Town of Plaistow Archive - PB Minutes 12/21/11

PB Minutes 12/21/11

PLANNING BOARD MINUTES

December 21, 2011

Call to Order: 6:35 P.M.

Item One:

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

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

Item Two:

Minutes of December 07, 2011

R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of December 07, 2011, second by C. Lanza

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

Item Three:

Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Consolidation and a 2-Lot Subdivision for a property located at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1, totaling 21.37 acres and 605 feet of frontage. One lot will be 3.97 acres and have 263 feet of frontage; the other lot will be 17.4 acres and have 342 feet of frontage. The property is located in the C1 Zoning district and the owner of record is William Conte Marital Trust II, Rick Cretarolo.

Item Four:

Continuation of a Public Hearing on a site plan for one of the 2-Lots Subdivided for a property located at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1, totaling 3.97 acres and 263 feet of frontage for a proposed new building to be a tractor supply retail store totaling 19,097 square feet. The owner of record is William Conte Marital Trust II, Rick Cretarolo.

The applicants for both hearings, Item Three and Item Four, requested a continuation. The Board granted the continuations which will both be held on January 4, 2012.

Item Five:

Discussion on request from Selectmen to review three (3) Town Owned Properties Recommended for Sale.

T. Moore explained that the Board has two options:

To vote on this issue tonight
To hold a joint meeting with the Conservation Commission

L. Komornick said she had received the request today and was not able to forward the information out to the Board. She expressed concern that some members of the Board might not be familiar with the properties and not feel comfortable voting without seeing the parcels. She explained where the parcels are and all Board members were familiar with them.

R. Gray noted for the public that the three members of the Board here tonight making the decision to either recommend or not recommend all sit on the committee that made the initial recommendation to the Selectmen and are all familiar with the three parcels being recommended for sale and have been working on it for well over a year.

R. Gray motioned to recommend the sale of the three parcels, Massasoit Boulevard, Autumn Circle (Rear), and Hadley Road (Old Stage Coach Road) (rear), second by C. Lanza.

L. Komornick stated that she would forward the e-mail out to both the Board and the Conservation Commission saying that the Board recommended this and that they need to schedule a meeting.

T. Moore added that the ultimate disposition, the selectmen will hold two Public Hearings for people to ask questions and express concerns.

R. Gray said there will be opportunity for petition as well.

C. Lanza asked if there were any conditions that the Board needed to consider.

L. Komornick replied that Sean Fitzgerald asked if they could include in the memo to the Selectmen if there are any planning pros or cons.

R. Gray noted that the land at Autumn Circle is wet and the Conservation Commission should look at it.

The Board noted that it is near a larger piece of land and questioned if there will need to be a lot line adjustment to merge the lots. They discussed why only one lot was recommended and not both and decided that it may have been recommended to be retained because of the drainage.

R. Gray stated that the non elimination of the lot line eliminates any planning issues from Autumn Circle.

L. Komornick informed the Board that Hadley Road needs a municipal waiver for liability for being a class 6 road. She added that the Police and Fire Chiefs should be the ones to look at it as they would be able to provide the most input on the issue.

The Board will forward it on to the Conservation Commission and the BOS that this needs to happen for this property. They noted that Massasoit Boulevard is a good buildable lot that has no planning issues.

L. Komornick said that in the Town of Wyndham the use a quick claim deed; whoever buys the property with the quick claim deed it says the town has no liability whatsoever. She added that they also auction with the James St. Jean Company and it makes it easier.

The Board amended the motion to include the following conditions:

Get municipal waiver for the class 6 road
Forward Autumn Road wetland information to the Conservation Commission and get their specific information regarding it

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

Item Seven:

Continuation of a Public Hearing to adopt the following updated chapters of the Town of Plaistow Master Plan:

Community Facilities Chapter
Population Chapter

T. Moore explained that L. Komornick was able to get the education information from the 2010 Census and they have not been able to incorporate that into the updates at this time. They will continue the Public Hearing on these chapters at the January 4, 2012 meeting.

R. Gray said that John Sherman (BOS) asked about adding an Action Plan Section to the MP.

L. Komornick replied that they are working on it.

T. Moore added that it will be ready for the January 4^th hearing.

Item Eight:

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

Firestone

L. Komornick explained that they are asking for a 30 day extension, although she recommends 60 days. She said that their engineer, Frank Monteiro, e-mailed her noting that the construction is substantially complete, included an As-Built Survey Plan of what they field located to date, noted periodic visits from both their engineer and the Towns engineer and they have been keeping up with Storm Water Pollution Reports. L. Komornick stated that the issues that remain are the retaining wall along the northerly edge of the detention pond that still needs to be complete; they said hopefully in a week or so and once completed the upper detention pond can be shaped, loamed and stabilized by the contractor. They also need to install a chain link fence along the northern end of the detention pond. They are asking for a temporary occupancy permit to allow them to start stocking the shelves.

R. Gray stated he has no problem with this as long as there are no customers.

L. Komornick replied that there would be no customers, just stocking the shelves. She added that M. Dorman and the Fire Chief are doing an inspection for occupancy as well as CLD is doing the punch list. She said the Board could make the recommendation conditional upon satisfactory inspections.

R. Gray motioned to allow the Building Inspector to issue a conditional Certificate of Occupancy for 60 days on the conditions that:

There are no sales/customers until site plan is complete
Upon satisfactory outcome of inspections

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

Speedmerchant

L. Komornick explained that Armand Pantalone is occupying a unit at 207 Main Street and he wants to start selling bicycles. She added that it is a permitted use, he’s been at this location for two years and he has submitted the letter because he will be filing for a permit.

Rockingham Church Paving

The Board agreed that this issue was just an FYI and is all set.

C. Lanza asked how far they pushed this out.

L. Komornick responded that she is not sure if the Board took a vote on this. She said it might be worthy of a vote to allow them until spring to pave.

R. Gray motioned to grant an extension to Rockingham Church to complete their paving no later than June 1, 2012, second by C. Lanza.

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

Letter from the Department of Environmental Services: Shoreland Impact Permit

L. Komornick explained that this is the permit Arthur Wicks applied for to construct duplexes on one of the lots in conjunction with the septic plan which was approved. She added that she is not sure who gets the conditions listed on the permit; it needs to be signed by both the property owner and the contractor but the contractor was not familiar with it. She said they will have both the contractor and Arthur Wicks sign the permit to be clear. She added that even if DES has a signed copy they would like the Town to have one.

R. Gray expressed concern over not having it in the Town’s regulations that the Town is required to have an original signed copy.

L. Komornick replied that it is a state law.

The Board discussed the issue further agreeing that they need to get the States permits but discussing if the Town needs to chase after developers to get the permits.

L. Komornick stated that this particular permit is important because it is the first Shoreland Impact Permit they have had and it can be massively impacting if they are not aware that they cannot disturb or that they can only do 3.5% in this area, especially if someone new owns the property and wants to cut down trees and such. She added that it is not the

Town that will be liable but the property owner and contractor; they would be making sure they are aware and to protect their natural resources.

There is more discussion on the issue.

R. Gray recommended that if they want a copy of the permit that they should put it in zoning that the applicant is responsible for providing the Town with a signed copy letter from DES as well as the signatures from the property owner and the contractor.

C. Lanza stated that the permit said it should be signed and posted on site; that is what they should have the applicant do.

The Board decided that they would have them post a signed copy to the site; if they do not then they will call DES and ask for enforcement.

Item Six:

Public Hearing to consider amending the Town Of Plaistow Zoning Ordinances

Article P-11-1: 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 not 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 what they wanted included and omitted from the current definition of a structure and they looked at current structure definitions from other local towns. They decided on the following definition:

Structure: That which is erected or assembled using a combination of materials for occupancy or use, whether portable or affixed to the ground. This includes structures of plastic, fabric, and or canvas covered frames structures, structures for agriculture uses, structures installed on skids, blocks or permanent foundations and all sheds and storage facilities. All structures will require a building permit.

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 shall be considered structures but shall be exempt from setback requirements.

They decided as the language was not ready they will continue consideration of this article until January 4, 2012.

Article P-11-2: 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.)

C. Lanza motioned to post to the warrant as written, second by R. Gray.

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

Article P-11-3: 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:

Modifying the definition for Rooming and Boarding House as follows:

ROOMING AND BOARDING HOUSE - A building other than a hotel or motel where lodging is provided for compensation without individual cooking facilities. These will be considered commercial uses.

(Intent: To classify Rooming and Boarding Houses and as Commercial.)

C. Lanza motioned to post as written, second by R. Gray.

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

Article P-11-4: 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

(Intent: To allow for Rooming and Boarding Houses in the CII District.)

R. Gray explained that although this issue has nothing to do with this particular article, the state legislator passed a law this past year stating that a recorded vote for all Boards must be put on the ballot (ex. Recommended by the Planning Board 3-0-0 U/A.) He added that he is not sure if the law includes the Planning Board and Zoning or if it is only financial matters.

L. Komornick said she would look into it.

The Board discussed the issue further and decided that they would include the recommendation in their motion.

R. Gray motioned to post to the warrant and recommend with the vote Article P-11-4, second by C. Lanza.

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

R. Gray motioned that all recorded votes on warrant articles have the recommendation and recorded vote, second by C. Lanza.

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

Article P-11-5: 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

(Intent: to allow for Rooming and Boarding Houses in the Village Center District.)

R. Gray motioned to post Article P-11-5 to the warrant, second by C. Lanza.

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

Article P-11-6: 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

(Intent: To allow for rooming and Boarding Houses in the Integrated Commercial Residential District.)

R. Gray motioned to post Article P-11-6 to the warrant, second by C. Lanza.

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

Article P-11-7: 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 uses where the work place or the residence must be owner occupied.

(Intent: To allow mixed uses in all of the Commercial II District with the restriction that either the commercial or the residential use must be owner occupied.)

Present for this discussion was Representative Jeff Oligny. He explained that he is supportive of the topic in discussion but understanding that the intent is to limit restrictions on business and promote growth in Plaistow he is wondering why they are including the provision that the mixed commercial and residential use must have owner occupancy.

L. Komornick explained that the Board discussed the issue at the December 7^th meeting and decided that they were not comfortable not having the property owner present for at one for fear that the property would be abandoned or not properly maintained.

J. Oligny asked if there were provisions to take care of that. He added that there are instances were owners very poorly maintain their property and he is sure the Town must have an ordinance that they can site them to get them to take care of their property and you could also have a bad landlord. He said he is not sure that this will take care of the intent. He is wondering if they are adding to much restriction where the intent is to lift some restriction.

C. Lanza said he voiced his opinion at the last meeting that they are adding to much restriction. He added that they will allow owners to lease entirely commercial or entirely residential to one person but they will not allow it for the mixed use. He added that it makes no sense to him and it is making it difficult for small business owners to get a business started up; they are locking them into this restriction.

R. Gray stated that in this district, because of the location and the traffic, he does not want people to buy property on Main Street, lease out the bottom floor for business and then have multiple apartments on the upper floor none of which are occupied by the owner of the property.

There is discussion and some disagreements on this issue and of owners maxing out their properties and on the resulting traffic.

J. Oligny suggested a traffic ordinance if there is a traffic concern but he feels that the traffic issue is a separate concern than this warrant article.

T. Moore agreed that traffic is not a part of mixed use.

L. Komornick agreed noting that if they do not want the traffic in that area then maybe they should not vote for a mixed use, not to restrict owner occupancy; that does not solve the issue.

There is more discussion on the issue.

The Board decided that as some members of the Board are absent who had strong feelings on this issue and to be fair they will continue this article to the next meeting on January 4, 2012. They will hope to get all five Board members present.

L. Komornick explained that because the elimination of this they got rid of two amendments they originally had; she did not include them in the notice. They are the following articles:

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.)

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.)

L. Komornick said she will add them back into the notice for the next meeting.

The Board decided that they will continue the discussion of the adoption of this amendment and add the other two amendments for the January 4, 2012 meeting.

Article P-11-8: 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.)

R. Gray motioned to post Article P-11-8 to the warrant as written, second by C. Lanza.

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

Article P-11-9: 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 includes the street name and number and that is a minimum of six inches for commercial uses in the CI and ICR Districts and a minimum of three inches for signs for residential uses in all Districts. The space required for the address portion of the sign shall not be counted as part of the required sign size.

(Intent: To allow for the proper identification of businesses by public safety officials and the public.)

Lanza asked if this would be retro-reflective.

M. Dorman said no, just moving forward.

R. Gray motioned to post Article P-11-9 to the warrant as written, second by C. Lanza.

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

Article P-11-10: 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 “Where commercial II or Village Center land use abuts another any land use” and remove where land used commercially abuts a residential usage.

(Intent: To specify a distance from a residence next to another residence.)

T. Moore recommended continuing this article as he did not have the time to go through the list and make sure there are no gaps in districts and uses.

There was some discussion and the Board decided to continue this article on the January 4, 2012 meeting.

Article P-11-11: 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 properly classify churches and cemeteries as commercial uses.)

C. Lanza motioned to post Article P-11-11 to the warrant as written, second by R. Gray.

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

Article P-11-12: 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).

T. Moore explained that this is a 30 or 40 foot strip, enough to gain access to the site. It is located one lot deep along Route 125 except for this narrow strip to gain access. It abuts a large frontage with the Testa property were the factory is located.

R. Gray recommended they add a map (to the warrant).

L. Komornick replied that they would definitely have a map.

C. Lanza motioned to post Article P-11-12 to the warrant as written, second by R. Gray.

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

Article P-11-13: 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 1^st each year to the Town of Plaistow Department of Building Safety.”

(Intent: To ensure that drainage and storm water systems are being properly maintained as required under the Town’s EPA Stormwater Permit.)

T. Moore noted that they did look into this and it is a requirement of the EPA Permit; they need to do it.

R. Gray said he brought it up at a BOS meeting to find out who is responsible for this and it is M. Dorman.

M. Dorman will generate the checklist. He added that he is stormwater certified.

R. Gray said he also asked at the meeting if this was retro-active and the answer was not very clear. He added that he heard at the meeting that the EPA is trying to loosen some of their regulations as they are finding them to have a huge financial impact on local communities.

L. Komornick stated that zoning usually only applies to anything new.

M. Dorman will compile a list of new developments including Rite Aid, Firestone, Ron Brown’s Elderly Development and Snowsbrook.

The Board discussed this issue further.

R. Gray explained to M. Dorman that if he does not have the time for this he will need to bring that up with the Town Manager.

M. Dorman said he would make the time.

The Board discussed the importance of the checklist on Little River and wetlands and if the checklist will be effective. Some Board members feel the regulation is excessive.

L. Komornick stated that there is a relationship between how well drainage systems are working and the quality of the ground water. She said it is worth the extra to make sure; they are required under the MS4 Permit to clean their catch basins every year otherwise they do not serve the purpose of what they are there for.

Lanza said he agreed that they need to maintain their infrastructure but do they need a checklist.

L. Komornick asked what would be the best way to do it then without a check list. She read from the EPA’s website “All stormwater management facilities must undergo, at the minimum, an annual inspection to document maintenance and repair needs and ensure compliance with the requirement of this ordinance and accomplishment of its purposes.” She added that Vermont does this already and they make the developer submit them every year and they need to be done by an engineer.

C. Lanza expressed concern over the expense of an engineer.

L. Komornick agreed saying that that is why they have a compromise having M. Dorman do the checklists.

There is further discussion regarding the issue of M. Dorman having time as the developments grow and how they can fund the MS4 project.

L. Komornick said she is already seeing the benefits of the MS4 storm water requirements in the projects and how they are being constructed; they have to follow specific engineering design criteria from the MS4 handbook. She added that they need to post an amendment for the January 4^th meeting that they require developments to not only follow the handbook but also the DES manual. She said if you look at the requirements you can see how they will translate into cleaner ground and surface water.

R. Gray expressed concern over how the Town will pay for it; he can see it working out today but not ten years from now.

R. Gray motioned to post Article P-11-13 to the warrant as written, second by C. Lanza.

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

M. Dorman will work on generating a checklist.

C. Lanza noted that this does help to clarify what was in there before, the report was confusing.

Other Items to Discuss:

R. Gray asked L. Komornick to check into needing the recorded vote on all the amendments.

Add New Zoning Amendment to Remove Churches and Cemeteries from Residential Districts.

T. Moore noted that they are listed as permitted uses in other residential districts. He stated that if they do not think they are residential uses then they should remove it; draft a change, post it and have the public hearing on January 4^th.

C. Lanza asked if churches have special zoning privileges.

L. Komornick replied no and added that she is pretty sure you can restrict where they are built.

R. Gray asked how this would affect existing churches.

M. Dorman said they would be grandfathered in.

The Board discussed the issue further and decided they will allow the use and add an asterisk stating that they need to go through the site plan process.

Setback Chart Review

T. Moore stated they already addressed this issue; he will make sure it is complete for the next meeting.

New Zoning amendment to Reference the NHDES Stormwater Manuals

T. Moore noted that this would make it clear that people need to refer to the manual and comply with it.

The Board discussed a couple of project this issue came up with; Wicks subdivision being one of them.

R. Gray asked how these changes will affect the projects they have been extending; if they continue to allow additional time will they need to comply with this new zoning.

C. Lanza said they would not need to comply; they would need to comply with the old zoning ordinance.

R. Gray questioned if the Board considered these changes substantial enough that come spring when the applicants for these extended projects come in for more time will the Board say we are not granting the extension any more, you need to comply.

C. Lanza said there are two separate extensions; a conditional approval extension and a final extension.

L. Komornick stated that she will ask their attorney, Craig Donias, this question as part of the amendment reviews.

The Board discussed this issue further.

L. Komornick suggested that if they are not vested when they come in for the extension they will get them to agree to comply with the new zoning and put that in the extension. She will ask their attorney about it.

Item Nine:

Adjournment

There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M.

Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.

Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________

_______________________________________

Timothy E. Moore, Chairman