PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 10, 2008
Call to Order: 6:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate, were excused. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman, was absent.
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 R. Zukas.
Establishment of Bond for Starbuck’s
The Board reviewed a recommendation from CLD regarding the appropriate bond amount for site work related to construction of the Starbuck’s site at 49 Plaistow Road.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to set the bond for Starbuck’s at 49 Plaistow Road at $99,228.01. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on Zoning and Regulation Changes
T. Moore noted that the numbering of these ordinances would be re-ordered to follow other articles that are posted to the warrant by the Board of Selectmen (BOS).
Article P-08-1 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IV., Wetlands, § 220-24., Prohibitions in the Wetlands District., by revising letter A. as follows:
A. Septic systems and waste disposal systems.
(1) Septic systems or waste disposal systems are not allowed.
(2) No replacement septic system or waste disposal system on an existing lot of record shall be allowed in the wetlands district unless:
A) The new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities,
B) It is not possible to locate the replacement system outside of the wetlands district, and if possible, 100 feet or more from the wetlands boundary on the existing lot of record.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that septic systems are not allowed in the wetlands district and to specify the criteria for replacement systems.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-2 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IV., Wetlands, § 220-26. (Currently Reserved):, by adding the following:
§ 220-26. Septic systems and waste disposal systems.
A. No new septic system or waste disposal system shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary.
B. No replacement septic system or waste disposal system on an existing lot of record shall be allowed within 100 feet of a wetlands boundary unless:
A) The new design has been approved by state and municipal authorities,
B) It is not possible to locate the replacement system 100 feet or more from the wetlands boundary on the existing lot of record.
The purpose of this amendment is to add specific language for the location of new or replacement septic systems in relation to the wetlands boundary where the new or proposed system is not in the wetlands district.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-3 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article III., General Provisions, Section 220-9.1., Location of residential driveways, by removing the word paved, so that it reads as:
“All driveways in any residential district must be located within the frontage of the lot and comply with the rear and side setbacks as specified in Table 220-32J.”
The purpose of this amendment is to specify that no driveway, whether paved or unpaved, may be allowed in a rear or side setback.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-4 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II., Definitions, Section 220-2., Definitions., by adding a new definition for
“Service Repair Facility” as follows:
“Service Repair Facility: Building or other structure where the majority of inside space is used for the repair of motor vehicles, including auto body repair.”
The purpose of this amendment is to specify the definition of this use which is currently an allowed use in the CI zone.
M. Curran noted that she had been asked if this change would apply to all types of motor vehicles including motorcycle and recreational vehicle repair facilities.
It was confirmed that it would apply to all facilities that repaired the types of vehicles defined as motor vehicles in the ordinances.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-5 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, ~ 220-28., Establishment of Districts, Table 220-32A., Industrial, by removing all uses by special exception and adding Banks and Bank Kiosks, as permitted uses and by adding a paragraph D. to read as follows:
D. No certificate of occupancy for any bank or bank kiosk use may be granted before at least one (1) certificate of occupancy has been issued for an industrial use.
E. In an industrial development, no more than 10% of the total building footprint for the development can be used for bank or bank kiosk uses.
F. The intent of allowing a bank or a bank kiosk in an industrial zone is to provide a convenient service for the employees of the industries in an industrial zone.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove permitted uses by special exception and apply additional criteria for bank and bank kiosk uses in the industrial zone.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-6 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II., Definitions, Section 220-2., Definitions., by adding a new definition for
“Vehicular Brokerage Office” as follows:
VEHICULAR BROKERAGE OFFICE - That portion of a structure devoted in whole or in part to:
A. The administrative functions related to new and/or used motor vehicle sales with no retail or wholesale display or storage of motor vehicles. Retail or wholesale display and/or storage of motor vehicles are specifically prohibited.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for vehicular brokerages and to require the use be office space only.
M. Curran moved not to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no second and the motion could not move forward.
N. Morin moved, second by T. Moore, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
Article P-08-7 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V, Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Section 220-32B., Commercial I, by adding a new permitted use:
“Vehicular Brokerage Office”
The purpose of this amendment is to add vehicular brokerage office as a permitted use in the CI district.
M. Curran moved not to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no second and the motion could not move forward.
N. Morin moved, second by T. Moore, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
Article P-08-8 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs, §220-59., Commercial I and Industrial Districts by revising letter A as follows:
A. Attached signs:
Delete the portion that reads:
Each business or industrial plant may have two attached signs. One may have an area on one side of up to 30 square feet, the second may have an area of up to 15 square feet. No one dimension shall exceed eight feet on either side. Signs must pertain to enterprises conducted within the structure to which the signs are attached. Attached signs having an area of over 30 square feet, or dimension of over eight feet, shall not be erected or maintained without a special exception from the Board of Adjustment upon a finding that:
(1) The sign will be attached to a wall surface of a building and will not cover more than 10% of that wall surface.
(2) The special exception, if granted, will comply with all the requirements of Article XX
And add a new portion to read:
Each business and/or industry shall be allowed up to two signs attached to a building façade provided the following restrictions are met:
(1) If both signs are attached to the same building façade then the total square footage of the both signs shall not exceed 10% of the building façade to which they are affixed.
(2) If the signs are attached to different building facades then one sign shall not exceed 10% of the façade to which it is affixed and the other sign shall not exceed 5% of the façade to which it is affixed.
(3) The building façade is calculated by measuring from roofline to foundation and subtracting out any glass.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the requirements for attached signs in the Commercial I and Industrial Districts and to remove the need for a special exception.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-9 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs §220-62., Temporary Signs., paragraph B., by deleting the portion that reads:
“No more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued for temporary signs on any lot in any thirty-day period.”
And adding the following new subsections:
1. For business locations with 10 or fewer businesses, no more than one thirty-day permit shall be issued at the same time.
a. No single business shall be issued a permit for a temporary sign more than 6 times in the same calendar year or for more than 3 consecutive months.
2. For business locations with 11 or more businesses, no more than two thirty-day permits shall be issued at the same time.
a. No single business shall be issued a permit for a temporary sign more than 6 times in the same calendar year or for more than 3 consecutive months.
b. No single business shall be issued more than one thirty-day permit at the same time.
The purpose of this amendment is to respond to numerous citizen complaints regarding the number and the seemingly permanent nature that some of the commercial temporary signs have taken on as well as give some restrictions to prevent over-use by any single business.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-10 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs §220-62., Temporary Signs., paragraph C., by deleting the portion that reads:
“except directional real estate signs.”
The purpose of the proposed amendment is the deletion of the portion of §220-62C regarding real estate signs is to eliminate a conflict with wording in another section of Article IX.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-11 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article IX., Signs §220-62., Temporary Signs., by adding three new paragraphs:
D. Temporary signs shall not be installed on in-ground posts or anything else of a permanent or semi-permanent nature.
E. Temporary signs may be internally lit; no permanent or temporary external lighting is to be installed to illuminate temporary signage.
F. If the business owner is not the property owner, then the owner’s written permission is required to issue a thirty-day temporary sign, banner or poster permit.
The purpose of this amendment is to respond to numerous citizen complaints regarding the number and the seemingly permanent nature that some of the commercial temporary signs have taken on as well as give some restrictions to prevent over-use by any single business.
M. Curran noted that she was asked if the language in Section D. would apply to someone who inserted something like a PVC pipe in the ground so that, when they did have a permit for a temporary sign, the sign could be inserted in the pipe.
M. Dorman suggested it was up to the Board to decide what the intent of the words “permanent or semi-permanent” meant in this proposed ordinance change. He added that he probably wouldn’t consider a PVC pipe in the ground, which was cut off at ground level, so that a lawn mower could go over it, and capped to keep rain and snow out, a violation of the ordinance.
There was discussion regarding how to potentially change any wording, if at all, to accommodate the scenario M. Curran described. It was decided that the word “visible” would be inserted before the word “permanent” and that the word “semi-permanent” would be removed from the proposed change.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change, as amended, to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-12 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article III., General Provisions §220-8.1., Residential Garages by revising letter B as follows:
Deleting the section that reads:
“Any proposed garage/barn greater than the permitted square footage shown in Subsection A of this section requires a special exception.”
The purpose of this ordinance is to require that any application for a garage larger than the permitted size to obtain a variance.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-13 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article II, Definitions, Section 220-2, Definitions, by adding the following:
Restaurant – Any building or structure that prepares or serves food for purchase by the general public. It may include any combination of sit-down service, take out service, and curbside service where a restaurant employee brings take out orders to a customer waiting in a vehicle. Specifically not included in the definition are drive-thru and drive-in restaurants.
(1) Drive-thru Restaurant – Any restaurant that offers drive-thru service where customers remain in their vehicles and form queues to order and pick up food packaged for take out.
(2) Drive-in Restaurant – Any restaurant where customers remain in their vehicles to order and consume food and beverages. Restaurant employees typically take food orders and deliver food to the customers’ vehicles.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide definitions for different types of restaurants in order to more clearly specify which types of restaurants would be allowed in different zones.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-14 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32B, “CI” – Commercial I, by removing Drive-in restaurants from the list of uses allowed by special exception and by adding Drive-thru restaurants and Drive-in restaurants to the list of permitted uses.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow all types of restaurants in the Commercial I zone (Rt. 125).
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
Article P-08-15 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objective and Land Use Control, Table 220-32B, “CI – Commercial I,” by removing “Produce Stand” and “Day-care facilities” as uses permitted by special exception and adding them to the list of Permitted Uses.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow produce stands and day-care facilities as permitted uses in the Commercial I zone and to remove the need to obtain a special exception.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
Article P-08-16 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objective and Land Use Control, Table 220-32B, “CI – Commercial I,” by adding new paragraphs as follows:
D. Special Exception Criteria for the use “Care & Treatment of Animals”
1. There must be at least one (1) employee for every fifteen (15) animals at the facility.
2. If animals are to remain overnight, there must be at least one (1) employee at the
facility between the hours of closure on one day and the opening for business the next business day, or until all animals are removed. Accommodations for such a care taker are permitted, although it is not the intent of the ordinance to allow the facility to be the care taker’s residence in all districts except as a combined use in the ICR District.
3. The operator of the facility must present a plan that includes the type of animals that would be treated or cared for at the facility. There must be adequate exercise areas for the animals, if appropriate.
4. Large animals whose normal weight would exceed one hundred eighty (180) pounds are prohibited under this section of the ordinance.
5. The operator of the facility must present a plan that describes how the animal waste is to be disposed.
6. If appropriate, a stockade fence may be required to reduce or eliminate distrurbing the animals by adjacent activities and likewise to reduce or eliminate disturbing the abutters by the animals.
7. If animals are to be treated by veterinarians or veterinary assistants to operate the facility at the proposed location, all necessary licenses must be presented before an occupancy permit shall be issued.
8. Any facility must also comply with all federal, state, and local health ordinances as applicable.
9. No animals can remain outside overnight, and if any animals are to remain outdoors during the daytime, then adequate facilities must be provided for shelter and water.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide criteria that must be met in order to allow a use by special exception where those criteria are not otherwise specified in the Zoning Ordinance.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-17 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, ~220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32C, “CII” – Commercial II and Table 220-32D, “VC” – Village Center by adding “Fraternal, service, and charitable uses” as a permitted use.
The purpose of this amendment is to allow for an additional use compatible with the Commercial II and Village Center Districts.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-18 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32C, “CII” – Commercial II and Table 220-32D, “VC” – Village Center by removing “Day-care center” from the list of uses permitted by special exception and by adding “Day care facilities” as a new permitted use.
The purpose of this amendment is to add day care facilities as a permitted use in the Commercial II and Village Center Districts.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-19 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32 E, F, and I, by removing “Nursing and convalescent homes” and “Private schools” and “Fraternal, service, and charitable uses” as permitted uses by special exception” in the Low Density Residential (LDR), Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Residential Conservation II (RC II) Districts.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the LDR, MDR and RCII zones
There was a brief discussion as to what would be considered a “service club.” It was noted that organizations such as CODA and Kiwanis would be examples of service clubs.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-20 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32H, Residential Conservation I, Paragraph B., “All uses allowed by special exception,” by allowing Single-family residence, Forestry, Agriculture and Accessory Uses as Permitted Uses, and by removing number 5, Private recreation.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove “Private recreation” as a permitted use, and to remove the special exception requirement for the four remaining permitted uses.
Richard Paul, 213 Main Street, asked the Board to explain what was meant by “private recreation.”
L. Komornick offered that this ordinance would prohibit someone in the RCI from converting their backyard into a soccer field and inviting teams to play there.
M. Dorman added or a golf course.
T. Moore noted that it was not intended to prevent someone from installing a basketball or tennis court for their own personal use.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-21 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows?
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32G, “Integrated Commercial- Residential District,” by adding “Bank Kiosk,” “Restaurant”, “Day Care Facilities”, “Produce Stands” and “Fraternal, service and charitable uses,” as permitted Commercial/industrial uses, and removing “Drive-In Restaurant,” “Fraternal, service, and charitable uses,” and “Nursing and convalescent homes,” as uses allowed by special exception; and to add footnote 6 for the Permitted By Special Exception use “Care and treatment of animals” to reference additional criteria for that particular use as specified
in Article V., Table 220-32B., paragraph D. as proposed.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the ICR zone, add references to the special exception criteria for the remaining uses allowed by special exception, and to add to the list of permitted commercial uses.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-22 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows?
Amending Article V., Establishment of District and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Control, Table 220-32G, “Integrated Commercial- Residential District,” by adding “All uses allowed by special exception” under the Combined Uses section. This includes adding footnote 6 to reference additional criteria for care and treatment of animals as specified in Article V., Table 220-32B., paragraph D. as proposed and footnote 5 for additional criteria for In-law apartments.
The purpose of this amendment is to remove some uses allowed by special exception that are not compatible with the objectives of the ICR zone, add references to the special exception criteria for the remaining use allowed by special exception, and to add uses allowed by special exception to the Combined Uses section of the ICR district.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-08-23 Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board for the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance as follows?
Remove all references to fees in the zoning ordinance.
The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate duplication of fee information that is currently cited in both the zoning ordinance and a separate document entitled, “Fee Schedule.” The “Fee Schedule” can then be amended at a Planning Board Public Hearing.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to post the proposed ordinance change to the warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick noted that in Article P-08-05 it refers to 10% of the building footprint and wanted to make sure that the intent of the Board was to limit it to the footprint and not the entire square footage of the structure.
It was confirmed that was the intention of the proposed ordinance change.
There was also a discussion regarding the proposed changes to the temporary sign ordinance, particularly in larger plazas where typically there are more businesses looking to put out a temporary sign then there were permitted spaced available. It was suggested that it be left up to the plaza owner/managers to determine how the permits would be distributed. It was offered that plaza management was not likely to want to get involved in that as this was a Town ordinance and therefore it was up to the Town to decide how to enforce. It was offered that a few of the plaza management offices had decided to not allow temporary signs and had submitted letters to the Department of Building Safety (DBS) office so that no permits are issued.
M. Dorman suggested that, while he was sensitive to the residents, he also understood that the business community saw this as a benefit. He added that he was at a loss as to how to make it all work and that there were perpetual problems, particularly with the larger plazas.
It was noted that recently there was a rotation scheduled set up with businesses in one of the larger plazas. DBS staff was asked to submit an outline of how that was worked out so that the Planning Board might support that policy on the record.
There was additional discussion on how best to meet the needs of the business community while balancing that against the desire of the residential community that there not be an over abundance of temporary signs and that they not become permanent just because they are paid for every month. It was agreed that it was a difficult issue to meet every businesses needs and be fair to all.
It was decided to try the change as written for this year coming and to review the DBS procedure and then review how it worked again in the fall of 2008.
A Preliminary Hearing on a 3-lot subdivision for property located in the MDR Zone at 27 Westville Road, Tax Map 40, Lot 10. The parcel size if 6.01 acres and has 679 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Richard and Norma Dickey
Mike Garrepy was present for the application. He noted that he had made a number of changes to the previously discussed subdivision plan for this property. M. Garrepy noted that he had discussed the previous plan with the Police and Fire Departments and noting their concerns regarding a shared private way, now had individual driveways and that the plan had changed from a 4 lot (current dwelling lot and 3 new lots) subdivision to a 3 lot (current dwelling lot and 2 new lots) subdivision. He added that he was before the Board this evening to get feedback on the new proposal as well as to have the plan denied so that he could go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) as he would need some relief from that board.
It was noted that each lot, as shown on the drawing, would require at minimum two (2) variances (total four (4) for the subdivision plan). Each lot would need a variance for all property lines not being at least 50 feet apart and for the individual driveways not meeting the property line setback.
M. Garrepy explained the layout of the two new lots as depicted on a drawing at the meeting.
M. Curran asked if all septic setbacks could be met, including keeping them 100 feet away from the wetlands.
M. Garrepy said that he could keep the septics 100 feet away from the wetlands. He added that, based on his conversations with police and fire, he was confident that both departments would now support the configuration on this plan. He noted that only the frontage and not the actual driveways were shown on this drawing.
T. Moore noted that all driveways longer than 300 feet would require a waiver be signed to release the Town from any liability.
M. Garrepy acknowledged that they would need a waiver. He added that this plan, while not as compliant, was in response to there not being support for his previous plan, which he felt was compliant.
Dawn Lewis, 17 Westville Road, said that the location of these driveways would mean that her child would not be safe in his own yard.
Pat Peters, 22 Westville Road, questioned how much of the vegetation would need to be cleared for the driveways.
M. Garrepy offered that they would only clear what was absolutely necessary for the driveways.
P. Peters suggested that since there were so many wetlands out there who ever purchased these lots would not be getting full use of the acreage.
M. Garrepy agreed that there were wetlands and offered that the lots were laid out in such a way as to provide maximum uplands and room for whatever someone might want to put on a single-family lot.
P. Peters asked if the fire and safety (police) departments had seen the new plan.
M. Garrepy replied that they had not.
M. Curran noted that all requests for additional review by other departments are to be sent through the Planning Office.
M. Garrepy agreed to follow what ever protocol the Board requested.
There was discussion as to how the plans would be forwarded to other departments. It was noted that it would be coordinated through the Planning Office. It was noted that there had not been written comments received from either Police or Fire about any review that they had done thus far.
R. Paul asked if M. Garrepy was an engineer.
M. Garrepy replied that he was a consultant hired by the Dickeys and that he was not an engineer.
M. Curran noted to the abutters present that this was their chance to offer input regarding this proposal, adding that they would have additional chances with a ZBA application as well as if/when the plan would come back to this board for final review. She added that the Board would not be able to possibly address any concerns if they don’t get them on the record.
D. Lewis reiterated her concerns regarding her son’s safety in their yard with the location of the proposed driveways. She added that she felt this plan would take away from the value of her property and her privacy in her yard. Ms. Lewis suggested that this would add more problems to an already busy street.
P. Peters said that the location of the driveways was right after coming out of an “s” turn to a straight away, right where traffic begins to accelerate.
D. Lewis noted that there were already two (2) mailboxes and trash barrels for two (2) families fairly close together; she said that this would add to that.
Nancy Hall, 20 Westville Road, noted that she was located directly across from the proposed new driveways and that she already had a difficult time getting out of her driveway. She added that it was just not a safe situation.
L. Komornick noted there would also be a lot line adjustment (land to Ms. Lewis) as part of this proposal.
M. Garrepy added that it would be to accommodate a play area, belonging to Ms. Lewis, currently on the Dickey’s property.
D. Lewis replied that she was going to have to take down her play yard and put up trees (for privacy).
M. Garrepy noted that to the extent they had to cut down trees for the driveways they would work to mitigate any impact to abutters.
P. Peters suggested that they had heard such (promises) before and that unless there was a light and signs there she didn’t think it would be a safe situation for the abutters. She said that she understood why the Dickeys would want to subdivide the property and make some money from it, but they would be gone and the abutters would still be there.
M. Garrepy said that he felt this was a good plan, with a lower impact than the previous plan. He added that if there wasn’t support for this plan he wouldn’t have a choice but to come back with a plan for three (3) new lots and a new Town road.
M. Curran suggested that what Mr. Garrepy said sounded like a threat and that the Board would not be intimidated. She asked what would be the size of the lot that would be created for the Dickey’s current dwelling.
M. Garrepy noted that it would be about an acre, meeting minimum lot sizing.
L. Komornick reminded that a lot could not be created that did not meet the minimums for the district.
R. Paul asked if there was a restriction in the ordinances regarding common drives.
M. Dorman replied that they were not permitted; adding there either had to be a road or individual driveways.
L. Komornick added that the former plan (with the common drive) had gone to both Police and Fire and both departments were adamantly opposed.
N. Hall noted that there would be five (5) driveways and Whitton Place within 200-300 feet of each other as well as the new business development on Westville Road.
M. Garrepy noted that the Dickey’s driveway would not be changing.
N. Hall replied that even with four (4) driveways it would be an unsafe situation.
There was a brief discussion of where the Westville Road Bridge was on the State of New Hampshire’s list of bridges in need of repair. It was noted that it was on a priority list but was not yet “red listed (highest priority for needing repair).”
P. Peters asked if there would be anything dividing the two new driveways.
M. Garrepy said that he anticipated that there would be landscaping and grass between the driveways and it was intended that the driveways would “meander” through the woods.
T. Moore noted the next steps in the procedures and what variances would be needed based upon the initial review. He noted that abutters would be notified as part of both the ZBA process and any additional review by the Planning Board, should the ZBA grant relief.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to deny the plan on the basis that variances would be needed for the following:
- There would be less than fifty (50) feet separation of property lines
- Driveways do not meet minimum fifteen (15) foot setback
Each of these items would apply to both lots and require four (4) total (two for each lot) and separate variance applications.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
M. Garrepy asked if there were any other issues of concern for the Board at this time.
M. Curran said that she would like to see a more detailed plan before making any additional comments. She added that if the Board were to be polled to see if they would support the plan that she would be a “no.” M. Curran encouraged the abutters to make their voices heard at any ZBA meeting.
L. Komornick added that at this particular meeting what actions the Board could take were pretty cut and dried as it was a strict application of the ordinances and for the purpose of sending them to the ZBA. She added that if/when a final application is made that the Board did have some discretion to mitigate issues of abutter’s concern.
N. Hall asked why a new road couldn’t be connected to Rutledge Road.
M. Dorman noted that it was a private road.
M. Garrepy added that the regulations require that the driveways be in the properties frontage.
T. Moore closed the preliminary hearing.
The chairman called for a break at 8:17 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 p.m.
Amend Chapter 225-6., Rules of Procedures, Section 225-6., Procedures, by adding the following new paragraphs:
G. All administrative decisions are made at public meetings and require a majority vote of voting members present at the public meetings. The decisions will contain a specific action or list of actions to be done by a developer, owner, or applicant and will include a date by which the action or list of actions must be completed and verified that the work has been completed in a satisfactory manner. Verification that the specific action or list of actions has been completed may be done by the Code Enforcement Officer, the Planning Board Review Engineer, or other representative specified by the Planning Board. The Planning Board decision must include the name of the public official, person or representative that is to verify that the work has been completed. The developer,
owner, or applicant must respond to the decision in one of the two following manners:
(1) Comply with the decision and request verification that the specific action or list of actions has been completed within the specified time frame, or
(2) On or before the last Planning Board public meeting that occurs seven (7) days before the end of the specified time limit in the Planning Board’s decision, the developer, owner, or applicant must submit in writing reasons why the specific action or list of actions can not be completed and verified within the time frame specified in the decision.
H. If the specific action or list of actions has not been completed and verified within the specified time limit and no written response has been received from the developer, owner, or applicant, the Planning Board shall take final action to resolve the issue or issues. This may include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Request the Code Enforcement Officer issue a Cease and Desist to be in place until the specific action or list of actions can be completed and verified;
(2) Schedule a revocation hearing;
(3) Use any available balance on construction and/or performance bonds offered to the Planning Board in relation to the Project to complete the specific action or list of actions.
I. If the specific action or list of actions has not been completed and verified within the specified time limit and a written response has been received from the developer, owner, or applicant then the Planning Board may take one of the two following actions at a public meeting:
(1) Negotiate with the developer, owner, or applicant a satisfactory resolution to complete the specific action or list of actions and verify that the action or list of actions has been completed in a satisfactory manner, or,
(2) Reject the reason(s) offered by the developer, owner, or applicant in their written response, and proceed with a final action as provided in Paragraph H above.
J. If the developer, owner, or applicant is present either personally or through a representative designated in advance of the public hearing to the Planning Board, at the noticed Planning Board public hearing, and the hearing is continued or adjourned prior to acting on this item, or otherwise postponed or canceled, the Planning Board will take no further action until such time as the public hearing is held. The appeal and response period will be extended to the date the public hearing is rescheduled, and any further response may be timely filed prior to the rescheduled hearing date.
The purpose of this change to the Rules of Procedure is to add an appeal procedure for applicants to respond to Planning Board Administrative decisions.
NOTE: ~ 225-8. Amendments., states that these rules may be amended by majority vote of the members of the Board, provided that such amendments are read at two successive meetings and immediately precede the vote to be taken.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the amendment to the Planning
Board’s of Procedure. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Public Safety Impact Fee Invoice Payment
The Board reviewed an invoice from Wetlands Preservation, Inc. (WPI), for $759.00 for plan review related to the expansion of the Public Safety Complex (PSC).
L. Komornick explained that SEC Associates was scheduled to be at the February 6, 2008, meeting to update the Board on the status of the expansion of the PSC.
M. Dorman added that the entire PSC expansion committee had been notified and encouraged to attend the meeting as well.
M. Curran noted that the invoice noted a meeting with the “project team” and asked if that was the full committee.
M. Dorman answered that it had been difficult to get the full committee up and running and that WPI was proceeding with work that had already been contracted.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to recommend payment of the WPI invoice as being within the intent of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – 24 Old Road
It was noted there was a copy of a letter from the DBS to Mr. Danos regarding residential use of the building at 24 Old Road.
Other Business – Attendance Record
L. Komornick noted that the attendance record (board members) requested by the Board was included in their packets.
Other Business – Rite Aid, 31 Garden Road
L. Komornick noted that the BOS had officially closed their portion of the 31 Garden Road joint meeting with this Board and that the Planning Board needed to do the same for the record.
T. Moore noted for the record that the Planning Board was officially closing out the joint meeting with BOS regarding 31 Garden Road. He added that any further action on that project would require a new application and notification of the abutters.
Other Business – Open Positions
L. Komornick noted that the time period for filing to run for Planning Board office opens on January 23, 2008, and closes on February 1, 2008. She added that T. Moore and R. Zukas’ terms expire in 2008 and that they would need to run for re-election if they wanted to remain on the Board, which would be the same for anyone else who might be interested in a position on the Planning Board.
T. Moore reminded that there could be up to five (5) alternates for the Planning Board.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
