PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 18, 2009
Call to Order: 6:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio and Charles Lanza, Alternate. Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman was excused and Lawrence Gil was absent.
Also present was 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 November 4, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
The vote to approve the minutes for the November 4, 2009 meeting was deferred to the December 2, 2009, meeting.
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.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc. and John Blinn, property owner, were present for the application.
R. Pica explained the details of the proposed site plan noting the following:
- Are pursuing a variance for a setback issue as well as a special exception to expand the non-conforming lot
- 3200 sq. ft. building
- Existing building has 6 residential apartment units
- As part of the new site plan the existing building will be used for offices and storage for the auto body business
- Driveway permit was applied for applied for with the State of New Hampshire, who replied that since the Town maintains the road they will leave the decision on where the driveway cut should be up to the Town
It was noted for the record that Westville Road is a Town road and the driveway permit will be issued by the Town.
- The driveway sight distance will exceed 400 feet to the west and there is 350 feet of sight distance on the east side of the lot
- The driveway could not be lined up with the Westville Business Park as there would be inadequate sight distance
- Parking spaces are 9’ X 16’ and will primarily be used for parking of repair vehicles
- The drive access around the site is 16’ wide and was noted in CLD’s report. The drive access will only be used by the owners of the site to maneuver vehicles around the site
- Well location was also noted by CLD, with the location of part of the well radius going into the street. R. Pica offered that there would be no contamination from the street and there was no possibility of there being a leaching field installed in the well radius
L. Komornick requested that the applicant write a letter for the file stating that they are aware that the well radius extends into a Town road and absolving the Town from any responsibility of potential contamination of the well.
- CLD noted that the snow storage area is located within the well radius of the abutting property. R. Pica noted that this is not prohibited by regulation as this was just snow, not any part of a septic system; adding it was the perfect location of his client’s site for the storage of snow
- The drainage plan will be changed and infiltration will be considered to be used to comply with Town and State regulations
- Test pits were conducted to know where the seasonal high water levels are
There was a discussion regarding the drainage and whether or not infiltration was the proper route for this site. Rates of percolation and consideration of mosquito mitigation were discussed.
- Plans are submitted for lighting and landscaping
L. Komornick noted that CLD questioned the need for the number of parking spaces shown on the plan. She asked if it were intended there be motor vehicle sales on this site.
R. Pica responded that he had not yet been told by his client that there would be motor vehicle sales on this site and he would be restricted from doing so because of the rule prohibiting motor vehicle sales within 1,000 feet of another sales location.
L. Komornick suggested that if Mr. Blinn were to relocate sales to this site it would not be in violation of the ordinance.
M. Dorman noted that he didn’t believe there would be motor vehicle sales on this site.
R. Gray asked if this site would be within 1,000 feet, if measured in a straight line, from the Subaru dealership (77 Plaistow Road).
M. Dorman replied that it would not be and that measurements were always taken in a straight line.
R. Gray noted that he wanted to see plantings on the front of the property limited, in order to increase sight distance for motorists on Westville Road.
M. Dorman offered that the location of the driveway would allow for adequate sight distance even with plantings on the front of the property in accordance with the regulations.
There was a brief discussion regarding the size of the trees to be planted along the front of the parcel.
R. Pica outlined the landscaping plan.
C. Lanza asked if the trees in the snow storage area would survive the snow storage.
S. Ranlett suggested that a fence be considered and a waiver of the landscaping in that area be requested.
R. Pica noted there would be an easement at the front of the property for the removal of brush and the maintenance of the sight distance along Westville Road.
R. Pica outlined a number of details of the plan sheets.
L. Komornick asked if there was a lighting plan.
R. Pica noted the lighting details were included as part of the landscaping plan and CLD had no comment on those details.
There was a brief discussion regarding the type of lighting that would be used on the site, noting it was in compliance with the Town’s regulations.
R. Pica noted that they were looking for the well and septic locations on the abutting property but may be asking for a waiver for locating structures from that lot on this plan as there were no issues with setback concerns.
L. Komornick reiterated her question as to why there was so much parking on the site.
J. Blinn explained that they were not going to be utilizing all the noted parking but wanted the availability to be in place should there be expansion of his business.
R. Pica agreed that it was important to put all the parking on the site at this time so as to not have to redo the drainage calculations in the future.
J. Blinn noted that he wasn’t going to pave the entire area right away.
R. Pica offered that it was his understanding that the entire paving would not have to be completed as long as the plan was vested and that area was bonded his client would have four (4) years to complete all the paving.
M. Dorman reminded that it was one (1) for vesting and there was a four (4) year timeline to complete the plan to be safe from zoning changes.
L. Komornick suggested there would be an issue when it came time to request a certificate of occupancy (CO) as the engineers report would note that the site was not complete according to the Board’s approved plan.
M. Dorman noted that the plan would have to state what was being proposed at this time so it could be approved by the Board and CLD would know.
L. Komornick inquired if it was specifically called out in the regulations that there could be no phasing.
S. Ranlett asked what was intended to be initially paved.
There was a discussion regarding the number of repair vehicles that would be on the site at any given time and what areas would be initially paved and what areas would be designated for future parking. It was noted that where ever vehicles would be parked must be paved.
R. Gray asked if there would be motor vehicles sold on this site and if so he wanted where those vehicles would be parked noted on the plan.
There was a discussion regarding the circumstances where motor vehicles could be sold from this location, noting any sales from Mr. Blinn’s existing site would have to be terminated for at least one (1) year to relinquish the grandfathering of motor vehicle sales at that site.
M. Dorman noted that he was hoping there would not be used car sales at this location due to the dangerous nature of Westville Road.
J. Blinn offered that he had a dealer’s license that allowed him to purchase and resell used motor vehicles and he was not intending for there to be any display on this new site at this time.
It was noted for the record that should Mr. Blinn decide in the future he wants to sell motor vehicles from this site he would be required to return to the Board to amend the site plan.
L. Komornick reminded that the State of New Hampshire would contact the Town for verification that Mr. Blinn was allowed to sell motor vehicles from this site should he decide to transfer his license. She asked if the State would then be told that he was allowed to sell but not display cars.
J. Blinn explained that he had a wholesale dealer’s license (which does not allow for the display of vehicles for sales).
L. Komornick that display of cars for sale was approved on Mr. Blinn’s existing site and therefore there could not be cars displayed for sale at this new location.
M. Dorman suggested there was a problem with Mr. Blinn selling cars from his existing site if he was not approved by the State for retail sales.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Blinn can transfer his license, and the ability to display and sell cars, from his current location to the new one.
L. Komornick explained that the license could be transferred to the new location, but the owner of the existing location, where Mr. Blinn is renting, would have to relinquish the right he has, by approved site plan, to display motor vehicles for sale on that site.
J. Blinn noted that the owner of the property allowed him to come before the Board to gain approval for the display for retail sales on his current site, but the license for motor vehicle sales belonged to him.
R. Pica offered that there were only 8-9 spaces in question as to whether or not they would be initially paved. He added that he would like to locate those spaces on the site plan but with a notation that they would be for future paving.
L. Komornick suggested there wouldn’t be a problem unless there was any kind of curbing associated with paving that area that would have an effect on the functioning of the drainage system as designed.
R. Pica replied that it did not.
M. Dorman offered that the area was curbed on the plan and therefore would need to be paved.
C. Lanza noted that the snow storage area was also curbed.
R. Pica requested that this hearing be continued.
S. Ranlett announced that the hearing was continued to December 16, 2009.
Zoning and Regulation Amendment Workshop Including Presentation by Rich Masters on Stormwater Management Amendment
Rich Masters, Director of Engineering, Normandeau Associates was present for the discussion.
R. Masters gave a general discussion on Stormwater Management, calling it “Stormwater Management 101” in response to the EPA’s (Environmental Protection Agency) decision regarding MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) reporting for the Town. The presentation included the history of stormwater management and how reporting regulations have changed over time.
There was also discussion regarding crafting an ordinance to be in compliance with MS4 reporting as well as protecting water resources of the Town. It was noted that many industries are already heavily regulated by EPA and those reports would be available to the Town for review. Mr. Masters’ suggested that the Board focus needs to be on illicit discharge and local stormwater management.
It was noted that the Town’s ordinances did regulate illicit discharge in the eyes of the EPA. It is the intent to beef up the controls and include any restrictions in the zoning ordinance, which would mean that engineers would more readily take note of stormwater management requirements and checking for compliance would become a routine part of site plan review.
There was a discussion as to how much monitoring the Town should be doing to ensure that business and industries in Town are complying with EPA stormwater management requirements and whether or not that would be necessary for the Town’s compliance with MS4 reporting to the EPA.
There was also discussion regarding building a data base to know which companies are obligated for reporting and to be able to monitor the conditions of their sites regarding stormwater management.
R. Masters suggested that how many businesses are required to report be investigated before deciding whether or not the work involved to track them is justified as well as whether or not the information gained by tracking them is useful to the Town.
L. Komornick cautioned against mandating tracking as part of an ordinance, noting that if it were included in an ordinance it would be one more checklist item for EPA review.
The possibility of their being an increase in EPA scrutiny with the clean up of the superfund site (Kelley Road) was noted.
The Board will be reviewing the proposed ordinance at a future meeting for potential adoption.
Additional Zoning Amendments – Windpower
L. Komornick noted that she had provided the Board with copies of ordinances from The Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) and other information regarding alternative energy sources.
There was a discussion regarding the need for an ordinance, since windmills are addressed as part of the State’s RSAs. The discussion related to whether or not the Town felt there was a need to further restrict, beyond what is outlined in the RSAs, for the protection of the Town.
The Board decided to take the materials home to review
Additional Zoning Amendments – Home Occupation Daycares
There was a discussion regarding a “magic number” for setting a limitation on the number of children allowed in a day care.
It was noted that there is a restriction in the home occupation ordinance that restricted employees not living in the residence, which may be sufficient to limit the number of children in a home occupation daycare situation.
M. Dorman will provide the Board with the State’s minimum ratio of child/provider to see if further limiting of the number of children is warranted.
Additional Amendment – 45 Day Requirement to Hold Preconstruction Meeting
It was noted that State RSAs offer that an applicant has one (1) year to be vested in a project and four (4) years for substantial completion in order to be protected from revocation and/or changes in zoning ordinances. The question was asked if the 45 day requirement for holding a preconstruction meeting was necessary.
After some discussion it was suggested that it was important to have language that required a preconstruction meeting be held prior to construction starting, but setting a timeline beyond what was covered in the RSAs was not necessary.
There was a discussion regarding making the preconstruction meeting closer to the time of construction to lessen need for changes in the field.
M. Dorman offered that how close the timing of the preconstruction meeting was to the start of construction didn’t affect him, but he expressed concern over scheduling availability of all who would need to be a the meeting and time for applicants to respond to concerns that may come up at the meeting.
It was suggested that the timing of the preconstruction meeting be linked to the start of construction, rather than the recording of the Planning Board approved plan as it is right now.
M. Dorman offered to draft language for a change.
Additional Amendment – Pervious Pavement
M. Dorman suggested that it needed to be decided whether or not pervious pavement should be considered as coverage. He suggested that a definition be developed for pavement and pervious surfaces to decide whether or not it is a structure.
C. Lanza questioned whether or not pervious pavement should be used where motor vehicles are intended to be parked.
P. Bealo suggested there could be language to encourage the use of pervious pavement in other areas, such as walkways.
Additional Amendment – Setbacks for Buffers and Pavements
There was a discussion regarding whether or not pavement should be considered a structure for commercial setbacks. It was also discussed whether or not landscaping buffers should be allowed to be used for snow storage as the vegetation is being harmed.
Additional Amendment – Home Occupation
There was a discussion as to whether or not there should be consideration for a home occupation that merely exists for the purposes of a mailing address and where there is nothing more than administrative work, such as the business’s bookkeeping, occurring on the site.
P. Bealo noted that many of these businesses are storing materials in their home.
S. Ranlett offered that if a home occupation that is only supposed to be a desk is seen to expand beyond that a letter would be sent to that business notifying them that they will not be able to register vehicles without a home occupation.
P. Bealo suggested that home occupations should be an all or nothing situation to not put the additional regulatory responsibilities on the inspections office.
S. Ranlett noted that the inspections office was already doing that function by verifying and notifying those who are required to have home occupations under the current ordinance.
Additional Amendment – Setback Table
L. Komornick suggested that the table be cleaned up to either be all use-based or all zone-based instead of what is a combination of the two.
M. Dorman and L. Komornick will further discuss to determine if there is a need to change.
Additional Amendment – Misc
R. Gray suggested that the “obnoxious uses” ordinance be reviewed to see if there is a need to “further button it up” in light of what is going to be happening on the Beede site in the next year. He noted that he would be requesting that the Town Manager also be reviewing the ordinance.
M. Dorman offered that the current ordinance allows for him to act if the neighbors are being bothered by an activity.
R. Gray expressed concern that since this was a federal operation that they may not feel the need to comply with the Town’s ordinances.
S. Ranlett questioned if they (EPA site workers) weren’t going to comply with the current ordinance because they are a federal operation how would changing the ordinance make them do so.
R. Gray suggested that they may want to work with the Town to stay within whatever are the current ordinances so he added that if it needed to be changed now would be the time.
M. Dorman noted that was why he felt it was important to build the access bridge to Old County Road to mitigate the impact to the residences of Kelley Road.
R. Gray added that he would like to see the zoning lines reviewed again in areas where property is still located in two districts, such as the condos at Crane Crossing.
S. Ranlett noted there was an item on the agenda that stated there would be residents coming in to discuss re-zoning of commercial areas on Route 125
L. Komornick indicated that item was a carry over from a previous meeting and those residents would not be coming in to this meeting.
S. Ranlett offered his personal opinion that in light of the recent designation of the Economic Revitalization Zone (ERZ) that re-zoning not be supported.
Request for Approval of Payment of Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinances.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, that payment of the invoice from Plaistow Police Department in the amount of $1,365.00, from the Route 125 Impact Fee, for police detail 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.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, that payment of the invoice from Busby Construction not to exceed the amount of $70,521.00, from the Route 125 Impact Fee, for construction 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.
R. Gray asked if the State of New Hampshire would be making modification to the Main Street Intersection with Haseltine Street.
M. Dorman replied there would be a stop sign installed but the previously discussed bump-out would not be installed at this time over concerns for traffic traveling southbound on Main Street.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, that payment of the invoice from SEC Associates in the amount of $735.00, from the Route 125 Impact Fee, for engineering services 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 – Request for Bond Release from Town Fair Tire
S. Ranlett read a request from Town Fair Tire that there letter of credit securing their bond be released.
C. Lanza asked if the project was 100% complete.
M. Dorman indicated that it was.
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Lanza, that the letter of credit securing the bond for the Town Fair Tire project at 42 Plaistow Road be released. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Request for Bond Reduction – Westville Business Park
S. Ranlett read a letter of request from D&H Construction for a reduction of the bond being held for the project at 31 Westville Road.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, that the bond being held for the Westville Road Business Park be reduced to $7,500.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Dave Peabody Request Regarding Tree Plantings at Rockingham Church
L. Komornick noted Dave Peabody called and verbally requested that they be allowed to delay planting the trees in front of the building until spring.
S. Ranlett, noting they were paving the church lot today, questioned the dramatic slope of the pavement.
M. Dorman suggested it was for sheet flow. He noted that it looked level before they paved but he didn’t have the plan at this meeting to explain why there would be a drastic slope.
L. Komornick noted that CLD had inspected the site prior to paving.
It was consensus of the Board that it would be okay to delay planting the trees in front of the building until spring.
M. Dorman noted that he anticipated a request to delay the installation of the curbing in front of the building and the top coat of paving to spring as well.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
