PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 05, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett (left 8:30 p.m.), Vice-Chairman; Robert Zukas; Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:40 p.m., left 7:55p.m.); Merilyn Senter, Alternate; and Lawrence Gil, Alternate Selectmen Ex- Officio. Neal Morin, Alternate and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio were excused.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner (left the meeting at 7:47 p.m.), and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed M. Senter as a voting member for B. Weymouth, until his anticipated arrival.
Approval of Minutes from Various Meetings
T. Moore postponed voting on the minutes of the meeting noting he was hoping that more members who were present at the meetings would be present for voting to approve them.
A Voluntary Lot Merger(Consolidation)/Lot Line Adjustment for four (4) existing lots of record ~including Tax Map 26, Lots 49, 50 and 51, and ~52, resulting in two (2) parcels with proposed ~~lot areas of 2.11 acres and 3.13 acres. ~The owner of record of all properties is Soraghan Realty Trust.
Present for the application were: Steve DeCoursey, Bohler Engineering; David Sanderson, Newland Development Association; Eric Eby, Greenan Pederson, Inc (GPI); and Jack Soraghan, property owner.
S. DeCoursey explained that there were four (4) lots, totally +/-5.13 acres intended to be combined to create two lots; the northern lot would be 2.11 acres and 3.13 acres. He showed the Board the configuration on a plan.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any questions, there were none. He asked if there were abutters with any questions, there were none.
T. Moore asked if there was a motion to accept the plan as complete.
L. Komornick suggested that such a vote would be premature as there were still a number of outstanding issues with the application, a major one was a letter from the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) regarding the status of some adjacent land. She noted that all three (3) applications were closely tied together and there were also concerns expressed in a letter from CLD (Board’s Engineers), including concerns over use and access of State property for access and a proposed hammerhead turn around.
B. Weymouth arrived at the meeting at 6:40 p.m. M. Senter no longer a voting member.
L. Komornick continued that the purpose of the presentation at this meeting was to show the proposed lot line adjustment. She added that she had spoken with the Board’s attorney who advised that this application not be accepted as complete without a letter from NHDOT.
S. DeCoursey explained that they were working with the State and agreed that nothing about any of the plans was good without addressing all the issues, including those raised by CLD.
T. Moore stated that the public hearing on this application was continued to March 19, 2008.
A Final Site Plan Review Application Hearing for property located in the CI Zone at the intersection of Plaistow Road and Westville Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49 (portion of), 50 & 51, involving the redevelopment of the property including a new 14,673 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy retail store. ~The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust and the entirety of this project will be located on a lot of record created through a voluntary lot merger (consolidation)/lot line adjustment as noticed above totaling 2.11 acres.
~~~~~
A Final Site Plan Review Application Hearing for property located in the CI Zone at~the intersection of Plaistow Road and Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lots 49 (portion of) and 52, involving the redevelopment of the property including a new 14,329 square foot retail building. ~The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust and the entirety of this project will be located on a lot of record created through a voluntary lot merger (consolidation)/lot line adjustment as noticed above totaling 3.13 acres.
Present for the application were: Steve DeCoursey, Bohler Engineering; David Sanderson, Newland Development Association; Eric Eby, Greenan Pederson, Inc (GPI); and Jack Soraghan, property owner.
L. Komornick noted that these projects were advertised separately and that they are to be treated as two separate applications, even though they are closely related.
S. DeCoursey noted the following about the current lots and proposed development on both parcels:
- There are currently a couple of residents as well as retail space, including Casey’s Restaurant
- One parcel will be developed as a 14,673 sq. ft. pharmacy (Rite Aid) with two drive-ups
- The second parcel would be developed with a 14,329 sq. ft. retail building, including a 2,200 sq. ft. restaurant
- 66 parking spaces would be provided for Rite Aid
- 92 parking spaces provided for the retail building
- A right in/out only access would be provided at Route 125
- Full access, both in and out at Westville Road
- Easements would be in place to allow the same access as there is now for the condominiums (Southview Park)
L. Komornick noted that she had gotten a call from a condo resident regarding the green space that currently separates the parcels now and whether or not it could ever be developed.
S. DeCoursey offered that it was proposed to be part of the leach field which made it an unlikely candidate for future development.
S. DeCoursey continued:
- There was infrastructure proposed to improve the drainage on the parcels, which is currently a sheet flow directly to the wetlands without treatment, providing better stormwater management. It was noted that the water would be collected in catch basins, routed through treatment and would exit at the same outlet area as it does now
- Separate wells and septics would be provided for each structure
- Shoebox lights would be provided throughout the parking areas (it was noted that they would be requesting a waiver for the height of the light poles)
- The proposed landscaping plan was shown
- A dumpster location, including evergreen screening, was noted at the entrance to the condo
- Sign plans for 2 pylons (one for each proposed lot) were being reviewed as well as signage for the Rite Aid building
S. DeCoursey noted the list of waivers they would be seeking as follows:
- Landscaping buffers ten (10) feet along either side of the shared property line
- Light pole heights
- Side yard buffer on the retail parcel
There was discussion regarding highlighted comments from CLD including:
- Location of the dumpster and construction of the concrete pad
S. DeCoursey noted that the emptying of the dumpsters would be at off hours and the construction of the concrete pad would not interfere with access traffic
- Demarcation and widths of fire lanes
S. DeCoursey noted that they were working with the Fire Chief on the fire lanes and anticipated to have it all worked out by the March 19, meeting.
- Signage for the two parcels
R. Zukas offered that many of the Rite Aids he had seen had digital signs; he asked if that was proposed for this location.
S. DeCoursey replied that was the Rite Aid prototype sign.
L. Komornick offered that under current zoning digital signs were not allowed
- Need for a Hydrogeological Study for a proposed septic system greater than 2,400 galloon use
S. DeCoursey noted that he didn’t feel the study was warranted as the current system was larger than the proposed system and it was functioning well.
L. Gil asked if the proposed restaurant was intended to be larger than the existing restaurant.
S. DeCoursey responded that it would be smaller. He added that the septic system would have to be reviewed by the Town as well as approved by the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). Mr. DeCoursey offered that the discussion of the septic could be done “offline.”
- Details (end section) for proposed steel guardrail needs to be provided for review
S. DeCoursey noted that details would be provided.
- Adequacy of the proposed 20-foot stopping platform at the top of 7.7% slope at Westville Road access point
S. DeCoursey suggested that he could coordinate with CLD and allay their concerns of this item. He added that many of the traffic issues would be discussed later in the presentation by their traffic engineer.
- Disturbance of NHDOT survey boundary and the need for a note regarding restoration of same
S. DeCoursey offered that all boundaries would be restored to State standards.
- Evidence that the need for internal stopping platforms has been evaluated
S. DeCoursey noted that he felt this issue could be discussed with CLD and pledged to employ good engineering practices in the lay-out of the plan.
- Issues with septic and well designs
S. DeCoursey noted what was previously submitted were initial designs and they had since done test pits and new designs, which were on the verge of being submitted to the Town for review.
L. Komornick explained that CLD was looking to review septic designs, which they typically do not review; they are reviewed by M. Dorman.
S. DeCoursey assured that the septic was being designed by a licensed designer. He added that initially they had only done soil borings but had since done full test pits. Mr. DeCoursey noted that they obviously could not go forward without a proper septic design approval. He noted CLD’s concern regarding the well radii clipping Westville Road. He added that he didn’t see it as a concern on CLD’s part, just a note. Mr. DeCoursey explained that while the dumpster is within the 150 well radius it is a sealed dumpster and shouldn’t have an impact on any well. He added that he would talk with CLD about this matter.
L. Komornick asked what a sealed dumpster was.
S. DeCoursey noted that there were ways to provide an impervious barrier for the dumpster.
L. Gil asked if the exiting subsurface system was within the proposed well radius.
S. DeCoursey replied that it was in front of the restaurant and they would be making sure that it was properly decommissioned.
- Drainage design and the need for an easement to the abutting property
S. DeCoursey noted that their analysis shows that there will be no increase in the runoff above what is currently happening, suggesting there was no need for an easement. He added that the abutting property doesn’t appear to be buildable due to a large amount of wetlands on the property.
L. Komornick asked if there would be a change in the location of the runoff from the current sheet flow.
J. Soraghan offered that it currently collected in a low spot in the corner of the parking lot.
S. DeCoursey noted there were two (2) treatment swales proposed.
R. Zukas asked if the current runoff went through any treatment. It was noted that there was limited treatment currently.
L. Komornick offered that CLD was suggesting there was a legal question at whether or not they had the right to disturb the current situation without an easement. She cited the example that if the abutter decided to build a retaining wall, blocking the drainage flow, all the water would back up into the parking lot.
S. DeCoursey explained that they had done a pre and post development analysis and the flow rates are below the current numbers and the quality of the runoff is improved through treatment, so he wasn’t sure what would be achieved by seeking an easement.
L. Komornick noted it was to protect the Town from someone trying to come back later and say that this plan made the parcel less developable due to increases in the wetlands.
S. DeCoursey asked if it was the Town’s custom to require an easement in these circumstances.
L. Komornick replied that it was.
There was a brief discussion on who the owner of the parcel was and the difficulty there had been in notification with regard to the abutting parcel.
L. Gil asked about the “storm septor” drainage design and asked if it was proprietary.
S. DeCoursey noted that it was proprietary and that it was a vortex type system.
L. Gil noted that CLD was looking for that design to insure it was inline with NHDES standards.
S. DeCoursey explained that there were different models that were used and which was to be used was based on the potential flow.
L. Komornick offered that CLD noted the lack of an Alteration of Terrain Permit.
S. DeCoursey said that they now had that permit.
- Additional drainage issues regarding runoff at peak times with increased impervious surfaces and adequacy of proposed rip rap
S. DeCoursey offered to resolve both these issues with CLD before the meeting on March 19.
- Height of light poles and light spillage
S. DeCoursey reminded that they would be seeking a waiver for the light pole height. He added that there were ways to address offsite spillage and the he would discuss them with CLD.
- Issues with NHDOT submission package
S. DeCoursey acknowledged that there were issues still to be worked out with NHDOT and that they were working in that direction.
- Need for Hydrogeological Study regarding septic and whether or not previous relief had been granted
S. DeCoursey noted that this was previously discussed and offered to do further research.
- Light trespass on abutting properties
S. DeCoursey reiterated that they would be seeking a waiver adding he would work with CLD on this before the March 19, meeting.
L. Komornick noted that an item regarding snow removal was missed in the earlier discussion.
S. DeCoursey noted the snow storage areas on the plan. He noted it was designated for areas where there was no landscaping or where there were larger spaces between the trees.
E. Eby gave a report on the traffic studies that had been conducted, using State and local standards, to determine the impacts of the proposed site. He noted that the following variables were considered:
- Accidents
- Other projects in the area
- Growth rates
- Projections of businesses opening in 1 year and in 10 years
- Traffic from other proposed businesses and projects including: Starbucks, Town Fair Tire, Westville Road Business Condos, and elderly housing on Chandler Ave
- Analysis of site distances.
E. Eby explained how the access points at Route 125, Garden Road, and Westville Road would function. He noted that Garden Road was proposed to be discontinued at the end of the property. There would still be access to the site from that point, but there would not be access to Route 125 except through the proposed site. Mr. Eby suggested that there would be no back up on Route 125 as it was proposed to be free flow into the site, controlled by a stop-signed intersection.
L. Komornick asked about the “right to pass” legal documentation.
E. Eby noted that from Garden Road it would look like a continuation of the current road and would have better controls. He cited some data collected as part of the traffic study and how improvements were proposed to handle the anticipated site traffic (level of service). Mr. Eby noted that there would be no proposed changes to the traffic patterns, how people enter and exit the site currently would remain the same, including the Route 125 median. He added that traffic flow would be under better controls, such as distinct traffic lanes and stop-signed intersections.
E. Eby offered that Westville Road, at the intersection with Route 125, be re-striped to allow left turns (southbound on route 125) from both lanes, eliminating the right-turn only lane at that light. He noted that their traffic studies indicated that the right-turn only lane was not used all that much and the having two left turning lanes would mitigate the need for the roadway to be widened to provide a 200 foot queuing for left turns as suggested by CLD. Mr. Eby cited the cost of moving manholes and utility lines as being extremely high and offered the two (2) left turning lanes at the light as an alternative.
R. Zukas said that he wasn’t keen on the idea of eliminating the right-turn only lane in favor of allowing left turns from both lanes. He suggested that it would increase the hazard of those turning left, especially when the lights on Route 125 were set to blink in inclement weather situations. He expressed concern that not having the right turn option would further impact the situation created by the median strip, noting the Westville Road had become a cut through.
E. Eby offered that the NHDOT had told him that they were unaware that the Town was changing the signal to flashing.
L. Komornick replied that there was documentation that NHDOT is aware and allows the Town to change the light to flash.
S. Ranlett agreed.
R. Zukas reiterated that he didn’t agree with the two left-turning lanes and no right-turn only one lane.
L. Komornick added that there also needed to be consideration if there ever was a train station to be construction at the Park and Ride on Westville Road.
There was a brief discussion of the possibility of a MBTA train stop at the NH Park and Ride on Westville Road.
E. Eby suggested that the Town wasn’t getting enough “bang for the buck” with a right-turn only lane at the intersection of Route 125 and Westville Road.
There was additional discussion of the proposal for a two left-turn lane scenario.
S. Ranlett asked if police accident date was used in the study.
E. Eby replied they had used data from the last eight (8) years.
S. Ranlett expressed concern that if both lanes were designated for left turns that people wouldn’t properly fill in both lanes to make left turns and that would leave someone seeking to make a right turn with few options.
L. Komornick left the meeting at 7:47 p.m.
E. Eby suggested that there would be a learning curve initially, but the he felt it was a good alternative to widening the road for 200 feet.
S. Ranlett offered that he just didn’t see the probability of two left-turning lanes offering a viable solution.
L. Gil noted that all present on the Board were residents of the Town and lives with the situation daily, which gave them a different perspective on how things actually work as compared to how they fit into a model.
J. Soraghan noted that the installation of the median strip by the State essentially turned his parking lot into a roadway. He reported that trucks were constantly tearing up his parking lot using it as a cut through to Westville Road to go south on Route 125. Mr. Soraghan offered that the two left-turning lanes from Westville Road to Route 125 would help. He added that he was obligated to share half of all improvement costs and hoped that the Board would consider that.
L. Gil offered that he did see the separation of the parking as a good thing. He added that unless it was made a painful thing to happen, people were still going to cut through the parking lot.
J. Soraghan replied that it wasn’t a problem and that he thought that all the improvements would slow the traffic through the lot and make it less of a speedway. He asked if people would also be able to cut through the Starbucks parking lot.
It was noted that there was a light at the Starbucks entrance and people may consider using it as a cut through.
J. Soraghan added that since the traffic would be channeled differently, it was his hope that it would be slowed down.
B. Weymouth leaves the meeting at 7:55 p.m. M. Senter is again a voting member.
George Barcelos, owner of property located at 25-27 Garden Road asked how that property would be accessed. It was pointed out on the plan.
E. Eby explained that there was a proposed hammerhead at the end of where Garden Road ends as a town road. He added that there were legal issues involved with the use of the drive and that they had been submitted to NHDOT and they were awaiting comment. Mr. Eby explained the queuing platforms provided all the designated stopping areas, noting how they provided gradual transitions to Route 125.
S. DeCoursey offered that they knew they would have to address all the concerns expressed to the Board’s satisfaction.
Sharon Schumaci, 33 Garden Road, asked what kind of inconveniences the condo residents could expect during construction.
J. Soraghan responded to say that he had an agreement with Rite Aid that allows him 6 months to build the retail side before the building that he is in is taken down. He said it was his intent that the plaza remains as operational as possible.
S. Schumaci asked if residents will still be able to cut through to Garden Road.
J. Soraghan replied that there should be no changes in that regard and that the new easement was being worked out.
S. Schumaci, noting the proposed leach field and water flow changes, questioned what impact there might be to the condo’s leach field.
S. DeCoursey explained that the new design does not increase any offsite flows. He noted that it would now be better collected for treatment.
Elaine Johnson, 33 Garden Road, asked who was being talked to at the Condo Association, noting that she had not been asked to any discussion.
J. Soraghan noted that they were working with Gary Densen.
E. Johnson explained that Mr. Densen was not a resident of the condos and she wasn’t sure what authority he was acting under. She also questioned the location of the dumpster and the underground drainage hold tanks.
J. Soraghan noted that the dumpster had always been there and the there would be nothing above ground for the drainage.
S. DeCoursey added that it would be paved over as a parking lot.
E. Johnson, noting the size of the dumpster depicted on the plan, asked if they would be able to see the dumpster if they looked out their windows.
S. DeCoursey explained that what was depicted on the plan was the pad for the dumpster, not the actual dumpster. He added that there would be plantings to screen the dumpster from view.
E. Johnson asked where they would be driving to get to Garden Road.
J. Soraghan answered right up the middle of the lots.
E. Johnson recalled at a previous meeting it was discussed that access would be behind the retail building.
J. Soraghan replied that was changed to address the concerns expressed by M. Curran at that meeting.
S. DeCoursey noted that it currently didn’t matter what the easement stated was the access, since it was an open parking lot and people drove through where they pleased. He added that the development of the site would result in a more defined typical travel lane found in a retail plaza.
E. Johnson asked what would be behind the retail building.
J. Soraghan replied that it would be a one-way fire lane.
T. Moore asked if there were any more questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if there were any further questions from abutters, there were none.
S. DeCoursey said that he would get in contact with L. Komornick to start working on the items noted in this evening’s discussion.
T. Moore stated that the public hearing was continued to March 19, 2008.
Request for Minor Site Plan Review for temporary use of a portion of the Vic Geary Center by the Cornerstone Church
Chris Smith, Pastor, Cornerstone Church, was present for the discussion. He explained that they were working out terms for use of the Vic Geary Center on Sunday mornings for church services.
L. Gil asked if there would be any changes made to the building.
C. Smith replied that they would be putting up a couple partition walls for children’s classroom, which would have to be approved by the Vic Geary Center.
T. Moore noted that they needed a letter from the Vic Geary Center for the application.
C. Smith replied that it had been submitted.
S. Ranlett moved, second by M. Senter, to approve the minor site plan revision and allow the Cornerstone Church to hold Sunday services at the Vic Geary Center. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Request to Release Bond for Red Oak Drive
T. Moore noted that the bond for Red Oak Drive had been in place the required two (2) years and now there was a request to release it.
R. Zukas moved, second by L. Gil, to release the bond being held for Red Oak Drive.
L. Gil noted discussion with the Board of Selectmen regarding the history of the road, the drainage, the bump-out and the decision to make the entire road public. He noted that he was bringing it up to make sure that all these issues had been addressed.
T. Moore noted the bump-out had been constructed as part of the plan.
It was also noted that the developer (Hoyt) had agreed to extend the drainage pipe as requested by one of the residents, but only if that resident granted an easement to pass across his property. That easement was never produced.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Vote for payment of Wetlands Preservation, Inc., Invoice from Public Safety Impact Fees
T. Moore noted and invoice from Wetlands Preservation, Inc., (WPI) relating to the expansion of the Public Safety Complex.
R. Zukas moved, second by S. Ranlett, that the payment of WPI invoices is a valid use of Public Safety Impact Fund fees. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining).
Other Business – Training
R. Zukas requested that his application for the upcoming Spring Planning and Zoning Conference pending the outcome of the upcoming elections.
Other Business – MBTA Station at Park & Ride on Westville Road
There was a discussion regarding the recent news report of a proposed MBTA stop at the Park and Ride located on Westville Road. It was noted that this has been a topic of discussion for some time and that there were some concerns needing to be addressed, such as the location of a lay-over garage of the trains. M. Senter and T. Moore will keep the Board informed of any new developments.
S. Ranlett left the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
There was further discussion of other rail lines in the State of what would need to be done to bring them up to working condition, particularly in light of constantly rising gas costs.
R. Zukas asked if there was a way to re-visit the median strip in front of Red’s Shoe Barn. He suggested that the current situation was showing to not be workable and that the area should be closed off with the median.
There was a discussion regarding what could possibly be done to have the median continued in front of Red’s Shoe Barn.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Senter to adjourn the meeting.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
