PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
September 16, 2009
Call to Order: 6:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Lawrence Gil; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio; and Charles Lanza, Alternate.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of September 02, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minutes from the September 02, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining).
A Public Hearing on the conversion of an existing retail building and existing multi-family residential building into two condominium units. The property is located at 25 & 27 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 53. The total lot is 1.19 acres and has a total of 232.94 feet of frontage. The site and buildings are located in the CI District. The owner of record is Jan Realty Trust
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application. He noted the existing features and details of the plan to condominiumize the ownership of the site:
- Location of the former Maplewood Florist
- 1.19 acre parcel
- 232.94 frontage on Garden Road
- Parking for both buildings
- Sheds
- Location of septic system and well
- Condo devising line between the buildings
- Condominium documents prepared by Attorney Sumner Kalman
J. Lavelle noted converting these two (2) buildings to condominium ownership would allow either one to be sold independently of the other. He added that they were still awaiting NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) subdivision approval and asked that the site plan be approved conditioned upon receiving same.
P. Bealo asked if any variances were needed.
L. Komornick replied there were not.
P. Bealo questioned if there was sufficient land.
L. Komornick noted that this was not a subdivision of the actual land parcel it was a conversion to condominium ownership of the buildings and the land would be shared.
J. Lavelle explained they were not converting the individual units in the residential apartment building to condos; they were separating ownership of the residential building from the retail building.
L. Komornick added the subdivision approval was a State requirement and was related more to the septic system than the subdivision of any land parcel.
T. Moore asked if there was only one (1) well.
J. Lavelle confirmed there was only one (1) well and noted that the rules for maintenance and replacement were outlined in the condominium documents (condo docs).
It was noted that Note #17 on the condominium plan absolved the Town from responsibility for repairs/replacement of the well or septic.
L. Komornick asked if there were any changes proposed to the septic.
J. Lavelle replied there were none planned. He reminded the Board that if any new business wanted to go into the retail condo they would have to appear before the Board.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the condominium conversion plan for 25, 27 Garden Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore asked if the condo docs had been reviewed by counsel.
L. Komornick confirmed that they had.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the condominium conversion plan for 25, 27 Garden Road with the following condition(s):
- Receipt of NHDES Subdivision approval
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on a final site plan application by Hillcrest Estates, LLC, who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lot 4 and 6, and Tax Map 66, Lot 3, for the construction of a 35-unit Elderly Housing Project. Access to this project will be through an extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow. The total acreage is 23.11 acres and the owner of record is Hillcrest Estates, LLC
Philip Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi, and John Cronin, Cronin and Bisson, were present for the application.
P. Christiansen noted there had been correspondence back and forth between himself and CLD (Planning Board review engineers) and they were working through some of the details, particularly on the drainage.
There was discussion regarding some of the issues outlined in the most recent CLD report. One issue was the length of the cul-de-sac and where those calculations for the length should begin, at Newton Road, or at the end of Hillcrest Avenue. It was noted that if it was considered an extension of Hillcrest Avenue then it should be considered as starting at Newton Road, which would mean it would exceed the maximum allowable length for a cul-de-sac. If it was considered to be a cul-de-sac that looped around and connected to another cul-de-sac then there was no length issue.
M. Dorman offered that he had spoken with the Fire Chief who considered the intersection with Woodridge Road as the legitimate starting point for the new road, because fire apparatus would be able to turn around at that point. That would make the length of the cul-de-sac between 1800 and 1850 feet.
T. Moore reminded that the restriction on the length of the cul-de-sac was to prevent very long roads with no place for emergency vehicles to turn around. He added that if the Fire Chief was satisfied with the plan that should be sufficient.
S. Ranlett noted that the plan did not show any affordable units.
P. Bealo offered they didn’t have to include any, noting that affordable units were not a requirement, but offered density bonuses if they were included.
The Board reviewed the wording in the Elderly Housing Ordinance regarding affordable units and it as confirmed that it was not a requirement of the ordinance, but did offer density bonuses if they were included.
P. Christiansen explained that financial conditions had changed since the onset of this project that no longer made the inclusion of affordable units financially viable from a development standpoint.
S. Ranlett asked about the parking at the clubhouse.
P. Christiansen noted there were eleven (11) spaces provided. He added there was a sidewalk around the community and most people would be walking to the private clubhouse. Mr. Christiansen offered there were no provisions to rent out the clubhouse.
The next issue that was discussed was whether or not the three (3) conditional use permits adequately addressed all zoning issues with reference to the wetlands.
T. Moore noted they would still have to obtain the proper Dredge and Fill permits from the State of New Hampshire. He stated that conditional use permits address access into the wetlands buffer so he felt the zoning issues were addressed.
P. Christiansen offered that they had all the proper State approvals with reference to the wetlands buffer.
P. Christiansen explained that Nels Palm and Steve Doherty (Hillcrest Estates, LLC) met with the Police and Fire Chiefs and their main concern was the lack of communications capability in the area. He noted that applicant has agreed to make improvements by either adding an antenna or local cell tower prior to anyone occupying any of the units.
T. Moore proposed that if it turns out that any infrastructure for these improvements needs to be added to the site it needs to be indicated on the plan. If not, he suggested that a letter be added to the file that prevented the Building Inspector from issuing any Certificates of Occupancy (CO) prior to a success system test.
P. Christiansen noted that the road was being built to the Town’s specifications but was intended to remain as a private road. He added there was a lighting plan for the new road but no new lighting was proposed on Hillcrest Avenue.
P. Bealo offered that he had not seen a PDF of this plan to review closely, but the lighting shown on the plan at this meeting was not full cut-off and therefore did not meet the Town’s requirements.
S. Ranlett noted there were sidewalks in the new development but they did not continue all the way to Route 108 (Newton Road).
P. Christiansen explained they would be making improvements to Hillcrest but that did not include sidewalks.
J. Cronin noted that there would be certain offsite improvements made that were shown to have a reasonable nexus that the condition is created by the proposed project. He added that he hoped it was clear that other offerings that were made by the developers were not to be conditions of the plan and that all agreements would be negotiated and not as a quid-pro-quo situation.
R. Gray offered there were many issues that still needed to be worked out and he had not received the PDF of the plan in advance of the meeting to review. He suggested that the hearing be continued to October.
S. Ranlett asked how the widening of Hillcrest Avenue would affect the property owners on that street.
It was noted that all work on Hillcrest would be within the existing right-of-way.
P. Christiansen addressed the issues that were raised in a letter from the Fire Chief including:
- Location of a stop sign on the plan, now on the plan
- Emergency radio coverage, previously discussed
- Cistern, which will be included
- Fire lanes – It was noted that the Fire Chief is comfortable with there not being a fire lane in the development as suggested but CLD as this was a residential project and the road would be built to town specifications. It was noted that the Chief may look for a fire lane at the clubhouse, depending upon how it is designed
P. Christiansen reminded that the road, while built to town specifications, was intended to remain private.
L. Komornick reminded that the regulations now required that all roads become public, so there would need to be a waiver requested for this road to be private.
T. Moore offered that he would support such a waiver based upon comments from the Highway Supervisor in support of the road remaining private.
S. Ranlett noted there were still a number of issues to be resolved with the plan and the appropriate thing to do was to continue the public hearing.
L. Komornick suggested that she could meet P. Christiansen and perhaps even CLD and try to resolve the issues.
R. Gray added that if that he would like to have a PDF of the plan sent to him at least one (1) week before the meeting (which will be October 21). He said that if he did not receive the plan in time to adequately review it he would immediately make a motion at the October 21 meeting to continue the public hearing to November.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters who wished to ask question or make comment.
Richard MacDonald, 20 Tanglewood Park Drive, Haverhill, President of Fairway Oaks Home Owners Association, noted that the last time they were here for this plan it was said that there was no plan “at that time” to connect to their road. He asked that it be verified that was still correct.
P. Christiansen responded that the plan called for a cul-de-sac to end the road and there was no plan to connect into the Fairway Oaks development.
R. MacDonald asked what the time frame for approval of this plan was.
L. Komornick noted that the plan had not yet been taken under jurisdiction by this Board so there was no way to determine time frame for approval.
John Kelley, 8 Hillcrest Avenue, asked if there had been a final determination of the number of units that were proposed.
S. Ranlett noted there were thirty-five (35) units.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone else wishing to comment. There was no one and the hearing was continued to October 21, 2009.
Final 2010-2015 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) Spreadsheet as approved by the CIP Committee
L. Komornick offered that the CIP spreadsheet that was in the members’ packets was approved but the CIP Committee.
R. Gray noted that since it was an advisory planning document the Board of Selectmen did not have to vote to approve the spreadsheet and therefore no such vote was taken.
L. Komornick asked if the Board of Selectmen had raised any issues regarding the document.
R. Gray replied that they had not and they were happy to see the tie in to the Master Plan. He noted they had a couple of questions about recreation and the calculations for the expansion of the Safety Complex.
T. Moore went through the line items of the CIP spreadsheet and outlined a number of changes including:
- Particular references to the Master Plan, including chapter/table reference
- Column to designate as either a warrant or budget item
- Inclusion of Impact Fee information
- Vehicle replacement schedule for 20 year cycle
- More supporting documentation
P. Bealo moved, second by L. Gil, to approve the CIP spreadsheet as presented. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Draft Stormwater Ordinance Update
M. Dorman noted that there had been a draft Stormwater Ordinance previously prepared and submitted to the Board for review. Rich Masters, Normandeau Associates had since suggested a different Stormwater Ordinance for review. M. Dorman explained that this was an important step in compliance with Federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) requirements.
S. Ranlett asked the members to take a look at the ordinance as it will be discussed as part of the October 7, agenda.
M. Dorman offered that it was still up in the air as to whether or not this should be an ordinance or in site plan/subdivision regulations.
R. Gray requested that the Board take a vote to take the proposed draft ordinance under advisement as there was going to be a meeting in Boston with representatives from EPA in the following days and he felt it would sound more pro-active.
P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to take the draft stormwater ordinance, as suggested by R. Masters of Normandeau Associates, under advisement for consideration to be adopted. The ordinance will be reviewed at the October 7, 2009, meeting.
P. Bealo asked if there was the same potential for imposing and enforcing fines if this draft is adopted as a site plan/subdivision regulation as opposed to an ordinance.
M. Dorman confirmed that there was.
R. Gray offered that the plan was for this draft to ultimately become a zoning ordinance, but it may make sense to put it in site plan/subdivision regulations in the short term to get it effective quicker.
L. Komornick suggested that R. Masters be invited to an future meeting of the Board to update them on stormwater management.
M. Dorman asked if that would be included in the existing contract with Normandeau and suggested if anyone had questions they submit them to L. Komornick in advance to be forward to R. Masters.
T. Moore offered that sometimes questions don’t come to mind until there is a presentation or discussion.
It was suggested that the members review the draft that was provided to them and see if they had any questions solely based upon what they read. It was agreed that there would still be opportunity to ask questions at the time of Mr. Masters’ presentation.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Request for Event at the Rockingham Athletic Club
S. Ranlett read a request from Rockingham Athletic Club to hold a “mixed martial arts” event at their 175 Plaistow Road location.
S. Ranlett offered he didn’t see any issues as the facility was already hosting basketball tournaments.
R. Gray noted they would have a police detail. He asked if this was full-contact martial arts and whether or not that would have the potential for the Fire Department to be called out and who would be responsible for those costs.
M. Dorman said that costs would be assessed as they normally would if someone were to get hurt at any business in town.
Request for Payment of Invoices for the Haseltine Street Widening Project
M. Dorman noted an invoice from Stewart Title Services with reference to the Haseltine Street widening project. He reminded that the Board had previously approved such services as being in keeping with the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance and this was just one of the actual ordinances for payment.
P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, that payment of at $2,236.00 invoice from Stewart Title Services for recording services related to the widening of Haseltine Street, is in keeping with the intent of the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Pichowicz Letter
The Board was given a copy of a draft letter proposed to be a response to a recent letter from Nick and Joan Pichowicz, of 24 Chandler Avenue.
R. Gray asked if the Town Manager had seen the draft letter.
L. Komornick replied that he had not.
R. Gray suggested it would be a good idea since he was involved in the discussion.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:53 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
