PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 16, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman (left meeting at 9:42 p.m.); Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Barry Weymouth was excused.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for B. Weymouth.
Minutes of April 2, 2008, Planning Board Meeting
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the minutes from the April 2, 2008, meeting as written. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Lot Line Adjustment for two (2) existing lots of record including Tax Map 58, Lot 6 (owner of record Fairway Oaks, LLC) and Tax Map 65, Lot 2 (owner of record Richard Riley and Janet Biggart). The new lot areas will result in 18+/- acres and 13.3+/- acres, respectively.
Philip Christiansen, Christiansen Sergi, was present for the application.
P. Christiansen noted that this was a strict land acquisition from Mr. Riley’s property and there were no changes to the frontage on the property, just area. He explained that the property was located on the MA/NH state line and was adjacent to the existing Fairway Oaks senior housing development.
L. Komornick offered that this application was to advance this part of the future project while other applications were being litigated.
P. Christiansen added that there was a written agreement with Richard Riley and Fairway Oaks prior to Mr. Riley’s death.
T. Moore asked if the Board had copies of that agreement.
P. Christiansen replied that Mr. Riley signed the Planning Board application for the lot line adjustment. It was confirmed by L. Komornick that he had.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to accept the application for the lot line adjustment between Richard Riley and Fairway Oaks as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the application for the lot line adjustment between Richard Riley (Tax Map 65, Lot 2) and Fairway Oaks (Tax Map 58, Lot 6). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Final Public Hearing on a Commercial Site Plan Review Application for a proposed 3-story, 3,400 square foot professional office space addition to the existing building. The property is Tax Map 11, Lot 5 located at 23 Atkinson Depot Road. This is a 1.30 +/- acres parcel with 265.62 feet of frontage located in the CI Zone, and contains an existing 2,000 square foot building. The owner of record is Little River Properties II, LLC. (Request for Continuance Received to Continue to 4/16/08 meeting)
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, and Bill Gregsak, Gregsak Engineering, Inc., were present for the application.
C. Zilch recapped the details of the application for the new members of the Board noting the following:
- The property is located on Route 121 on the Atkinson town line and is also bordered by the B & M Railroad
- The property used to be 1.47 acres before the State of NH took approximately 60’ into the property, leaving approximately 1.3 acres
- There is 265 feet of frontage on Route 121 with a new retaining wall erected by the State
- The existing 4100 sq. ft., three-story building was built in the early 1980s and currently housed seven (7) businesses with seventeen (17) full and/or part time employees
- The building is currently serviced by its own septic and well located in the southwest corner of the property
- Soil Scientist Tim Ferwerda has mapped the wetlands, all of which are very poorly drained soils
- Parking is currently located along the front of the building and against the retaining wall, including the State right-of-way
- The application is to expand the site with the addition of a new three-story structure that will be a separate building, attached to the existing one by a fire wall
- There will be 3265 sq. ft. of office space divided into five (5) offices, one (1) on the first floor with a handicapped access conference room and bathroom to be shared by all, second and third floors will each have two (2) offices
R. Gray asked if the proposed configuration would make this a duplex building
M. Dorman replied that the fire wall would make it similar to a duplex.
C. Zilch noted that the building would be sprinkled.
R. Gray asked if there was anything in the regulations that would prevent this type of configuration.
M. Dorman replied there was not.
C. Zilch added that the configuration of the building was developed as such to overcome issues with the water table, which did not allow the floor levels to be matched. He noted that the drainage for both buildings would be tied into the new drainage system and the new building would be ADA complaint.
C. Zilch continued to explain the site plan:
- The existing well and septic are to be abandoned for a new well and septic. The location was noted on the plan
- Parking is to be expanded out east-west to accommodate the existing and new businesses
- Waivers will be requested for the parking
C. Zilch noted that there is rarely full use of the existing parking ; and, since the same types of businesses would be sought after to occupy the new building, it was assumed that parking, as designed, would be adequate even though it was less than that required by regulation. He added that granting the waiver would allow them to stay away from the sensitive areas on the site.
C. Zilch offered that Bill Gregsak was with him at this meeting to answer any questions the Board may have about the drainage design on the property.
C. Zilch reminded that, at a previous meeting, the Board had approved some of their waiver requests but there were two remaining waivers that needed to be decided.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any additional questions. There were none at this time. He asked if there were any abutters who wished to be heard. There were none at this time.
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett, to accept the application for the amended site plan at 23 Atkinson Depot Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Waivers:
It was noted for the record that all other waiver requests were approved at a previous meeting.
§ 230-23-A – 10-foot landscaping buffer
C. Zilch explained that the property is naturally forested along a large portion of the site. He showed where there would be stockade fencing and additional landscaping installed, noting there was a small area where they could not meet the ten-foot buffering requirement.
R. Gray noted that it was only a partial waiver that was being requested, not a complete waiver.
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett, to grant a partial waiver from §230-23A along the southern edge of the property between the property line and the pavement. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A
§230-12G – Parking requirements
C. Zilch explained that originally they were seventeen (17) spaces short of meeting the parking regulations requirement. He noted the changes they had made to the site plan in order to come closer to meeting the requirement. Mr. Zilch offered they were able to provide forty-four (44) spaces on the site where forty-eight (48) was the requirement. He reminded the Board that there had been earlier discussion regarding providing a contingency plan that would show where additional future parking could be located should it be needed in at a later date. Mr. Zilch outlined where those parking spaces could be located if they were needed in the future, noting that he had been to the site on many occasions and at different times during the day, and had never seen the current parking coming even close to capacity.
R. Gray questioned if the snow storage was located where the contingency parking was proposed.
P. Bealo echoed Mr. Zilch’s observations of the parking at the site.
M. Dorman suggested that if he were to observe that people started parking on the grass at this site he would bring the applicant back to the Board to inact the contingency parking plan.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the request to waiver §230-12G based upon the contingency parking plan being included in the site plan.
R. Gray asked what the time table would be for review of the need for additional parking.
M. Dorman noted that he was out around that part of town a few times a week and if he observed there was a problem it is then they would be asked to come back to the Board to review whether or not the contingency parking plan needed to be implemented.
C. Zilch added that rental agreements would be provided along with occupancy permit applications that would state how many spaces were allotted to each business.
There was no discussion on the motion to grant the waiver. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A
P. Bealo asked if all the lights proposed were full cut-off lights.
M. Dorman pointed out a note on the plan regarding the lighting.
C. Zilch noted there were two (2) State permits that were needed, a septic permit and a water supply permit. He added that the water supply permit would trigger the septic permit and he anticipated that he would be receiving that permit shortly. C. Zilch also added that the State deemed that a new driveway permit was not necessary.
Review of outstanding items in CLD’s letter
C. Zilch noted that many of the issues CLD had listed had previously been addressed and the few remaining required input from the Board.
B. Gregsak addressed the drainage issues raised in the CLD report. He explained that twenty-five (25) years ago, when the site was developed, the slope of the land directed the water flow untreated towards the railroad. He continued that this proposal would include two (2) catch basins with sump pumps that would direct the water flow to a detention pond and to a treatment swale. Mr. Gregsak offered that the new rate of flow would be decreased with the new construction. He noted that CLD commented on the length of the treatment swale and a 24-hour “plug test,” which would require a larger detention pond, which is already limited by the buffer zone as well a the septic system. He noted that the submitted design does meet the Town’s standards and does not rise to the level that would require a
State review. He offered that he would be happy to apply for a waiver, but since they met the Town’s standards there was nothing for them to apply for. Mr. Gregsak added that it was a much better design as there would now be adequate treatment and the addition of two (2) catch basins to collect and direct the water flow.
L. Komornick noted there was a difference between what the Town has for regulations and the NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services).
B. Gregsak reiterated that the 24-hour plug test would require a larger detention area and they were decreasing the water run-off from the site.
L. Komornick noted that CLD believes that the water flow would be increased.
B. Gregsak offered that according to his calculations the pre-construction flow was calculated at 3.76 and the post-construction flow would be 3.15, a decrease in the run-off.
T. Moore asked if the new catch basins would have siltation controls.
B. Gregsak confirmed that they would.
T. Moore noted that a schedule for maintenance and cleaning would need to be submitted.
B. Gregsak explained that the main sticking point was the 24-hour plug test, which he reminded would require a larger detention pond for what he showed to be a lesser flow.
L. Komornick questioned if it was possible to increase the size of the detention area.
B. Gregsak replied that they did not have the room and there were issues with the water tables.
There was continued discussion regarding whether or not the proposed plan met Town requirements and why CLD would suggest that they meet a 24-hour plug test.
C. Zilch noted that the septic system that was submitted for approval was over-designed for the existing and proposed uses on the site.
L. Komornick added that the Town’s ordinance that requires a Hydrogeological study does not come into play with this application.
T. Moore asked if there was a copy of the NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) easement submitted and if it permitted parking in the right-of-way.
C. Zilch noted that it was a vaguely written maintenance easement.
T. Moore suggested that a copy of the easement showing there were no restrictions would suffice.
C. Zilch brought the discussion back to the drainage, noting that the Board would need to make a determination regarding whether or not meeting the Town’s requirements was sufficient. He reminded that the design plan met all Town ordinances/regulations with reference to drainage and only rose to approximately 1/3 of the level which would require State permitting.
S. Ranlett offered that he didn’t see a problem with accepting the proposed drainage.
T. Moore added that it seemed to him with the installation of the catch basins with the treatment it was a better system than now.
C. Zilch noted that if it were required they would certainly design for it.
L. Komornick offered that the concern would be if there was a letter in the file that went unanswered if it were shown later on that there was indeed an increase in the off-site flow.
R. Gray suggested that something needed to be offered to address the discrepancy noted in the CLD letter.
C. Zilch offered to take another look at the design.
M. Dorman noted that the problem was that there was another entity with a requirement more restrictive than the Town’s and the Board needed to decide whether or not the application rose to the level that those other requirements needed to be satisfied.
T. Moore added that there needed to be agreement of the basic facts and it was his opinion that they met the Town’s requirements.
R. Gray offered that this ordinance/regulation needed to be reviewed; keeping in mind what the State was requiring and, when it was requiring it, to determine whether or not the Town’s requirements needed to be changed.
There was discussion on how best to proceed with resolving this matter. It was determined that it would be best if there was direct discussion between the applicant’s engineers and CLD and L. Komornick would notify CLD that it was okay to have that discussion.
L. Komornick added that it would be important to establish criteria for when CLD would be reviewing septic plans with the intent of determining whether or not there were proper protections in place for the Aquifer Protection District. She noted that CLD was looking for septic plans to be submitted as part of the application plan and she just wanted to be able to say yes that would now be a requirement or no it was not, so that it wouldn’t always be listed as a missing piece.
P. Bealo suggested that the simple answer should be yes or no is the septic plan stamped by the Town and the State and then its nothing more than a checklist item.
C. Zilch noted that all details and location of the septic are located on the plan.
P. Bealo added that he didn’t see the need to make applicants pay for additional full review of septics by CLD.
C. Zilch noted a comment from CLD regarding site plan regulation §230-14X and its relation to the 100-year flood plain designation. He said that the back area of the lot was in flood zone “A” and that the FEMA flood maps did not show a specific elevation as being assigned to it. He noted that no flooding has ever been reported for this site.
There was a discussion regarding what information could be provided from the FEMA flood maps and how the comment from CLD could be satisfied.
T. Moore suggested that there be more clarification as to exactly what CLD was looking for and whether or not the information could be provided; or whether or not the Board would need to consider a waiver, though he said he wasn’t sure what they would be granting a waiver from.
T. Moore stated that this hearing would be continued to May 21, 2008.
The chairman called for a break in the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 p.m.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on 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.
Continuation of a Final Site Plan Review Application Public 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.
Continuation of 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 (Bohler); Eric Eby, Greenan Pederson, Inc. (GPI); David Sanderson, Newland Development Corp.; Michael Todd, Excel Construction Management, LLC; and Jack Soraghan, property owner
S. DeCoursey noted based on discussions at previous meetings and some back and forth interpretive issues with CLD they had re-submitted a plan to CLD and had received a new comment letter based on that re-submittal.
Location of Dumpster
S. DeCoursey explained that CLD expressed concern over the location of the dumpster and whether or not it would be a problem for the condo residents to the rear of the parcel. It was noted that any trucks would be backing up in the driveway aisle, there would be limited need to access the dumpster and there was language in the easement documents allowing the location of the dumpster. He said that he now saw this matter as resolved.
Signage
S. DeCoursey acknowledged that there were issues with signage that may or may not require relief from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and would be appropriately handled at a future time.
Hydrogeological Study
S. DeCoursey noted that the Board, at a previous meeting, had indicated that there would not be the need for a Hydrogeological Study, but a recent letter from L. Komornick noted that the Board may need to reconsider that determination. He noted that the discrepancy seemed to be in the amount of water usage. He noted that the total septic flow was proposed to be 4878 gallons per day and therefore the water usage was proposed to be approximately the same.
L. Komornick asked for written confirmation of the water usage.
S. DeCoursey explained that water usage is considered to be the same as sanitary use, using the State’s guidelines.
R. Gray acknowledged that the Board had agreed to waive the Hydrogeological study at the last meeting but that it was noted since then that the requirement is part of a zoning ordinance, not a site plan regulation, and therefore could not merely be waived by the Board.
T. Moore added that was a true statement but that there was a provision in the ordinance that allowed the Board discretion if the water used was shown to be less than 20,000 gallons per day and with the septage being a lesser flow the Board could consider each application on a case-by-case basis.
S. DeCoursey offered that information had been prepared and submitted a design, based on the soils on site, that showed there would be a lesser septic use. He noted that the requirements of a Hydrogeological study were fairly extensive and would be expensive and time-consuming to complete and would not yield any information that would show a need to change the septic design and would merely be done to meet the stated requirements of an ordinance rather than the intent of the same ordinance. He requested that the Board consider the information that had been submitted as adequate.
R. Gray suggested that all the information be submitted to CLD and they make a recommendation as to whether or not they see it as adequate to satisfy the requirement of the ordinance.
Traffic Mitigation
E. Eby noted that they had submitted mitigation for calculating impact to Westville Road and that CLD had agreed to that mitigation, which would not require more than pavement re-striping and new signage for a left-turn only and a left-right turning lane.
Stopping Platforms – Westville Road
E. Eby suggested that there was no further action needed on this discussion.
L. Komornick noted that she had forwarded the minutes from previous meetings to CLD so they would have the benefit of the Board’s discussion.
E. Eby added there was a similar comment with reference to the Route 125 entrance and his response was that they were within State of New Hampshire design standards.
Access Over State of NH Property
E. Eby explained that they were still in the process of working with NHDOT to gain access across State-owned property in the form of an easement. He added that the Town said that they would be okay with Garden Road ending in a hammer-head and that the State was okay with it as well.
L. Komornick noted that the minutes of the meeting where the Board agreed to the hammer-head would be added to the file to address CLD’s comment.
S. DeCoursey offered that the NHDOT survey bounds were placed in accordance with NHDOT specifications and that the stopping platforms were designed using good engineering practices and with public safety in mind.
Well Design (Dumpster in well radius)
S. DeCoursey noted that while the dumpster is within the well radius the sheet flow of run-off is away from the well and the location has been approved by the NHDES.
Drainage Design (Need for drainage easement to abutting property)
S. DeCoursey recalled previous discussions with the Board regarding the run-off to the abutting property and whether or not an easement from the abutting property owner should be obtained. He noted there had been a discussion with the Board’s attorney and the result was the agreement that it wouldn’t be necessary to obtain such an easement.
L. Komornick clarified that the result of the conversation with Board’s counsel was that Mr. DeCoursey would be providing a written justification for the file so, if the abutter comes back in the future, there would be something in the file that would be the basis for that decision. She added this would essentially put Mr. DeCoursey “on the hook” with the abutter.
Drainage Design – Rip Rap
S. DeCoursey noted that CLD’s request for additional rip rap treatment would be an easy item to follow up on.
Landscaping and Lighting
S. DeCoursey noted a letter written by P. Bealo that had been forwarded to him regarding the lighting on the site.
S. Ranlett asked if the Board had received a copy of the letter.
P. Bealo noted that he did not send the letter directly to the applicant, but had sent it to L. Komornick.
L. Komornick offered that she had forwarded the letter to the applicant.
S. DeCoursey noted that his short answer was that they were willing to work within the ordinance with reference to the lighting and landscaping with the exception of where they had previously requested waivers.
Federal/State/Local permitting
S. DeCoursey acknowledged that all State, Local and Federal permits would need to be secured for final approval.
Waiver Requests
S. DeCoursey noted a number of waivers that they would be requesting:
- Both parcels would be needing a waiver from the ten-foot landscaping buffer from the shared property line since the appearance of the location was that the two parcels would be as one
- Both parcels would be needing a waiver from the height of the light pole restriction
- The southern parcel would need a waiver for a portion of the landscaping buffer where it was only 7.4 feet instead of ten-feet to provide for a fire lane
R. Gray asked why there was a request for a waiver from the height of the lighting poles.
S. DeCoursey noted that based, on the formula in the regulation, the height of the light poles along the perimeter of the parcels would be so short as to make them ineffective lighting.
L. Komornick offered that she had e-mailed them a suggestion to put a pipe parallel to the property line with 8-10 holes in the pipe for additional drainage discharge.
S. DeCoursey explained that the pipe would be going uphill and into the buffer or down a very steep slope which would make it ineffective. He added that the layer of rip-rap contoured to the land would be in keeping with engineering standards. S. DeCoursey offered that it was a difficult slope to stabilize.
R. Gray asked if the plan included the pipe the L. Komornick had talked about.
S. DeCoursey replied that it did not, adding that there were two (2) areas of discharge.
S. DeCoursey said that the State of New Hampshire did have some concerns with property lines and access across properties. He added that it was understood that, without resolving the ownership of the property, the plan could not be approved.
R. Gray asked if the access easement for the residents of the (Southview) condos was conditioned on it being relocated.
D. Sanderson explained that he had been working with Gary Densen to finalize the easement agreement. He acknowledged that it was a complicated process.
T. Moore read an email communication regarding the easement for the condos; it noted confidence that the matter would soon be resolved.
D. Sanderson added that they didn’t want to have to re-write the easement agreement if something needed to be changed in it once the issues with the State of New Hampshire were resolved.
L. Komornick reminded that the Board would ultimately need a copy of the final agreement.
D. Sanderson noted that there would be twenty-six (26) individual easements for each of the units.
L. Komornick asked if there was anything in the easement that would prohibit the location of the dumpster, which was noted earlier as a concern.
D. Sanderson replied that there was absolutely nothing.
L. Komornick noted that the letter from NHDOT was a bit confusing and that she didn’t understand their concern over the condo easement as that was a concern for the Town, not the State.
D. Sanderson reiterated that it was a complicated process and that he would keep the Board in the loop.
L. Komornick added that the outstanding ownership, condo access easement, concern of the State over the connection to Garden Road, and rights-to-pass agreement made it impossible for the Board to take action on the application at this time. She added that the State of New Hampshire had concern over Garden Road ending as a town road in a hammer-head and not being connected to Route 125. L. Komornick offered that she wasn’t sure why the State would be concerned since Garden Road is a Town road.
There was a discussion of the NHDOT letter expressing concern over the Garden Road connection. L. Komornick suggested that there needed to be a meeting with NHDOT. D. Sanderson added that he would make sure that everything was clear before the next meeting with the Board.
T. Moore asked if there were any further questions from the Board. He asked if there were any abutters who wanted to speak. There were none.
L. Komornick said that she needed clarification from the Board regarding the Hydrogeological Study so that she could let CLD know.
T. Moore noting that the list of requirements was included in the ordinance and a lot of information had already been collected and the applicant needed to show the Board how the requirements might be met.
R. Gray added that it shouldn’t be that difficult if all the data was already collected.
S. DeCoursey explained that it was an involved study and that if they were creating a large new impervious area then he could see the justification, but this was an already functioning site. He added that he liked to avoid doing complicated studies for the sake of doing them and he suggested a more common sense approach.
P. Bealo suggested that they take a look at the list and give the Board a response to each item, including what items they think are overkill for this site and why.
T. Moore noted they needed to show how the groundwater is not going to be contaminated.
R. Gray also added that the Board could review the information provided to see if it could be considered as a study and meeting the intent of the ordinance.
M. Dorman suggested they might be better off going for the variance.
J. Soraghan noted that the State of New Hampshire tested his water every three (3) months and it has tested clean every time.
There was discussion regarding the best way to satisfy the requirements of the Aquifer Protection Ordinance and the need for a Hydrogeological Study.
L. Komornick suggested that, since the State of New Hampshire was already monitoring the site, their reports are examined to see if there was enough information in them to satisfy the Study requirements of the ordinance.
R. Gray added that, if the variance is the easiest route to take, the applicant may want to do that and put the matter to rest.
S. DeCoursey said that if they were denied the variance then they would be back at square one and would lose the time it would take to make the application.
M. Todd, noting that he sat on the Board in his town, said that this plan was reducing the water use on the property and that it should be seen as meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance as a common sense approach.
L. Komornick offered that the problem was the wording of the ordinance that left the Board with no discretion since it stated “shall” be done.
M. Dorman said that it was his opinion that since this was an existing site and the use would be lesser water use, making the conditions better, that this was similar to a grandfather condition. He suggested that the Study in the ordinance would be applicable in the case of an undeveloped site.
P. Bealo suggested that the question needed to be kicked to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a decision.
T. Moore suggested that the applicant put together a list for a Hydrogeological Study. He noted that there was nothing in the ordinance that is criteria for the Board accepting or rejecting the Study.
M. Dorman reminded that the ordinance did have a specific list of items to comply with the ordinance and the CLD had already made the statement that they didn’t comply with the ordinance. He reiterated that it is his opinion as the Zoning Officer that this ordinance was intended to be applicable to new development and what was being proposed was an improvement on an already well-functioning site.
S. Ranlett noted that if they wanted to they could use the existing septic and they would still be reducing the gallons per day. He added that they would be getting stamped septic designs and a brand new system.
L. Komornick reiterated her suggestion that whatever information NHDES had regarding the monitoring of the site be looked at to see if there was enough there to satisfy the requirements.
There was continued discussion as to how best to satisfy the requirements of the Aquifer Protection District Ordinance requirement for a Hydrogeological Study.
S. DeCoursey noted that the Study done by the State is from years ago and was not going to match with the site today.
L. Komornick offered that she felt that as part of her due diligence she would be obligated to call NHDES for the status of the site.
J. Soraghan said that he would bring into the Planning Office all the information that he had available.
M. Dorman suggested that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) should already be getting the information.
J. Soraghan noted that the information was being given to the Health Department.
P. Bealo added that CLD would still come back with the fact that it does not meet the ordinance.
S. DeCoursey offered that he had heard all the concerns of the Board and that he would go back and discuss them with the team.
L. Komornick suggested that the other item that the Board needed to make a determination on was Westville Road.
R. Gray noted that he had spoken with the BOS and they would like to see the right-turn only lane remain with two left-turning lanes.
L. Komornick asked if it was considered that the applicant had already paid money to the Town.
D. Sanderson asked if the BOS had a say in terms of site plan issues.
R. Gray noted that he was the liaison and that he brought the discussion back and forth.
P. Bealo reminded that R. Gray was only one vote on this board.
S. Ranlett added that the applicant had brought all the information forward that they are able to mitigate their impact.
J. Soraghan reminded that CLD agreed with the mitigation.
L. Komornick reminded that the BOS is the Town’s road agent.
S. Ranlett noted that there were other applicants that didn’t have to put up additional monies.
L. Komornick noted that, if it came up down the road, it would be a problem.
T. Moore added that he would also like to see a better intersection, but if they met the requirement and CLD was in agreement he didn’t see that there was much that could be done to make the applicant do more.
R. Gray suggested that he would have a harder conversation with the BOS.
L. Komornick reminded that the BOS had jurisdiction over the road and the money that had already been received.
R. Gray offered that the Town may come back with a road project that would coincide with this project and not affect the development.
S. Ranlett noted that it was a Planning Board issue, taking into consideration the suggestions of the BOS.
P. Bealo added that the applicant can show that they are mitigating their impact and CLD agrees. If the BOS wanted to do something else as well they were within their rights to do so but they couldn’t hold this applicant responsible.
The Board was polled to see if there was consensus that the mitigation proposed (re-striping and new signage for the intersection of Westville Road with Route 125) was adequate for this project.
- S. Ranlett – yes
- N. Morin – yes
- T. Moore – yes
- R. Gray – yes
- P. Bealo – yes
R. Gray offered that he was clear with the mitigation proposed but he was unclear that the Planning Board had the right to do it as the BOS is the road agent for the Town.
P. Bealo replied that he said that the applicant presented a plan that would mitigate their traffic impact, which is all they had to do. He added that if another Board with jurisdiction didn’t like the plan and didn’t want to implement it or wanted to do something else that was on them, but this applicant would be off the hook.
R. Gray asked if the mitigation plan became part of the site plan.
S. Ranlett reminded that a similar situation happened at Stateline Plaza, where the right turn lane was taken away on Wentworth Ave, and the BOS didn’t say anything about that one.
R. Gray suggested that the BOS may have been in agreement with the Wentworth Ave situation.
J. Soraghan asked that it be noted for the record that the applicant for this plan review is Soraghan Realty Trust, not Rite Aid.
T. Moore stated that the hearing would be continued to May 21, 2008.
S. DeCoursey asked if there was a way to continue the hearing to the May 7, date and if they did not have resolution of the matters discussed they would submit a written request to continue to May 21.
J. Soraghan added that he was under the gun to break ground in order to make quoted construction deadlines.
L. Komornick noted that it was not this Board that was holding up the application and that the plan would continue to be held up by the weakest link, which at this point seemed to be the questions with the State of New Hampshire.
T. Moore stated that the hearing would be continued to May 7, but that it would be pointless to come in if the issues of ownership were not resolved.
The chairman called for a break at 9:42 p.m.
S. Ranlett left the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
The meeting was called back to order at 9:50 p.m.
A Final Site Plan Review Application Hearing for properties located in the Industrial Zone at 222 Plaistow Road, specifically, Tax Map 45, Lots 5 & 6. The application is for a change of use of the properties from one (1) business (RV Sales) to two (2) businesses (Electrical Contractor and Used Car Sales). The owner of record is DBH Realty of Plaistow, LLC.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc., was present for the application.
R. Pica noted that David and Bruce Howard, DBH Realty, the new owners, and David Forestell, current property owner, were also present.
R. Pica explained the existing conditions on the former CampAmerica site, noting the location of the building, pavement, parking, wetlands and landscaping. He noted that all would be staying as is on the 10+ acre site with the exception of the removal of some of the pavement for additional landscaping.
R. Pica offered an explanation of the proposed change of use for the site, which was proposed to be two (2) businesses; an electrical contractor and a used car business. He noted that the first floor of the existing building would be showroom and sales for the used car business as well as maintenance area for the electrical contractor. The second floor would be used by the electrical contractor as office space. The existing gated fence would be maintained, with police/fire key access by a Knox box. R. Pica continued to note that the electrical contractor had a few large pieces of equipment that would be maintained on the site, a flat bed truck as well as a bucket truck. He added that there were other vehicles including standard vans and pick-up trucks. R. Pica noted that designated parking for all vehicles as
well as customer and employee parking was noted on plan along with the used car display parking.
R. Pica discussed the landscaping plan, noting that the previous site plan included waivers for the landscaping. He added that they were including additional landscaping in the front so there was no longer a need for the waivers, and they met the requirements for interior landscaping. R. Pica showed pictures of the site and noted that on the side and the rear of the property there was a lot of natural landscaping, which would be preserved.
There was a discussion of the specific types of plantings that would be put on the site and were also noted on the plan.
R. Pica noted that the septic was a larger design than what would be needed for this use.
R. Pica explained the parking calculations noting the following:
- Three 9’ X 12’ handicapped accessible spaces (two customer and one employee)
- 9’ X 18’ regular parking spaces
- 8’ X 16’ spaces designated for used car display
- 12’ X 18’ designated parking for the flat bed and bucket trucks
- Site plan regulations call for 39 parking spaces and 47 are supplied on the plan
R. Gray asked what the need was for the security gate. He offered that he was generally not in favor of them without good reason.
R. Pica noted that many of the vans were parked there overnight and they were loaded with expensive tools and other equipment.
There was a discussion regarding the NHDOT plans for that section of Route 125 upgrades. It was noted that the timing for this section of the Route 125 improvement plan had been pushed way back.
R. Pica noted that as part of the landscaping plan there was a certain amount of discretion to work with the Building Inspector to make changes on site if it is determined that a certain variety of a plant will not survive on the site. The number of plantings would not change but the type may be switched to something of an “equal size and type” as a field change, but only with concurrence of the Building Inspector.
T. Moore asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if there were any abutters who want to comment or question. There were none.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, to accept the amended site plan for the change of use at 222 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Waivers
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to grant the request to waive §230-14E (location of offsite wells and septic).
R. Pica noted that all the abutting wells and septics were too far away to be impacted by this site and there were also no new septic systems or wells proposed.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §235-8.B(3) – (2,3 and 4) (front buffering/landscaping requirements).
R. Pica noted that fewer plantings where being provided across the front as there was limited space.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §235-16M (high intensity soil mapping).
R. Pica noted that this site was already paved and developed and therefore the high intensity soils cannot be determined. The edge of the wetlands has been delineated by Tim Ferwerda, Certified Wetland Scientist.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Pica requested that the Board allow the Building Inspector to issue a certificate of occupancy permit (CO) for the electrical contracting company only to start using the site prior to the completion of all the new plantings. He added that they would not request a CO for the used car sales until the site plan is completed. R. Pica noted that it was the intent to preserve the grandfathered right to sell motor vehicles from this site so that part would be implemented. He noted that the plantings either way would be in place by October 1, 2008.
R. Gray said that the fire lane striping should be done before the CO is granted, but that he didn’t have an issue with the issuance of the CO before the plantings.
R. Pica noted that the lot consolidation form had not been filed with the previous site plan application but it would be as part of this amended plan.
D. Forestell added that he had tried to get that completed for this meeting but was not able to, but that it would be taken care of shortly.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the amended change of use site plan for 222 Plaistow Road, with the following condition:
- R. Pica is to submit a letter stating that all site work will be completed by October 1, 2008, or before a CO is issued for the used car sales, which ever is first.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business
Payment of Public Safety Fee Invoice
There was review of an invoice submitted by SEC Associates for engineering work done relative to the future expansion of the Public Safety Complex.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to sign off on the SEC Associates invoice as being within the scope of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance and recommend that the BOS authorize payment of the invoice.
It was noted that part of the billing was for review of the stormwater protection plan.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Zoning and MasterPlan Updates
L. Komornick noted that draft copies of the impact fee update would be provided.
There was a brief discussion regarding the updating of Population Chapter of the MasterPlan.
Miscellaneous Updates from the Department of Building Safety
R. Gray noted a Cease and Desist Order sent to the Vic Geary Center.
M. Dorman explained that they had started clearing trees around the back side of the building to be able to use the handicap access door for the basement. He added that if they decide to pave for additional parking in his opinion they would need to come to the Board for site plan review. M. Dorman noted there was not a good site plan for the Vic Geary in the files so the Board may look for at least an as-built plan.
There was no further business before the Board and the chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
