans then she would not have the tools under the RSAs or the Board’s Policies and Procedures to put him on an agenda.
M. Curran suggested that Mr. Brown come in with a plan for his 40 units, that also showed what ever units of the 15-lot subdivision would be remaining, and allow the process to move forward.
L. Komornick reminded that the proposal was to consolidate 5 of the original 15 single-family lots for 40 units of elderly housing.
R. Brown interjected “seventy-eight.”
L. Komornick continued that the other lots were being left alone.
T. Moore suggested that Mr. Brown talk to Terry Trudel, who he said had an understanding of the process.
R. Brown stated that Terry Trudel works for him, not the other way around. He added that he was planning to call the State Ethics Board and report the conduct of staff.
T. Moore said that the bottom line was that if Mr. Brown wanted to proceed he would need to submit an application for either a preliminary or final hearing that showed a 40 unit elderly housing proposal. He added that if only five of the 15 lots of the subdivision were going to be consolidated then the plan needed to show what would be done with the rest of the ten lots.
R. Brown questioned why he would have to show the remaining lots if he was not changing anything about them.
T. Moore replied because they would be reviewing a total subdivision,.
M. Curran added that it was within the purview of the Board to review the entire plan.
R. Brown reminded that the whole plan was for the forty (40) units.
L. Komornick noted that the forty (40) units would only be consolidating five (5) lots of a previously approved plan, the lots of which were now lots of record. If there are no other changes Mr. Brown would not have to note those remaining lots on the plan for the 40 units, he would just be building forty (40) units of elderly housing with existing single-family dwelling lots around them. She said that the subdivision plan would stand as approved.
T. Moore offered that Mr. Brown could come in with a plan for forty (40) units on a five-lot consolidation and leave the remaining lots untouched.
R. Brown said that was what was on his first plan.
L. Komornick offered that she could legally notice the first plan if that was what Mr. Brown wanted to do.
R. Zukas reminded that the Town would pay for the abutter notices all Mr. Brown had to do was to bring in the plan with the 40 units on the five (5) lot consolidation plan and the abutter mailing labels.
R. Brown asked for the Board to review the plan before it is sent to CLD for engineering review.
T. Moore said that the Board could review the plan before it went to CLD but that didn’t tend to shorten the time line any as the Board would not make any kind of decision without any input from the engineers.
It was noted that to be put on the December 19, 2007, Planning Board meeting agenda all paperwork needs to be submitted by November 28.
D. Donovan asked how long a subdivision plan remains in effect if it not substantially completed.
M. Curran noted that this project had been help up for quite a while and that should probably be taken into consideration.
There was a brief discussion regarding what would be considered vesting.
T. Moore noted that the road was substantially in for the 15-lot subdivision and as long as it can be worked around in its current location there would not be a problem. If a new road configuration had to be approved then the time clock for vesting would begin at approval.
D. Donovan asked if the record could be checked to see when the initial approval was done for the 15-lot subdivision.
T. Moore said that it is always be a good idea to check on approval dates of plans so that nothing expires in the “middle of the night.”
Other Business – Non-Public Session
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to go into non-public session under RSA 91-A:3II(c) Reputation.
Roll Call Vote:
T. Moore – yes
R. Zukas – yes
N. Morin – yes
M. Curran – yes
T. Moore explained that the Board would be adjourning directly at the conclusion of the non-public session and therefore would not be returning to a public meeting or to the cable station.
The public portion of the meeting was closed at 11:14 p.m.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss,
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
Approved by the Board of Selectmen on _________________________
________________________
Michelle Curran, Chairman
| 
