PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 07, 2009
Call to Order: 6:00 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.
The Board met in a non-public session from 6:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of September 16, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minutes from the September 16, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion Re: Outstanding Projects
Jay Davey (Team Mortgage)
Timothy Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, and Jay Davey, property owner 71 Plaistow Road, were present for the discussion. He explained to the Board that he has been hired by Mr. Davey to design a new septic plan for a possible change of use for the property. T. Lavelle noted the previously approved septic plan has expired. He noted a few other issues with the site, including the plan by the State of New Hampshire to take some of the land as part of the Route 125 widening project, and how that would affect the currently approved site plan.
T. Moore asked if the State has indicated when they would be taking the land.
T. Lavelle replied that he wasn’t sure it had been finalized as yet.
J. Davey volunteered that he had spoken briefly with a representative from the State and they were vague.
T. Lavelle explained that it was originally thought that putting the addition foundation would be sufficient for vesting. It has since been determined that alone does not meet vesting requirements.
R. Gray offered that he was confused what impact the State taking of land of an approved site plan would have on the implementation of the plan. He noted that the issue at hand was the fact that not enough work has been done on the site in two or more years to vest that approved site plan. R. Gray added that the Board had shown a great deal of leniency in light of hard economic times.
S. Ranlett asked how long Mr. Lavelle was looking to extend the deadline for revoking the plan.
T. Lavelle requested six (6) months, reiterating the fact that it was wrongly thought that the site plan was properly vested.
T. Moore moved, second by L. Gil to extend the deadline for revocation of the site plan for 71 Plaistow Road to May 5, 2010.
R. Gray offered that he was going to vote in favor of the motion at this time but he wanted it to be clear that regardless of the economic times if the property was not up to vesting standards by this deadline he was going to make the motion to revoke the plan. He added that everyone was suffering the same economic hard times and the Town couldn’t afford to just leave plans open for everyone.
P. Bealo recalled that there was a variance associated with this property and questioned what the impact of the State taking any land would have on that.
M. Dorman explained that the variance was for a wetlands setback and the State taking of land would have no affect on the variance. M. Dorman reminded that the State plan was known at the time of the initial plan approval and was taken into consideration at that time.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Jen Viarengo from Appledore Engineering, Inc. Re: Snow Storage at Stateline Plaza
Jen Viarengo, Appledore Engineering, Inc., and Marjorie Hession, Northstar Property Management, were present for the discussion.
J. Viarengo brought forth a plan to the Board for the proposed revised location for snow storage as well as a written maintenance plan for that area once the snow has melted. The plan was a result of snow storage issues brought to light the previous winter. She noted there were additional trees planned to provide more screening of the stored snow; a snow fence to be installed annually to delineate where the snow can be stored and a maintenance plan for cleaning up of the area and protection of the wetlands once the snow has melted.
R. Gray questioned where the current snow storage location was.
J. Viarengo explained that there were locations throughout the plaza but they were inadequate for the snows of last year.
L. Gil asked if this plan was intended to be a “plan B” for when those areas are full.
J. Viarengo offered this location would be used in the event that the snow banks get too high and impeded visibility.
S. Ranlett said that he would like to see this plan used as a last resort.
There was a brief discussion regarding how snow storage has been handled on this site in the past. The Board reiterated they could only agree to this plan if it is used as a last resort for snow storage.
S. Ranlett asked if there was a catch basin in the area of the proposed snow storage.
M. Dorman offered that was what they were trying to protect.
R. Gray asked what kind of fencing would be used.
J. Viarengo offered it would most likely be the standard orange snow fencing and would be installed to delineate the limit of the snow storage area.
T. Moore suggested it looked like a good option to what happened the previous year.
There was a brief discussion as to how to note the change to the site plan and whether or not it needed to be recorded or just an in-house plan.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve and attach the snow storage plan to the existing site plan. The plan is approved as a last resort for snow storage. There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining).
Discussion with Daniel Brown of Granite State Poker regarding location at the Sawyer’s Banquet Hall, 180 Plaistow Road
Dan Brown and Gerard Venezia, Granite State Poker; and Ron Leblanc, property owner 180 Plaistow Road, were present for the discussion.
L. Komornick offered that Mr. Brown was invited back to answer any questions the Board may have now that a location for the charitable gaming had been decided.
D. Brown explained that the Sawyer’s location offered them seating for 300 capacity and they were working with the Fire Chief on the room layout.
S. Ranlett asked if they were also working with the Police Chief regarding police details.
D. Brown said he had spoken with the Police Chief and they were starting out slow with detail officers and would add them as needed as business increases.
S. Ranlett questioned if there had been problems with their Salem location.
D. Brown offered there were currently no problems with the Salem location and they would work closely with the Plaistow Police Department to make sure there is adequate police detail.
S. Ranlett suggested that there be a detail officer on duty each night they are running games and back them off as they are shown to not be needed.
D. Brown explained that he had spoken with the Police Chief who agreed it would be okay to start with limited coverage and then increase as business or the need increased.
R. Gray asked if the location was handicap accessible.
M. Dorman confirmed there was a ramp for accessibility.
R. Gray questioned the condition of the parking lot.
M. Dorman noted it was deteriorating but was not in outrageous condition.
R. Gray offered that if they were running at capacity he believed the parking lot should be resurfaced and re-striped.
S. Ranlett noted that the parking lot was currently striped.
R. Leblanc acknowledged that the striping could use a new coat of paint but everyone using the site currently was able to see the lines for parking.
R. Gray asked if the State of New Hampshire was okay with the accessibility.
M. Dorman noted that improvements had been made prior to the Town holding the voting at the site.
R. Gray inquired if the septic was adequate for the use.
M. Dorman offered there was no issue with the septic or well at this time and the parking on the site plan is approved for 250 people.
D. Brown noted that 300 would be a very strong number and their average attendance was 60-80 on a weekend and 45 on a weeknight. He added that people come and go during the course of the evening.
There was additional discussion about the parking lot, its layout and condition.
M. Dorman noted this has always been used as a place of assembly and there haven’t been any changes since 1987.
R. Leblanc offered that a bathroom had been added in the front.
R. Gray reiterated that he would like to see the parking lot re-striped.
There was a discussion regarding how the charitable gaming works, who was eligible and what level of participation was expected from the charity of the night. It was noted there was no financial risk to any participating charity.
R. Gray suggested that a number of people from Massachusetts will likely frequent the gaming business and would be using Main Street for access, reminding of the concerns expressed by residents when Wal-Mart was seeking to relocate.
D. Brown offered it would be a very different volume of traffic than a Wal-Mart would have.
G. Venezia added that the attendance would be throughout the day, not at a specific time.
L. Komornick noted that she had received a question as to how this gambling was legal.
G. Venezia explained that charitable gaming was indeed legal in the State of New Hampshire adding that it was highly restricted with a great deal of oversight. He added that it was the most regulated business. G. Venezia noted that everyone had to be re-licensed each year and there were police background checks.
R. Gray reiterated that before a certificate of occupancy (CO) was issued he would like the parking lot to be re-striped. He also questioned who would monitor capacity on site.
D. Brown offered that capacity would be monitored by the seating arrangement that they were working out with the Chiefs.
R. Gray asked if people would be turned away if there wasn’t seating.
G. Venezia offered they could only hope to get to the point of turning people away.
R. Leblanc asked to address the issue of a CO, noting this was not a new business, but someone who was renting his hall for its intended purpose of a function room. He noted that he would still be handling the bar under his liquor license and still booking other events for the hall, therefore he didn’t believe that a CO was necessary.
R. Gray offered that he agreed with Mr. Leblanc’s assessment and asked that the site plan be followed.
R. Leblanc added that if the State sees this as a new business then he could potentially lose his liquor license.
L. Komornick asked that the Board be notified if the intention was to continue past the initially discussed four (4) month trial period.
R. Leblanc questioned the status of a light pole that was causing issues for his site since the widening of Route 125.
L. Komornick noted that she had been in contact with NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) regarding the relocation of the light pole at the State’s expense. She added it seemed to have been lost in the shuffle of the widening project.
D. Brown offered that there would be a number of job opportunities available and people should refer to their website for information.
There was agreement that this was a function using Sawyer’s Hall and not a new business therefore no CO would be required.
R. Gray added that bingo was allowed at other places in town so it would be very difficult to deny this use.
A Public Hearing on a site plan application for the construction of a new 3,200 square foot building to be used as an auto body shop that will be merged with an existing 2,800 square foot multi-family residence that will be converted to accessory office and storage space for the auto body shop. The total square footage of the building will be 6,000 square feet and the property is located at 38 Westville Road, Tax Map 27, Lot 49. The total lot is 1.42 acres and has a total of 430.20 feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the CI District. The owner of record is John Blinn.
R. Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc., and John Blinn, property owner, were present for the application.
L. Komornick noted that she and M. Dorman had looked at the site plan with Mr. Pica and noted items where relief would be needed from the ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment).
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters with questions. There was no one.
L. Komornick offered that one issue that would ultimately need to be addressed by the Board was the sight distance for the driveway. She suggested that the issue be handled the same as it was for the building across the street where the burden of proof of adequate sight distance was on the applicant.
R. Gray added that sight distance is an issue as this is one of the worst corners in the entire town.
M. Dorman noted that the driveway would be much farther west of its current location. He added that the existing stone wall in the right-of-way was not on Mr. Blinn’s property.
J. Blinn offered that he believed he would be making the corner safer. He added there would no longer be a residential use of the property either.
R. Gray asked if people will be able to walk on the street in the area.
J. Blinn said that they would in front of his property but there would still be the issue of the stone wall, which was not on his property.
R. Gray noted that if they were planning to use the existing driveway that he would not vote to approve the plan.
T. Moore moved, second by L. Gil, to deny the site plan application for 38 Westville Road. Reason for denial:
Need for further action from the ZBA including:
- Special exception for the expansion of a non-conforming lot. (Article III, § 220-8.C)
- Variance for front setback for new construction (Article V, Table 220-32I)
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Meeting with Rich Masters of Normandeau Associates regarding the Draft Stormwater Ordinance update
L. Komornick offered that Rich Masters regrettably had to cancel due to a personal commitment.
Sign up for RPC RSA Books
L. Komornick offered this was listed on the agenda to see how many would like to order the new Land Use RSA books.
All members requested a copy.
Other Business – RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission) TAC (Technical Advisory Committee) Appointments
T. Moore noted there was an oversight in reappointing Merilyn Senter to RPC’s TAC as an alternate.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to recommend to the Board of Selectmen that Merilyn Senter be reappointed at Plaistow’s alternate to RPC/TAC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion of Letter from Craig Donais re: the Rite Aid Project
Jack Soraghan, property owner of 29 Garden Road and Casey’s Diner; Jerry Diorio and Paul Kneeland, Channel Builders, were present for the discussion.
J. Soraghan offered a brief history of the evolution of his project, which includes a joint site plan with Rite-Aid for the properties located at what are now 29 and 31 Garden Road. He noted that due to the passage of time and lack of availability of funding with the downturn in the economy he will be forced to make some changes to his site plan. These changes will include a smaller building, less paving, more green space as well as a new drainage design plan. He noted there would be no changes to traffic access or circulation or impact to the abutting condos (33 Garden Road). Mr. Soraghan asked the Board to consider allowing him to make the changes to his site plan without involving Rite Aid, despite the fact that both projects are part of the same site plan, as Rite Aid’s corporate offices do not want the exposure
of a new public hearing.
J. Diorio added there would be no visible changes seen from Route 125 and there would be lesser impact to the land.
J. Soraghan noted the number of vacant store fronts on Route 125 as evidence of the problem economy. He noted that due to the time of year and other deadline restrictions placed on him by Rite-Aid he would ask that any process to be expeditious. J. Soraghan acknowledged that the Town would be seeking certain monies be received before a shovel hit the dirt.
P. Kneeland was asking if a full public hearing would be necessary or if the plan could just be amended by the Board.
L. Komornick offered that the kinds of changes discussed would definitely require a public hearing. She added that she had spoken with Mr. Soraghan’s engineer (Frank Montero) regarding filing for a final public hearing for November 18.
M. Dorman added that if CLD gets the opportunity to review the plan early enough to make positive comment in time for the public hearing there shouldn’t be a reason why there couldn’t be approval that night.
P. Bealo noted that biggest deal is to get the plan to CLD as soon as possible in case there are issues with that review.
P. Kneeland offered that all changes were downsizing from the original plan and he felt that should make an engineering review moot, allowing the Board to approve an amended plan.
L. Komornick noted there was a letter from the Board’s attorney advising that the scope of changes to this site plan will require a public hearing and for the amended site plan to be recorded. She said he likened it to the separation of conjoined twins separating the two site plans.
P. Kneeland offered that all permits need to be in place for financing; adding that he has done work in other towns where it was determined that it was okay to approve the changes to the plan administratively.
L. Komornick reminded that Rite-Aid has been part of the project from the beginning and there were many cross issues, such as access, between the two sites.
J. Soraghan offered that nothing could be changed about the access, particularly with reference to the condos as they have already been paid for the cooperation and approval.
There was continued discussion about how best to facilitate Mr. Soraghan’s proposed changes to his site plan as well as the separation of his site plan from the Rite-Aid plan. It was noted that Mr. Soraghan has to vacate his current location in July of 2010 under his lease agreement with Rite-Aid.
L. Komornick noted that separating the Soraghan plan from the Rite-Aid plan made each site an abutter to the other.
L. Gil asked what impact this would have on the Westville Road improvements.
J. Soraghan noted those improvements still had to be done and were triggered by the Rite-Aid construction. He noted that his portions of the monies for that project have already been escrowed.
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Soraghan is responsible for doing the driveways. She added that the driveway permit for Westville Road is a Town permit. L. Komornick added that the wording in the warrant article related to the improvements to Westville Road is tricky and it is still being reviewed to make sure there will be no violations. L. Komornick expressed compassion for Mr. Soraghan’s situation, noting he did not receive favorable guidance from the engineers initially involved with his project, but cautioned that everything needed to be done in accordance with the law.
There was a discussion as to how quickly this matter could be realistically reviewed by CLD and scheduled for public hearing,
L. Komornick noted that logistically it could be done by the November 4, meeting, dependent upon how quickly plans could be submitted to be forwarded to CLD for review.
P. Kneeland questioned how long the appeal period would be.
It was noted there was no appeal period.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray to schedule a public hearing on the amended plan for 29 Garden Road for November 4 dependant upon submittal of plans in time. If plans are not submitted in time the hearing will be scheduled for November 18.
L. Komornick noted that there were significant changes to the drainage plan, from an underground to above ground system, and questioned if the Conservation Commission (ConCom) would need to review the plan.
T. Moore offered that it wouldn’t hurt for them to review the plan, noting that ponds are allowed under the ordinance. He noted that ConCom didn’t have the expertise to review drainage calculations and would defer to CLD on that, but it would be nice to let ConCom know about the proposed changes.
P. Kneeland noted that the discharge was less under the new plan.
J. Soraghan offered that at the end of the day it was his intention to have the site look as good as it possibly can and he wasn’t looking to do anything “on the cheap” but was trying to get things done as quickly as possible.
L. Gil asked if there were any changes to the drainage other than converting it from underground to aboveground.
P. Kneeland replied that F. Montero was looking into the specifics of the drainage, but the underground to aboveground is going to make the differences as the financial feasibility of the project.
L. Komornick questioned if changes to the drainage plan for this site would affect the Rite-Aid drainage plan, noting that is why it’s important for CLD to review the new plan.
T. Moore suggested there were no physical changes to the Rite-Aid plan and there should be nothing to trigger an amendment to that plan.
There was additional discussion regarding how best to proceed. It was noted that timing was in the hand of the engineer and how quickly plans could be submitted for CLD to review and comment.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining).
Continued Discussion Re: Outstanding Projects:
Westville Business Park
M. Dorman noted he was working with the property owner to clean up the items on their punch list. He added that an e-mail was forwarded to the Board regarding the sidewalk. The original plan showed a handicap accessible sidewalk, which was not built. The current owner was not the originator of the site plan. The construction of the building mimicked another building constructed by the current owner, which included plantings instead of a sidewalk.
M. Dorman added a second issue was replacement of a roadway guardrail with a block wall rail, similar to what was done at Stateline Plaza, which is aesthetically more pleasing. M. Dorman added that they were also requesting to put off the final topcoat of paving until next spring.
M. Dorman offered there were places at the back of the building, between the overhead doors, where handicap accessible parking could be located and therefore alleviating the need for the sidewalk at the front of the building.
R. Gray noted this issue was brought up by Selectmen Michelle Curran at a recent Selectmen’s meeting. She had expressed concern about the lack of handicap accessibility at the front of the building as shown on the plan.
M. Dorman responded that he would agree with the need for the accessible parking to be located at the front of the building were this not an industrial site.
S. Ranlett asked if the building was raised after the fire.
M. Dorman answered that he didn’t think it was and it was reviewed by a structural engineer prior to reconstruction.
There was a discussion regarding whether or not handicapped parking would be acceptable at the back of the building, considering the nature of the site. It was noted that the regulations stated that there had to be accessible parking, not that it had to be located at the front of the building. It was suggested the adequate signage could indicate where the handicapped parking was available. It was noted that if a retail, or any other non-compliant, business sought to locate at this site they would have to come back to the Planning Board for the change of use and the accessibility question could be addressed again.
Members offered they would prefer the site plan be implemented as it was approved but they could agree to the proposed resolution provided CLD approved of the change and it was found to be in compliance with the State of New Hampshire accessibility requirements.
There were no issues with substituting the block wall for the roadway guardrail or with waiting for spring for the final topcoat of paving.
R. Gray questioned why the Town’s reviewing engineer didn’t catch the lack of the sidewalk as part of the inspection process and if the Board should be concerned.
M. Dorman expressed confidence in CLD’s inspection process.
R. Gray said that he was not in favor of the handicap parking in the back.
M. Dorman asked if the Board wanted him to tell the developer to dig up and install the sidewalk.
R. Gray said that he wanted all developers to follow the site plans as the Board approves them.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to allow the final paving and re-striping to be delayed until May 1, 2010 and for the roadway guardrail to be substituted with a block wall.
R. Gray noted it was near the end of the paving season and the block wall would have a nicer appearance.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore moved, second by L. Gil, to approve the relocation of the handicap access parking to the rear of the building with the following condition:
- Locating the handicap accessible parking is found to be in full compliance with State of New Hampshire accessibility regulations.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-1-0 (Gray dissenting).
Rockingham Athletic Club
M. Dorman noted that he had been informed that they will be installing their top coat of paving in the upcoming week.
Kelly Ward (Certified Letter Sent 9/25/09)
L. Komornick noted she had not received any response to the letter sent to Mr. Ward.
Dave Hoyt – Chandler Ave
L. Komornick noted that the mylar has been recently received and recorded.
Rockingham Church
M. Dorman noted that they are slowly moving along with the project.
S. Ranlett questioned if they had achieved substantial development.
M. Dorman responded they had not as there was no paving or lighting on the site. He added that he would check their progress and report to the Board.
Other Business – Letter of Request from Camp Wesley Doggie Day Care
S. Ranlett read a letter from Cindy Stein of Camp Wesley Doggie Day Care requesting an extension of their approval until the spring. It was noted they would work on the interior over the winter. The request is to extend the deadline for holding a preconstruction meeting and posting a bond until May 5, 2010.
R. Gray moved, second by T. Moore, to grant the request of Cindy Stein for an extension of the deadline to have a preconstruction meeting and posting of a bond until May 5, 2010. There was no discussion of the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – CIP Approval
T. Moore noted that the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) spreadsheet was approved at the last meeting. He added that he was looking for the Board to vote to approve the entire document, which included all the back-up materials as well as the spreadsheet. T. Moore went through the CIP document noting where there were changes from the previous year’s document as well as reference to the Master Plan.
L. Gil moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept and approve the 2010-2015 CIP as presented. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
There was no other business before the board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:43 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
