PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 19, 2009
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Charles Lanza, Alternate. Larry Gil was absent.
Also present was P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer. Leigh Komornick, Planner, was excused.
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member for the meeting.
Minutes of July 15, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minutes from the July 15, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Jamie Timbas regarding possible locations for Universal Charitable Gaming (i.e. bingo, poker)
Jamie Timbas and Dan Brown, Universal Charitable Gaming (Universal), were present for the discussion.
The following was noted during the discussion about possible gaming locations in Plaistow:
- Two (2) sites being considered are the former Shaw’s Supermarket (9 Plaistow Road) and Sawyer’s Banquet Hall (180 Plaistow Road)
- The organization has raised $2M for New Hampshire charities
- They currently have an operation at Rockingham Race Track (Salem, NH)
- There is a list of thirty-six (36) charities currently on their approved list
- New Hampshire laws regarding gaming are stricter than Massachusetts laws
- 35% of the gross income is contributed to the charity of the night
- They currently employ between 50-100 people and all have had thorough background checks
- All charities must meet State of New Hampshire 5013C criteria and be in good standing with the Attorney General’s Office
- They would start slow in Plaistow, operating between three (3) and five (5) nights a week
- They had met with Police Chief Savage earlier in the day
- Jobs would be created (dealers, bartenders, etc)
- The charities are not required to deal any longer, this is in favor of the charity as today’s players are too good and easy able to fool well intended charitable dealers
- Alcohol will most likely be served
- It was anticipated that there would be close to 100 players at each event
- They would like to begin operations in October, which would be more feasible with the Sawyer’s site as the Shaw’s site would need renovations to be adapted for the use
P. Bealo asked how the company worked with the charity.
J. Timbas replied, noting the following:
- Each charity is allowed up to ten (10) gaming dates a year
- Universal is hired to run the event on behalf of the charity
- Representatives are encouraged to have a visible presence at the event
P. Bealo asked if it were possible for a charity to lose money at one of these events.
D. Brown replied that there was no way as the charity would collect 35% of the gross income of the event. He noted that the charities help with advertising to bring people to the event.
There was a discussion regarding police presence at these events. It was noted that dealers are trained to a “zero tolerance” policy and do not allow any bad behavior. It was also noted that gamblers tend to be a self-policing group. Whether or not there would always be a police detail at every event would be left to the discretion of the Police Chief.
R. Gray asked if gaming was a listed permitted use in any district.
M. Dorman replied that it was not a specifically listed permitted use in any district.
S. Ranlett offered that he didn’t see a problem with the use, but would like to have the discussion again once a location was decided upon.
M. Dorman noted that Sawyer’s would make better sense than the former Shaw’s location as there is more parking.
D. Brown added that whether or not alcohol is served their biggest concern is protecting the integrity of the game.
R. Gray, acknowledging that paying for police details would be the responsibility of the gaming operation and therefore a financial wash, noted that the amount would have to be shown as part of the Town’s budget as an offset item.
D. Brown offered that many times Police Associations have been the benefactors of their charitable events.
J. Timbas added that they had a list of approximately 150 charities looking to participate and their goal was to have half of the charities at the Plaistow location be local.
D. Brown noted that it was surprising how many charities are not in good standing with the Attorney General’s Office.
S. Ranlett suggested that once the location was firmed they should work with M. Dorman and L. Komornick for the next steps in the process.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan for the conversion of a single-family residence into a dog kennel/day care facility totaling 4,750 square feet and located at 118 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 69, Lot 38. The development is located in the ICR Zone and is a total of 2.97 acres with 764 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Cindy A. Stein and Jennifer Lee
Dennis Quintal, Civil Construction; and Cindy Stein and Jennifer Lee, property owners, were present for the application.
D. Quintal noted that this was a continuation of this project and that much of the technical details of the plan had been covered at previous meetings. He noted that they had responded to comments from CLD (Planning Board Engineers) and had received a “clean letter” from them.
D. Quintal reviewed the final comments of the latest CLD letter for the Board addressing some note details, test pit/septic comments, including a ground water discharge permit (which have received State of New Hampshire approval), drainage, handicapped accessibility, and disposal of animal waste.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the site plan for a dog kenneling/daycare at 118 Sweet Hill Road, as complete. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone who wanted to ask a question or note a concern.
Steve Murray, 92 Newton Road, asked if there would be someone on the site overnights.
J. Lee replied that there would be on nights when there were dogs in the kennels.
S. Murray questioned how the noise would be handled.
J. Lee explained that the dogs were in fully enclosed rooms, not left outside all night. She added there are area, both inside and outside, where the dogs are allowed to play and get exercise during the day, reducing their activity levels at night.
S. Murray asked if there would be someone onsite that he could call if there was a barking issue in the middle of the night.
J. Lee replied that there would be. She added that they also offered in-home pet sitting services for those dogs who can’t settle down in a kenneling situation.
R. Zukas, 108 Sweet Hill Road, asked about the existing front porch, noting that it had started as a farmer’s porch and over time became an enclosed porch. He questioned whether or not the porch would remain, if permits had been obtained at the time it was constructed and then closed in and if it were structurally sound.
R. Gray asked if the building was unfit.
M. Dorman answered that he could not say as he has not yet had a reason to inspect the property.
D. Quintal noted there would be a new addition to the building, for which they had been granted a setback variance.
There was a discussion about the location of the new addition. It was noted that the porch would be incorporated into the new addition.
R. Zukas noted that his other question was where the runoff would be directed, noting that there were already many wet areas on the property.
D. Quintal reminded that all the drainage plans had been reviewed by the Board’s engineers. He added that there was no testing done in the wet areas as there were no plans to impact them at all. D. Quintal noted that test pits were done for the septic system as well at the retention areas.
R. Zukas asked where the snow storage would be and where that water would run.
There was a brief discussion of the topography of the property, including elevations and where waters would run off. It was noted that the runoffs would be the same as they are currently and there was nothing flowing towards the back of the property.
C. Stein submitted letters of support from some of their customers.
Waivers:
§230-12.H(2)(f) – thickness of pavement.
It was noted that this would not be a high traffic type of business and therefore it was asked that they be allowed to pave only to a depth of 2 inches.
M. Dorman noted this should not be an issue with this type of use and it should stand up for a long time.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the request to waive §230-12.H(2)(f). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-13 & 14.1.FF – Loading areas
This business will not have deliveries that would be so large as to require a specifically designated loading/unloading area.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the request to waive §230-13 & 14.1.FF. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.CC – Location of abutting wells and septics
All wells and septics within 200 feet are located on the plan, but it was noted that there are a few at a greater distance than 200 feet.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the request to waive §230-14.1.CC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.HH – Landscaping Requirements
It was noted that the applicants would be remodeling a single-family home with a lot of natural vegetation. It was also noted that areas will have new landscaping and solid fencing screening as noted on the landscaping plan.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to grant the request to waive §230-14.1.HH. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.II – Separate Lighting Plan
It was noted that lighting would be minimal and was shown on the landscaping plan, along with the limits of where the fixtures would shine.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to grant the request to waive §230-14.1.II. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-14.1.XX – Dumpster Location
It was noted that how the waste would be disposed of was previously discussed.
T. Moore moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §230-14.1.XX. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
§230-24.B(1&2) – Water Source for Fire Protection
It was noted that this operation would be more like that of a residence rather than a business and there were not a lot of flammable or hazardous materials on the site.
T. Moore asked if the Fire Chief had been heard from on the matter.
M. Dorman offered that he did not know.
It was suggested that this waiver could be granted as part of a conditional approval, pending a favorable response from the Fire Chief.
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the site plan for a dog kennel/day care facility at 118 Sweet Hill Road with the following condition(s):
- Favorable input from the Fire Chief regarding whether or not a water source for fire suppression was needed
There was no further 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 59, Lots 4 and 6 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 34-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 if Hillcrest Estates, LLC
Phil Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi; Attorney John Cronin, Cronin and Bisson; and Nels Palm, Hillcrest Estates, LLC, were present for the application.
P. Christiansen noted that they had been before the Board previously to clarify the discussion as to whether or not a variance would be need or if the Board would grant a conditional use permit for the wetlands crossings. He added that they had also changed the length of the road, adding a cul-de-sac and not just a turn around. Mr. Christiansen noted they were awaiting the latest comments from CLD.
S. Ranlett noted that since they were still waiting for comments from CLD there would be no action taken on this plan at this meeting.
J. Cronin requested that the Board take action on the conditional use permits as he believed all the conditions had been met.
P. Christiansen offered that the plan was essentially the same as previously shown with the exception that there was no access to the Fairway Oaks (Haverhill) development.
There was a discussion of the specific locations that were in need of conditional use permitting. It was also noted that the number of units had been reduced to thirty-five (35).
S. Ranlett asked if soils testing had been requested at the last meeting.
M. Dorman answered that he did not think that had been requested.
N. Morin noted that the legal notice for this hearing indicated that there would be thirty-four (34) units, not the thirty-five (35) mentioned at this meeting.
R. Gray offered that the hearing would have to be re-noticed.
T. Moore noted he had a letter from the Conservation Commission (ConCom) supporting the granting of the conditional use permits.
There was additional discussion of the location of the wetlands crossings and where the conditional use permits would be needed.
M. Dorman read the conditional use permit ordinance, noting that all work was to be bonded until after the completion of construction.
J. Cronin reminded the Board of the history regarding the location and number of conditional use permits that would be needed. He noted that the final number was for three (3) locations.
R. Gray asked if CLD would be commenting on the conditional use permits.
M. Dorman replied that they would not as it was up to the Town.
T. Moore added that a conditional use permit did not obligate the Board to approve the plan and that changes could still be made based upon comments from CLD.
M. Dorman reminded that there could be no construction, of any kind, until after the final plan approval and the bonding of the project.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone who wished to comment or question on the conditional use permit.
Richard MacDonald, 20 Tanglewood Park Drive, Haverhill, MA, noted that he was president of the Fairway Oaks Homeowners Association and requested that the issue of whether or not there would be access to their private way through this project.
P. Christiansen answered that at this time there was no proposed access, emergency or otherwise, to the Fairway Oaks development.
Kelly Kelly, 8 Hillcrest Avenue, asked if there would be any improvements to Hillcrest Ave as a result of this project, with the potential addition of 34 to 70 cars daily, as well as the construction of the project.
R. Gray offered that he assumed there would be offsite improvements as part of this project.
P Christiansen noted they would be widening the road and upgrading it to Town standards.
K. Kelly asked what would happen to those properties close to the road.
P. Christiansen noted that all work would be done within the right-of-way.
There was a discussion about the width of the existing Hillcrest Ave.
K. Kelly asked what would be happening to 10 Hillcrest Ave and would it remain.
N. Palm noted that it was going to stay.
Lola Gani, 14 Country Club Lane, noted that her concerns were the same as they were at the start of this project and that was the removal of the trees that currently protected her property from the highway sounds. She noted that over time the noise has been increasing and she feared that the loss of more trees would increase the noise to her property.
S. Ranlett offered that the discussion at this meeting was being limited to the three (3) conditional use permits.
L Gani asked that a sound barrier be considered as part of this project. She added that it was not fair to her after living in Town for 32 years and she asked that she not be forgotten.
R. Gray, noting the number of changes that have been made to the plans, asked that new plans be PDF’d to the members. He added that the number of units and noticing needed to be worked out.
P. Christiansen noted for the record that they were applying for thirty-five (35) units.
C. Lanza asked if there was a club house associated with the development.
P. Christiansen replied that there was, but it was not counted as a residential unit.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to grant the three (3) conditional use permits.
M. Dorman asked that the requirement to bond the areas covered under these permits be added to the motion.
T. Moore amended the motion, second by R. Gray, to grant the three (3) conditional use permits and require that the construction be bonded until the completion of the project. There was no further discussion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett asked that the applicants follow-up with L. Komornick in the planning office noting that there were other comments (i.e. six (6) from the Police Chief, four (4) from the Fire Chief and five (5) from the Highway Supervisor) beside those of CLD to be addressed.
M. Dorman suggested that P. Christiansen contact the individual departments directly.
S. Ranlett noted that he would like to get confirmation from those departments that their concerns have been addressed before this application comes back before the Board.
J. Cronin offered that he will ask them all to report to L. Komornick.
Review of List of Outstanding Projects and Associated Responses from Applicants
The following site plans were discussed. These are projects which have received previous approval or conditional approval from the Board and have not yet either met conditions, held a preconstruction meeting and/or appropriately vested their project. All site owners were sent letters from the Planning Office to notify them of this discussion. Whether or not a response was received, what kind of response and what action the Board decided to take is indicated in each instance:
Seacoast Tent – 5 Chadwick Ave
A letter was received from Jim Whitney, owner of Seacoast Tent, indicating that they would not be proceeding with this project in the near future.
This matter will be scheduled for a revocation hearing on September 16, 2009.
Kelly Ward – 19 Danville Road
No response from applicant was received. A certified letter, asking the applicant to state their intentions, is to be sent by the Planning Office. If there is no response then a revocation hearing will be scheduled.
Dave Hoyt – Chandler Avenue
A response was received from Mr. Hoyt noting they were still awaiting the final mylar from their engineer and would contact the Planning Office as soon as it was received.
This matter will be reviewed again at the September 16, 2009, meeting. If this no progress then a revocation hearing will be scheduled for October 21, 2009. The applicant is to be notified by the Planning Office as to these dates.
Rockingham Church – 90 Newton Road
Letter was not sent to this applicant.
M. Dorman noted that this project has been slowly moving forward. The discussion is tabled to the September 16, 2009, meeting. He noted they were working on additional financing for their lighting and paving.
Ron Brown – Gunstock Road (15-lot subdivision only)
No response was received from applicant.
Project is not vested. Revocation hearing is to be scheduled for October 21, 2009.
Jay Davey – 69-71 Plaistow Road
J. Davey was present at the meeting. He noted a number of financial issues were preventing the development of this property as per the approved plan. Mr. Davey added that he was consulting with an engineer to discuss other possible options for this site.
This plan will be noticed for a revocation hearing on October 21, 2009. If Mr. Davey should make application to amend the site plan that should be legally noticed simultaneously to the revocation hearing. If an amended plan is not received the revocation hearing will proceed as scheduled.
Kidder Concrete – Danville Road
It was noted that this application was withdrawn after it was approved by the Board and recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds. It was noted that it should be scheduled for revocation in the interest of clarity. That hearing will be scheduled for September 16, 2009.
Pappalardo – 23 Atkinson Depot Road
A written response from Anthony Pappalardo, noting financial difficulties and a loss of a family member as the reason the project had not proceeded. Mr. Pappalardo requested a continuation of his site plan approval.
S. Ranlett noted that they could grant a six (6) month extension.
T. Moore offered that six (6) months would put them into the winter.
R. Gray added they could come in for a preconstruction meeting.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant an extension for the approval of the site plan for 23 Atkinson Depot Road, to April 30, 2010. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Green Machine – 144 Main Street
It was noted there was a letter from SEC and Associates requesting an extension of the Board’s site plan approval.
T. Moore moved, second by N. Morin, to grant an extension for the approval of the site plan for 144 Main Street for Green Machines, to November 18, 2009. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Letter of Request for Bond Release from John Cormier for Daybreak Drive
A letter from John Cormier, developer of Daybreak Drive, requested the release of the remaining funds relating to the project.
M. Dorman suggested that Dan Garlington (Plaistow Highway Supervisor) be consulted regarding the condition of the road, before any funds are released.
S. Ranlett continued the vote to the September 2, 2009, meeting, pending input from D. Garlington.
Other Business – Pichowicz Letter
The members asked that this matter be carried over to the next meeting to give them time to re-read the letter from Nicholas and Joan Pichowicz. Those who cannot locate their copy of the letter are to ask L. Komornick for another copy.
Other Business – CIP (Capital Improvement Plan)
T. Moore noted that the CIP was coming along nicely. He noted they were currently reviewing cash flows of the different departments, impact fees and trying to do low balancing, level funding so there are no huge hits in any single year. T. Moore noted they hoped to have it all wrapped up by mid September.
Other Business – Master Plan
T. Moore explained that they had been reviewing the Population and Housing Chapter. Other chapters being considered for review include the Transportation chapter and the Natural Resources chapter, which needs to be updated for Stormwater Management and Water Sampling. He added they were also reviewing the Master Plan for mention of specific projects that should be included in the CIP.
Other Business – Dry Hydrant
M. Dorman noted that an application had been submitted to the State of New Hampshire for the installation of a dry hydrant at the New Hampshire Park & Ride location on Westville Road. He added that the hydrant was being installed by David Hoyt in lieu of installing a cistern at the Westville Road Business Park.
Other Business – MS4 Reporting
M. Dorman offered that an ordinance would be forthcoming to the Board for review and ultimately approval.
R. Gray added that this one of the steps needed for the Town to become compliant with a Federal Administrative Order
M. Dorman added that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wants compliance by November 1. He noted that an ordinance could not be adopted by the Town before March but expressed optimism that if it was in process that perhaps that will satisfy the EPA’s requirements.
There was a brief discussion of the procedure for adoption of an ordinance and how it might not coincide with the EPA’s compliance timeline. It was suggested that should the EPA not be satisfied with the ordinance being in process that perhaps the document could be adopted as a Planning Board regulation in the interim.
Other Business – Training Materials and Notice of Interest from ZBA (Zoning Board of Adjustment) and the DBS (Department of Building Safety)
It was noted there was information about some training opportunities for the Board as well as copies of correspondences from the DBS in the member’s folders.
It was noted that there was only one residential driveway application pending before the ZBA therefore a copy of their agenda was not provided.
Other Business – Proposed Use at Westville Business Park (High Performance Bicycles)
M. Dorman noted that Duane Skofield was considering taking one of the units at the Westville Business Park for a retail high performance bicycle shop. He would like to install a wind tunnel to allow people to test the equipment in more true-to-life conditions. M. Dorman added that everything would be internal to the unit. He added that the minor retail use would require one additional parking space, which might limit a future use in one of the other units. M. Dorman noted there would be no temporary signs or banners at this site if the Board was okay with this use.
The consensus was that there would not be a problem with this proposed use.
There were no additional matters 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
| 
