PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 02, 2011
Call to Order: 6:34 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Vice Chairman; Peter Bealo, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, Charles Lanza and Steve Ranlett.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick and Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman
The Board presented Peter Bealo with a Certificate of Honor for time served on the Planning Board. This was P. Bealo’s last meeting with the PB and the members of the Board acknowledged all the work he’s done for the Board.
Minutes for February 16, 2011
The Board will approve the minutes for the February 16th meeting at the next PB meeting.
Item Two:
A Public Hearing on a Preliminary Site Plan Amendment to revise a site plan previously approved by the Planning Board on May 8, 2008. The originally proposed 14,303 square feet retail building will be reduced in size to 8,255 square feet for a proposed Firestone Auto Care Center. Parking will be reduced from 92 spaces to 46 spaces. The property is located at 29 Garden Road, Tax Map 26, Lot 52 and is 2.867 acres with +/- 213 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
Present for the application was Jack Soraghan, owner, and Frank Montero, MHF Design Consultants INC. F. Montero handed site maps out to the Board members. He explained that he Represents Bismarck Real Estate Partners who are proposing to develop a Firestone Auto Care facility on J. Soraghan’s parcel. F. Montero reviewed the site history for them noting the following:
- Original site plan was conditionally approved by the Board on May 8, 2008.
- There were two adjacent lots, lot 49 was for Rite Aid and lot 52 was a retail building that was 14,303 square feet with a large parking lot in the back.
- Conditions were met and the plan was signed on August 27, 2009, and would have expired on August 27, 2010.
- They came before the Board in July, 2010 for a one year extension.
He went on to explain that they are proposing a site plan amendment to that approved site plan for lot 52. He showed the Board a second site plan J. Soraghan had come before the Board with in the past for a smaller building on the lot for a restaurant and noted that the building was 10,500 square feet, 4,000 square feet less than the original plan. They also proposed to eliminate the parking in the back and put in an above ground retention pond. He stated that this plan was conditionally approved by the Board on December 3, 2009 but that conditions were never carried through and J. Soraghan cancelled the project therefore the site plan was never signed. He said they would go back to the first site plan for this amendment noting the following:
- J. Soraghan has a purchase and sales agreement with Bismarck Real Estate Partners who is a developer for Firestone.
- They are proposing to buy this parcel and develop a Firestone Auto Care Facility.
- They are proposing to build a building in the same place as previously proposed that is 8,255 square feet. That is smaller than the 14,500 square feet the previously proposed building would have been.
- To save on construction costs, they are proposing to eliminate the side parking and put in an above ground detention pond instead.
- The main entrance would be on the back side of the building.
- Rite Aid has already constructed the common driveway and access to Westville Road.
- Phase one plans presented to the Board had included a temporary berm along the edge (of the common driveway) which has been installed as well as the temporary landscaping the board had asked for.
- They built a temporary above ground detention pond on the side area that was not designed to accommodate a full building on the lot, but instead to accommodate the run off for the pavement for the driveway and the pavement on Garden Road. It will get bigger to accommodate the sizing of the proposed site, and they will go back to the DES to modify an alteration of terrain permit for it.
- The north side of the building (where the front door is) will have five bays that go through to the south side of the building that cars can drive straight through.
- The west side (facing Rt. 125) and the east (back) side of the building have no doors or windows.
- There will be parking to accommodate the facility on both on the front side (facing Rt. 125) and the north side (facing Rite Aid), with parking in back for the employees.
- They are proposing an id sign on the corner near the entrance on the north side.
- They are still designing the final grades and will be submitting the final plans at the end of the March for the April meeting.
- They anticipate using the same type of lighting as previously approved and installed by Rite Aid; same fixtures, heights, and wattages. Possibly less fixtures as previously planned because the site is smaller.
- They are still working on the grading for the south side of the building. He stated there is a large retaining wall along the edge of the property up to 16 feet tall at the highest point. He explained that they may possibly move the building about 20 feet up, moving the handicap spaces in front, to try to pull up the paved area and pave even less area, then put a riffraff slope down along that edge to eliminate the wall. He added that they are still working on this and are trying to reduce the costs.
- They will follow the same plan for the landscaping as previously proposed. The same street scape and trees as proposed; along Garden Road has already been installed. The same landscaping proposed along the condominium area will go back in, and the buffer plantings were already put in by Rite Aid.
- The loading area is located at the back (south) side of the building.
- The trash enclosure is proposed in the south corner of the building but may move to the back of the site.
- Utility stubs were already put in on the first phase of the project. Two wells were proposed behind the pharmacy and have been installed; the second well being for this lot (lot 52). It is not operational right now, it has no pump in it, but they have installed a conduit under the paved area for the water connection as well as an electrical conduit for service to the pump.
F. Montero asked the Board if they had any concerns about the project they would like to address.
T. Moore asked if in the future this space were to convert into a more retail space would there be room to expand both the building and the parking.
F. Montero replied yes, that you could put the detention pond underground giving room to expand, noting that parking requirements for retail are different, but it is possible.
L. Komornick referred to a discussion about an underground detention pond, and said that because it is an area that is all being directed to the run off that they had questioned if they would need an easement, but did not. She added that with the underground it was going to be a pipe coming out.
F. Montero answered that it would be the same. He explained that they originally had two detention ponds designed, one to service Rite Aid and one for this lot and they would both discharge through one pipe in the retaining wall. He stated that the only difference between what was originally approved and what they are now proposing is that the underground pipe system is a series of manifolded pipe that all end up discharging through one pipe in the wall. The above ground pond is a hole in the ground to store the same volume that is in the pipes, but the water is still controlled in terms of flow by an outlet structure in a pipe that discharges to the same point. The discharge point is the same as before, the difference being what is upstream. He added that the NHDES has amended this permit three times now,
their concern being the rate of run off or flow at the property line, which will be the same regardless of what is upstream. It does not affect the flow of the off-site run off or the abutter concerns, noting that the only change will be that instead of paving that area of the site they will leave it undeveloped for the pond.
L. Komornick mentioned a concern about mosquitoes and stated that they were trying to not have fire pond style drainage, noting that he had said it could be designed to tilt.
F. Montero explained different ways to build ponds stating that this pond will not be designed to retain water after the storm is over. He discussed the pros and cons of above ground ponds and restricting them as some communities do, but added that to address the mosquito concern this will not be a wet pond. The outlet pipe will be at the bottom of the pond so that whatever water enters the pond will drain out, adding that they can further slope the bottom of the pond toward the outlet pipe.
C. Lanza asked what the second plan whose conditions had not been met had been approved for.
F. Montero responded that it was approved for an above ground pond, the original was underground but the second one was above.
M. Dorman noted that they went with underground ponds only because they wanted to pave the sites, it wasn’t required at all.
F. Montero stated that they are proposing the above ground pond tonight and asked the Board if they have any concerns so they can address them.
T. Moore stated that he had no problems.
S. Ranlett asked about snow removal, wondering where they will put the snow.
F. Montero replied that they have a lot of room with the whole area to the north of the pond, adding that they have a large paved area to the side in front of the pond.
J. Soraghan pointed to the undeveloped land to the north of the detention pond, stating they can use a bucket loader to put it somewhere else.
R. Gray stated that the people who own the property need to understand that they will be obligated to have a bucket loader come and move the snow to where it needs to go to.
F. Montero added that they will have a guard rail all around the pond so snow cannot be pushed off the edge. Into it.
L. Komornick asked how much fill they will need to bring in.
F. Montero answered not much. He explained that the site was graded gradually down and hydro seeded and said that they are still in the design process and are trying to be as cost efficient as they can.
L. Komornick asked if it has to be a retaining wall.
F. Montero replied that they are trying to eliminate it and are trying to do a riffraff slope instead and added that either way you will not see it and that it would give more buffer to the wetland as they would move the pavement back.
R. Gray expressed concern about the width of the road between Rite Aid and where this property line starts because of the loading dock area for the Rite Aid building. He offered a solution asking if it was possible to place a single stripped line between the front of the Rite Aid building where the stop sign is going back to the entrance of where the Firestone would be, and then continuing to where you drive through for Rite aid and up to the end of the road. He showed F. Montero where he meant on the site plan.
F. Montero said he could talk to Rite Aid about it, that they are not amending the entire site plan, just this property.
R. Gray stated that he would make that a condition of this plan, that that roadway be improved upon, adding that there is not a lot of room on that road.
F. Montero again stated he would talk to Rite Aid, but that it would need to be a double yellow line as there is two way traffic, and there is more discussion on the issue.
M. Dorman stated that they (Rite Aid) would be restriping everything before the store opens.
S. Ranlett commented that Westville Road, the two lanes where you turn left, need a solid white line that curves.
M. Dorman replied that when Danny restripes it will be done, but that he’s not sure if it will be solid or broken, but agreed that there does need to be a white line there.
R. Gray asked if they would need state approval to do that, and M. Dorman answered yes. There is more discussion on the striping.
S. Ranlett stated that the solid white line would help, letting people know they cannot cross over into the next lane.
M. Dorman stated that his only issue will be the snow removal, that they will be required to remove it if needed or if asked.
F. Montero said they could put that on the plan.
L. Komornick asked where the dumpster will be going.
F. Montero pointed to the site plan showing that it was on the south side of the building on the south west corner. He stated that they may be moving it to the east (back) side of the building.
L. Komornick asked where the Rite Aid dumpster was, and F. Montero pointed it out on the site plan.
There is more discussion on snow removal with the Board’s concern being the width of the road during the wintertime.
J. Soraghan stated that they take care of the condominium and that they always have.
It is decided that they will make a note on the plan that the undeveloped land on the site be marked for snow storage.
F. Montero asked the Board if they were okay with the above ground detention pond, and no one replied with any concerns.
T. Moore stated that as there were no abutters present that the Preliminary Hearing was closed and they can refile for a final.
Item Three:
Other Business/Updates
S. Ranlett asked about Plaza 160 where they built up the walls.
M. Dorman replied that it would all go into the corner.
L. Komornick and T. Moore noted that it was allowed to sit there for six months or a year to cure.
M. Dorman again replied that it would all be pushed into that corner, into the wetland and be evened out at the same time.
P. Bealo asked about the Sonic on the Haverhill boarder.
M. Dorman responded that it is going to go in, that Dylan’s is closed. He stated that he called John Pettis, (Haverhill) city engineering, to discuss it but has not received a call back yet.
There was more discussion on the affect Sonic will have on the Route 125 traffic.
Item Four:
Adjournment
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
