PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 21, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; and Peter Bealo. Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; Barry Weymouth; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate, were excused.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Discussion with Diane Zink Regarding Dog Grooming Business at 140 Main Street
Diane Zink was present for the discussion. She explained that she would like to open a dog grooming shop at 140 Main Street.
L. Komornick reminded the Board that this location had previously been a candle shop and that everything was similar, including parking. She noted there was a letter regarding the adequacy of the septic.
M. Dorman offered that the letter (from Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering) regarding the septic noted it to be fine.
D. Zink added that it was more than adequate for her uses.
L. Komornick added that this was not a true change of use from the previous, adding that there had never been complaints, traffic or parking, about the previous business there. She noted that the file in the Planning Office was for the Candle Shop and that she would update the file with the information for the dog grooming business.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the change of use at 140 Main Street, to permit a dog grooming business. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Minutes of May 7, 2008, Planning Board Meeting
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the minutes from the May 7, 2008, meeting as written. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 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.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, was present.
T. Moore noted that there had been a letter requesting a continuance for this public hearing.
There was some discussion whether or not to continue this matter to June 4 or June 20.
L. Komornick, noting that the engineer was in the gallery for another project, asked that there be an update for this project, since it was legally noticed for this evening.
C. Zilch explained that they had responded to CLD’s letter. He noted that he was working to increase the water supply to the site by either offsite water or going to two (2) wells on the property. C. Zilch added that the issues remaining with CLD were regarding drainage.
L. Komornick asked if the problems with the State, i.e. the pond area, were going to go away if the water situation changes.
C. Zilch noted that he still needed to address the pond issue. He added that CLD had some issues with the well radius and that would be resolved if he were to go to a two-well alternative. He explained the process that he had been taking to get well approval, including issues with providing water to the site to fit everything in around rights-of-ways for the railroad as well as Route 121, detention pond and septic systems. C. Zilch explained that he had discussed the matter with NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) Subsurface Division and was leaning towards two wells on the property.
L. Komornick noted that this matter would no longer be considered as being continued since there was an update. She asked that the Board discuss CLD’s comment about requiring a “plug test” as they were at a stalemate with CLD on this matter. CLD is asking that this State requirement be met and Bill Gregsak, Gregsak Engineering (drainage designer), disagrees, noting that they meet the Town’s requirements and the system will function adequately, making the “plug test” requirement unnecessary. L. Komornick noted that this was a situation where the Board needed to decide whether or not to require the applicant to meet the State’s requirements, as noted by CLD, or to just let it go as designed.
S. Ranlett asked where CLD was getting this interpretation.
L. Komornick explained that it was coming from the State’s requirement.
C. Zilch explained that if 100,000 sq. ft. of service you have to submit the information to the State. He noted that this project would be at 37,000 sq. ft. of service, which includes both the existing and proposed buildings and the entire pavement, and the runoff was being directed to a detention pond that meets the Town’s 25-year flood requirements. He noted there is no drainage on the site at this time. C. Zilch gave an overview of the proposed drainage, noting that it was far better than what is out there now and provides adequate treatment of the drainage water. He offered that he understood CLD’s position on the matter, but added they were much improving the situation out there and their area of service did not rise to the level where they would have to be reporting to the State so it was his
position that they should only have to meet the Town’s standards and not be required to do the “plug test.”
T. Moore asked for verification that it was 100,000 sq. ft. of disturbance that would kick in the State’s requirements.
C. Zilch confirmed, noting that the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) is an acre and they are well below that requirement as well.
C. Zilch explained that the other issue (CLD’s comments) was the increase in offsite flow to the wetlands. He noted that when you add any impervious areas to a site you cannot help but increase the flow of water off the site. He said that the key was in how the rate of that offsite flow was handled, adding that the controls in place on this site made the offsite flow rate less than what it currently is and the area that it was going to was so voluminous that it was like a drop in the ocean as far as disturbance is concerned.
L. Komornick noted that there was a stalemate with CLD on this matter and that conference calls had been suggested to resolve matters but CLD remained unmoved. She added that this was becoming more and more the case with CLD’s reviews and asked if the Board would like to discuss that aspect directly with CLD.
T. Moore offered that it was his position as long as there was no concern for public health and safety is when it was something that popped up as new the project would be allowed to continue forward. He suggested that CLD come into a workshop meeting and discuss some of the areas that are of question in the zoning and regulations and work with the Board to close up those holes. He noted that some of these issues shouldn’t be coming up with projects.
C. Zilch noted that many of the other small towns that he works with have their engineer come in once or twice a month to be available to discuss just these kinds of issues with applicants’ engineers. He added that often the communication is broken down when there are letters going back and forth.
P. Bealo recalled that the last time Mr. Zilch was before the Board he was encouraged to have a sit down with CLD.
T. Moore noted that the resistance was coming from CLD, not from the Town.
L. Komornick added that she had tried to facilitate that happening and that it wasn’t that CLD said they would not have a meeting, but they more re-stated their position, noting that they would not be changing it.
M. Dorman offered that everything with CLD seemed to be “black and white” with no room for any gray.
L. Komornick noted that they were only stating what the State’s requirements were.
M. Dorman said he understood their position, but they were hired to enforce the Town’s regulations.
P. Bealo offered that since the applicant is paying, through the Town, for CLD’s services that he didn’t see that they have the option to say no they won’t sit down and discuss a plan.
S. Ranlett agreed, noting that it was his understanding that CLD was hired to review and report on whether or not a plan met the Town’s regulations. He added that informing what the State was requiring was also a good thing, but in an FYI nature.
L. Komornick said that she was going to follow up with CLD, in a letter format, noting this discussion and stating the position of this Board with reference to their review process.
T. Moore noted that the hearing would be continued to June 4, 2008, but if all the State concerns were not ironed-out then it could be once again continued to June 20.
A Site Plan Amendment Application for the proposed change of use from Auto~Body to Landscaping Business for the property located at 7 Rose Ave., Tax Map 29, Lot 6, totaling .72 +/- acres and located in the Commercial I zone. ~The owner of record is Phillip’s Realty Trust.
Charlie Zilch, SEC and Associates, and Sandra Desrochers, property owner, were present for the hearing.
C. Zilch outlined the existing conditions and use of the site as an auto body shop in the Commercial I District. He noted that the proposal was to change the site from an auto body shop to a landscaping and winter plowing business. C. Zilch noted that the new business can be serviced without any significant changes to the existing site. He noted that the owners currently operate the business themselves, while hiring two part-time employees in the summer. C. Zilch added that they had limited equipment including two bobcats on trailers and a dump truck that would be stored outside. He noted that inside storage would be of their landscaping equipment, mowers, trimmers, saw and two trucks that would be used for the business and would have plows on them in the winter time. C. Zilch noted that access to the
building was through bay doors on the front. He explained there is also two covered bins, located on the pavement, requested for storage of materials such as sand, salt and bark mulch, noting that the business did not use dyed mulch and that the bins would be covered and contained. It was noted that there would be two additional bins for storage of stone that wouldn’t require cover. C. Zilch offered that this site works well for this type of business. He noted that the pavement would be striped, a dumpster located by the existing fence as well as signage for the business noted on the plan. He noted that no State permitting was required. C. Zilch offered that, as with many existing sites that go through a change of use, there are a few waiver requests.
Lighting - all existing lighting is on the building and there are no changes being proposed, so the request is to waive the separate lighting plan.
Landscaping – site is already paved across the front making them unable to provide that buffer but they will be adding landscaping in all other open areas. Areas where landscaping would be increased was noted on the plan.
T. Moore asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none.
M. Dorman asked if there was a copy of the existing conditions plan. He noted that there was fencing, future parking and drainage shown on the former plan. He asked if there could be additional plantings on the site. He asked if instead of silt fencing that silt sock be used.
L. Komornick suggested that the “catch-all” note be added to the plan that the business work with the Building Inspector on the landscaping of the site.
It was consensus that silt sock be used on the site.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the amended site plan as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Waivers
§230-14ii – required lighting plan
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the waiver for a lighting plan.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
§230-14hh – required landscaping plan
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the waiver for a landscaping plan. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore confirmed that the applicant was willing to use silt sock instead of silt fencing. It was confirmed and it was suggested that the change be noted as a condition of approval.
M. Dorman asked if all the proposed storage bins were on pavement.
C. Zilch replied that the ones containing stone and loam were on gravel, all others are on pavement.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the amended site plan with the following conditions.
- Change to note with reference to silt fence to silt sock
- Adding a note re: working Building Inspector regarding landscaping
M. Dorman noted that the sign ordinances had been changed and suggested that the note be changed that signage will comply with all Town Zoning.
- Changing the note regarding signage to read that all signage will comply with Town Zoning.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Public Safety Impact Fee – Wetlands Preservation Invoice
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, that payment of the Wetlands Preservation Fee of $68.00 is consistent with the purpose of the Public Safety Impact Fee Ordinance and should be paid. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
It was noted that all NHDES permits had been received for the proposed Safety Complex expansion.
Other Business – Voluntary Lot Line Merger – 222 Plaistow Road
T. Moore explained that a voluntary lot line merger request had been received from Attorney Larry Buswell regarding property located at 222 Plaistow Road (Tax Map 45, Lots 5 and 6).
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the voluntary lot line merger. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
FYIs
Driveway permit
It was noted there was a State of NH driveway permit for a lot on Main Street
NHDOT letter
A letter from NHDOT regarding State’s release of land to Frank Leandro (Brandy Brow)
Letter from Police Chief Savage – Impact Fees
Letter regarding use of Impact Fees for records storage
T. Moore noted that he had met with the Chief and the Town Manager to discuss an ongoing project for records storage. The Chief is suggesting that Impact Fees be used to finance the system as growth is responsible for the need for records. T. Moore said that he had cautioned that any monies spent for records storage would have to be called out as being related to growth.
L. Komornick sent a copy of the memo to Bruce Mayberry for comment and his reply was sent to Jason Hoch, who noted that he was comfortable with the use of the fees.
T. Moore suggested that all review the memo and there will be a discussion at the next meeting.
L. Komornick noted there would be a public hearing on a regulation change at the next meeting. She noted a number of other items in the packets including a quote regarding Stateline Plaza for their promotional materials and a memo regarding Harriman Road and their lack of application.
L. Komornick updated the Board on the progress with the state of Garden Road with reference to the Rite-Aid plan.
T. Moore adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
