Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
PB Minutes 7/20/11



PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
July 20, 2011

Call to Order:  6:36 P.M.

Item One:

ROLL CALL:  Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, Charles Lanza and Joyce Ingerson.  Excused was Vice Chairman; Steve Ranlett.

Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick and Chief Building Official and Alternate; Mike Dorman.

Item Two:

Minutes of June 15, 2011  

 R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of June 15, 2011, second by C. Lanza.

C. Lanza stated that on page two, NPA Analysis needs to be changed to MPA.

R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes as amended, second by C. Lanza.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1; J. Ingerson abstained.

Item Three:

Minor Site Plan for Special Events at Plaistow Powersports

Present for the application was Chris Mackin, General Manager of Powersports.  He explained to the Board what he would like to do, noting the following:
  • Hold a special event/competition twice/year
  • Hold a small exhibition every Wednesday night after 6pm for about an hour
  • Last year they had 15 to 20 riders in competition
  • No charge to the public; event is to draw attraction to business
  • For both special event they will hire police detail and have obtained additional parking in neighboring parking lots
J. Ingerson asked if they would hold events in the parking lot and was answered yes.

T. Moore stated that if the Minor Site Plan is approved then the applicant will need to keep coming back each year.

C. Mackin said the same event was approved in 2009.  Since then they have modified it and made it safer.  He said he can make site plan adjustments; he just needs to know what to do.  They could not do a special event they planned and spent advertising money on in June and hope to not lose the whole summer.

T. Moore stated that as long as the Police Department is happy and there is plenty of parking.

C. Mackin explained that he has spoken to and they can use the lot in the back of the Mega Truck store as well as Sullivan tires.  He has not spoken to the owner of 125 tools and is not sure who the owner is.  It will be after hours when most of the tenants are closed and he has heard no complaints from anyone.

R. Gray asked if they carry insurance.

C. Mackin replied yes, Universal Underwriter.  He added that he can get more information if they need it.

J. Ingerson asked if it would only be adults doing the stunts.

C. Mackin replied that it is only adults; that all the riders sign waivers and understand that they are at their own risk.  He added that they have the barriers and fencing set up for safety as well.

J. Ingerson asked if he was the property owner.

C. Mackin answered no, he is the general manager.  The owner is Severn Group; he represents them and has been working there since 2002.

L. Komornick clarified that the Town has no obligation for enforcing regulations or laws about him holding a special stunt event.  It is his insurance company who is responsible if someone gets hurt.  She added that the police would just make sure the traffic was handled properly; and that is why she wanted to make sure that it was on record from Kathy (Kathleen Jones, Deputy Chief).  If someone gets hurt and tries to sue the Town, they are covered because they did due diligence.  It was an event that was approved by the PB but it was not something the PB could prohibit without good reason.

J. Ingerson asked if the company has done this at other sites.

C. Mackin replied no.  He stated that they started this back in 2009, but the stunt guys have been doing it since probably 2007/2008 themselves.  He became their sponsor and they go to other dealerships.  He added that they say no one else uses any protection like he (Powersports) does.

R. Gray stated that he is concerned with the noise issue from the bikes; will abutters have an issue.

C. Mackin responded that most of the businesses around them are closed on Sundays; he’s had no complaints before.

M. Dorman added that there is no one around them.

L. Komornick stated that they will need to get written permission from the property owner at the plaza because they will use the parking there.

R. Gray noted concern over skid marks from the bikes; surface damage.  He said they should inform the property owner that at any time the Town may approach them for resurfacing and stripping.

C. Mackin said they would be repainting this year and they have gotten quotes for repaving.  He understands he needs to deal with this and keep things up to par.

J. Ingerson asked if these would be the recreational vehicles that he sells at the company.

C. Mackin replied that the vehicles in the events have all been modified for the competition.  They are just holding it more for the public; it’s a free event for families to enjoy.

R. Gray asked if it would be only twice/year.

C. Mackin answered yes, twice/year but it could go down to once /year as it is a lot of work.  The weekly Wednesday nights is only a small exhibition.  They will put the barriers up and hold it from 6pm to 8pm.

L. Komornick wanted to clarify for the Board that in addition to the twice/year special event he is also asking for a weekly stunt exhibition.

R. Gray asked how long the weekly exhibitions would go on and was answered until the end of
September.

L. Komornick stated that she questions if it should be a minor site plan or if something should be put on the site plan.  The Board discussed this in comparison to the weekly cars shows.  It was decided that he could add the information onto the site plan in the fall for future reference.  She added that he needs to fill out a minor site plan and get written permission from both property owners.

C. Mackin asked if they could start up the weekly events right away as it is smaller with only about twenty people showing up and they do not utilize the other parking areas.

R. Gray stated that it was ok as long as he filed proof of insurance with the Town and that they have police detail available.  There was some discussion on the police detail for the smaller exhibits.

C. Lanza stated for the record that he would not require a police detail for the Wednesday night events.

C. Mackin said that if Wednesday night would require a police detail he may not do it.

T. Moore noted that he would be willing to let the Police Department know about the event then they can patrol by and see if there is a problem.  If there is a problem then the detail would be required.

R. Gray said he would be fine with that.  They will leave it up to Kathy (Kathleen Jones, Deputy Chief) to make the decision, but the police detail will be required for the two larger special events.

L. Komornick noted the conditions for approval as follows;
  • A Minor Site Plan is filled out
  • He gets more details from his Insurance Company
  • The abutters from the plaza and Mega Store are notified and written permission is received allowing customers to park in their lots.
  • Written permission from Plaistow Powersports
R. Gray motioned to approve the minor site plan based on the conditions L. Komornick read (above), second by J. Ingerson.

There is no discussion on the motion and the vote is 4-0-0 U/A.

L. Komronick asked if the property owner says no to the parking, can he still hold his events.

C. Mackin replied that he has plenty of parking at the Mega Store and Sullivan Tires, but he cannot keep people from parking in his lot or the fire lane.

L. Komornick said that that is where the police detail would come in and direct people to the correct place to park.  If they say no, he does not need to come back to the board; they will work out an arrangement.

Item Four:

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 Five:

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.

C. Lanza stepped down for item Four and Five.

Present for the applications was Jim Hanley, Project Engineer.  He explained that since they last met with the PB they have received a second review letter from CLD.  He added that the civil and survey details for the most part have been addressed with only a handful of minor details left to address.  They also submitted their Alteration of Terrain Permit Application with DES this week which is another item they had been waiting on.

L. Komornick noted that she had put a staff report together based CLD’s report.  It is decided by the Board that they will go through the items on the Staff Report.

  • The applicant has noted that Gunstock Rd. will be private from station12+00 to end at Ridgewood Rd.   No information appears on the plan to depict this.  Also, the road was approved as a public road and would not make planning sense to split it up.  The Highway Supervisor should be consulted regarding this matter as a minimum.  The applicant is also proposing that the side roads be private.
T. Moore asked if this was a recent change as the Board had been under the assumption that Gunstock would be a public road.

Present was Ron Brown, 289 Mill St. Haverhill MA.  Per the plans submitted 90 days ago the roads A, B and C were private on the development approved 4/6/11, and added that Snow’s Brook and other developments in the 55 and over range are private for specific reasons; one being  snow removal.  They can take care of snow removal when they want to do it, so it can be done in a fast manor.  He said he is only looking for the same thing they have approved the other 55 and over developments for.  He stated that all the roads will be built to the towns specifications.   Being private would mean that they would absorb the expense of caring for the roads alleviating the Town of that expense.

T. Moore stated that the difference is that Gunstock Road is a connecting road.

R. Brown said he agreed, but the only one way to satisfy it was to stop at 1200 feet, a little before the houses started, and make it private.  He added that it was an oversight that should have been on the first plan; all the other roads were listed as private roads.

T. Moore said he had no problem with the cul-de-sac roads being private but that he would not be in favor of making Gunstock private; it should be all a public road.  He added that they can get input from the Highway Supervisor, Police and Fire Departments to see if they have conflicting views and if they would support a private road and then maybe they could reconsider it.

R. Brown said they already had a review of the sub-division and have roads on there that have been reviewed with no problems from any departments.  He does not understand why this road would be a problem when it would be less of a burden on the Town.

M. Dorman stated that he does not remember it being reviewed by the Highway, Police and Fire Deptments and he feels they should get the opportunity to comment on it.  The question being would the road be open 24/7 for safety vehicles if it were private.  There was more discussion on the issue.

R. Brown stated that the Departments have had months to review the plan.

The Board replied that they have reviewed it assuming Gunstock would be a public road and have not reviewed a private road option.  

R. Brown added that it is in the notes on the plan that it would be private.

T. Moore said it gives a marker where the transition would be but it does not show on the reduced plan they have.  He added that it should show on the larger set of plans.

M. Dorman asked if the cul-de-sac/round about on Ridgewood would stay the way it is on this plan.  He’d like to ask the Highway Department; he thinks they want to keep it the same for traffic purposes.

T. Moore said he’s not disagreeing, but he thinks they talked about it and the abutters themselves wanted it to go straight through.

R. Gray read CLD’s comment (Section X. Other; F) and asked J. Hanley to clearly label the extent of the private road on the plan set as recommended.

  • The cross section for the roads to remain private should be shown (versus a typical cross section).
T. Moore asked if they are going to use the same cross section.

R. Brown replied that they did not show a cross section for the private road because they are building them to the Towns specifications.

T. Moore said to add a note to the plan that talks about the private roads that stated they will be build to same specs as public roads.

L. Komornick noted that the only point CLD has is not that they show a cross section; it is that the cross section shows a public right of way.  If it is going to be private it needs to be changed to reflect that.

J. Hanley said it is just two lines on the detail; they can take care of it.

M. Dorman asked J. Hanley to show on the plan where the 1200 foot line is.  He asked what the Towns plows will do, how they will turn around; they cannot plow private property.  They discussed putting in a turn around.

R. Brown suggested making the whole road private.

R. Gray said it makes more sense, but he would still like to consult with Highway Safety.
M. Dorman said he would speak to Highway Safety and would do so quickly.

T. Moore stated that he does not think the ordinances allow private roads.  He added that a driveway is a different story.  They have been giving some relief for the short cul-de-sac kind of roads.  He added that this one connects to a Town road.

R. Brown said Snow’s Brook did as well.

T. Moore responded that it connects to a Town road but it does not go through.  He explained what they did at Snow’s Brook further.

C. Lanza added (from the audience) that the remaining lots need to have frontage on a public road.  It would be four lots on a private road.

R. Brown said ok, we will not be able to do that.  He said getting back to the 1200, if they need a turnaround they can have that done tomorrow.  They already have three other cul-de-sac’s on the plan; it is a minor detail to add a cul-de-sac at station 1200 because they have an open area they were saving for a planting area where they can put a turn around.

L. Komornick asked if that would change the drainage calculations; it would need to be re-reviewed.

J. Hanley answered that it would add a little bit of pavement but that it would not change it much.  He asked if the Town would consider a T-type of turn around with less pavement and cutting of trees as opposed to a cul-de-sac.

The Board decided they would talk to Danny (Danny Garlington, Highway Supervisor) and see if that works.

R. Brown added that they have a road that goes down to the wells at almost 1200 feet; if they can put the T-turn around there it can satisfy everyone’s needs.

M. Dorman asked what would happen with the frontage on lots 62-40 and 62-41-15.

R. Brown said nothing; they would still be as the plan shows today.

R. Gray asked if he wants to keep part of the road public and part of the road private.

R. Brown replied no, he wants the whole development private.

R. Gray stated that he will then need a variance; the regulations state that all roadways shall be public and shall be constructed to Town regulations and requirements.

R. Brown stated that the Board granted Snows Brook on 4/6/11, a private development, and they didn’t need to get a (variance).

T. Moore explained Snows Brook roadway again.

R. Brown asked if they could ask for a waiver like Snows Brook did for it to become private with public built roads and roads built to Town specifications; snows Brook was approved that waiver.

L. Komornick clarified that they did not grant a waiver; it was a driveway into the site that they agreed to build to Town specs.

R. Brown said we can say it’s a driveway, but in reality it is a road that goes into a private development.
T. Moore stated that a driveway does not connect two public roads.

L. Komornick stated that he needs a variance.  Snows Brook did not need a variance or a waiver because it was a driveway into their property.  There was more discussion on the issue.

T. Moore said that they do not have that option with this plan because it connects two existing public ways.  The only procedure for him to do that is to apply for a variance.  If the Police Chief, Fire Chief and Highway Safety Committee support it then they can submit letters of support to the ZBA.

  • The applicant has agreed to show the location and enclosure details for the dumpsters.
J. Hanley said they will get the dumpster locations and enclosure detail on the plan set.

  • The applicant will correct the detail layout of the handicapped parking space on the parking detail; it does not match the proposed layout of the plan.
J. Hanley said they would get those details on there as well.

  • The applicant will forward a copy of water supply permit to the Town but should also provide this to CLD as well, which will include the design for the pump house etc…
J. Hanley said he would forward the Board a copy of the water supply permit.

R. Brown added that they are presently obtaining state permits on a regular basis; they are permitted.

  • The applicant has agreed to add the location of the stump disposal area to the plan set.
J. Hanley stated he will get that information on the plan.

  • Prior to construction, the applicant has agreed to provide a larger scale print of the silt fence locations so that areas requiring special design attention can be more easily identified.
J. Hanley explained that they put together a specific erosion sediment control plan; it was 100 scale and had some notes and details.  He said they wanted it tighter than that so they will show that on the grading plan as well.

  • Prior to construction, the applicant has agreed to revise the detail on sheet 15 that shows 8” of loam to match the erosion control Note #7 that currently shows 4” of loam.
J. Hanley stated that it is their intent to have 4”.

  • The applicant has agreed to provide the planting details for the additional areas of landscaping on the plan set.
  • The applicant has agreed to provide a detail for the gravel area and to clarify the note that this graveled area will absolutely be for NON MOTORIZED VEHICLES ONLY (RV’S WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED!)

J. Hanley said referred to the parking area behind buildings 7 & 8.  When he revised the drainage calculations, they assume it will be 100% impervious.  Because the Board had reservations about the gravel they will try and take the gravel idea out of it.  They ran it assuming it was impervious and the numbers worked fine.  He added that that is what they allotted for in the drainage calculations; for it to be impervious and it works that way.

  • The applicant has agreed to provide a note that says that the path will be maintained by the complex or something to that effect. (This is the 6-8 foot path that is to be cleared following natural terrain).
  • The applicant has agreed to provide a crosswalk detail on the plan and provide spot grades at locations where the sidewalk meets the clubhouse.
J. Hanley said they can definitely do that.

R. Brown added that they have no curbing so there is no change in elevation.

  • The applicant has agreed to provide more detail on the spot grades for the club house area and the associated parking and sidewalks around the clubhouse.
J. Hanley stated that this item is just spot grades around the clubhouse; they just need to add those to the plan.

  • The following waiver needs to be requested and approved: Site Plan review Regulations 230-14.1.S – waiver to allow scale of plan greater than 1’=50’.
J. Hanley said one waiver is just the plan scale.  They feel the plans they’ve prepared read very well as far as detail goes.  Some are at 100 and some are at 50.  They are looking to allow the scale of the plan to be greater than 1” = 50”.  He noted that the second waiver is relative to drainage.  He explained that on the Northwest corner of the property they have 2.4 acres which after adding the development will decrease to about 1.5 acres.  There are two soil types and two cover types in this area.  The area to be removed is the A soils which are good for infiltration, it is where the infiltration is going.  They decrease the area by about an acre, but because of where that area comes from, A soils, one variable is the curve number.  The area goes down and the curve number goes up and the time of concentration stays the same.  He handed out a letter of request to the Board which summarized what the impact is for up to and including 50 years.  He went through the summary with the Board.  He stated that the bottom line is that the method they are required to use to analyze storm events is not best suited to analyze an acre to an acre and a half.  They are better suited to analyze 20 to 60 acres.  When they get numbers this small it is in the margin of error and because of how they calculated it that is how it shows.  He explained that what they can do is, although it does not make sense to him, go in and gut out even more area out of the watershed, create swales that bring it back into the area.  Then cut out another half an acre and reroute it back into the wetland pond and then it would work.  As a professional engineer, he feels it is best suited to ask the Board to consider this waiver.

L. Komornick noted that CLD supported Low-Impact Development Techniques to offset this little bit.  She added that by doing something minor that amount of water can be addressed without needing to take out an area of trees.  

They discussed the issue further.  

L. Komornick stated again the CLD supports this; she just wants to note that according to zoning they cannot grant a waiver.  They can make it clear that what the Ordinance requires (220-117).

J. Hanley cut in saying that in the parenthesis after 220-117.3.B.1 it reads “The PB has the discretion to permit the increase if sufficient information is provided.”
M. Dorman stated that he would hate to see another tree or cubic yard of material is removed.

L. Komornick read the Ordinance to the Board and stated that she agrees with J. Hanley.  They have the recommendation from CLD so in effect they can permit it but it is not a waiver.

It was the consensus of the Board that they will allow the minor increase.  

L. Komornick noted that CLD based the support from the calculations packet submitted and that if anything should change, such as a turnaround in the road.

J. Hanley stated that it is in a different watershed so it wouldn’t affect this.  He added that the parking area may have an impact.

T. Moore noted that this was the end of CLD’s comments.  He asked to address the waiver for the scale of the plan before they move on.

R. Gray motioned to waive (SPRR) 230-14.1.S for scale of plan greater than 1”=50”, second by J. Ingerson.

M. Dorman asked if the registry required a certain scale and was answered no.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.

T. Moore asked if any would be designated as affordable.

R. Brown replied no.

Present was Thomas MacMillan, Attorney for R. Brown.  He stated that he had a conversation with L. Komornick and he thinks the Town has enough affordable housing.  He thinks that the Board allowed a waiver of that requirement for another elderly housing development and they would be looking for a waiver in this case as well.

L. Komornick stated that that was based on the original Elderly Housing Ordinance; that the ordinance said to the extent possible.  She said it is for the record that it was not an oversight; that they did ask for it.

R. Gray asked if the ordinance they are reviewing this plan under requires (affordable housing).

L. Komornick clarified to the extent possible.

T. Moore stated that it was fine.

R. Brown asked the Board to vote on the waiver.

The Board stated that it is in the minutes that they discussed it; it is within the Ordinance.

T. Moore wanted to clarify how the phases of the plan would be done.  He stated that their ordinance permits phasing but phasing does not lock in any set zoning or regulations.  It says that if you do a second phase, above and beyond the normal four year construction interval, anything beyond that would have to comply with current zoning.  He said in this case because the Ordinance has been repealed, there is beyond the four year period, there is no underlying ordinance.  He said they do not have to build all forty at once but they will need to get as much completed so the project is vested.  He added that at the end of the four year period they will need to return for a site plan review and will need to have substantial completion which means all buildings are erected and paved areas have concrete or asphalt binder course applied.  If the project is vested then they are still in compliance with those ordinances.  He wanted to make that clear for the record.

R. Brown said he understands being vest and they are a vested development.  They do not plan on being here in four years as they hope to be sold out by then.

L. Komornick asked about the clubhouse/ social room amenities saying that it is not clear on the plan when they plan to build the amenities.  She added that there is no requirement except for the social room when they have 9 units.

R. Brown asked where in the ordinance it says he needs to build a social room at 9 units and was answered in the Elderly Housing Ordinance.  He replied that it is in their best interest to build the clubhouse as soon as possible to attract the best clients they can attract.

L. Komornick stated if he could put a note on the plan about when he plans to build it then that will help prospective buyers.  If not and buyers come in two years after purchasing and ask why the clubhouse has not been built the Town will not be able to make it be built.  There is more discussion.

R. Brown understands they need to build a clubhouse according to the Ordinance.  He asked the Board if they have satisfied all of the issues except the town rd and was answered yes.

R. Gray stated they may need a public hearing.  He asked if there will need to be a denial so they can go to the ZBA for a variance to make it a private road.  There was more discussion by the Board on the issue.

R. Brown stated that he will go public with Gunstock and take it off the table so there are no issues anymore.

T. Moore asked if any members of the Board had any other concerns or questions and there were none.  He asked the audience if there were any abutters present with questions or concerns.

Present was Denis Donovan, 39 Greenfield Drive.  He asked what will happen to the cul-de-sac at the end of Ridgewood Road.

T. Moore replied that all previous plans included Gunstock as a public road and removing the cul-de-sac at the end of Ridgewood.  He thinks it was the two abutters that wanted the cul-de-sac removed.  The Town would not have any reason to force it to be removed.

D. Donovan said his question is when the Town repaved Gunstock and Ridgewood it stopped where the cul-de-sac  begins to come out because when Gunstock finally got made they were going to carve the road straight through and then connect to the hot top which now stops at the end of the cul-de-sac.  It has now been like that for years.

L. Komornick stated that the plan needs to show the road going straight through.  

The Board looked at the plan and discussed whether the cul-de-sac should stay or go and what the plan reflects.

R. Brown stated that the abutters wanted it taken out; it gave then more frontages on their properties.  He said he would like to make the abutters happy.  If they want it to stay or go either way is ok with him.

R. Gray asked if the abutters from lots 63, 83 and 63-81 not notified.

L. Komornick said yes, but they did not come tonight because it is showing that it is going to go straight through.

It is discussed further and it is decided that the cul-de-sac will be removed and the road will go straight through, as the plan stands.

T. Moore said it is a Town road and so they change their minds they can come to the BOS and ask outside of this approval.

D. Donovan asked the Board to allow him to read a statement written and submitted to the Chairman of the Board back in August 2010 by the Greenfield Hill Home Owners Association.  He read the letter to the Board and asked that it be resubmitted and placed in the permanent file supporting their concerns about this development.  He had copies made for the Board.

T. Moore replied that they did look to see if the PB had any purview over the removal or demolition of the house as part of the review and approval process and they did not.  Normal enforcement actions will be taken through the Code Enforcement Officer and the BOS.

D. Donovan said he understood, but he also understands that the Board does not act and operate in a vacuum and has access and accountabilities in other areas in the community and in the Town.

T. Moore said there is a fifty foot building buffer which is on the plan.  If R. Brown is willing to do some additional plantings there it is up to him; there is no requirement that that buffer be vegetated.  The hope is that it would have been left undisturbed.

R. Brown replied that they would like to add more buffer there if it is ok with the Board.

The Board said ok.

L. Komornick commented on D. Donovan’s statement (in the letter submitted) regarding illegal tree clearing saying that DES did issue a cease and desist because it is a violation of an RSA that you cannot clear property that is seeking approvals.  In the future they have the right to work with DES on this issue.  There is a state law that permits developers from clearing an area that should be properly permitted.

T. Moore said it had been a long time and he did not remember the timing of the submission of the first application with the cutting.  He added that they try to monitor it closely and once the application is submitted it freezes activity until everything is approved.

R. Brown stated that they were fully permitted at the time and the Town was notified 30 days before they started cutting.

R. Gray asked M. Dorman if it was his understanding that once construction starts happening on the street, on the residential units, that Public Safety Officials need to have access to Gunstock Road completely without boulders and trucks parked.

M. Dorman answered that once construction starts access to the site is mandatory.

J. Ingerson asked if it was blocked and R. Gray stated that both ends of the street are blocked off.

M. Dorman clarified that when construction starts it will need to be open at least from the top.

L. Komornick said there was a correction that needs to be made on the cover sheet.  It previously said the project proposed is a condominium and prior to construction it had condominium unit.  Now it says release of the first unit and that is in violation of the ordinance that says sale units as condominiums, a condominium application must be filed.  That includes State DES Sub-Division approval and that is how they had the note on the Snows brook plan so she is asking that this note be the same.  She added that if they start construction and cannot get DES approval for any reason; there should not be a building permit issued until that is done.

R. Brown said he understood that if they do not have Attorney General Approval they will not be able to sell a building and will be shut down, therefore they will have it before they close on the first property.

L. Komornick stated that their Ordinance specifically says that you need to have a condominium plan approved by the PB prior to construction.  

R. Brown said that is fine; they are aware of that.

T. Moore stated that they were ready to make a conditional approval.  The Board agreed to base the conditions off the staff report and said the conditions would be spelled out in the Notice of decision.

R. Gray asked if there was nothing being built into the road that would change the drainage calculation and was answered no.

The Board stated the conditions as follows:
  • State permit are in.
  • Everything they discussed tonight in regards to CLD in the staff report is satisfied.
  • Notes on the plan need to refer to the public road.
  • Add note to the plan that condominium approval is obtained before building permit is issued.
R. Brown asked if it was just before home construction could begin; not construction of the site.

The Board discussed the issue and L. Komornick read the Ordinance.  It was decided that the note would be worded in the language of the Elderly Housing Ordinance and if there was a difference in interpretation they will deal with it later.

L. Komornick asked for clarification that the area for the non-motorized vehicles would not be paved.

R. Brown replied that it would not be paved and he understood that no motorized vehicles could be parked there.

L. Komornick said if he paved it was already taken into account with the drainage and the clients could really utilize that space for RV parking.  She added that if they do not pave it then there needs to be a specific note that stated non-motorized vehicles only.

R. Brown said he would be happy to pave it.

L. Komornick said they could get rid of comment number 10 as he’ll he paving the gravel area.

T. MacMillan asked if there was an issue with the first comment in the report.

L. Komornick clarified the note for Gunstock Road saying the note should read that Gunstock Road will be public and associated driveways/roadways will be private.

R. Brown asked the Board if they could plow the Road.

The Board replied that that can be dealt with after.
L. Komornick asked about the cross section and R. Brown clarified that they have a Town approved cross section on the plan so that is the roads they  are building and as they are not building any private roads they do not need to change anything.

L. Komornick said her understanding from CLD is that they noted that it talks about a public right of way on the cross section; it’s a terminology issue that needs to be changed.

R. Brown said ok, they would take care of it.

L. Komronick read the motion to the Board for clarification as follows:

The motion is to conditionally approve the site plan based on:

  • The plans indicating Gunstock Road will be public and the side roads will be private
  • The cross sections of roads will reflect being private vs. public
  • The applicant agreed to show the location and enclosure details for the dumpsters
  • The applicant will correct the detail layout of the handicap parking space on the parking detail so that it matches the layout of the plan
  • The applicant will forward a copy of the water supply permit to the Town and CLD which includes the information on the design of the pump house, etc…
  • The applicant has agreed to add the location of the stump disposal area to the plan set
  • Prior to construction the applicant has agreed to provide a larger scale print of the silt fence locations so that areas that require special design attention can be more easily identified
  • The applicant has agreed to revise the detail of sheet 15 that shows 8” of loam to match the erosion control note # 7 that currently shows 4” of loam
  • The applicant has agreed to add provide planting details for the additional areas of landscaping on the plan set
R. Brown added that they will add additional plantings on the entrance from Ridgewood on both sides of the entrance road, and maybe stone walls as well.
  • The applicant  has agreed to provide a note that says the path will be maintained by the complex
  • The applicant has agreed to add cross walk detail to the plan that provides spot grades at locations where the side walk meets the cross walk.
  • The applicant has agreed to provide more detail on spot grades for the clubhouse area and associated parking and sidewalks around the clubhouse
  • Add the waiver approval to the plan for the scale of the plan to be greater than 1”=50’
  • A correction of the note 23 change to read from Towns language about the condominuimization process
  • Receipt of all State permits
T. Moore asked if there was such a motion.

R. Gray motioned, second by J. Ingerson

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.

R. Brown asked if they would sign tonight.

T. Moore answered that they do not sign the plan until all the conditions are met.

The Board realized they needed to vote on the consolidation first.

R. Gray motioned to approve the consolidation plan, Tax Map 62, Lot 41-4 through 41-14, second by J. Ingerson.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.

R. Gray motioned to conditionally approve the site plan based off the discussion they had previously and all the conditions that were mentioned during that discussion, second by J. Ingerson.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.

C. Lanza rejoined the Board.

Item Six:

Master Plan Update Workshop

T. Moore stated that he has a Vision Statement 80% completed and will send the updates out by e-mail.  They will be ready to discuss it at the August 1st meeting.

Item Seven:

Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA

LGC Conference

T. Moore gave an FYI to the Board that the Conference will be held on November 16th & 17th at the Radisson in Manchester.

Rockingham Church

L. Komornick explained that the PB received a note from Pastor Steve from the Church that they are holding a concert this weekend and are seeking approval.

R. Gray asked how many people they will be expecting and if they need a detail.

L. Komornick replied that the letter states that they will contain all members on the property, it will be kept to a noise level consistent within the Towns Ordinance and all parking will be on site and not on Newton Road.

R. Gray motioned to approve the outside event for Rockingham church for this Saturday, second by C. Lanza.

C. Lanza asked if they built a stage and asked if it was a permanent stage and was answered yes.

M. Dorman said it was done over the weekend.  He added that he will look into it.

L. Komornick stated that they will look into it.  If it is permanent they will get them to amend the plan.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.

Letter from Charlie Zilch

L. Komornick explained the letter outlined some changes that had to be made to the plan.  She added that they have submitted a Mylar to be recorded and not an issue that required a public hearing because it is just an administrative issue.  They came in and asked to locate a salon there and when they pulled the plan out it said professional office building.  She read the letter to the Board.  She said in effect, he’s going to have a hair salon.  Until that hair salon leaves, the plan that was approved by the Board is null and void to the extent that it was not approved.  Before M. Dorman issued an office permit to the hair salon they need to get this detail straightened out so it wasn’t a violation of the site plan.

C. Lanza asked if it would revert back.

L. Komornick clarified that it is reverted back by virtue of the fact that he wants to put in a hair salon.  She added, do we make him go back to the old plan or have him handle it in this manner so that if he wants  to proceeded with the site plan he received the approval on for the expansion he can do so but not until he vacates that building of the hair salon.

The Board discussed the issue further.

T. Moore asked if they would be recording this (Mylar) and was answered yes.  He said once its recorded that is what he needs to comply with.  At some point if he wants the hair salon out and the office space back then he’ll need to come in with another site plan that shows that.  The fact that the site plan he submits later on may or may not coincide with the one he.

L. Komornick asked if this null and voids his site plan approval.

C. Lanza asked if this resets the clock because no he has an approved site plan on July 2011.

L. Komornick said that is up to the Board to decide how they want to handle it.  She just wants to get it figured out, if the Board has something better in mind on how to deal with this.

There was more discussion and the Board decided that it is an amended site plan.

R. Gray motioned to approve the amended site plan for 21 Atkinson Depot Rd, second by C. Lanza.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.

Site Upgrades

R. Gray asked M. Dorman if when someone vacates a commercial building before occupancy permit is issued to the new occupant do you go out and inspect the site for any upgrades that can happen.

M. Dorman replied that if it is a single building on a single site, yes.  But usually it is just a unit.

R. Gray stated that when that happens it is a good time to make the new owners or occupants of the property re-pave it over; seal coating and re-striping.

There was more discussion on the issue.  

It was decided that when issuing a new occupancy permit the new owners/tenants seal coat cracks in their pavement.

Item Eight:

There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 P.M.


Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.



Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________

_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman