PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 21, 2009
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio and Neal Morin, Alternate. Barry Weymouth was excused.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official
L. Komornick noted that Jason Gautreau was in the gallery observing and was potentially interested in becoming an alternate.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth.
The continuation of a public hearing on a site plan to allow for a mixed use by adding a 3,664 square foot commercial building to the lot which already contains a 1,080 square foot 4-bedroom single-family residence. The .72 acre parcel with 152 feet of frontage is located at 19 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 79 and is located in the Commercial I District. The owner of record is Francis and Kelly Ward.
Dennis Quintal, Civil Construction, was present for the application.
D. Quintal noted that he has received the report from CLD and the plan he was showing this evening addressed all the issues outlined in that report. He added that they had received relief from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in the form of a variance granted to permit the combined residential/commercial use and a special exception to expand on a non-conforming lot.
D. Quintal outlined how they had addressed the CLD report regarding:
- Drainage, based on site conditions found as part of the septic test pits.
- Lack of Dumpster, all solid waste is handled within the building.
- Protected well radius, showing in the road. Plan was sent to New Hampshire DES (Department of Environmental Services) as part of the septic review and was approved. He added there was another location on the back of the lot where a well could be located if needed in the future.
S. Ranlett asked that a note be added to the plan about the potential second well location.
D. Quintal agreed.
S. Ranlett asked that there also be a letter holding the Town harmless if the well should become contaminated by salt in the winter.
- Review by Fire Department was not needed.
L. Komornick noted that she had spoken with the Fire Chief and as long as there is a proper fire alarm system that would be sufficient; adding there was no plan to extend the fire suppression line up Danville Road.
- Slope of swale (additional drainage) it was noted that the parcel is basically flat and the test pits showed that it will percolate adequately. D. Quintal expressed confidence that the drainage would work as it was designed.
- Driveway permit was submitted.
- All waivers previously submitted and approved.
R. Gray asked about the checklist and whether or not the fire alarm system had been reviewed.
It was noted that it would be checked during the certificate of occupancy (CO) inspection and that there was a list of requirements in the CO application packet.
L. Komornick noted that there were two issues where the applicant did not satisfy CLD and the Board needed to make a determination. Those issues were:
- Lack of test pits done for drainage calculations (it was noted they were witnessed for the septic design)
- Calculations for the slope of the swale
T. Moore offered that he didn't have any issue with either as proposed by Mr. Quintal.
T. Moore asked if there was anyone in the audience that had a question or a concern. There was no one.
M. Dorman noted that he would be looking for silt sock in the field for siltation control.
L. Komornick complimented D. Quintal for responding to the CLD comments in a timely manner.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the site plan for 19 Danville Road with the following conditions:
- Note added to plan about second well location
- Signed agreement holding the Town harmless for salt contamination
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The continuation of a public hearing on the site plan to redevelop and construct a "Town Fair Tire" on the existing site with drainage, utility and landscaping improvements. The 2.26 acre parcel with 196 +/- feet of frontage is located at 42 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 25, Lot 6 and is located in the Commercial I District. The owner of record is MCM Realty, LLC.
Jennifer Viarengo, Appledore Engineers, Inc. was present for the application.
J. Viarengo noted that they had been going back and forth with CLD and she felt they had worked out all the issues. She noted that they had received the following permits:
- NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) driveway permit
- Shoreland Protection Permit
- NHDES Septic Permit
J. Viarengo addressed the following notes from the CLD report noting the following:
- Building to rear of property. It was noted that even though Town Fair Tire (TFT) does not intend to use the building at the rear of the property at this time; they do not want to lose the rights to the footprint of the building. It was noted that the building would be properly maintained so as to not become an eyesore.
- Signs - It was noted that there was no application pending for a sign at this time. It was further noted that TFT would probably be seeking a variance for their signage.
R. Gray noted that approval of signage was the purview of the Building Inspector, but the Board looked at the location of the freestanding sign from a planning perspective.
J. Viarengo answered the location of the freestanding sign was noted on the plan.
- Sight distances for driveway. It was noted that the NHDOT driveway permit was pending with the State.
- Septic easements and location of well and tire storage. It was noted that all easements had been provided to NHDES as part of the application and that the well radius was located on the plan. It was further noted that the fence was within the well radius but that it was not an issue.
S. Ranlett asked if the tires would be removed weekly no matter how many there were.
John Wypychoski, Town Fair Tire, noted that there was a defined schedule for the tire removal. He added that it could be doubled up if there was a need.
- Connection to fire hydrant. It was noted that the closest fire hydrant is located across the street and there is a fire hydrant to the rear of the parcel.
M. Dorman noted that the building would need to be sprinkled.
T. Moore added that the Fire Chief would need to be satisfied before the occupancy permit would be issued.
J. Viarengo explained that they just couldn't go trenching across Route 125 or cut across the Market Basket (private) property to connect into the fire suppression line. She added that fire apparatus would be able to completely circle around the building.
R. Gray offered that he would be more comfortable if the fire lanes where called out on the plan.
J. Viarengo noted those were all the areas that were not striped for parking.
M. Dorman added that he was not aware that the regulations required it actually be striped on the pavement, but just 360°circulation.
J. Viarengo offered that they could show the dry line (for future connection to the fire suppression system) on the plan if the Board wanted them to.
- CLD noted they had not reviewed the septic design. It was noted that NHDES approval had already been received.
- Information about the drainage maintenance plan is to be noted on the plan and submitted to the Planning Office
J. Viarengo explained that there were a number of items in the CLD letter regarding drainage. She detailed the drainage design and offered that everything that was showing on the drainage plan was to better the existing situation. It was noted that there were significant improvements to the landscaping which increased the water quality as well. Ms. Viarengo noted they had received a letter of support from the Plaistow ConCom (Conservation Commission) as well as a wetlands variance from the ZBA. She added that should there ever be an issue with one of the abutters then they would work with them to resolve it.
- Dark Sky lighting fixtures were proposed with a modest fifteen (15) foot height.
- NHDOT permit had been received.
- Shoreland Protection Permit received.
- There would be a number of trees on the front of the property and they are adding a twelve (12) foot landscaping buffer.
- The roof drains were connected into the drainage system
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the site plan for 42 Plaistow Road, as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore asked if there was anyone in the audience who had any questions or concerns. There was no one.
Waiver Requests
§ 230-14.1.JJ (Fire Lane Feature) There is a note on the plan stating they will work with the Fire Department regarding the fire suppression plan for the building.
M. Dorman noted there would be no building permit issued until the Fire Chief was satisfied.
J. Viarengo noted they would no longer need a waiver from §230-14.1.NN as the Board had asked them to designate the fire lanes.
S. Ranlett moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the waiver request from §230-14.1.JJ.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to grant the waiver request from §230-22A(2) (separate lighting plan).
P. Bealo noted that the lights are compliant adding that if they are right on the edge of the property there is bound to be some spillage to the abutting lots, but the parcel was entirely surrounded by commercial. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to grant the waiver request from §230-23 (landscaping)
- It was noted there would now be a buffer on the front of the property
- They were seeking to not put as many trees across the front of the parcel
- They weren't planning any internal plantings as there are no landscaping aisles
- The side landscaping cannot fit both the existing and proposed landscaping
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore asked if the freestanding sign location on the plan was correct.
J. Viarengo answered that if they are granted a permit for a freestanding sign that would be the location they would want it to be in.
T. Moore stated, since it was already shown on the plan, should it be found a variance is needed TFT should go ahead and apply for the variance as the site plan would not need to be changed.
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the site plan for 42 Plaistow Road with the following conditions:
- Continue to work with the Fire Department for approval of the fire suppression system. If additional features are needed they are to be located on the plan.
- Submission of a long term drainage maintenance plan
- Notes updated for the waivers, including the one no longer needed for the fire lanes
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The chairman called for a break at 7:45 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:58 p.m.
Main Street Re-Zoning Citizen's Petition (proposed by Wal-Mart) Re-Vote
L. Komornick explained that earlier versions of the agenda said that there was to be a re-vote as to whether the Board was going to recommend the citizen's petition proposed by Wal-Mart to re-zone three (3) parcels on Main Street. She noted that she had received advice from the Board's counsel that a re-vote is not an appropriate action and the warrant should indicate this there is no recommendation of the Planning Board and that the vote was 2-2, therefore there would not be a re-vote on the matter.
A final public hearing on a site plan for a condominium conversion to be title "Patuccawa Condominium: for a duplex situated on a property located at 9 Birch Street, Tax Map 25, Lot 1. The property is 2.53 acres and has +/- 140 feet of frontage and is located in the Medium Density Residential (MDR). The owner of record is Benwicks Realty, LLC.
L. Komornick noted that the only question being looked at for this application is the question of ownership as individual units and the site plan is only for the condo conversion and everything about the parcel already exists.
R. Gray asked if the land was split equally.
L. Komornick noted that a little more was designated for use by Unit A.
There was a discussion about how the property would be assessed and whether or not Unit A would end up with more of a tax burden than Unit B, and whether or not existence of the wetlands would have an affect on assessment.
T. Moore noted that the Assessing Department was the best place to answer questions about how the property is assessed.
P. Bealo offered there was a note on the plan that indicated the 2.53 acres were owned in common and listed the uses of the property allowed by each unit.
T. Moore asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters with questions or concerns.
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, asked if they had received subdivision approval from NHDES.
S. Ranlett replied there was a note on the plan stating that they had.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to accept the condo conversion plan for 9 Birch Street as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
There were no requests for waivers.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the condo conversion plan for 9 Birch Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A final public hearing on a site plan to construct a 2, 688 square foot, 2-story residential unit with a small art studio with room for instruction of 5 art students, and an in-law unit. The property is located at 92 Newton Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 8B containing 1.84 acres and 547 feet of frontage. The property is located in the Integrated Commercial Residential District and the owner of record is St. Matthews U.M.C.
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the application.
D. Johnson explained the features of the proposed site plan noting the following:
- The parcel is part of a three-lot subdivision that was approved in 2004
- The location is the corner of Sweet Hill Road and Newton Road
- Contours and soils mapping
- There are site easements for the adjacent westerly lot (site of the Rockinham Church)
- There is a drainage easement for the Church
- Access/egress is a shared driveway with the Church
- Building elevations
- Building envelope on the site
- Commercial and residential parking (both ends of structure)
- Residence upstairs and over garage
- Gallery on lower part of structure
- Southside of building has in-law apartment with meeting room over
S. Ranlett noted that there was nothing said when they first came to the Board about a meeting room at the residence.
P. Bealo asked if the parking was sufficient for the meeting room and the business.
D. Johnson offered that he was incorrect that it was not intended to be a meeting room, but a great room.
P. Bealo asked what would be the proposed use of the great room.
Steve Murray, proposed property owner and Pastor of Rockingham Church, offered they would hold small bible studies for 5-6 people and it would be after the art studio's business hours.
D. Johnson explained that they were originally going to propose it as a meeting room but they had run into NHDES problems.
P. Bealo asked if the room would ever be rented out to other organizations.
S. Murray replied that it would not as it would be part of his living space.
R. Gray questioned location on the plan for a sign at the corner of the building.
D. Johnson noted that it was an informational sign asking people not to park in front of the residential garage. He noted the location of the business sign.
- Well location, including the radius, is within the property
- Septic and leaching system (Enviro-System), location of test pits
- Landscaping, noting there can be no plantings in the Route 108 sight distance easement
- Underground utilities
- 7 parking spaces, including 1 handicapped
- 16. 7% lot coverage
- In-Law apartment located on plan but not proposed to be built at this time. ZBA special exception would be required.
- Drainage (presented by Dennis Quintal, Civil Construction)
S. Ranlett asked the configuration of the living space and the business space.
S. Murray explained that the first floor would be the gallery and the in-law apartment and the second floor would be the living space. He noted there would be a rec-room over the garage, which would probably remain unfinished for the time being but he would eventually like to have a pool table and TV in the space.
R. Gray noted there was no note on the plan regarding construction or business hours.
M. Dorman offered that construction hours were dictated by ordinance to be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
S. Murray stated their business hours (for the gallery) would be 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. He asked if they would be restricted to those hours.
It was noted that he would bound by what ever was noted on the plan and would have to come back to the Board to change it.
S. Murray offered that he would like to change the hours to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, so as to not be in a bind in the future.
It was noted that the Planning Board had previously granted approval for the foundation to be constructed prior to full site plan approval in order to beat inclement weather conditions.
L. Komornick added that all the information discussed this evening needed to be on a single plan in order to be recorded.
- Lighting is proposed as residential, including six (6) foot high poles (no separate lighting plan sheet - waiver being requested)
- Landscaping is noted on the plan but not on its own separate sheet (waiver being requested)
L. Komornick noted that she had learned from CLD that nothing had been sent to CLD to address the items of concern outlined in their plan review report.
D. Johnson began to discuss the items pointed out by CLD report. After some time it was determined by the Board that it was not sufficient for Mr. Johnson to discuss the numerous issues raised by CLD, but that he needed to submit plans that would satisfy CLD in their plan review and receive a favorable report.
There was some discussion back and forth regarding the process and where there might have been a misunderstanding that resulted in the lack of a favorable review report from CLD.
D. Johnson asked if the Board wanted to discuss his waiver requests.
T. Moore explained that would be more appropriate once the plan was accepted as complete.
S. Moore asked to see what plan was submitted to CLD for their review.
T. Moore continued this public hearing to February 18, 2009.
Discussion with Frank DeLucia and Sons regarding use of property at Sweet Hill Road for a contractor's yard
Phil Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi and Rocco DeLucia, DeLucia and Sons, were present for the discussion.
P. Christiansen explained this was the third parcel of the three-lot subdivision belonging to Rockingham Church. He added that they were looking to locate a business office, with employee parking as well as a garage to service their construction vehicles.
S. Ranlett asked how many employees would be on the site.
R. DeLucia answered it would be a few as six (6) and as many as twelve (12) depending on the season.
P. Christiansen continued that there would be some occasional outside storage of excess materials, but it would be short term. He noted that there was not a strict definition of what is a contractor's yard, and it is not a permitted use in this district, but that this business operation consisted of a number of specific uses that were permitted in the district, including:
- Business office
- Service/repair of vehicles
- Accessory use (temporary storage)
- Storage of equipment used to service a product
P. Christiansen suggested that, since there was not a concise definition of a contractor's yard, the Board consider the individual uses, noting all were permitted.
N. Morin noted he was familiar with the DeLucia's existing site in Methuen, Massachusetts and asked how it compared in size to this site.
R. DeLucia answered that the parcel in Methuen was 2.86 acres.
S. Ranlett reminded that the site in Plaistow was only 2.68 acres.
R. DeLucia added that the parcel in Methuen also had a residential use on it.
S. Ranlett asked the size of the building.
R. DeLucia replied that it was 6,000 sq. ft. and housed the entire business.
T. Moore said that his concern would be for the storage of material outside.
P. Christiansen reiterated that accessory use was permitted in the ICR.
There was a discussion regarding what would be stored on the site as well as the size and number of vehicles that could potentially be stored on the site in a worst case scenario.
R. DeLucia noted that there wouldn't be excess storage on the site; only materials that might be left over from one job and could be used on a future job. He said there would be limited employees on the site as most would be at a job.
S. Ranlett suggested that it sounded like a contractor's yard to him and was therefore not a permitted use and would require a variance from the ZBA to move forward.
P Christiansen offered that many years ago it was cost effective to order in larger quantities and keep materials stock piled, but these days large inventories were cost prohibitive and most materials were delivered straight to the job site.
P. Bealo noted that contractor's yard was a permitted use in other districts.
P. Christiansen responded that there was no clear definition of what a contractor's yard was in the ordinance and they were asking the board to consider the individual functions that would be going on at this site, all of which he felt were permitted uses.
T. Moore reiterated his concern over stockpiling, particularly of loam and gravel and any dust and debris concerns that would be created. He added that this was just too close to a residential district to be a good use.
R. DeLucia suggested the Board stipulate that any outside storage could only be temporary.
There was a discussion as to how it might be possible to designate outside storage on the property if it were only temporary. It was decided that there wasn't a feasible way to enforce such a condition.
S. Ranlett offered that there was a the reason (proximity to residential uses) why it was not permitted as a use in the ICR and was allowed in the Industrial district.
P. Bealo agreed that a variance would be required.
P. Christiansen asked if the Board would consider making a recommendation in support of the application to the ZBA.
T. Moore replied that wasn't the typical practice of the Board unless there was a compelling reason to do so.
P. Bealo said that there would be a letter that would state why the applicant was being sent to the ZBA but it would remain neutral.
P. Christiansen reiterated that he felt the individual uses, if taken on their own, were all uses that were permitted in the district.
S. Ranlett responded that the activities and the types of vehicles that might be on the site defined it for him as a contractor's yard.
P. Christiansen noted a number of other contractor's yards in the area, citing S&R Construction, LaPlume Construction and LaVallee.
It was noted that all these businesses were pre-existing the zoning requirements for their district and they were grandfathered as non-conforming uses.
P. Christiansen asked if they didn't have outside storage would the other uses be compliant or if it was the overall operation, regardless of the outside storage, that the Board felt was not permitted.
Red Oak contractor condominiums was cited as an example. It was noted that there was no outside storage or overnight parking of any kind permitted at the Red Oak site.
T. Moore offered that the safest thing was to go to the ZBA.
R. DeLucia asked if the restrictions at Red Oak were particular to that site.
S. Ranlett replied that it was because there was a residential development right next to the site.
P. Bealo noted that the site in question abutted residential uses on three (3) of the four (4) sides.
T. Moore stated that the best solution was to go to the ZBA to request a variance for a contractor's yard.
M. Dorman reminded that the Board needed to give a written decision stating why they were being sent the ZBA.
Letter from Planet Fitness Re: Septic Approval
A letter from Scott Building Twenty, LLC (Scott), property owners of 95A Plaistow Road, where Planet Fitness is located, was read for the record. It noted that they had received NHDES approval of their new septic system and would be looking to have installation complete by the end of May.
A letter from Planet Fitness, requesting to be able to turn on their showers in light of the NHDES approval of the new septic system and the letter of intent to install the new system from Scott.
S. Ranlett asked M. Dorman if he saw any problems with the request.
M. Dorman noted there had not been any issues with the bathroom facilities on the site thus far and he didn't think there would be a problem with the request.
T. Moore suggested that a letter be written to Planet Fitness that if the new septic system was not installed by June then the showers would have to be turned off again.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the request of Planet Fitness to turn on their showers in anticipation of the new septic system being installed. If the septic system is not installed by June 2009, then the showers are again to be turned off. There was no discussion of the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Request for Authorization to Expend Route 125 Impact Fees (re: Haseltine widening)
M. Dorman noted the he has been in discussion with Taurus Investments (property owners of 5-9 Plaistow Road) regarding acquiring a small portion of their property to widen Haseltine street. He noted that Taurus was seeking to have their legal costs covered; therefore he was asking the Board's authorization to spend up to $16,000.00 on fees associated with the land transfer. M. Dorman also offered that there was approximately $111,000.00 in the Route 125 Impact Fee account.
S. Ranlett moved, second by R. Gray, to authorize up to $16,000.00 of Route 125 Impact Fee monies to be spent in covering costs associated with the acquisition of property from Taurus Investments for the expansion of Haseltine Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Town Dry Cleaners moving from 128 Plaistow Road to 79 Plaistow Road
M. Dorman explained that Town Dry Cleaners was looking to relocate from their current location at 128 Plaistow Road to 79 Plaistow Road (Window Within). He offered that he had reviewed the parking and septic and felt that both were adequate and there was no change in use (retail for retail). M. Dorman added that the dry cleaning machines were all self contained.
S. Ranlett asked if M. Dorman knew what was planned for the existing building.
M. Dorman replied that he assumed it was to be sold.
A number of correspondences and copies of letter/notices of violations sent by the Department of Building Safety were noted to be in the member's packets.
The chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
