PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 21, 2009
Call to Order: 6:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; and Charles Lanza, Alternate. Lawrence Gil and Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio were excused.
Also present wer Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
C. Lanza was appointed as a voting member for this meeting
Minutes of October 2, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
The vote to approve the minutes for the October 2, 2009 meeting was postponed to the November 4, meeting.
In accordance with RSA 676:4-a, the Planning Board will hold a hearing on a revocations of a site plan approved by the Plaistow Planning Board for Kidder Concrete Cutting and Coring, Inc., and recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds as plan number D-33427. The site plan included the approval for the addition of a proposed 3,150 square foot metal building. The property is located at 22 Danville Road, Tax Map 30, Lot 91 and is a total of 1.16 +/- acres. The owner of record is K & S Contractor Supply Co., LLC. The basis of the site plan revocation is RSA 676:4-a., Letters (b), (c) and (e).
L. Komornick noted that the cited RSA says that there was no substantial work done to try and implement the approved site plan within one (1) year. She added that neither of the property owners whose plans were noticed for revocation at this meeting had contacted her to object to the revocation.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to be heard on the matter; there was no one.
P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to revoke the site plan for Kidder Concrete Cutting and Coring at 22 Danville Road. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 4-0-0.
In accordance with RSA 676:4-a, the Planning Board will hold a hearing on a revocations of a site plan approved by the Plaistow Planning Board for the expansion of an existing business (Seacoast Tent) located in the Commercial II/MDR zone at 5 Chadwick Avenue, Tax Map 40, Lot 76 recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds as plan number D-34358. The project involved the construction of a 5,805 square foot addition to the south side of the exiting building, additional parking spaces and the relocation of the existing utility pole and service. The property totals 8.24 acres and has 30 feet of frontage. The owner of record is James D. Whitney Trustee/Sam Nominee Trust. The basis of the site plan revocation is RSA 676:4-a., Letters (b), (c) and (e).
M. Dorman noted that he had spoken with Mr. Whitney who wasn’t going to object to the revocation of the site plan.
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Lanza, to revoke the site plan for Seacoast Tent at 5 Chadwick Avenue. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0.
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
S. Ranlett noted that a letter had been submitted by the applicant requesting the matter be continued. He announced that the hearing was continued to November 4, 2009.
A Public Hearing on the conversion of an existing 4-bedroom duplex building into two condominium units. The property is located at 5 Shady Lane, Tax Map 30, Lot 36. The total lot if .61 acres and has 150 +/- feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the MDR District. The owner of record is Duke Realty Trust.
L. Komornick noted that Charlie (Zilch, of SEC Associates) was not able to be at the meeting and the plan was a straight forward change in ownership type.
Cliff Hart, 7 Shady Lane, questioned what the application entailed.
L. Komornick explained that the plan was to change the type of ownership of the units from a single owner to a condominium form of ownership.
C. Hart asked if there would be any external changes either to the building or to the septic system. He noted that his septic system was incorrectly depicted on the wrong side of his house on the submitted site plan.
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Hart’s shed was also shown as being over the property line.
C. Hart offered that the shed was already located there when he purchased the house.
There was a discussion of the survey plan that indicates Mr. Hart’s shed is on the abutting property (5 Shady Lane) and how he would go about rectifying the situation by contacting SEC Associates or contracting with his own surveyor.
P. Bealo noted there was at least one error, possibly more, on the plan that needs to be rectified.
S. Ranlett suggested that this matter be continued to the next meeting so that the engineer could be in attendance to answer any questions.
C. Hart asked what the significance of the submitted plan was and whether or not it affected him legally.
P. Bealo offered that it was best to get everything accurate on the site plan before it is recorded and causes future confusion.
It was suggested that L. Komornick give C. Zilch Mr. Hart’s phone number and ask him to contact him in reference to the location of certain structures, such as the septic, well and shed on Mr. Hart’s property and whether or not they are properly depicted on the condo-conversion plan for 5 Shady Lane.
L. Komornick noted there was a summary sheet included in the members’ packets regarding this condo-conversion plan.
Mr. Hart was given a copy of that summary.
Discussion with Ron Pica (RJ Pica Engineering, Inc.) regarding status of site plan and lot removal plan for the Plaistow Commons at (166) Plaistow Road
S. Ranlett asked that no site plans be put out on the table as the matter had not been legally noticed to abutters.
R. Pica noted that the discussion was regarding the three (3) original parcels, the Plaistow Commons shopping Plaza (160 Plaistow Road) the office building to the rear (166 Plaistow Road) and a parcel on Walton Road that was purchased to enhance both the shopping plaza and the office building as the offsite location of the septic for the shopping plaza, it was also intended for the expansion of parking for the office building. R. Pica noted that all three (3) lots have been developed. In 1993-94 a plan was approved showing proposed parking to be added on the back (Walton Road) lot for parking for the office building and it was noted on the site plan that the lot line between the parcels was to be removed. None of the work was done, no additional parking was added. The plan is more than four (4) years old and they were asking the
Board to revoke the plan, which Mr. Pica suggested that the Board would consider revoked anyway. He suggested that the vote to revoke the plan could be filed at the registry of deeds. Mr. Pica noted that any and all legal work regarding the revocation of the plan and filing of the vote at the registry of deeds could be done by his client’s legal counsel. Mr. Pica was also asking that the plan of land be simultaneously revoked so that the lot line could be “put back” and therefore resolving an issue with New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) regarding submission of a septic plan for change of use of the office building (166 Plaistow Road).
S. Ranlett asked why they wanted the lot line restored.
R. Pica noted that they would like to convert the office building to a medical building which requires that the septic system be increased. He explained how the lot line is needed to meet NHDES groundwater set back requirements and how it affected his septic loading calculations. R. Pica explained how the current septic works as well as how he would like to expand the septic for the office building. He noted that there would be no adverse affects to any other properties. R. Pica added that if the septic issues could be resolved he would then be coming back with a revised site plan to include parking for the office building on the back lot as was previously intended. He explained that this would mean that a building that was not functioning well at this time could be turned into a useful purpose with increased parking
and septic.
R. Pica replied it was to have parking on the back lot, which was never installed. He noted that they would be requesting parking on this back lot, should the lot line be restored, but it would be requested as offsite parking. He added that the only use for the back lot was for additional parking for the office building lot and the septic for the shopping center. He noted that the two (2) residential structures on the property had been removed some time ago at the request of abutters. R. Pica noted there was access to the back lot property via Walton Road but they did not want to use that access. The three (3) lots would still work together as they always had with the exception of the restoration of the lot line. He suggested the best way to achieve their goal was to revoke all the plans that were approved
in 1993-94 and therefore restoring the lot line and allowing them to gain approval of a larger septic through NHDES.
C. Lanza questioned if the lot line was still there since the land was never conveyed out.
R. Pica offered that was his contention since there was no deed transfer. He noted that since the plan of land did not have a condition listed on it stating that the lot line was only to be removed if the plan was implemented the lot line was considered to be removed.
S. Ranlett noted that the property has been taxed as a single lot since the approval of the site plan.
R. Pica explained that the Assessing Department picked up on the lot line removal once the plan was recorded. He noted that no new deed was created for a single lot.
L. Komornick noted that they have been receiving only one tax bill.
R. Pica suggested that the recorded plan was the only mechanism that combined the lots. He added that was the purpose of him being at this meeting was to ask that the Board revoke all related site plans and the plan of land, which he believed would then restore the lot line.
S. Ranlett asked if the leach field was added as part of the 1993-94 site plan.
R. Pica answered that the leach field was already there and was being used by the shopping center. He added the only reason for the 1993-94 site plan changes was to provide additional parking for the office building, which he reiterated was never installed.
There was a discussion of how the current septic systems for both the shopping plaza and the office building are laid out and being used. It was noted that the office building has been functioning as it own lot exclusively and has never used the back lot. He reiterated his request that all plans in 1993-94 be revoked.
L. Komornick asked how the septic systems were placed on the back lot if it was being used residentially.
R. Pica explained that the residential use of the lot was discontinued when his client bought it for the purposes of enhancing the shopping center and office building lots.
There was as discussion of the site plan in question.
C. Lanza noted that he thought that land could not be conveyed with a site plan, there had to be a deed.
L. Komornick reminded that the owner at no time disputed the receipt of one tax bill for both the office building and residential (back lot) parcels.
There was a discussion regarding the town’s ordinance regarding the combining of adjacent lots when one is undeveloped and is substandard.
L. Komornick noted that she had discussed the matter with the town’s assessors and it was not their policy to combine lots without some evidence, such as a site plan, for them to do so. She added in this case it was the site plan being approved and recorded that allowed them to combine the lots and there was never any communication from the property owners to dispute it. L. Komornick suggested that the question was a legal one and asked if the Board would like her to run it by their counsel for advice, despite Mr. Pica’s indications that he has gotten legal advice on how to proceed.
T. Moore suggested that the question is whether or not the Board has the authority of revoke a lot line removal fifteen (15) years after the plan was approved.
R. Pica indicated that he had spoken with Attorney John Ryan out of Hampton who informed him that the Board does have the right and the authority to revoke a site plan that has not been implemented. He suggested with regard to the single tax bill that there was only an indication given, in the form of a site plan, to the assessor that the intent was to remove the lot line but that no actual deed was ever produced.
S. Ranlett noted that it was more than an indication that the lot line was to be removed, it was a recorded plan.
L. Komornick reminded the Board that when the Home Depot project was before the Board there was a question about the condo ownership of the different buildings on the site. She noted that one of the defining issues at the time was that the lots had never been separately taxed. L. Komornick noted that taxation was one of the ways of defining whether or not a lot is combined or separate.
S. Ranlett suggested that not only was the lot being taxed as a single lot but a plan had been recorded at the Registry of Deeds that noted the removal of a lot line and making it a single lot.
M. Dorman asked if Mr. Pica’s client would be willing to pay for the question to go to the Planning Board’s attorney for an answer.
R. Pica noted that both on the plan of land and the site plan the notation is for “lot line to be removed” suggesting that the mere notation of that alone was not sufficient to effectuate the removal of the line. He offered that it was never removed as far as they were concerned as the plan was never implemented, which was the basis for the lot line to be removed.
L. Komornick reiterated that it was a legal matter.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Pica’s client would be willing to pay for a legal opinion by the Board’s counsel and have the matter resolved at the November 4, meeting.
R. Pica agreed, noting that he would not be available on November 4.
L. Komornick suggested that it be moved to the November 18, meeting.
R. Pica asked if the Board’s attorney could discuss the matter with his client’s attorney.
It was noted that would be possible at the applicant’s expense.
Fran Berube of Brookside Chapel regarding as-built site plan
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present on behalf of Fran Berube. He explained that his client has been asked to come in with an as-built plan, since there had been some improvements to the site since the original site plan was approved and the site developed in 1993-94. Mr. Johnson was seeking direction as to how much needed to be included on those as-built plans.
S. Ranlett asked what changes had been made.
M. Dorman noted that a parking area to the back of the lot, previously graveled, had been paved. He suggested the Board needed to be able to see if there were any violations of zoning in terms of setbacks, and if there are what actions need to be taken.
S. Ranlett questioned why the property owner paved before coming to the Board for approval.
D. Johnson suggested there are a lot of people in Plaistow who do not know they need to come before the Planning Board when making changes.
S. Ranlett read a letter from Mr. Berube noting a parking area in the back was not included on the site plan. The letter explained the reason for the expansion of the parking area and requesting approval of an amendment to the site plan for the parking.
D. Johnson reiterated that the property was developed in 1993.
L. Komornick suggested that the Board had discretion in this matter; the as-built could show everything required, or the original site plan could be amended.
M. Dorman offered that the original site plan was a good site plan and he didn’t see the need to completely re-do it unless there was a violation of zoning.
D. Johnson reminded that this was a proposed site plan at the time and no as-built was submitted upon completion.
M. Dorman noted that the plan was recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
D. Johnson asked what the Board wanted on the plan so he could go out to the site one time and satisfy, and if the Board would be looking for a mylar or just paper plans.
L. Komornick noted that due to the nature of the original plan Mr. Johnson would have to completely recreate the plan to make it recordable.
M. Dorman suggested that a plan that showed the changes to the site would be sufficient for the file.
T. Moore added with the caveat that there are no violations on the site.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Johnson was going to bring any violations to the attention of the Board.
D. Johnson noted that he would cover what was required such as lot coverage, setbacks and wetlands. He asked if the plan would have to be reviewed by the Town’s Engineers.
L. Komornick replied that it would not. She noted there was a plan recorded for the property and review was done at that time. L. Komornick reminded that should the property be sold, unless the use continued as a funeral home, the Board would receive new plans for review and there was no reason to go to the expense of producing recordable as-built mylar drawings at this time unless there is a remarkable difference from the original plan.
P. Bealo suggested that there should be some form of double check, particularly with reference to the setbacks. Someone should be going out to double check some of the measurements.
There was discussion as to whether or not compliance would be to today’s standards or those in place at the time of the paving installation. It was suggested that the site needed to comply with today’s standards since the work was done prior to the approval of the Planning Board. It was noted that much of the wetlands setback distances are the same as they were at the time the plan was approved, but they are defined differently.
S. Ranlett noted that the Board’s major interests are in the setback requirements and the lot coverage. He added if the Board is satisfied with those measurements then the plan would be filed in the office; if not, they would send the plan forward to where it needed to go.
Review of Site Plan for the Vic Geary Center
L. Komornick and M. Dorman brought forward a request on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Vic Geary Center.
L. Komornick noted they would like to pave the parking in the rear of the building, without upgrading the site plan. She noted the question was whether or not they could just indicate the paving on the existing site plan or if they had to do a whole new site plan.
M. Dorman suggested a minor site plan review.
S. Ranlett offered they could do much the same as Mr. Johnson was doing, updating the existing plan for the paving to show there were no issues with the set backs. He questioned a note in the staff report requesting that fees be waived.
L. Komornick noted the request was for the application fees to be waived, not the fees associated with legally noticing the public hearing to review the plan.
T. Moore offered he had no objection as long as all out-of-pocket expenses were covered.
P. Bealo questioned the precedent that would be set by waiving the fee.
L. Komornick noted that precedent had been set by waiving fees for non-profits organizations in the past.
S. Ranlett said he didn’t think it would be setting a precedent to waive the fee for a non-profit.
P. Bealo offered he didn’t think it was a bad thing to waive the fees, but there was nothing in the Board’s By-Laws to suggest that non-profit application fees be waived.
S. Ranlett noted that each application would still be considered on a case-by-case basis.
P. Bealo offered he just didn’t want to see it come back and be a problem in the future should there be a request to waive a fee that the Board did not agree to.
T. Moore noted the request doesn’t happen often and this building did serve Plaistow seniors. He noted concern that there was a fair amount of drop off to the back of the lot and he was concerned about runoff from a large amount of pavement. He suggested a site walk.
M. Dorman suggested that he would ask them to stake out where the paving was intended to go and the Board could take a site walk.
S. Ranlett asked if they were looking to pave quickly.
M. Dorman said that he wasn’t sure, but the paving plants close around Thanksgiving. He offered to call Jack McSheehy, who is doing the work for the Vic Geary Center, and ask him to stake out the lot. M. Dorman suggested that the members could then go out there at their leisure.
L. Komornick requested that members email her with comments after they visit the site.
Other Business - Route 125 Impact Fee – Invoice Submission for Approval
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, that payment of the invoice from SEC Associates in the amount of $11,693.17, from the Route 125 Impact Fee, for engineering work related to the widening of Haseltine Street, is an appropriate expense. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Bond Release – 49 Plaistow Road
S. Ranlett noted a written request from Jonathan Cox for the release of the balance of the bond and escrow being held for the property at 49 Plaistow Road, formerly known as Starbucks.
M. Dorman offered there were no outstanding issues that he was aware of.
T. Moore moved, second by C. Lanza, that the balance in the bond and escrow accounts for 49 Plaistow Road be released. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Bond Release – 175 Plaistow Road
S. Ranlett noted a written request from Steve Drelick for the release of the balance of the bond and escrow funds being held for the property at 175 Plaistow Road, the Rockingham Athletic Club.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, that the balance in the bond and escrow accounts for 175 Plaistow Road be released. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Letter from Citizen Requesting Zoning Changes
S. Ranlett read a letter of request to meet with the Planning Board to discuss a zoning change they would like to propose for Route 125 from the intersection of Route 125 and Route 121A to the Kingston Line.
L. Komornick suggested they be scheduled for the November 4, agenda.
Other Business – Driveway Permit Application – 85 Plaistow Road
L. Komornick she had received a letter from NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) about an application from Gerry Carbone regarding the relocation of his driveway for the property located at 85 Plaistow Road. She added that no information about the new location of the driveway was in the letter so she had contacted NHDOT. She noted that she also contacted Gerry Carbone, property owner, for information on the location of the driveway, which was said to be approximately 150 feet south of its current location. As part of that discussion it was learned that the intended driveway would be on the abutting property, not owned by Mr. Carbone. Mr. Carbone offered that he had been trying to meet with those owners. L. Komornick noted that she had notified NHDOT that Mr. Carbone was not the property owner.
Other Business – Local Government Center Annual Meeting
Information was provided for the upcoming conference.
Other Business – Haseltine Street Widening
M. Dorman gave an update of the Haseltine Street Widening project. He noted that there would be a transfer of street ownership between the Town and the State. He noted that Steve Ireland of NHDOT would supply granite curbing if the Town would pay to have it installed at the cost of $4,020.00. He noted that the Route 125 Impact Fees would be pretty closely spent down.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to expend the funds from the Route 125 Impact Fees for the installation of granite curbing on Haseltine Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the Rockingham Planning Commission meeting for November would be moved to November 18, instead of November 11, due to Veteran’s Day. He requested to skip the Planning Board meeting to go to the RPC meeting.
P. Bealo noted that he would like to see wind power be added to the list for discussion regarding zoning amendments for upcoming workshops.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
