PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
PLAISTOW PUBLIC LIBRARY
January 5, 2009
Call to Order: 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present for the Planning Board were: Timothy E. Moore, Chairman; Steven Ranlett, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; and Neal Morin, Alternate. Barry Weymouth was absent and Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio was excused.
Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner, and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official (arrived 7:29 p.m.)
N. Morin was appointed as a voting member in place of B. Weymouth.
The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, January 5, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. at the Plaistow Library, 85 Main Street, Plaistow, NH to consider numerous amendments to the Town of Plaistow Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations. (Copies of the Full Text Are Available for Review at the Office of the Planning Board, Plaistow Town Hall - 3rd Floor, 145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH. Or contact Leigh Komornick, Town Planner, at 382-7371, Ext. 14)
T. Moored noted that there were some maps on the board in the meeting room that would be referenced to for some of the proposed changes and would appear on the Town Meeting ballot.
The Board considered the following changes to the Site Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations:
Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Subdivision Regulations as follows:
Modify Article V., Filing of Plan, by adding a new section 235-31.1, Electronic Submission of Plans, as follows:
235-31.1 Electronic Submission of Plans
1. All applicants will be required to submit an electronic copy of all sheets of a subdivision and/or site plans. Such submission may occur electronically or manually with the submission of a Compact Disc (CD). All electronic files must be submitted in Adobe PDF format, labeled with the project name and revision date and must be 5 megabytes or less. The revision date of any paper copies must match the revision date of the plans contained on the CD.
There was a brief discussion about the format that for submitting applications and the designation of "PDF" was added as the preferred Abode format.
P. Bealo moved, second by N. Morin, to adopt, as amended, the change to Article V §230-31.1. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Site Plan Review Regulations as follows:
Modify Article II, Lighting Requirements, Section 230-21., paragraphs C. and D., as follows:
ARTICLE II
Lighting Requirements
[Adopted 2-6-2002]
§ 230-21. Purpose.
These regulations are intended to reduce the problems created by improperly designed and installed outdoor lighting; eliminate problems of glare, minimize light trespass, and help reduce the energy and financial costs of outdoor lighting; limit the area that certain kinds of outdoor lighting fixtures can illuminate; require the use of high-efficiency lamps in public areas; and limit the total allowable illumination of lots located in the Town of Plaistow.
§ 230-22. Requirements.
All public and private outdoor lighting installed in the Town of Plaistow shall be in conformance with the requirements as specified below:
A. Luminaire design factors.
(1) Any luminaire with a lamp or lamps rated at a total of more than 1,800 lumens, and all flood or spot luminaires with a lamp or lamps rated at a total of more than 900 lumens, shall not emit any direct light above a horizontal plane through the lowest direct-light-emitting part of the luminaire.
(2) Any luminaire with a lamp or lamps rated at a total of more than 1,800 lumens, and all flood or spot luminaires with a lamp or lamps rated at a total of more than 900 lumens, shall be mounted at a height equal to or less than the value 3 + (D/3), where D is the distance in feet to the nearest property boundary. The maximum height of the luminaire may not exceed 25 feet.
(3) Any luminaire used to illuminate a public area such as a street or walkway will utilize an energy-efficient lamp such as a low-pressure sodium lamp, high-pressure sodium lamp or metal halide lamp. Mercury vapor lamps shall not be used due to their inefficiency and high operating costs. Luminaires used in public areas such as roadway lighting shall be designed to provide the minimum illumination recommended by IESNA in the most current edition of the "IESNA Lighting Handbook."
B. Exceptions.
(1) Any luminaire with a lamp or lamps rated at a total of 1,800 lumens or less, and all flood or spot luminaires with a lamp or lamps rated at 900 lumens or less, may be used without restriction to light distribution or mounting height, except that if any spot or flood luminaire rated 900 lumens or less is aimed, directed, or focused such as to cause direct light from the luminaire to be directed toward residential buildings on adjacent or nearby land, or to create glare perceptible to persons operating motor vehicles on public ways, the luminaire shall be redirected or its light output controlled as necessary to eliminate such conditions.
(2) Luminaires used for public roadway illumination may be installed at a maximum height of 25 feet and may be positioned at that height up to the edge of any bordering property.
(3) All temporary emergency lighting needed by the Police or Fire Departments or other emergency services, as well as all vehicular luminaires, shall be exempt from the requirements of this article.
(4) All hazard warning luminaires required by federal regulatory agencies are exempt from the requirements of this article, except that all luminaires used must be red and must be shown to be as close as possible to the federally required minimum lumen output requirement for the specific task.
(5) Luminaires used primarily for sign illumination may be mounted at any height to a maximum of 25 feet, regardless of lumen rating.
C. Temporary outdoor lighting. Any temporary outdoor lighting that conforms to the requirements of these regulations shall be allowed. Nonconforming temporary outdoor lighting may be permitted by the Planning Board after considering: the public and/or private benefits that will result from the temporary lighting; any annoyance or safety problems that may result from the use of the temporary lighting; and the duration of the temporary nonconforming lighting. The applicant shall submit a detailed description of the proposed temporary nonconforming lighting to the Planning Board, which shall consider the request at a duly called meeting. Prior notice of the meeting of the Planning Board shall be given to the applicant. and to the Plaistow Highway Safety Committee. The Planning Board shall render its decision
on the temporary lighting request within two weeks of the date of the meeting. A failure by the Planning Board to act on a request within the time allowed shall constitute an approval of the request.
D. Authorization for installation of public area and roadway lighting.
(1) Installation of any new public area and roadway lighting fixtures, other than for traffic control, shall be specifically approved by the Plaistow Planning Board and Highway Safety Committee. Board of Selectmen
(2) All requests for new public area and roadway lighting fixtures shall be made in writing to the Plaistow Planning Board. Board of Selectmen
(3) Before any proposal for new public roadway lighting luminaires shall be decided by the Planning Board, the Highway Safety Committee shall hold a public hearing to describe the proposal and to provide an opportunity for public comment. Notice of the hearing shall be printed in a newspaper of general circulation not less than one week prior to the date of the hearing and shall be posted for a period of at least one week before the meeting.
There was a discussion regarding the intent of this change, which was noted to remove references to the Highway Safety Committee as having a required role in plan review. It was also noted that since the Board of Selectmen were the public body that would review and approve public lighting and therefore other references to the Planning Board reviewing such lighting were changed.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to adopt, as amended, the changes to Article II §230-21. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
The Board considered the following proposed changes to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinances:
NOTE: Changes made at this meeting are shown as follows:
Additions are in bold italics
Deletions are in bold strikethrough
Z-09-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Establishing Districts and District Regulations, by splitting the current Industrial zone into 2 zones Industrial I, and Industrial II as described below:
The Industrial II zone shall be bounded to the east by Rt. 125, to the north by the Plaistow/Kingston state line, to the south by Old County Rd, and to the west by the current Industrial zone boundary. Any proposed use must not violate 220-5., Prohibited Uses.
The Industrial I zone shall be all of the remaining parcels in the current Industrial zone. Please refer to the proposed revised zoning map for further details.
In order to accomplish the splitting of the Industrial zone, the following changes must also be made:
1. Modify section 220-28., Establishment of districts; Zoning Map, paragraph by modifying the zone described as "IND - Industrial" to "IND I - Industrial I" and add a new line immediately below the IND line as follows: "IND II - Industrial II".
2. Modify Table 220-32A to rename the zone from "'IND' - Industrial "to "'IND1' - Industrial I".
3. Add the following text to the end of Table 220-32A, paragraph A: "One of the major characteristics of this zone is its proximity to the rail line which carries both freight and passenger service and should favor those industries that are able to take advantage of the rail connection. The zone is also surrounded by residential uses and in general does not have good access to a major thoroughfare such as Rt. 125. These areas are extremely traffic sensitive and noise and dust issues will be of paramount importance. Any proposed use must not violate 220-5., Prohibited Uses.
4. Add a new permitted use as follows: "16. Rail services and rail stations"
5. Remove the following uses: "10 - Aviation use" and "14 - Bank".
6. Add a new table, Table 220-32K, "'INDII' - Industrial II" as follows:
Table 330-32K
"(INDII)" - Industrial II
A. Objectives and characteristics. The purpose of this district is to provide locations for the establishment of plants to improve employment opportunities and broaden the tax base in the community. These areas should be selected so that they will not adversely affect developed residential areas, will have good access to transportation facilities, and will have the potential for being served by public water and sewer systems. A variety of types of manufacturing activities, distribution facilities, and offices should be permitted as well as certain support facilities, especially of a commercial nature.
B. Uses
Permitted Uses Allow by special exception
1. Light industry 1. None
2. Warehouse
3. Recycling facility (construction debris, household waste, and trash facilities are expressly
prohibited)
4. Outdoor storage
5. Contractor's yard
6. Publishing
7. Research and testing labs
8. Office
9. Essential service
10. Aviation use
11. Public use limited to public safety, service, and recreation
12. Accessory use
13. Mini-storage
14. Bank
15. Bank kiosk
C. Areas and dimensions.
(1) Minimum lot size:
(a) Area 80,000 square feet.
(b) Frontage: 150 feet.
(2) Minimum yard dimensions: Refer to Table 220-32I.
(3) Maximum lot coverage: 75%
(4) Maximum height: 45 feet or three stories whichever is less.
(5) Minimum building setback: 50 feet from the front property line.
D. No certificate of occupancy for any bank or bank kiosk use may be granted before at least one certificate of occupancy has been issued for an industrial use.
E. In an industrial development, no more than 10% of the total building footprint for the development can be used for bank or bank kiosk uses.
F. The intent of allowing a bank or bank kiosk in an industrial zone is to provide a convenient service for the employees of the industries in an industrial zone.
Reason For Change: The purpose of this modification is to split the current industrial zone into two (2) different zones so that the unique attributes of both zones can be better matched to permitted uses. Recycling facility is being added as an allowed use in the Industrial II Zone, and Rail Services and Station is being added as an allowed use in the Industrial I Zone.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change to Article V, which would split the Industrial District into two separate Industrial District INDI and INDII. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Definitions, by replacing the current definition of "Industry (Light)" with the following and by adding a new definition for "Industry (Heavy)":
"Industry" (Light): Enterprises using processed or previously manufactured materials engaged in the processing, manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, treatment, or fabrication of materials and products. Light industry is capable of operation in such a manner as to eliminate, to the border of the property, the external effects of the manufacturing process, such as smoke, noise, soot, dirt, vibration, odor, harmful wastes, etc. Traffic impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods must be minimal. A machine shop is included in this category. Also included is the manufacturing of apparel, electrical appliances, electronic equipment, camera and photographic equipment, ceramic products, cosmetics and toiletries, business machines, fish tanks and supplies, food, paper products (but not the manufacture of paper from
pulpwood), musical instruments, medical appliances, tools or hardware, plastic products (but not the processing of raw materials), pharmaceuticals or optical goods, bicycles, and any other product oof a similar nature. Warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution of the finished products produced at the site is allowed as an ancillary use. "Light industrial" shall not include uses such as mining and extracting industries, petrochemical industries, rubber refining, primary metal, concrete, cement or asphalt manufacture or related industries. Light Industrial uses not contained in the above definition must be judged to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods prior to being allowed, not causing any reduction in citizens' standard of living and are determined by the Planning Board not to be a violation of in §220-5, prohibited uses." Any industrial use that doesn't meet the definition of light industry will be considered heavy
industry.
"Industry" (Heavy): All uses not defined as light industry or judged by the Planning Board to cause a reduction in citizens' standard of living.
Reason for Change: To further refine the definition of light industry and to provide a new definition of heavy industry.
Attorney Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell, PA, representing Testa Corp, 144 Main Street, offered that he was seeking clarification in some of the verbiage in the proposed ordinance change. He questioned the portion that reads: "processed or previously manufactured materials engaged in the processing," asking if a business such as a milk processing operation or a brewery would qualify under this definition.
T. Moore offered that he didn't see why such businesses wouldn't be allowed provided they met all other aspects of the definition.
B. Campbell asked if Process Engineering, the prior use at the Testa site, were to come before the Board under this new definition, as is it were a new business, would they be allowed to operate.
T. Moore responded that in the sense that they took metal and manufactured tanks from it they would most likely qualify, the concern would be over the volume and the traffic. He added that the same would be true of the milk processing and the volume of trucks entering and leaving the site would be a concern as well as impact to the neighborhood with reference to noise, odor and such. T. Moore offered that a lot of types of operations would be allowable on a small scale and not so many on a larger scale.
P. Bealo offered that he saw Green Machine (a previously approved business at 144 Main Street (Testa site) as a smaller version of Process Engineering.
B. Campbell asked if there were any restrictions on the hours of operation or number of shifts.
T. Moore offered the hours and shifts would also be determined by the type of business and what kind of traffic and neighborhood impact there would be.
B. Campbell suggested that requiring a business to "eliminate" all external effects of their business was unreasonable if not impossible. He cited examples such as a bakery, where there would be the odor of baking bread, which most likely would not be offensive to most people compared to a paint booth or a ceramics business, that met all applicable standards, but may still have an odor that some would not like. He questioned how literally the Board was seeking to interpret that portion of the proposed ordinance.
B. Campbell also questioned the phrase "citizen's standard of living" noting that he had never seen it in any other ordinance and that it seemed to be to subjective. He inquired what the recourse would be if the Board determined that something about a proposed use adversely affected a "citizen's standard of living" and whether such a determination would be challenged as an Appeal of the Administrative Decision of the Board of is a variance would need to be sought.
T. Moore responded that either option would be available to the applicant.
B. Campbell asked who would be the judge of when something affected a "citizen's standard of living," the Building Inspector or the Planning Board.
S. Ranlett offered that, knowing M. Dorman, he expected that he would defer that decision to this Board.
B. Campbell asked what happened in the case when there was an applicant with a permitted use, say a blender manufacturer, and some of the Board members felt it would reduce the standard of living, and whether or not that would be grounds for a plan to be voted down.
P. Bealo noted that per the proposed ordinance being a permitted use wasn't the only criteria to be met, traffic impact had to be at a minimum.
L. Komornick added that they also had to work to eliminate external effects of their business.
B. Campbell asked the Board to focus only on the proposed permitted uses, using his blender manufacturer example, without going into other realms of the site plan approval process. He suggested that the entire amendment be withdrawn and the Board consider further work-shopping with regard to language such words as "eliminate" and "citizen's standard of living" that make enforcement standards an issue.
T. Moore offered that he felt replacing the word "eliminate" with "minimize" in the proposed ordinance seemed a reasonable thing to do.
P. Bealo questioned whether or not it needed to be clear to what point external effects needed to be minimized.
There was a discussion regarding how to best address the issue of determining when the external effects of a business are affecting the quality of life of the abutting residents. It was noted that different levels of noise and odors may be more tolerable at different times of the day. It was decided that the wording would be amended to read "eliminate to the property border."
There was further discussion that there was no standardization in what a "citizen's standard of living" meant and there would be issues in determining enforceability. It was also noted that many of the issues that would affect one's standard of living would be addressed as part of the site plan review process.
N. Morin asked if the intent of the proposed wording of the ordinance was to insure economical security or quality of life.
L. Komornick replied that it was to insure that what they have now is not disturbed.
S. Ranlett suggested that the words "citizen's standard of living be replaced with "quality of life."
T. Moore offered that the wording be changed to read "being determined to be an obnoxious use as defined in §220-5, prohibited uses."
S. Ranlett moved, second by N. Morin, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change to Article II, replacing the current definition of Light Industry and adding a definition of Industry, Heavy. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09- : Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Signs, as follows:
Delete §220-58 (2) (a) & (b) Requiring Permits For Real Estate Signs
§ 220-58. All districts.
A. Signs may be erected for the following purposes:
(1) Nameplates and identification signs.
(2) Property sale or rental signs.
(a) Real estate signs shall pay a one-time fee of as set forth in the Planning Board Fee Schedule. [Amended 3-14-2006 ATM by Art. P-14; 3-11-2008 ATM by Art. P-08-42]
(b) Sign shall indicate the street address and unit number and must be displayed in front of the unit.
Reason for Change: To eliminate the requirement for Real Estate Signs to have a permit.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change Article IX, §220-58(2)(a) & (b). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09- : Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Signs, as follows:
Add a New Section §220-61 (1) (a) To Permit One (1) Real Estate Sign Without a Permit In Front Of a Property Only
§ 220-61. Prohibited signs.
A. The following types of signs are expressly prohibited in all districts unless otherwise provided for in this article:
(1) Off-site signs.
(a) Exemption: One (1) real estate sign may be placed in front of a parcel or unit for sale, lease or rent without a permit.
Reason for Change: To allow Real Estate Signs without a permit.
P. Bealo moved, second by S. Ranlett, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change Article IX, §220-61(1)(a). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09- : Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Signs, as follows:
Add Two (2) New Sections §220-62 G. And H. To Article IX (Temporary Signs)
G. If a business is issued two (2) consecutive notices of violation for the display of a temporary sign without a permit then no temporary sign permit shall be issued to that business for a period of six (6) months
H. If a business has been suspended from obtaining a temporary sign permit, and a temporary sign is still displayed then a fine of $50.00 per sign/per day may be assessed by the Code Enforcement Officer.
Reason for Change: To address those businesses that continued to display temporary signs without permits after multiple notices of violation.
S. Ranlett moved, second by N. Morin, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change Article IX, §220-62 G. & H. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09- : Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Signs, as follows:
Add a new section §220-59 B (4) (Freestanding Commercial/Industrial Signs
§ 220-59. Commercial I and Industrial Districts.
B. Freestanding signs.
(4) The Building Inspector may grant a permit for a single sign for a single business provided the sign is in keeping with the intent expressed in this article and provided its dimensions are no more than 50 square feet, if 20 square feet of that freestanding sign is permanently dedicated as a manual reader board.
Reason for Change: To allow a single business on its own single lot to have a larger freestanding sign if a portion of that sign is a reader board.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change Article IX, §220-59B(4). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article IX, Signs, by modifying Section 220-58, paragraph B, Exempted signs, as follows:
Add the following text to paragraph B, Exempted signs, "Exempted signs do not count in sign totals and hence do not need a permit"
Add the following new exemptions:
(2). Signs no larger than three (3) feet by five (5) feet with one (1) of the following words, "Open", "Closed", or "Welcome". Only one (1) of these signs may be displayed at the same time to qualify for the exemption.
(3). Help Wanted signs
(4). Political signs
Reason for Change: To help clarify what is considered an exempt sign by this ordinance.
S. Ranlett moved, second by N. Morin, to post to the Town Meeting Warrant, the change Article IX, §220-58 B. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The chairman called for a break at 7:29 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 7:35.
M. Dorman joined the meeting after the break.
Z-09-: CITIZEN'S PETITION: "Are you in favor of the adoption of amendment Z-09- to the existing Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Plaistow, New Hampshire, as follows:
Amend the official Zoning Map to designate the following property as lying within the Commercial I District:
a) All of Tax Map 29, Lot 25;
b) All of Tax Map 29, Lot 26;
c) All of Tax Map 29, Lot 27;
d) All of the approximately 40 foot parcel of land that is shown on Tax Map 29 as lying between Lots 26 and 27.
Reason for Change: As requested by petitioners to allow land to be used commercially. Wal-Mart has expressed an interest in the development of these parcels along with parcel shown as Tax Map 30, Lot 72.
Attorney Peter Imse and Melissa Hanlon, Sulloway & Hollis, PLLC and Scott Walker, Premier Properties, were present representing Wal-Mart.
It should be noted there was a map on the board that showed all the parcels in question.
T. Moore informed that a Citizen's Petition with 31 signatures had been received and that the Town Clerk had verified 29 of the signers as registered voters in Plaistow. A valid Citizen's Petition requires 25 registered voter signatures and this matter will appear on the Warrant at Town Meeting. T. Moore explained that the purpose of this public hearing was to determine whether or not the Planning Board be on the record as recommending the petition.
S. Ranlett asked if the owners of all three residential parcels were still onboard with the proposal.
S. Walker answered that the Fram property was not yet under contract but that he had no issue with the petition going forward.
P. Bealo suggested that the Board should not move forward to recommend this without concrete evidence that the owners are in agreement with this action.
P. Imse offered that two (2) of the parcels (Reed and Gilsum) were under purchase and sales agreements and they were still negotiating with the third parcel owner (Fram).
M. Hanlon added that owners of the Reed and Gilsum had both signed the petition.
S. Walker stated that he wasn't sure that Mr. Fram was a registered voter which would make him ineligible to sign the petition.
P. Imse reminded they were not seeking approval of a Wal-Mart at this time they were only seeking the rezoning of these residential parcels. He added that they were aware that any development would still have to go through the full site plan review and approval process. Mr. Imse noted there was a forty (40) foot wide strip of land between the Reed and Gilsum properties, the ownership of which is in dispute, so the property was included as part of the petition.
P. Imse explained that the reason they were requesting this rezoning was because the size and shape of the Sanborn parcel was not sufficient for Wal-Mart's needs. He added that these residential lots were sandwiched in the midst of the commercial district, being surrounded on all sides, including across the street, so from a planning perspective it made sense to rezone these parcels whether or not Wal-Mart submitted a project. Mr. Imse noted that he has had conversations with some town officials and that he, and Wal-Mart, understood the concerns about the area and the impact such a project could have on the community, offering assurances that Wal-Mart does all the appropriate studies and works with the community to mitigate any impact. Mr. Imse offered that he had some preliminary discussions with NHDOT (New Hampshire
Department of Transportation) regarding their plans for this section of Route 125, which is tentatively scheduled for redevelopment in 2010, and how this potential project could mesh with that one. He added that Wal-Mart is already in town and has a proven track record of being a good neighbor, which they wanted to continue to do while staying in town.
L. Komornick noted that she had attended the meeting with the NHDOT and NHDOT officials expressed that they were happy that Wal-Mart was bringing the discussion to them from the outset so that they could tie the potential project into their timeline. She added that they suggested they would be looking for analysis of impact to the area going as far south as North Ave.
P. Imse offered that he had read something that stated the Town would be splitting the costs of such a study with RPC (Rockingham Planning Commission).
L. Komornick responded that was before there was a $350,000 cut in the 2009 budget.
There was discussion regarding whether or not Wal-Mart would be willing to fund the Main Street corridor study. Mr. Imse indicated that since Wal-Mart did not know whether or not this project will be able to go forward at this time there were no plans to fund the study.
N. Morin asked if the study would go farther north on Main Street than Route 125.
L. Komornick replied that it was suggested that the study go as far as Danville Road.
P. Bealo suggested that the rezoning of these parcels from residential to commercial would hasten the development of the commercial district and that he didn't think that the town itself was prepared at this time to handle that increase.
S. Ranlett offered that when he looks at other Wal-Marts in other communities he sees the infra-structure improvements that they do as part of their projects. He added that voting for the rezoning does not give Wal-Mart carte blanche approval in Plaistow and that they still had a long road ahead of them. He added that these residential properties were a "green thumb" (referring to the color the parcels were on the posted map) in the commercial district.
T. Moore stated that he had mixed feelings about the rezoning, noting that since these lots were completely surrounded by commercial property that they were not ideal residential lots. He agreed that everyone had concerns about traffic on Main Street but that any business was going to have impact on Main Street. T. Moore added that if these lots were even a little farther up Route 125 they wouldn't even be having this discussion. He added that Wal-Mart would also have the opportunity to apply for variances if they didn't request this action. T. Moore offered from a pure planning perspective rezoning the parcels makes sense. He added that it was a topic worthy of debate and there would be input from the town at Town Meeting.
P. Bealo asked if the record of the actual vote could be shown in the comments portion on the voter's ballot.
T. Moore replied that he didn't see any reason why it could not.
P. Bealo suggested it would help to show that there was some ambiguity among the board members.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-2-0 (Bealo and Morin dissenting).
P. Imse offered that it was his understanding that a tie vote did not go in favor of the motion.
There was discussion regarding whether or not a tie vote would pass a motion. L. Komornick was directed to seek a legal opinion regarding the tie vote.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Z-09-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment to the "Town of Plaistow March, 2007 Zoning Map" to rezone a parcel located off of Duston Avenue in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to CII, including the Village Center Overlay District as depicted in a diagram.
Reason for Change: As requested by property owner. Property owner unaware of original rezoning enacted by the Planning Board in 2007.
T. Moore reminded that the owner of this property was unaware of the zoning change this board had done previously to align the zoning district with the property lines in the CI and CII districts, which affected his ability to use his property in the manner he had intended when he purchased it.
The Board reviewed the zoning map that depicted the area around the subject property. It was noted that the structure on the lot had been completely in the CII district prior to the rezoning.
S. Ranlett moved, second by P. Bealo to post to the Town Warrant the change to the Plaistow Tax Map that would rezone a parcel off Duston Ave from MDR to CII. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Other Business
L. Komornick noted that the Zoning Board of Adjustment would be reconsidering the matter of the Board of Selectmen's appeal of the Planning Board's decision in the elderly housing cap determination. The meeting is on Thursday, January 8.
M. Dorman noted that the Haverhill Chamber of Commerce was opening a satellite office in Plaistow and would be hosting an open house and ribbon cutting on January 8.
There was no additional business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
