PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
June 15, 2011
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, Charles Lanza and Vice Chairman; Steve Ranlett. Joyce Ingerson was excused.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick and Chief Building Official and Alternate; Mike Dorman.
Item Two:
Minutes of June 1, 2011
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of June 1, 2011, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
A Conditional Use Permit by Pennichuck Water Works for a new well to be located on common land within the Twin Ridge Condominiums
Present was Tim Peloquin, Surveyor, representing Pennichuck Water Works. He explained that he is trying to help his client put a well in that is barely into the Town’s 25 foot no cut wetland buffer by about 3.4 feet. They are asking for a Conditional Use permit from the Board. He noted the following:
- Pennichuck hired them to delineate the wetlands.
- They did the map which located large trees, buildings and property lines to show that setbacks can be met everywhere else.
- They need a 150 foot wells radius for the project.
- There are wells onsite that are dried up.
- They continue to bring in water trucks to fill up the reservoir of the wells.
- According to their hydrologist, the proposed location is the only viable location.
T. Moore stated that the Conservation Commission had looked at the information at their last meeting and had three points to note:
- To make sure standard erosion control measure are in place during the drilling.
T. Peloquin said he would add it as a note to the plan.
- What will be done with the cuttings from the drilling?
T. Peloquin replied that he would go on record to say that they will be moved off site and it will be cleaned to its original condition. He added that he understood that they do not want the cuttings to get into the wetlands.
- Is there any hydrologic connection noted between the wells and the wetlands. Is there any expected impact to the wetlands as they start to drill?
T. Peloquin answered that because it is an artesian well that will be deep in the ground and not a dug well, there is negligible to no impact on the wetland.
C. Lanza added that when you are within 200 feet of a wetland the state requires an NPA Analysis. While pumping the well certain parameters need to be analyzed, the water coming out of the well and the nearby wetland. If they start to converge during the test it indicates that there is some connection. Pennichuck will have to perform this analysis if the move forward with the well.
T. Moore stated that if it is part of the pump test then they should be all set. He explained that there would need to be a letter submitted from the Conservation commission to the Planning Board stating those three points as the RSA requires.
Irene Klepka, 10 Lynwood Street, was present. She asked where they would be drilling to search for the water.
L. Komornick showed her on the map the proposed drilling site.
I. Klepka asked if they could look for the water on her property because she lives in a very swampy area; her pump runs every day. She does not understand how the Town would allow someone to build a house on land on such a high water table.
R. Gray stated that that would not happen today.
There were no further questions or comments from the Board or the audience.
S. Ranlett motioned to conditionally approve based on getting the letter from the Conservation Commission with the conditions that a note be added to the plan that standard erosion controls be added to the plan, the clay/sediment be completely removed off site, and the NPA pump test be performed, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
A 2-Lot Subdivision for property located at 29 Pollard Road, Tax Map 50, Lot 64, totaling 2.23 acres and 249.45 feet of frontage. The property is located in the MDR and LDR Zoning Districts and the owner of record is Kimberly Balamotis. The property received a Supreme Court order variance for frontage on May 10, 2007 (Case Number 2006-0682).
Present was Kimberly Balamotis, 29 Pollard Road and Jim Lavelle, surveyor of record. K. Balamotis explained that she was there to record the record of lot as ordered by the Supreme Court. She added that the variance was ordered in 2007, she meets all other setback requirements and it is an oversized lot.
L. Komornick presented the new plans that had the changes the Board requested on the note.
J. Lavelle explained that originally this was a three lot sub-division approves by DES. It was fought in court and the court ordered that the three lots be approved. He added that the plans are just procedurally to get that done. The plan shows two lots of the original three lot sub-division. Lot 64 on the existing plan is the third one. The two lots shown, 64 and 64-2, had been previously combined by the Town when they fought the three lot sub-division. This new plan gets back to creating the three lots as originally presented.
T. Moore asked if this was the plan that went to the ZBA, was denied and then went through to the Superior Court.
K. Balamotis replied yes, the procedure started six or seven years ago. She explained that she was granted a three lot sub-division but there was an error in the numbers so they reversed it for the third lot and granted the two. She went forward and the Supreme Court has ordered the variance for the other lot to be divided into two.
S. Ranlett asked which lot and was answered 64-1 and 64-2. She added that on Town records right now it is map 50 lot 64, being divided into 64 and 64-2. 64-1 is where her new residence is.
R. Gray noted that the new residence does not show on the plan.
J. Lavelle said correct, because it wasn’t there when this plan was done.
K. Balamotis added that it was recorded in 2004.
R. Gray stated that they cannot record a plan if the existing conditions are not on it. The Board needs to see the house on the current plan to record it.
J. Lavelle said if they want to make that a condition that is fine, however this is the plan the court said the Town needs to sign.
There was more discussion and it was decided that they would add the location of the house, septic and the well on the plan.
L. Komornick stated the condition will be that and the resolution of the State sub-division approval.
C. Lanza asked if there was a recorded plan for the 64-1 and the two that are being sub-divided as one and was answered yes; the only issue was the frontage.
Mrs. Dick, 27 Pollard Road, was present. She asked how far back the house would be; she is concerned it will be in her back yard.
T. Moore explained that the big blank lot (on the plan) already has a house on it. Once the plan gets recorded, in the future there may be a third house built on lot 64. This plan is just the sub-division of land, if they choose to build on lot 64 they will go before the Building Inspector for a building permit and not come before the Board.
J. Lavelle added that it is builders choice, a house can go anywhere within the setbacks as long as they meet Town requirements. He stated that they cannot answer at this time where a house would go.
Mrs. Dick asked if abutters would be notified later on as to where the house would be built.
M. Dorman replied no.
There is more discussion on the issue and where the setbacks are on the map.
There were no further questions from the Board or the audience.
C. Lanza motioned to accept the sub-division plan as complete, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray asked K. Balamotis if she had said the barn was not there anymore.
K. Balamotis responded that it was not there anymore; the well is still there and feeds 64-2.
R. Gray asked J. Lavelle to take the barn off the plan as well and he agreed.
R. Gray motioned to conditionally approve the site plan based off of the barn being taken off the plan, locating the new house and well on lot 64-1, and that they receive NH Des sub-division approval, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Five:
A Preliminary Site Plan for a Contractor's Yard for property located in the MDR Zone at 239 Main Street, Tax Map 31, Lot 18-1, totaling 3.36 acres with 200 feet of frontage. The owner of record is RNK Realty, LLC.
Present was Jim Lavelle, surveyor of record for the project. He explained that he is before the Board because they need a variance in order to proceed with the site plan. He noted the following:
- It is in the MDR Zone; however this property and surrounding properties are used commercially.
- This lot is part of a sub-division done for Kidder (KNR Realty).
- The applicants would like to put up a building that is shown on the plan, which is 80 x 100 feet with bays for trucks and office area with paving around it.
- The rest of the lot would be used for container storage.
- There is an existing apartment building on the lot.
He explained that they are asking for a commercial and a multiple use in the MDR zone. He read Article 5, which states that a medium density zone doesn’t allow a contractors yard. He stated that the other variance would also be from Article 5, that medium density zone does not allow for mixed use. He added that those are the two uses the applicant needs on this property. They would like to keep the existing apartment building but would like to use the rest of the lot commercially. They need to go to the ZBA.
S. Ranlett asked if they would go in and out through the existing driveway, and was answered yes.
S. Ranlett motioned to deny the site plan based off of Article 5 Table 220 32-E, a contractor’s yard is not allowed in a medium density zone nor is mixed use, second by R. Gray.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that the issue will go before the ZBA and when it does legal notices will be sent to the abutters. They can have any questions answered there as well as back at the PB if he is successful at the ZBA.
Item Six:
A Consolidation Plan for a portion of a subdivision amendment plan approved on December 7, 2006, and recorded on December 13, 2006 in the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds for property located at 64 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 62, Lot 41. The consolidation plan involves the merger of Tax Map 62, Lots 41- 4 through 41-14 totaling 34.05 acres and will result in +/-3,606 feet of frontage. There will be 5 remaining lots from the December, 2006 amended subdivision plan. The owner of record is Ronald Brown Investments, LLC.
Item Seven:
A Final Site Plan for a 40-Unit Elderly Housing Complex Project on 34.05 acres resulting from the above Consolidation Plan of Tax Map 62, Lots 41-4 through 41-14 totaling 34.05 acres and +/-3,606 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Ronald Brown Investments, LLC.
T. Moore noted that the Board would discuss both hearings together (Item 6 & Item 7) since they refer to the same physical plan, but will take separate votes when the time comes to do so.
C. Lanza stepped down from the Board for both items.
Present was Terry Trudell, S.E.C. & Associates. He explained that the site, on Sweet Hill Road, has been approved for 15 lots. They are proposing to consolidate eleven of those lots for an elderly community housing project. Said project will be 40 units on 34.05 acres. The site is presently within the LDR Zone, but the overlying district of elderly housing under the 2007 zoning regulations. The proposal is for 40 units to be done in two phases; phase one, 15 units and phase two the remaining 25 units. The project will also consist of a community club house (1,792 square feet) with a pool and 10 parking spaces. The units will be on three different cul-de-sacs; one would be 536 feet long, the second would be 542 feet long and the third would be 798 feet long. The three roadways would be
private and Gunstock would be public when accepted by the Town. He added that the design is based on an existing approved elderly unit complex, Snows Brook, which was approved a few years ago. The same criteria has been used as far as the lay out and roadway cross sections. They are proposing that each unit be sprinklered and there will be recreational trails throughout the 34 acres. He noted that they did receive a comment letter from CLD and after they went through the comments; there are no comments that would change the overall design of the project. The comments that can be addresses, basic clean up as far as drainage questions. He introduced Jim Hanley to discuss and answer any drainage questions the Board may have.
Present was Jim Hanley, Civil Design Consultants. He explained that for this project he designed the grading drainage, helped prepare some of the construction details and prepared the drainage report that was submitted with the application. When they took on the drainage for this project, they looked at the history of the project and tried to stay consistent with how they previous people had designed it; that had been reviewed by the Board and DES at that time. He showed the Board the plan pointing out the four different drainage areas on the site. He explained that one is a large wetland in the middle of the site, the second is a discharge to the wetland, the third is a flow that flows off site to the west and the fourth is drainage that flows off site to the east. They designed four different detention ponds
in the area to accommodate the additional flow. He pointed out these ponds on the site plan and explained them to the Board. He noted that all the drainage structures associated with Gunstock Road are under the original approvals; they are not proposing to change any accept for one culvert (he showed the Board on the plan). He went on to say they went through the letter (from CLD); specifically the drainage issues. He feels they are on the same page with CLD on seven or eight of the issues and added that he will talk with them further regarding the other issues.
L. Komornick noted for the record that some of their (CLD’s) comments are the same they are up against with the three lot sub-division regarding water and any increase; that it would flow into the wetland and whether that constitutes a wetland impact. That is what they need to figure out. To take way any increase at all by utilizing the storm water manual that DES has with any kind of treatment swales or anything that will diminish any kind of impact.
J. Hanley replied that everything they designed is in compliance with the new DES Best Management Practices. He added that they submitted this, and his intention was to get CLD’s first round of review letters and incorporate that into the permit application they will submit to DES. They understand it will need to go before DES and make them happy.
L. Komornick noted that they just adopted another storm water ordinance that specifically references that the manual and the green book, which are two different things. The manual is the one that specifically addresses the treatment of the water, the peak flows and all that. She added that just because you meet their criteria for a permit and still not be in compliance with the handbook; that is what they have to work out.
J. Hanley said ok; he’d be happy to talk more about it.
L. Komornick said they are leaning. It is coming more critical as the Town is an MS4 Town. She felt that in regards to the letter being a first cut, they are in good shape as most of the comments are workable.
L. Komornick stated that T. Moore had wanted to clarify for the plan what the size of the structure would be and the limitation on the two bedroom.
T. Moore said it has been awhile since they have looked at the plan. As he recalls, several years ago, there was proposed floor plan that showed how the units will look including garage space. He recalled the Board having some issues with those. One issue, though not required that you meet ADA requirements, specifically there is language in there that says it needs to be easily adaptable. The units a Snow Brook had a level walk in entrance with no steps involved, the Chandler Ave development had steps and had to make provisions or show that if that person did in fact become handicap that there was at least room to provide handicap accessibility. He said there were some issues like that. He went on to say there was a storage area that could potentially be made into a third bedroom. He again stated he
did not remember all the details, but thought all of the dimensions where on the floor plan. The Board would need to check on those kinds of items.
R. Gray asked if there were two existing wells on the property.
Present was Ron Brown. He responded that there are presently two existing wells on the property.
R. Gray asked if those two wells would be capable of distributing water to the 40 units.
R. Brown answered that the two wells have already been approved by the state of NH and are capable of producing 28,500 gallons/day.
L. Komornick noted that she had a conversation with Diana Morgan, DES. She added that he (R. Brown) has been approved; the only thing they are waiting on is the pump house design plans.
R. Brown stated that those do not customarily come in until the sub-division has already been approved.
L. Komornick said that they would not approve it without that being approved by the state.
R. Brown replied you (The Board) had already approved the previous sub-division without the wells even being drilled, without the approvals from the state or the wells.
L. Komornick stated that this is a community well and that’s why it is different; she (Diana Morgan) told me the pump house has to be submitted and approved by DES. She added that it wouldn’t be approved by the Town until that was done.
R. Gray restated his question, are the wells designed to handle 40 units.
R. Brown replied that they have been approved by the state of NH, yes. He added that they were approved for 144 units initially.
L. Komornick stated that there is still another step; the pump house.
R. Gray asked about a note on the plan regarding elderly housing. He went on to say the ordinance as it was written states that to the extent possible the objector should make the housing opportunities available to Plaistow residence and to make 15% of the units affordable and make rental units available. He said he would want that note added to the plan so that they make sure if it is done in phases; if 15 units are done first, three units would be rental or affordable.
R. Brown stated that this is the first time they have heard about this, and added that they didn’t ask for this on the previous subdivision approved in January and asked why this would be different from that sub-division that was conditionally approved.
R. Gray replied that it is because he is asking for something different.
S. Ranlett asked if this was an elderly housing project.
R. Brown replied yes, same as the previous.
S. Ranlett stated that they are going to go by the ordinance that they have.
R. Gray stated that he is just asking for a note to be on the plan reflecting that.
L. Komornick noted that this issue came up with Snow Brook; they asked for a waiver. She added that he has an option to do that.
R, Gray said ok, he can do that. He went on to say the third issue he has is on phase two of the plan. There is listed on the back of the plan a proposed gravel RV and recreational parking area. He stated that he does not mind that, but they would have to be none motorized recreational vehicles. They do not allow motorized vehicles to be parked on non paved surfaces. They need to be non-motorized or it has to be paved. He added that paving it may change the drainage calculations and such.
R. Brown said ok.
R. Gray said on the existing conditions plan; someone relocated a home from the top of Sweet Hill Road to the back of the property. He added that he is not sure where it is but he knows it is back there somewhere; there was recently a fire there. He said he does not see that home on the existing conditions plan. That would need to be added to the plan. He went on to say that as a condition of this whole approval, from a public safety standpoint, they need to have access for safety vehicles to that home in the back of the property. Especially were that home is located on phase two of that area. He added that that needs to happen almost immediately, and there is a couple of ways that can happen.
R. Brown asked if R. Gray realized that the house is up on steel.
R. Gray replied yes, he understands it is on steel, he understands there was a fire there, and he understands that there have been numerous complaints about things that have taken place on that property by people who have broken in. Public safety vehicles need to have access to that home if it is existing there. He said the options would be to remove the structure immediately or let public safety vehicles have access to it.
R. Brown replied that it is 100 feet from the road; he does not know what the problem is. He doesn’t see an access problem at all. He added that no one has cared about the house being vandalized or lit on fire and now they care about access.
R. Gray replied that he cares about it. He clarified that his point is that the house needs to be put on the existing conditions plan and that Town safety vehicles need to have access immediately to that area as a condition of approval.
S. Ranlett asked R. Brown what he will do with that house when he starts phase one.
R. Brown joked that it will probably be burned down by then. He replied that they do not know at this time. He added that it is a burnt now and they do not know what they will do with it.
R. Gray asked if the house was located in a non phase one and phase two area currently. He said he assumes that if it is 100 feet off the road then it must be in phase two.
J. Hanley said yes.
S. Ranlett asked again if the house would be part of this and he pointed to the plan.
R. Brown said he tried to answer his question the best he could; he cannot answer. He has not been in the house to say how much damage has been done so he cannot answer in this point in time.
R. Brown stated that as far as the sizing of the housing, the zoning states that the house can be up to 1,800 square feet, two bedroom. That is what he is proposing; up to 1,800 square feet, two bedroom houses. He added that as far as the disabilities act; they comply. Whatever needs to be done as far as the disabilities act goes they will satisfy. He said they spoke about handrails and grab bars; they have no problem adding extra studs in the bathrooms for grab bars, if that is what the Town would like.
T. Moore said yes, that was the intent.
R. Brown said as far as the steps go, he feels they (The Board) are mistaken about the steps at Snow Brook. He said he knows no developments that have no steps to get into the property. He added that they are trying to sell to a clientele that is 55 and older; they did everything possible to make sure there is the least amount of steps that they could put in on any foundation.
T. Moore stated that they just want to see them again; a typical house.
R. Brown asked if they have five variations would they like to see all five.
T. Moore said to show the Board a typical one.
R. Brown replied ok.
Present was Tony Cantone, 2 Ridgewood Road. He explained that he is an immediate abutter to the Ron Brown development. He commented on R. Brown’s comment that the house will probably be burned down before he can deal with it. He added that he made that statement as if he is a victim. He leaves an unoccupied, unattended, unsecured rat hole of a building on the property. He has been warned that it is a hazard to the community, unsecured, a potential fire hazard and subject to vandalism. That he is a victim; T. Cantone objected strongly to that. He told the Board that he sent the BOS a letter. He said that his role is to warn the Board again of an imminent danger to the community, and that house is an imminent danger to the community. He believes the Boards role is to understand on
what basis it can be there or to not be there. He wants the house accessible to the fire department which means he (R. Brown) needs to take the stones away that are keeping the fire trucks away from the property. Once you do that it will be back to trucks and other vehicles going through the property at early morning hours. He states that the house needs to be moved. He feels that puts police, his neighbors and himself in danger. He reiterates that the role of the PB is to protect the community where it is appropriate to do so and this is where it is appropriate to do so. He added that R. Brown has cleared the trees of 48 acres out of his 53 acres of lack of oversight by the Board; he should not have been allowed to remove those trees. He feels that every action R. Brown takes, the Town is diminished and it is the Boards role to stop it.
T. Moore stated that he believes the house cannot be co-located on any of the lots having elderly housing units on them; they will need to check. They certainly will know where the house is to be located before approving the sub-division plan; whether it is in or out of the housing or not.
Present was Denis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive. He asked what will happen with the other five remaining lots. He explained that in the past the Board has asked what the total nature of the development going to be and he has not heard that answered tonight.
T. Moore replied that in the prior public hearings they thought R. Brown wanted to build more elderly housing than the plan showed. They asked him to provide a plan in total. At this point R. Brown has chosen to leave five lots out of the elderly housing community; that’s his choice. Through all the court actions, 40 units is all he what he can build. He explained that if this plan gets approved they will have a consolidation of 10 or 11 lots where the elderly housing will be built and the five lots will remain five single lots. He can come back at a later point to build five single family houses if he wants. He cannot consolidate those five lots and put in more elderly housing, but he can do what he wants with those lots.
D. Donovan stated that back in 2007 that was not the position of the Board. Their position was, according to the minutes back in 2007, that they requested that the applicant submit an entire application for the entire 51 acres. He asked if that was a change in the Boards position.
T. Moored replied no, he could have come back later in that series of hearings and said 40 is all I’m going to do and the rest of the lots will remain single. He explained that what they didn’t want to happen in the earlier time was to approve 40 and then get an amended plan for 40 more. They wanted to see in total what he was going to do in regards to elderly housing. He could have come back and said he was going to put single house on those lots.
D. Donovan said his second question is that according to the Town Minutes the 40 unit plan was withdrawn from avocation at the time when the 144 units were submitted. How, if it was withdrawn, is it now being resubmitted under an elderly housing ordinance that has been, since the withdrawal, rescinded.
T. Moore answered that it is a complicated scenario; it has all gone through the courts and have been resolved by the court. They say he can submit the plan.
D. Donovan stated that the idea that it had been withdrawn, he does not believe was participated and discussed in those court proceedings.
R. Gray added that in short answer; it was. The courts ruled that we (the Board) had to review this under the elderly housing ordinance. He stated that he knows that in court documents that withdrawal was reviewed by the court and this is the outcome of those court proceedings; that they review the 40 units of elderly housing under the old ordinance that was rescinded by the Town.
L. Komornick clarified that when it went to court the appeal was that they had denied the 40 units because he had taken too long to submit the final; so when it went to court all of the documentation for the whole project went. The court record included all of the hearings and minutes so the judge was aware of what went on in those meetings and the fact that there was a hearing one night when he came in with the 40 and the 144. The determination the judge made was that R. Brown would be able to move forward with the 40 (units). There was no specific legal analysis of that action but the judge had to have been aware of it because it was in the proceedings.
D. Donovan replied that it was assumed that the judge was aware of it.
L. Komornick answered yes; it was discussed with their (The Boards) attorney. Whether or not that was clear, she (L. Komornick) believes he felt it was clear because all the information was submitted as part of the appeal.
D. Donovan stated that he feels that clearly the decision on this application is being tainted by the court order not necessarily in the form of a review that is typically done. He added that if that is the case, then others may need to look at that avenue themselves. He had no further comment.
There were no further questions or comments from the Board or from the audience.
T. Moore explained that that there is a two step process; the first one being to accept the lot consolidation plans as complete. That means they have enough information submitted to review and ultimately make a decision. He added that it is not an approval or a denial. If they are at the point where they accept the plans as complete, it starts a 65 day clock. The applicant has 65 days to get all the information together in a form that the board can either approve or deny. There are extensions to that 65 day period, but T. Moore stated that he would not explain those tonight.
R. Gray made a motion to accept the consolidation plan for 64 Sweet Hill Road, Tax Map 62, Lot 41, the merger of Tax Map 62, Lot 41-4 through 41-14 totaling 34.05 acres, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray motioned to accept as complete the final site plan for the 40 unit elderly housing complex Tax Map 62, Lot 41-4 through 41-14 totaling 34.05 acres, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore stated that both hearings will be continued on the July 20, 2011 meeting.
R. Brown asked if that was the next meeting and asked if there is a meeting in two weeks.
T. Moore explained that the Board has a workshop with a full agenda.
L. Komornick added that the Board has been absolutely blocking those meetings off for the Master Plan Workshops and have been consistently continuing hearings on the third Wednesday of every month. She added that it is going to take that long with to resolve the issues with CLD.
R. Brown stated that they do not have any issues with CLD that are not normal and customary; they have a tree that is too close to a light, and other similar issues. He said that they have a court ordered 40 unit development and they would like to proceed. They have been stalled for over a year already. He added that there have been other developments that were behind them that have been approved and started before them. He asked the Board to allow them to come in two weeks to ask for the sub-division approvals they have been waiting for. He stated that he would appreciate if they could come before the Board on a fast paced situation and get this development approved.
L. Komornick replied that there is a two week turn around with CLD; including when they get comments back from the applicants. She added that the Board has consistently treated projects in this manner. That there is no way he will be ready for another hearing in two weeks time.
T. Moore explained that when things are down to one or two items, adding a note to a plan, they will sometimes reschedule them. He added that they have been more consistent recently because the Board has fallen behind doing the Master plan updates. He stated that there is sufficient work to be done to justify continuing this on the July 20th meeting.
C. Lanza returned to the Board.
Item Eight:
A temporary amendment to a voluntary lot line merger and associate commercial site plan for properties located at 69 and 71 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 36 and 37, involving the temporary use of the property originally approved as the conversion of two residential sites to an office building. The land acreage is 1.12 acres and the owner of record is Jay Davey.
Present is Ron Pica, R.J. Pica Engineering, to represent Jay Davey, 71 Plaistow Road, who is also present. He explained that 71 Plaistow Road was approved some time ago but has not been completed. A foundation has been put in, a partial gravel road was put in, and a septic system has been put in, but work still needs to be done. They are asking the Board to allow the Building
Department to issue a temporary occupancy permit under the conditions that work continues on. Right now the land and buildings are tied up in a reorganization plan. There is a meeting on the 27th of June. The trustees have indicated to the owner that if the site is not occupied it will not be suitable to be part of the reorganization plan ant therefore will be no reorganization. He continued on to explain the plan to the Board. He showed them the existing building that was there prior to coming to the Board for site plan approval. He explained that the building has been lifted up and a foundation has been put down underneath. He is asking only to be able to utilize the existing building that has been existing there for many years. He offered the following:
- A lot of work has been done removing two buildings.
- A dirt drive was put in that comes out on Joanne Drive.
- Foundations where put in for both of the buildings.
- The State is doing a take in, and one of the plans is from the State.
He stated that he is losing parking where they proposed but the state has proposed parking in areas where they did not; the state has part of their road plan. He pointed it out on the plan for the Board.
R. Gray asked if this plan will overlap this parking area and R. Pica pointed out the parking on the new plan.
L. Komornick clarified that the plan he is in with tonight is only for temporary occupancy for the building that is out there. It is not intended to be a site plan amendment.
R. Gray asked if they were recording this and was answered no.
R. Pica explained that they have reduced the parking area for the one building and not for the total project. Later on they will expand it back for what is needed.
R. Gray asked how many employees will be in the building.
R. Pica answered six employees including J. Davey.
S. Ranlett asked what will be going in the building.
J. Davey replied that it is going to be offices. It is not committed for who will be renting it. It will only be office space.
S. Ranlett said there will be no retail or no cars for sale and was answered no, just office space. He asked if they can put a note on it that if there are cars for sale there that they revoke it.
R. Gray stated that his concern is that the work is going to continue on the site if they allow the occupancy permit. He added that he’d like it to be a temporary plan.
L. Komornick clarified that that is what it is; that it expires when the Board says it expires.
R. Gray asked if it can be six months then he comes back to make sure work is going on.
L. Komornick replied yes. She added that he needs to come back with a site plan amendment to incorporate the States work.
R. Pica stated that they were going to ask for one year.
C. Lanza asked if you can put a term limit on a Certificate of Occupation and M. Dorman answered yes.
S. Ranlett restated to be clear that no cars or anything is to be for sale or it is an automatic revocation.
R. Pica said the purpose of the plan is to allow temporary use of an existing two story building for office space. It is clear it is for office space.
There was more discussion on the issue, and it was decided R. Pica would put a note on the plan saying no vehicular or trailer sales.
R. Gray motioned to allow J. Davey to have the Building Inspector issue a temporary occupancy permit for one year with the building Inspector to review every three months to make sure the work on the site plan is ongoing. If he deems the site work is not ongoing at any point then the occupancy permit is pulled. Also a site plan amendment is filed prior to the occupancy permit expiration to include NH DOT plan, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Nine:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
L. Komornick noted the announcement of the RPC Training Workshop if any of the Board members are interested.
Item Five:
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
