PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 20, 2011
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present – 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 and Alternate; Mike Dorman
T. Moore appointed M. Dorman as a voting member for the meeting.
Item Two:
Minutes of March 16, 2011 and April 6, 2011
Minutes of March 16, 2011:
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of March 16th, second by C. Lanza.
C. Lanza questioned if he was present for the meeting.
L. Pagnottaro replied that she checked the dates and he was present for the March 16th meeting but not the February 16th meeting.
R. Gray stated that it should be reflected in the minutes that C. Lanza abstained for the votes on the March 16th approval for the February 16th meeting.
The minutes were checked and C. Lanza’s votes are both recorded in the minutes.
R. Gray amended the motion to approve the minutes as corrected, second by C. Lanza. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Minutes of April 6, 2011:
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of April 6th as written, second by C. Lanza. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a 3-Lot Subdivision Plan application for property located at 22 Witch Lane, Tax Map 42, Lot 23, totaling 7.10 +/- acres with 188.83 feet of frontage in the Medium Density Residential District. The proposed 3-lot subdivision involves the construction of 590 feet of new road and will be suitable for single-family or duplex units. The owner(s) of record is Arthur K. Wicks.
Item Four:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Lot Line Adjustment as a result of a 3-Lot Subdivision Plan for properties located at 20 and 22 Witch Lane, Tax Map 42, Lots 22 and 23, totaling 7.10 +/- acres with 188.83 feet of frontage and .58 acres with 152.04 feet of frontage respectively. Both properties are located in the Medium Density Residential District. The lot line adjustment will result in the addition of .49 acres to Tax Map 42, Lot 22. The owner(s) of record are Arthur K. Wicks and Glen and Heidi Peabody.
T. Moore stated that due to a letter received they will continue the hearings until May 4th.
Item Five:
A Site Plan Amendment for a property previously approved for a contractor’s yard (including associated outside storage, office and warehouse space), and future tenant spaces for tradesmen and others utilizing a mix of office, warehouse and industrial space. The proposal is to reassign a portion of the existing building and site for the Helfrich Brothers Boiler Works, Inc. Company. This company fabricates and repairs (welding, bending and assembly) water heating systems including tanks, tubes and condensers. The property is located in the industrial zone at 144 Main Street, Tax Map 41, Lots 12 and 13, totaling 37+/- acres. The owner of record is Testa Realty, LLC.
Present for the application was Attorney Bernard Campbell, Beaumont & Campbell Professional Association, representing Testa Realty. He explained that they are seeking this amendment to its site plan to the building. Atty. Campbell gave the Board some background information including:
- The site was formerly Process Engineering and before that Chart Industries
- This is the 5th time before the Board seeking approval for tenancy at the site
- First was in 2007 with approval for Testa Realty
- Green Machine approval was vacated when the tenancy did not go forward
- Had approval for E. J. Pallets
- Most recent approval was in September, 2010 for Rebars and Mesh
Atty. Campbell explained that they are here seeking approval for another tenancy in a portion of the building and he referred to the Plans he had given the Board members. He noted that the building is in the Industrial Zone adjacent to the rail road. He pointed out the designated tenant space, Bay A, on the plans and said that it is 32,760 square feet and is an interior bay. Atty. Campbell stated that Helfrich Brothers is an established business out of Lawrence, MA and that they are interested in moving into this building. He referred to a letter submitted to the Board dated March 30, 2011 that noted the following:
- The area was originally designated as part of Testa’s contractor yard/storage area
- This contract would allocate Bay A to Helfrich
- Work hours are 7 am to 3:30 pm, and would not exceed the ten hours/day
- Work week is Monday through Friday
They are anticipating 30 employees in this building
One or two large truck deliveries/day and some smaller items delivered by fed-ex type trucks
No anticipated outside storage of material, except the possibility of a truck loaded with material awaiting either shipment or unloading.
No noise is anticipated
No unusual requirements for waste or waste water beyond personal employee use
They are in the Power Plant Business, thin tubes for boilers and pressure vessels.
Minimal Town impact, plenty of available parking.
Atty. Campbell explained that per request form L. Komornick in regards to concern over space and occupation areas, he had Mr. Zilch run some figures:
- Total space of the building, both main floor and second floor, is approximately 169,000 square feet
- Testa occupies or reserves for future tenants 82,000 square feet of that space
- Rebars and Mesh, Bay B, 36,167 square feet
- This proposal would occupy 32, 760 square feet
- Chart has approximately 10,000 square feet on two floors
- There is a small amount of common space
He went on to say that this approval would occupy approximately ¼ of the entire buildings that are available, leaving Testa with half the buildings to be occupied by them or for future lease. He added that the floor plan shows all the areas. There is a rail spur, but there is no anticipation that it will be used by Helfrich. Atty. Campbell introduced the team that was present to the Board: Charlie Zilch from SEC, he prepared the plans; Steve Cicatelli, Testa’s Counsel and Bill McKay, Helfrich Brothers. He asked if the Board had any questions.
M. Dorman asked about further improvements to the site, paving, phase two.
C. Zilch replied that Testa Corp will contact M. Dorman and set up a meeting soon; that they do plan to continue with the paving this summer.
M. Dorman stated that he would like to visit the site first before stating what he would like done.
R. Gray asked if they put an August 31st date as a time frame to have all the paving done that’s identified by the code enforcement officer would that be acceptable. There was more discussion on the paving.
C. Zilch answered that that date will be fine.
C. Lanza motioned to approve the site plan amendment as stated in the agenda with the condition that the Building Inspector sets a plan for the pavement to be repaired and it is followed through with by August 31, 2011, second by M. Dorman. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Six:
A Final Site Plan Amendment to revise a site plan previously approved by the Planning Board on May 8, 2008. The originally proposed 14,303 square feet retail building will be reduced in size to 8,255 square feet for a proposed Firestone Auto Care Center. Parking will be reduced from 92 spaces to 46 spaces. The property is located at 29 Garden Road, Tax Map 26,Lot 52 and is 2.867 acres with +/- 213 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Soraghan Realty Trust.
Present for the application is Frank Montero of MHF Design Consultants, representing the applicant Bismark Real Estate Partners. He explained that this was a site plan amendment for 29 Garden Road which is a property owned by Jack Soraghan, who was also present. He noted the following:
- The site was previously approved for a 14,000 square foot retail building/restaurant facility two years ago
- They want to amend that site plan approval to construct a 8,337 square foot Firestone Auto Care Facility
- They were last before the Board on March 22nd for a preliminary site plan hearing
- They submitted a final site plan application on March 30th
F. Montero stated that the site plan before the Board is very similar to the plan submitted on March 22nd. They took the Boards comments into consideration and added three snow storage areas for snow removal to the Plan. He added that they spoke with Rite Aid regarding adding more stripping to further define the isle way, and Rite Aid agreed that they could add the stripping that is on the site plan before the Board tonight. He stated that they received review comments from CLD on April 7th and they responded back to CLD on April 14th. CLD sent a final follow up letter that the Board had in their packets and he added that all their comments have been addressed. F. Montero said that since they submitted the application there had been a slight increase in the building foot print
of 82 square feet, the result of final architectural plans that had been done for compliance to the energy code, about a 1% increase. The revised plan the Board has was updated when it was resubmitted to CLD to reflect the new footprint of 8,337 square feet. He went on to explain that they are requesting two waivers. They submitted one to L. Komornick dated April 14th, that is in the Boards packets, asking Chief Mc Ardle to reconfirm that the waiver for impact fees was still in effect. He said that since the submission they have received several state permits: DES Alteration of Terrain permit was issued on April 12th, DES septic approval was issued on April 13th and the DES Well approval was issued on April 14th. He added that the DOT permit was still outstanding, but added that they need to amend the permit because of the change in use.
There was some discussion about this permit and it was decided that the DOT will not need to amend the permit, but will just acknowledge the change of use for their files.
F. Montero went on to discuss the waivers referring to section PSPR 230-22.A (2) which speaks to site lighting fixture heights and distances to property lines. He added that the prior site plan was granted a waiver for this, and they are using the same height fixtures as before, 22 feet high. They’ve added house shields as they did on the initial submittal, specifically to the southern property line. They have moved the lights further from the property line than in the original plan. There used to be a retaining wall on one side of the development that was eliminated as part of the project by shifting the property way from the southern property line. He stated that technically they do need a waiver for the distance for the lights to the property lines. He added that there are less light poles, and
there are some on the common property line with Right Aid that illuminate both projects. They are on the property line so they do need a waiver for them.
R. Gray asked if they were worried about the lights running off the property on the south.
F. Montero replied that he was not worried. He said that on the original approval there was discussion about it and the house shields were added, so they just went by the same standard this time around.
R. Gray asked if they were all full cut off.
F. Montero answered yes, all full flesh lens cut off luminaries exactly the same as Right Aid.
F. Montero referred to section PSPR 230-23.B (3) (b) [2], which relates to trees every 25 feet along Garden Road. He added that they had already installed these trees during phase one work on the Eastern side of Garden Road. When the plan was originally designed Garden Road was not going to be a public right of way, it was going to be on private property. When it became a public right of way, the trees never got moved. CLD mentioned it as a waiver, so they are requesting it. He added that they had a new tree on their side of Garden Road for that. He pointed out that they are planting several trees along the common property line with Right Aid, along the driveway to create a street scape. There was more discussion on the placement of the trees. F. Montero concluded his presentation asking the
Board if they had any questions.
L. Komornick referred to page four of CLD’s letter and asked if they have worked out an agreement with Right Aid about the temporary construction easement.
F. Montero replied yes, they are fine with it; all original agreements are still in place.
R. Gray motioned to approve the site plan amendment for Firestone as complete, second by C. Lanza. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
C. Lanza motioned to grant the waiver from section PSPR 230-22.A (2) for proposed site lighting fixtures that do not meet the required distances from the property line based on fixture height, second by M. Dorman.
R. Gray asked if the only lights they are talking about are on the southern border, will all the other lights on the property have shields.
F. Montero clarified that not all the lights that are non compliant have house shield. The ones along the Right Aid property they want to extend the light out. The lights on the south side have shields.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray motioned to grant the waiver for PSPR 230-23.B (3) (b) [2] for having a tree every 25 feet, second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray stated for the record that there is going to be one tree planted in the narrow strip and there will be trees planted along the property line between Right Aid and this proposed amendment site.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore asked if there were not conditions other than a final acknowledgement from DOT that the driveway permit is adequate.
L. Komornick replied that it is all set.
C. Lanza motioned to approve the site plan amendment on Tax Map 26, Lot 52, second by R. Gray. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick wanted it stated for the record that the Garden Road issue has been submitted to Sumner Kalman, their Attorney, and he responded that the next step is for her to meet with him and clarify a few questions he has about the deeds. Following that, a recommendation will be made to the BOS to accept the new layout of Garden Road.
Item Seven:
Minor Site Plan Review of a Temporary Truck for Dunkin Donuts at 119 Plaistow Road.
R. Gray asked if they would be serving food out of this (truck).
L. Komornick referred to a picture of the truck and its specifications the Board members had in their packets. She explained that this is what they’ll be utilizing during the remodeling of the store.
C. Lanza asked if they’ll be getting their food from the East Road store.
M. Dorman replied they’ll ship it in from somewhere; they will not make it on the truck.
L. Komornick clarified that they will have one truck there and it will be located along the side of the building to make sure people could see it.
C. Lanza asked if there was a drive thru window on the truck and was answered no, they will need to get out of their cars and walk over to the window.
R. Gray asked if it was hooked up to a generator.
M. Dorman replied that it was like an RV, all self contained. He added that they could not run the generator at all and plug it into the building.
C. Lanza asked if the facilities would still be inside the building.
M. Dorman replied yes, the store part would still be open, just the donut section will be in the truck.
There is more discussion on the issue including parking. T. Moore said parking should be okay as people are only there for five minutes at a time.
L. Komornick stated that Dennise (Horrocks) has been getting the information and will inspect it.
T. Moore asked when they plan to do this.
L. Komornick replied six days. There was discussion about if it was six days total to remodel or if they would start to remodel in six days. The Board was unsure.
L. Komornick stated that she asked if they would be using this truck when they remodel their Newton Road store and she was told no.
C. Lanza said they have a cargo box in the middle of their parking lot (on Newton Road) that’s been sitting there for a few weeks.
There is some discussion on the matter and M. Dorman will go look at it.
R. Gray motioned to approve, second by C. Lanza. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Eight:
Letter regarding Change of Use at 95B Plaistow Road.
T. Moore read a letter the Board received regarding the change of use for The Next Level Sports Training, which explained the type of business, hours, and other information about the business.
L. Komornick asked where it was located on the property and M. Dorman said the location was to the right where Barron had his office.
L. Komornick asked if they could do anything about the parking lot as part of this request and said the Board should also consider having something done about the outside lighting. There was discussion about the matter.
T. Moore recommended that the Board write the owner of the property a letter stating that there will not be an occupancy permit issued until the parking and lighting issues are corrected,. And they could also note that they have no problems with their proposed tenant as long as the site problems get corrected. He added that they can work inside, but there will be no occupancy permit.
R. Gray asked if there was any stripping there and also asked what was on the Barron site plan.
L. Komornick said it was part of the condo site plan and M. Dorman replied that the stripping has faded.
R. Gray said the stripping should be addressed also.
L. Komornick added that they never did finalize the condo plan because they were working on the sub-division, it didn’t get recorded. There was more discussion and it was decided that they would add to the list that all documents need to be updated to where they need to be.
R. Gray asked if Dennise (Horrocks) needs to inspect the sports training center if they are selling water and stuff.
M. Dorman replied no, that it is all prepackaged.
The consensus of the Board is to write the property owner the letter.
Item Nine:
Letter of Request for a Hair Salon at 79A Plaistow Road.
T. Moore read a letter of request to the Board from Kristin Joyner regarding permission to open a hair salon on 79A Plaistow Road.
C. Lanza asked where this was located and was answered that it is where Windows Within was.
R. Gray asked what the parking was like there.
M. Dorman replied that the calculations had not been done on the parking and the septic yet and that they will look at the numbers. There was some discussion on this matter and the consensus of the Board is that they do not have a problem with this request as long as the parking and the septic issues are okay.
Item Ten:
Other Business/Updates
Ron Brown Investments, LLC
T. Moore announced that they will meet with their attorney to discuss what site plan the Board wants Ron Brown to come in with in regards to the Elderly Housing project. He added that they want to be clear about what they want so they can relay it to their attorney who can pass it on to R. Brown’s attorney.
R. Gray asked if it was up to them to make that decision or is it ordered by the court.
L. Komornick replied that she though the attorney would meet with them to address the court appeal out come. She spoke with the Attorney MacMillan today and he said that R. Brown has something he has worked out and is ready to come before the Board with.
C. Lanza asked if he (R. Brown) has to meet the zoning (of Elderly Housing) and was answered yes.
There is discussion on the matter and the Board comes to a consensus that R. Brown can come in with the plan he wants but that it is the final site plan. They decided that they do not need to meet with their attorney.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick for a copy of the old regulations.
The Board discussed that time frame for vesting of the project and it was decided that the vesting will start at recording; it will be a new clock. There was more discussion on the timelines moving forward, is it the old clock or a new clock.
L. Komornick stated that the question they should have the court clarify is how long R. Brown has to put the application in now.
T. Moore said that their proposal to Craig Donais was to ask Atty. MacMillan if they all agree that July 20th was the new end date because of the range of dates. He added that if this date is not confirmed or agreed with then maybe they should talk to C. Donais and see what the options are so they can get an end date written down.
NH Charrette
T. Moore explained that S. Fitzgerald had received word that they need to do a presentation for the NH Charrette they applied for, which is good news that they may have made the first cut.
L. Komornick stated that it would be on a Saturday in May and that they would also view the Village then.
R. Gray asked if they wanted all the PB members there and L. Komornick replied that she did not know; she does not know all the details yet.
T. Moore stated that Saturday May 14th from 8am to 1pm is House Hold Hazardous Waste Collection
L. Komornick said she would find out and notify the Board of the details.
Master Plan
R. Gray wanted to have a discussion regarding the updating of the Master Plan. He questioned if it would be helpful if L. Komornick, S. Fitzgerald, T. Moore and himself meet to discuss a plan for updating the Master Plan, what sections they will do, how much money they will need, what they will need for staff time to do it and if he needs to request from the BOS that it is a goal for the Town Manager to help in updating the master Plan. He reiterated again that it needs to get done.
L. Komornick said that they had a meeting with Kyle Cornell, an intern, and he has 120 hours allotted to updating the Master Plan. She added that T. Moore and she spoke about it and he wants to get the Population and Housing Chapter updated.
T. Moore added that that was the one that is the farthest behind. He stated that all of the housing data from the 2010 census is not available yet.
R. Gray said that that is only one part of the Plan. He asked L. Komornick if she could put a spread sheet together that had all the sections and what date they were last updated.
L. Komornick replied 2004 was when they were all last updated. She added that she could e-mail out the schedule they had before for the MP and they could all look at it and prioritize what they want done. There was more discussion on the matter.
T. Moore recommended that they keep the May 4th meeting open to discuss it.
R. Gray suggested that they invite S. Fitzgerald to the meeting to discuss the MP with him.
T. Moore said they could do that or discuss it amoung themselves to see what they feel is most important and then take that to S. Fitzgerald.
The Board discussed the Master Plan further including new chapters, RSA recommended chapters, goals and who is responsible for them, and what they want to see done including Town Infrastructure.
R. Gray asked that the Board members all get copies of the MP so they can all sit down on May 4th and discuss it.
The Board discussed contracting out some of the MP work, and decided it would be more work to do so. They added that they can do it for a chapter or two, such as transportation, if they really need help with them.
L. Komornick stated that S. Fitzgerald had some ideas for what he wants the Master Plan presentation to look like on the web, pictures, concept plans, etc…
The Board discussed water and sewer for the Town, and decided they should update it and relook at cost estimates to do so they can make an informed decision about it.
R. Gray said he would like to see the Town have an emergency water supply in case of a public emergency.
L. Komornick stated that that is different than water and sewer for Rt. 125. There was more discussion on the issue.
The Board has a plan on what they will do to deal with the Master Plan and they will all receive the text of the Master Plan from L. Komornick.
T. Moore stated that the Zoning Regulations have been updated and are on the web. He added that everyone should have a binder with them all so they just need to add what has been updated, the pages from page 103 and on including the map. L. Komornick will get that for them.
Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
