PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 03, 2010
Call to Order: 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Peter Bealo; Larry Gil (arrived shortly after roll call however, time of arrival was not noted for the record on the recording); Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio and Charles Lanza, Alternate.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official.
C. Lanza was appointed as a voting member until the arrival of L. Gil.
Minutes of January 06 and January 20, 2010
Voting for the approval of the minutes was postponed to the meeting of February 17.
Discussion with Eric Emery Regarding 103 and 105 Plaistow Road
Eric Emery, Hutton Company, was present for the discussion. He noted they were trying to get a feeling for whether or not the Board would be amenable to the concept of a retail development at 105 Plaistow Road. He noted that because it would be a retail use they would not be able to meet the sideline set back from the adjacent property. Mr. Emery said that he understood that a setback issue would be for the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) to decide, but he wanted to get feedback from the Board on the general concept before proceeding to the ZBA. He noted that many of the structures in the area were not compliant with set back requirements and they would be seeking a variance to within twenty (20) feet in two places. Mr. Emery added they would be able to comply with all other zoning.
T. Moore asked what kind of retail uses were previously on the property.
Rob Waters, property owner of 103 and 105 Plaistow Road, noted that he operated a used car business at 103 Plaistow Road.
M. Dorman noted that there used to be an appliance business at this location. He added that he thought there would only be a waiver needed, not a variance.
S. Ranlett asked if the car dealer (103 Plaistow Road) would be remaining.
M. Dorman explained that 103 and 105 Plaistow Road were two separate parcels and the used car dealer had been operating from both parcels in the past.
R. Waters offered that his long range plan was to no longer have a car dealership at either property but to develop the entire property for retail use. He noted that once 105 was developed, similar to the appearance of Town Fair Tire, it would make the property at 103 Plaistow Road and eventually 99 Plaistow Road (the next adjacent property also owned by Mr. Waters) more marketable for retail development. Mr. Waters noted that he has been in discussions with a couple of doctors about the possibility of redeveloping the parcel for medical offices at 99 Plaistow Road.
L. Komornick offered that there is a single site plan that shows parking for the used car business on both parcels right now.
R. Waters noted that he did not have an all-inclusive plan for the three (3) parcels. He said that he did have a plan that showed parking on 105 Plaistow.
M. Dorman offered that a new site plan would have to be done for 103 Plaistow Road in conjunction with the site plan for the redevelopment of 105 Plaistow Road. That site plan may need to show different cross easements between the two properties.
S. Ranlett said that all three (3) parcels (99, 103 and 105 Plaistow Road) are currently being used for the used car business.
M. Dorman agreed, noting that the situation had grown that way over time and had previously been before the Board when the prior owner of the car dealership at 103 came in to request additional vehicle display space at 105 Plaistow Road.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Waters intended to operate a car dealership from 103 Plaistow Road once 105 Plaistow Road is redeveloped.
R. Waters replied that he would prefer to find retail tenants for the property but until he could, he would have to operate the used car business in order to pay the mortgage on the property. He added that he would like to have his access/egress to the used car dealership at 103 Plaistow Road to be relocated to 99 Plaistow Road. Mr. Waters explained that his agreement with Hutton would allow them to develop up to there existing building for parking, which would include joint access/egress areas. At that time, he would try to market the existing building (103) for retail redevelopment.
T. Moore offered that he would be looking for a new site plan for 105 Plaistow Road, which may or may not include cross easements with 103 Plaistow Road. He added that he didn’t care if additional display parking was allowed for 103 Plaistow Road on the 105 site. He added that the shared rear access was a positive point of the plan and once all three (3) lots were fully developed it would be a good thing to have all of them share that access so people wouldn’t have to zigzag out onto Route 125 to move between sites.
R. Waters said the rear access for all three sites was what he was most excited about as part of redeveloping these sites. He said that he had been delaying work on a new site plan to see what the State of New Hampshire would be doing to Route 125 in front of these parcels.
R. Gray noted that the State has already decided what they are going to be doing to the roadway. He cautioned that any new curb cuts would have to be approved by the State of New Hampshire. R. Gray offered that he would like there to be only one (1) curb cut for all three (3) parcels, particularly in light of the planned rear access between sites.
R. Waters offered that he and Mr. Emery were looking for some feedback from the Board if there were any obvious objections to the intent of their conceptual plan.
T. Moore suggested that another thing that needed to be looked at was the fact that the Town had been telling the State that they weren’t interested in the rear access road that was shown on their Route 125 redevelopment plan behind 85 to 97 Plaistow Road. He said the nature of these businesses at the time it was being discussed was such that tying into a service road didn’t make much sense. T. Moore suggested changing the use of these parcels might make it worth taking a second look at the value of the service road and tying these sites into it, particularly if there is a medical facility, which would give all the businesses access to a signalized intersection.
R. Waters questioned if the Town had a clear sense of how the State intended to redevelop Route 125, adding that he had not been able to get good answers.
T. Moore noted that while he could promise no changes would be made, he offered that the State had been consistent with the major points of the redevelopment, including the service road.
R. Waters offered that he felt that the rear access road between his three (3) sites would provide better access to the rear properties, which could in turn increase revenues to the Town in the long term. He asked if it was safe to assume that the Board had no real objections to the concept they were presenting this evening.
R. Gray said that he could not say that until seeing a full set of plans.
R. Water stated that he understood the need for a site plan. He questioned if there was anything glaring that the Board would conceptually disagree with.
P. Bealo noted there was nothing that was jumping out as part of the conceptual discussion.
There was a discussion about the need for two (2) separate site plans; one for 105 Plaistow Road and one for 103 Plaistow Road, if the two sites were going to be operating as separate business entities.
L. Gil asked if the connection to the lot at 99 Plaistow Road could be explained again.
R. Waters explained that he owned the parcels at 99, 103 and 105 Plaistow Road. Hutton Corp. was looking into redeveloping the 105 Plaistow Road parcel; he (R. Waters) is looking to redevelop the 103 Plaistow Road parcel for retail use, which would eventually lead to the redevelopment of 99 Plaistow Road as medical offices, depending on favorable negotiations with some doctors he had been speaking with about the long term project. R. Waters offered that each step in the process would be what would allow for the eventual redevelopment of the entire six (6) acres. He added that 103 and 105 would be physically tied together with access/egress and parking, but he was not yet sure if there would be a physical tie into the 99 Plaistow Road parcel.
L. Gil offered that when there was first discussion about redeveloping 99 Plaistow Road there was some intent to tie access to that site to the other two sites.
R. Waters offered that he hadn’t thought that far ahead as he was more concerned with the integration between the 103 and 105 Plaistow Road parcels.
C. Lanza asked if the 99 Plaistow Road parcel was the one with the foundation on it or if it was the Allen’s Wayside furniture site. It was noted that it was the parcel with the foundation.
L. Komornick asked if the Board would be looking for three (3) new site plans.
R. Gray asked if all the sites were one parcel. It was noted that they are three (3) separate parcels. He stated that there would have to be three (3) separate site plans for the three (3) separate parcels.
M. Dorman noted that those separate site plans would have to be in place as each parcel was developed so initially there would only need to be two (2) site plans, one for 103 and one for 105 Plaistow Road to accomplish what Mr. Waters and Mr. Emery were discussing with the Board this evening.
S. Ranlett stated that in order to continue on with the projects as described this evening for 103 and 105 Plaistow Road, two (2) separate site plans would have to be submitted for Planning Board review, especially with the idea of tying the two (2) sites together.
Jen Viarengo, Appledore Engineering Inc., asked about the setback issue questioning if it was a variance issue that would need to be reviewed by the ZBA, or as she thought she had heard, would the Board be able to grant a waiver for the setback.
M. Dorman explained that setback variances would have to be granted by the ZBA, adding that when he had mentioned the Board granting a waiver it was in reference to buffers, not setbacks.
M. Dorman asked if 105 and 103 Plaistow Road were going to be tied together then where would all the used cars currently being displayed at 105 Plaistow Road going to be displayed under the redevelopment plan.
R. Waters answered that hopefully the cars currently at 105 Plaistow Road would soon be displayed in people’s driveways.
T. Moore asked if it would be possible to construct the building without needing a variance they would be miles ahead.
R. Waters questioned if it was anticipated that it would be difficult to get a variance.
T. Moore explained that it was never known what concerns the fire chief may have about a new building and the ability to maneuver around it. He suggested that the question be asked of the fire chief and if he was happy, the Board is generally happy.
E. Emery noted that there would be room to maneuver a truck around most of the building. He add if they were allowed to construct the building the way they wanted to, it was going to be a sprinkled structure.
M. Dorman asked if the property was going to be graded out and an existing wall removed.
E. Emery noted that the property would be graded out level.
M. Dorman offered that, looking at the conceptual plan, it appeared there was 360° around the building.
L. Komornick asked if there would be legal papers drawn up that would explain all he cross easement that would be involved with these two (2) site plans, noting that the Board would need to review all those documents. She cautioned that there were many pros and cons involved in having two sites so closely tied together.
J. Viarengo offered there was legal minutia involved, designed to make sure that no one party is injured and no one party gets sued, whenever two sites are tied together with access and egress.
T. Moore offered that he wasn’t as concerned about shared access, noting the larger issue is when there is a feature, such as additional parking, on one site that the other site needs to be in compliance with zoning. He suggested avoiding those kinds of situations.
R. Waters asked if the most obvious requirement that would be of concern would be parking.
S. Ranlett explained that if they could come in with a site plan for 105 Plaistow Road that didn’t need anything from 103 Plaistow Road to be in compliance that would be best.
L. Komornick added that the reason they would be looking for a site plan for 103 Plaistow Road in addition to one for 105 Plaistow Road is because there wasn’t currently a site plan for 103 Plaistow Road that showed it operating completely independent from 105 Plaistow Road.
R. Waters offered that he thought he had one and would be willing to provide a copy to the Planning Office.
L. Komornick noted that if there was such a plan that Mr. Waters would have to abide by what is on that plan for 103 Plaistow Road or he would have to amend that site plan. She added that it would be best to keep the plans for the two sites as separate as possible.
There was a discussion about potential relief may be needed from the ZBA and what might help in that process.
L. Gil offered that the bigger question for him was not how the properties were being used together but how the properties would then interact should one of the properties be sold. He suggested it was best to make sure that each one of these properties could stand alone.
L. Komornick suggested they could also model the situation at Stateline Pet and Dano’s Pizza, which is a condominium form of ownership that allowed certain commonalities to be considered.
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.
S. Ranlett read a request received from the applicant for a continuance to the next meeting. The request noted that they had been meeting with the State regarding their Alteration of Terrain permit.
Discussion of Warrant Article Regarding the Purchase of Property Located at 148 Main Street
T. Moore noted there was mixed support for the purchase of the property at 148 Main Street as was discussed at the recent Deliberative Session. He added that the missing piece in the discussion was what the property would be used for should the Town purchase it. T. Moore added that there would be discussion at the upcoming Conservation Commission (ConCom) meeting and then suggestions for use of the property would be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen.
Other Business – Miscellaneous Correspondences
‘
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
