PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
December 07, 2011
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was 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; Mike Dorman.
Item Two:
Minutes of November 16, 2011
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of November 16, 2011, second by C. Lanza
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on a Minor Site Plan Application for biweekly car shows and swap meet (motorized parts sales) between May 2012 and September 2012 on a portion of the property located at 127 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 29, Lot 58, totaling 6.7 acres and owned by Hope Pentoliros and is the current location of “Hope’s Diner.” These shows will be open to the public on Sundays only from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. Access to the property will be from Route 125 exclusively. The property will be maintained and kept maintained before, during and after all shows. The shows are being sponsored by Vintage Custom Cycle out of Hampstead, NH with permission from the property owner.
Present for the application was Joe Roy.
L. Komornick explained that this was the hearing the Board decided they would have after the abutters were notified; the application had been approved pending the notification of the abutters.
J. Roy summarized that he would like a cruise event with the dinner backdrop that would be all day on some Sundays no later than 6: pm. He wants to have a low budget entertainment event.
Present was Patrick and Melanie Holding, 13 Jessie George Rd. P. Holding explained that they do not have an issue with the cruise event. They do have an issue with a flea market or swap meet. They want to maintain a nice neighborhood with quiet enjoyment. He is concerned with the band that is part of the proposal and he asked about the porta potties and the clean-up of them.
J. Roy replied that they will remove the porta potties after every event. He wants to keep the property sanitary and neat as well as mowed and maintained. He explained that the cruise events and swap meets overlap; they are the kind of venders that go with the show, selling things like tee-shirts.
P. Holding asked if they would need vending permits from the Town; what types of venders. He noticed that it is supported by a motorcycle club and wanted to know exactly what they are talking about.
L. Komornick explained that it is the name of his (J. Roy) business; but it will be all cars at the event.
J. Roy explained that he runs a motorcycle business but that he is not a motorcycle club. He went on to discuss what kinds of venders would be at the event including Art’s Cars Parts. He said they are established people who come in for these events. There was more discussion on this issue.
P. Holding restated his concerns saying that it seems like a flea market and not a nice cars show. He wants to be clear exactly what will happen at the events adding that the venders are his main concern; what will they sell and will it be like Derry NH’s flea market.
R. Gray clarified that they will sell car parts at the car show.
M. Holding stated that they are concerned with what time the band will start playing in the morning.
J. Roy answered that it may be a D-Jay and will not be overly loud. He just wants to create entertainment with the diner and a late 50’s/60’s setting.
M. Holding said they are worried about the noise, the traffic, and where everyone will be parking. She is concerned people will turn around in her driveway or park on her front lawn.
J. Roy answered that he intends to keep the traffic out of there; the only place to enter is from the diner. He added that these events do not start out with an overwhelming response.
M. Holding asked when they would start setting up for the event.
J. Roy replied that they would set-up between 7 am and 8 am.
P. Holding asked if there would be a police detail to direct traffic.
R. Gray responded that if the Police Chief recommends it then they would have a police detail there but it must be recommended by the Police Chief.
M. Holding asked who they can come to if they have any issues when they event is happening.
T. Moore answered that if there is an emergency they can call 911; for normal complaints like the band is loud they can call M. Dorman, the Code Enforcement Officer at Town Hall.
R. Gray stated that as the property is located in the Commercial 1 Zone the owners of the property have certain rights for their businesses that include the selling of merchandise. He added that they can put restrictions on the approval such as on-site parking only and on the hours of operation then if they become an issue they can call M. Dorman who can shut them down.
J. Ingerson asked the Holdings to show her where there property was on the site-map. M. Holding showed her.
There was more discussion regarding these issues.
L. Komornick asked J. Roy if he would be willing to exchange phone numbers with the abutters. She would like him to give the abutters a phone call when he will start the event which will not be until next year. He agreed to. She added that as he always has been very good about responding to requests and requirements; she senses that he will be sensitive to any of their needs.
J. Roy agreed.
R. Gray motioned to approve the minor site plan with the following conditions:
- Parking is limited to on-site parking only
- Hours of operation be between 7am and 6pm
- If the Police chief indicates a police detail is needed the tenant will be required to supply one
- Get all necessary permits from the Health Officer
J. Roy asked if the car dealership was willing to open up his lot to them would the Town be opposed to that.
L. Komornick replied that they would need to get letters and they would need to show where they would park.
There was more discussion on this issue. It was decided By the Board that if the event grows to need extra parking then he should come back in to the Board.
L. Komornick added that they need to stay within the parameters of the property.
J. Ingerson second the motion.
C. Lanza asked if the hours would be from 7am to 6pm as R. Gray’s motion states or 9am to 6pm as the site plan states.
R. Gray replied that it was to give them time to set-up.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A
Item Four:
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan Amendment to show the as-built locations of two existing businesses and the proposed location of a tire sales and mounting store on the property located at 100 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lot 25 totaling 1.02 acres and having 389.57 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Mears Realty Corporation.
Present for the application was Tim Lavelle, James Lavelle & Associates, representing Mears Realty Corporation.
T. Lavelle explained the following:
- It is an existing Building
- There are three buildings on this site; Leiths Flower Shop, King Press and the storage building.
- They propose to utilize the back of the building to sell tires and install tires.
- There are two overhead doors existing; they propose to eliminate one and replace one with a handicap door for their office.
- The existing storage building will be used for storage of their tires.
- They propose to add paving to the south of the lot where the gravel area was for the storage of non-motorized equipment was on the previous site plan.
- They propose to increase the parking on the site to 30 spaces (it requires 23 spaces and 1 handicap spot).
- Three employees are there but they figured it for six maximum.
- Drainage will remain the same.
- Water is picked-up by basins along Rt. 125 and there is a leaching basin in the parking lot that will remain.
R. Gray asked if the existing paving would be resurfaced.
T. Lavalle replied that he is not sure that it needs to be.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman how the paving was on the site presently.
M. Dorman answered that he is not sure.
R. Gray stated that anyone who comes in with a new site plan; he is going to want them to have the pavement re-done.
Also present was Bill Mears. He asked R. Gray if he was referring to the south side of the building.
T. Lavelle stated that the pavement on the south side is not broken-up; it is in decent shape.
There is more discussion on the pavement issue and the Board decided that M. Dorman would go out to the site and make a decision on it.
M. Dorman suggested the Board put repaving for new and amended site plans into their new zoning changes if that is what they want to do.
L. Komornick asked if they would be able to do the re-stripping.
T. Lavelle answered yes; they will go right over it.
There was more discussion on the stripping. It was decided that the stripping will be done for this plan.
J. Ingerson asked if only one handicap spot was required for thirty parking spaces.
M. Dorman replied that he would check; they may need one more. He added that if they need one more then they will do it.
T. Lavelle agreed.
C. Lanza asked T. Lavelle if he had run the septic numbers.
T. Lavelle answered yes, that it is oversized for six employees; it is more than enough.
L. Komornick asked if Mr. Leith knows (about the amendment).
T. Lavelle responded yes; they spoke to the people in the flower shop.
R. Gray noted that the site lies in the Aqua Protection Zone. He asked what adding the pavement will do in regards to run-off and such.
T. Lavelle said as far as drainage calculations are concerned; nothing. He said it was a gravel parking area that is packed down and considered impervious by drainage calculations. It is mostly picked-up by the catch basins along Rt. 125.
L. Komornick added that when they re-do that section of road in 2014 there will be changes going on.
T. Lavelle answered that they have looked at that. He said they are just paving for the existing conditions and they have already made provisions for the existing conditions; the drainage should work. He added that there is a catch basin in the middle of the parking lot; a leaching basin. Everything is directed towards that.
R. Gray asked about the existing light post that is on the plan; if it would be moved.
T. Lavelle answered that it would be moved to the edge of the parking.
R. Gray asked that they reflect that in the plan.
B. Mears stated that they might take the light post out.
The Board expressed concern and stated they would want lighting in the parking lot.
They discussed where the lighting could be added. It was decided that they would have the lighting on the storage building with a timer and that it would be added to the plan.
T. Moore said they need to make sure it is compliant with the full cut-off.
C. Lanza noted that the plan showed a lane going around to the back parking lot. He asked if they would have any signage or stripping to direct people.
T. Lavelle answered that they were going to stripe it. He will add that to the plan as well.
L. Komornick asked there was a chain link gate there.
B. Mears replied that it is there. He is not sure if it is closed at night; it was always open when he was there.
R. Gray asked what their zoning says about greenery, shrubs and trees.
M. Dorman said it is required for a site plan.
R. Gray said that would need to be added to the plan as well.
T. Lavelle asked if they need to add landscaping to an existing plan for a change of use.
L. Komornick stated that they are not adding but replacing something.
R. Gray said they are adding parking.
L. Komornick said they want to put in a stockade fence there; that will take care of a section. There is more discussion on the landscaping issue.
T. Moore noted that he would be reluctant to landscape until the Rt. 125 roadwork is completed.
R. Gray expressed concern that if they did not do it now then it will not get done. He wished the plans would incorporate the Rt. 125 project and how much land they will take.
L. Komornick said she can provide this plan to DOT and let them know; but they are not making any changes to that area. She added that this is a pre-existing site with just a change of use.
There was more discussion regarding the Rt. 125 road work and this site and whether this is a change of use or an amendment. It was decided that they could forget the greenery and that M. Dorman will look at the paving.
L. Komrnick asked if T. Lavelle would check on the lot coverage to see where they are at so they will have it.
T. Lavelle answered yes.
L. Komornick asked if they would designate spaces for each business.
T. Lavelle answered no; they all park close to the business they are visiting. The further away spots will be for employees.
C. Lanza motioned to approve the change of use with the conditions that they check the handicap regulations, one or two spots, and comply, M. Dorman will make a decision on whether to repave, they add the percentage to the plan and they add the lighting to the plan. J. Ingerson second the motion.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Five:
Public Hearing to consider amending the Town Of Plaistow Zoning Ordinances
The Board read through and discussed each proposed zoning Ordinance Amendment.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article II, definition, §220-2, Definitions, as following:
Replace the existing definition of structure with the following new definition: Structure: Anything constructed, the use of which requires permanent location on or in the ground or attached to an object having permanent location on or in the ground.
- For the purpose of this definition only, permanent location shall mean in place for more than thirty days.
- Fences and single mast flag poles shall not be considered structures.
- Stone walls when used to define property boundaries shall not be considered structures.
- Free standing signs, utility poles and radio/antenna towers shall be considered structures regardless of size. All other objects must have at least one (1) side, roof or floor whose size exceeds twenty four square feet (24 sq ft).
- All tanks or group of tanks whose total capacity exceeds one hundred (100) gallons, on, above or below the ground shall be considered a structure.
- All structures, except for signs, shall require a building permit before installation. See other articles in this ordinance for sign permitting requirements.
(Intent: To better clarify the definition of a structure.)
The Board discussed the following concerns:
- The setbacks for free standing signs and utility poles; whether they should be considered a structure.
The Board agreed to take signs out of the definition.
- The Quonset Huts and other similar structures; are they clearly defined.
It was suggested that they state the name Quonset Hut in the definition.
- Septic tanks and the setbacks they would require as a structure.
- They discussed removing section E. from the definition.
It was decided that they would give this amendment more research and thought and discuss it at the next meeting.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article II, Definitions, §220-2, Definitions, as follows:
Add a new definition for Bed and Breakfast facilities as follows:
BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY: See ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE.
(Intent: To provide a definition for Rooming and Boarding House.)
The Board read and discussed the definition for Rooming and Boarding House. They agreed it is a commercial use and therefore needs a site plan. They will add to the definition of Rooming and Boarding House that it is a commercial use and includes Bed and Breakfast.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32C, “CII”- Commercial II as follows:
Add a new permitted use in paragraph B, Permitted Uses, as follows:
8.1 Rooming and Boarding House
Add a new paragraph to specify additional checks for Rooming and Boarding Houses as follows:
D. Occupancy permits for Rooming and Boarding Houses.
Before any occupancy permits can be issued to allow boarders to rent rooms, the adequacy of septic systems and parking spaces must be verified. Furthermore, the Fire Chief must certify that the proper detection systems are in place and that all boarders can safely evacuate the building in case of an emergency.
(Intent: To allow for Rooming and Boarding Houses in the CII District and to provide certain requirements for them.)
The Board decided that if they include in the definition that it is a commercial use then they can omit paragraph D.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32D, “VC”- Village Center as follows:
Add a new permitted use in paragraph B, Permitted Uses, as follows:
9. Rooming and Boarding House
Add a new paragraph to specify additional checks for Rooming and Boarding Houses as follows:
D. Occupancy Permits for Rooming and Boarding Houses.
Before any occupancy permits can be issued to allow boarders to rent rooms, the adequacy of septic systems and parking spaces must be verified. Furthermore, the Fire Chief must certify that the proper detection systems are in place and that all boarders can safely evacuate the building in case of an emergency.
(Intent: to allow for Rooming and Boarding Houses in the Village Center District and to provide certain requirements for them.)
The Board decided to add Rooming and Boarding Houses as a permitted use but will remove paragraph D. from this section as well.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32G, “ICR”- Integrated Commercial Residential as follows:
Add a new permitted use in paragraph B (1), Permitted Commercial Uses, as follows:
(K) Rooming and Boarding House
Add a new paragraph to specify additional checks for Rooming and Boarding Houses as follows:
E. Occupancy Permits for Rooming and Boarding Houses.
Before any occupancy permits can be issued to allow boarders to rent rooms, the adequacy of septic systems and parking spaces must be verified. Furthermore, the Fire Chief must certify that the proper detection systems are in place and that all boarders can safely evacuate the building in case of an emergency.
(Intent: To allow for rooming and Boarding Houses in the Integrated Commercial Residential district and to provide certain requirements for them.)
The Board decided to add Rooming and Boarding Houses as a permitted use to paragraph B (1) but will remove paragraph E. from this section as well.
The Board discussed the difference between a bed and breakfast, a boarding house, and an apartment. If a Boarding House is to be converted into apartments they would need to come in to see the PB with a new site plan; this covers any septic issues.
The Board discussed having applicants with a new site plan or an amendment have the paving re-done.
M. Dorman suggested having it in the regulations so people will know about the requirement before they come in. The Board discussed it further.
L. Komornick said the Board holds the right to ask for anything; case by case.
C. Lanza said it should be case specific.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32C, “CII”- Commercial II as follows:
Add a new permitted use in paragraph B, Permitted Uses, as follows:
10. Mixed Commercial/residential use.
(Intent: to allow for mixed uses in the entire Commercial II District and allow either portion (Commercial or Residential) of mixed used properties to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
T. Moore explained that this issue has come up a few times with the PB; the property owner either has to live at the residence or be at the business with the intent that if the property owner is on-site the property will be kept well maintained. He said that they have had requests to drop the owner on site requirement.
L. Komornick added that this will address allowing mixed uses all the way down Main Street without changing the Village Center District they were thinking about doing.
The Board discussed this issue and was in disagreement about dropping this requirement.
R. Gray stated that he is not in favor of having multiple apartments upstairs with a commercial business downstairs, especially with an absent landlord.
C. Lanza does not feel having the property owners on-site is necessarily the solution to having people maintain their properties.
There is further discussion.
J. Ingerson suggested having the grounds inspected when there is a request for an occupancy permit.
M. Dorman said he inspects the unit primarily.
T. Moore explained that once an occupancy permit is issued, unless there is a change of use or tenant it does not get look at. There is more discussion on this issue.
R. Gray said he is in favor of a person renting the whole property out for someone to live there and run their business there.
T. Moore stated that it might be okay to have the mixed use with two conditions:
- To have the property owner residing on-site or owner of the business
- The property owner is renting to a single person (or family) that is both residing at the property and owner of the business.
J. Ingerson would like the ordinance to stay as it is. She feels the Town should hold property owners accountable for what happens to their properties and they need to be present to take care of their properties. There is more discussion.
R. Gray suggested putting maintaining the property in the regulations.
The Board will modify the intent adding the clause: mixed use where the work place or the residence must be owner occupied.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32D, “VC”- Village Center as follows:
Remove the restriction that the property owner must either be a resident or operate the business in a mixed use property by modifying paragraph B, Permitted uses, to read as follows:
(Intent: To allow either portion (Commercial or residential) of mixed used properties located in the Village Center District to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
The Board decided as they were leaving the mixed use as it is now this amendment will not be needed.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32G, “ICR”- Integrated Commercial Residential as follows:
Remove the restriction that the property owner must occupy the single family residence when used as part of a Combined Use by modifying paragraph B(4), Combined Uses, to read as follows:
(4) Combined uses. A single family dwelling may be combined with any of the following Uses:
(Intent: to allow either portion (Commercial or residential) of mixed used properties located in the Integrated Commercial Residential District to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
The Board decided as they were leaving the mixed use as it is now this amendment will not be needed.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow zoning Ordinance, Article III, General Provisions, §220-7., Letter A by removing it.
(Intent: To make Plaistow’s Zoning conform to new State law that prohibits towns from mandating the merger of substandard lots.)
T. Moore explained that that was the provision that mandated they merge substandard lots which is now illegal; this is to be in compliance with the State.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow zoning Ordinance, Article IX, signs, §220-58., All Districts, by adding a letter D. as follows:
All free standing signs are required to have a street address that is a minimum of six inches for commercial signs and three inches for residential signs.
(Intent: To allow for the proper identification of businesses by public safely and the public.)
The Board discussed this issue and the letter size for both commercial and residential properties. It was decided that for residential signs the street address would be above and beyond the regulation size. They will change the language to read: 6” in the CI zone and 3” for all other zones. They will check on the ICR District to see what letter size will be required in that zone. They will also include in the ordinance that the address on the sign shall include the street number and name of the street of the residence.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-321, Minimum Dimensions, A. Structure Setbacks, to change the sentence that reads “where commercial II or Village Center land use abuts any other commercial use to any other land use.”
(Intent: To specify a distance from a residence next to another residence.)
The Board will change the wording of the end of the last sentence to read “where land use abuts any other land use.” The Board felt some of the ordinances may be redundant and decided to work on amending it another time.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32G, “ICR” – Integrated Commercial-Residential District, B. Uses, by moving (i) Churches, and (j) Cemetery/Burial site and mausoleum from the Permitted Residential Uses to the Permitted Commercial/Industrial Use.
(Intent: To allow churches and cemeteries to have a commercial sized sign.)
The Board noted that this was a bookkeeping matter.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32B “CI” – commercial I, to rezone all of Tax Map 27, Lot 55 to all commercial I. (Chart Parcel with frontage on route 125).
(Intent: To make this parcel consistent with the Commercial I Zone which includes the entire parcel of properties abutting Route 125).
L. Komornick stated that the owners are in favor of this; they asked the Board to consider the change.
The Board felt this would be a good change for this piece of property.
Article P-11: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article XVIA, Storm Water – Post Construction, Section 220-117.3 Design Standards, Number 8d., by changing it to read as follows:
“All developments shall be required to submit annual inspection checklists as provided by the Planning Department to certify that proper maintenance of on-site drainage infrastructure and storm water systems have been performed and they are functioning properly. These checklists must be submitted by October 1st each year to the Town of Plaistow Department of Building Safety.”
(Intent: To ensure that drainage and storm water systems are being properly maintained).
L. Komornick stated that the Board needs to do this by law, from the EPA, for all new developments.
The Board discussed this issue noting the following concerns:
- Does it include all developments; old and new, commercial and residential.
- Whether people will give the Board accurate information on the checklists.
L. Komornick said that some states have a checklist they use for this that she would like to get a copy of.
- Whether what the Town already has in place, Article 19A, is complete enough without the checklist or should they replace it with the checklist.
- Whether they should have the checklists certified by an engineer.
L. Komornick said she would get the checklist for the Board to review.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick to give C. Lanza the information from the EPA stating this is mandated.
The Board discussed this issue further disagreeing as to whether the checklist would work and if people would comply with the regulation being honest with the information given to the Board.
T. Moore said the Board needs to agree that the EPA is mandating this and they also need to get the check list to review it. There is more discussion.
R. Gray stated they would need a list of all new developments in the past year since this has been mandated.
M. Dorman said there were only a few and they can just send them a letter stating what the Town needs from them to be in compliance.
L. Komornick reminded them that the Board still needs to decide what they want the new developments to send them. She feels the checklist will cover them better than a log would. She noted that it will cover them with the EPA. There is more discussion.
T. Moore stated that they know the EPA is mandating post-construction ordinances; they need to find out what the goal is. They think it is to make sure drainage infrastructure is working properly. He added that they probably do not need the 25 pages they have to say that but it is in there because they were committed to putting a post construction ordinance in place last year. They looked to others to get examples and that is where the ordinance came from. He stated that it may not be the perfect one.
M. Dorman said he could use the checklist at the sites.
The Board continued the Public Hearing for all the Zoning Amendments until December 21, 2011.
Item Six:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects.
C. Lanza asked about the certification stamp and asked if they would be discussing that.
L. Komornick replied that it is not discussed tonight because it is a regulation and not zoning.
It was decided that they would discuss it on December 21st as well; it is on the list for the Public Hearing.
L. Komornick noted that they had wanted to work with CLD on some of the wording for the drainage calculation items.
R. Gray asked that some of the intents be worked on for better clarification. He suggested that the intent say what was wrong with the old definition that it was needed to be changed.
There was more discussion on the issue of the definition of a structure. It was suggested that the Boards attorney review the new definitions.
M. Dorman asked that his attorney review the definitions as well as the Boards because if he needs to go to court for violations he would like his attorney to be comfortable with them.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick to compile a list of all funds they will encumber from this year until next year for the next meeting. There was some discussion regarding the PB legal funds.
L. Komornick stated she would speak with Janet (Gallant, Finance Director) and check on it for the next meeting.
T. Moore added they are fine on their legal bills at this point. There is more discussion on this issue.
The board decided they would send the zoning amendment changes to their attorney.
T. Moore said if M. Dorman would like to have his attorney look at them it should come out of the executive line or the BOS line and he should speak to Sean Fitzgerald.
M. Dorman said he would do that, if it is decided that S. Fitzgerald does not want two attorneys to review the amendments then he will back-off.
The Board Continued the hearing for December 21st which will give them time to have it reviewed by their attorney and post for a second hearing in early January if needed. They will also look at the Master Plan Amendment on December 21st. The Board members will review the zoning amendments discussed tonight before the next meeting and e-mail L. Komornick any suggestions they may have.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman where the money for the legal fees came from when he goes to
District Court for violations.
M. Dorman replied that they get court ordered to be reimbursed from the defendant if they win.
J. Ingerson stated that she looked up the handicap parking regulation and it is required that 26 to 40 spots require 2 handicap spaces.
T. Moore suggested the second spot be located at King Graphics ( for the site plan amendment discussed earlier tonight).
Item Seven:
Adjournment
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
