PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 21, 2010
Call to Order: 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Present were: Timothy E, Moore, Chairman; Charlie Lanza; and Robert Gray, Selectmen Ex-Officio. Peter Bealo, Vice Chairman and Lawrence Gil were excused.
Also present were Leigh Komornick, Planner and P. Michael Dorman, Chief Building Official (left the meeting at 7:46 p.m.).
Minutes of April 07, 2010
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the minutes of the April 7, 2010, meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Brief Discussion with Ron Brown re: Status of the 16-Lot Subdivision (Gunstock Road off Sweet Hill Road)
Ron Brown, 289 Mill Street, Haverhill MA, was present for the discussion. He explained that the State of New Hampshire has approved the community water system for the project. Mr. Brown added that as far as paving the project (as requested in a letter from the Planning Board to meet vesting requirements) he was at the mercy of contractors. He noted it was his intention to file for a final plan review of his elderly housing project in May, but he was also at the mercy of contractors there. Mr. Brown stated that there was no way he could meet the Planning Board’s deadline of July 1, 2010, to pave even under the best of circumstances.
R. Brown offered that he did not foresee any issues with his application package as he will not be asking for any variances. He added that he was at the mercy of the utility companies for their utility plan. Paving the road at this time would mean 60 to 100 cuts would have to be made in it during project development. Mr. Brown requested that the deadline be moved forward 90-120 days.
T. Moore suggested that once the new application was received there could be reason to review the deadline.
R. Gray asked if the plans that were going to be submitted were to amend the existing plan or was Mr. Brown submitting new plans.
L. Komornick offered that there were two different issues involved; a 16-lot subdivision and an elderly housing project.
R. Gray questioned if the plan said to be forthcoming was to amend the subdivision or for a site plan amendment.
L. Komornick replied that she understood there would be changes in some of the lot lines of the subdivision for the elderly housing project plan.
R. Gray asked if the lot lines were going to change what was the harm in revoking the 16-lot subdivision plan.
L. Komornick responded that Mr. Brown did not want to have the 16-lot subdivision plan revoked in case the elderly housing project plan does not go forward. She added he also did not want to pave the road for the 16-lot subdivision just to have to rip it up during development of the elderly housing project.
R. Gray said that he wasn’t agreeable to pushing out the deadline (to pave the 16-lot subdivision) until the new plan (for the elderly housing project) has been received.
R. Brown reiterated that he did have a community water plan approved, indicating that should show the Board his intent to move forward with the elderly housing project plan. He reminded that he did bring in a preliminary conceptual plan; he was just not starting it today.
R. Gray said that his hesitation was that the Town had nothing concrete in its possession.
R. Brown offered that he just wanted to know what will happen if he did not meet the July 1, 2010, deadline for paving.
L. Komornick reiterated the Mr. Brown was responding to the Board’s letter and that he did not want to pave just to have to rip it up again.
R. Gray said that he was not in favor of extending the deadline at this time, noting there were still meetings in May and June for Mr. Brown to submit his plan for consideration at which time paving of the road could be discussed.
R. Brown reiterated that he was at the mercy of contractors.
L. Komornick offered that she could understand there were issues with installing the utilities and paving the road adding there was no reason that the paving issue couldn’t be discussed at the same time as the site plan review.
R. Brown stated that he wanted to have the issue resolved prior to bringing the plan forward and would not bring a new plan forward unless it was. He added that he was asking for a six (6) month extension of the deadline, noting that his plan would not expire until December 13, 2010 (the four-year deadline for protection from zoning changes) and he was not sure why this was already being brought forward.
T. Moore offered there was nothing magic about the July 1 deadline, adding that in December they would be beyond the ability to pave the road. He added that once a new application is received and it becomes an active application there would be no reason to request that the road be paved by the July deadline.
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.
Ron Pica, RJ Pica Engineering, Inc.; Peter DeJager, Property Owner; and John St. Pierre, Property Manager, were present for the application.
R. Pica reminded that this plan had been before the Board a couple of times previously but was delayed while obtaining other necessary permits. He updated the Board on the site plan noting the following:
- The subdivision plan takes the site back to conditions that existed in 1993
- Three (3) relief actions were needed from the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) all were granted and are noted on the site plan
- Location of septic plan
- Location of parking for existing plaza and office building, which is intended to be a future medical building
- Easement between the lots for the parking
- Pervious concrete pavement will be used for the parking areas
- Operations and maintenance documents are provided
- The well closest to the leach field will be abandoned and documentation as to how it will be closed, in accordance with NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services) requirements. It was noted that their only requirement is that the well be closed by a licensed well contractor
- Prior issues with CLD have been resolved
R. Pica then explained what information was contained on each of the sheets of the site plan.
R. Gray asked what had changed since the last time the Board reviewed the plan.
R. Pica said that nothing had changed as far as features; they just had to work through the ZBA process and address the engineering comments.
R. Gray asked if the issues with the neighbors over the fencing had been resolved.
R. Pica replied that a fence was going to be run across the entire property line with the concerned abutter. He added that in some places the fence may be off the property line to preserve the natural screening.
James Convery, Walton Road, stated that they (PPW Realty Trust) agreed to run an eight (8) foot fence the entire length of the property line which made him and his wife very happy.
Richard Sullivan, 11 Walton Road, noted that previously he had been told there would be slats put in the existing chain link fence between his property and the project. He wanted to know if that was still part of the plan. He added that he was concerned for his leach field once the excavations began for the project’s leaching field, as his was never located. He noted that he wasn’t 100% sure where his leach field was located.
C. Lanza asked how old Mr. Sullivan’s house is.
R. Sullivan replied that it was built in the 1940s.
C. Lanza suggested that NHDES in Concord may have a record of the location of the leach field.
There was discussion of how Mr. Sullivan thought there was a chance that his leach field may be located on the subject property due to the fact that many parcels in the area were once under the same ownership and little documentation is available concerning the subdivision. It was noted that there are trees and overgrowth in the area of concern and it would be unlikely that a leach field would be located there; and if it were it would not be functioning well.
R. Sullivan expressed concern that his leach field could be disturbed as part of excavations and asked that it be located before that happened.
R. Pica noted that he would be shocked to find that an abutting leach field was as much as forty (40) feet into another’s property. He added that they would certainly take care to look for such a thing as part of their excavations for the new septic.
L. Komornick offered that it would be highly unusual for any bank to finance a home where the septic system, including the leach field, could not be located.
R. Gray suggested that, in light of Mr. Sullivan’s concerns, he would not be in favor of waiving the requirement for locating offsite features on this side of the parcel.
R. Pica asked if it would be possible to do a waiver conditional on locating Mr. Sullivan’s leach field.
R. Sullivan indicated that he would be satisfied if they were to dig at the point closest to his property and not find his leach field. He asked what his recourse was if they did find his septic.
M. Dorman indicated that if it were found that Mr. Sullivan’s leach field was on the PPW property then it would be up to Mr. Sullivan to have it relocated to his own property.
R. Pica said that he was confident, based upon the trees and their roots as well as the seasonal high water table that it was unlikely the leach field would be there. He added that if it were there he didn’t see how it could be functioning properly.
There was continued discussion about Mr. Sullivan’s leach field and whether or not it was located on the abutting property.
C. Lanza offered that there was a note on the plan about the slats being installed in the chain link fence between the properties.
R. Sullivan asked about maintenance of the slats and other things on the property, noting there was a lot of trash near his property line.
R. Gray replied that once something was on the plan it was expected to be maintained.
R. Sullivan asked if that included landscaping.
M. Dorman indicated that it did.
R. Sullivan expressed concern about things not being maintained affecting property values.
It was noted that there was a house that was on the property that was removed as soon as the neighbors expressed concern about its condition and the fact that kids were using it for a party house.
R. Sullivan asked if an old shed, which he said has become a “skunk haven” could also be removed, along with the trash that had collected around it.
R. Pica noted that previously the treed areas had not been as maintained. He assured that there was a new landscaping plan for the property that would have to be followed and maintained.
R. Gray asked that a note be added to the plan that requires that the trash on the property be cleaned up. He said that he had no opinion on the removal of the shed.
M. Dorman said that he always thought the shed was part of the abutter’s lot.
L. Komornick reiterated that the property could not have been subdivided to leave a septic or leach field on an abutting property. She added that she was very surprised that a bank would finance such a situation and suggested that Mr. Sullivan check with his bank on the matter.
M. Dorman noted that if the septic were to fail tomorrow Mr. Sullivan would have to move it at his own expense.
R. Pica offered that the PPW parcel was not part of the Giannatis (former owner of Mr. Sullivan’s lot) subdivision.
R. Sullivan offered that he was still concerned about the location of his leach field relative to the areas that were to be excavated.
R. Pica stated that they would work with Mr. Sullivan to locate the septic field and put his mind at ease.
T. Moore asked if the Board had any other questions or if there was anyone else present who wanted to ask questions. There was no one.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to accept the subdivision plan for Tax Map 30, Lot 55 as stated in the legal notice as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the subdivision plan for Tax Map 30, Lot 55 as stated in the legal notice. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to accept the site plan for 166 Plaistow Road as stated in the legal notice as complete. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to grant a partial waiver of §235-12rr and §235-12ss (location of offsite features) with the following condition:
- The determination that Mr. Sullivan’s leach field is not located on this parcel
P. DeJager asked if the leach field only had to be located or if it had to be relocated.
J. St. Pierre asked of they had to actually find it or prove that its not on the property as Mr. Sullivan fears.
R. Gray said that if the leach field is there, locating it on the site plan is not waived.
M. Dorman offered there would also have to be an easement granted for it to be located there.
R. Pica noted they would update the plan as soon as they have determined whether or not Mr. Sullivan’s leach field is an issue.
R. Gray noted that should the leach field be located on the PPW property then as far as he was concerned it becomes a civil matter between the two parties.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to grant a waiver from Article I, §230-13 (off street loading/unloading area). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to grant a waiver from Article I, §230-23A (10 foot landscaping buffer).
R. Pica noted that these two parcels would be functioning as one lot and that they were only subdivided to gain septic approval.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to grant a waiver from Article I, §230-12h (24-foot drive aisle).
R. Pica noted they have been using a 22-foot drive aisle for a long time. He added that the benefit was that it cut down on pavement.
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the site plan for 166 Plaistow Road with the following conditions:
- Note added to the plan about the cleaning up of the trash
- Note added to the plan regarding the partial wavier of §235-12rr and §235-12ss conditional on the location of Mr. Sullivan’s leach field or proof that it is not there
R. Pica said that they will dig and see what is or is not there.
C. Lanza asked if there were test pits done.
R. Pica confirmed that there were.
R. Sullivan said he just wanted to know whether or not the corner of the field would affect his leach field.
R. Pica said that they would have to check beyond that to make sure there wouldn’t be a problem when the site was graded.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Request for Special Event Fundraiser by T-Mobile at the Stateline Plaza.
T. Moore read a request from T-Mobile, 4 Plaistow Road, for permission to hold an outdoor special event. He noted there was a letter from Northstar Centers, property maintenance, authorizing the application.
It was noted that the area that was intended to be used for outside display was grassy area right in front of the T-Mobile unit.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman if he had any issues.
M. Dorman replied that he did not.
The staff report indicated that the Police Department had no issues with the proposal but there had not been any feedback from the Fire Department as yet.
R. Gray moved, second by C. Lanza, to approve the special event application for T-Mobile at 4 Plaistow Road fir the dates of April 29, through May 2, with the following conditions:
- Confirmation that the Fire Department has no issues with the proposal
There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Letter from Dave Peabody Regarding Rockingham Church
T. Moore read a letter from Dave Peabody of the Rockingham Church (92 Newton Road) requesting that they be allowed to apply for a certificate of occupancy while waiting until September 2010 to put on the top coat of paving.
M. Dorman noted that the site looked really good.
C. Lanza moved, second by R. Gray, to set a deadline of September 30, 2010 for the top coat of paving to be installed at 92 Newton Road, but allow a certificate of occupancy to be issued provided all other site work is 100% complete.
M. Dorman said that he would not issue a certificate of occupancy until CLD were to sign off that the site is complete.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Other Business – East Road
C. Lanza asked if the sausage stand (between the Getty Station and the Dunkin Donuts) had a temporary permit.
M. Dorman noted that the stand, a fried dough stand, was only being stored at the Dunkin Donuts location. He added that it should probably be taken off the site.
M. Dorman left the meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Other Business – Master Plan Update
T. Moore noted there was a list of the chapters along with recommended dates for their review and revision as needed.
L. Komornick said that Roger Hawk had reviewed the Master Plan and he didn’t think it was all that bad. She noted that his opinion was that the Town just needed to get a handle on whether or not the recommendations currently in the Master Plan were still reflective of the townspeople. She noted the example of the seeming contradiction between the Economic Revitalization Zone (ERZ) and the perspective of the residents that prompted them to post a citizen’s petition to restrict large growth on Route 125.
R. Gray agreed that there was an apparent contradiction there.
The Board continued to discuss how best to get input with reference to updating the Master Plan, particularly the stated goals. It was thought important to get input from all the Town’s boards and committees as well as the residents in order to truly understand the wants and needs of the Town.
L. Komornick said that it wouldn’t be good to overhaul the Master Plan with all kinds of economic development when the townspeople don’t want more development. She added that she felt it was important to allow people to voice their opinions and for the boards to listen to what they say. She expressed some concern that there had not been an official public hearing on the ERZ.
R. Gray noted that it was published as being on the Board of Selectmen’s Agenda for discussion.
T. Moore said that the one thing that hasn’t been done as far as the Master Plan is the economic development piece. He said that it would be advantageous to make decisions about what the Town wants and then go after that as opposed to having it happen by accident. He added that the ERZ only talks about tax credits, it does not define uses, just economic incentives.
R. Gray reminded that the designation of the ERZ required the authorization of the Board of Selectmen. He added that it ought to be promoted in the Master Plan.
L. Komornick said that she was not trying to say that anything was done wrong only suggesting that before bolstering the Commercial I and II Districts further we should know what the public thinks/wants.
T. Moore noted it was important to get the results of the Main Street Study to have that information available.
There was a brief discussion of the status of the Main Street corridor study that is being written by Dave Walker. It was noted that all the data has been collected it was just a matter now of having the time to compile it into a report format.
There was discussion about which chapters needed the most attention and in which priority. It was suggested that it was important to start linking Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects to the Master Plan. It was noted that the Housing and Population Chapter was about 90% complete and there were people (Sue Sherman and Carli Malette at a minimum) willing to work on reviewing and updating the Recreation Chapter.
There was continued discussion about the best time to have a public meeting for input to the Master Plan. It was noted that once the kids are out of school and families go on vacation it’s harder and harder to get participation. It was decided that there would be a Land Use Forum at the June 2, 2010 meeting and it would be advertized as a public forum for brain storming to encourage more residential participation. L. Komornick was asked to notify the Town Manager and to invite the other boards and committees. It was decided that the 2nd floor meeting room of the Town Hall would be the location as there were multiple small rooms/areas available for break-out sessions. A Master Plan public hearing would be targeted for the fall. T. Moore and L. Komornick are to review the list of
goals and recommendations currently stated in the Master Plan to insure the list is accurate, and make it available in advance of the meeting on June 2.
L. Komornick offered that it was important to make sure that any goals listed are attainable.
R. Gray added there should also be timelines attached to the goals.
L. Komornick suggested that a matrix be built to list the goals, how accomplished and dates, to get everyone to realize what is contained in the Master Plan. She noted that Roger Hawk feels it’s a good document and pulling out into a matrix will help put it to use.
There was continued discussion about the need to update the Master Plan and all agreed it was time to stop talking about it and get to work on it.
R. Gray asked when data would be available from the 2010 Census.
T. Moore noted that it probably wouldn’t be published and available until sometime in 2012.
L. Komornick suggested that once that information was available the Master Plan would need a “hard core data update.”
There was a brief discussion of the need to finish updating the Population and Housing Chapter before putting together the list of all recommendations currently in the Master Plan.
L. Komornick said that she would start the set up and notification process for the forum on June 2.
There were no additional matters before the Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted as recorded by Dee Voss.
Approved by the Planning Board on _________________________
________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
