PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 24, 2009
Call to Order: 6:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Peter Bealo; Michelle Curran, Alternate Selectmen Ex-Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Charles Lanza, Alternate. Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Larry Gil; and Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio were absent.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
N. Morin and C. Lanza were appointed as voting members for the meeting.
Minutes of May 20, 2009, Planning Board Meeting
M. Curran moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the minutes from the May 20, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
Minor Site Plan Application for “Cruise Night” at 87 Plaistow Road
John Murphy, Owner Plaistow Auto Exchange, was present for the application. He explained that they had already run one “cruise night” without incident, adding that he didn’t know that he was supposed to get authorization from the Board before doing so. Mr. Murphy noted that they had hired a police detail officer and had obtained permission from the property owner across the street should they need additional parking.
S. Ranlett asked what the hours of the event were.
J. Murphy replied that they were advertised to be from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and they had hired the detail officer from 4:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.
S. Ranlett noted that if it was planned that there would be food available then the Plaistow Health Officer would have to be consulted.
J. Murphy explained that the original caterer they had planned to use didn’t work out and they were going to work with Angelina’s, who would be speaking directly to the Health Officer.
L. Komornick offered that they would need a written letter of authorization for the parking across the street.
P. Bealo noted that he had attended the event and there seemed to be plenty of parking. He added that he spoke to the police officer on duty who told him things seemed to be running smoothly. P. Bealo added that he had concerns about people crossing Route 125.
S. Ranlett offered assisting people crossing Route 125 would be one of the responsibilities of the duty officer.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the minor site plan amendment to host a cruise night at 87 Plaistow Road with the following conditions:
- Health Officer approval of any food vendor
- Letter from property owner authorizing parking across the street
J. Murphy noted that if they couldn’t work things out with Angelina’s then they probably wouldn’t have food at the event.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on the conversion of an existing 2-family apartment building into two condominium units. The property is located at 18 Elm Street, Tax Map 41, Lot 68. The total lot is 1.5 acres and has 166 +/ feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the MDR and Village Center District. The owner of record is William A. Booth.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, was present for the application. He explained the existing conditions on the property and noted where the areas of common and limited common areas of the Lyndon Cottage Condo Association, would be. C. Zilch noted that there were two (2) separate driveways, a shared barn, well and septic. Sumner Kalman has reviewed the condominium documents. He explained that there was a driveway encroachment and the proper easement documents were included and that they had received State of New Hampshire approval for the subdivision. C. Zilch noted there were no waivers requested.
S. Ranlett asked how old the septic system was.
C. Zilch replied that it was approximately twenty-five (25) years old, adding that they had done a viable test pit and it was his opinion the current system would serve the existing building, as it has been, without interruption.
S. Ranlett questioned which unit might be sold.
C. Zilch answered that it was his understanding that both units were to be sold.
There was a discussion regarding the easement deed for the encroachment into what was originally intended to be a Town road.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any outstanding issues with the application.
L. Komornick noted that the application was complete, the checklist was complete and she would like a copy of the deed once it has been recorded.
C. Zilch agreed.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak. There were none.
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Lanza, to accept as complete and approve the condominium conversion plan for 18 Elm Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment for the transfer of 2, 224 square feet of area from a parcel Tax Map 24, Lot 38, to become part of the Haseltine Street Right-of-Way (Town of Plaistow). The properties are located in the CI Zone and the owners of record are Taurus Plaistow Investors Limited Partnership (Taurus) and the Town of Plaistow.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, was present for the application. He explained that M. Dorman had been providing the Board with periodic updates regarding this project and this phase was to move the lot line to incorporate the land donated by Taurus so that the improvements to Haseltine Street can be made. C. Zilch added that included in the plan is a utility easement for Taurus across Haseltine.
S. Ranlett asked if there was an easement for the City of Haverhill.
M. Dorman explained that there was no easement to the City of Haverhill, but a utility easement to Taurus to allow them access across Haseltine Street, should they ever work out arrangements with the City of Haverhill for water and/or sewer access. M. Dorman noted the next step in the process would be to ask the Board of Selectmen (BOS) to hold a public hearing to accept the Taurus land donation.
P. Bealo noted this appeared to be a win/win situation for both the Town and to Taurus.
N. Morin asked if the Haseltine Street improvements would happen this year.
M. Dorman replied that he would like to see the project completed in August.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak. There were none.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to accept as complete and approve the lot line adjustment plan for the land transfer between Taurus Plaistow Investors Limited Partnership and the Town of Plaistow of +/- 2000 square feet for road improvements to Haseltine Street. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan for a proposed mixed-use development of a parcel resulting in residential and commercial/retail use. The property is currently a residential unit with a barn located in the CII/Village Center District at 115 Main Street, Tax Map 40, Lot 78 and is a total of .65 +/- acres and 94.7 feet of frontage along Main Street. The owners of record are Stephanie Young and Chad Putney.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, and Stephanie Young, property owner, were present for the application.
C. Zilch outlined the existing conditions for the existing three-bedroom residential site. He explained that the owner would like to use the existing barn for a pottery/ceramics studio for retail sales and small occasional classes (limited to 6-8 children). C. Zilch added that Ms. Young also sold some of her product over the internet.
C. Zilch offered that the students for the classes would be dropped off. He added that there would be a minimal use of water in the studio, which would be handled by a water recycling system which would filter out any pottery materials from the water for reuse. C. Zilch noted there would be no bathroom facilities in the barn, but students would be allowed to use the residential bathroom in the house. He added that the parking would be upgraded and striped for five (5) spaces, as per the regulation, as well as a turn around area so that people would not be backing out into Main Street.
L. Komornick noted that the Police Chief had no issues with the plan and the concern of the Fire Chief was based on the scenario that students would be parking there, which was not the case.
C. Zilch reiterated that all students would be dropped off.
M. Curran asked if there was going to be retail sales on the site at the same time as classes how that would affect the parking and would there be a conflict.
C. Zilch noted there would be a staggering of retail hours with class hours and there was a note on the plan to that effect.
C. Lanza questioned if there was a sign proposed.
C. Zilch explained there was a sign allowed; it just had not been located on the plan.
S. Young noted that the classes would be limited to an after school time at this point, noting that she was still working full time. She added that times when she was teach a class there would be a sign posted for the retail area that would read “the potter is out.”
M. Curran expressed concern that there were no bathroom facilities, particularly with curious children as students. She was also concerned about how the system would work to have the children use the residential bathroom.
S. Young explained that the house was very close to the barn and she would use the buddy system with the students using the bathroom. She added that all the students would be given a tour of the residence to relieve some of the curiosity factor and they would use an intercom system to monitor the students when they are in the house.
M. Curran reiterated her concern about the lack of bathroom and hand washing facilities.
S. Young offered there would be adequate hand washing facilities in the studio by use of a five (5) gallon recycling water system.
N. Morin asked if the entrance to the studio would be through the side door shown on the plan.
C. Zilch confirmed it would be and noted that the front door would be blocked.
N. Morin questioned if the doorway was handicapped accessible.
C. Zilch replied there may need to be some improvements made to the door but it was intended to be accessible.
M. Curran asked if the residence was handicapped accessible. It was noted that the residence was not and M. Curran expressed concern that not having a handicapped accessible bathroom would open Ms. Young up to an ADA (American’s with Disabilities Act) claim.
M. Curran asked where Mr. Putney and Ms. Young would park their personal vehicles.
C. Zilch noted that all parking regulations were met.
P. Bealo questioned if there was parking available on Main Street.
C. Zilch answered that there was, but that it had not been included in the calculations.
There was a brief discussion regarding hours of operation. After the discussion it was decided that Sunday hours would be noted on the plan, but it wasn’t likely Ms. Young would be open Sundays initially.
C. Zilch explained that he had spoken with Bob Talon of NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) and was given a verbal okay regarding the driveway permit. He added that Mr. Talon would issue a written approval based upon the outcome of this meeting.
M. Curran moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the site plan for a combined commercial/residential use as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
C. Zilch offered there was a letter from the abutter most directly affected by the plan.
C. Lanza noted it appeared they had plenty of parking.
M. Curran reiterated her concerns regarding the lack of a handicapped accessible bathroom.
M. Dorman offered that the State allowed for a walk of up to 75 feet for a bathroom use.
S. Ranlett asked if this would put a liability on the Town.
M. Dorman replied that the business would be accessible.
M. Curran noted that if it were just retail space then a handicapped accessible bathroom would not be required, but she had concerns with there being classes.
M. Dorman agreed that retail did not require there be an accessible bathroom and offered to get a black and white answer from the State regarding the classroom situation.
C. Zilch offered that it would be up to Ms. Young to communicate to all parents of her students that there were no facilities available.
S. Young suggested that she could offer private lessons, possibly going to the student, for those with special needs.
M. Curran noted that was not the intent of the ADA and could also be considered a form of discrimination as the student would be singled out.
M. Dorman reminded that if it were strict retail he could not force anyone to make an existing bathroom accessible unless they are making other renovations to that bathroom.
P. Bealo asked if there was an RSA that stated bathroom facilities must be provided. He suggested that if there was not then students could be notified that there were no facilities available for anyone.
C. Zilch responded that were would be a concern about not having any facilities if students are there for any length of time. He suggested that the plan could be conditionally approved pending resolution of the bathroom facilities issue.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak. There were none.
WAIVERS
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §230-14HH and not require a separate landscaping plan. It was noted that this is an existing situation and the landscaping is established and noted elsewhere on the site plan. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §230-14II and not require a separate lighting plan. It was noted that this is an existing situation and the lighting is established and noted elsewhere on the site plan. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §230-14XX and not require dumpster. It was noted that this is a low impact business and will not generate excess trash requiring a dumpster. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran moved, second by N. Morin, to grant the request to waive §230-14FF and not require a loading dock. It was noted that deliveries to this business would be by vehicles consistent with a residential use and did not require a loading/unloading area. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
M. Curran asked if a combined residential/commercial use was allowed in this district (CII).
L. Komornick noted this property was also located within the Village Center District overlay, which made it a permitted use.
S. Ranlett, noting the pool in the back yard, asked if it was fenced and locked.
S. Young replied that it was.
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the site plan for the combined commercial/residential use at 115 Main Street with the following conditions:
- M. Dorman will consult with the State of New Hampshire regarding the need for a bathroom per the RSAs and if there is found to be a need it will be satisfactorily resolved
- Receipt of NHDOT driveway permit
- Note on plan revised for Sunday hours of operation
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-1-0 (Curran dissenting).
M. Curran noted that she thought the idea of a pottery studio was a good idea; she just had concerns about there being no accessible bathroom, especially with children as students.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan amendment for the proposed addition of 1,440 square feet to the existing “Colonial Auto Body” shop located at 231 Main Street, Tax Map 31, Lot 22. The property is located in the MDR Zone and is .92 +/- acres with 168 feet of frontage. The owners of record are Bodies by Borges Colonial, Inc.
Steve and Donna Borges, owners Colonial Auto Body, were present for the application.
S. Ranlett noted that this application was before the Board so the applicant could be sent to the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for certain relief.
S. Borges explained that they would like to put a 20’ X 60’ addition off the back of the existing garage that would add four (4) service bays. He added that the additional space would allow them to store all vehicles being worked on inside and out of sight. Mr. Borges noted this would alleviate the need to increase their hours of operation or add another work shift.
L. Komornick offered that the relief that was needed from the ZBA would be to expand the non-conforming lot (commercial use located in a residential, MDR, district) and a variance as the new structure would not meet the allowed setback requirements.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak.
Tim Lewis, 4 Kelley Road, noted that he had concerns about noise and lighting that was currently shining into his home. He asked if a fence, perhaps as high as ten (10) feet, could be considered for the rear of the site.
S. Ranlett noted that a fence was something that the Board had considered in the past to help out abutters. He added that he didn’t’ know if they could mandate a ten (10) foot high fence.
M. Dorman added that if the abutter didn’t have a problem with the fence being ten (10) feet high it shouldn’t be a problem. He noted that the Town’s lighting regulation would require that the lighting not affect the abutters and the revised site plan would bring the lighting into compliance.
S. Ranlett suggested that both issues could be considered at the next (plan review) meeting after the ZBA decision.
S. Borges noted there was already a fence along the Workman (2 Kelley Road) property.
T. Lewis offered that it would only mean an additional 150 feet of fence to cover his property.
S. Ranlett suggested that Mr. Borges and Mr. Lewis have a discussion regarding the fencing before the next meeting.
M. Curran noted that she lived near the property and always found it to be well maintained and the noise level respectable.
S. Borges added that they have always kept their neighbors in mind.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the revised site plan for 231 Main Street. There was no discussion and the vote was 0-5-0 and the motion was defeated.
Stated reasons for denial:
- The applicant will need relief from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the form of a special exception to expand on a non-conforming lot and a variance for the proposed addition’s setback to the property line.
There was a brief discussion about when this property was rezoned from a commercial district to a residential district.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan for the conversation 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; Cindy Stein and Jennifer Lee, property owners and owners of Camp Wesley Dog Day Care, were present for the application.
D. Quintal noted that this application would require similar ZBA relief to the previous application. He gave an overview of the site plan package noting the existing conditions as a residential dwelling. D. Quintal outlined the proposed site plan noting the features of each page of the plan set, including the lighting, landscaping, drainage, grading and fencing plans.
J. Lee noted that the fencing that faced the street and driveway perimeter was of a more solid nature to prevent headlights from penetrating and causing the dogs to bark.
D. Quintal continued showing the technical construction details sheet and the proposed architectural rendition of the building.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters wishing to speak.
Robert Archambault, 99 Sweet Hill Road, expressed concern about the current lighting that was shining directly into his home and which he found to be obnoxious. He added that he had concern about drainage coming from the site that might contain waste from the dogs and potential contamination.
J. Lee noted they had not done anything to the house since they purchased it and were not aware there was an issue with the light shining into Mr. Archambault’s home. She added they had been turning different lights on and off in the house on different days to give it the appearance of being occupied and they would immediately deal with the offensive light.
R. Archambault added that he had concerns about the noise that the dogs would make.
Robert Zukas, 108 Sweet Hill Road, expressed concern over the area wetlands and adequacy of the septic. He noted that a former occupant of the residence had two (2) dogs and they were very loud.
J. Lee noted that they currently had a dog care business operating and there were no issues with the noise level or their management of the dog’s waste.
R. Zukas asked if there would be kenneling involved and if there would be dogs there for extended periods of time. He noted that when he’s kenneled his dog in the past it would come home hoarse from barking all night and he had concerns about living next door to such a situation.
J. Lee offered that dogs bark when they are stressed, particularly by thinking they have to defend themselves from other dogs. She noted they took measures to eliminate that for the dogs that they cared for so they didn’t have a barking problem.
P. Bealo noted the hours of operation we listed as 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for the dog day care.
J. Lee noted that the dogs were all dropped off at different times. She noted that weekend times would start at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Lee added that they work to create an environment for each dog that allows the dog to feel safe and thereby able to calm itself.
Francis Cegelis, 94 Newton Road, noted that he had lived there for 34 years and there were wetlands problems with the property. He said that it was his understanding that there was no place to put a well on the property and he questioned where they would get water.
D. Quintal explained that they have located a well on the property and the location would be reviewed by the board’s engineer.
F. Cegelis questioned what this use would do to the surrounding property values.
S. Ranlett noted that it was a permitted use in the ICR (Integrated Commercial Residential) District. He asked if there was an existing well on the property.
D. Quintal answered that there was an existing dug well on the parcel and they had plans to install an artesian well. He said they would also make application for State approval of the septic system.
C. Lanza noted that the proposed location of the well was in a travel way.
D. Quintal responded that it would be covered with a cast iron access cover.
Joe Archambault, 99 Sweet Hill Road, offered that the whole world didn’t quit at sunset, explaining the he worked a night shift and slept during the day. He added that he didn’t want to have to deal with the noise and the smell of even “two molecules of dog feces.”
S. Ranlett asked how the kennels would be maintained for cleanliness.
J. Lee explained that they collect the solids and store them in a bin for pick up and used a bio-degradable solution to sterilize the area.
D. Quintal offered it was no different than if someone had a horse barn at their residence. He added that some kenneling is considered to be agricultural and the applicants wouldn’t even have to come before a board for approval, noting it depended on the degree of use.
J. Lee invited all the abutter with concerns to come visit them at their current facility at 7 Garden Road and they would be happy to show them how everything is done.
P. Cegelis suggested that another issue was that this is a bad corner and there are many accidents and it wouldn’t be wise to increase traffic on this section of the road. He added that the proposed horseshoe driveway would increase traffic issues.
R. Archambault added that the Board should talk to the Police Department to get information about the number of accidents in this location.
D. Quintal offered that the proposed horseshoe driveway offered greater traffic control as there wouldn’t be anyone backing out into Sweet Hill Road to exit. He reminded that Sweet Hill Road is a State owned road and they would be the ones to review and decide whether or not to issue a driveway permit. D. Quintal noted that if the State felt it was an unsafe situation they would recommend modifications or deny the permit.
S. Ranlett asked Mr. Archambault if he ever had problems with people coming to his business across the street.
R. Archambault offered that no one ever had to back out of his driveway.
S. Ranlett responded that was why they proposed a horseshoe driveway so there would be no backing out from this business.
F. Cegelis noted there was an elevation marker at the edge of the road and that it could not be moved.
D. Quintal offered that marker was noted on the plan.
M. Curran moved, second by C. Lanza, to deny the site plan for a dog daycare/kennel 118 Sweet Hill Road.
Stated reason for denial:
- The applicant will need relief from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in the form of a special exception to expand on a non-conforming lot (structure does not meet required setback) and a variance for a proposed addition’s setback to the property line.
D. Quintal asked if they would have to re-apply.
L. Komornick said they would and abutter’s would be re-notified. She added that the plan has been sent to CLD for review.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The chairman called for a break at 8:07 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:17 p.m.
Other Business – Requests for Payment for the Route 125 Impact Fee Account
There were two requests for payments from the Route 125 Impact Fees, both relating to the expansion of Haseltine Street.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, that expending $800.00 to pay an invoice from SEC Associates is in keeping with the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion of the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
N. Morin moved, second by P. Bealo, that expending $270.00 to reimburse the Planning Board for expenses incurred in noticing the lot line adjustment public hearing for the Haseltine Street expansion is in keeping with the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance. There was no discussion of the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Curran abstaining).
Other Business – Site Updates
M. Dorman offered that he had met with Rite Aid’s developers and they anticipated closing on the land within the next two (2) months and the project was still moving forward.
N. Morin asked about the work on Westville Road.
M. Dorman noted that improvements to Westville Road would be part of the Rite Aid permit approval process.
M. Dorman reported that the Planet Fitness septic system (95A Plaistow Road) was in the ground and they were working on finishing up the grading, which would be done once the old septic system was removed.
S. Ranlett offered that he had noted T-Mobile was moving into 4 Plaistow Road so he was assuming that the owners had resolved their issues with the Fire Chief (regarding the sprinkler system).
C. Lanza asked if the driveway to Planet Fitness would be repaved once the septic installation was complete.
M. Dorman replied that he was struggling with them to get it paved.
N. Morin noted that Starbucks (49 Plaistow Road) was now closed.
M. Dorman added they had cleared out this day.
P. Bealo offered that tomorrow (June 25, 2009) he would be meeting, as a private citizen, with NHDOT to discuss lighting on Route 125. He noted that the State had passed a lighting ordinance of their own.
S. Ranlett requested the Board be emailed in advance of making such appointments, noting that members of the Board are not just private citizens and how things may appear had to be considered.
M. Curran added the P. Bealo had to right to act as a private citizen, adding there would always be speculation.
P. Bealo noted that he would have no sway over the State’s regulations.
S. Ranlett reiterated that he would just like to be informed in advance.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
