PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 6, 2008
Call to Order: 6:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman (left meeting at break); Peter Bealo; Barry Weymouth (arrived at 6:47 p.m.); Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex- Officio; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Merilyn Senter, Alternate, was excused.
Also present was P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. It was noted that Leigh G. Komornick, Planner, was on vacation and that Dee Voss, Recording Secretary, was out sick, and that the minutes would be taken from a recording of the meeting.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth.
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 the applicant had requested that this matter be continued and that it would now be heard on August 20, 2008.
T. Moore offered that a notice had been received regarding the Methuen (MA) Festival of Trees to inform that there were funds available for historic preservation projects. Information will be available in the Planning Office
Minutes of the July 16, 2008, Meeting
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the minutes of the July 16, 2008, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Dance Designs Regarding Use of Unit at Red Oak II
Guy and Sherry Williams, Dance Designs, were present for the discussion.
T. Moore noted there was a letter from the condo association indicating that they have no problem with the use.
S. Williams explained that she was looking to relocate her business from its current location in the former Shaw’s plaza (5-9 Plaistow Road) to Red Oak Condominiums (Red Oak). She noted that she had been in business above Papa Gino’s for nineteen (19) years would like to make the move mostly for safety concerns.
T. Moore noted a letter from R.J. Pica Engineering, Inc., regarding the septic system for the site as well as an attendance sheet indicating the number of students who have been at the dance studio for the past three to four years and they were compatible. He noted that parking had been checked and it was adequate. T. Moore offered that there was a letter from the unit owner noting that, should it be determined in the future that people using the dance studio are interfering with parking for other units, he will install “reserved parking” signs for those other units. T. Moore noted that the letter from the business owners stated that this would be more of a drop-off situation than a stay and park.
T. Moore asked if there were any questions, there were none.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to permit the dance studio use at 1 Red Oak, Units E and F. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Alan Daviduk for Minor Site Plan Changes at Dunkin Donuts
T. Moore noted A. Daviduk applied for minor site plan for changes to the Dunkin Donuts site at the corner of East Road and Route 125. He noted there were copies of Pictometry pictures for the site. T. Moore noted that the plan was to place half-dozen tables and chairs on a patio area to allow customers to drink their coffee outside.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:47 p.m. (N. Morin no longer voting member.)
P. Bealo noted that he was familiar with the drive-thru area and there were a couple picnic tables on the other side of the grass and questioned if they would remain in place.
S. Ranlett noted the picnic tables were on the grass between the Dunkin Donuts and the gas station (Plaistow Getty) and that he had never seen anyone use them.
There was discussion regarding where the tables were intended to be located. It was noted that it would not interfere with traffic or parking and that there were currently trash receptacles there.
M. Dorman noted that he was at the site with the contractor who would be doing the project and he showed him what they would like to do, but he had not seen the plan yet. He noted that septic was designed for a pizza place at one time and that he didn’t see a problem with parking. He noted that there would be upgrades to the landscaping.
R. Gray asked if there would be a problem with the septic.
M. Dorman replied that he didn’t think so recalling the number of tenants it was designed for.
There was additional discussion regarding the number and location of the proposed tables. It was suggested that people who would normally sit in their cars to drink their coffee would most likely be the ones to use these tables.
T. Moore asked the Board if there were any additional comments or questions.
S. Ranlett noted that the plan called for use of the sidewalk and that he didn’t want to see the sidewalk to be used as part of this.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the changes and allow no more than three (3) tables next to the building provided there is no interference with the sidewalk.
P. Bealo asked to clarify where the tables were to be placed since S. Ranlett’s motion said there were not to be on the sidewalk and he noted the entire area around the building to be sidewalk.
S. Ranlett said there was room for them to be placed closer to the building without interfering with the sidewalk.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 (NOTE: B. Weymouth is now the voting member on the Board.)
Update on CIP (Capital Improvement Plan)
T. Moore noted that the CIP was being worked on and would most likely be available for review at the second September meeting.
Discussion and Review of Sign Ordinance Regarding Flags
M. Dorman brought pictures of flags and wave runners that have popped up around town.
P. Bealo noted that a month ago Foods Plus had come to the ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) asking for a second (free-standing) sign at their location in the former Shaw’s Plaza, they were turned down, most notable for the fact that they wanted a sign right up against Route 125. They suggested there was a lack of visibility for their existing signs and the ZBA didn’t agree with that assessment. The ZBA was also concerned that if this was granted it would result in a number of new signs being erected on Route 125, particularly in this plaza, which would result in visibility and safety issue, so they (Foods Plus) were turned down. P. Bealo noted that within about one week of being turned down, Foods Plus erected a number of flags (wave runners) which he considered to be signs under the Town’s zoning.
He explained that he had spoken with M. Dorman who told him that they were not signs they were flags, which P. Bealo disagreed with after reading the definition in the zoning ordinances. P. Bealo noted that this was how the discussion came to be brought to the Planning Board for a determination of whether or not flags should be regulated the same as signs.
M. Dorman noted that since P. Bealo had brought this to his attention he said that he now agreed with P. Bealo that these were signs as defined in the ordinance. He explained that many of these flags that only said “welcome, “ “sale,” or “open” had been up for many years and were only to draw attention to the business. He noted that he was looking to this Board for direction, and that he would like it in writing, so that when he had to tell some of the businesses that they would have to remove their flags after ten (10) years he would have the back-up. He noted that those who disagreed would have to go to the ZBA to appeal the Planning Board’s decision.
R. Gray noted, looking at the pictures that M. Dorman presented, that Foods Plus was not the only business that was using the flags and wave runners.
P. Bealo agreed, offering that they were just the catalyst. He added that M. Dorman had reminded him that wave runners have been around a long time.
S. Ranlett noted that he had been in Town for many years and hadn’t really noticed them (the wave runners) before and now it seemed that they were everywhere.
M. Dorman explained that the car dealers had been using them for some time and it was the ones at Foods Plus that brought the notice.
There was discussion of what would be considered a sign, including the tire covers at some tire stores and the American flags at J.R. Used Car Corral.
S. Ranlett suggested such things as American flags and confederate flags would have to be included under the current zoning and businesses would have to remove them.
P. Bealo noted there was already an exception in the Zoning or official, government or safety signage and suggested that in the next zoning cycle all that needed to happen would be to include nationally recognized national and state symbols, which would then exempt American flags.
S. Ranlett asked if he would then be required to go to the ZBA for a variance to fly a confederate flag.
M. Dorman noted there was a British flag currently at one of the local sites.
R. Gray suggested that a British flag was not the same as a confederate flag.
M. Dorman noted there were armed services flags, MIA flags and the like at many locations in town and that’s why he needed clarification from the Board.
P. Bealo suggested that flags were already defined flags as being signs under the temporary sign restrictions which calls out banners and pennants, since the dictionary definition includes flags as such things. He noted that in the real world he would go to the definition of signs in the zoning ordinances and using the phrase “calling attention to a business or a product” and that an American flag, or flag of another country, was not calling attention to the business or product, unless they sell flags.
S. Ranlett questioned what would happen with a business that installs twenty-five American flags to call attention to their site.
P. Bealo admitted being torn on that issue and said he wasn’t sure how to deal with those cases.
S. Ranlett said the he agreed on the twenty-five foot flags and wave runners that note a product and suggested a lot of thought would need to be used to take care of those advertising a product and distinguish them from those wishing to have American or even confederate flags.
There was a discussion regarding what would be considered a sign and what would not under the current wording of the ordinance. It was noted that things such as “4 X 4,” and “Beer” were clearly advertising a product. Others with words such as “Cheap,” and “Sale” were also called out to be signs as the called attention to the business.
P. Bealo noted that this was not going after a business; this was going after a symptom of the problem.
P. Bealo offered that he worked in Tyngsboro and drove the DW Highway and he did not see on flag on the drive.
S. Ranlett suggested that local businesses had found a loop hole and were using it.
M. Dorman offered that there wasn’t a loop hole.
R. Gray said that he didn’t think there was a loop hole but they were putting things on the building to call attention to the business.
P. Bealo added they were pushing the envelope.
R. Gray offered that as far as flying the American flag the ordinance does allow that, but it allowed flying the American “flag” not “flags.”
S. Ranlett suggested that once it goes beyond an American flag or two it was then calling attention to the business.
R. Gray added that he didn’t even care if they were flying an armed services or MIA flag, but when there are multiple flags of the same type it is then calling attention to the business and is prohibited.
P. Bealo, noting he was playing devil’s advocate, asked about the business that flies twenty American flags who is now told he has to remove most of them and then goes out to purchase the flag set of the United Nations, which would have one each, not multiples of the same flag. It wouldn’t solve that problem.
R. Gray said that if someone is going to buy multiple flags they would be calling attention to the business (as opposed to displaying patriotism or allegiance) and would be prohibited.
There was discussion about what would be considered a sign and prohibited. It was agreed that if there were words or a product on it, it is a sign and M. Dorman can ask it to be removed.
T. Moore suggested that others, such as plain colored banners, American and armed services flags, should be thought about and discussed as part of fall zoning changes.
S. Ranlett suggested that colored banners, if there were more than five or six, were then calling attention.
P. Bealo noted that the ordinance regarding banners called for them to be securely attached by all four corners to the façade of the building, and therefore were covered.
He added that the letters in the car hoods on used car lots should be signs as well.
M. Dorman noted that letters are sent for those signs but that they are frequently gone either before the letter is received or soon after.
R. Gray asked if a letter is sent once a violation is noted even if it is immediately removed.
M. Dorman replied that in many cases it is, but frequently the signs are taken down before the letter is sent.
Report from M. Dorman Regarding Status of Construction Projects and Final Conditions
M. Dorman reminded that there were two sites that were supposed to be scheduled for revocation hearings at the next meeting (August 20, 2008), those being Telly’s site (113 Plaistow Road) and Jay Davey’s site (69-71 Plaistow Road). He said that he didn’t know if the letters had yet gone out to them but that both are aware of the revocation. M. Dorman noted there were erosion issues with the rebuilding of the project on Westville Road but he had been assured they would be taken care of in short order. Primo Pasta was having some structural issues that were slowing them down.
S. Ranlett asked what was happening with the former CVS building.
M. Dorman noted that it had been taken down but he had not received an application to rebuild anything as yet. He noted that there were still a lot of empty units at Stateline Plaza as well as the former Shaw’s Plaza across the street.
M. Dorman offered an update of the project to widen Hazeltine, including surveying and transfer of land to complete the project. He reminded that there had been agreement with the Board in the past to allow the project to go forward and that he was looking for agreement with this Board and the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to have the contract to design the road to be completed. He added that he felt it was important to get the design completed and that he was confident there would be monies in the Route 125 Impact Fee account to fund the project once all the details were resolved, though he was less confident it would be happening this year.
M. Dorman noted that Quick Stop Tire was working on their addition and the 214 Plaistow Road was completed, including raising the grade, fencing and lighting.
T. Moore noted a number of FYIs in the board member packets. He called attention to the summary of changes to the “right to know” law with reference to electronic communications.
The chairman called for a break until the RPC representative arrived and set up their PowerPoint presentation.
S. Ranlett left the meeting at the break
Discussion with RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission) On Work Force and Inclusionary Housing
Cliff Sinnott, Executive Director RPC, gave a PowerPoint presentation on work force and inclusionary housing and recent legislative changes in housing. Hard copies of his presentation are available in the Planning Office.
The chairman adjourned the meeting directly after the discussion with Cliff Sinnott. No time was stated for the record.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
