PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 06, 2008
Call to Order: 6:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Neal Morin, Alternate; Merilyn Senter, Alternate; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Barry Weymouth was excused. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman, was absent.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner (left the meeting at 7:51 p.m.), and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett and M. Senter as a voting member for B. Weymouth.
Approval of Minutes from Various Meetings
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the minutes from the January 10, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Senter abstaining).
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the January 16, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Senter abstaining).
M. Curran read a list, for the record, of changes that she proposed to the minutes of April 18, 2007. (Those changes have been incorporated in the April 18, 2007, minutes.)
Pg. 2
- M. Curran asked M. Dorman how many cars were allowed
- M. Dorman said 20-26; it would be a new business
Pg.3
- M. Curran asked M. Dorman how many cars were allowed according to the license
- M. Dorman stated he did not know and he would have to look it up.
- L. Komornick asked if there was something more updated that the 1988 license
- M. Dorman said no
- L. Komornick said that only 10 cars were allowed
- M. Dorman stated he did not know what it said and that it was from 20 years ago
- D. Voss reported that there was a new license issued every year and in fact it was in the Board of Selectmen folder to be signed on Monday
-T. Moore stated D. Johnson needed to bring in a plan that could be recorded showing how the new site would work, including customer parking, vehicle display, traffic, etc.
Pg. 15
-R. Zukas asked about sign and new business Planet Hair
-M. Dorman said they had a certificate of occupancy and he would send them out a letter about the banner
Pg. 16
- R. Zukas asked if they were coming in then
-M. Dorman asked why and what the reason from them to come in was
- R. Zukas asked who decides if they meet the regulations
- M. Dorman said that he does and he picks and chooses who comes in to see the Board
- M. Curran stated that she wasn’t going to go there but M. Dorman stated it
- There were no references made to Brandy Brow
- There was a motion by B. Weymouth with a second from M. Curran to adjourn the meeting
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2007, meeting as amended. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-2 (Morin and Senter abstaining).
R. Zukas asked to return to the minutes of January 16, 2008. He noted there were no references to the event Wal-Mart held on their roof, which the Board had expressed considerable concern about the fact that they had not been notified was going to take place. He reminded that the Wal-Mart representatives had stated that they had spoken with the police and fire departments as well as dropped off flyers, but had failed to notify the Board.
M. Curran added that there was no reference to flyers and a gift bag being dropped off with D. Voss.
R. Zukas requested to withdraw his motion, suggesting that it would be important for the information to be in the record should Wal-Mart come back in the future.
T. Moore suggested that the discussion be moved to the end of the meeting.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to rescind the approval the minutes of the January 16, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Presentation on the Public Safety Complex Expansion Project
Charles Zilch, SEC Associates; James Hanley, Engineering Alliance; Police Chief Stephen Savage; and Fire Chief John McArdle were present for the discussion.
S. Savage distributed minutes from the meetings of the Public Safety Complex Expansion Committee (PSCEC) as well as a copy of their charter. He gave a brief synopsis of why the committee was formed and what their charge was as well as noting that they were currently looking at proposals for a free-standing building as well as an addition to the current building, but there had been no decisions made and they were not locked into either situation. Chief Savage noted that thus far all expenditures related to researching the need for expansion and how that might best be accomplished have been funded from the Public Safety Impact Fee (PSIF), which was established for this purpose.
T. Moore noted that the committee was asked to make a presentation because there had been so many requests of the Board to verify a number of expansion related expenses were in keeping with the intent of the PSIF. He offered that one such expense was the immediate need for an office trailer.
S. Savage indicated that the trailer was installed and operating.
T. Moore added that there were also requests from Wetlands Preservation, Inc. (WPI), for work related to the site and applications to the State of New Hampshire for dredge and fill permits.
S. Savage said he would leave explanations of the specific engineering of the site to the engineers to explain. He reiterated that there had been no decisions made as yet regarding whether to go with a free-standing building or an addition but either scenario would maximize the site.
L. Komornick added that some of the abutters had questions about the fire pond and how it would affect their property.
S. Savage noted that this was an initial public forum and that nothing was inflexible at this point. He added that the library bond would be paid off in 2009 and that was when he expected there would be some discussion regarding the financing of this expansion. Chief Savage reiterated that everything was still on the table.
J. Hanley gave a presentation first explaining the existing conditions of the site and showed two concept plans to expand the current conditions at 27 Elm Street. The first conceptual plan showed an addition to the existing building and the second was for a two-story, free-standing building. Both concepts indicated additional parking outside as well as inside for the discharge of prisoners. It was also noted that either concept would include upgrades to the fire pond to improve the drainage situation on the site. Mr. Hanley noted that they would be making the same presentation to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) on the following day to get their input.
J. Hanley noted that applications had been filed with the State of New Hampshire for site specific and dredge and fill permits related to the drainage on the property. He explained that these applications were made because they are very time consuming and the permits would be necessary and applicable no matter what type of expansion was decided on.
R. Zukas asked if the first concept plan was for a two-story addition.
J. Hanley replied that it was not.
R. Zukas questioned why it would not be proposed that way. He suggested that even if it weren’t used right away it would be immediately available for a future need and would end up costing less.
M. Dorman noted that either concept plan would expand the space by approximately the same amount of space.
R. Zukas noted that he thought it would be preferable to have both police and fire in the same building as it presented a better flow. He added that if considerations for expansion had been included when the current building was designed they may not be looking to expand so soon.
J. McArdle offered that the current building was designed for the use anticipated for 20-25 years from being built and it met that expectation.
M. Dorman suggested that the idea could be passed along to the architects.
J. McArdle added that it was once proposed to finish the space on the existing building but it was determined that it wouldn’t be possible without major modifications to the building, which would have to include a sprinkler system.
R. Zukas suggested that if it is decided to go with the addition over the free-standing that he was suggesting that it be constructed in such a way that it would be possible to go up with future construction and not always expand outward. He noted a number of examples throughout the town where buildings were not constructed to accommodate upward expansion, which left fewer options when it was determined that there was a need to expand.
M. Curran asked if one concept provided better options over the other.
S. Savage offered that the addition concept would be hugely invasive to day-to-day operations not only during construction but while fitting in to the existing building, particularly to the communications center. He added that the free-standing option was looking as if it would be less expensive, less disruptive to the fire department and would not involve the moving of communications towers.
J. McArdle echoed some of the Chief Savage’s concerns and added that there were also concerns about vehicular traffic, on the street as well as within the building. He added that the two buildings looked like it would be more conducive to the operations of both departments.
There was a brief discussion of green space and parking areas, including covered parking.
M. Curran asked if the costs of operation, i.e. heating, lighting, septic and well, both conceptual plans had yet be considered. She also asked if consideration had been made regarding the need for expansion in the future or if this would max-out this site.
S. Savage said that it would be safe to assume that this expansion would max out the existing land available on this site.
M. Curran inquired if there were any discussion regarding acquiring additional land.
S. Savage offered that all options were being looked into at this time.
Barbara Moran, 2 Stanwood Ave, asked if the existing fire pond was going to be eliminated and if so where the water would be directed. She noted that there was always water in the pond and that culvert on her property was where the overflow was directed at this time.
J. Hanley explained that they were proposing to relocate and expand the fire pond, not eliminate it, since there would be an increase in the flow. He added that he was asked to make sure that Ms. Moran’s property was considered in designing the drainage plan for the site.
Dan Poliquin, 126 Main Street, noted the increase in the lot coverage and asked how the additional run off would be addressed.
J. Hanley explained that the pond would be expanded to accommodate twice the volume of the current pond.
D. Poliquin noted that there was already a lot of water directed to Stanwood Ave and he didn’t know the size of the pipe currently carrying the overflow. He said that he had concern over the water that would be directed to the other end Stanwood Ave to Duston Ave.
J. Hanley replied that the design of additional storage should decrease the flow into the culverts.
D. Poliquin asked if that was true even with the increase in lot coverage.
J. Hanley said that it was done by expanding the pond.
R. Zukas asked about the sally-port two-car parking in the free-standing building.
S. Savage explained that it would be used for admissions, prisoner relays, and transfer of property to the evidence lockers would be handled in that area. He added that there would be an area designated for vehicle wash-downs as well as light vehicle maintenance (i.e. repair to light bars).
R. Zukas, noting the size of the space, asked if there was the need for that much vehicle space and if some of the space could be better used for administrative purposes.
S. Savage reminded that this was not a final plan design and that it could potentially change a few times before it actually was built. He added that once a design was finalized it was hoped that it would take into consideration the needs of the departments for the next 20-25 years.
N. Morin asked if the free-standing concept was decided upon, what kinds of renovations would there need to be made to the existing building.
J. McArdle explained that it would depend on how the Town decided to use the space. He noted that his department was sorely lacking in office space and part of their training area had been converted to office areas. Chief McArdle said that he would have to see what was left behind once a plan was decided on for the expansion.
N. Morin asked if there was a rear egress provided for in the addition.
J. McArdle said there was.
L. Komornick questioned if there was a need for more apparatus space.
J. McArdle noted that currently their gear was being stored in the apparatus space.
S. Savage added that access to the rear of the building was compromised by a shed.
M. Curran questioned a designation on the plan, which was noted to be a shed.
J. Hanley asked what the process would be going forward with the plan.
T. Moore noted that they would be having this same discussion with ConCom on the next night. He added that as far as the Planning Board they would always be welcome to come in with conceptual updates to the plan and the Board would be more involved when a true site plan was developed.
M. Dorman added that the primary goal at this time was to get the dredge and fill and site specific permits in place. He noted that progress would probably come to a “screeching halt” after that until the Board of Selectmen (BOS) gets involved with the process.
A Preliminary Public Hearing/Discussion on a proposed 2-lot subdivision for property located in the LDR and MDR Zones at 30 Kingston Road, Tax Map 53, Lot 16. The parcel size is 2.6 +/- acres and has 320 +/- feet of frontage. The owner of record is Raymond E. Roy.
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the application.
D. Johnson noted that the parcel was located on the corner of Arbor Lane and Kingston Road and was located partially in the MDR (Medium Density Residential) and LDR (Low Density Residential) districts. He explained that the owner would like to subdivide the property into two-lots but could not meet frontage or lot sizing requirements. D. Johnson offered that all parcels to the south and rear of the property were zoned MDR and parcels to the north and front of the parcel were LDR zoning. He added that he knew they would have to go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for relief, unless the Board would consider proposing rezoning the property.
M. Curran noted that there were no changes proposed in this zoning for this year, adding that the Board had not gone any further with that discussion.
L. Komornick suggested that the question was whether or not the Board would be considering the same changes for the residential districts as were done in the Commercial I and II districts to relocate the zoning lines to follow property lines.
M. Curran reiterated that discussion had not taken place this year.
D. Johnson reminded that it had always been permitted to carry one district’s use thirty feet into the abutting district when a property was located in more than one district. He noted that many of the surrounding properties would be undersized for LDR zoning.
M. Curran suggested that, based on the way the zoning line had been re-drawn in the Commercial I and II districts, this property would most likely be rezoned to be completely in the LDR.
L. Komornick asked if it would make more sense to rezone it MDR as it didn’t meet LDR requirements.
M. Curran noted that she didn’t think there was enough information to determine it either way, but that she would be leaning towards LDR for this lot.
There was a brief discussion regarding whether or not the Board would be considering redrawing the zoning lines to follow property lines as had previously been done in the Commercial I and II districts. It was noted that even if the Board were thinking of doing so it was too late for this year’s warrant and no change could be proposed until the fall for next year’s warrant.
There was a discussion of how best to send the applicant to the ZBA for relief and what was being denied.
M. Dorman noted that there were two issues that needed to be resolved, lot sizing and frontage, before the lot could be subdivided. He suggested that the denial that would allow the applicant to go to the ZBA would come from the Planning Board, not his office since no building permit had yet been applied for and therefore he was not denying an application.
T. Moore added that in terms of changing zoning for this area, there had been no discussion and even if they were to discuss it at this time it would not be helpful to this applicant.
L. Komornick suggested that it was important to this applicant to know that should the discussion come up in the future whether or not the Board would be amenable to making such a change or if there was the Board’s support for a ZBA application.
M. Curran offered that the property owner could always file a citizen’s petition if the Board did not propose the change.
L. Komornick offered that the property owner was looking to do something sooner than later as he was looking to build a house on the parcel to accommodate his parents.
T. Moore noted that the 2.68 acre parcel was more conforming to the LDR district and that the rezoning was typically done to locate the parcel in the district where the parcel fronts.
M. Dorman offered that review of these applications were done in the past by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) who did have the authority to send an applicant to the ZBA for relief and the applicant did not need to be denied by this Board. He added that he would not be able to accept an application for a building permit for a lot that didn’t exist.
There was additional discussion on procedure and which entity should be sending applicants to the ZBA.
T. Moore, noting it to be a preliminary application said that they would normally close the preliminary and go forward with the final application.
L. Komornick explained that the abutters had been notified of the hearing and would be again with a ZBA application.
June Laflin, 33 Kingston Road, offered that she had come to the meeting just to understand what was being proposed. It was confirmed to her that a residential use was being proposed.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to deny the preliminary application for subdivision approval. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Bond Release Request from Stateline Plaza
T. Moore asked if the request had been reviewed by CLD.
L. Komornick read a letter from CLD relating to the request to reduce the bond being held for the redevelopment of Stateline Plaza.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to decreased the bond being held for the redevelopment of Stateline Plaza retaining the amount of $155,814.50 as recommended by CLD.
R. Zukas asked if CLD had reviewed the placement of the trees and such on the site.
L. Komornick answered that they had, noting that larger than required trees had been planted.
R. Zukas questioned if all drainage concerns with the people on Wentworth Ave had been addressed.
L. Komornick replied that was why the large amount was being held until spring time. She added that all parties were in agreement that the drainage is adequate and the flow should be slower.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas noted a letter in the folders regarding the issue of trucks using Wentworth Ave.
M. Dorman explained that there was one abutter on Wentworth Ave who had complained about trucks exiting the site. He added that his office was working with Northstar Properties on remedying the situation.
Other Business – Report on Testa Site Walk
T. Moore reported that the site walk required under the Testa Corp (144 Main Street) site plan approval had taken place and it was noted that there was plenty of vegetation for screening. He added that the site plan was going to be checked to see if further vegetation was called for and if so spruce trees would be requested.
L. Komornick left the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Review of Sign Ordinance Rotation Schedule from Dee
T. Moore noted that D. Voss had been requested to write up the procedure that had been developed for dealing with the situation when more businesses want to display a temporary sign than there are sign permits available. He read the procedure.
M. Curran asked if this was just for a specific plaza or if it was being used for all plazas.
D. Voss noted that there was only one plaza where there was a specific problem and this was working as well as it could. She added that other plazas would be looked at on a case-by-case if issues came up but it was likely this procedure would work elsewhere.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to support the procedure regarding temporary signs as developed by the Department of Building Safety. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Letter of Request to Occupy a Unit at 207 Main Street
T. Moore read a letter from Nicholas Romano requesting to have an auto repair business at 207 Main Street.
M. Curran offered that she recalled there being a note on the plan that said it could not be used for auto repair.
M. Dorman reported there was nothing specific on the plan.
R. Zukas said that he remembered the applicant being specifically told there could not be an auto repair business.
M. Curran added that the types of businesses that they were told would be going in these units would be like a glass business or similar contractor.
R. Zukas offered that he also remembered that the applicant was told that businesses could work on their own vehicles only. He added that he knew this would become a problem.
M. Curran noted that these were approved as contractor units and even though it seemed that the dance studio was working out okay, she would not be in favor of allowing an auto repair business in one of the units.
R. Zukas reiterated that they were specifically told no auto repair businesses.
T. Moore polled that Board asking for a consensus. There were no members in favor of allowing an auto repair business at 207 Main Street.
N. Morin did not respond either way to the polling, noting that he wasn’t involved with the review of the site plan for 207 Main Street.
Other Business – Miscellaneous Communications
T. Moore noted a letter from New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) regarding the Safety Complex dredge and fill and site specific permit requests.
T. Moore noted letters sent to members of the Board with poor attendance records.
R. Zukas asked if the process to remove those members had been started.
T. Moore said that he didn’t know if it had been.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to ask the Board of Selectmen to remove those members who were sent letters, as described in the Planning Board’s by-laws. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the BOS would have to hold a public hearing on the matter.
M. Doman offered that the only violation letter of note was the one to Northstar regarding the truck traffic on Wentworth Ave. He added that he asked them to address it with their tenants but that he wasn’t really sure what the next step would be if there was no compliance with the site plan. M. Dorman also noted that he had copied the Plaistow Police Department on the letter.
T. Moore read a letter from Mark Donohoe of Taurus Investments (owners of the property at 5-9 Plaistow Road) regarding deeding of a portion of land abutting Haseltine Ave to the Town.
M. Dorman explained that he gave a copy of the letter to the Board to bring them up to speed. He said that the transfer of the land would allow the Town to widen Haseltine Ave. M. Dorman noted that they had been discussing the possibility of making Haseltine the main access to Route 125 from Main Street going south and making Main Street from the Haverhill, MA, line one-way northbound to the intersection with Haseltine Ave, where there would be a stop sign.
R. Zukas asked if it would bring the road closer to the house at the intersection of Main Street and Haseltine.
M. Dorman replied that it would remain two lanes there going to three lanes closer to the light.
N. Morin asked if the entrance to the plaza (5 Plaistow Road) would be changed.
M. Dorman replied the intent was to make that a one-way in only from Haseltine Ave.
R. Zukas suggested that it be a no left turn in from Haseltine and no exit at all.
M. Dorman added that there would probably be changes made to use the now service road for regular traffic. He noted that SEC Associates had been retained to do the survey work.
There was a brief discussion over the use of the service road to the back of the plaza.
T. Moore noted a letter from Newland Development Associates, LLC, regarding the redevelopment of Casey’s Plaza at 31 Garden Road. He noted that there was language regarding how the Town would be compensated for relinquishing rights to the easement should the State revert their interests back to the abutting property owners.
M. Curran added that the funds were not earmarked for any specific project and there would be a public vote before the Town would give up the curb cut.
M. Dorman offered that he had given the Board a couple of information copies regarding retention ponds and porous asphalt.
Continued Discussion on Minutes of January 16, 2008
D. Voss acknowledged that the information regarding Wal-Mart’s rooftop event and the discussion regarding the Board needing to be involved before such events were planned was not in the minutes and should be. She added that it was noted in the minutes that Wal-Mart had stated that they had notified other departments. D. Voss added that there was no reference to a gift bag in the minutes as she did not recall that being stated, but she did recall that there was a reference from Tina Rodriguez (Wal-Mart Store Manager) that a package had been left with her, which at the time D. Voss stated she had not received.
M. Curran stated that she was certain that the reference to a gift bag had been made and that she wasn’t trying to say that one was accepted, just that T. Rodriguez had said that it had been left.
R. Zukas said that he felt that the minutes didn’t adequately reflect the strong message that he felt was stated to Wal-Mart that the Planning Board needed to be involved with any and all decisions for activities on the site before they take place.
M. Curran suggested that the corrections be made to the minutes and a vote to approve them be postponed to the next meeting.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
