PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
August 18, 2010
Call to Order: 6:35 P.M.
Item One:
T. Moore introduced new Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Timothy E. Moore, Charles Lanza, Steve Ranlett, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray.
Also present- Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, and Chief Building Official; Michael Dorman.
Excused- Vice Chairman; Peter Bealo.
Item Two:
Minutes for August 4, 2010
Motion made by R. Gray to accept minutes of 8/4/10, second by S. Ranlett.
S. Ranlett asked that the minutes be amended to reflect that he was excused from the meeting per call to L. Komornick.
C. Lanza also asked to change the minutes to show that he was excused from the last meeting as well.
R. Gray amended motion to change minutes, none seconded motion. R. Gray and T. Moore voted in favor of motion and S. Ranlett and C. Lanza abstained. The vote was 2-0-2.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on site plan amendment for a property previously approved for a “contractor’s yard” or “storage area.” The proposal is to reassign 36,167 +/- square feet of Bay “B” and locate a tenant named “Rebars and Mesh, Inc., whose primary activity is the fabrication of rebar structures from rebar material shipped to the site which falls under the definition of “light Industry.” The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lot 12 and 13, totaling 37 +/- acres. The owner of record is Testa Realty, LLC.
Attorney Bernard Campbell, Beaumont and Campbell Professional Associates, was present on behalf of Testa Realty LLC.
B. Campbell explained that in 2007, Testa Realty LLC., obtained site plan approval to move onto the site as a “contractor’s yard” or “storage area.” They have been coming back to the board when they have tenant changes, such as when J.E. Pallet Co. took possession of a small out building. He hopes to get approval for new tenant occupancy for Rebars & Mesh, of Haverhill, Massachusetts. B. Campbell makes reference to a letter dated July 28th, that accompanied filing, that describes what Rebars & Mesh does. He explained that on this 36,000 square feet of existing building Bay “B” on the north side, they will take rebar wire rods, fabricate them into structures (he circulated flyers for board members to see an example), and put onto flatbed trailers to be
delivered off site. The projected number of employees will vary from 3 to 20. The proposed uses will be to assemble rebar cages from stock brought in from Haverhill. They will be assembled inside the building. Projected travel to and from site will be up to 2 trips per day in and out by a flatbed truck. Proposed use hours are consistent with previously approved hours of Testa site hours, with all indoor activity. There will be restroom facilities on site, and access will be through the existing bay door with no physical changes proposed to the building itself. B. Campbell noted that the plan, prepared by SEC, shows where the outdoor storage of the trailers would be and shows a proposed dumpster location that would be used for the Rebar & Mesh operation.
T. Moore commented that the flyer states that occasionally a spiral of rebar might be hot dip galvanized. He asked what facilities would there be to do the galvanizing.
B. Campbell responded that he didn’t believe he said that. He stated that Rebars & Mesh will use the materials that come in from off site. They will only assemble the materials there; bending it, shaping it, welding, and fuse it into place through a process called “Fusion Welding and Fabrication.” He refers to an article from The Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Concrete International, 2004, which talks about this process. He also stated that they are not treating or plating the material. They anticipate no paint, petroleum, chemicals, or hazardous materials as part of their operation, strictly shaping the material and shipping it to the job site.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman what Testa’s existing hours of operations are right now.
M. Dorman believes it is currently seven to seven.
No further questions were asked.
S. Ranlett motioned to approve the site plan amendment, second by C. Lanza. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Review application for a proposed 40-Unit, 2 Bedroom Single Family Detached Elderly Housing Condominium Community. The Project will involve a lot consolidation plan for the merger of existing lots Tax Map 62, Lots 41- 7 through 41– 14, with all lots located off Gunstock Road which is located at 62 – 64 Sweet Hill Road in the LDR district. The total acreage of the merged parcels will be 24.58 acres and will have frontage off Sweet Hill Road. The owner of record is Ronald Brown Investments, LLC.
C. Lanza has stepped down for this item.
T. Moore references a packet received from Attorney Bolt (see Attachment) of Donahue, Tucker & Ciandella, PLLC., who represents the interest of Greenfield Hill Estates Homeowners Association. Points raised in the letter are 1) Does town have the authority to accept jurisdiction of the plan. 2) The letter has substantial objections to the plan and process itself, followed by attachments; Planning Board Meeting 5/16/07, Notice of Decision dated 8/25/09 – Ronald Brown Invest., LLC et al v. Plaistow Planning Board (docket # 08-E-0036) and Ronald Brown Invest., LLC et al v. Plaistow Zoning Board (docket # 09-E-0114), and a letter from Attorney Donais of Getman, Stacey, Schulthess & Steere, P.A. to Leigh Komornick. T. Moore referenced a second handout (see attachment) from the Planning Boards attorney with
back ground facts, citing applicable law RSA 676:12, VI and follows with an analysis. T. Moore reads a paragraph from the analysis. He noted that the upshot of this analysis is it shows that the twelve month period has expired and therefore there is no way for Board to hear this application. T. Moore opens discussion to the public.
Present is Ron Brown, principle of Ron Brown Investments, which is the developer of subject property and his attorney, Thomas MacMillian.
Atty. MacMillian stated that their position is they disagree with both procedural and substantive issues raised by Attorney Donias, and also disagrees with the analysis Attorney Donais made with respect to whether Mr. Brown can move forward with his plan. His first plan, submitted to the Board on March, 2007, initially had 40 units that he proposed to develop on the property with respect to the Elderly Housing Ordinance. The Board indicated they didn’t want phased development but wanted everything to come in all at once. Mr. Brown followed up with 144 units. Atty. MacMillian stated that Mr. Brown did so at the behest of the Board and it was not a decision that he wanted to make. Atty. Macmillan’s position is that the 40 unit application is still in play, and the parties have dealt with the 40
units as if that was in fact the plan. He has read thru Atty. Donias’s August 18th letter and comments that pertinent points are left out, including a memo circulated by Planning Board in October 29, 2007. He said the Board took the position that they didn’t accept the 144 Unit application, but instead accepted the 40 units. It showed that Mr. Brown’s submission was the second one in, and has not exhausted the design review process; therefore he disagrees with when, if at all, the clock started ticking. Once he received a formal notice dated January 7, 2008 that the Board would not consider the 144 units he filed an appeal of the Board’s decision to the Superior Court which lead to placement of an injunction and there was no further action taken except for a release of one of the developments, which was already under consideration of the Board. Subsequent to the appeal, the Superior Court directed that they file an
action and an appeal with the Zoning Board which they did. A final decision was made by Superior Court on October 6, 2009. They disagree whether the filing of the appeal was a reset or a pause button. Atty. MacMillian’s position is that it was a reset button for the 1 year period to start again beginning October 6, 2009 because the design process had not reached its end. He stated that Atty. Donias takes the position that time ran out in March, 2010. Atty. MacMillian believes the Planning Board and Mr. Brown both dealt with each other in good faith as if the 40 units were still in play. In October, 2009 Mr. Brown continued to bring design plans to the Board. The last meeting was March, 2010. Mr. Brown was never told that his time had run out and that he could not file a final plan. He then filed a plan that was public notice, and was not rejected by the Board. Atty. MacMillian stated he then sat with representatives
of the Board to work through plan, and again was not told time had run out. Now Mr. Brown has been advised, based on the Boards counsel’s position, that time has run out. Atty. MacMillian feels this is an indefensible position because both parties have been dealing with the issue as if the 40 units were in play. Mr. Brown put a plan together. Atty. Macmillian noted that all the issues may not have been addressed but says that is part of the purpose of the Public hearing. Issues such as water and traffic studies had been addressed, but as part of their rules and regulations, if the Board feels this was not adequately addressed by previous submissions made in connection to the 144 units, he can be directed to do more studies. At this time he feels Mr. Brown’s plan is appropriately before the Board and the Board should act on it.
T. Moore stated that the Board will opt to follow the opinion of their attorney. He asked the Board if there is a motion to deny the application as untimely under RSA 676:12, VI.
R. Gray moved, second by S. Ranlett. No discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A (C. Lanza had stepped down).
Item Five:
C. Lanza rejoined the Board at 7:05 P.M.
Review of Conditional Approval for “The Reserve at Snow’s Brook” Elderly Housing Project.
T. Moore goes over a packet which includes a Notice of Decision (see attachment), which includes their approval for the Reserve at Snow’s Brook on Hillcrest Ave. Owner on record is Hillcrest Estates, LLC. The Decision shows the motions made and what the conditions were. He states that one condition was to come to a satisfactory agreement between the town and applicant regarding a potential cell tower or improved communications with the fire and police departments. He noted a template for an agreement looking to be finalized. He asks L. Komornick if there is anything else on Snow’s Brook they need to know.
L. Komornick stated that they have not come to an agreement over the $30,000.
S. Ranlett asked if the $30,000 was for the communications.
L. Komornick confirmed that it is. She stated that the agreement is attached to the Notice of Decision.
R. Gray asked if the Board had given them 2 years to vest in this project.
C. Lanza confirmed yes.
L. Komornick said this is different; she hasn’t recorded the plans yet. They are under conditional approval.
R. Gray noted that this is one condition that hasn’t been met.
S. Ranlett questioned if they said they were willing to pay.
L. Komornick answered that it was not that they don’t want to pay, but when. They want to pay at the time when the building permit is pulled.
S. Ranlett asks if the Board needs to make a decision on where they have to pay the $30,000.
L. Komornick answers that the Board needs to notify them that their clock is ticking on their conditional approval.
C. Lanza asked if the agreement was executed.
L. Komornick responded that they are working on it and that the point of contention is the $30,000. She is waiting to record the mylars, but that per the agreement, she is waiting for the $30,000 to record it.
T. Moore asked if they have 45 days or 90 days and L. Komornick confirmed. He asked if they can request one more period.
L. Komornick suggested they send a letter asking them to come in before the Board to discuss how it will work out.
C. Lanza asked if BOS should be involved.
R. Gray responded yes. He states that the Board needs a legal document.
L. Komornick showed him the document and indicated that it was not signed. She said they are ready to sign, but do not want to pay $30,000 yet.
R. Gray asked what the document says.
L. Komornick reads “now therefore, the parties agree that Hillcrest owes and will pay Plaistow $30,000 prior to the development plans being signed and recorded.”
R. Gray asked if town council has approved agreement.
L. Komornick confirmed yes, counsel wrote it.
R. Gray states then that is the Town’s position.
L. Komornick stated that the Board needs to send Hillcrest a letter and ask why they haven’t met the condition and that they want to request an extension of the condition.
T. Moore asked L. Komornick if the Board just needs a consensus to write the letter, not a motion.
L. Komornick confirmed yes.
No further questions or discussion on this item.
Item Six:
Request for Extension for Approval for Chandler Place.
T. Moore recalled that Chandler Place was the first Elderly Housing project the Board approved. He reads an e-mail sent by David Hoyt of Hoyt real Estate Trust, dated October 1, 2009 (see attachment).
R. Gray asked if the reason for extension is because the RSA allows the extension.
L. Komornick responded that the other reason is that they are still working toward a positive agreement with the potential buyer.
C. Lanza asked if conditions have been met.
T. Moore responded that conditions have been met, fully approved and recorded. He asked if they had requested ton years to vest.
L. Komornick responded that she doesn’t believe Hoyt asked for that when they got approval, but are now asking for another year to start.
S. Ranlett moved to approve the extension to expire October 1, 2011, second by C. Lanza. No discussion on motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Seven:
Other Business – Correspondence from Department of Transportation.
T. Moore refers to a driveway permit application for Ralph Marchant from Testa Realty (see attachment).
L. Komornick stated that it is to show that Marchant did apply to the DOT. She noted that she did e-mail them to let them know the Board was hearing this tonight and will contact them tomorrow with the outcome.
T. Moore questioned if they felt it was necessary to revise the driveway permit based on the new use.
L. Komornick responded that they are doing it because of new stronger DOT policies regarding change of use.
T. Moore noted that this new tighter policy is good. Discussion ended.
Other Business – Public Announcement
T. Moore read through a public announcement from Rockingham Planning Commission, regarding the Availability of Planning Assistance Grant Funds (see attachment). He reads it is an annual event; the RPC gets a chunk of money to do the Targeted Block Grants (TBG). It is a 50/50 match, the local match must be budgeted funds and available as of July 1, 2010. A total of $10,000 in matching funds is available for this year, and grant awards between $1,000 and $3,000 per community to be used for planning assistance provided by RPC. The Project must be completed by June 30, 2011 in the form of a cover letter and application. T. Moore questioned that the Board had used these grant funds before to update master plans and CIP’s.
L. Komornick responded that they have used them before for CIP updates / Master Plan.
T. Moore stated that he has been trying to work with the RPC to develop a list of grants available yearly and their deadlines. Problem is that it needed to be recognized for last year’s budget and planned ahead. T. Moore asked the Board if someone has an idea for a Block Grant for next year, and noted that now is the time to think about it before next year’s budget.
Other Business – CIP/ Master Plan Updates
T. Moore stated that the next meeting of CIP is August 31st at 6:30 at Plaistow Town Hall. He offered that they need visioning sessions to get more input for Master Plan to focus efforts in the fall to go forward with it. No further discussion.
Other Business – Articles on Rail Project
T. Moore noted an article in Eagle Tribune today regarding Plaistow’s efforts to extend Haverhill rail line into Plaistow. Meeting in Concord this morning with Environmental Bureau of DOT to start proceeding on environmental requirements required for grants applied for. They have applied for CMAQ funding. The application date was April 1st and August 23rd is the filing deadline for another application for federal funds for the rail project. He noted that in the near future a public information session will take place to explain in more detail what the content of grants and budget items were.
T. Moore referenced the next article from Eagle Tribune, dated August 12, 2010, on cleaner fuel on commuter trains. He noted that this is good news.
Other Business - Letter of Deficiency from Department of Environmental Services on Brandy Brow Auto Parts.
T. Moore stated that this Letter of Deficiency (see attachment) is an FYI and no action is needed. He noted that M. Dorman has followed up.
M. Dorman responded that he has been to the site, spoken with the DES and they said they are working with the property owner to investigate.
Other Business – Letter of Request from Rockingham Planning Commission
T. Moore noted that the letter (see attachment) is asking towns to provide a letter of support for the Sustainable Communities Initiative Grant Program. There are nine Regional Planning Commissions in NH, RPC being one. Together are applying for the Initiative. Sustainable Communities intent is to have housing, transportation, economic development, land use, energy conservation, etc… all tie together so resources are together for good quality of life both in housing and transportation and so forth. T. Moore offered that this should be a good product and one that will be reflected in the Regional Master Plans of the nine Planning Commissions, and will have some applicability in Plaistow’s own Master Plan. He hopes it might spawn some grants to help implement that. He feels it is a good cause
that the Board should support. He noted that Sean Fitzgerald, Town Manager, is writing a letter of support. The deadline for this grant is August 23rd.
Other Business – Copy of Final Memo to the BOS on Angle Parking at 140 Main Street.
T. Moore states they had a request for angle parking on Main Street (see attachment) by one of the small commercial establishments opposite Town Hall. Because this is a Town road, the DOT must approve it. The DOT asks that the request come from the BOS. The Memo describes this effort. T. Moore asked if the BOS has taken any action on it.
R. Gray responded no, they didn’t have the letter at their last meeting, and assumes it has been forwarded. He hopes to take action at the next meeting or at least he can come back and say the BOS chose not to take action at this time. He stated that he likes when the Board has an official request that it comes in a memo like this one did with all the background information.
L. Komornick added she received a call from the property owner who will send a letter stating that they will be responsible for paying for the improvements, and this letter will be there for the meeting.
R. Gray notes that he is not sure of the agenda for Mondays BOS meeting, but he is sure they will discuss this item.
Other Business – Notice of Decision
T. Moore noted that the last memo is just an FYI. It’s a Notice of Decision from Zoning Board of Adjustment (see attachment). A multifamily project on Witch Lane needed a variance and was denied by the ZBA.
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
