PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 3, 2008
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Timothy E. Moore, Chairman, and Barry Weymouth were excused. Merilyn Senter, Alternate, submitted a letter of resignation.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth.
Minutes of the August 20, 2008, Meeting
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minutes of the August 20, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 (Gray 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.
S. Ranlett noted that a letter, requesting a continuance, had been received. It was offered that the request was to allow the applicant to put together a video presentation that would better illustrate the nature of their business. S. Ranlett stated that the matter would be continued to September 17, 2008.
L. Komornick offered that she had been in touch with Tom Drew, an inter-bureau coordinator, who has offered to set up a meeting with all involved parties to determine the need for specific permits and the procedures to follow to get those permits.
Discussion with, and requested by, residents and business owners concerning sign ordinance issues
Based on a discussion at a previous meeting a number of letters had been sent to the business community informing them that certain flags and wave runners were considered to be signs, under the definition in Article II of the Plaistow Zoning Ordinances, and therefore were subject to the same permitting requirements as all other traditional signs. A number of representatives of local businesses appeared at this meeting to discuss the matter and requested The Board either reconsider that decision or consider making zoning changes this year.
Representing some local businesses were:
Norman Dalphond Foods Plus 5 Plaistow Road
Aaron Singer Singer Subaru 77 Plaistow Road
John Ferreullo JR’s Used Car Corral 141 Plaistow Road
Michael Gerardi Mountain Dogs 5 Plaistow Road
The issues that they brought to the Board were:
- Lack of visibility on busy Route 125
- Flags and wave runners had been overlooked until the Board’s recent decision, could they be allowed unless and until the Board decided about possible zoning changes in the fall
- Local economies are affecting businesses and the flags/wave runners are an inexpensive way for the businesses to call attention to themselves
- Local businesses had invested money in the flags/wave runners based on the assumption that they were not regulated under the sign ordinance
- The flags/wave runners were not unattractive and did not detract from the community
- They questioned what was gained by the community in prohibiting the flags/wave runners
- The businesses suggested there was still some ambiguity in the definition and requested that the Board allow the flags/wave runners until it can be specifically cleared up
- There are many empty commercial units on Route 125 and perhaps if there were a more liberal sign policy then more businesses would want to locate in Plaistow
There was a discussion of the language in Article II (Definitions) and how the Board came to a unanimous consensus that flags/wave runners are signs under that definition. It was acknowledged that the Code Enforcement Officer did not interpret them to be so and that was why the discussion came to the Board in the first place.
N. Dalphond noted that no businesses were invited to that discussion.
It was noted that all agendas are publicly posted and available and that special interests are not routinely notified of any agenda items.
A. Singer suggested there were too many gray areas in the ordinance and suggested that the Board consider allowing some flags/wave runners until they can be cleared up.
R. Gray replied that there had to be some kind of line drawn and a decision made as to how many is too many. He added that based, on the discussion at a previous meeting and on the strict reading of the definition, flags/wave runners were considered signs and that is why M. Dorman was told to enforce the ordinance in that way.
P. Bealo reminded that others, aside from the Planning Board, could propose zoning amendments and put them forth for a Town vote,
There was a discussion of the reading of the definition of a sign as well as the provisions in Article IX, the sign ordinance, regarding temporary signs and banners.
A. Singer reiterated his question as to what gain there was to the community in prohibiting the flags/wave runners.
P. Bealo offered that it was his personal opinion that they are distracting to drivers and therefore created a moderate safety risk which he didn’t think was sufficiently balanced by the gain to the business community. He added that he had not seen any data that convinced him that they increased commerce on Route 125.
The discussion continued with the business community reiterating their request that the Board re-consider their decision and at the very least allow flags/wave runners to continue to be displayed at least and until there are any changes made in the zoning ordinances. There was discussion as to how the discussion was brought to the attention of the Board and why they made the decision that they did. It was reiterated that it is not only the Board who can bring forth proposals for zoning changes. Businesses were told to contact L. Komornick in the Planning Office for procedures on how to file a citizen’s petition. It was also noted that, even if the Board did discuss changes to the ordinance, there were no guarantees that there would be any changes or that the changes would be what the business community was
seeking, or that the voters would approve the changes.
J. Ferreullo offered a history of his business dealings in Plaistow, offered a number of photos and news articles that he had saved over many years, and noted his strong connection to all military branches. He stated that there was nothing that could convince him to take down either his American, military or Indian flags. Mr. Ferreullo suggested that he would get the press involved if he was told that he had to do so.
S. Ranlett offered that the Board valued the concerns expressed by the businesses in attendance at this meeting and said they would definitely include a discussion on signs as part of their annual zoning review.
P. Bealo reiterated that discussion did not promise that all the changes requested by the business community would be proposed to the voters. He noted that he drives the DW (Daniel Webster) Highway to work every day and there were no flags or wave runners allowed and it didn’t seem to be adversely impacting businesses there.
M. Gerardi reminded that the DW Highway had many larger stores to draw people to the area and that Plaistow only really had WalMart and Staples, along with no-tax beer and cigarettes. He reiterated that the temporary signs and flags work for his business and that he felt there were many ways to make them more aesthetically pleasing.
A. Singer noted that he had only heard two reasons to not allow flags/wave runners as they were noted to be unsightly and a possible traffic distraction. He reported that he had tried to acquire another vehicle manufacturer for his dealership and the very first questions that he is asked are always about the Town’s attitude regarding signage. Mr. Singer reported that, when he tells them that balloons aren’t even allowed, the comment is always that the Town makes it really hard to do business. He reminded that businesses want to locate where they are certain they can promote themselves and do well, which is a benefit to the entire community.
L. Komornick suggested that requested changes be discussed at a workshop session when the Board was considering other changes to be made to zoning. She added that there is not generally notification to specific individuals but the agendas are always publicly posted. L. Komornick added that at this time a zoning workshop was scheduled for the first meeting in October. She reiterated that there were two ways to propose changes to zoning ordinances, the first being to work with the Board on a change that they could support and the other was to propose a citizen’s petition and that she would have information on that procedure available in the Planning Office. L. Komornick noted that she could not actually write a citizen’s petition for anyone but that she could help them with the procedure involved.
J. Ferreullo noted a number of other safety issues, particularly the speed of traffic, he had observed from his business location on the corner of Routes 121A and 125 which he suggested would be a better focus for the Board other than on flags/wave runners.
R. Gray suggested that highway safety concerns should be brought to the Board of Selectmen (BOS). He noted that the BOS would have a greater impact on the State agencies with reference to the State roadways than any citizen would.
S. Ranlett called for a break at 7:42 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:50 p.m.
Discussion by Request by Fairpoint (Communications) for community outreach events scheduled for October 15th-19th
L. Komornick noted a letter from Fairpoint Communications outlining a number of events they would like to schedule during the week of October 15, 2008. She noted that she understood that these events would be taking place at different commercial locations throughout town, though a specific list had not been provided. L. Komornick offered that normal procedure would be to request a minor site plan review for each event at each commercial location. She explained that they would have a “hawkers and peddlers license” from the Police Department.
S. Ranlett suggested that a letter be sent requesting that a list of involved commercial sites and events be provided and then L. Komornick would inform the Board if she saw any issues with anything proposed.
P. Bealo asked if this was the same as the “tag days” that non-profits had around town.
R. Gray offered that this was clearly a for-profit company.
S. Ranlett stated that L. Komornick would coordinate with Fairpoint.
Request for Payment form the Route 125 and Public Safety Impact Fess Accounts
Two invoices were submitted for review to the Planning Board.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, paying the amount of $1,528.77, from the Public Safety Impact Fee Account, is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
R. Gray noted that this was still within the scope of Phase I of the records storage project that Chief Savage had spoken to the Board about.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, paying the amount of $4,546.60, from the Route 125 Impact Fee Account, is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance.
It was noted that this was final payment for the Town’s share of a study conducted by Merrimack Valley Planning Commission.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0.
Review of Highway Safety Committee (HSC) Draft Charter and associated memo (2004) from Ben Frost
L. Komornick explained that the Interim Town Administrator (ITA) had asked for comment on the proposed HSC Charter. She noted that there had been conflict in the past between the role of the HSC and the Planning Board when it came to plan review and that the HSC had become a pseudo Planning Board, which created quite the mess when the two disagreed.
R. Gray recalled that the intent at that time was for the HCS to provide input to the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
L. Komornick continued that currently all departments get a copy of the plan and are asked to comment. She noted that Police Chief Savage is asking to go back to a formal HSC.
S. Ranlett said he didn’t see a problem with an HSC but they couldn’t have control over plan review, which was why it was dissolved before.
R. Gray asked if L. Komornick would not be part of an HSC.
L. Komornick said that wasn’t the concern, noting it was the paragraph in the draft charter that said that the HSC would review and comment on site and subdivision plans, making recommendations. She reminded that it had become problematic when the applicant would receive contrary comments from the HCS and the Planning Board and wasn’t sure which to go with.
S. Ranlett suggested that a recommendation be forwarded to the BOS to scratch that part from the HSC Charter.
N. Morin offered that it sounded like a logistical nightmare for an applicant.
L. Komornick reminded that was why Ben Frost had been hired to review the whole process back in 2004.
R. Gray asked if there was a point in time where the Board decided that they wanted to be involved in plan review from day one.
L. Komornick said that currently a plan is reviewed by herself, M. Dorman, department heads, and town engineer. She reminded that the problem came with the HSC when they were going through full review and acting as a pseudo Planning Board.
R. Gray asked if there was a review process in place.
S. Ranlett suggested there was no reason for L. Komornick to be on an HSC.
R. Gray offered that the ITA might want her to be on such a committee.
S. Ranlett noted that L. Komornick worked for the Planning Board.
L. Komornick stated that was recently taken out of her job description.
There was a brief discussion regarding L. Komornick’s position. It was decided that needed to be further discussed once T. Moore was back from vacation.
P. Bealo offered that, at the end of the day, it needed to be clear what authority the HSC would have. He noted that if the charter was to go through as written there would have to be something in place for those instances where the HSC and Planning Board disagreed.
S. Ranlett suggested that the HSC should be strictly about safety issues within the town and not the review of plans.
M. Dorman reminded that the Town needed to have an HSC.
S. Ranlett added that it was required to receive federal monies.
There was discussion regarding how best to respond to the request to comment on the draft charter. It was decided to recommend that striking of the section that allowed the HSC to review site and subdivision plans, as there was already a Planning Board process in place to do so.
R. Gray suggested that the ITA be invited to any discussion regarding review of L. Komornick’s position.
L. Komornick wanted it to be made clear that she was not the one who brought up the discussion about her position and who she reported to.
Request for Release of Balance of Escrow for 89 Newton Road (Frank Leandro)
S. Ranlett read a letter requesting the release of the remaining escrow for 89 Newton Road.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to release the balance, said to be $67.50, of the escrow being held for 89 Newton Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business
It was noted there was information in the members’ packets regarding available upcoming workshops.
P. Bealo’s spreadsheet analysis of workforce housing in Plaistow was also noted to be in the packets.
S. Ranlett noted that it was his regret to inform that a letter had been received from M. Senter tendering her resignation as an alternate to the Planning Board.
S. Ranlett adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
