PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 17, 2010
Call to Order: 6:39 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Tim Moore, Chairman (arrived 6:53 p.m.); Peter Bealo, Vice Chairman; Larry Gil; Charlie Lanza; and Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
Election of officers was held off until the arrival of T. Moore. In his absence P. Bealo chaired the meeting.
Minutes of February 3, 2010, Planning Board Meetings
R. Gray moved, second by L. Gil, to approve the minutes of the February 3, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1 (Bealo abstaining).
Discussion with Steven Lewis regarding Chandler Place EHC Project
Steve Lewis was present for the discussion. He offered that he was looking at purchasing the property at 26 Chandler Ave for which the Planning Board had previously approved a site plan for a 55+ housing project. Mr. Lewis explained that he has done a number of these types of projects in other towns and he is an approved HUD (Housing and Urban Development) provider. He noted that there was a long checklist of items as part of the process to obtain FHA (Federal Housing Authority) funding, including evidence of local support. Mr. Lewis said that it was not sufficient evidence that the Planning Board approved the site plan but a letter was what was needed. He said that he was not seeking a letter that stated the Board supported Steve Lewis, but one that expressed support for the concept of elderly housing.
He added that HUD did not want to put their few available dollars into communities who don’t want this type of housing.
R. Gray noted they had never been asked to submit such a letter before and he noted there were some questions. He asked if HUD support allowed them to give preference for housing to Plaistow residents.
S. Lewis answered that it was not a requirement for federal funding, adding that he did have some discretion when it came to allowing such a preference. He noted that age was a protected class and therefore there couldn’t be any discrimination based upon that, but there were reasons to move certain people to the top of any wait list.
L. Gil asked if there would be any changes proposed to the existing plan.
S. Lewis replied that in reviewing the current plan it was noted that the building, as proposed, would not meet HUD guidelines, so there would have to be some changes proposed. He noted that he believed that the changes would result in fewer units, 36 as opposed to the 40 approved. He said that one building would have 24 units and the other 12, with a community center that would have a generator, showers, washer/dryer facilities, and kitchen and it would be where residents would get their mail, which are all HUD requirements.
R. Gray asked if the units would be for purchase.
S. Lewis replied that they would all be rental.
R. Gary asked how that would effect how the units are taxed.
S. Lewis offered that although they are taxed at a 2/3 of market value rate, there are no school children to put additional burdens on that budget, so they carry themselves.
R. Gray questioned what town services will be required.
S. Lewis explained that everything on site is monitored and he, as the provider, is subject to random third-party audits. He added that every year the units are inspected and residents are interviewed. Mr. Lewis noted that there could be the need for public safety services as there would be with any new housing.
T. Moore arrived at 6:53 p.m.
There was continued discussion about whether or not there would be the need to make changes to the approved site plan and how substantial those changes might be. Members of the Board expressed reluctance about writing the requested letter, in light of the Town’s repeal of the Elderly Housing Ordinance and all the subsequent court proceedings related to that Ordinance, without consulting with counsel first.
M. Dorman suggested that if the Board was not in favor of giving Mr. Lewis a letter they should just tell him directly. He reminded that the plan was recorded six months previously and there were deadlines approaching.
C. Lanza asked if the four-year (protection from zoning ordinance changes) started at the time of approval or of the recording.
M. Dorman answered that it started at the recording date.
S. Lewis offered that the changes would be minor and would be within the approved footprint. He said that all the units would essentially be one-bedroom with the exception of a few that would have a health care provider sleeping area. Mr. Lewis noted there would be less parking need as well. He pointed to Settler’s Ridge in Atkinson as an example of the project he would like to do in Plaistow.
L. Komornick noted that she just wanted this discussion to happen so that everything would be clear to all involved.
S. Lewis stated that he hasn’t done anything as yet and he came to the Board first.
L. Gil reiterated that any letter would have to be cautiously worded because of all the issues regarding Elderly Housing in town.
S. Lewis offered that he understood all the concerns of the Board but FHA needed to know if this is going to be an uphill push or not. He added that this type of housing fulfills the need for Plaistow to offer affordable housing.
C. Lanza asked if the intent was for the project to be age restricted to 55+.
S. Lewis said that one resident would have to be 55+ and they could have a younger spouse or care taker. He added that income was verified annually.
There was a brief discussion about income restrictions for residency requirements.
There was additional discussion on the need to seek legal guidance before writing a letter of support. Members felt it would be prudent in light of all the concerns associated with elderly housing in Plaistow. R. Gray noted that he would also like to bring the matter to the Board of Selectmen for their input.
C. Lanza asked Mr. Lewis if he could provide L. Komornick with an example of letters that other towns had written for FHA projects in their towns.
S. Lewis replied that he would do that. He asked if the Board would authorize L. Komornick to write the letter once counsel had been consulted so that he wouldn’t have to come back to the Board.
M. Dorman asked if the Planning Board was going to speak to Craig Donais for advice was the Board of Selectmen also going to want to talk to Sumner Kalman and what would happen if there was a conflict in the advice given by each board’s counsel.
S. Lewis noted that for purposes of his application to FHA a letter from the Planning Board carries more weight than one from the Board of Selectmen.
The Board directed L. Komornick to get an opinion from Craig Donais and report back to the Board. The matter will be discussed at the next meeting.
Discussion with Owner of Daycare Facility on Danville Rd. re: Proposed Mixed Use
Diane Allen, 16 Danville Road, was present for the discussion. She reminded the Board the when she purchased the property she came in for site plan approval for a day care. Ms. Allen noted that she would now like to build an application off the back of the building to live in.
L. Komornick offered that the obvious issue was that she would need to get a variance for a combined use in the Commercial I (CI) district.
P. Bealo asked if there would be any other variances, such as setback, needed.
D. Allen noted the she had discussed this possibility with her engineers when she initially started this project and the septic was designed with this mixed use in mind.
R. Gray questioned how large the addition might be and how many people would be living there.
D. Allen replied that it would be 50’-60’ and it would just be herself and her husband living there.
P. Bealo suggested that Ms. Allen have a more detailed plan worked up and that Ms. Allen bring it in for M. Dorman and L. Komornick to review to make sure that no other relief will be needed.
L. Komornick added that Ms. Allen would have to bring a new site plan design back to the Planning Board if she prevailed at the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA).
L. Gil asked if the recent ordinance change regarding home day cares would affect this business.
L. Komornick replied that the ordinance change was for home occupations and this was a regular commercial business. She added that she would need to know what to put in the decision to send to the ZBA.
L. Gil asked if there was a sense of what the other uses were in the area.
M. Dorman offered that it was between 50/50 to 40/60 commercial vs. residential in the area.
L. Komornick added that there had been a recent approval for a mixed use for Kelly Ward (19 Danville Road). She added that it was important to note that Ms. Allen intends to live there and run the business.
R. Gray said that when it comes time to review the site plan it will be important to discuss whether or not the addition could ever be converted to additional business use.
M. Dorman reminded that if they wanted to do such a thing they would have to come back to the Planning Board at that time to again amend the site plan.
R. Gray noted that a combined use variance would run with the property and since the property was located in the commercial district it could be converted to all commercial again.
M. Dorman reiterated that they would still have to come before the Board.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to send Ms. Allen to the ZBA to request a variance to permit a combined residential/commercial use in the Commercial I district, which is not permitted under §220-32B. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo turned the chair over to T. Moore.
Reorganization
L. Gil nominates, second by P. Bealo, T. Moore for chairman of the Planning Board. T. Moore accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
L. Gil nominated, second by T. Moore, P. Bealo for vice chairman of the Planning Board. P. Bealo accepted the nomination. There were no other nominations and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A
T. Moore moved, second by P. Bealo, to appoint Steve Ranlett as an alternate to the Planning Board. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a final site plan application by Hillcrest Estates, LLC who proposes to combine Tax Map 58, Lots 4 and 6 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 for the construction of a 35 unit Elderly Housing Project. Access to this project will be through an extension of Hillcrest Avenue in Plaistow. The total acreage is 23.11 acres and the owner of record is Hillcrest Estates, LLC.
Phil Christiansen of Christiansen and Sergi; John Cronin of Cronin and Bisson, PC; and Nels Palm of Hillcrest Estates, LLC were present for the hearing.
L. Komornick explained that the plan had gone back and forth with CLD a number of times and has been cleared.
P. Christiansen reminded that the Board had seen this plan a number of times and noted the following:
- The outstanding issue was the State of New Hampshire Alteration of Terrain Permit (ATP), which has now been received
- There are no outstanding issues with CLD
- The issue with lighting has been resolved with a note on the plan
- The client has agreed to pay $30,000.00 for communications upgrades to resolve the issue of emergency radio coverage
L. Komornick noted that Police Chief Steve Savage had sent a letter in October about the gap in radio coverage along with alternatives to resolve it. She added that the applicant and S. Savage had worked out the details.
J. Cronin added that they had come to a meeting of the minds and Sumner Kalman would be drafting the agreement.
R. Gray noted that the Board of Selectmen would like to be included with any final decision.
P. Christiansen noted that the result of working with the State on the ATP resulted in them decreasing the number of units by one (1).
J. Cronin asked the Board to consider the possibility of extending the deadline for vesting this project in light of the current economic conditions. He said that would save them from having to come back to request an extension.
R. Gray said that he was not in favor of granting an automatic extension and he felt that it set a terrible precedent. He said that he would rather see the applicant try to get the project going and if they can’t they can request the extension.
L. Komornick reminded that the infrastructure for Little River Village, including the road binder, was installed to vest the project and not a single lot has been sold.
J. Cronin noted that his client was requesting two years to vest their project. He noted that the market was soft and his client wanted to make sure that a majority of the units would sell before investing a lot of money into the infrastructure.
R. Gray asked if the Board had the discretion to waive such a requirement and modify that window.
M. Dorman noted that it was a Planning Board regulation and therefore it could be waived.
C. Lanza asked if the project on Sweet Hill Road (the Ron Brown project) was considered waived at this time.
L. Komornick offered that was exactly the example of what they were trying to avoid; a project where development is started to beat a deadline and then sits with no activity for a long time because of financial consideration.
R. Gray said that he was sympathetic to the applicant’s request for an extension to two (2) years but once the project begins he would like to see it get up to binder as soon as possible.
M. Dorman reminded that they could not get a building permit for the first house without the road being up to binder.
R. Gray offered that there should be language in any approval that would prevent a situation such as the one on Sweet Hill Road.
J. Cronin suggested there be a note to the plan that gave them two (2) years to start the project, but once the project was officially started they would only have one (1) year to vest it.
L. Gil asked what the length of the cul-de-sac was.
P. Christiansen replied that it was 1,370 feet.
P. Christiansen showed on the plan where the house had been deleted as a result of negotiating the ATP. He added that there was no possible way to connect the cul-de-sac into Haverhill as it was blocked by a house.
T. Moore asked if it would be possible to connect to Haverhill in the future.
P. Christiansen replied not without tearing down a house. He said that they intentionally put the house there in response to the residents from Haverhill.
L. Gil offered that it would be safer to have the connection for those living both in Plaistow and in Haverhill.
T. Moore added that he would hate to have a configuration that negates all possibility.
P. Christiansen responded that for them to include the connection at this point would mean they would have to redraw the plan again and then get approval form Haverhill as well. He noted that it was a condominium driveway, not a city road, and they would need the approval of the condo association, which they were not likely to get based on the representation at all these public hearings.
T. Moore said that he would still rather see the house shifted for the future possibility should all parties come to an agreement.
N. Palm noted they would also have to relocate a septic system and which would mean a new State approval of the design.
There was additional discussion as to how the houses could be configured to allow for the potential of a future connection to Haverhill even if it is just for emergency access.
J. Cronin reminded that Board that there had been vocal opposition from the President of Fairway Oaks (Haverhill) and if they changed the plan now and allowed for a connection he felt it would leave the plan open to an appeal.
L. Komornick noted that the president of Fairway Oaks has been at all the public hearing on this matter.
J. Cronin added that they had given assurances at all these meetings that there would be no connection.
C. Lanza noted that the plan was missing a list of permits needed and the water supply was missing. He added that there should be language about the community well.
L. Komornick offered that the lot consolidation would need to be properly administered as well. She reminded that consolidating the lots has always been part of the intent of the plan but she would like the Board to make a separate and distinct vote on the consolidation for more efficient reporting to the assessing department.
L. Komornick added that CLD wanted to make sure that it was clearly noted on the plan that the utility plan was forthcoming and would be done by the utility company once the plan has been approved.
M. Dorman said that he didn’t see anything about offsite improvements to Hillcrest Ave.
P. Christiansen stated that they had agreed to make those improvements.
M. Dorman asked if that would mean bringing the road to town specifications.
P. Christiansen said that they would be bringing Hillcrest to a binder level, what ever could be done within the current right-of-way, at the same time as the road for their project and it would be top coated at the same time as that road as well. He said that whatever work could be done would be done to town specs.
L. Komornick said that she would make sure that was included in the bond estimate.
L. Komornick noted that the new road (for the project) would be built to town specs but was intended to remain a private road. She reminded that it was in the regulations that all roads would be public roads.
R. Gray added that it was important to be built to town specs in case the residents should ever decide to petition the town for it to become a public road.
R. Gray asked if the sidewalks shown on the plan would be maintained by the association.
M. Dorman reminded that the road was going to be a private road meaning that the association would be responsible for all maintenance, including the sidewalks.
John Picariello, Fairway Oaks, offered that he had been coming to these hearing for two to three years and each time was promised that there wouldn’t be a connection to Westchester Drive and the discussion earlier was of concern to him.
T. Moore noted that the house (that if moved could allow for a potential connection) was not going to be moved.
J. Picariello asked if the parcel with the tractor trailer trucks and machinery was going to be cleaned up as part of the plan.
It was noted that property was not owned by this applicant.
It was noted that this plan had been accepted as complete at a previous meeting.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the lot consolidation plan that would join Plaistow Tax Map 58, Lots 4 and 6 and Tax Map 66, Lot 3 to be considered as one lot. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
C. Lanza moved, second by R. Gray, that in addition to all waivers previously granted that a waiver of the requirement to vest the project within one (1) year and allow the applicant two (2) years to start their project. Once the project is started it must be vested within one (1) year.
R. Gray noted that he still had concerns over the treatment of the wetlands once construction commences.
M. Dorman noted that all best management practices would be in place and CLD would be involved in the inspection process.
There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza to grant a waiver on this road being a public road, but the construction of the roadway is to still be to town specifications. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to approve the site plan for a 35 lot elderly housing project to be constructed on a newly consolidated lot through an extension of Hillcrest Ave in Plaistow with the following conditions:
- A note be added to the plan indicating that the utility layout will be provided to the Building Inspector as soon as it is available
- A note be added to the plan indicating that the lighting will meet all requirements of the Town of Plaistow for being full-cut off with the exact luminaries
- There is successful execution of an agreement between the applicant and the Town of Plaistow regarding the upgrade/improvement of the portable radio communication coverage in that area prior to the plans being signed and recorded
- A note be added to the plan regarding the well permit
- A note be added to the plan indicating the intent to upgrade Hillcrest Ave to meet town specification for depth of pavement and to the maximum width allowed by the current right-of-way
- All waivers granted shall be listed on the plan
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The chairman called for a break at 8:08 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:15 p.m.
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.
Tom Burns, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc. and John Blinn were present for the application.
T. Burns reminded the Board that the application was for an 80’ X 42’ 2½ story building that would be an auto body business and would be attached to the existing building, which would be used for office and storage space. In addition he noted the following about the plan:
- Twenty-six (26) parking spaces
- 40’ paved area with drive isle
- Serviced by own well and septic
- Storm water is controlled by overland flow to a detention area, which was in conflict with a recommendation from CLD and the Board would need to resolve
T. Moore noted that according to CLD’s most recent communication there were two (2) outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. The first of which is a concern about vehicles backing around the site. CLD’s suggestion is that the building be repositioned to allow for a more circular traffic flow on the site.
T. Burns noted that the area in question was where serviced vehicles would be stored either before or after repairs and would not be an area that customers would be using. Parts delivery would be inside the building.
T. Moore offered that there seemed to be plenty of room to move around the site and he would have more concerns if the area was more public.
P. Bealo suggested that the location of the dumpster and the turn around be switched as long as the truck that emptied the dumpster could still get access. He added it didn’t look like the building needed to be moved.
L. Gil suggested that the dumpster be relocated to in front of the propane tanks.
C. Lanza asked if the propane tanks were above ground. It was confirmed that they were.
R. Gray suggested it would be a good location for the dumpster if the tanks could be slightly moved to be protected.
M. Dorman noted that the Fire Chief would require bollards be installed to protect the propane tanks no matter what is in front of them.
T. Burns explained that the second issue was with the modeling of the detention pond. He noted that the design met with the Town’s 25 year storm event and the State of New Hampshire 50 year storm event the disagreement with CLD is over a 1 inch placement of a pipe. He noted that it amounted to a difference in engineering preferences between CLD and themselves.
T. Burns explained the technical differences between their design and what CLD was looking for. He said that he felt that either design would work but that what CLD proposed would mean a larger detention pond area, which they would like to avoid. He reiterated that they met all the State’s requirements, which were more strict than the Town’s and that he felt this was all stemming from the most recent storm events that have occurred, which were infrequent events. He added no matter how good a drainage design was there was always the chance that there would be a storm where it wouldn’t work.
L. Gil asked if there would be a loss of volume if the detention pond is not maintained for siltation.
T. Burns replied that was why a maintenance plan was always designed.
R. Gray said that the applicant needed to work out the differences with CLD.
L. Komornick noted that was the problem, the engineering differences are workable and sound reasonable and right, adding that the Board needed to make a decision.
T. Burns explained that test pits had been done to find out the infiltration rates, adding that the last thing they wanted to have happen is for there to be standing water on the site.
P. Bealo offered that it was difficult to ask an applicant to do something that was above and beyond what was required.
L. Gil noted that infiltration would not work in the dead of winter when the ground is frozen.
T. Burns offered that is why it’s not customary to include major storms event that don’t typically occur in winter as part of the calculations.
There was continued discussion of the differences in the design proposed and what CLD suggested for the drainage. It was noted that the current weather (major rain storms) contribute to the scrutiny given to drainage designs. It was suggested that any detention pond would be tested with the current weather.
L. Komornick suggested that it be communicated to CLD that their review should be whether or not the plan meets the Town’s current ordinances and regulations and if they feel that those ordinances are inadequate they should make suggestions as to how they should be changed.
T. Burns explained that if he were to raise the feed pipe the one (1) inch as suggested by CLD he would have to either raise the basin, which would interfere with the overland flow or increase the area disturbed for the detention pond, neither of which he felt was necessary to do as he met all applicable requirements. He noted that CLD suggested it would only raise the pond six (6) inches, but he wasn’t sure that it wouldn’t need to be raised higher until he modeled it.
P. Bealo suggested it would be nice to have an idea about the regulations that other towns were using.
J. Blinn expressed frustration that it was being suggested that he would have to pay to have the drainage plan redesigned when it met all the Town’s regulations. He noted that this has been the design all along and the issue should have been discussed; now that he was nearing approval it would be a financial hardship and cause a delay.
There was discussion as to what would have to be changed in the drainage design to satisfy CLD.
T. Burns said that he wouldn’t know the extent of what would need to be changed until he did additional modeling. He added that they were trying to avoid disturbing more of the site than is necessary. T. Burns said that it was impossible to state whether or not the change would be minor until he did the modeling.
R. Gray offered that it was his opinion that if the applicant has met the Town’s requirements that should be sufficient. He added that if CLD feels the requirements are inadequate they should bring that point to the Board and then an ordinance or regulation change can be considered.
L. Komornick noted that this has been a running comment in the CLD reports and was not previously brought up as they were trying to resolve it so that it wouldn’t have to be.
T. Burns agreed that it had been addressed all along and it’s just been a matter of engineering judgment.
P. Bealo and C. Lanza went on record as agreeing with R. Gray that it wasn’t fair to ask the applicant to go above and beyond the requirements without a more compelling reason to do so.
T. Moore requested that the Fire Chief review the proposed site plan once more and be asked for written comment to insure that he is satisfied with the emergency access.
L. Komornick noted that she had not received comment from the Fire Chief.
T. Burns asked if a favorable approval by the Fire Chief could be listed as a condition of approval if the Board was inclined to do so.
M. Dorman said it would be important to find out if the Chief would consider the new standpipe at the Park and Ride lot sufficient to cover this site.
L. Gil noted that his primary issue with this site continues to be the line of sight. He said that he was looking at the proposed plantings in consideration of the bad curve on this road. He said that he was concerned about anything that would cause an obstruction.
R. Gray agreed noting he had brought the line of sight issue up as part of the initial review. He said that Ron Pica assured that the line of sight met town regulations.
There was discussion about the plantings and the line of sight. It was noted that this road had dangerous curves which were mainly right in front of this site.
T. Burns offered that some of the trees may be able to be relocated to improve line of sight while still meeting landscaping requirements.
P. Bealo asked what would happen if the abutter were to put up trees that would interfere with the line of sight.
L. Komornick noted that the abutting site was under a site plan as well and would have to consult the Planning Board before making changes.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters who had comments or concerns. There was no one present at the meeting.
M. Dorman noted that the existing stone wall in front of the dwelling is in the Town’s right-of-way.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to accept the proposed site plan for an auto body shop at 38 Westville Road as complete. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
There was a request to waive §235-12rr and 12ss, which is for noting the location of offsite structures on the site plan.
R. Gray noted that every plan they review seems to have the request to waive this regulation. He suggested that perhaps the Board should look at whether or not this regulation is still necessary or whether or not it is being waived to frequently.
M. Dorman noted that a lot of the information is already on another plan and therefore not considered as important to be located.
T. Moore suggested that perhaps the regulation could be changed so that structures don’t have to be located if it can be demonstrated there is nothing, such as a well, within 100 feet of the property line. A waiver could be granted for instances when it cannot be proved if necessary.
R. Gray said that he didn’t want to see waivers being routinely granted purely to save money.
T. Burns noted that most towns only required locating when a structure is within a certain number of feet to the property line.
It was noted that there were instances where it wasn’t possible to get the information from abutting properties as their owners did not want to grant permission to go on their property.
L. Komornick added that they cannot get well and septic approval without providing the State with accurate information.
R. Gray moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant the request for a waiver from §235-12rr and 12ss. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
P. Bealo moved, second by C. Lanza, to grant a request to waive §230-12H which requires a 24 foot drive isle. It was noted that the proposed drive isle is 22 feet. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
L. Gil moved, second by P. Bealo, to grant a request to waive the width of a parking space for the parking spaces dedicated to vehicle storage (§230-12H(1)). There was no discussion of the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza to approve the site plan for an auto body shop at 38 Westville Road with the following conditions:
- The article and section number for the note regarding the parking spaces be added to the plan
- The date and case number of the special exception and variance be added to the plan
- Favorable written review by the Plaistow Fire Chief
- Reconfiguration of the dumpster, parking spaces and location of the bollards be added to the plan
- Trees on the westerly portion of the driveway be relocated to increase the line of sight
It was noted that the correct size notation for the parcel should be +/-3,360 square feet.
L. Komornick asked if the Board wanted to address the status of the residents currently living in the existing building.
P. Bealo noted that was addressed as part of the ZBA decision that the residents would have to vacate prior to construction.
There was no additional discussion of the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a subdivision of Tax Map 30, Lot 55 which totals 118,963 square feet to become two lots, one totaling 54,914 square feet with 173 feet of frontage on Walton Road and the other totaling 64,049 square feet with 4.72 feet of frontage on Plaistow Road (Route 125). The owner of record is PPW Realty Trust.
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a site plan review application for additional septic on a newly subdivided parcel located at 166 Plaistow Road (Route 125) totaling 64,049 square feet with 4.72 feet of frontage on Plaistow Road (Route 125) including an existing office building totaling 16,920 square feet. In addition, the site plan includes additional parking to be located on another newly subdivided parcel totaling 54,914 square feet with 173 feet of frontage on Walton Road. The sites and building are located in the CI District. The owner of record is PPW Realty Trust.
At the written request of the applicant these matters are continued to April 7, 2010.
Other Business - Discussion Re: Email from NHDOT about replacement of a culvert under Route 121A at Kelley Brook
L. Komornick asked T. Moore if the Conservation Commission (ConCom) had reviewed the plan to replace a culvert under Route 121A at Kelley Brook.
T. Moore replied that he believed it was reviewed at their last meeting and they will be looking at it again at their March 18 meeting. He added that ConCom would be writing the response that would then be signed by either the Town Manager or the Board of Selectmen.
Other Business – 207 Main Street
L. Komornick noted that she had brought an as-built site plan for 207 Main Street for T. Moore to sign that was previously approved but had not yet been recorded.
Other Business – Replacement Sign for Baptist Church
M. Dorman showed a picture of a sign that the Baptist Church was looking to install. He noted that it would replace the three (3) signs currently out at the church. M. Dorman explained that the sign was of wood construction, as required by the ordinance, but was vinyl covered and he wanted to make sure that the Board agreed that it complied with the ordinance.
P. Bealo asked if the size conformed.
M. Dorman offered that the only issue was that it was vinyl coated.
It was the consensus of the Board that the sign met the ordinance as it was constructed of wood.
Miscellaneous correspondences, including the upcoming ZBA meeting legal notice were noted.
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 _________________________
________________________
Timothy Moore, Chairman
| 
