PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 04, 2009
Call to Order: 6:32 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Lawrence Gil; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio; and Charles Lanza, Alternate.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Minutes of October 7 and October 21, 2009, Planning Board Meetings
P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to approve the minutes of the October 7, 2009, Planning Board meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo moved, second by L. Gil, to approve the minutes of the October 21, 2009, Planning Board meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-2 (Gil and Gray abstaining).
The continuation of a public hearing on the conversion of an exiting 4-bedroom duplex building into two condominium units. The property is located at 5 Shady Lane, Tax Map 30, Lot 36. The total lot is .61 acres and has 150 +/- feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the MDR District. The owner of record is Duke Realty Trust.
Charlie Zilch, SEC Associates, was present for the application. He noted the following in support of the application:
- The structure was built in the early 1970s as a duplex
- There is a shared septic
- The well is shared with the building next door but will have its own well once the application is approved
- Each unit has its own driveway and there are shared limited common areas
- Condominium documents were drawn up by Attorney James Walgren
- Earlier questions with an abutter regarding the location of their well and septic on the plan have been resolved
- State subdivision approval has been received
P. Bealo, noting the location of an abutter’s shed on the lot line, asked if that was an issue.
C. Zilch replied that it wasn’t for the property owner and they were not going to ask that it be moved.
S. Ranlett asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there were any abutters who wished to ask a question. There was no one.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to accept the application for conversion to condominium ownership at 5 Shady Lane as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the application for conversion to condominium ownership at 5 Shady Lane. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
A Public Hearing on a lot line adjustment plan for two properties. The properties are located at 182 Main Street, Tax Map 29, Lot 31 and 4 Old Road, Tax Map 29, Lot 32. The lot line change plan shows 13,629+/- square feet of property to be transferred from Tax Map 29, Lot 32 to Tax Map 29, Lot 31. The properties are located in the MDR District. The owner(s) of record is Linda Senter and AC Ranches, Inc.
James Lavelle, Lavelle Associates, was present for the application. He explained that when a recent survey of the property was completed, in preparation to market the property, it was discovered that a shed and garage were over the property line and on the abutter’s property. The proposed alternative to the removal of the structures was the proposed lot line adjustment, which will make the buildings conforming. He added that simple monuments have been set to define the new property line and there is no adverse affect to the abutter’s property.
S. Ranlett asked if the Board had any additional questions, there were none. He asked if there were any abutters who wished to ask a question. There was no one.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to accept the application for the lot line adjustment between 182 Main Street and 4 Old Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the lot line adjustment between 182 Main Street and 4 Old Road. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The continuation of a public hearing on a final site plan application by Hillcrest Estates, LLC who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lots 4 and 6 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 35 unit Elderly Housing Project. Access to this project will be through an extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow. The total acreage is 23.11 acres and the owner of record is Hillcrest Estates, LLC.
Philip Christiansen, Christiansen and Sergi, Nels Palm, Hillcrest Estates and Attorney John Cronin, Cronin and Bisson, PLLC, were present for the application.
P. Christiansen noted they had received and reviewed comments from CLD and there were still three (3) outstanding issues that they may need the Board to make a determination on.
P. Christiansen offered the following information regarding the plan:
- Alteration of Terrain permits have been submitted to and accepted by the State of New Hampshire
- There are discrepancies of interpretation between Mr. Christiansen and CLD regarding certain drainage features on the site related to road construction and the Board may need to intervene
- Roof drainage systems have been added to the plan where in some instances they are tied into the infiltration system and in other cases controlled flows are directed to the back yards
- Drainage calculations were explained in detail
It was noted that there was still some back and forth needed between CLD and Mr. Christiansen regarding the drainage calculations. The outcome of the State’s review of the Alteration of Terrain permit will be critical in determining who is correct in the interpretation of the drainage numbers. If the State agrees with CLD’s interpretation there may need to be significant changes made to the road design.
P. Christiansen explained the drainage details to support his interpretation of the drainage calculations.
There was a discussion of different drainage models and how they are applicable to this site and the different ways they can be interpreted. It was noted that CLD disagrees with Mr. Christiansen’s application of the drainage model.
R. Gray asked T. Moore and L. Gil if the Conservation Commission (ConCom) had a stance on the drainage model.
T. Moore said the he could not speak for another Board.
L. Gil offered that there were considerable wetlands associated with this site. He suggested a worst case scenario would be if the ground were to freeze solid and there was flooding, especially considering that this is an elderly housing project.
P. Christiansen offered that he has asked L. Komornick to set up a meeting between himself and CLD to see if there can be something worked out. He suggested it may be a non-issue once the State completes its review of their Alteration of Terrain Permit, if the State doesn’t like their application than changes will have to be made.
R. Gray suggested that the Board was obligated to strongly consider and back what their own engineer reports to them.
P. Christiansen offered that it wasn’t CLD’s purview to review the Alteration of Terrain permit itself, but more note the fact the application has been submitted.
L. Komornick noted she had informed Mr. Christiansen that CLD has the Board’s okay to review other permits, including State applications.
P. Christiansen agreed that CLD should offer opinions but he didn’t see how they could be allowed to alter what the State approved.
There was additional discussion of drainage modeling and the difference in interpretation between CLD and Mr. Christiansen.
L. Komornick noted that it was CLD’s position that Mr. Christiansen is not meeting the State’s requirements for modeling.
P. Bealo asked if modeling was an expensive process.
P. Christiansen offered there could be three to four weeks of man hours involved in the process.
S. Ranlett suggested this discussion was putting the cart before the horse since the State had not yet weighed in on the Alteration of Terrain permit.
L. Komornick asked for direction from the Board once the State’s answer is received.
P. Christiansen requested that CLD be directed to meet with him to discuss the matter once the State’s decision is received.
Other details regarding the site plan:
- Guardrail – no comment was received from the Highway Supervisor – Mr. Christiansen noted there was a drawing on the plan
- Lighting and Landscaping plan – Mr. Christiansen noted that was submitted this day
- Utility plan – Mr. Christiansen noted that he was unable to get a utility plan until he had an approved site plan, adding that the utility company will put there where they see best fit
L. Komornick noted that Mr. Christiansen would need to submit a request for a waiver of the utility plan. She added the most plans typically show where the connection will be made.
- Cistern – Fire Chief has not yet seen or commented on plan
- Communications – To be reviewed by Fire Chief
J. Cronin reiterated his concerns from a previous meeting that his client’s willingness to work with the Town on developing enhancements to the communications systems in the area is tied into site plan approval. He noted that the best option is still being explored and his client was willing to participate within certain parameters previously discussed with the Fire Chief. Mr. Cronin added that once the details were ironed out there would be a note to the plan.
The Board reviewed a letter from the Police Chief to the Town Manager on the topic of the communications enhancements.
T. Moore moved, second by L. Gil, to waive §230-14.1.DD, the requirement for a utility plan.
R. Gray asked if the plan would still reflect where the utilities would enter the site.
The motion was amended to include that a copy of the utility plan be provided as a condition of approval.
There was no further discussion on the amended motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any interested parties wishing to ask a question or make a comment.
John Picarello, 37 Hartswood Drive, Haverhill, MA, President of Hillcrest Estates Homeowner’s Association, asked if there were still no plans to connect the road for this project into their development.
P. Christiansen stated there was no plan to connect the two developments.
M. Dorman noted there is a house placed where a connection would need to be made.
There was a discussion as to what date to continue the public hearing to. It was determined to set the continuance date as December 16, so that should issues be resolved by then or the State makes a determination on the Alteration of Terrain permit the project could move forward. If the outcome of the permit application is not as Mr. Christiansen expects then a continuance will be requested at that time.
J. Cronin asked for clarification of procedures, noting that they were optimistically looking towards conditional approval. He asked how flexible the 45 day requirement for a preconstruction meeting could be in light of the State’s inordinate delay in review and approval.
L. Gil suggested how flexible the Board could be would be determined by the seriousness of the outstanding issue and when resolution of the issue could be anticipated.
R. Gray added that in the “old days’ the lists of conditional of approval were “a mile long” and it had become a bad practice and an issue to monitor when those conditions were met, so the Board was trying to limit the number of conditions of approval.
S. Ranlett stated that the public hearing was continued to December 16, 2009.
L. Komornick noted that she had been privy to the emails from the State regarding the Alteration of Terrain permit and she suspected that CLD’s position was correct.
R. Gray suggested that if CLD is to meet with this applicant it will be at the applicant’s expense.
L. Komornick noted that a meeting before the State’s decision on the Alteration of Terrain permit would not have alleviated the issue.
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Amendment to revise a plan previously approved by the Planning Board on May 8, 2008. The property is located in the CI Zone at 29 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 52 and totals 2.867 acres with 213.11 feet of frontage. The proposed retail building will be reduced in size from 14,303 square feet to 10,419 square feet. The associated parking will be reduced form 92 spaces to 74 spaces. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
Jack Soraghan, property owner, and Frank Monteiro, MHF Design, were present for the application.
F. Monteiro explained that they would like to propose an amendment to Mr. Soraghan’s portion of the previously approved site plan and not affect the Rite Aid portion of that plan. He noted there has been a legal opinion that allows either party to come back to make independent changes to their portion of the plan. He noted the following proposed changes to the plan:
- The number of tenants would be reduced from six (6) to two (2) – Casey’s Diner and Advanced Auto Parts
- There will be less need for tenant parking
- There will be less pavement and less impervious surfaces
- The drainage is being redesigned based on the lower impact to the site
- The retaining wall will be smaller
- Loading dock and dumpster areas are smaller
- The Alteration of Terrain permit is being revised at the State level
- The construction of the project is anticipated to take 6-7 months
It was noted that the plans would need to go to CLD for review of the new drainage design.
L. Gil asked how this site’s drainage calculations would be affected with the construction of Rite Aid’s building.
F. Monteiro answered that the drainage systems for each site were designed to operate independent from one another so there will be no impact. He noted that whatever is submitted for Mr. Soraghan would dovetail with the Rite Aid plan.
J. Soraghan added that Rite Aid is on board with his amending his plan. He noted that he would be installing some of the features of the Rite Aid plan such as the driveway access to Westville Road.
M. Dorman noted that he had received an application for a demolition permit to remove the residential dwelling on 29 Garden Road prior to the amended site plan being approved.
P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to allow the demolition of the residential building at 29 Garden Road prior to approval of the amended site plan. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters or interested persons wishing to ask a question or make a comment. There was no one.
S. Ranlett stated that the public hearing in this matter is continued to December 2, 2009.
Outcome of the discussion with Ron Pica on October 21st and plan for Vic Geary Center
L. Komornick reported that Ron Pica will need to seek subdivision approval to go forward with the plans for amending the site plan for 166 Plaistow Road.
Jack McSheehy showed a plan to increase the paved parking at the Vic Geary Center.
S. Ranlett suggested that traffic be kept to a one-way situation. He noted there has been an increase in membership and therefore a need to increase the parking.
There was a discussion regarding where to best locate the new parking, the travel lane and whether or not to make the traffic flow one-way.
J. McSheehy offered that he would locate the travel lane where ever the Board asked him to providing it does not encroach past the area that has been designated as their “leased area” and avoid the septic system.
M. Dorman suggested that the parking be striped at an angle to make sure that one-way traffic is maintained.
J. McSheehy noted that people exit in both directions.
S. Ranlett added that there wasn’t enough room for two-way traffic and pedestrians.
There was additional discussion of where best to locate the new parking and travel lane. It was noted that people who use this site are elderly and that should be considered in any of the changes.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the addition of parking to the Vic Geary Center with the following conditions:
- There is enough room between the septic and the “lease line” for the pavement
- Parking is striped at an angle, with flow direction arrows, for one-way traffic flow
J. McSheehy offered that he would paint the arrows but suggested it might be difficult for them to enforce.
L. Gil asked if there would be lighting on the back of the building for the new parking.
J. McSheehy offered there was already lighting there and there was also lighting provided from the SAU building next door.
S. Ranlett asked how people were going to be kept out of the area until the paving was completed.
J. McSheehy said they would be placing boulders to block the area.
S. Ranlett asked if there were any abutters or interested persons wishing to ask a question or make a comment. There was no one.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Discussion with Dan Johnson Regarding Issues at Brookside Chapel
Dan Johnson, Plaistow Consultants, was present for the discussion.
S. Ranlett noted that is was his understanding the issue was that a once gravel parking area has since been paved and was found to be in the wetlands buffer.
D. Johnson gave an overview of the history and situation on the site noting the following:
- Parking area was once gravel and has since been paved
- The parking on the southerly side of the parcel was located in the wetlands setback
- Structures, such as a deck have been added to the residential portion of the property and are not indicated on the site plan
R. Gray asked if a permit had been issued for the construction of the deck.
M. Dorman indicated that one had been. He added that the main issue is the pavement that was installed in the southwest area of the lot.
L. Komornick asked when the area was paved.
D. Johnson replied that he believed it was approximately 2000.
There was a review of the existing site with wetlands buffers drawn in by Mr. Johnson.
D. Johnson noted that the brook had changed slightly over time.
L. Komornick asked if the wetlands setback at the time the pavement was installed was 50 feet.
T. Moore responded that the buffer requirements were the same it was just that there was no 25 foot “no disturb” restriction.
L. Gil asked how much the land had been altered.
T. Moore noted there was significant paving into the wetlands buffer.
L. Gil asked if there were other areas to park on the site. It was noted there were none.
R. Gray suggested the options were to allow the situation to continue or require the paving be removed.
Suggestions were made for other areas of parking, including the relocation of a shed on the property.
R. Gray noted that this situation was in violation of their site plan.
P. Bealo added they were also in violation of zoning.
M. Dorman suggested that D. Johnson needed to seek relief in the form of a variance from the ZBA.
T. Moore agreed, noting he didn’t see another way to remedy the problem.
L. Gil asked if there was the possibility of offsite satellite parking.
D. Johnson explained that they sometimes provided overflow parking to Pollard School. He added they were always a good neighbor.
L. Gil expressed concerns over possible flooding, noting there was a lot of sediment on the side of the brook.
D. Johnson noted that there was a 6-8 foot elevation from the river.
M. Dorman added that according to the (FEMA) maps there was no flooding hazard. He suggested the bigger concern was runoff from this lot to the river and whether or not that would be a contamination hazard.
L. Komornick asked if the paving was bermed.
M. Dorman said there was once a silt sock in place.
L. Gil added that he has observed landscaping debris being dumped in that area.
D. Johnson offered that Mr. Berube has agreed to address that issue with his maintenance contractor. He asked what the Board was looking for to address this site.
M. Dorman suggested that a variance was in order to correct the zoning violation.
S. Ranlett agreed that was the initial step to be taken. He added that if the variance is not granted then the pavement has to be removed and what changes need to be made to the site plan would be moot. If it is approved then there can be the discussion about ways to mitigate the situation.
L. Gil offered that he has observed that the pavement is wet in the spring.
D. Johnson offered there were no large cracks or uneven areas of the parking and there was a good gravel base under the pavement.
Other Business - Route 125 Impact Fee – Invoice Submission for Approval
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, that payment of the invoice from Plaistow Police Department in the amount of $1,840.00, 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 5-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – Update on request by Gerald Carbone for a NHDOT Driveway Permit at 85 Plaistow Road
L. Komornick reported that since the last update regarding the location of a driveway at 85 Plaistow Road she had been notified that a driveway permit had been issued on Gerry Carbone’s property. She added that she then notified NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) of the Town’s requirement that the driveway be ten (10) feet away from the property line to provide for a buffer. L. Komornick noted that the NHDOT engineer indicated to her that the driveway permit would be revoked if it were found to not meet the Town’s requirements.
Other Business – Discussion with Plaistow Residence Regarding Potential Re-zoning of Areas in the CI District
David Avril, 179 Main Street and Karen Robinson, 15 Wildbrook Drive, were present for the discussion.
D. Avril explained that he and some concerned citizens were seeking to put on the ballot an amendment to the ordinances that would re-zone the CI District of Route 125 from Old Road north to the Kingston line. The intent of the re-zoning would not be to change it from a commercial district, but to change the allowable commercial uses and perhaps limit maximum size requirements to prevent the larger box-type stores from located in that area. He said their main concerns were to mitigate future impacts to the Main Street Corridor.
K. Robinson added they would like to see the revitalization of the existing commercial areas, such as the former Shaw’s location, encouraged before expansion north that would affect Main Street. She said they would be interested in proposing the same restrictions as are currently in place on Route 108 (Newton Road) in the ICR (Integrated Commercial Residential) District.
R. Gray suggested that without seeing what these residents would like to propose in written form it was difficult for him to say whether or not it was something he could support.
There was a discussion with Ms. Robinson and Mr. Avril about their ideas for re-zoning. The Board answered their procedural questions as to how best get their proposal posted to the Town Warrant. It was noted that the options would be to either write up the proposed wording they would like to have in an ordinance change and ask the Board to post it as part of their changes; or to file as a Citizen’s Petition, which as long as they get an adequate amount of signatures in support, would automatically be posted to the Town Warrant. There was discussion about the existing conditions on Route 125 and the acknowledgment that once the redevelopment of Route 125 is complete, making that once again the route of choice, particularly for truck traffic, then the situation on Main Street should improve.
There was discussion whether or not what the residents were proposing would be effective if Kingston were to decide to allow large box stores just over the town line. The development of towns such as Epping and Brentwood was seen as something that would be a draw and potentially impact traffic on Plaistow roadways. It was suggested that the better approach may be to petition to the State of New Hampshire, owners of Main Street, for traffic calming and control measures. It was noted that the difficulty with that approach is getting the State to agree to implement the suggested changes.
The Board also discussed the growth and changes that were being observed in other surrounding communities such as Sandown and along the Route 111 corridor, thought to be the next major area of development.
T. Moore offered to work with the residents to assist them in crafting the language of their petition.
Other Business – Other Zoning Changes
Route 125 Impact Fees
L. Komornick asked if the Board still want to consider re-instating the Route 125 Impact Fees.
T. Moore noted that other towns have general road impact fees and he was not sure how they had been developed. He reminded that all impact fees have to be growth related and based upon some nexus for assessing the impact. He suggested that if there was going to be some kind of roadway impact fee then a consultant would need to be hired to study the side and collector roads and their impact.
Wind Power
L. Komornick offered to get information form the Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) regarding crafting ordinances.
Stormwater Management
Rich Masters, Normandeau Associates, is scheduled to be at the next meeting to discuss this ordinance.
45 Days for Pre-construction Meeting Requirement
M. Dorman noted that this requirement has not been working well in a practical sense and it was his suggestion that what was called out in the RSAs (One year for vesting or the plan can be revoked) was sufficient.
P. Bealo asked what having the 45 day clock was buying the town.
M. Dorman replied nothing was gained.
Properties Located in Multiple Zoning Districts
R. Gray noted that he would like parcels located in two zoning districts to be resolved much like they have in the Commercial I and Commercial II districts.
Obnoxious Uses Ordinance
R. Gray suggested that the Obnoxious Uses Ordinance be reviewed to see if it will offer sufficient protections for the neighborhoods around the Beede site (Kelley Road) during the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) clean-up.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
