PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 17, 2010
Call to Order: 6:40 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Vice Chairman; Peter Bealo, Charles Lanza and Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray. Steve Ranlett was excused.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick.
Item Two:
Minutes for November 3, 2010
Motion made by R. Gray to approve the minutes of 11/03/10 as corrected , second by C. Lanza.
T. Moore wanted it noted in the minutes (on page 3, Item 3) that Ron Brown is not applying for a variance, but has appealed to the ZBA the Planning Board’s administrative decision that the Town has adequate Work Force Housing Stock. There was also discussion on clarifying a few questions in the minutes.
The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
Presentation on Work Force Housing Analysis for the Town of Plaistow
Peter Bealo, Vice chairman; Plaistow Planning Board, gave a slide show presentation (available upon request at the Town Planners office) on Plaistow’s Work Force Housing to the Board that included, but was not limited to, the following information:
- The History of Work Force Housing, including Plaistow’s Work Force Housing history.
- Plaistow’s existing Work Force Housing – 2008
- RPC’s requirements vs. existing Work Force Housing in Plaistow – October 2008
- Plaistow’s results – 2008
- Comparing housing in 2008 and 2010
Plaistow’s existing Work Force Housing – 2010
- 2009 – 2010 affect on Work Force Housing in Plaistow.
RPC’s requirements vs. existing Work Force Housing in Plaistow – October 2010
2010 analysis conclusion
P. Bealo noted that Work Force Housing can be a house, a condo, or a pure rental unit. He explained that they now know how many rental units are in Town and that they did not know in 2008. He added that they do not have good data on what they rent for. He stated that this is problematic as they do not know if they meet Work Force Housing affordability limits.
R. Gray asked P. Bealo if he knew the amount of money that would make Plaistow qualify.
P. Bealo responded by explaining that he did the analysis by taking any dwelling, whether single family, condo or half of a duplex, and counted it as a house. He added that apartments would be only those units that can only be rented and not bought, and that this was the split he had to use.
L. Komornick asked if there was a figure they had to use in regards to the reasonable rental cost for (Work Force Housing).
P. Bealo responded that an affordable apartment for a family of three in our (Plaistow’s) region is $1,050. / Month including utilities.
P. Bealo continued on with presentation and explained that the amount of affordable housing they came up with in 2008 was between 50% to 65% of the Town’s housing stock. He added that the reason it is a range is because the RSA does not define what the terms of an affordable mortgage are, and he used two different mortgages in 2008 (30 year, 6% down, fixed rate with both 10% and 20% down) and gave both numbers.
R. Gray stated that previous to 2008 people had zero percent down mortgages and asked if that would mess up the calculations.
P. Bealo responded yes, the mortgages would go up and that it would not be reasonable thing, but added again that the RSA does not define what a reasonable mortgage is and that he felt the two he used were reasonable mortgages people would get and not lose their homes in two or three years.
L. Komornick clarified that there is no requirement to use a zero percent down, and P. Bealo agreed saying there is no requirement to use anything.
P. Bealo continued on to say that the RSA did not define what median household income to use in their calculations, so he decided to use the Rockingham County median household income which was $72,240 / year at that time (2008).
P. Bealo stated that the RPC said that Plaistow needs 1382 (47%) affordable housing and he believes the RPC added rental units in their calculations because they are 300 units higher than he had for owner occupied dwellings. He explained that they found out this week that the Town has about 300 rental units so the numbers jive. P. Bealo also said that the RPC stated that the Town is part of the Lawrence HMFA Region where the median income is $80,667 / year and added that if he had used that number then the number of affordable houses would have gone up. He said that they should now use this income from here forward.
L. Komornick added that the Census Bureau online does not break it down into any other logical format.
T. Moore stated that for now this is the one to use.
P. Beaol continued on with the presentation.
C. Lanza inquired about the census data sheet with median incomes.
T. Moore said that part of the census data has income data, median income for a family of four, so you would get it from the state and added that the OEP does periodic updates so you can access the data from them as well.
C. Lanza asked if it was percentage of the four person household median income.
P. Bealo answered 30% of the median income can be allocated towards housing and for rentals it is 60% of median income.
R. Gray asked if rising property taxes per $K since 2008 have hurt their case because people pay taxes through their mortgage and if the Town is raising revenue it falls on the mortgage and it goes up. P. Bealo replied yes.
R. Gray asked if it was the assessed value you need to look at and not the actual tax rate.
P. Bealo responded it is part of the equation, saying that the RSA says the affordability number needs to take into account principle interest taxes and insurance.
R. Gray mentioned that the 2011 tax rate is higher than 23.95.
P. Bealo replied that it will change things, but it is a secondary affect.
P. Bealo continued on with the presentation on page 12, RPC requirements vs. Plaistow’s existing Work Force Housing, 2010.
T. Moore questioned why it was the same number for 10% or 20% down.
P. Bealo responded that the RPC just gives them a number regardless of 10% or 20%, and that number is always 1421 no matter how they define it.
L. Komornick asked what RPC used, 10% or 20% down.
P. Bealo replied that he had no idea.
R. Gray added that all they know is what the state requires them (the Town) to have.
L. Komornick stated that they needed to know and be able to explain the answer to that question. She added that the RPC spreadsheet was misleading; that it makes it look like we (the Town) do not have the number the RPC says we should have.
P. Bealo replied that the RPC just lists the absolute value in total, not above and beyond what we have, but from zero.
L. Komornick stepped out to get the RPC spreadsheet.
P. Bealo continued on with the conclusion of the presentation stating that Plaistow has no need to develop additional Work Force Housing and may not need to for another sixty years.
C. Lanza asked if they differentiate (between rentals and owned dwellings).
P. Bealo replied no, they just look at the sum total.
T. Moore noted that he feels they should recalculate the numbers every two years.
P. Bealo completed that presentation stating that he feels they are in really good shape and that in presenting this to the ZBA he would only add one more slide that stated that based on this analysis the ZBA should not grant Mr. Browns request.
There is continued discussion on what makes up the median income in the region while the Board waits for L. Komornick to return.
P. Bealo stated that he thinks the Board should vote on the methodology and conclusions.
R. Gray mentioned that their attorney should be present at the ZBA hearing and that P. Bealo should go over these calculations with him, so he is familiar with them for the pending court case.
P. Bealo agreed.
L. Komornick returned with the RPC spreadsheet and questioned why the RPC still shows a demand for them (Work Force Housing Units).
P. Bealo responded that everybody shows a demand because they start at zero, not assuming that they had any.
There was a little more discussion on the spread sheet and the calculations.
L. Komornick added that they need to know how they came up with their (RPC) calculations and that the next stop will be to show Cliff (Sinnott), and T. Moore agreed.
C. Lanza asked if RPC had reviewed the 2008.
L. Komornick said yes.
P. Bealo added that he sent the raw 2008 spread sheet to cliff and wade (RPC’s Affordable Housing expert) and they looked at it a month before they came out with their report, and they told P. Bealo they liked it and asked if they could use it in presentation to other towns. He noted that he took Plaistow’s name off to make it generic.
L. Komornick asked if it is a case of mistaken data interpretation.
P. Bealo responded that he thinks they (Mr. Brown) are just reaching.
T. Moore added that they either misinterpreted those absolute numbers as the requirement that we (the town) needed that many more, or they were not paying attention and went further down into the package and saw the calculation based on median income of $55,000 and he noted that at $55,000 the Town does not have enough.
P. Bealo discussed more how he arrived at the calculations and how Mr. Brown and his attorney may have arrived at their conclusions.
R. Gray asked if P. Bealo had gotten his assessed values from the Assessing Office.
P. Bealo responded yes, they gave him an excel spreadsheet that he then did a data sort with and put in order of assessed value and used the counting functions on excel.
L. Komornick referenced Mr. Brown’s appeal quoting, “not only is the Town’s referred to study deficient in its calculations, but the municipality’s housing stock is not sufficient to accommodate its fair share of the current and reasonably foreseeable regional need for such housing based on the RPC Regional Master Plan”. She showed R. Gray the chart and again they discuss how it can be misleading.
T. Moore stated that he will find out how the RPC arrived at those figures before they go to the ZBA.
L. Komornick added that the RPC does not care what each Town has (for fair share housing), they just say what the Town should have.
There was more speculation on how the board thought Mr. Brown arrived at his calculations.
R. Gray stated that this case will be the first challenge to this RSA.
L. Komornick questioned if Mr. Brown’s appeal belongs at the ZBA.
P. Bealo added that the RSA reads that if a town does not have sufficient units of Work force Housing and you want to put some in but they (the Town) won’t let you, you can go to the Superior Court. He noted not the ZBA, just the Superior Court.
C. Lanza stated that it is called Builders Remedy.
R. Gray clarified that Mr. Brown has gone to both (the ZBA and the Superior Court).
L. Komornick replied yes and added that it is good because if he had only gone to the ZBA and then had a problem the Court may have said that he was past the 30 days to appeal.
T. Moore added that normally when you go to the PB and you do not like their decision you can go the ZBA, then a re-hearing and then Superior Court which takes time. The people who wrote the Work Force Housing decided that because it was needed really quick, that people may skip the lengthy process and go immediately to Superior Court. He added that it doesn’t say you have to, it says you may.
L. Komornick added that it will be heard within six months.
P. Bealo stated that he feels it is an interpretation they should allow the ZBA to make.
T. Moore said that the ZBA being the receptor to an appeal or not.
R. Gray wanted to clarify that the appeal is of the Board’s decision to deny his application because it did not qualify for Work Force Housing.
L. Komornick added, we have no work Force Housing Ordinance because we meet the RSA standards.
R. Gray asked if he’s appealing the decision because the application was denied and was answered yes.
L. Komornick said that in this case there was no application denied, the Board just didn’t hear it because we have no (need for work Force Housing). She added that it is odd that they will need to decide if the PB should have heard it because we do or don’t need Work Force Housing. She mentioned that two attorneys she spoke with said that they (Mr. Brown) should go for a variance for increased density because that’s what they are trying to do based on the Ordinance. L. Komornick stated that it is really up for interpretation legally because of how the RSA is written.
R. Gray replied that the denial of his application was not for the density issue, but that he applied under Work Force Housing and we denied it because of that reason.
L. Komornick said he could have come in with an application for that reason and it would have been denied.
R. Gray added that it would have been denied because of density requirements and then he would have gone to the ZBA.
L. Komornick replied yes, but added that he specifically did this because he wanted to be appealed as Work Force Housing.
T. Moore discusses what will happen if Mr. Brown prevails in this case.
There is more discussion on how the Board handled the case.
P. Bealo noted that per a conversation with cliff, they should only keep PDF files of the analysis available upon request.
R. Gray responds that if P. Bealo has the original and someone requests a copy they have a right to get it.
L. Komornick added that she only has a PDF copy.
R. Gray stated that to his understanding they do not need to provide that (the original) if they can provide a copy of what they are looking at in the public forum.
L. Komornick agreed and it is decided that it is okay to give the PDF copy if requested as it is public information.
R. Gray motioned to accept data in the update for 2010 Plaistow Work Force Housing as presented in package before the PB dated November 15, 2010, second by P. Bealo. There is no discussion on the motion. The vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Requirements for Ron Brown’s subdivision road (Prior to paving)
L. Komornick passed out a transmittal she received today. She said she spoke with Terry Trudel, SEC and Associates, regarding what R. Brown needs to do prior to paving.
T. Moore read the requirements on the transmittal and noted that these need to be done so the road can someday be approved as a Town road.
R. Gray asked, based on his (T.Trudel) visit, if someone will be proceeding with the paving.
L. Komornick replied yes, that it is his plan to do it in December.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick if it would take more or less than two weeks to complete all the steps on the list.
L. Komornick responded no
R. Gray asked if it could be done in a day.
C. Lanza replied no.
R. Gray stated that the Board can wait until the next meeting to revisit what they will do if the work is not done on the 15th, adding that they do not need to make a decision tonight.
L. Komornick agreed.
R. Gray said they should have Mike (Dorman) keep an eye on what is happening there and report back at the next meeting. He noted that Dec 13th is the last day for the steps to be complete and that the Board meets on the 15th.
L. Komornick agreed. She added that she spoke with his attorney and told him that she had this information which she also sent by e-mail to the SEC. She said that this is standard operating procedures; normally the developer calls the office and asks for an inspection to do all this. She continued on that because this has been in limbo for so long Terry (Trudel) came in today to ask what they should do, if he could start paving and she told him no. She said he had Esquire for the engineering review.
P. Bealo asked how long it takes to get the engineer review done.
C. Lanza replied that it depends on if you’re going to do it all at once; the engineer might come out and do it all in one day.
P. Bealo stated that step one is that a PB engineer has to be there for compaction tests. He clarified that it is CLD. He asked, once they bring out CLD, how long it takes to schedule someone to come down here.
L. Komornick replied that it takes a few days notice.
There is some discussion on paving at this time of the year and the temperatures.
Public Hearing to consider the following amendments to the Town of Plaistow Zoning Ordinance:
Amend Article XVI- Storm Water- Illicit Discharge and Connection, and Article XIXA- Storm Water-Operation and Maintenance, by assimilating them into one ordinance and by adding language regarding post construction run-off.
T. Moore stated that it is not ready so it will be continued until the next meeting on December 1st.
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, Lot 12 and Tax Map 55, Lot 9, and are bounded by Crane Crossing Road and Kingston Road as shown in the crosshatched area below: (see map on agenda).
T. Moore stated that they approved this last year, but it never got copied over to the warrant. He added that they need to make sure it gets copied this year, noting that they need to approve it again but that nothing is new there.
R. Gray asked if they wanted to vote now or continue it.
L. Komornick replied that they should just post it to the warrant.
T. Moore responded that he thought they could not post them 120 days before the Town meeting.
There is some discussion about when the first hearing is and if they are too soon with the amendments. It is decided that it is the official first hearing. P. Bealo makes a motion to continue all the amendments until December 1st, second by C. Lanza. The vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Amend Article V – Establishment of Districts and district Regulations, table 220-32D “VC” – Village Center, B. 11 – by amending the language to read as follows:
11. Mixed use is permitted where:
- The owner of the property also resides full-time (Sunday through Saturday) at the property; OR
- The owner of the property is also the owner and operator of the business and is on-site at least 4 days of the weeks (Sunday through Saturday);
R. Gray asked why four days and not three days.
T. Moore responded that the idea is for the owner to be on site to visually inspect the property and make sure it is well maintained as they would if they live there. He added that four days is an arbitrary number and that they can delete that requirement entirely or make it three or five days.
C. Lanza suggested that they do an average of a month or a year or some longer duration.
L. Komornick responded that they want it to be weekly and not seasonal.
R. Gray asked what would happen when they go on vacation and they are not there for the four days of that week.
There is some discussion on the interpretation of four days of the week and what it means to the business owner. It is decided that, as the amendment has been continued until the next meeting, the Board members will think about this and discuss it later.
Item Five:
Other Business/Project Updates:
Storm Water Task Force
L. Komornick reported that they turned in the report to the EPA regarding the wet weather sampling that was required by November 1st.
T. Moore asked how many they got, 20 or 30.
L. Komornick replied that she never got the entire report, just the letter. She added that the next big push is the Storm Water Ordinance and that they are working on it with Normandeau & Associates should have it by December 1st.
T. Moore noted that at the RPC Legislators forum the Storm Water MS4 requirements came up and that there is an alliance of sea coast towns working together on the MS4 and they invited us to participate. He added that there is not any funding or grants, just a group of people residing in those towns.
L. Komornick replied that it was fine, that they are on the distribution list for the Coalition out of Manchester and they can either go or not go to their meetings, if they can get them (sea coast town alliance) to do the same it would be a good idea.
Plaistow First
T. Moore stated that they met last week and explained that there are two major subcommittees; one to look at the needs of land uses and the general needs of the Town and the other one looks at how the Town owned properties are being used. He added that the next step is to match the needs to available land and after that is completed in a report from the Plaistow First committee would be recommendations to sell certain parcels of land or purchase others etc…
L. Komornick noted that the usage sub-committee is meeting tomorrow (November 18th). She also added for the record that there are three Board members on these (Plaistow First) committees; R. Gray, C. Lanza and T. Moore.
R. Gray stated that due to the Right to Know Law, it should be posted that the three of them are meeting in a public setting, as three constitutes as most of the PB, to make decisions that the Town has voted on to look at and it should be done with 24 hours notice.
There is some discussion on whether the meeting needs to be posted or not because it is a subcommittee and the three PB members will be there. It is decided that tomorrow they will inquire about it.
R. Gray explained that Plaistow First is a subcommittee that is working for the BOS and the charter of Plaistow First did not have T. Moore as a voting member. He added that they have five members and they added Dan (Johnson). He said if T. Moore wants to be a voting member, they should go back to the PB.
L. Komornick asked who decided who would be the voting members
R. Gray replied that the BOS all picked one member and then one BOS, himself, and John is an alternate. He explained that C. Lanza was his pick for the committee as his Plaistow First representative and he spoke further explaining the committee saying that they can get more work done as subcommittees, but added that after attending the meeting today he realizes that those meetings need to be posted.
L. Komornick noted that it is information that’s open to the public so you need to let them know so they can come.
R. Gray agreed and added that it needs to be done 24 hours in advance.
L. Komornick stated that they should talk about it at the next Plaistow First meeting and that she would find out about the three of them (T. Moore, C. Lanza and R. Gray) being on one selectman committee.
R. Gray clarified that it is not that they are on the committee, but that they are all in one place and there are decisions being made in a public place.
There is more discussion on the issue of having the three Board members together making decisions and the public’s right to know. It is again stated that they need to inquire about it.
R. gray gives an example of a circumstance where they could be in violation of the right to know law.
L. Komornick stated that the difference is that when they meet on the charted selectman’s committee, that T. Moore is not even a member, they are not conducting PB business.
R. Gray replied that they could. He added that the document will somehow be incorporated into the Master Plan.
T. Moore agreed and added that when the Plaistow First issues that report and they talk about it being part of the Master Plan, it would be during a PB meeting.
P. Bealo asked who owns the Master Plan.
L. Komornick replied we do (the Planning Board).
P. Bealo responded that based on what they are doing at Plaistow First, that he agrees that they cannot all be there.
R. Gray asked what if they posted it.
P. Bealo asked if it was legitimate to have a PB meeting and exclude some of the members from being there and voting.
T. Moore summarized again what the Plaistow First committee is doing and added that once their report is complete that it would be necessary to incorporate some of those recommendations into the Master Plan.
L. Komornick added that it would then be voted on by the PB.
T. Moore explained that the Plaistow First committee is not amending the Master Plan.
P. Bealo stated that he feels that when they help to make the report and then bring it before the PB, they already have the majority vote to vote yes therefore they are acting as the PB and he does not feel that it is appropriate.
L. Komornick stated that T. Moore cannot vote on it.
T. Moore said that he will not go any more (to Plaistow First).
P. Bealo asked if T. Moore can go and work on parts that will not be brought before the PB.
R. Gray answered that that is what he is doing. He added that it should not preclude him from attending as a public citizen, but again asked if the three off them show up, not making decisions, do they need to post that.
There is more discussion regarding the right to know law and e-mails and other electronic communication. It is decided that these types of communications do constitute as meetings and should be part of the public record.
R. Gray wanted to note that Dan Johnson was added as a voting member of the Plaistow First, so there are six members plus the BOS.
L. Komornick stated that she would look into this and report back at the next meeting.
T. Moore added that there have been changes made to the Right to Know Law.
R. Gray wanted the Board members to know that they can personally be held liable for violations of this law, and wants to find out about it just to be on the safe side.
Rail Project Update
T. Moore reported that they got notice from the CMAQ committee that there is approximately 16 to 18 million dollars worth of funds available and about 21 or 22 million dollars worth of projects.
L. Komornick asked if he has met with Sean (Fitzgerald).
T. Moore answered yes, that Cliff had wondered if they would make changes to the budget and that it would be appropriate to give CMAQ a heads up, but he added that they are not.
C. Lanza asked if there was a time frame on the money if awarded it.
T. Moore replied no, that it is more like a letter of credit and that the CMAQ committee decides to let it expire or continue to keep it in reserve. He added that there are other grants that had to be obligated by sometime in 2012 but that is not true of CMAQ funds.
Draft of Letter Appealing ZBA Decision
L. Komornick said she will send it out tomorrow.
L. Komornick thanked T. Moore for bringing her a copy of the 2011 – 2012 Legislative policy Position. There was some discussion on the information in the policy regarding impact fees.
Other Business: Misc. Notices, Letters, and other correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
Danville Regional Impact Letter
L. Komornick explained she received it in the mail and she’s not sure which hearing they are being noticed about.
R. Gray answered the 200 lot subdivision.
P. Bealo replied the health facility because of mutual aid.
C. Lanza clarified that it is not 200 units of housing on this site plan, but that it is all health related and that there is a separate site plan for a commercial retail.
T. Moore asked if there was any response they needed to make.
R. Gray said that maybe they should write a letter to have minute clarified as they are not sure what it is that has a regional impact.
C. Lanza noted that the minutes state an increased demand for mutual aid.
R. Gray asked if this was just for a health facility, noting that he thinks they would challenge whether it would have regional impact.
There is more discussion on why they received the letter and why it meets regional impact. It is decided that L. Komornick will inquire about it.
L. Komornick refers to a letter received from the Governor’s Commission on Disability and Mark Marino regarding his building and some issues.
Adjournment
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
