Town of Plaistow Archive - PB Minutes 01/06/10

PB Minutes 01/06/10

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

January 06, 2010

Call to Order: 6:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Lawrence Gil (arrived 6:52 p.m.); Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio and Charles Lanza, Alternate.

Also present was Leigh Komornick, Planner.

C. Lanza was appointed as a voting member until the arrival of L. Gil.

Minutes of December 16, 2009, Planning Board Meeting

P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to approve the minutes of the December 16, 2009, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A

Continuation of a Public Hearing on a site plan application for the construction of a new 3,200 square foot building to be used as an auto body shop that will be merged with an existing 2,800 square foot multi-family residence that will be converted into accessory office and storage space for the auto body shop. The total square footage of the building will be 6,000 square feet and the property is located at 38 Westville Road, Tax Map 27, Lot 49. The total lot is 1.42 acres and has a total of 430.20 feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the CI District. The owner of record is John A. Blinn.

S. Ranlett read a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance. He stated that the hearing was continued to January 20, 2010.

The Plaistow Planning Board will hold a 2^nd Public Hearing to consider amending the Town of Plaistow Zoning Ordinances and Subdivision and Site Plan Review Regulations and a Public Hearing on a Citizen’s Petition.

Article P-10-: CITIZEN’S PETITION: Are you in favor of the adoption of amending the Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Plaistow, New Hampshire, as follows:

Amend Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-28. Establishment of Districts; Zoning Map, by adding a new district, Commercial - 3, to replace zoning for all lots presently zoned Commercial – 1 that are north of or adjacent to the intersection of Route 125 and Old Road, as shown on the map below:

West Boundary – All CI zoned parcels north of or opposite the intersection of Old Road and NH Route 125.
North Boundary – The northernmost CI zoned parcels.
East Boundary – All CI zoned parcels north of or adjacent to the intersection of Old Road and NH Route 125.
South Boundary – All C1 zoned parcels adjacent to or opposite of the intersection of Old Road and NH Route 125.

Amend Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32, District objectives and land use control, by adding a new table, Table 220-32K, as follows:

Table 220-32K

“C-3” - Commercial -3

A. Objectives and characteristics. The purpose and intent of the Commercial - 3 District is to protect Plaistow’s village center, schools and neighborhoods from the overwhelming impacts of increased traffic and congestion. Expanded traffic counts resulting from large-scale retail development in the designated Commercial - 3 area, to and from Route 125 NH via Main Street and other residential roads, will threaten the character of the community and the general public safety and quality of life of Plaistow residents.

B. Uses

Permitted Uses	Allowed by Special Exception
1. Retail business	22. Care and treatment of animals ²
2. Wholesale business	23. (Reserved)
3. Personal service business ¹	24. (Reserved)
4. Business office
5. Professional office
6. Bank
7. Restaurant
8. Funeral establishment
9. Private/service club
10. Commercial recreation
11. Motel
12. Vehicular, trailer and recreational vehicle sales and service repair
13. Church
14. Publishing
14.1 Vehicular brokerage office
14.2 Drive-through restaurant
14.3 Drive-in restaurant
14.4 Produce stand
15. Public use, limited to public safety and service
16. Accessory use
17. Storage of equipment/vehicles used to service a product
18. Essential service
19. Small industry
20. Multimodal park and ride lot
21. Theater
21.1 Nursing and convalescent homes

¹ Must comply with additional requirements in Subsection D in the definition of “business” in Section 220-2.

²See Table 220-32B, Subsection D, for additional criteria.

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 set back: 50 feet from front property line.

D. Further restrictions. Each use (permitted or allowed by special exception) must also meet the following criteria:

Maximum building size where a single building with a single business is to occupy the lot: 50,000 square feet.
Maximum building size where a single building contains multiple units: 100,000 square feet. Any one business may not exceed 50,000 square feet. Multiple buildings are permitted provided they are located in such a manner as to account for pedestrian safety as well as efficient and easy to follow vehicular traffic flows.
Other restrictions: Total vehicle trips per day shall not exceed 5,000 vehicle trips per day per lot.

Amend Table 220-32I, Minimum Dimensions for All Districts, by adding the following to the table of setbacks whose dimensions are in feet:

	Side and rear	Front
Where Commercial - 3 land abuts an industrial land use	35	50
Where Commercial - 3 land abuts a residential use	50	50
Where a Commercial - 3 land abuts any commercial use	35	50

[Intent: The purpose of this amendment is to limit the building size and traffic impacts for development in the commercial district along the northern portion of Route 125 from Old Road to the Kingston town line in order to protect the town’s character, public safety and quality of life.]

David Avril, 179 Main Street and Karen Robinson, 15 Wildbrook Drive, were present to discuss a citizen’s petition that they filed and that will appear on the Town Warrant in March.

D. Avril explained that they filed the petition that would limit the size of commercial buildings in the Commercial I District on Route 125 from Old Road, north to the Kingston town line by creating a new district called Commercial III (CIII). He explained the proposed amendment to the ordinances noting the following:

Limiting the size of the buildings (single business building would be limited to 50,000 sq. ft. and a multi-unit building would be limited to 100,000 sq. ft.) would prevent the “super” box stores that would impact and increase traffic on Main Street through the Village District
Would encourage redevelopment of now empty storefronts at the southern end of Route 125 where there is already heavy commercial development
Once the redevelopment of Route 125 is complete it will hopefully again become the preferred route of commercial travel
Limiting the allowable uses based upon the traffic counts would further limit the size of commercial buildings that could be developed in the new CIII district and also help to alleviate traffic on Main Street
Limiting the need for expansion of public services such as police and fire that could occur with an increase in the number of big box stores

K. Robinson noted that they came up with the suggested building size by comparing tax card records of existing commercial buildings and computing the average.

P. Bealo offered that this ordinance would encourage larger stores to redevelop existing sites instead of building new ones “willy nilly.”

D. Avril agreed, adding that he understood it was easier to build on an undeveloped lot but that often left an existing box vacant.

K. Robinson explained that a major reason for the ordinance was that they didn’t want to see new big box store development moving north while “ghost malls” were created to the south of Route 125.

R. Gray asked who would be responsible for enforcing traffic counts and what happens when a successful business would eventually exceed those traffic count numbers.

D. Avril replied that a developer seeking approval would be responsible for submitting traffic count information to the Board at the time of their site plan approval and show that the counts for their use will not exceed the ordinance.

S. Ranlett reiterated the question as to who would enforce when those counts were exceeded,

There was an explanation that what was to be considered for traffic counts during the site plan approval process was not the actual traffic counts but those counts that would be outlined in The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Handbook , which defines traffic count averages for specific types of businesses based upon a number of variables.

L. Komornick likened asking applicants for traffic counts to the current practice of making sure that parking and septic calculations meet the requirements based upon specific uses.

L. Gil arrived at 6:52 p.m. C. Lanza no longer a voting member.

R. Gray questioned how a CIII district would be an effective traffic mitigating tool if a big box store should open just over the town line in Kingston.

D. Avril agreed that it may affect traffic control should there be development in Kingston but conceded there wasn’t much that could be done about that.

K. Robinson added that she wasn’t sure that Kingston wouldn’t try to do the same thing as they were attempting with this amendment.

C. Lanza offered that it was a good point that we can only control what happens in Plaistow.

R. Gray added that traffic on Main Street was not going to be controlled by changing zoning on Main Street.

D. Avril replied they may not be able to control traffic on Main Street but they could affect traffic on Main Street with a zoning change to Route 125.

K. Robinson added this zoning change combined with other measures could impact traffic on Main Street.

R. Gray noted there was currently a study being done that would hopefully make recommendations for traffic calming measures for Main Street.

D. Avril offered they didn’t intend that this ordinance would completely solve the traffic on Main Street, admitting that a large box store would have an impact.

R. Gray noted that a big box store would have to produce a traffic study and perhaps even offer some type of mitigation. He said that he didn’t 100% agree with the proposed change to the zoning and felt that there were other planning tools that could be more effective, but he supported their right to have this petition on the ballot.

D. Avril questioned why the Board would not support controlled growth.

R. Gray offered that he didn’t agree there would be an increased burden to police and fire as they were already built up to cover big box stores and if it were proven that there was an additional impact that business would be responsible to contribute to support that increase.

K, Robinson noted that she didn’t see a decrease in the taxes with an increase of big boxes.

R. Gray replied that it was not Town services that were causing an increase in taxes but the school system.

D. Avril offered that it wasn’t all about taxes but it was about a quality of life.

P. Bealo noted that over time people have been wringing their hands about Route 125 and doing nothing, adding he would like to see something that would be positive for the future and hope for a good study out of Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC).

S. Ranlett agreed with R. Gray’s earlier opinion that the key is for traffic calming on Main Street. He added that the Town had recently developed the Economic Revitalization Zone (ERZ) that would offer incentives to keep development on Route 125.

T. Moore asked what other businesses on Route 125 met the 50,000 sq ft requirements.

D. Avril said that 50,000 sq ft was slightly smaller than the new Shaw’s building.

There was a discussion as to which buildings and businesses, currently located in the CI District would not be allowed in the proposed CIII District were the ordinance already in place. It was noted that in some cases the vehicle trips per day would determine whether or not a particular business would be allowed in the CIII, even if the building itself met size requirements.

D. Avril explained that they didn’t want to base the allowed uses on traffic counts alone as it was felt those could be easily manipulated, therefore the building size was included in the proposed ordinance amendment.

P. Bealo offered that he didn’t see that this proposed district would violate the spirit of the ERZ.

There was additional discussion about how the ordinance didn’t increase the allowable traffic counts even when the building size was doubled. There was additional discussion regarding whether or not there was a parcel in the proposed district that would allow for a 100,000 sq ft building. Uses such as park and ride lots and movies theaters were discussed as possible types of businesses that would not be allowed in a CIII district. It was noted that any applicant would have the option to apply for a variance.

L. Komornick reminded that there were two sides to the discussion and the property owners should be entitled to develop their properties as the current ordinance allows. She added that these property owners may not ever know that this change is proposed or should it be enacted as the system doesn’t require them to be notified. L. Komornick continued that the Board needed to weigh the rights of the property owners and responsible development of the Town before making determinations as to whether or not to recommend a change to any amendment. She offered that just as a survey conducted as part of the Master Plan update showed that the desire of the residents was that the Town maintains its rural character; this vote may be a mandate which could prompt a discussion with these property owners. L. Komornick said that she wanted to make sure that there were many variables behind the Board’s vote whether or not to recommend an amendment on the warrant.

There was continued discussion about the intent behind the proposed ordinance change and whether or not the proposed changes would bring about the desired results. It was noted that the proposed ordinance could be in conflict with the Access Management ordinance by encouraging smaller development and more curb cuts. It was suggested that the ordinance may encourage property owners with larger parcels to subdivide to get around the ordinance’s restrictions and maximize their development potential.

L. Gil offered that he didn’t know if a full build out under the proposed CIII District would be any less than that under the current CI District. He noted that the Elderly Housing Ordinance seemed like a great thing at the time it was developed and then the unforeseen happened and the maximum amounts of units were applied for nearly immediately.

P. Bealo suggested the difference in this ordinance is that it doesn’t open the Town up to more development than is currently allowed as the Elderly Housing Ordinance did.

S. Ranlett offered there were other planning restrictions, such as parking requirements and lot coverage, that could restrict use of the parcels.

There was additional discussion how the proposed ordinance would affect access management on Route 125 with the potential of more curb cuts.

S. Ranlett asked why the cut off was decided to be Old Road.

D. Avril offered it was to avoid a traffic loop coming onto Main Street.

There was additional discussion to clarify how the trips per day calculations would be used to limit uses in the proposed CIII district. It was noted that new development would have to show that they could meet parking, septic and trips per day counts to be granted site plan approval or, in the case of redevelopment, a certificate of occupancy for a new business.

S. Ranlett suggested that it could end up that there was an increase in the trips per day if a parcel was subdivided. He noted that a parcel that could have a 100,000 sq. ft. building and 5,000 trips per day might be able to be subdivided into two (2) parcels, each with 50,000 sq. ft. buildings that would each be allowed 5,000 trips per day doubling the counts while not increasing the building size.

L. Gil offered that when he looks at a proposed change he tries to look past the intent that the applicant is trying to achieve to try and figure out where the change might be taken advantage of by others.

S. Ranlett asked if it was known how many trips per day were said to be generated by a store such as a WalMart or a Home Depot.

C. Lanza, consulted an online source, and reported that it was somewhere between 6,000 to 8,000 trips per day.

There was some discussion as to whether or not to postpone the vote or whether or not to recommend the proposed amendment to the ordinance to allow for further research of some of the impacts of the proposed change. It was noted that if the vote were postponed a special meeting would be required to meet deadlines.

P. Bealo suggested he was ready to vote as there was nothing in this proposed change that was more than what is already allowed.

There was additional discussion regarding the trips per day restriction in the proposed ordinance. It was questioned if there was research on the relationship between certain stores and whether or not their draw is local or regional.

R. Gray reminded that Plaistow had a draw from Massachusetts and more and more Massachusetts people were opting to come to Plaistow to avoid Salem (NH) traffic.

D. Avril reiterated they were not trying to stop larger development on Route 125 but to encourage it at the southern end where it was already heavily commercialized and where redevelopment was needed most.

R. Gray offered that he didn’t think this proposed change was going to accomplish that goal.

D. Avril replied that it wasn’t going to make it worse either.

S. Ranlett suggested that it couldn’t be assumed that big box stores were going to make it worse either.

D. Avril responded that it thought it was easily assumed that bigger stores would mean an increase in traffic.

L. Gil offered that the best way to control traffic on Main Street would be to have control of Main Street, currently a State owned road.

There was continued discussion as to whether or not this proposed ordinance would mitigate traffic on Main Street.

L. Gil reiterated that this vote may be more of a referendum from the voters as to how they want to see development controlled, though he expressed concern that an average voter might not think about all the ramifications of the proposed change.

There was additional discussion as to where the current traffic was coming from and whether or not this proposed change would mitigate any of that. It was suggested that much of the current traffic was local and regional residents commuting to work in Massachusetts and using Main Street to gain access to Route 495.

D. Avril conceded that this proposed change would not be the cure but he offered that it would prevent the situation from getting worse with border to border sprawl.

P. Bealo moved, second by T. Moore, to recommend the citizen’s petition on the warrant.

L. Gil reiterated he didn’t see this as a cure but it could be a referendum from the voters to the leadership. He commended Mr. Avril and Ms. Robinson for their hard work and participation in the process.

There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 1-4-0 (Ranlett, Moore, Gil and Gray dissenting). The motion was defeated.

Proposed Zoning Amendments Include:

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by adding a new Article XV, Small Wind Energy Systems Ordinance, as follows:

Article XV Small Wind Energy Systems Ordinance

220-101. Purpose:

This small wind energy systems ordinance is enacted in accordance with RSA 674:62-66, and the purposes outlined in RSA 672:1-III-a. The purpose of this ordinance is to accommodate small wind energy systems in appropriate locations, while protecting the public’s health, safety and welfare. In addition, this ordinance provides a permitting process for small wind energy systems to ensure compliance with the provisions of the requirements and standards established herein.

220-102. Definitions:

Meteorological tower (met tower). Includes the tower, base plate, anchors, guy wires and hardware, anemometers (wind speed indicators), wind direction vanes, booms to hold equipment for anemometers and vanes, data loggers, instrument wiring, and any telemetry devices that are used to monitor or transmit wind speed and wind flow characteristics over a period of time for either instantaneous wind information or to characterize the wind resource at a given location. For the purpose of this ordinance, met towers shall refer only to those whose purpose are to analyze the environmental factors needed to assess the potential to install, construct or erect a small wind energy system.

Modification. Any change to the small wind energy system that materially alters the size, type or location of the small wind energy system. Like-kind replacements shall not be construed to be a modification.

Net metering. The difference between the electricity supplied to a customer over the electric distribution system and the electricity generated by the customer’s small wind energy system that is fed back into the electric distribution system over a billing period.

Power grid. The transmission system, managed by ISO New England, created to balance the supply and demand of electricity for consumers in New England.

Shadow flicker. The visible flicker effect when rotating blades of the wind generator cast shadows on the ground and nearby structures causing a repeating pattern of light and shadow.

Small wind energy system. A wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind generator, a tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, which has a rated capacity of 100 kilowatts or less and will be used primarily for onsite consumption.

System height. The vertical distance

from ground level to the tip of the

wind generator blade when it is at

its highest point.

Tower. The monopole, guyed monopole or lattice structure that supports a wind generator.

Tower height. The height above grade

of the fixed portion of the tower,

excluding the wind generator.

Wind generator. The blades and associated mechanical and electrical conversion components mounted on top of the tower whose purpose is to convert kinetic energy of the wind into rotational energy used to generate electricity.

220-103. Procedure for Review:

Building Permit: Small wind energy systems and met towers are an accessory use permitted in all zoning districts where structures of any sort are allowed. No small wind energy system shall be erected, constructed, or installed without first receiving a building permit from the building inspector. A building permit shall be required for any physical modification to an existing small wind energy system. Met towers that receive a building permit shall be permitted on a temporary basis not to exceed 3 years from the date the building permit was issued.
Application: Applications submitted to the building inspector shall contain a site plan with the following information:

Property lines and physical dimensions of the applicant’s property.
Location, dimensions, and types of existing major structures on the property.
Location of the proposed small wind energy system, foundations, guy anchors and associated equipment.
Tower foundation blueprints or drawings.
Tower blueprints or drawings.
Setback requirements as outlined in this ordinance.
The right-of-way of any public road that is contiguous with the property.
Any overhead utility lines.
Small wind energy system specifications, including manufacturer, model, rotor diameter, tower height, tower type, nameplate generation capacity.
Small wind energy systems that will be connected to the power grid shall include a copy of the application for interconnection with their electric utility provider.
Sound level analysis prepared by the wind generator manufacturer or qualified engineer.
Electrical components in sufficient detail to allow for a determination that the manner of installation conforms to the NH State Building Code.
Evidence of compliance or non-applicability with Federal Aviation Administration requirements.
List of abutters to the applicant’s property.

Abutter and Regional Notification: In accordance with RSA 674:66, the building inspector shall notify all abutters and the local governing body by certified mail upon application for a building permit to construct a small wind energy system. The public will be afforded 30 days to submit comments to the building inspector prior to the issuance of the building permit. The building inspector shall review the application for regional impacts per RSA 36:55. If the proposal is determined to have potential regional impacts, the building inspector shall follow the procedures set forth in RSA 36:57, IV.

220-104. Standards:

The building inspector shall evaluate the application for compliance with the following standards;

Setbacks: The setback shall be calculated by multiplying the minimum setback requirement number by the system height and measured from the center of the tower base to property line, public roads, or nearest point on the foundation of an occupied building.

Minimum Setback Requirements
Occupied Buildings on Participating Landowner Property	Occupied Buildings on Abutting Property	Property Lines of Abutting Property and Utility Lines	Public Roads
0	1.5	1.1	1.5

Small wind energy systems must meet all setbacks for principal structures for the zoning district in which the system is located.
Guy wires used to support the tower are exempt from the small wind energy system setback requirements.

b. Tower: The maximum tower height shall be restricted to 35 feet above the tree canopy within 300 feet of the small wind energy system. In no situation shall the tower height exceed 150 feet.

c. Sound Level: The small wind energy system shall not exceed 60 decibels using the A scale (dBA), as measured at the site property line, except during short-term events such as severe wind storms and utility outages.

d. Shadow Flicker: Small wind energy systems shall be sited in a manner that does not result in significant shadow flicker impacts. Significant shadow flicker is defined as more than 30 hours per year on abutting occupied buildings. The applicant has the burden of proving that the shadow flicker will not have significant adverse impact on neighboring or adjacent uses. Potential shadow flicker will be addressed either through siting or mitigation measures.

e. Signs: All signs including flags streamers and decorative items, both temporary and permanent, are prohibited on the small wind energy system, except for manufacturer identification or appropriate warning signs.

f. Code Compliance: The small wind energy system shall comply with all applicable sections of the New Hampshire State Building Code.

g. Aviation: The small wind energy system shall be built to comply with all applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations including but not limited to 14 C.F.R. part 77, subpart B regarding installations close to airports, and the New Hampshire Aviation regulations, including but not limited to RSA 422-b and RSA 424.

h. Visual Impacts: It is inherent that small wind energy systems may pose some visual impacts due to the tower height needed to access wind resources. The purpose of this section is to reduce the visual impacts, without restricting the owner’s access to the optimal wind resources on the property.

The applicant shall demonstrate through project site planning and proposed mitigation that the small wind energy system’s visual impacts will be minimized for surrounding neighbors and the community. This may include, but not be limited to information regarding site selection, wind generator design or appearance, buffering, and screening of ground mounted electrical and control equipment. All electrical conduits shall be underground, except when the financial costs are prohibitive.
The color of the small wind energy system shall either be the stock color from the manufacturer or painted with a non-reflective, unobtrusive color that blends in with the surrounding environment. Approved colors include but are not limited to white, off-white or gray.
A small wind energy system shall not be artificially lit unless such lighting is required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). If lighting is required, the applicant shall provide a copy of the FAA determination to establish the required markings and/or lights for the small wind energy system.

i) Approved Wind Generators: The manufacturer and model of the wind generator to be used in the proposed small wind energy system must have been approved by the California Energy Commission or the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, or a similar list approved by the state of New Hampshire, if available.

j) Utility Connection: If the proposed small wind energy system is to be connected to the power grid through net metering, it shall adhere to RSA 362-A:9.

k) Access: The tower shall be designed and installed so as not to provide step bolts or a ladder readily accessible to the public for a minimum height of 8 feet above the ground. All ground-mounted electrical and control equipment shall be labeled and secured to prevent unauthorized access.

l) Clearing: Clearing of natural vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of the small wind energy system and as otherwise prescribed by applicable laws, regulations, and ordinances.

220-105. Abandonment:

1. At such time that a small wind energy system is scheduled to be abandoned or discontinued, the applicant will notify the building inspector by certified U.S. mail of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations.

2. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the owner shall physically remove the small wind energy system within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. This period may be extended at the request of the owner and at the discretion of the building inspector. “Physically remove” shall include, but not be limited to:

a. Removal of the wind generator and tower and related above-grade structures.

b. Restoration of the location of the small wind energy system to its natural condition, except that any landscaping, grading or below-grade foundation may remain in its same condition at initiation of abandonment.

3. In the event that an applicant fails to give such notice, the system shall be considered abandoned or discontinued if the system is out-of-service for a continuous 12-month period. After the 12 months of inoperability, the building inspector may issue a Notice of Abandonment to the owner of the small wind energy system. The owner shall have the right to respond to the Notice of Abandonment within 30 days from Notice receipt date. After review of the information provided by the owner, the building inspector shall determine if the small wind energy system has been abandoned. If it is determined that the small wind energy system has not been abandoned, the building inspector shall withdraw the Notice of Abandonment and notify the owner of the withdrawal.

4. If the owner fails to respond to the Notice of Abandonment or if, after review by the building inspector, it is determined that the small wind energy system has been abandoned or discontinued, the owner of the small wind energy system shall remove the wind generator and tower at the owner’s sole expense within 3 months of receipt of the Notice of Abandonment. If the owner fails to physically remove the small wind energy system after the Notice of Abandonment procedure, the building inspector may pursue legal action to have the small wind energy system removed at the owner’s expense.

220-106. Violation:

It is unlawful for any person to construct, install, or operate a small wind energy system that is not in compliance with this ordinance. Small wind energy systems installed prior to the adoption of this ordinance are exempt from this ordinance except when modifications are proposed to the small wind energy system.

220-107. Penalties:

Any person who fails to comply with any provision of this ordinance or a building permit issued pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to enforcement and penalties as allowed by NH Revised Statutes Annotated Chapter 676:17.

[Reason for Change: To add regulations for small wind energy system proposals.]

There was a brief discussion on the technical nature of the ordinance and whether or not if was even necessary to have such an ordinance if all construction would have to follow applicable State and local building codes. There was concern that the language was too technical in nature. It was also noted that this ordinance would specifically allow for wind towers and where they can be installed.

L. Gil moved, second by P. Bealo, to post the proposed ordinance Article XV, Small Wind Energy Systems, to the Warrant. There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by adding a new Article XVI

Town of Plaistow

Illicit Discharge and Connection Stormwater Ordinance

220-~~136~~109.1. PURPOSE/INTENT.

The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Plaistow through the regulation of non-storm water discharges to the storm drainage system to the maximum extent practicable as required by federal and state law. This ordinance establishes methods for controlling the introduction of pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in order to comply with requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process. The objectives of this ordinance are:

To regulate the contribution of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) by stormwater discharges by any user

(2) To prohibit Illicit Connections and Discharges to the municipal separate storm sewer system

(3) To establish legal authority to carry out all inspection, surveillance and monitoring procedures necessary to ensure compliance with this ordinance

220-~~136~~109.2. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this ordinance, the following shall mean:

Authorized Enforcement Agency: employees or designees of the director of the municipal agency designated to enforce this ordinance.

Best Management Practices (BMPs): schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, general good house keeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater conveyance systems. BMPs also include treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage.

Clean Water Act: The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and any subsequent amendments thereto.

Construction Activity: Activities subject to NPDES Construction Permits. Currently these include construction projects resulting in land disturbance of 5 acres or more. Beginning in March 2003, NPDES Storm Water Phase II permits will be required for construction projects resulting in land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Such activities include but are not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.

Hazardous Materials: Any material, including any substance, waste, or combination thereof, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may cause, or significantly contribute to, a substantial present or potential hazard to human health, safety, property, or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.

Illegal Discharge: Any direct or indirect non-storm water discharge to the storm drain system, except as exempted in Section 7 of this ordinance.

Illicit Connections: An illicit connection is defined as either of the following:

1) Any drain or conveyance, whether on the surface or subsurface, which allows an illegal discharge to enter the storm drain system including but not limited to any conveyances which allow any non-storm water discharge including sewage, process wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm drain system and any connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks, regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or approved by an authorized enforcement agency or,

2) Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain system which has not been documented in plans, maps, or equivalent records and approved by an authorized enforcement agency.

Industrial Activity: Activities subject to NPDES Industrial Permits as defined in 40 CFR, Section 122.26 (b)(14).

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Discharge Permit: means a permit issued by EPA (or by a State under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC~1342(b)) that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States, whether the permit is applicable on an individual, group, or general area-wide basis.

Non-Storm Water Discharge: Any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed entirely of storm water.

Person: means any individual, association, organization, partnership, firm, corporation or other entity recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as the owner's agent.

Plan: A document approved at the site design phase that outlines the measures and practice used to control stormwater runoff at a site.

Pollutant: Anything which causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to: paints, varnishes, and solvents; oil and other automotive fluids; non-hazardous liquid and solid wastes and yard wastes; refuse, rubbish, garbage, litter, or other discarded or abandoned objects, ordinances, and accumulations, so that same may cause or contribute to pollution; floatables; pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers; hazardous substances and wastes; sewage, fecal coliform and pathogens; dissolved and particulate metals; animal wastes; wastes and residues that result from constructing a building or structure; and noxious or offensive matter of any kind.

Premises: Any building, lot, parcel of land, or portion of land whether improved or unimproved including adjacent sidewalks and parking strips.

Storm Drainage System: Publicly-owned facilities by which storm water is collected and/or conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, gutters, curbs, inlets, piped storm drains, pumping facilities, retention and detention basins, natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs, and other drainage structures.

Storm Water: Any surface flow, runoff, and drainage consisting entirely of water from any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation.

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: A document which describes the Best Management Practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce pollutant discharges to Stormwater, Stormwater Conveyance Systems, and/or Receiving Waters to the Maximum Extent Practicable.

Wastewater: means any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated storm water, discharged from a facility.

220-~~136~~109.3. APPLICABILITY.

This ordinance shall apply to all water entering the storm drain system generated on any developed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by an authorized enforcement agency.

220-~~136~~109.4. RESPONSIBILITY FOR ADMINISTRATION.

The Town of Plaistow shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Any powers granted or duties imposed upon the Town of Plaistow may be delegated in writing by the Town Manager to persons or entities acting in the beneficial interest of or in the employ of the agency.

220-~~136~~109.5. SEVERABILITY.

The provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of this Ordinance.

220-~~136~~109.6. ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY.

The standards set forth herein and promulgated pursuant to this ordinance are minimum standards; therefore this ordinance does not intend nor imply that compliance by any person will ensure that there will be no contamination, pollution, nor unauthorized discharge of pollutants.

220-~~136~~109.7. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS.

Prohibition of Illegal Discharges.

No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses any materials, including but not limited to pollutants or waters containing any pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards, other than storm water.

The commencement, conduct or continuance of any illegal discharge to the storm drain system is prohibited except as described as follows:

The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by this ordinance: water line flushing or other potable water sources, landscape irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows, rising ground water, ground water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated pumped ground water, foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering systems), crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensation, springs, non-commercial washing of vehicles, natural riparian habitat or wet-land flows, swimming pools (if dechlorinated - typically less than one PPM chlorine), fire fighting activities, and any other water source not containing Pollutants.
Discharges specified in writing by the Town of Plaistow as being necessary to protect public health and safety.
Dye testing is an allowable discharge, but requires a verbal notification to the Town of Plaistow prior to the time of the test.
The prohibition shall not apply to any non-storm water discharge permitted under an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and administered under the authority of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit, waiver, or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain system.

Prohibition of Illicit Connections.

The construction, use, maintenance or continued existence of illicit connections to the storm drain system is prohibited.

This prohibition expressly includes, without limitation, illicit connections made in the past, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
A person is considered to be in violation of this ordinance if the person connects a line conveying sewage to the MS4, or allows such a connection to continue.

220-~~136~~109.8. SUSPENSION OF MS4 ACCESS.

Suspension due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations

The Town of Plaistow may, without prior notice, suspend MS4 discharge access to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which presents or may present imminent and substantial danger to the environment, or to the health or welfare of persons, or to the MS4 or Waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply with a suspension order issued in an emergency, the Town of Plaistow may take such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or Waters of the United States, or to minimize danger to persons.

Suspension due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge

Any person discharging to the MS4 in violation of this ordinance may have their MS4 access terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The Town of Plaistow will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its MS4 access. The violator may petition the Town of Plaistow for a reconsideration and hearing.

A person commits an offense if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated pursuant to this Section, without the prior approval of the Town of Plaistow.

220-~~136~~109.9. INDUSTRIAL OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY DISCHARGES.

Any person subject to an industrial or construction activity NPDES storm water discharge permit shall comply with all provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with said permit may be required in a form acceptable to the Town of Plaistow prior to the allowing of discharges to the MS4.

220-~~136~~109.10. MONITORING OF DISCHARGES.

Applicability.

This section applies to all facilities that have storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, including construction activity.

Access to Facilities.
The Town of Plaistow shall be permitted to enter and inspect facilities subject to regulation under this ordinance as often as may be necessary to determine compliance with this ordinance. If a discharger has security measures in force which require proper identification and clearance before entry into its premises, the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to representatives of the Town of Plaistow.
Facility operators shall allow the Town of Plaistow ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of records that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to discharge storm water, and the performance of any additional duties as defined by state and federal law.
The Town of Plaistow shall have the right to set up on any permitted facility such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the Town of Plaistow to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facility's storm water discharge.
The Town of Plaistow has the right to require the discharger to install monitoring equipment as necessary. The facility's sampling and monitoring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition by the discharger at its own expense. All devices used to measure stormwater flow and quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy.
Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the operator at the written or oral request of the Town of Plaistow and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the operator.
Unreasonable delays in allowing the Town of Plaistow access to a permitted facility is a violation of a storm water discharge permit and of this ordinance. A person who is the operator of a facility with a NPDES permit to discharge storm water associated with industrial activity commits an offense if the person denies the Town of Plaistow reasonable access to the permitted facility for the purpose of conducting any activity authorized or required by this ordinance.
If the Town of Plaistow has been refused access to any part of the premises from which stormwater is discharged, and he/she is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as part of a routine inspection and sampling program designed to verify compliance with this ordinance or any order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety, and welfare of the community, then the Town of Plaistow may seek issuance of a search warrant from any court of competent jurisdiction.

220-~~136~~109.11. REQUIREMENT TO PREVENT, CONTROL, AND REDUCE STORMWATER POLLUTANTS BY THE USE OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

The Town of Plaistow will adopt requirements identifying Best Management Practices for any Town activity, operation, or facility which may cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of storm water, the storm drain system, or waters of the U.S. The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall provide, at their own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses through the use of these structural and non-structural BMPs. Further, any person responsible for a property or premise, which is, or may be, the source of an illicit discharge, may be required to implement, at said person's expense, additional structural and non-structural BMPs to prevent the further discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system. Compliance with all terms and conditions of a valid NPDES permit authorizing the discharge of storm water associated with industrial activity, to the extent practicable, shall be deemed compliance with the provisions of this section. These BMPs shall be part of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as necessary for compliance with requirements of the NPDES permit.

220-~~136~~109.12. WATERCOURSE PROTECTION.

Every person owning property through which a watercourse passes, or such person's lessee, shall keep and maintain that part of the watercourse within the property free of trash, debris, excessive vegetation, and other obstacles that would pollute, contaminate, or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing privately owned structures within or adjacent to a watercourse, so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use, function, or physical integrity of the watercourse.

220-~~136~~109.13. NOTIFICATION OF SPILLS.

Notwithstanding other requirements of law, as soon as any person responsible for a facility or operation, or responsible for emergency response for a facility or operation has information of any known or suspected release of materials which are resulting or may result in illegal discharges or pollutants discharging into storm water, the storm drain system, or water of the U.S. said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the discovery, containment, and cleanup of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous materials said person shall immediately notify emergency response agencies of the occurrence via emergency dispatch services. In the event of a release of non-hazardous materials, said person shall notify the Town of Plaistow in person or by phone or facsimile no later than the next business day. Notifications in person or by phone shall be confirmed by written notice addressed and mailed to the Town of Plaistow within three business days of the phone notice. If the discharge of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or industrial establishment, the owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on-site written record of the discharge and the actions taken to prevent its recurrence. Such records shall be retained for at least three years.

220-~~136~~109.14. ENFORCEMENT.

Notice of Violation.

Whenever the Town of Plaistow finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this Ordinance, the Town of Plaistow may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation:

(a) The performance of monitoring, analyses, and reporting;

(b) The elimination of illicit connections or discharges;

(d) The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property;

(e) Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs;

(f) The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs.

If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by a designated governmental agency or a contractor and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator.

220-~~136~~109.15. APPEAL OF NOTICE OF VIOLATION.

Any person receiving a Notice of Violation may appeal the determination of the Town of Plaistow. The notice of appeal must be received within 30 days from the date of the Notice of Violation. A Hearing on the appeal before the appropriate authority or his/her designee shall take place within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice of appeal. The decision of the municipal authority or their designee shall be final.

220-~~136~~109.16. ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AFTER APPEAL.

If the violation has not been corrected pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or, in the event of an appeal, within 90 days, or an interval specified by the Town of Plaistow Planning Board, of the decision of the municipal authority upholding the decision of the Town of Plaistow, then representatives of the Town of Plaistow shall enter upon the subject private property and are authorized to take any and all measures necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the property. It shall be unlawful for any person, owner, agent or person in possession of any premises to refuse to allow the government agency or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the purposes set forth above.

220-~~136~~109.17. COST OF ABATEMENT OF THE VIOLATION.

Within 30 days, or an interval specified by the Town of Plaistow Planning Board, after abatement of the violation, the owner of the property will be notified of the cost of abatement, including administrative costs. The property owner may file a written protest objecting to the amount of the assessment within 30 days. If the amount due is not paid within a timely manner as determined by the decision of the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which to file an appeal, the charges shall become a special assessment against the property and shall constitute a lien on the property for the amount of the assessment.

Any person violating any of the provisions of this article shall become liable to the Town of Plaistow by reason of such violation. The liability shall be paid in not more than 12 equal payments. Interest at the rate of 5 percent per annum shall be assessed on the balance beginning on the 31^st day following discovery of the violation.

220-~~136~~109.18. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.

It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance. If a person has violated or continues to violate the provisions of this ordinance, the Town of Plaistow may petition for a preliminary or permanent injunction restraining the person from activities which would create further violations or compelling the person to perform abatement or remediation of the violation.

220-~~136~~109.19. COMPENSATORY ACTION.

In lieu of enforcement proceedings, penalties, and remedies authorized by this Ordinance, the Town of Plaistow may impose upon a violator alternative compensatory actions, such as storm drain stenciling, attendance at compliance workshops, creek cleanup, etc.

220-~~136~~109.20. VIOLATIONS DEEMED A PUBLIC NUISANCE.

In addition to the enforcement processes and penalties provided, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance, and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense, and/or a civil action to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be taken.

220-~~136~~109.21. CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.

Any person that has violated or continues to violate this ordinance shall be liable to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law, and shall be subject to a criminal penalty of $500.00 dollars per violation per day and/or imprisonment for a period of time not to exceed 30 days.

The Town of Plaistow may recover all attorney’s fees court costs and other expenses associated with enforcement of this ordinance, including sampling and monitoring expenses.

220-~~136~~109.22. REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE.

The remedies listed in this ordinance are not exclusive of any other remedies available under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within the discretion of the Town of Plaistow to seek cumulative remedies.

[Reason for Change: To enhance our existing Stormwater Ordinance to be in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Stormwater Permit Requirements.]

T. Moore notes two (2) housekeeping changes, there is no article number noted in the proposed amendment. It has been noted to be Article XVI (underlined). The second change noted is the section numbering throughout the proposed ordinance. The sections are numbered as 136 and they should be 109, which was previously reserved. Neither of these changes were seen to be substantial enough as to require an additional public hearing.

It was noted that this proposed ordinance was crafted by Rich Masters, from Normandeau Associates, at the request of the Town. There was discussion regarding some of the potential conflicts within the ordinance, particularly with who has enforcement authority and how Best Management Practices (BMPs) are described.

R. Gray reminds the Board that the Town is under an Administrative Order from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and failure to adopt an ordinance could have an impact on that Order.

It was discussed that further review of the ordinance might be warranted and any changes could be proposed in the next Zoning Ordinance review cycle. It was also noted that there was currently an ordinance in place and this was proposed to supplement that ordinance.

P. Bealo moved, second by R. Gray, to post the proposed ordinance Article XVI, Illicit Discharge and Connection Stormwater Ordinance, to the Warrant, as amended (Noting Article number and change to section numbering). There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

There was a discussion as to how these ordinances would be posted on the warrant. It was noted that the basic information would be shown on the actual ballot and there would be a handout attached to each ballot, which would be recycled to other ballots, and contain the actual wording of the ordinance. It was thought that this would ease the voting process.

L. Gil asked if such a process had ever been challenged.

L. Komornick offered that she had checked with the Municipal Association and there seemed to be no issues with the procedure.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Home Occupation, Section 220-66, Permitted Uses, Letter B., by adding the words “caring for not more than six children not living in the home” after the word “daycare.”

It was noted that the reason for the proposed ordinance change was not included in the ordinance.

[Reason for Change: To limit the number of children allowed in a Home Occupation Day Care situation]

R. Gray moved, second by L. Gil, to post the proposed change to Article X, with the intent as described, to the Warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article XVIIA, Access Management Overlay District Section 220-55.2, General requirements, Letter A., by revising the first sentence to read as follows: “The minimum building setback shall be 50 feet from the front property line.”

[Reason for Change: To make the definition of front setback consistent throughout the zoning ordinance.]

T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to post the change to Article XVIIA to the Warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Section 220-32.,District Objectives and Land Use Controls, Table 220-32I., Minimum Dimensions for All Districts, by adding a letter A., entitled “Structure Setbacks,” and adding a paragraph B. “Pavement Setbacks,” to read as follows: “No pavement will be placed in the buffer area of commercial or industrial uses. ~~and no pavement will be placed in the setback area for residential uses.”~~

[Reason for Change: To clarify that the existing dimensions are for structure setbacks, and to specify that pavement cannot be located in the buffer area for commercial or industrial uses or setback area for residential uses.]

There was discussion that the last line of the ordinance was in conflict with another ordinance regarding residential driveway setbacks and it was decided it would be omitted. This change was not seen as substantial, which would have required an additional public hearing.

T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to post the proposed change to Article V to the Warrant as described and amended. There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article II, Definitions, Section 220-2. Definitions, by revising the definition of “Coverage” to read as follows:

“That percentage of the plot or land area covered by the principal and accessory buildings and surfaced or paved (pervious or impervious) area.”

[Reason for Change: To specify that either pervious or impervious pavement is counted toward lot coverage.]

It was noted that this proposed change was based on previous discussion regarding pervious pavement and what did or did not qualify as lot coverage.

R. Gray moved, second by T. Moore, to post the proposed amendment to Article II to the Warrant as noted. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Article P-10-: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance to amend the Plaistow Zoning Map by rezoning two lots currently located in two zones (Industrial 1 and Low Density Residential) to entirely Low Density Residential. These lots are known as Tax Map 55, Lot12 and Tax Map 55, Lot 9, and are bounded by Crane Crossing Road and Kingston Road as shown in the crosshatched area below:

[Reason for Change: To make zoning district boundaries coincident with parcel boundaries.]

T. Moore moved, second by L. Gil, to post the proposed change to the Plaistow Zoning Map, as desrcibed, to the Warrant. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Gray abstaining).

Proposed Amendments to Planning Board Subdivision Regulations Include:

Amend Article III, Procedure for Subdivision Approval, Section 235-12. Board’s procedures on plats, paragraph B, Formal consideration of applications, as follows:

B. Formal consideration of application.

(9) Preconstruction meeting

(a) Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall make arrangements with the Planning Board staff to hold a preconstruction meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to review construction sequences and inspection schedules. Typlically the applicant, Planning Board staff, Building Inspector, and the Planning Board Engineer would attend the preconstruction meeting.

(b) At the preconstruction meeting, the applicant shall submit a completed bond estimate wirksheet that must be reviewed by the Planning Board Engineer and approved by the Planning Board. The Board’s approval must take place at a regular Board meeting but does not require a public hearing or notification.

There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a specific timeline for the preconstruction meeting should be noted in the proposed change. It was decided to leave the amendment as is.

T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the proposed change to Article III, §235-12 as noted. There was no additional discusssion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Amend Article V, Plats and Data for Final Approval, Section 235-23, Construction Bonds, by rewriting letter A. Provision requiored; propose, by replacing paragraphs (1) and (2) with the following:

§235-23. Construction bonds.

Provision required; purpose.

Upon final approval of a subdivision and/or/site plan, following signature of the mylar by the Planning Board Chairman, and recording of the mylar(s) by Planning Board staff at Rockingham County Registry of Deeds (RCCD), the applicant shall make arrangements with the Planning Board staff to hold a preconstruction meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be to review construction sequences and inspection schedules. Typlically the applicant, Planning Board staff, Building Inspector, and the Planning Board Engineer would attend the preconstruction meeting.
At the preconstruction meeting, the applicant shall submit a completed bond estimate wirksheet that must be reviewed by the Planning Board Engineer and approved by the Planning Board. The Board’s approval must take place at a regular Board meeting but does not require a public hearing or notification.

R. Gray moved, second by T. Moore, to approve the proposed change to Article V, §235-23 Letter A. as noted. There was no additional discusssion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Amend Article V, Plats and Data for Final Approval, Section 235-23, Construction Bonds, by rewriting letter C. As follows:

§235-23 Construction bonds.

A construction bond estimate worksheet provided by the Town and filled out by the applicant or applicant’s contractor shall be utilized in determining the bond amount required for roadways, storma drainage systems and off-site improvements.

T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the proposed change to Article V, §235-23. Letter C. as noted. There was no additional discusssion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Various Requests for release of escrow accounts including the following:

Planet Fitness – 95A Plaistow Road

S. Ranlett read a request from Bryan Pappas of Planet Fitness for a release of escrow funds.

T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to release $1,000.00 being held in escrow funds, to Planet Fitness. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Telly Danos – 113 Plaistow Road

S. Ranlett read a request from Vlasios Danos, on behalf of Aristotlis Danos, for release of escrow funds.

T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to release $19,504.90 being held in escrow funds, to Aristotlis Danos. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Murray House – 92 Newton Road (DeClerck Gallery)

S. Ranlett read a request from Steve Murray for release of escrow funds.

R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to release $120.00 being held in escrow funds, to DeClerck gallery. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Starbucks’s – 49 Plaistow Road

S. Ranlett read a request from Jonathan Cox (Federated Realty Five, LLC) for release of escrow funds.

T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to release $404.63 being held in escrow funds, to Federated Realty Five, LLC. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Red Oak Complex 1 and 2 – 1 and 2 Red Oak Drive

S. Ranlett read a request from David Hoyt (D&H Construction) for release of escrow funds.

T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to release $1.93 being held in escrow funds, to D&H Construction. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-1 (Ranlett abstaining) U/A.

Stateline Plaza – 4 Plaistow Road

S. Ranlett read a request from Marjorie Hession (Northstar Centers) for release of escrow funds.

T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to release $387.12 being held in escrow funds, to Northstar Centers. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Other Business – Lighting on Route 125 near Sawyer’s Banquet Hall

L. Komornick noted that she had followed-up on the situation regarding placement of a light pole on Route 125 (in front of Sawyer’s Banquet Hall). The outcome was that the State of New Hampshire would move the light on the pole but would not relocate the pole. She added that she felt she had exhausted all possibilities in this matter.

Other Business – Notices

Legal Notice from City of Haverhill Ma
Legal Notice from Plaistow Zoning Board of Adjustment

There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:27 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.

Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________

________________________

Steven Ranlett, Chairman