PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 18, 2009
Call to Order: 6:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Larry Gil; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio; Neal Morin, Alternate; and Charles Lanza, Alternate.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner.
T. Moore welcomed L. Gil, newly elected member.
Reorganization and Election of Officers
S. Ranlett nominated himself for chairman of the Planning Board, second by P. Bealo.
S. Ranlett offered that he had been a long time member of the board and would like a chance to serve as chairman.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore would chair this meeting and S. Ranlett would take over at the next meeting.
L. Gil nominated T. Moore for vice chairman of the Planning Board, second by S. Ranlett. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Minutes of January 21 and February 18, 2009, Planning Board Minutes
P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minutes from the January 21 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining).
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett, to approve the minutes from the February 18 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion the vote was 3-0-2 (Bealo and Gil abstaining).
Discussion with CLD Engineers Re: Various Issues
Paul Konieczka and Erin Lombardi, of CLD Engineers, were present for the discussion.
There was discussion regarding issues and questions that had come as part of the site plan review process. Members of the Board expressed overall satisfaction with the reports they had received from CLD, particularly the format that showed the history of the comments. The major concerns that were expressed were about some of the more subjective tests, such as the plug test, and the magnitude of project where such tests come into application, and allowing direct communication between the applicant's engineers and CLD to facilitate problem resolution on a more timely manner.
P. Konieczka explained that the reason CLD keeps applicant's engineers "at arm's length" is to not give the appearance that they are speaking for the Planning Board in anyway. He added that their role was to review plans and make suggestions to the Board, not to help in the designing of the plans. Mr. Konieczka noted they never wanted to be in a situation where the applicant comes back the Board with changes stating "Your town engineer told us to do it this way." He added that all site plans are reviewed by a number of people in the process and interruptions in that process did more to slow down the review of a plan than it did to resolve questions.
E. Lombardi added when an applicant's engineer calls them directly they are frequently reading from a report and ask questions such as "do we really have to do that?" which in some cases is either black and white straight from the ordinances or a judgment call for the Planning Board to make.
There was discussion on how costs increase when CLD deals directly with the applicant's engineers and how those costs are invoiced to the Town (which are then passed on to the applicant). It was also noted that dealing directly with the applicant's increases the chance that planning staff will not be in the loop.
Different examples of when it might be appropriate to deal directly engineer to engineer were given, such as when there is a discrepancy in how drainage calculations were made.
E. Lombardi, noting that there are times when it seemed the engineers might do better talking to each other, offered that the same thing can be accomplished in written format and offered better tracking.
There was discussion about items that were "in-house" in nature, such as complete application forms and abutter mailing labels, which frequently appeared on CLD reports as not being submitted. It was noted that these were items that CLD did not need to review. E. Lombardi suggested that a list accompany each plan to be reviewed stating what items did not need to be reviewed by CLD and those items would not show on the reports.
There was a brief discussion about the format of the CLD reports, it was requested that comments be dated as there are sometimes a number of follow-up comments for the same item. It was noted that it would help establish time lines as to when concerns were addressed.
There was a more technical discussion on where the need for a "plug test" was derived from. E. Lombardi explained what reference book was being used in the past, noting that it had recently become obsolete. She noted the replacement storm water manuals were more in depth, yet offered the Town more discretion when it came to smaller projects. E. Lombardi added that smaller projects were not always seen as having an individual impact on a wetland, but when taken in consideration with other surrounding smaller projects the impact could be the same as one larger project. She noted the new regulations did not rely as much on plug tests but on soil types.
L. Komornick asked if that was going to increase the need for HISS (High Intensity Soil Sampling) mapping.
E. Lombardi replied that there would be some instances where HISS mapping would be appropriate and others where regular soils mapping would be sufficient.
P. Bealo questioned if the change in State regulations meant that the Town would need to make similar changes.
E. Lombardi answered that the ordinances were written in such a way as to call for the "most recent version" so there was no need to change. She added that older projects would still be reviewed under the former standards.
L. Gil asked if when CLD looked at cumulative effects of smaller projects as those being done in the same time period or was it more from an historical perspective.
E. Lombardi replied that because watersheds are so large they look at it in total, not as an isolated project, but they didn't usually have much historical data for review.
There was a brief discussion about cumulative impacts to watersheds from individual projects. It was noted that new projects could not be held to the standard of making up for the impact of other projects. It was further noted that what impact any singular project may have on the watershed is key in determining if additional state permitting may be required.
L. Komornick offered that some of the wetlands requirements were the areas of biggest resistance with the applicant's engineers and it was helpful to her to know the reasoning behind some of the requirements. She added that it was also helpful to understanding the MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) reporting that the town is currently involved in.
P. Bealo noted that the Planning Board was trying to go digital with its application process. He asked if it would be possible to get a PDF format of the reports along with the hard copy.
E. Lombardi replied that it wouldn't be a problem but they would still require a paper copy of the plans for their review.
L. Komornick asked if the applicant did not have the capability of submitting their application in a PDF format did CLD have the ability to convert the plan for them.
E. Lombardi answered they could, but a written request should come as part of the review package as well as a copyright waiver from the applicant's engineer.
L. Komornick suggested that the PDF format was assurance that everyone was always looking at the same plan.
P. Konieczka noted that the fees for PDF conversion could be rolled into the review fees.
T. Moore asked if CLD saw anything in the Town's current regulations that was contradictory and in need of review.
E. Lombardi offered that everything seemed pretty straight forward to them, reminding that the aforementioned manuals would be changing.
P. Bealo suggested that this discussion (between the Board and their engineer) should occur at least once a year, perhaps closer to the time when zoning is reviewed, to help in making sure that zoning keeps up with whatever is coming over the horizon.
CLD representatives agreed.
Status of Ron Brown's bond for his 15-lot subdivision
Ron Brown, 389 Mill Street, Haverhill, MA, was present for the discussion.
L. Komornick explained that R. Brown had agreed to provide an update on the status of his bond, since she had been informed by his bank's attorney that they had no interest in renewing the letter of credit. She added that there is also confusion coming from the fact that the Board currently only requires a 10% construction bond, which in the case of a subdivision would be held as a (road) performance bond for the first two years after the Board of Selectmen (BOS) accept the new road. L. Komornick suggested that it was best to secure a construction bond at this time and worry about the details of a performance bond when the time comes to accept the road.
R. Brown explained the different costs that he was facing at this time for the project, noting that it would cost approximately $37.000.00 to pave the new road. He questioned how much of his construction bond he would receive back once the road was completed.
L. Komornick noted that since the Board was no longer holding 100% bonds on site work, but 10%; holding 10% of the construction bond would amount to holding 10% of 10% and she didn't know if that would be a sufficient performance bond.
Numbers for construction cost, road costs, and performance bonds were discussed. It was noted that the performance bond was intended to be of a sufficient amount to make repairs to the new road should there be an issue within the first two years.
L. Komornick offered that the Town had never had to use a performance bond for a failed road.
S. Ranlett noted that the point was that if the Town had to fix the road the money would be available. He questioned what would happen if sufficient funds were not available.
R. Brown responded that the Town would come after him.
S. Ranlett disagreed, noting that the Town would then be the owner of the road.
T. Moore suggested that the language for the construction bond be looked at closely and make sure that sufficient funds are in place for that bond. He reminded that the construction bond and performance bond were two separate bonds and that the Town had only been retaining 10% of the construction bond as the performance bond as a bookkeeping convenience (as opposed to refunding the full construction bond and then receiving payment of a performance bond), but it didn't have to be handled that way.
It was agreed that L. Komornick would review the language of the construction bond requirement and work with Mr. Brown on the amount.
R. Brown assured that the monies were available to deal with the issue.
Status of Storm Water Management Task Force (SWTF)
L. Komornick offered that she had provided the members with the minutes from the first SWTF meeting. She noted that the members of the task force were: Mike Dorman, Dan Garlington, Sean Fitzgerald, Tim Moore, Jim Hanley and herself. L. Komornick noted that the town was somewhat behind in their MS4 reporting to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and a six (6) month extension had been requested. She outlined some of the steps that needed to be completed in order to complete the report and be in compliance.
There was discussion about the number of catch basins and outfalls within the Town, including those owned by the Town and those located on private property, and how best to identify, map, test and mark those features as well as how best to fulfill the community education requirements of the MS4 reporting. Suggestions of involving Boy Scouts and college students in the process where discussed. It was noted that there is GPS equipment owned by the Town, but it will require some training and patience to be used for this process. Imputing the data collected into the GIS system will also need to be done.
L. Gil noted that the EPA and the State of New Hampshire were not under the same requirements to do such mapping so there was probably no data available to the Town to assist in the process.
L. Komornick added that this was an unfunded mandate and there were no grant monies available to defray the cost of complying with the MS4 reporting.
R. Gray suggested talking to Representative, Norman Major, to see if he could offer any suggestions.
L. Komornick noted that she was working with EPA to discuss staffing issues with them. She noted that the Town Manager has been submitting the report for the last six (6) years and was unable to locate any documentation for the information submitted on prior reports.
L. Gil reminded that the Conservation Commission (ConCom) had an educational booth at Old Home Day each year.
L. Komornick offered that she had recently discovered that Plaistow could join in a coalition with other towns to pool resources. She noted that some of the larger towns had full engineering departments to deal with MS4 reporting.
R. Gray reiterated his suggestion that a letter be sent to N. Major to inform him of staffing and funding issues for this unfunded mandate.
C. Lanza suggested that NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) may have some decent catch basin mapping on Route 125 in light of the work being done on that road.
Other ways to ease the process of MS4 reporting were discussed. It was suggested that it also be discussed as part of the Regional Selectmen's meeting. The possibility of hiring a private engineer to locate, test and map the catch basins and out falls was suggested, but it was thought to be cost prohibitive.
Request for Payment form the Route 125 Impact Fee Account.
An invoice from SEC Associates for engineering costs related to the widening of Haseltine Street was reviewed.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, that payment the SEC Associates invoice in the amount of $7,806.83 would be consistent with the intent of the Route 125 Impact Fee Ordinance.
It was noted that this was different from the legal fees that M. Dorman previously discussed with the Board.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Gil abstaining).
Status of Sidewalk Grant application and the Danville Road sidewalks and all other zoning amendment warrants
L. Komornick noted that the warrant article for the $12,000.00 match for the sidewalk on Danville Road did not pass. She added that surveys had gone out to the middle school students, as needed for the SRTS (Safe Routes To Schools) sidewalk grant, and Ernie Sheltry would be helping her calculate the results. L. Komornick explained that M. Dorman thought there would be monies left in the Route 125 Impact Fee account after the Haseltine project and she was hoping to use some of that for the State's match of the Danville Road sidewalks.
R. Gray offered that he didn't think that the BOS would approve spending the Impact Fee monies on a project that the voters didn't approve.
S. Ranlett suggested that it wasn't the project itself that the voters turned down but the funding.
R. Gray noted this had been recently discussed at a BOS meeting.
T. Moore reminded that Impact Fee monies did not belong to the Town but to the developers who contributed them and if the funds are not spent they have to be returned to the developer, not to the General Fund.
L. Gil suggested getting a legal opinion on the question.
S. Ranlett reiterated that he didn't think the voters were against the project, just the spending of the money in these hard economic times.
R. Gray offered that it wasn't right to assume what people were thinking when they voted and he suggested that the idea of pursuing Cumberland Farms for the money was a better option.
T. Moore suggested that it was moot point until the costs related to the widening of Haseltine Street were known.
R. Gray offered that upkeep of the sidewalks is always the first issue. He added that other towns have ordinances that require property owners to maintain a sidewalk in front of their property.
L. Komornick noted that the State would be looking for a maintenance agreement from the Town, adding it would be short sighted not to look at that part of the issue. She suggested that since the sidewalks are for the benefit of the Timberlane Regional School District students that perhaps the school district should be the one charged with working out the maintenance issues.
It was suggested that it was time for a joint meeting (with the BOS and perhaps the school) to discuss the sidewalks.
Status of other Planning Activities including other Grant applications
L. Komornick noted there was information in the member's packets regarding CEDS (Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies) grants. She added that REDC (Regional Economic Development Corp) was requesting and update on the Train Station.
R. Gray asked about the status of the Rite Aid (31 Garden Road) project.
L. Komornick replied that she had spoken with the applicant's new engineer and it appeared that the project was still going forward, however they still had not been yet able to straighten out the deed issue with the abutting property.
L. Komornick offered that she had been approached by the engineer for 24 Plaistow Road regarding C.O.R.E physicians taking over the remaining empty units and expanding their offices there. She noted that they at one time they had been looking at the 31 Garden Road site.
L. Gil asked if L. Komornick had spoken directly to Rite Aid or to the property owner.
L. Komornick responded that she had spoken with the engineer for Rite Aid. She added that they still needed to get their septic plan approved by the State.
Status of the State and Regional Transportation Improvement Program project submittals
T. Moore noted a list of projects that needed to get into the long and short range plan for State and Federal funding. He added that the list had been reviewed by the HSC (Highway Safety Committee).
L. Gil asked why the train station wasn't on the list.
T. Moore answered that it was already supposed to be on the list as a CMAC (Congestion Mitigation Air Quality) project. He added that this list was projects to be added to the existing list.
S. Ranlett asked about the possibility of a three-way stop at the intersection of Westville Road and Main Street and if not, should it be added to the list.
L. Komornick offered that had been part of the discussion with NHDOT when they took a bus tour of the town last fall. She explained that NHDOT emphasized the need for a corridor study, adding that each change in an intersection has a ripple effect on all the others.
S. Ranlett suggested another traffic calming technique would be a four-way stop at the intersection of West Pine, East Pine and Main Streets.
L. Komornick noted that, before any changes would be considered by the State, that there would have to be evidence be more good than harm in making the change.
T. Moore added that the monies for the traffic calming study were in this year's budget.
P. Bealo asked if there would be problems spending that money, noting that this situation would be similar to the Danville Road sidewalk issue as voters had declined to spend money on a study about the feasibility of taking control over Main Street from the State.
R. Gray offered that the money was included in the budget and the budget was passed by the voters, adding that question of ownership of Main Street was not the same as a traffic calming study.
Status of Master Plan Updates and Proposal for a "Planning Summit"
L. Komornick noted that there had been scheduling conflicts regarding the Master Plan Committee which she hoped would be soon resolved. She added that the Town Manager was looking to hold a Land Use Board Summit for all the boards to meet and identify the issues before the town so that everyone is "marching down the same path."
Other Business
L. Komornick noted the reminder notice about RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission) dues. That invoice is paid by the BOS.
T. Moore noted the on April 8, RPC would be meeting at the Plaistow Public Library. He added that the first part of the meeting would be about transportation and the second part about planning. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.
S. Ranlett questioned who enforces overnight tractor trailer parking at the NH Park & Ride site on Westville Road.
L. Komornick said that she will find out.
S. Ranlett asked if there was a four-barrel limit for curbside trash pick-up and if so, who would he talk to about that.
L. Komornick offered to get him contact information for Waste Management.
S. Ranlett noted an issue with snow being piled up in a detention area at the Stateline Plaza. The matter was referred to M. Dorman for further action.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
