Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
PB Minutes 11/2/11



PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 02, 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

Item Two:

Minutes of October 19, 2011  

 R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of October 19, 2011, second by C. Lanza

T. Moore noted that a correction needed to be made; 1st page, 2nd paragraph from the bottom it should read Health Officer instead of Food Officer.  It was also noted that on the 2nd page, 3rd paragraph should read; R. Gray asked how many commercial properties deep off of Rt.125.  The 4th paragraph same page should read; L. Komornick answered only one parcel deep along Rt. 125 is commercial.

R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of October 19, 2011 as amended, second by C. Lanza.

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

Item Three:

Discussion with Jeffrey D. Oligny, owner of 28 Main Street (previously Dr. Walsh’s Chiropractor) regarding possible amendments to zoning for extension of the Village Center District boundaries and the owner occupied restriction.

Present for the discussion was Representative Jeff Oligny of Hampstead.  He noted that he represents Plaistow, Kingston and Hampstead.  He is the new owner of 28 Main Street, Plaistow.  He explained the history of the house noting that it is 280 years old; built in 1730.  He is doing renovations on the house including beams and supports in the basement through electrical, plumbing and siding.  J. Oligny explained that his goal is to ask the Board to consider making a change; amending the zoning ordinance to allow the Overlay to move to include this end of Main Street; this property in particular.  He would like to maintain the feel of the area and the theme, which is a CII District, and have someone professional move into the House.  He reiterated that he would like to restore the property, maintain the original appearance and put a professional in there.  He’d like the Board to consider his proposal because he would like to open up the possibilities of renting to someone who would live there, raise a family and grow his business, such as an attorney.  He noted that this discussion was started with a discussion about putting up a sign that was the same size as was originally there; 9 sq. ft.  They then started discussing the Town laws and the restrictions that exist with the property right now.  He is proposing that they lessen the restrictions on the property to allow a professional looking to establish his business to either rent or buy the property and live there and have their office right next door.  He explained that he either wants to sell the home to the right buyer or rent it out and maintain the property himself.  He has already done a lot of the maintenance the property needs.  He invited the members of the Board to come by the property and see what’s been done already.

R. Gray stated that the CII Zone currently allows professional uses in it; doctors, attorneys, engineers, etc.  He asked what is different in the Overlay District from the CII District that he wants to use.

L. Komornick noted that the Overlay District ends at the library and that one of the recommendations from the Plan NH Charrett was to change the whole area to a CII District.  She stated that J. Oligny is asking for the Board to extend the CII District down to Chandler Ave. so he can have the mixed-use.  He would also like to remove the requirement that it needs to be owner occupied, either the owner of the home or the owner of the business.

R. Gray stated that he does not want to have a business on one level and renters on another level, with the owner living someplace else.

L. Komornick said it could not happen that way in this case as it is not an upstairs and a downstairs.

J. Oligny responded that that is not in the plan.  He added that it is one house, approximately 3,000 sq ft.  

R. Gray stated that it is not inconceivable for someone to gut the house and put an apartment on the second floor.  That is what he wants to avoid in the district, two different uses and having the owner out of Town.    He added that although they do have parking at the house it is not designed for retail use.  

There is more discussion on the issue.

C. Lanza asked if this would still be contrary to the Village District as it is written today.

L. Komornick replied yes, because they require one or the other to be owner occupied.

C. Lanza asked J. Oligny if he was aware of that even if it were extended.

J. Oligny replied yes and added that that is the second thing he is asking for.  Not only to extend it but to allow a rent or lease situation as opposed to owner occupancy.

R. Gray stated that he is not in favor of that for this district.

J. Oligny asked if he would be opposed even if it were the same person renting both sides, renting the home and the business.

R. Gray replied that that would be alright.  It is just splitting them up that he has an issue with.

The Board discussed this issue farther noting that they have not discussed having one person rent both the home and the business before.  They also discussed whether to extend to Chandler Ave, North Ave. or go all the way to the boarder.

T. Moore stated that it would make sense to have the discussion regarding extending the boundaries so it would be ready in a year; he does not have any objections to a mixed-use in the CII District.  He noted that they may want to add sidewalks on both sides of the street in the Village District in the future keeping it separate and they could allow a mixed-use in the CII period.

L. Komornick stated that it would be good because with a home occupation a business owner can only have a 3 sq. ft. sign but with the mixed-use the commercial portion will allow the larger signs.

T. Moore said that they should have the discussion on having the mixed-use in the CII District.

L. Komornick noted that if they did a mixed-use they would need to make sure it was one way or the other and not two rentals.

T. Moore replied they would add a qualifier caveat stating that the renter of the property will live there and own the business and that there may not be multiple renters.

There was more discussion and the Board decided that they did not need to make a decision on this issue on this night.

J. Oligny stated that his goal for the night was to get the Board discussing and considering it.

L. Komornick asked if they should write it up as an amendment that they will add a mixed-use in the CII District for the hearing.

T. Moore replied that it might work, but they should think about it.  He added that until they follow through with the discussion from the NH Plan Charrett, they still do not know what they want the Village Center to be and how they want to operate it.  It could be that they extend it the length of Main Street.   

L. Komornick added that in effect, they could add what J. Oligny wants to achieve anyway.

C. Lanza asked when they needed to have the zoning recommendations worded.

L. Komornick answered that they all needed to be ready for the hearing on December 7th, but that they will also meet on November 16th.  There was more discussion on the dates for the zoning amendments public hearings.  She added that the sooner they decide on the wording and what they want the better.  She said if they make it a mixed-use J. Oligny can hang his 9 sq. ft. sign advertising the property.

J. Oligny again invited the Board to come by the property and take a look at it.
Item Four:

Master Plan Update Re: Following: (Discussion Only)

T. Moore read the sections they would discuss at the November 16th meeting:

  • Introduction
  • Vision Statement
  • Goals & Objectives
  • Community Facilities
  • A new chapter to include goals and target dates
T. Moore added that the Population Chapter is ready which can be listed under Goals & Objectives.  He stated that they would start revising other chapters such as Land Use, Natural Resources and Transportation.  

R. Gray noted that he wanted to get the list of Elected Town Officials completed so they could include it into the Town’s History Chapter.

T. Moore stated that since the Economic Development Chapter is new to them it may be one that they require help on.

R. Gray noted that the Economic Development Chapter was not one of the chapters they wanted to complete this year.  He added that the Vision Statement, History Chapter, Facilities and Populations are the Chapters the Board wanted to have completed this year for the hearing.  Then they can discuss what they will work on for next year some of which will depend on what funding they can get.

Item Five:

Review of Proposed Zoning and Regulation Changes.

The Board decided to go through the proposed zoning changes on at a time.

  • Rezone all of tax Map 27, Lot 55 to all Commercial I. (Chart Parcel) (See Attached Memo)
T. Moore noted that this was the Chart parcel which connects the current Testa property to Route 125.  He noted that there was a memo regarding the requested change.

  • Review definitions.
L. Komornick noted that in a few instances they looked for definitions that they could not locate.

T. Moore suggested that all the definitions be located in one single place such as Subdivision,  with the exception of something such as Wind Turbines or Storm Water where the only place they would be used is in that paragraph.

R. Gray was concerned that for every definition they move, it will require a separate ballot.

T. Moore disagreed, stating that the warrant would say move all definitions from zoning and site plan regulations to subdivisions and then in the definitions section for zoning they will put a cross reference section stating that all definitions are included in the subdivision section.

There was more discussion.  L. Komornick stated that she will look into it.

  • Add language that requires wetland scientist stamp.
L. Komornick stated that where wetlands need to be delineated then a wetlands scientists stamp is required.

  • Strengthen language on definition on soils so that it is clearer, e.g. adding a requirement to provide a date and method of soil evaluation.
L. Komornick stated that this came up in discussions with CLD; the Town did not have anything that required updated soils.  She added that they need something to make sure the soils are verified and current.

The Board discussed what would be a good time frame to require soils to be updated noting that soils are very costly to obtain.  It was decided that L. Komornick would ask CLD what they recommend for a time frame.

  • Describe the process for CLD to review plans for storm water, figure out about impacts to wetlands due to increase in runoff and add more verbiage about actual engineering review inspections at the site.
The Board did not discuss this zoning change.

  • Strengthen the site plan review regs to match subdivision.
The Board decided they would look at this and see what else needs to be done.

  • Post construction storm water management for development and redevelopment for Best Management Practices. (Add language that mandates that the development will have the drainage infrastructure maintained and require annual submittal to the Town of paperwork verifying this.
The Board did not discuss this zoning change.

  • Low-Impact Development techniques-add more to our regulations.
L. Komornick noted that this would be another thing to work with CLD on as they require more Low-Impact things.  She added that maybe they need to discuss this more in their regulations.

  • All of the tasks required under the new MS4 Permit.
L. Komornick stated that this is something she will check on.

  • Review Planning Board procedures and make sure we are doing the described.
T. Moore stated that they should do this annually.  

R. Gray added that at one time they had discussed CLD coming in annually to discuss issues.

L. Komornick said they (The Board) should all take a look at the procedures, particularly making sure that every time they approve a plan it has the same approval language.

T. Moore noted that they are all in Subdivision.

  • Remove reference in zoning that automatically merges lots owned by the same person.
L. Komornick stated that by law they need to do this.

  • Clarification on the use of a lot for storing construction equipment on a lot located in a residential or commercial zone that does not have a site plan.
The Board members made no comment on this zoning change.

  • 220-32I regarding CII residential setbacks and how it doesn’t specify what to do if a property is located next to another residence.
T. Moore noted that this is a table of uses and setbacks.  He added that it does not specifically say what to do if a property is located next to another residence; it may be an over sight.

  • ICR District - Allow churches and fix sign size for commercial use.
The Board had no comment on this zoning change.

  • Involuntary Lot Merger - Remove this from our zoning and reference new state law – contiguous lots.
The Board had no comment on this zoning change.

  • Procedures for when a site plan is submitted for parcels that are being merged, i.e. that it is part of the motion, that the lot merger form must be filled out and recorded at the same time mylars are, etc…
L. Komornick stated that they need to be clear that the lot merger form, although not mandated to be approved prior to the site plan approval, that they will occur simultaneously.

C. Lanza asked about projects that move forward on the condition that someone will buy the property when the site plan is approved; what delays would be involved.

L. Komornick answered that she would not record the plan; they would delay the process because they cannot let it go forward until the lots are legally merged.

There is more discussion on the issue.

  • Make all approval language clear that when a project is approved, they have to pay impact fees, preconstruction meeting, bonds, etc… so that it automatically becomes part of the motion to go into the Notice of Decision.
T. Moore stated that it is all spelled out; they just need to be consistent.

L. Komornick added that they need to come up with standard language for the approval to make it easier not to forget.

R. Gray said they should make it clear to the applicant that when they get to the end of the process, once it is approved, they will be responsible for paying impact fees, etc… and ask them to sign something stating they understand what is required.

  • Commercial vehicles on residential lots - add to the residential zoning districts that commercial vehicles are not allowed unless part of home occupation.
Some of the Board members agreed that they could not support this change.  The issue was discussed and they agreed that commercial vehicles should not be stored on residential properties, but if a person uses that commercial vehicle for work, they should be allowed to park it on their residential property.

L. Komornick stated that it may be a matter of defining a number; how many commercial vehicles you can have on site.  She added that she will ask Mike Dorman what issue he is having in regards to this.

  • Add to sign ordinance that free standing signs in ICR, Commercial, CII and Industrial are required to have a street address – minimum of six inches.
The Board members agreed that this is a great idea.

  • Increasing the bonding for subdivisions to more than 10%.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick to get a recommendation from CLD on this issue.

C. Lanza asked if they had a number and was answered no.

T. Moore recommended looking at the site plan and subdivision as well.  He added that whatever they will bond they should do it for everything.

L. Komornick noted that the 10% bond for site plans is adequate but is not adequate for subdivision.

  • Educate the Board about not allowing a stripped sidewalk that is actually part of the road as it is not in compliance with ADA.  Detectable warning devices consist of raised truncated domes.
L. Komornick stated that they need to add this as it is a legal issue.  If they do not require it and a developer does not install it the Town can be sued.  She explained to the Board that they are warning devices put into the intersection where the side walk comes into another road, these warning devices will let you know you you are coming onto another road.

The Board discussed this issue farther.

R. Gray stated that they should have a conversation about the sidewalks and the new laws and decide if that is what they will require of every place in town.  He added that there will be an expense to the Town to do this and maintain it.  

Item Six:

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

Sprinkler Laws

C. Lanza informed the Board that new RSA’s passed regarding sprinklers.  The PB cannot require sprinklers in one and two unit residences

PB Meetings

R. Gray noted that PB meeting have been much shorter in the last few years then in the past.

L. Komornick added that CLD’s comprehensive reviews have made a big difference, everything is documented in one list and nothing gets overlooked.  She added that they have slowed down a bit as well.

The Board discussed this further.

LGC Seminar

J. Ingerson explained that she attended the LGC Seminar and she has some materials to distribute to Board members.

Item Seven:

Adjournment
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.

Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.


Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________

_______________________________________  
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman