PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 3, 2010
Call to Order: 7:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Steven Ranlett, Chairman; Timothy E, Moore, Vice-Chairman; Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio and Charles Lanza, Alternate. Peter Bealo and Lawrence Gil were excused.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Building Inspector/Code Enforcement Officer.
C. Lanza was appointed as a voting member for this meeting.
Minutes of February 17, 2010, Planning Board Meetings
R. Gray moved, second by T. Moore, to approve the minutes of the February 17, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Minor Site Plan Review for Probark to Sell Landscaping Materials at 96 Plaistow Road
Jeff Brown and Peter Brown of Probark were present for the application.
P. Brown showed a diagram of where they proposed to place their products on the site and where traffic would enter and leave the site. He noted the area that they would be using was exactly where the Christmas tree sales are in the winter time.
J, Brown said that it would be mainly a mulch and soil yard with some other small landscaping products. He added that they were seeking to use this site, capitalizing on the Route 125 traffic, for retail sales as they were not set up for such at their 51 Kingston Road site. J. Brown said that there would be a line of jersey barriers with a defined in and out and there are no buildings on the site. He said that they would be putting a small office on the site.
P. Brown added that the office would be a “home depot” type of shed as they felt it looked better than a trailer type of office.
J. Brown continued that there would be 6-8 parking spots. He said that there would be actual jersey barriers to delineate the site, which would have a better look than cement blocks and the barriers that are currently there. J. Brown offered that each of the entrance/exits were about twenty (20) feet wide and would be chained off at night. He noted that the jersey barriers at the front of the property, along with the chain link fence of the Mears property to one side and the scrub brush of the other would completely close off the site. J. Brown described the types of materials that would be on the site. He noted that their dyed mulch was colored with iron oxide and a carbon based dye and therefore would not be harmful. Mr. Brown offered MSDS sheets on the materials for confirmation. He noted that
the entire area would be surrounded by silt sock to prevent any runoff from the site. Mr. Brown stated that everything would be removed and the site cleaned when they vacated. He described additional materials, including pellet storage on the center concrete pad that would be sold as well. He added that there would be a bobcat stored on the site and occasionally a delivery truck that would be dispatched from their 51 Kingston Road site.
P. Brown noted their hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., six (6) days a week and 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Sundays.
R. Gray asked when they wanted to start operations and whether or not this would be a year-round business at this site.
P. Brown replied that they would like to start as soon as possible and that they had a four-month agreement with the property owners for its use, which could be extended.
R. Gray asked if there were any wetlands in the vicinity of this proposed use.
M. Dorman answered that there were some on the back left-hand side but far away, approximately 200 yards, from there area to be used.
L. Komornick reminded that there would also be silt sock completely around the retail area.
P. Brown added that the entire area that they would be using was paved.
L. Komornick asked if there was cracking in the pavement with grass growing through it.
J. Brown replied that they could take a machine and scrap off the grass from the pavement.
R. Gray questioned if the entire paved area would be filled with product.
J. Brown responded that initially there would be a lot of product on the site but their intent was to hopefully sell it down quickly. He added that there would be access around every pile and there was no true bin system for the site.
R. Gray asked if the maximum lot coverage that was allowed was 75%.
M. Dorman replied that this was a six (6) acre parcel so they were well within the 75% requirement.
R. Gray said the only problem that he was going to have with the whole plan was the intent to have a temporary trailer with a sign on it.
M. Dorman explained that they, as any commercial site would be, are entitled to take out a permit for a temporary sign, which can be renewed monthly, as stated in the temporary sign ordinance.
L. Komornick said that the alternative would be for them to get a permanent sign. She asked if the trailer the sign was to go on was necessary for storage or if it was there solely for the signage.
J. Brown said that it was just an easy way to display the sign without impacting the site before they knew if it was going to work out.
S. Ranlett asked if it would be banner type of sign.
J. Brown replied that it was a sheet metal sign.
R. Gray asked if it would be visible north and south.
P. Brown said that there would be signs on both sides of the trailer.
C. Lanza asked if the stated amount of silt sock would be adequate to control the site.
J. Brown assured that it would be noting other instances where it had been successfully used.
L. Komornick noted that this was one of those situations where a trial period was intended to see if the use would work out for the site and the applicant. She added that should this become something that would continue on then Probark would be asked to come in with a site plan and make more substantive changes to the site.
J. Brown explained that they applied for a sign for their 51 Kingston Road site and it was made clear that they could do no advertising and the neighbors did not want the additional retail traffic to that site. He added that they were really set up for small retail sales at that site anyway and this would get them out into the public eye. He said that in the current economy they needed retail sales to help them out.
R. Gray inquired about how many business trucks would be coming and going from the site.
J. Brown answered that it depended on how many customers they had and how many times they needed to restock the site. He said that it was a short window and was weather dependant. He said that there would be an initial build up of product and then they would just be restocking the piles. Mr. Brown offered that they would most likely restock the piles at the beginning of the day to not interfere with customer traffic and traffic on Route 125 would be light. He noted that was the luxury of stocking their own inventory, they had complete control over delivery.
S. Ranlett questioned the notation of “playground” on the plan.
J. Brown replied that it was a type of mulch.
S. Ranlett asked if the Board had any additional questions.
C. Lanza said the only issue he would want to make sure was addressed were the delivery times.
L. Komornick reiterated that Probark was informed before coming to the Board that if this proved to be successful and they wanted to continue it they would be expected to come before the Board with a more in depth plan.
P. Brown said they would love to have everything be so successful that they were back before the Board next year with a much bigger plan.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to be heard. There was no one.
T. Moore moved, second by R. Gray, to approve the minor site plan for Probark at 96 Plaistow Road. There was no additional discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick asked if the Board wanted to include the caveat about if they want to carry on beyond this year that they would have to come back.
M. Dorman noted that this minor site plan would only be for one year.
R. Gray added that M. Dorman should be monitoring every minor site plan and reporting the activities to the Board so that decisions can be made.
L. Komornick said that she just wanted to make sure that it got into the minutes that this would be for only one (1) year and if they wanted to continue on they would have to come back before the Board.
Update from Staff about Status of Testa Property
M. Dorman noted that this was an FYI to the Board that a new tenant was being added to the Testa site. He noted that EJ Pallets was looking to occupy a small portion on the site.
S. Ranlett asked what type of business it was.
M. Dorman replied that they produce and repair pallets.
It was noted that they were formerly located at 214 Plaistow Road.
M. Dorman added that they would not be burning pallets at this location.
T. Moore asked if they would be operating similar hours as Testa Corp.
M. Dorman replied that they would.
L. Komornick added that they had to as they would be using some of Testa’s facilities.
S. Ranlett read a note on the proposed plan that said they would be repairing and refurbishing pallets and currently had three (3) full time employees with the potential to expand to between five (5) and eight (8) and that the hours of operation would coincide with those of Testa.
L. Komornick noted that this was akin to when a new store goes into a shopping plaza they just want to keep the Board up with what’s happening. She noted that Green Machines, previously approved by the Board never took occupancy.
T. Moore moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the additional tenant at the Testa site (144 Main Street). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlett noted there was no one from the public present at the meeting to make comment.
Discussion of Status of Ron Brown Subdivision and Notices Regarding Water Plan for Proposed Elderly Housing Project
L. Komornick noted that the first issue was the status of his currently approved 16-lot subdivision. She noted a letter that was sent to Mr. Brown back in July of 2009 asking him to come in to discuss with the Board whether or not he was properly vested under the Town’s definition the fact that his four-year protection from zoning changes would expired on December 13 of 2010 (The plan was recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds on December 13, 2006). She noted there had been no response from Mr. Brown to the letter.
S. Ranlett asked if the court actions delayed any of those timelines.
L. Komornick suggested that all deadlines were still applicable as he had formal Planning Board approval and could have sold a lot at any time.
S. Ranlett asked if Mr. Brown could have still made an application for 144 units of elderly housing.
L. Komornick replied that it may have complicated his plans for 144 units of elderly housing but he still had an approved site plan and could have moved forward at any time. She added that the road and the lots are officially on the Town’s tax maps.
R. Gray agreed that once there was approval of a plan all Town’s regulations are in effect. He said that if someone wanted to amend an approved plan that was something different.
L. Komornick offered that he still had until December of 2010 to be protected from zoning changes. She suggested that Mr. Brown be asked to come in once more and tell the Board when he intended to put the binder course of pavement down.
R. Gray asked if putting the binder down would be sufficient to vest the project.
L. Komornick confirmed that it would.
M. Dorman noted all the utilities and drainage are installed; it’s just never been paved.
L. Komornick offered that Mr. Brown’s original site plan was approved in 2004 and then he came in and amended that plan; getting his current approval in December of 2006.
S. Ranlett offered that someone, if not Mr. Brown, should come in and explain to the Board what Mr. Brown’s intentions are. He added that he didn’t want to see the binder put down if there was never going to be a development there.
M. Dorman reminded that if the project were to be abandoned the Town would only go so far as to loam and seed the property with Mr. Brown’s bond money. He reiterated that the drainage was in the ground and all the utilities were installed and it was his opinion that someone was going to put the road in eventually.
T. Moore suggested that if any bond money was going to be spent on the site he would like to see the binder pavement put down and loam and seed the rest.
S. Ranlett suggested that Mr. Brown be sent a letter stating that if the binder pavement isn’t down before December 13, 2010 then the Board will take steps to revoke his (16-lot) subdivision plan.
M. Dorman noted that would be giving him the benefit of four-years of protection to be vested, far beyond the one (1) year of the regulations, which is a huge break.
S. Ranlett then suggested that perhaps the plan should be revoked now.
R. Gray agreed that a letter should be sent to Mr. Brown but suggested that it ask him to inform the Board what his intentions are; not state a revocation date.
M. Dorman noted that Mr. Brown’s engineers have been put back on the payroll and that he would be going out to witness test pits on Friday.
S. Ranlett offered there wasn’t any reason not to set a drop-dead date of December 13, 2010.
T. Moore said that he as much as anyone is in favor of giving people breaks but in this case the issue should be forced a little to make sure that the binder pavement is down well before bad weather, suggesting a deadline of July 1, 2010. He added that if that deadline is not met the Town will take steps to put the binder down and if nothing else is done to complete the plan by the December 13, 2010, deadline then steps will be taken to revoke the subdivision plan.
R. Gray asked if the bond could be pulled before expiration of the four-year protection.
T. Moore noted that the Town had been more than generous with the one-year requirement to be vested, which was the deadline currently in question.
T. Moore recalled the timeline of Mr. Brown’s original approval would have afforded him nearly a full year to become vested in his 16-lot subdivision before the public hearings even began on the Town’s Elderly Housing ordinance in December of 2007 and he did not complete that process then.
L. Komornick asked when the utilities were put in.
M. Dorman replied that the drainage and utilities were put in within the first two to two and a half years after the approval.
T. Moore noted that there have been a number of stops and starts on this project and the deceleration lane was installed last year (it was noted that was necessary to maintain his driveway permit).
T. Moore suggested that a letter be sent to Mr. Brown in which he is given the date of July 1, 2010, to install the binder coat of pavement. If that does not happen then revocation (of the subdivision plan) proceedings should immediately begin, which has to happen before the Town can pull the bond for the project and put the pavement in, as long as the one year period (for vesting) has expired.
R. Gray noted that it was agreed that they were long past the one-year for vesting deadline.
L. Komornick asked what happens if Mr. Brown files for his elderly housing before the July 1, 2010, deadline.
R. Gray suggested that Mr. Brown still had to comply or face revocation as no future plans have anything to do with his original approval and that needs to be made very clear to Mr. Brown.
L. Komornick asked if it would be okay to have Planning Board counsel review the letter before it is sent to make sure there were no issues.
It was consensus of the Board that it would be okay.
S. Ranlett asked if there was anyone from the public who wished to comment. There was no one.
L. Komornick noted an e-mail forwarded from Sean Fitzgerald regarding the water conservation plan for Brown Hill Estates. She noted that NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) required that the plans be updated as it was now noted that they would include irrigation.
C. Lanza noted that he was stepping down for this discussion
T. Moore explained that a water conservation plan needed to be designed and then sent to NHDES for approval. He noted that all abutters are notified and Conservation Commission (ConCom) reviewed the plan. A letter was then sent to NHDES noting the Town’s local regulations and ordinance on aquifer protection and the ability to request a hydro-geological study. He noted that NHDES’s response was not what they had hoped for and that NHDES was not overlooking the Town’s requirements, but that their requirements were similar to the Town’s. T. Moore noted the original water conservation plan was for the 144 units and the current plan under review by NHDES was for the lesser amount of units and irrigation systems. It was noted that the letter was just received this day and included options to
meet with NHDES representatives with the opportunity to suggest reasonable restrictions on the use of water for irrigation purposes and conserve water.
R. Gray asked if ConCom would be reviewing the revised plan.
T. Moore said that he assumed they would, noting the letter had just been received this day.
R. Gray suggested that the Board hold off on any actions until ConCom has had the chance to review the revised plan submitted to NHDES by Mr. Brown.
T. Moore noted that there was twenty-one (21) days to respond to NHDES’s letter and that he thought ConCom would take them up on their offer to meet with them to discuss the plan and water conservation measures.
L. Komornick offered that one of the things that struck her about the letter, and that she felt it was important to address, was that the name of the project was called out to be Brown Hill Estates and she recalled the plan Mr. Brown brought in as being called something like “Whispering Winds.”
T. Moore asked if she was referring to Mr. Brown’s most recent conceptual plan.
L. Komornick said that she was and asked if the Board wanted to address these types of mismatches with NHDES and make things clear that the same plans are being reviewed by all. She noted the other thing was the number of units that were being applied for. She noted that she was concerned that it was listed as 40 elderly housing units, plus one (1) clubhouse and irrigation. She said that she wanted to be able to move forward with the same interpretation that was the number of units that he was allowed to apply for, 40 actual units of housing and the clubhouse or if the number was 40 total to include the clubhouse.
S. Ranlett noted that Mr. Brown currently only has approval for 16 lots.
M. Dorman offered that the application to NHDES for the 40 units would come before the application to the Town for the site plan or at the very least it would be part of the process.
T. Moore added that this would be part of getting a State well permit.
R. Gray asked if L. Komornick was looking for the Board to intercede as to the number of units that can be built.
L. Komornick said that she was looking to know whether or not the Board agreed with the number of units as described in the application (whether or not the clubhouse counted toward the 40-unit total).
R. Gray replied as far as he was concerned there was no application at this time for any units other than the sixteen (16) already approved.
M. Dorman reminded that Mr. Brown has come in with a conceptual design for 40 units and a clubhouse, but has not come in with a formal plan.
T. Moore said that was the kind of comment that should be made. It was noted that there were inconsistencies with the number of units as stated within the application. He added that it wasn’t clear in the conceptual plan what was going to happen with the house that was moved as part of the elderly housing plan and how that would be hooked into the water system. T. Moore noted that if Mr. Brown gets NHDES approval for a well to serve 40 units of elderly housing, the single family house and the clubhouse, then he will have sufficient water for anything the Board may approve up to that amount.
L. Komornick offered that her concern was that if the Board doesn’t go on record that Mr. Brown is only allowed to apply for up to 40 units per the court decision that it might be opening a door to other issues when he comes in with a final plan.
S. Ranlett said that his position is that Mr. Brown only has approval for 16 lots of single family housing unless and until he comes to the Board with another plan. He noted that the (NHDES) letter states that he has approval for forty-one (41) units of elderly housing, but all that is really approved at this time is the court’s decision that he is allowed to apply for up to forty (40) units of elderly housing, nothing more.
R. Gray offered that he didn’t understand how an application can be made to the State for a plan that was not yet before the Planning Board.
M. Dorman explained that it was done all the time, people make well, septic, etc., application in conjunction with plans that might be going before a Planning Board.
S. Ranlett said that most of the time someone was before the Board explaining what they were looking to do.
M. Dorman offered that he could get a well approved and never apply to the Board for anything. Normally this Board would not be even seeing this application at this time, but because this is a special circumstance it was brought to L. Komornick’s attention, but the process was not unusual.
R. Gray suggested that a letter be sent to NHDES noting that there is nothing before the Board at this time for this project, but explain the history of this property and what the court’s limitations are as far as unit numbers. He said that he didn’t want to tie the Board’s hands when it came to the approval process.
L. Komornick said that the letter stated that it would not interfere with the Board’s approval process but it made her nervous when there was not agreement in the number of units or how they are counted and she didn’t want it to become an issue with the application at a later date, so she felt that a response was in order. She said that she would put together a letter and send it out to the Board for review.
L. Komornick asked the Board to be on record whether or not the 40 unit limit was intended to include the clubhouse.
It was consensus of the Board that the units to be counted were only the living units and the disposition of the house that was moved off the 16th lot in the original plan needed to be known. But the number of elderly housing living units could not exceed 40.
There was a discussion as to what was noted as part of the conceptual plan Mr. Brown last presented to the Board as well as the history of the previous 16-lot subdivision. It was noted that the house that was removed was not definitely noted on the conceptual plan and that needed to be cleared up to know whether or not it was to be included with the well plan.
It was decided to start with the letter to NHDES clarifying the Board’s position of the status of the plan and set up a meeting with NHDES to discuss the plan.
L. Komornick said that T. Moore’s earlier statement reminded her that the Board had requested the Mr. Brown complete a hydro-geological study.
T. Moore replied that the State came back with a letter that said all of their requirements for permitting amounted to the same thing as a hydro-geological study.
L. Komornick asked how that decision would affect the Board’s directive to Mr. Brown when/if he comes back in with a plan.
T. Moore said that it’s been done all the data can be taken out of the information submitted for the well permit, but it could be reviewed once more to make sure that it was inclusive of the necessary information.
Dennis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive, asked what the Board’s interpretation was of forty (40) units was based on. He asked if it was the Court’s decision or was it solely the Board’s decision.
L. Komornick replied that it was the Board’s interpretation of the Court’s decision.
C. Lanza returned to the table.
Discussion Regarding Previous ZBA Decision to Allow Auto Repair Facility at 207 Main Street
S. Ranlett noted a decision from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting Duane Skofield’s appeal of the Planning Board’s decision not to allow an auto repair facility at his 207 Main Street location.
L. Komornick said that the (Planning Board) minutes stated that it was made clear to Mr. Skofield during his approval process that these types of uses were not to be allowed at this location and Mr. Skofield appealed it to the ZBA.
R. Gray noted that the ZBA decision was from 2008.
M. Dorman explained that it was being brought to the Board’s attention because he had just issued a certificate of occupancy to an automotive repair facility at this site.
L. Komornick said that there cannot be cars outside overnight.
M. Dorman replied that there cannot be any cars left on the site overnight and nothing outside. He noted that there was a letter sent to the property owner regarding other tenants on the site. He acknowledged there was an issue with the site and that his office was pursuing it.
L. Komornick asked if when there were repairs would there be a need for oil drains.
M. Dorman answered that there were barrels there on site to collect waste and that it has been inspected by the Fire Chief.
L. Komornick asked if there was exhaust piping for when the vehicle is running.
M. Dorman said that there was.
S. Ranlett confirmed that there can be no outside storage on the site.
M. Dorman replied that was true except for personal vehicles and two (2) storage trailers later approved.
The letter from the Department of Building Safety stated there could be only one (1) storage trailer and it needed to have an annual permit. It was confirmed on the site plan that they were allowed two (2) storage trailers, but they still needed to have a permit.
S. Ranlett noted that everything else on the site needed to go.
M. Dorman agreed.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
