PLANNING BOARD MINUTES – JOINT MEETING WITH ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
July 16, 2008
Call to Order: 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman (arrived 6:04 p.m.); Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate. Barry Weymouth was excused.
Present for the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA): Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice-Chairman; and Peter Bealo. Robert Loeffler; Cliff Clark; Roderic Cole, Alternate; and Dan Lloyd, Alternate, were excused.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner (arrived 6:22 p.m., left the meeting at 7:16 p.m. and returned at 7:39p.m.); P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth and M. Senter was appointed as a voting member in place of S. Ranlett.
A Public Hearing on a site plan review application to show the location of existing vehicle sales area and associated improvements at 89 Newton Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 9 and Tax Map 69, Lot 56 totaling 12 +/- acres and 880 +/- feet of frontage located in the ICR District. ~The owner of record is Maureen N. Leandro.
T. Moore noted that a request to continue this hearing had been received and he was announcing that the matter was continued to August 6, 2008.
S. Ranlett arrived at 6:04 p.m.
Discussion of Letter from ZBA to Planning Board
T. Moore noted that the Planning Board had received a letter from the ZBA which he summarized to be a request for more information when there is a referral from the Planning Board to the ZBA so that they will be clear on the kind of relief that is being requested.
L. Ordway explained that he had been with the ZBA for twenty (20) or more years adding that it didn’t happen all that often, but there was one more glaring example recently and a few where they “scratched their heads” to try and get to a fair decision. He noted the template, that was offered as solution to the problem and that would note the specific reason for a denial, would be helpful to the ZBA.
S. Ranlett noted that there was an opinion expressed by the Board in the specific case noted in the letter and asked if that should have been sent to the ZBA.
T. Moore suggested that what was presented was an example of what would be a typical decision and would include a list of why the applicant needed a variance.
R. Gray offered that the reasons for denial are reflected in the minutes and asked if it could just be “cut and pasted” into the decision.
T. Moore explained that the Board always owed the applicant a notice of decision whether their application is granted or denied and the proposed form would prompt for all the necessary information.
L. Ordway agreed that the form was more appropriate.
R. Gray suggested that a summary may not be adequate and there may be a need for more information.
S. Ranlett added that the minutes did reflect the Board’s intention but they needed to provide L. Komornick with a specific synopsis.
P. Bealo offered that as a ZBA member he was satisfied with the form. He asked, as a Planning Board member, if T. Moore was going to be required to sign each one of them.
T. Moore noted that generally L. Komornick would sign the form on his behalf and initial it for doing so. He added that if there was a more complex matter to be addressed he would come in and review it.
There was a brief discussion as to which decisions would be sent to the ZBA. It was decided that all would be copied to the Board so that there would be no errors of omission.
L. Ordway asked if all ZBA members were satisfied with the discussion or if there were more questions. J. Matthews and P. Bealo expressed that they were fine with the decision.
T. Moore noted that the Planning Board would be reviewing Zoning Ordinances in the fall and if there was anything that the ZBA felt needed some reviewing they were welcome to forward it to the Board.
The members of the ZBA left the meeting at 6:22 p.m.
L. Komornick arrived at 6:22 p.m.
Minutes of June 18, 2008, Planning Board Meeting (No Meeting Held on 7/2/08)
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minutes of the June 18, 2008, minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
A Public Hearing on a site plan amendment for a property previously approved for a contractor’s yard (including associated outside storage, office and warehouse space), and future tenant spaces for tradesmen and others utilizing a mix of office and warehouse space. ~The proposal is to reassign a portion of the existing building(s) and site for the manufacture of concrete building panels, and another portion for refurbishing mechanical equipment and the fabrication and assembly of mechanical equipment (including storage, office space, and warehouse/commercial space for both uses). ~~~The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13, totaling 37+/- acres. ~The owner of record is Testa Realty, LLC.
Present for the application were: Charlie Zilch, SEC and Associates; Attorney Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell, PA; Attorney Stephen Cicatelli, Massachusetts Counsel for Testa Corp.; and John Green, Green Machine (proposed tenant).
Lisa Gardella, 7 Davis Park, asked where this hearing was posted and what time it was supposed to begin.
T. Moore reminded that it was continued from the previous meeting to this date.
L. Gardella reiterated her question as to where it was posted.
T. Moore noted that since it was continued from a previous meeting it didn’t need to be reposted. It was noted that it was continued to start at 6:30 p.m. so it was decided that the Board would consider some of the items under “Other Business” to make sure that everyone who thought the meeting started at 6:30 would be here.
Other Business - Misc. Notices, Letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning and ZBA
T. Moore noted the results from the most recently held ZBA meeting as well as the legal notice for their upcoming meeting, noting there were two (2) applications for residential decks.
L. Komornick asked if there was anything she needed to submit to the ZBA for those hearings.
T. Moore answered there was not.
Report from Mike on the status of construction projects and final conditions
M. Dorman noted that there were two (2) projects that the Board had previously scheduled for revocation that were then extended, Telly’s (113 Plaistow Road) and 69-71 Plaistow Road (Jay Davey project), and both had reached their deadline for vesting again. He noted that it was his recommendation that the Board schedule revocation hearings in both matters.
T. Moore stated that both projects would be noticed and scheduled for revocation hearings on August 20, 2008.
L. Komornick noted that with reference to Telly’s there was a cash bond in place. She added that the last instructions M. Dorman had given them was to loam and seed, which will need to be done before the bond would be returned to them.
T. Moore asked that information be added to the letter that would be sent to them about the revocation hearing.
L. Komornick asked if the time frame this was scheduled for would be part of T. Moore’s vacation.
T. Moore noted that he would be on vacation from August 25, through September 17, 2008. He added that there would be a representative from RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission) at the August workshop meeting to discuss workforce housing with the Board.
T. Moore, noting the time to now be 6:30 p.m., stated they would be continuing with the public hearing for 144 Main Street.
B. Campbell reminded that the location of 144 Main Street was formerly owned by Chart Industries and was now owned by Testa Corp. He continued that he felt the need to raise a few procedural points, starting with local newspaper article where Mr. Gray was quoted to have made comment about there being a need for a traffic study and a concrete plant coming to Town with a “horde of lawyers.” Mr. Campbell offered that he had concerns about the comments and was making the request that Mr. Gray recuse himself from this matter. He added that he had no power to force Mr. Gray to recuse himself, but he would like it clarified for the record that Mr. Gray would be able to make a fair judgment.
R. Gray noted that he was not going to recuse himself. He added that he believed that anyone who he had talked to about this matter would agree that he has been more than fair to the applicant as well as the community and that nothing he had said was of detriment to the applicant.
B. Campbell responded that he anticipated that would be Mr. Gray’s answer.
B. Campbell noted that there were a number of issues regarding the Fabcon application that needed to be resolved in order to proceed. He acknowledged that an e-mail had been sent to the Planning Office from a Fabcon official who was at the previous meeting that stated that Fabcon would not be proceeding with their application. Mr. Campbell offered a letter from a senior official at Fabcon stating that they were going forward and pursuing the application. Mr. Campbell offered that he would like to have a narrow issue resolved regarding the Fabcon application and that was to determine whether or not Fabcon was going to be considered as a permitted use. He noted that if it was determined that Fabcon is a permitted use, he would be asking for a continuance with reference to Fabcon to address the concerns, such as traffic,
noise, safety raised by the abutters at the previous meeting, or how they should next proceed if it is determined that Fabcon is not a permitted use.
B. Campbell offered that on July 1, 2008, he had presented a letter to M. Dorman as the Code Enforcement Officer, to make a determination, as he is vested to make, if the Fabcon use is a permitted use under the definition provided in the Plaistow Zoning Ordinances, Article II, §220-2 (definitions). He noted that it was his understanding that M. Dorman had been instructed not to give a response, despite the belief that he is the proper authority to make that determination. Mr. Campbell offered that was the narrow issue that he was looking to have determined at this meeting. He read the definition of light industry and small industry, noting both of them to be permitted uses in the Industrial District in accordance with Article V, §220-32.A.B(1). He noted there was a discussion at the last meeting of light
industry versus heavy industry, noting that when there isn’t a specific definition for something, as there is not for “heavy industry,” then the common language is what is to be relied upon for the definition. He suggested that Fabcon’s use, as described at the previous meeting, fits the Town’s ordinance definition for light industry as he read both definitions:
§220-2 - INDUSTRY (LIGHT) - The gainful activity involved in producing, distributing and changing the form of raw materials, or of assembling components and parts packaging, warehousing, and transporting finished products; such production involves the employment of management, labor, machinery and real estate to create tangible products, or utility services having value.
INDUSTRY (SMALL) – A light industry involved in assembling components and/or parts packaging which has its operations done entirely in a building not to exceed 10,000 square feet. Building size is inclusive of primary building and all accessory use buildings, Truck terminals are specifically excluded.
B. Campbell offered that Fabcon takes raw materials and creates a tangible product which they then truck off the site. He repeated that this was the issue they were seeking to have resolved at this meeting before undertaking addressing the abutters’ concerns. Mr. Campbell reiterated his opinion that as a matter of law whether or not this is a permitted use under the ordinances should be determined by M. Dorman as the Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore acknowledged that the ordinance definition was wide open adding that in speaking with the Board’s attorney he believed it was a permitted use, but the applicant also would need to meet a long list of criteria before being approved.
B. Campbell asked if T. Moore was speaking for the entire Board, offering that they didn’t want to walk away from this meeting thinking it was a permitted use and then come back to a future meeting and finding the Board had decided it was no longer permitted.
P. Bealo asked for clarification as to where it was stated in Craig Donais’ (Planning Board counsel) letter that it is a permitted use.
L. Komornick noted that it was not the intent of the letter to say it was a permitted use but to provide legal guidance about the process the Board should be undertaking in their decision making process. She added that it needed to be a valid process and concurrence as a vote of the Board.
P. Bealo said that he could agree that light industry is a permitted use in the industrial district, but as to the question of Fabcon being a light industrial use he said he didn’t agree that it was. He suggested that how the definition is worded is a false definition as anything and everything could be considered a light industrial use, adding that Holy Angels Church could be considered a light industrial use. P. Bealo offered there needed to be some kind of logic behind the definition and this was not light industry.
T. Moore agreed that it was not a good definition but it was what they had to work with. He added that he couldn’t think of anything that Fabcon does that does not meet the written word of the definition.
Dick Hawkins, 130 Main Street, asked to be heard.
L. Komornick noted that the discussion had not yet been opened to the audience and this was a procedural discussion of the Board.
N. Morin offered that he would like to hear from the abutters.
B. Campbell offered that he would be happy to yield the floor but that he considered the decision to be a legal one which should be based on the definition, not on discussion with the audience.
P. Bealo suggested that the word “definition” should set the limits and where this does not it is not a proper definition.
B. Campbell noted that it was listed in the definitions section. He added that the abutters input should be considered only if it can dispute why the use does not meet the test of the written definition.
L. Komornick offered that the members had been given information packets ahead of time because there was a lot of information for them to digest. She reminded that making the determination regarding whether or not the use was permitted was not the same as saying it was an appropriate use. This was only to determine whether or not this meets the definition as written in the ordinance.
B. Campbell added that determining the fact that it is a permitted use did not prevent the Board from applying any and all site plan regulations to the plan and adding an additional layer of protections for the health, safety and welfare of the community.
L. Komornick noted that the audience does play an important role but it is more suited to the next step in the process.
T. Moore stated that abutters could be heard but the discussion needed to be limited to the question of the definition.
Chris Kirlis, 134 Main Street, offered it was the second time that he had come to a meeting on this matter and he would continue to come to the meetings. He added that he would be doing everything in his power to not only look into the definition but also the company. He added that everyone interprets a definition differently and the Superior Court might think differently, but looking at the whole package the product produced would have too great an impact on the nearby school.
Bobbie Kirlis, 134 Main Street, offered that she didn’t hear a definition of heavy industry, and asked if perhaps they were trying to put a round peg into a square hole.
T. Moore noted that there was no definition in the ordinances for heavy industry.
L. Komornick noted that she had looked back in the ordinances and went back as far as the 1980s and there was never a definition for light versus heavy industry. She noted that they would be looking at everything in the ordinance but they needed to look at it from a legally defensible position.
Vendata Dumas-Griffith, 148 Main Street, offered that the definition of light industry requires that there be an end product, using the example of a baby carriage, suggesting that there was no end product in this process, but something is produced that would be used in another process, such as the construction of a building. She added that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) may be a source for helping define whether or not this is considered a heavy versus light industry used based upon the SIC Code they would assign the business as part of their annual tax filing.
Dan Gentile, 110 Main Street, offered that he felt the key word was “light” and that he didn’t see how anything about this could be considered light by definition.
Dennis Marcotte, 165 Main Street, asked if “health” was included in the definition of light industry.
T. Moore replied that it was not included.
D. Hawkins reported about the time that he had to come before the Planning Board to move his machine shop out of his basement and into its own building. He explained that he could not have any smell, noise or vibration and he said that he understood about the definition but the 585 kids at Pollard School and 185 at the church (Rainbow Preschool) needed to be considered. He offered they should be learning not getting an early start on lung cancer. Mr. Hawkins asked if this application was for a one-hearing approval.
T. Moore noted that the application was for a final review but that didn’t always mean that all issues would be resolved in a single meeting. He reminded that Mr. Campbell was only looking to get resolution on the issue of permitted use for Fabcon.
D. Hawkins said that he would like to see where the line was between light and heavy industry, suggesting that the trucking and the big silos being loaded and unloaded were a big deal that should be considered. He added that he thought P. Bealo had it right and this was not a common sense definition of light industry with the questions about air quality, traffic and noise.
Charles Blinn, 40 Main Street, noted that he was a member of the Board of Selectmen (BOS) but that he was at this meeting as a private citizen doing his job to protect the people of Plaistow. He offered that he had been listening from the first hearing and then he thought that they were going to be going away. He offered that if the Planning Board couldn’t make a decision that is in the best interests of the Town then they were prepared to handle it on the other end. Mr. Blinn continued that Testa came into the community promising to be a good neighbor and that he didn’t think this was being a good neighbor. He suggested that bringing the lawyers in hinting that there would be legal action against the Town for not allowing the use would be met with the same as the BOS was ready to “do battle”
in the higher courts. He added that there needed to be protection for the children who play in the Town.
L. Gardella said that she would be interested in how the IRS categorized this business.
D. Marcotte suggested that there wasn’t enough information presented at this meeting for the Board to make a decision and that it should be put off to another month to get more information about the threatening.
T. Moore offered that no one was threatening anyone.
L. Komornick left the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
R. Gray added that he didn’t think that anyone was threatening but expressing what other avenues they would have available based upon the Board’s decision. He said that he saw the definition as having two (2) separate parts. He said that he didn’t see how Fabcon could be considered as a permitted use under the first part of the definition, though he did believe the Green Machine did meet the definition.
S. Ranlett asked what other light industrial uses were located in town.
P. Bealo listed ProBark (51 Kingston Road); Beckwood (25 Hale Spring Road); and the mixed industrial uses at 4 Wilder Drive.
B. Campbell offered that he was prepared to continue the discussion regarding Green Machine and they were ready to request a final determination on that business at this meeting. He added that he would like to have the question of Fabcon put to a vote.
Harry Birmingham, 3 Tamarack Road, offered that he had seen a “terrible thing” happening in the town. He noted that Mr. Blinn came to the meeting and spoke his mind and he agreed that if the Board allowed this (application) to go further it would be ruining the Town. Mr. Birmingham noted that the Planning Coordinator had a problem with Mr. Blinn and questioned why she left the meeting. He also questioned why the Board’s attorney was not present at the meeting, suggesting that he should be present at all these meetings and offering the Board guidance in these matters. Mr. Birmingham also suggested that the SAU should be heard from in this matter, noting that there were people from the school at the meeting. He offered that the Board should be ashamed if they don’t just say god-bye to Mr.
Campbell and Mr. Testa.
P. Bealo noted that the school people present were from Pollard School and he knew them to not be shy and if they wanted to speak he knew that they would. He added that he didn’t want them to be knocked for not saying something.
H. Birmingham offered that they should have been at the last meeting. He questioned why Mr. Campbell was pushing this matter.
D. Marcotte suggested that B. Campbell was running the meeting and suggested that the Board take control.
T. Moore said that Mr. Campbell was only trying to get one question resolved, adding that once that matter was determined then all the other concerns voiced by the abutters would then come into play.
D. Marcotte reminded that this was supposed to be an extension of the last meeting and reiterated that the Board should not allow Mr. Campbell to run the meeting. He suggested that the Board should keep continuing the matter until they get sick of it.
D. Hawkins offered that he had called the SAU, because since the Town owned the land that the school was on, the certified letter noticing the meeting, never got as far as them, and they were wild that they had not been informed. He suggested that Mr. Campbell should just go home and that the Board should do the responsible thing and just vote no. Mr. Hawkins suggested that the ordinances were the will of the people and that the Board was hearing the will of the people at this meeting.
T. Moore reminded that the only vote this evening was regarding the permitted use.
H. Birmingham asked why there had to be a vote at this meeting and why it couldn’t be postponed.
T. Moore suggested that there was not on iota of good to come from not voting about the permitted use at this meeting. He added that regardless of the Board’s decision they would have to come back to another meeting as they were not prepared to go any further at this meeting to address the concerns of the abutters.
C. Kirlis added that he, too, didn’t think there was any reason for the Board to vote about at this meeting. He added that this was an emotional meeting and the Board should get input from their attorney and they needed time to think about all that had been said at this meeting.
T. Moore said that he didn’t see any reason not to make a decision at this meeting, noting that they could read the definition again in two (2) more weeks and all the comments will be the same.
Elizabeth Costa, 4 Evergreen Drive, noted that she was a parent of Pollard School children as well as a member of the School Board and that she was at the meeting to gather information to take back to the Superintendent. She added that she had real concerns about this type of activity happening so close to the school with regards to traffic, hours of operation and the health and safety of the children at the school.
L. Komornick returned to the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, under the definition of Light Industry Fabcon is not a permitted use. There was discussion as to what a “yes” vote or a “no” vote to the stated motion would be. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A that Fabcon is not a permitted use.
L. Komornick reminded, based on the earlier discussion with the ZBA, the reason for denial needed to be stated in the motion so that she could put it in the notice of decision.
R. Gray moved, second by N. Morin, that the proposed business use of Green Machine is a permitted use as defined under Light Industry in §220-2. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray amended his first motion, N. Morin second the amended motion, that the proposed business Fabcon does not meet the second or first part of the ordinance as defined in §220-2. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
B. Campbell noted that a revised set of plans had been drawn up that showed only the Green Machine use.
L. Komornick informed that she had not seen any revised plans and suggested that the hearing be continued until staff had a chance to review the plans.
It was noted that the new plans had been distributed to the members by C. Zilch right before the meeting.
T. Moore suggested that they try to resolve some of the issues that were brought up at the previous meeting and then continue the hearing pending review of the new plan. He reminded that one of the issues was with the spray booth. T. Moore offered that it was originally thought to be a prohibited use in the Aquifer Protection District (APD) but it was later discovered that the notes on the plan prohibiting it was from NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) regarding the Ground Water Management (GWM) Plan.
L. Komornick added that it came from Dave Bowen, NHDES, who is charged with the administration of the GWM Plan.
T. Moore offered that the resolution seemed to be to contact NHDES and get something in writing for the Town saying the spray booth isn’t a problem.
B. Campbell responded that he could provide the Town with documentation from D. Bowen of NHDES and that it was their intention to remove the note.
L. Komornick stated that they would not be removing the note.
B. Campbell offered that the origin of the note was based on a letter (dated October 3, 2007) from L. Komornick and C. Donais indicating it was a prohibition in the APD.
L. Komornick responded that it may show on the letter as being on the list under the APD prohibitions it is nothing more than an administrative correction as there is clear documentation that the prohibition is from NHDES and the Board had every right to request the documentation.
B. Campbell noted that if they were to use the spray booth they would have to apply for an air quality permit and that he would ask for documentation from Mr. Bowen.
L. Komornick suggested that, based on her discussions with Mr. Bowen, such a letter would not be forth coming. She added that it would be up to Green Machine to show why using the spray booth would not be a health hazard and the note on the plan would be staying.
B. Campbell offered that since they were here under a site amendment application it gives them the right to make any changes to the notes. He noted that there were other notes that were relocated to other places on the plan. Mr. Campbell offered that he would get the documentation about the use of the spray booth under the GWM Plan. He reminded that the spray booths were there from the previous owners.
L. Komornick noted that it was clearly stated in the letter from the attorney that the spray booth use had been abandoned and was therefore not grandfathered.
B. Campbell responded that it was clear to them that they had to get documentation to satisfy staff and the Board as to the use of the spray booth.
T. Moore suggested that the Fire Chief needed to be consulted on the matter as well.
L. Komornick explained that the application was in flux because of the signature on the form, noting that there is some gray area as to who had the authority to sign on behalf of Fabcon. She suggested that there be two separate application forms with proper signatures.
B. Campbell said that he was unable to respond to the matter of separate applications at this meeting. He added that he was prepared to proceed with Green Machine but needed to discuss how to proceed with Fabcon with the client based on the vote this evening.
T. Moore suggested that Green Machine be continued to August 20, 2008.
L. Komornick offered that there had been extensive conversation between her and the Board’s counsel and that, without corrected applications, there was nothing to send to the ZBA as to what is the valid application. She asked that there be separate applications in place before the next meeting, noting there could be legal importance in the future.
R. Gray suggested that whoever is in charge should be the person who signs the application.
S. Cicatelli explained that Jason Hensley was the person who signed the initial application as he was in Research and Development and was thought to be the person who would attend the meetings as he would be best suited to answer questions. He noted that Richard (Dick) Wesen is the person authorized to sign the application.
L. Komornick noted that explanation was different from the one she received from J. Hensley. She reiterated that it could become a matter of legal importance at a later date and that the Board had never allowed an application to go forward without a properly signed application.
S. Cicatelli stated that R. Wesen had full authority to act on behalf of Fabcon.
L. Komornick offered that she just needed two signed and separate application forms and that she would not be charging them additional application fees.
T. Moore stated that two (2) separate application forms should be submitted. He noted that the public hearing for Green Machine was continued to August 20, 2008, at 6:30 p.m.
D. Marcotte suggested that the owner of the building be contacted regarding dismantling the spray booth.
T. Moore called for a break in the meeting at 8:07 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:24 p.m.
Frank Simone re: minor amendments to site plan for “Home Fix’ns”
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Simone wanted to make some temporary changes to the site and that there was nothing structural being proposed.
There was a discussion of the height of a noted proposed windmill on the site. It was noted on the plan to be 42 feet in height and the question was whether that was to the hub of the windmill or the tip of the blade.
L. Komornick offered that she had been assured that the height of the windmill would not exceed the 45 foot restriction.
P. Bealo asked if the windmill would have to comply with the “fall zone” as is required for a telecommunications tower.
M. Dorman said that he would have to look at the definition. He noted Mr. Simone had always asked for everything before doing anything on the site.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minor site plan amendments for 100 Plaistow Road with the following condition:
- The total height of the windmill, to include the length of the blade, shall not exceed 45 feet.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Minor Site Plan Review for a Special Event for Rick’s Motorcycles at 33 Newton Road
L. Komornick noted that they were working with the Fire Department to make sure there is access for a fire truck and the Health Officer (for a food service license) and that the Police Chief was looking to make sure there was a police detail for the event.
Nona Basnett was present for the discussion. She explained that this would be an anniversary celebration and they would have a simulated Jeff Gordon race car, raffles and a barbeque. Ms. Basnett noted they would be raffling one of their bikes as well. She added that they had sent notices to their neighbors and their customers and that it was open to the public.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minor site plan review for a special event at Rick’s Motorcycles, 33 Newton Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Fran Shallow re: Use of Property at 240 Main Street
L. Komornick offered that Ms. Shallow called her and that she has decided not to move forward as she needs to think about the need for a variance to do so.
Discussion with Sandra and Richard Sarbanis re: Reuse of 141 Main Street for a Variety Store
L. Komornick explained there was some discrepancy with the address of the property as noted in Ms. Sarbanis’ letter and she was suggesting this matter be continued until she could clear it up.
Discussion with Vendata Dumas-Griffith at 148 Main Street re: Industrial Zoning and associated uses allowed.
L. Komornick offered that she has spoken with Ms. Dumas-Griffith during the break and she will be coming back on another night.
R. Gray stated that he was impressed with how prepared Ms. Dumas-Griffith was when she came to a meeting and that it wasn’t a simple case of “not in my backyard” but she does her homework. He added that he wished she would get involved.
L. Komornick offered that they had been corresponding quite a bit about the uses and that she does have well thought out ideas.
Other Business – Route 125 (Haverhill) Repaving
L. Komornick offered that she had received notice from the City of Haverhill that they will be repaving Route 125 from the New Hampshire line to the Mobil station starting the next week and traffic would be diverted as needed. She added that they were working with Dan Garlington (Plaistow Highway Supervisor) and the Plaistow Police Department.
There was s brief discussion of the plan and the future changes that were intended for Haseltine Street and Main Street from Haseltine Street south to Route 125 (Haverhill). M. Dorman showed a plan that illustrated the proposed changes, noting they were waiting for a land transfer from the owners of the property at 5-9 Plaistow Road and that they (Taurus Investments) were seeking an easement for a future water and sewer line for possible connection to Haverhill.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
