PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 16, 2008
Call to Order: 6:34 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Robert Zukas; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Michelle Curran, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Barry Weymouth; and Merilyn Senter, Alternate, were excused. Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman, was absent.
Also present were Leigh G. Komornick, Planner (left the meeting at 7:53 p.m.), and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
T. Moore appointed N. Morin as a voting member for S. Ranlett
Approval of Minutes from Various Meetings
R. Zukas moved, second by T. Moore, to approve the minutes from the April 18, 2007, meeting.
M. Curran noted that she had a number of outstanding issues with the minutes from that meeting. She added that she was unable to find her notes from that meeting to submit to the minute taker and had not been able to review the tape to re-list her changes.
There was discussion regarding how to proceed with the approval of the April 18, 2007, minutes. It was noted that it was important that they be accurate, but equally important that they be approved.
M. Curran stated that she could have the corrections available so that the minutes can be updated and reviewed at the next meeting.
R. Zukas withdrew his motion and T. Moore withdrew the second.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the November 28, 2007, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the December 05, 2007, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
R. Zukas moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2007, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2007, joint meeting with the Board of Selectmen (BOS), conditioned on the BOS approving the joint portion of the minutes. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A. (Note: BOS approved the minutes from the joint portion of the November 7, 2007, meeting on January 21, 2008. The vote was 3-0-1.)
A Final Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review application for a 40 unit Elderly Housing Condominium Complex to be located in the MDR District at 18 Chandler Avenue, Tax Map 38, Lot 4. The property totals 11.4 acres and has 360 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Hoyt Realty Trust.
A Final Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation and Site Plan Review application by Fairway Oaks, LLC, who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 4 with Tax Map 58, Lot 6 and a portion of Tax Map 65, Lot 2, and to adjust the lot lines of Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 36 unit Elderly Housing Project. Access to this complex will be through an extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow. The total acreage is 23.1 acres and the owners of record are Fairway Oaks, LLC, Fairway Realty Trust, and Richard Riley and Janet Biggart.
T. Moore announced that due to a filing in the New Hampshire Superior Court that all hearings regarding elderly housing are indefinitely put on hold. He added that since a date could not be announced as to when they might be heard all abutters would again be notified.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, requested a copy of the order from the court, which he was given.
Discussion with Stella of Wal-Mart Re: Spring/Summer Schedule of Special Events
Tina Rodriguez. Store Manager, and Stella Antronopoulos, Community Involvement Coordinator, of Wal-Mart, 58 Plaistow Road, were present for the discussion.
T. Rodriguez offered that she knew that the Board had a new application procedure for businesses to submit for approval of special events. She asked if there was a way for Wal-Mart to submit their list for the entire year and get the Board’s approval for all of them.
L. Komornick noted that Wal-Mart was willing to fill out all the forms, but were seeking to get an understanding of the parameters that the Board would like to see in place for these events.
T. Rodriguez noted that there was some confusion she would like to be able to clear up. Ms. Rodriguez recalled they had been told previously that holding an event on the sidewalk in front of the store was okay and then with this most recent event they were told that a craft fair had to be moved around to the side of the building near the lawn and garden center.
During the discussion a number of issues were noted by the members of the Board. Those comments and concerns were as follows:
- Events that draw heavy traffic being held on weekends when there was a heavier shopping crowd
- Increased hazards to pedestrians
- Locating tables, vendors and/or cookout equipment on the sidewalk, blocking access for other shoppers and potentially putting people in the fire lanes
- Locating events on the sidewalk potentially blocking handicap access points
- Vehicular traffic either slowing or parking in the fire lane to look at or participate in the events on the sidewalk
- Locating the outdoor events to the lawn and garden center side of the building would be a safer situation for those looking to participate in the event
- The plaza is already overburdened with traffic and there is no benefit to the public interest in adding more traffic-generating events to the location
T. Rodriguez replied to the Board’s concerns with the following:
- Other appropriate departments (Town Manger, Health Officer, Police and Fire) were notified of all events
- Wal-Mart raises thousands of dollars for charity, which has been declining since they have had to relocate events
- All activity is kept at least five (5) feet back from the edge of the sidewalk so as to allow people to pass
- The sidewalk is raised curbing and therefore offers protection from traffic
- The area in front of the sidewalk is marked for “no parking”
L. Komornick suggested that the Board provide a list of parameters as to what would be acceptable for events outside the Wal-Mart building.
T. Rodriguez requested that they be able to try some events, such as a car show, and if they are determined to be out of control the Board could tell them that they couldn’t do them again. She added that since she had taken over the store she had seen three (3) car shows in town. Ms. Rodriguez stressed the community nature of the events that they sought to hold and reiterated that the monies raised went to charitable organizations. She added that she didn’t think that people came to the plaza for the event specifically, but they would go there as part of shopping. Ms. Rodriguez reminded that she was also trying to run a business and wasn’t looking to do anything that would hinder that.
M. Curran reiterated the concern that the site was already overburdened and should something go in the empty box store (former Big Lots location) there would be additional traffic concerns.
There was additional discussion regarding the use of the garden center as events could be controlled better in that area. Ms. Rodriguez noted that the same remoteness of the area that made it more controllable made it that vendors did not want to participate as there was no visibility. She added that area of the parking lot was used mostly by the associates. Members of the Board reiterated their concerns regarding over crowding of the site as well and increased traffic and pedestrian and shopper safety. The Board stressed in the strongest terms that all events that Wal-Mart would want to do on the site, that are not specifically noted on the site plan, such as the roof-top event that was held, must come to the Planning Board for discussion and /or approval before the event is to take place. It was also noted
that notification of other departments and their agreeing to participate or provide support (i.e. a police detail) did not imply the knowledge and consent of the Planning Board.
T. Rodriguez noted that she had left a packet of flyers and a gift bag with D. Voss in the office.
D. Voss replied that she did not recall T. Rodriguez leaving anything with her at the office.
R. Zukas suggested that the smell of food cooking would be a draw for people no matter where the activities were located.
T. Rodriguez replied that sometimes that wasn’t the case.
T. Moore suggested that Wal-Mart put together a complete list of what events they would like to have at the site and the proposed location for all activities associated with the event for the Board to review. He added that a sketch should be included noting the locations of the outdoor events and related activities.
A Final Public Hearing on a commercial site plan review application for property located in the CI Zone at 147 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 71, involving one 120 square foot addition and one 1,636 square foot addition to the existing building. The parcel size is 2.66 acres and has 150 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Pierre Sader, Quick Stop Tire Stop.
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, and Pierre Sader, property owner, were present for the hearing.
J. Lavelle reminded that the Board had previously seen this plan and had sent the applicant to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for a special exception (expansion of a non-conforming use) and a setback variance. He noted that both applications were granted. Mr. Lavelle offered the following information regarding the application:
- The location is that of the former Dick Taylor’s Tire and Truck Sales
- The application was to allow two (2) small additions, one that would square off a jog in the building and the other would be a small addition to the rear
- There would be no change to the 40% lot coverage as the addition would be placed on existing pavement
- The lot is deep and there are plantings throughout the parcel including in the paved areas
- There would be no changes to the site other than the relocation of the septic chamber, which will not require a new State permit
- No other State permits were required
J. Lavelle offered that he would be asking for some waivers
T. Moore, noting the request for a landscaping plan waiver, asked what landscaping was already on the site.
J. Lavelle explained that there were plantings in the front by the sign; a grassed area across the front of the parcel, shrubs and plantings within the paved areas.
M. Curran asked if the area on the plan noted for parking was paved and striped.
J. Lavelle replied that it was paved but it was not striped.
P. Sader noted that it was for parking vehicles for the dealer business located on the property.
It was noted that there were two businesses located on this parcel, one was the tire sales the other was a motor vehicle dealership.
M. Curran suggested this was a perfect opportunity to request that the paved area for parking the vehicles is striped.
J. Lavelle noted that the parking calculations showed that there was already more than adequate parking noted on the site plan.
R. Zukas agreed that it should be striped, noting that it would bring some order to the parking in that portion of the lot.
M. Dorman offered that the original plan showed parking in that portion on the parcel.
J. Lavelle reiterated that it was not called to be striped.
R. Zukas asked if the parking was for storage of vehicles either before they were detailed or until sold.
P. Sader confirmed that was correct.
R. Zukas reiterated that it should be striped for order and that it should be designated on the plan as parking for excess vehicles. He added that he didn’t see the point in striping the entire parking lot, but this area would be good to have striped. R. Zukas asked if the parking in the front was already striped and if there were two (2) spots being added.
J. Lavelle noted that the two (2) spots Mr. Zukas questioned already existed.
T. Moore asked if the addition was to expand the current business or if it would be to add an additional business.
J. Lavelle replied that it was for a wheel alignment machine.
M. Curran asked again if the intent was to add another business
J. Lavelle noted that the used car sales were conducted mostly outside the building and the tire servicing inside, noting that with the new addition vehicles would now be able to be driven through the building. Both Mr. Lavelle and Mr. Sader noted that there would be no new business entity added to the site.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to accept the revised site plan for 147 Plaistow Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Waivers:
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14.CC (location of offsite wells and septics). It was noted that there would be no changes in the lot that would affect any offsite structures. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14.II (separate lighting plan). It was noted that there would be no changes to the light and that the existing lighting was already noted on the plan.
T. Moore asked if there was any new lighting proposed for the new additions.
J. Lavelle noted there would be a new light on the side of the building and over the overhead door. He offered to more clearly note them on the plan.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14.YY (architectural elevation plan). It was noted that the main building already existed and the new additions would be in keeping with the existing design.
M. Curran asked if the new building would be sprinkled.
J. Lavelle noted that they would be having that discussion with the Fire Chief.
M. Dorman noted that unless there was a firewall between the building and the addition he might have to put sprinklers in the building.
M. Curran suggested that the plan go to the Fire Chief.
M. Dorman replied that it was routine for commercial building plans to be reviewed by the Fire Chief.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran asked what the height of the addition was intended to be.
J. Lavelle answered that it was a story and a half, noting that there would be a loft area in the building.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14.HH (separate landscaping plan). It was noted that the landscaping was existing and there were no changes proposed. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore recapped, noting there were no real changes other than the additional striping and the additional lights.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to approve the revised site plan for 147 Plaistow Road, with the following conditions:
- The paved area discussed as overflow parking for the motor vehicle dealer be noted to be striped on the plan
- The additional lighting on the building be better designated on the plan
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 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 +/- acre 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 for the application. He reminded the Board about the features of the application and changes that had been made from the last discussion, noting the following:
- The intent of the plan was to expand the existing use based upon the concept of preserving the green space and limiting the parking to the front and side of the building
- It was noted that the parking was reconfigured and there were now 44 spaces shown on the plan (there were 39 shown on the previous plan)
- Four (4) feet were taken off the proposed building, further reducing the required parking calculations
- There are only five (5) offices planned as part of the new building; one (1) on the first floor; two (2) each on the second and third floor
- There was still proposed to be a handicap accessible conference room on the first floor as well as a handicapped access bathroom
M. Curran noted that there were two (2) offices shown on the first floor.
C. Zilch explained that there would only be one business with two separate workspaces.
M. Curran asked how the community conference room would be accessed.
C. Zilch replied that it was easily accessible by all as was the handicap access bathroom.
M. Curran suggested that there be a note added to the plan that indicated there could only be one business in the first floor space to give it teeth from an enforcement aspect.
There was additional discussion as to how the parking was distributed. C. Zilch noted that the parking calculations worked out to 3.69 spaces per business. It was noted that initially it was thought that designated parking would be assigned to each business, but that was rejected in favor of a more flexible parking situation, since not all businesses had the same parking needs. It was noted that the rental agreements would spell out the parking allotted to each business and no businesses would be allowed to occupy the building once the maximum of forty-four (44) available spaces were designated.
C. Zilch noted that they were looking for waivers on the parking and landscaping to be able to address those two items raised in the CLD letter. He added that it was difficult to address some of the other CLD concerns without a solid layout to work with.
L. Komornick added that it didn’t seem worth going forward without the parking and landscaping being addressed.
R. Zukas suggested that a silt sock type of product be used on the site, as opposed to the silt fencing that was noted on the plan.
C. Zilch added he would note that as part of other changes he would be making to the drainage.
M. Curran asked if they were able to make enough changes to the building to bring the parking calculations to within nine (9) of the required, why not go a little further and bring it all the way.
C. Zilch explained that it gets to a point where you have to cut so much that it’s not worth the cost to build.
M. Curran suggested that there was more room to bring the parking into compliance.
C. Zilch reminded that there was a huge retaining wall to deal with. He added that there was a low use professional building with a low parking impact. C. Zilch added that he visited the site a number of times in December and never noted that parking to be full with the seven (7) current businesses. He noted that the only other way to add more parking, which is likely never to be used, would be to add it to the back of the parcel and disturb a lot of natural vegetation.
T. Moore asked how many spaces were currently on the site for the existing seven (7) businesses.
C. Zilch replied that there were sixteen (16) spaces, which calculated to slightly more than two (2) for each business currently.
Adam Pappalardo, Little River Properties II, noted that two (2) of the current businesses (BM Auto and Apollo Auto) were wholesale auto brokers and were rarely at the property as they did not see customers there.
M. Curran offered that the Board had to consider that implications if there should be a turn around in the tenancy and parking requirements would be needed at that time.
C. Zilch reiterated that parking limits would be part of new rental agreements.
There was a discussion regarding how the parking calculations were added up based upon the number of business spaces that were noted on the propose plan.
C. Zilch noted that some of the businesses are part time businesses.
M. Curran reiterated that they had to look just beyond what currently existing businesses were there and what could happen with a fully occupied building.
C. Zilch added that another limiting factor for occupancy was the septic capacity. He noted that a high use business, such as a doctor’s office, couldn’t be allowed here.
T. Moore suggested a location for additional parking. He added that it would save arguments over space allotments or the need to change the site plan in the future if it was decided that the parking was inadequate.
C. Zilch noted that the suggested location would interfere with the proposed raised septic bed. He added that they were also trying to preserve as much of the green space as possible by not adding pavement that would never be used.
There was additional discussion regarding potential parking sites. C. Zilch was able to give a response why each suggestion was not workable. He added that a great deal of fill would have to be brought to the site to accommodate such a change.
L. Komornick left the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
C. Zilch suggested that he could show a contingency plan for parking on the site plan, which would only be implemented if a need for any additional parking was demonstrated in the future. He asked if the Board would be in favor of such a plan.
There was discussion of a potential location at the back of the building where contingency parking could be located and how the area would be accessed. It was noted that while it wouldn’t have to be paved until it needed to be used, it would have to be properly graded for accessibility.
C. Zilch offered that the only potential drawback to the location would be a proposed retention pond. He added that if he needs to change from a retention pond to leaching catch chambers the cost would be ridiculously expensive.
R. Zukas suggested that it might still work as a designated area for potential expansion, adding that he didn’t want to see any more disturbance of the green space than was necessary.
C. Zilch offered to take another look at a designated expansion area for potential future parking.
M. Curran noted that the septic design as noted in note #13 on the plan called for a maximum 24 employees in the existing building, not the current 17. She suggested that would have an effect on the parking calculations.
C. Zilch offered that he had over designed the septic calculations in order to have a better system not to allow for additional employees. He offered to remove that reference.
T. Moore asked if there were any additional questions from the Board. He asked if there were any abutters with questions or comments. There was no one.
WAIVERS:
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-12.H (2) (b) (requirement for 12 foot landscaping buffer at front of property). It was noted with the large retaining wall there would be nothing gained by landscaping in this area. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas moved, second by M. Curran, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-14.FF (loading and unloading area). It was noted that there would be minimal deliveries to the site and the proposed parking would be adequate for the types of vehicles that may make deliveries. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-23B (3) (b) (2) (12 foot wide front landscaping buffers). It was again noted that there was a large retaining wall along the front of the property, which would hide any landscaping in the front. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved to not grant the waiver request from §230-23A (side landscaping buffer requirements.
C. Zilch offered that a buffer was provided along the entire westerly facing side. He added that they were looking to use the railroad side of the parcel for snow storage, since they were limited by the railroad anyway. He noted that there would be a privacy fence and natural screen to the back.
M. Curran noted that the area near the railroad tracks was visible by drivers coming up Route 121 and there was little to no landscaping there.
C. Zilch suggested there was a difference between landscaping and buffering. He suggested that there were things that could be done for landscaping but because of the elevations there wasn’t much that could be done to provide buffering.
N. Morin asked how close they would be to the rail road.
C. Zilch answered that they were twelve (12) feet from the railroad right-of-way.
R. Zukas added that he wasn’t sure what else could be done in that area.
C. Zilch offered to expand the landscaping but didn’t think he could provide much by way of buffering.
M. Curran said that she would like to see something to soften the corner.
C. Zilch offered to shorten the fencing and make tie-ins to the existing landscaping.
M. Curran withdrew her motion.
The Board decided to wait to act on the request for a waiver from §230-23A.
M. Curran moved, second by R. Zukas, to grant the request for a waiver from §230-23B (3) (b) (4) (requirement for interior landscaping strips). It was noted that parking areas were along the building and by being required to add landscaping areas there was the potential of intrusion into other sensitive areas by having to expand parking areas. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Zukas suggested that Mr. Zilch should be prepared to discuss CLD’s comments.
C. Zilch replied that he would be able to do that if he could be confident that the Board would allow a designated future parking area (if needed) to make the parking work.
Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss
M. Curran offered that things were leading in the right direction but she wasn’t going to commit until she could see it on a plan.
T. Moore continued the hearing on this matter to February 20, 2008.
The chairman called for a break at 8:16 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:25 p.m.
Informal Discussion with new owners of 214 Plaistow Rd. Re: Proposed Use of Site
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc., Michael Panniello, potential property owner and counsel for Mr. Panniello, Robert Weltz, were present for the discussion.
R. Weltz noted that Mr. Panniello has a purchase and sales agreement on the subject property, which is currently owned by the bank.
R. Pica explained that Vantage lost the property to the bank. He noted the following existing conditions for the property:
- Three (3) existing industrial lots, with a fourth lot being the access road
- The previous two (2) owners both used office space there and housed equipment and vehicles on the site
- The buyer’s intention is to store containers and truck boxes on the property
- The buyer would like to be able to use a 400’ X 400’ area without revising the entire site plan (site plan would be revised and application made for approval before the rest of the site is used)
M. Curran noted this to be the site where the church and C&C Towing is located.
R. Pica confirmed that C&C Towing was using part of the site and was completely fenced in. He added that he has been informed by the bank that C&C Towing will not be staying on the site. R. Pica noted that the church used the property primarily on Sundays and one (1) night a week, which would be off hours from Mr. Panniello’s business and there would be no parking conflicts.
M. Curran asked if the type of containers that Mr. Panniello dealt with where like the P.O.D.S. people use for storage.
M. Panniello explained that they were ISO containers, noting that P.O.D.S. would be one of his competitors.
M. Curran questioned if full containers would be stored on the property.
M. Panniello replied that the containers on site would be empty.
R. Pica added that they were all non-motorized.
N. Morin asked if they were stacked.
M. Panniello noted that they were stackable but he didn’t see the need for them being stacked on this property.
R. Zukas asked if they would be all steel containers that rolled off on the ground with no wheels.
M. Panniello noted that there would be trailers on wheels but they would be the non-motorized back portion of the truck.
M. Curran asked where the truck that moved these containers would be stored.
R. Pica explained that there were three (3) trucks used by the business and they would be parked inside. He noted that the trailer/container parking was shown on his drawing. R. Pica indicated that delivery of the containers to customer sites was done by Mr. Panniello’s staff only; no customers came to the site to pick-up containers.
M. Curran inquired if there were any refrigerator units.
M. Panniello replied that he did have some, noting there would be no reason for them to be running, creating noise, as they would be empty on his site.
R. Pica noted the Mr. Panniello would like to use the existing office and a small portion of the property, maintaining the existing gravel base there.
M. Curran asked if the area for the containers was paved.
R. Pica said that it was not. He added that they would like to occupy this small portion of the site without developing the whole site at this time and maintain the existing grades on the property.
M. Curran expressed concern over the amount of time it would be before a plan for the site was developed, noting that it was important for the site to be reclaimed.
R. Pica indicated that the working portion of the parcel was nearly to grade and that they would be bringing the parking area to the level.
M. Curran asked if the road would have to be raised.
R. Pica noted that it was already at the proper grade.
M. Curran questioned if the road was paved.
R. Pica said that it was partially paved and was fenced. He noted that it would continue to be fenced. R. Pica said that they needed to know how much of a site plan the Board would be looking for in order to allow them to begin using this small portion of the property. He noted that the buyer understood that he would have to come to the Board before using any other parts of the property. R. Pica added that he didn’t think it too long before they would want to develop the parcel and it was a rather large parcel and he can’t make money from not developing it.
There was discussion about the existing conditions on the site.
R. Pica noted that the wetlands would be noted on the plan.
R. Zukas asked if the entire area to be used would be fenced.
M. Panniello said that he probably would for security.
R. Zukas asked that lighting and hours of operation be shown on the plan.
R. Pica said that he would come back with a plan that would show all the parking, fencing, lighting and whether or not the towing company would be staying.
N. Morin asked if there would be repairs done to the containers and/or the trucks on the site.
M. Panniello said that there would be minor repairs to the containers done in the garage.
R. Zukas asked where the containers were cleaned out.
M. Panniello said that they were cleaned at the customer location and that his employees are directed to not bring back containers that have not been cleaned out. He added that they had a steam cleaner that was used in the normal course of business.
M. Curran questioned if it would be similar to the operation at MB Tractor.
M. Dorman offered that MB Tractor had built a whole bay for cleaning equipment because there was grease and oil involved with that.
R. Pica added that they (MB Tractor) had installed a special drainage system for their use.
M. Panniello reiterated that his employees are instructed to leave containers on customer sites that are not completely cleaned out.
R. Pica asked if soaps are used on the equipment.
M. Panniello noted that nothing more than household car wash soap.
R. Pica offered to provide data sheets.
R. Zukas asked how often trucks were in and out of the site.
M. Panniello explained that he had three (3) delivery vehicles that generally made two (2) moves per day each.
M. Curran asked how many employees there were.
M. Panniello noted there were usually ten (10) including three (3) delivery personnel, three (3) mechanics and rest being office staff.
M. Curran asked what kinds of repairs were done to the trailers.
M. Panniello explained that the containers, even though they were not motorized, did have brakes and lights which occasionally needed repairs.
N. Morin asked if the gate would be locked.
M. Panniello replied that they could be locked.
M. Curran asked if the brakes on the trailer were air brakes and therefore there would be no fluids.
M. Panniello confirmed that the brakes were air operated.
R. Pica asked if it would be sufficient to come in with a minor site plan that would show the area to be used and whatever waivers they might need.
M. Curran suggested that since it was a new business a new site plan should be done.
T. Moore noted that it wouldn’t be anything that would have to be sent to CLD for review.
R. Weltz noted there was somewhat of a time restraint due to the need to vacate the current location by the end of February. He said that they were hoping to get some kind of answer to know whether or not to go forward with the purchase.
M. Curran offered that they would need to review the list of waivers as was customary when any new plan came before the Board.
T. Moore said that one list of all the waiver requests would be sufficient.
R. Pica noted that the septic would be limited to the office use.
M. Dorman reminded that it was a minor site plan that was reviewed when the fencing was added for C&C Towing.
T. Moore asked how grease and oils would be handled. He noted that the plan would need to show parking, drainage, grease/oil clean-up and be recordable at the Registry of Deeds.
R. Pica asked if the site plan would need to be recordable or if that would happen once the entire site was developed.
M. Panniello asked what the time frame was for all of this to take place, reminded that he was under somewhat of a deadline situation.
M. Curran replied that it would be dependent on how quickly R. Pica could put the plan together. She added that all businesses needed to be noted on the plan. M. Curran noted that she wasn’t prepared to completely waive engineering review but was recommending that the decision as to whether or not the plan needed CLD review would be left to staff.
Other Business – Member Absenteeism
R. Zukas made an on-record request that letters be sent to all members with poor attendance records asking them to state their intentions as to whether or not they were going to continue to serve on the Board. He asked that the letter be sent to all applicable members and alternates.
T. Moore noted that the first day to sign up to be a candidate for any office is January 23 and ends on February 1. He said that he would direct L. Komornick to write the letter as R. Zukas requested.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
