PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 19, 2011
Call to Order: 6:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL: Present – Chairman; Tim Moore, Vice Chairman; Peter Bealo, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Steve Ranlett. Charles Lanza was excused.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick and Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman
Item One:
Minutes for January 5, 2011
Motion made by S. Ranlett to accept the PB minutes of 01/05/11, second by P. Bealo. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 3-0-1; R. Gray abstained.
Status of Other Approved Projects
PPW Realty Trust (166 Plaistow Road).
By request the Board heard this item early. Present is Jon St. Pierre to represent Peter De Jager of PPW Realty Trust. J. St. Pierre explained that P. De Jager could not be present, but read a letter that Mr. De Jager wrote to the Board regarding the status of the approved site plan (D-36444)-PPW Realty Trust-166 Plaistow Road.
T. Moore stated that this was just an update and that there was no action necessary tonight.
L. Komornick noted that it would be helpful if the Board made a motion or statement, for the record, of their willingness to extend or to go over the vesting requirements. She added that the Board had wanted all the applicants in so they could ascertain whether they were in compliance with the zoning as far as vesting.
P. Bealo asked for clarification as to whether there was no issue with this until June, 2011, and this might be premature.
L. Komornick replied that was correct. She added that they should have it in writing that the applicant came in to address the Board, and she wanted to remind them of the vesting requirements.
There was some discussion by the Board over how to handle the issue and it was decided that it was in the minutes that he has appeared before the Board.
R. Gray added that it is now in the minutes and that he informed J. St. Pierre that they have until July 9, 2011; they will need to reappear before the Board if it is not complete by that date.
Doggie Day Care
T. Moore asked when this application was approved and was answered July 2009.
Present were Jennifer Lee and Cindy Stein, both of Camp Wesley. J. Lee explained that they had met with the bank regarding a new loan called a 504 Small Business Loan which would enable them to refinance the property and, with the help of the Board, to convert it to commercial. She added that the guidelines were supposed to come out in November, but they will now come out between January and March and they are waiting on those. J. Lee stated that the bank and the Small Business Association both said they are good candidates for the loan.
R. Gray asked what will happen if they do not get approved for the 504.
C. Stein replied that they will go with the 7A loan, but it would require them to put more money down, 30 to 40 percent.
R. Gray asked if there was any substantial reason why they would not be vested into the project in six months regardless of their financing situation.
J. Lee said they are waiting on the guidelines to be written and it is hard for them to say they want to invest 30 to 40 percent of their revenue into it, but added that they have been putting some work into it so they have some equity in it as it exists today.
R. Gray reworded his question, asking when they feel would be an adequate time frame that they will be vested in the project, having a substantial portion of the site plan completed.
The applicants replied that six months would be fine.
S. Ranlett motioned, second by P. Bealo, to grant the six month extension to the one year vesting period.
R. Gray explained that if they are not going to be (vested) then they will need to come back and see L. Komornick and get put back on the agenda.
There is no more discussion and the vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Two:
Discussion with Mike Panniello of 214 Plaistow Road Route 125 for Display Trailers.
Present for the discussion was Michael Panniello, Century Trailers. M. Panniello explained that he is looking to use the front of the property to display trailers and that they have hired an engineer firm to redesign the front of the property. He added that it is his understanding the zoning needs to be changed in order for him to display trailers on the property.
T. Moore clarified that the property is in an industrial zone and stated that he thinks it would need a use variance.
S. Ranlett noted that L. Komornick said the Board could consider it an accessory to the business he has open.
P. Bealo asked what kind of business was it.
M. Panniello replied that they lease and repair trailers, and again added that they are looking to display small trailers in front of the property.
L. Komornick passed out site plans to the Board members so they could see the property being discussed, and she showed them where M. Panniello would like to put the proposed display area.
P. Bealo noted that it is not only in front of the building on Rt. 125, but two other areas as well.
M. Panniello agreed, saying there were two areas on either side of the building.
L. Komornick stated her concern, which she spoke with Charlie about, is the DOT’s widening plan that the property is right in.
There was some discussion regarding how much into the widening project the property in question will be affected by.
L. Komornick noted that the Board has a memorandum of understanding with the NH DOT that any plans that come before the Board have to be reviewed by them anyway, adding that they will tell him if the widening will affect his plan.
M. Panniello replied that if that is the case, they will only use the side areas for display, adding he will not spend the money for the display if the state will take it. He reiterated that he does need to display some inventory on the property; they are using the parking lot now, but are looking to do something more permanent.
R. Gray stated he would feel more comfortable if the ZBA granted a variance, and the Board members agreed.
There was discussion on whether M. Piniella should go to the State or the ZBA first, and it was decided that he should do both concurrently.
S. Runlet motioned to deny the use of selling trailers based on it not being permitted in the industrial zone, second by P. Bealo.
There is no further discussion on the motion; the vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
In accordance with RSA 676:4-a, the revocation of a lot line adjustment and an amendment to a 15-Lot Residential Subdivision located at 64 Sweet Hill Road originally approved by the Planning Board on August 20, 2003. The mylar for the original 15-lot subdivision was signed by the Planning Board Chairman on February 4, 2004 and duly recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds on February 10, 2004. The owner(s) of record is Ron Brown Investments, LLC.
The mylar for the lot line adjustment and amendment to 5 lots of the original 15-lot subdivision including Tax Map 62, Lots 40, 41-1, 41-2, 41-3, 41-15, was approved by the Planning Board on August 2, 2006 and signed by the Planning Board on December 7, 2006 and duly recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds on December 13, 2006. Again, the owner(s) of record is Ron Brown Investments, LLC.
T. Moore asked if this was the amendment that changed the configuration of the road to alleviate the tight distance, and was answered yes.
Present for the hearing were Attorney McMillan, 145 So. Main Street, Bradford, and Ron Brown, 289 Mill Street, Haverhill. Attn. McMillan stated that there was a request filed by S.E.C. & Associates, Inc. on behalf of R. Brown Investments requesting an extension of the time to complete the paving for an additional six months, adding that the letter is dated January 18, 2011. Attn. McMillan asked if the Board would entertain that at this time.
S. Ranlett asked if this was all tied together, noting that if they give the extension then they don’t have the revocation hearing.
Attn. McMillan replied that that was his point, if they can deal with the extension up front, give him the additional six months to complete the paving, then they do not need to proceed forward to the revocation.
S. Ranlett said that he would like to hear it all, why they should not revoke the plan.
Attn. McMillan asked that the Board advise them as to the basis is for the revocation hearing.
T. Moore responded that it has been the policy to at some point when vesting periods expire, particularly four year vesting periods where projects have not been completely vested, revoke site plans. He added that this is consistent with that policy. He explained that they have applicants come in and present information; some cases continue with the revocation and other cases are granted an extension. T. Moore said that procedurally this is no different than any of those other applicants who have exceeded that four year period. He noted that this project has had other complications, but the amended sub-division was approved on August 2, 2006 and that the four year period was over August 7th and was extended to the point where the mylar was recorded December 13th which brings them to the
four year period.
Attn. McMillan asked if the basis is what the Board considers to be the expiration of the time period, and was answered yes. He explained that their position in regards to the revocation is that R. Brown is still within the time constraints provided for by RSA 674:39; he has a six year time limit as a result of the amendment made back in August 2, 2006. He refers to the statute, the final section, paragraph five, which states “any plans approved on or after July 1, 2005 and prior to July 1, 2009 shall be allowed six years from the date of approval to achieve substantial completion of the improvements”. Attn. McMillan stated that either date used, the approval date of August 2, 2006 or the recording date of December 13, 2006, he (R. Brown) has at least until sometime in 2012 to complete the improvements, and so
is still in compliance both with the conditions of approval by the Board as well as the RSA’s with respect to the exemptions for vesting the sub-division. He stated that it is also their position that he has substantially completed the improvements to the subdivision with the exception of the paving. Attn. McMillan went on to say that the property has been involved in a protracted litigation on a number of different fronts. He explained that the original subdivision was approved as a 15 lot subdivision and that subsequent to that R. Brown brought a variety of plans before the Board on the issue of Elderly Housing Ordinance. He noted that when the plans were first brought to the Board, there was not much substance to the ordinance which was in existence at that time. He went on that there was a stay given to allow the Town to update the ordinance and added that there were four or five pending plans at that time. Once the ordinance was
approved at a town meeting, R. Brown came back an filed a plan under the Housing Ordinance, but because of how the calculations were done with respect to who was allowed what with respect to the plans which were filed, that resulted in a determination made by the BOS that resulted as a consequence to R. Brown being limited in the number of elderly housing units he could do, with an appeal to the Superior Court. R. Brown came back to the Board again looking to have a number of units approved for the elderly housing ordinance even though it was since revoked, and the Board took the position that the time had expired and that resulted in a second appeal to the Superior Court and is still pending. Attn. McMillan went on to say there was also an attempt at application with respect to workforce housing and that has resulted in an appeal being filed in Superior Court but also with an appeal taken to the ZBA which was allowed, and they were to be sent back to the Board to have
a further hearing on that application. That was appealed by the Board and the re-hearing was not permitted by the ZBA and is still in the time frame for an appeal to the Superior Court. He explained that part of the impact of this litigation is that for R. Brown to move forward at various junctures and actually pave a roadway didn’t make a lot of economic sense, but would have been an economic waste. Any of the applications he had either before the Board or the appeals before superior court may have changed the configurations or ultimately may have had some opening of the roadway or changing of engineering resulting in the economic waste. He stated that R. Brown was still willing to move forward and that the Board had initially put a deadline of July 1, 2010. He said he sent a letter to the Board hoping to come in and address that arbitrary deadline with the Board but he was advised by the planning Director that that would not happen. He
did receive a subsequent disclosure that Board took the position that December 14, 2010 was the deadline to get the paving done. R. Brown then hired Brox Paving to do the paving in November of this year but was unable to proceed forward because the Town Planner sent a transmittal back on November 17, 2010 with six different punch list items that the Town required before paving. The engineer for Brown Investments consulted with Leigh (Komornick) and they were unable to resolve many of the issues so Attn. McMillan said he consulted with both L. Komornick and T. Moore and he thought they had resolved many of the issues as many of the items on the list were not needed at that time. It was then left to the developer, his engineer and the Town engineer to resolve the differences. He added that he thought the issues had been resolved and R. Brown had a date set to complete the paving and it would have been done on Saturday November 7, 2010. He stated that
unfortunately the Town engineer does not work on Saturday even when R. Brown would pay time and a half both to the paving contractor and the Town would have assessed him whatever cost to have the engineer do it. Since it did not get done on November 7, and due to a change in the weather and Town requirements, they have not had the opportunity to get that done. He added that they take the position that it is not done because of a lack of effort on R. Browns part, but because of a number of factors that bear on his decision to do the paving. He reiterated that configurations could change or it could get torn up from construction vehicles. Attn. McMillan went on to say that the Town is not prejudiced in any standpoint other that having to wait another six months because they have a cash bond for the completion of the roadway, and added that it is the only thing left to be done in the subdivision with respect to the plans that were approved in 2003 and 2006. He stated that with
all the factors taking into consideration that he was not able to get the paving done because of those timing sequences, they feel it is reasonable that the Board give him the opportunity with a six month extension to get it done in the spring time, which will put the Board where it wants to be with a paved roadway. He added that that will not be the end of the scenario because they have to wait and see what happens with respect to the appeal on the elderly housing application and workforce housing pending before Superior Court, and until they see how those are handled will not know the outcome for this property, but at least the Town will have a paved road.
R. Brown Stated that considering these hard economic times for everyone, the Board has not had a hard time granting a six month extension to those that are not vested, adding that he is and has been vested in this development and asked the Board for a six month extension so that they can continue on. He went on to say that he has millions of dollars vested in this project and he doesn’t feel it is unreasonable to ask for the same thing others have asked for and the Board has had no problem giving to them.
Attn. McMillan said that with respect to the prejudice to the Town, he does not feel there have been any substantial changes in zoning which would result in a different configuration with respect to the plans that have been approved now. He added that other than revoking the plan and having R. Brown have to incur the cost of coming back and having the plan approved again, it does not seem to make sense or have any justification.
T. Moore asked for Attn. McMillan to restate the RSA and the Dates.
Attn. McMillan replied that the RSA was 674:39-V, the third to last sentence, for site plan approval on or after July 1, 2005.
T. Moore stated that he would like to take a few minutes to consult with the Boards attorney before proceeding.
The Board took recess at 7:20pm to consult with their attorney.
The Board re-opened the revocation hearing at 7:42pm.
T. Moore stated that after reviewing the new information that was presented tonight from RSA stating that there is a six year period rather than four, it seems that it is the correct range of dates. He went on to say that at this point they (The Board) do not see any reason to continue with the revocation.
S. Ranlett motioned, second by P. Bealo, to discontinue the revocation hearing.
There was no more discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
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.
T. Moore stated that the Board would hear items four and five together and went on to read item number five before proceeding.
Item Five:
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.
Present for the hearing was Kevin Hatch, Cornerstone Surveyor Associates. K. Hatch gave the Board an overview saying that the property was located at 22 Witch Lane, the property next to Unitil’s garage. He went on to say that there are no buildings onsite, there is a gravel access road, and there was a horse rink at one time. He explained that the proposal they have is for a three lot subdivision. He clarified that on the application it says 590 feet, but that it is actually 565 from the edge of the pavement out to the cul-de-sac, and added that the roadway is required to get the three new lots. He said they are also proposing to adjust the lot line between an abutter, Glen Peabody, and showed on the map which part would be deeded to him as part of this application, saying that it would take his lot from
.58 acres to 1.07 acres. The new lots will range from 1.84 to 2.18 acres so all lots exceed the 80,000 square feet and the 200 feet of frontage required making them all suitable for duplexes or single family houses. Each of these new houses will use an on-site septic system, well, and driveway. They have applied and received sub-division approval for the three lots from the State Department of Environmental services. The new road will have underground utilities and there is an existing fire hydrant which is coming from the Town Reservoir in the pumping station. He went on to explain that the rear of the property is the Little River, but that the nearest house would be 250 feet from the river therefore meeting requirements. There is a wet land adjacent to the river and the Town has a buffer requirement, adding that the Towns requirements actually supersede that states requirements. K. Hatch continued on to say that the application has one
waiver request, the road design has a curve that is a tighter radius curve than regulations allow because there is such a narrow piece of property where it bends to the left. He explained that the road is only 500 feet long and you cannot get up to 30 mph to go around the curve as the Towns design radius is based on. They have posted it at 15, and there is no room to exceed that safety requirements of that curve and so have asked the Board for that waiver. K. Hatch said the houses they have designed have been pushed back as much as possible, adding that the houses on Witch Lane, their back yards, do look out over in that direction. He added that their hope is to finally get a finished product on the property and get it re-vegetated which will help improve the water quality going down to Little River. He noted that they do not have engineering (for this hearing) but would like the Boards input and to hear from the abutters.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick if they had any comments back from the department heads.
L. Komornick replied no, she wanted to wait until she had the full packet.
T. Moore asked if the new lot line for Peabody’s residence will boarder the road.
K. Hatch replied that Peabody’s lot will double in size and come out to the road on both sides.
T. Moore stated that they cannot grant the waiver officially until they accept the site plan as complete and asked the Board if anyone had any concerns about the waiver.
L. Komornick responded that her concern is with CLD.
R. Gray said his concern would be if the Fire Chief came back and said they could not get a piece of equipment down that road. He stated as well that the Town does have an easement to get to the water station that abuts this property and he would like to hear what the department heads have to say about granting a road easement though there or something.
M. Dorman stated the twelve inch culvert at the back of that lot on the right is where they’d have to get to.
R. Gray asked if the Town lines property doesn’t come down.
M. Dorman replied no, that Unitil owns the property.
R. Gray replied that maybe they could negotiate an easement through them (Unitil).
M. Dorman answered yes, maybe through Unitil, but doesn’t think the developers could do it. There was more discussion about the easement.
Wayne Daniels, 18 Witch Lane, was present. He expressed concerns with the wetlands, watershed, clustered housing on a smaller area of land, more traffic, and the possible devaluation of nearby homes. He feels the proposed plan will create an unintended hardship for nearby homes for the development of duplex houses, adding that the properties best usage would be a single family home.
T. Moore stated that the plan residential development ordinance they have, also called cluster zoning, does require ten acres. He explained that the reason to do cluster housing is you have the housing units closer together often with no defined lot lines but a single lot that is common property, and as this is not ten acres, is not able to be developed under plan residential development. T. Moore went on to say that it is in the medium density residential zone which requires 40,000 square feet per dwelling unit or 80,000 (square feet) for a duplex. He added that from the presentation and sub-division plan all of the three lots have an excess of 80,000square feet and are of adequate size for a duplex.
There was some discussion about the size of the middle proposed lot, and it was declared that the lot had 4 ½ feet extra.
T. Moore said the wells and septic will need state approval and so it will be up to them to approve whether it will be for single family or duplex, but added that they should make sure there is adequate water for a duplex, adequate space for a septic system so they are not contaminating each others’ wells among the three lots and abutters. He said that these are all specific engineering criteria that will be reviewed by the Board as well as the state. He went on to say that the houses are well back from the wetlands and so there is no encroachment on the wetlands or the buffers. He added that they have an independent engineer go over all the calculations, as well as the state approvals needed, and that tonight is just a discussion.
L. Komornick noted that that they did receive state sub-division approval.
K. Hatch added that the State Department of Environmental Services has walked the site and have proven that the lot is big enough for the septic system, as well as look at the wetland setbacks and make sure they have been met. He added that they look at the well radius, and they have been proven to meet the setbacks to lot lines and to the proposed septic area. He addressed the catch basin that W. Daniels had expressed concern about, saying that that has also been taken into account with how much water goes out through the property and eventually into Little River.
L. Komornick noted that it was one of the outlets they used for samples for their MS4 project.
K. Hatch clarified that it is a catch basin on Witch Lane that goes through a culvert towards the Wick’s property but not to it.
T. Moore stated that part of CLD’s review of drainage calculations will be to take that into account, making sure that a storm event would not create flooding on properties. He asked W. Daniels if he had a drainage easement across his property.
Dan Kelly, 16 Witch Lane, replied that the easement was actually on his property.
The Board asked for the drainage easement to be recorded on the plan. K. Hatch agreed.
Al Wheeler, 12 Witch Lane, asked, upon final approval of the plan, is there a timeline for when it will be completed.
K. Hatch replied that Mr. Wicks is fairly confident that he’ll be able to sell. He has invested time and money into (cornerstone survey Associates) and wants something to move forward too this spring. It will depend if everyone else has as much faith in the economy as he does. He added that if this plan was to get approved this month, or next month, there is a statute on how long the plan can sit idle. He’ll have one year to do something, having money invested in actual work, and a four year rule that he’s exempt from zoning as long as he’s working towards it. He said that the plans get approved, meeting the rules today and you can work on them for a certain amount of time, and after that if it is not complete he will need to come back before the Board to decide if the project should
keep going.
R. Gray asked a question regarding the pump house, wondering if the wells would diminish the Town’s ability to pump water into our ponds.
M. Dorman replied he did not see how, but that he would ask the fire chief. There is more discussion about the wells.
Heidi Peabody, 20 Witch Lane, was present and asked if they need to tell the Board if it will be single family or duplexes when they come back and how will it get determined.
R. Gray explained that the plan is for either single family or duplex and if the Board approves it as is he will not need to come back, but is approved for either one.
L. Komornick added that when he goes to pull the building permit it will be determined.
H. Peabody asked what a duplex means, two bedrooms per side.
T. Moore replied that a duplex is two dwelling units with no specific number of bedrooms per dwelling unit. He added that the septic design is critical and is based on bedrooms and square footage. K. Hatch elaborated further on the approval process.
L. Komornick asked when they get state sub-division approval what does DES look at.
K. Hatch answered that they look at what a normal use would be for a duplex or single family home. He added that they will assume that each is no more than four bedrooms, a duplex with four on each side, if it goes larger than they will recalculate the dry area, how much soil is there, what it is capable of handling and treating before it gets to the wetland and river.
H. Peabody expressed concern that that the Town road would be large enough to handle the extra capacity of cars from a duplex with four or five bedrooms.
K. Hatch explained that the Town has three levels of service of road and explained them. He added that this project was designed on a dead end road with up to ten houses adding that not only does it have a paved road way but a four foot stripped walkway down the side.
Dan Kelly, 16 Witch Lane, asked if the Town will maintain that road.
Tim Moore answered that the procedure would be, assuming it gets approved and built, the applicant puts forth a performance bond used in case the road fails at some point. Then two years after, the procedure is to petition the BOS for approval as a Town Road. The BOS will get information from the Board to make sure the road was constructed to Town specs, make sure there are no issues with the road, and the performance bond is in place. If the BOS approve it as a Town road then they will plow it in the winter and maintain it in the summer.
L. Komornick asked T. Moore to clarify that for the two years before the Town accepts it as a Town Road it is maintained privately, and was answered yes, the developers maintain it themselves.
T. Moore explained that they will continue the hearing until February 16, 2011, and then if all reviews are complete and concerns are addressed then we’ll probably vote to approve, or conditionally approve if there is something minor in the notes to be addressed. He added that if there is something more serious to be addressed they would continue it again.
R. Gray noted that this is the official notice of the hearing for February 16, 2011 and if anyone would like to come back then they are welcomed to do so.
Item Six:
Status of Other Approved Projects Including:
Team Mortgage (Route 125)
Jay Davey, 108 Eagle Road Hampstead NH, was present for the update. He explained that a lot has been done since they last spoke and he expects more to be done in the next 30 days. He told the Board what work has been done including, new beams being added to level and stabilize, the basement floor has been poured, and the basement stairs have been installed. He added that what remains is in relation to site work and has been delayed due to the snow and equipment repairs. He believes the excavator will be delivered that weekend and will stay on site until the site work is complete. He is anticipating the septic system and well to be installed in the next thirty days, adding they now have an updated septic plan done by Lavelle. J. Davey explained that the desire is to make the existing structure capable in
as short of notice as possible for an occupancy permit, not wanting to wait until the spring.
R. Gray asked what the original approval was.
L. Komornick said she recorded the mylar on October 20, 2005.
M. Dorman noted that work has been being done on the site.
R. Gray said that it has been more than five years
L. Komornick explained that the applicant has been in on several occasions that she has documented, February 2007 for an extension, October 2009 for and extension, and on May 5, 2010 for an extended deadline. She added that the final hearing has not been held to revoke the plan and so the approval remains in effect.
S. Ranlett asked when J. Davey could see getting an occupancy permit.
J. Davey again expressed concern over the weather, and added that he does not know what, if anything, would be allowed to not be done and get a permit, such as paving.
R. Gray stated that an occupancy permit probably would not be issued if the paving on the site was not done.
L. Komornick asked J. Davey if he had been in contact with the DOT about the acquisition of any property, and he replied that they had taken the corner.
M. Dorman added that it was on the plan; it does not need to be modified.
J. Davey said the state had made marginal alterations, taking a few parking spaces and moved them over to allow them more room to do the bottleneck turn around they wanted to do.
S. Ranlett again asked when he anticipates getting an occupancy permit so the Board will know.
J. Davey answered that he’s planning on the existing building to be functional in less than sixty days.
S. Ranlett made a motion to extend until September 1, second by R. Gray.
R. Gray stated that he would like to make clear that this will probably be it for extensions if he does not have the building permit by September 1; they will more than likely revocate the entire site plan. He asked that it be on the record that in his opinion no other extensions be given beyond this.
L. Komornick noted that there have been no zoning changes and wanted to remind the Board that if they revoke he can come in and reapply.
There was no more discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Chandler EHD (Chandler Avenue)
T. Moore read a letter to the Board received from Dave Hoyt, the current owner. In the letter he asked the Board to put this project on next month’s agenda as Mr. Lewis (the buyer) is out of Town and cannot come in with an update.
R. Gray motioned to continue until the first meeting in February, second by P. Bealo.
T. Moore stated that they should continue it until February 16th to give Mr. Lewis more time as he returns on January 25th.
R. Gray changed his motion to the 16th (of February), second by S. Ranlett.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A
Rockingham Church (Route 108)
T. Moore read a letter from Dave Peabody. The letter stated that Rockingham Church plans to complete the top coat paving no later than August 31, 2011.
R. Gray motioned to grant the extension to August 31, 2011, second by S. Ranlett.
There is no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Pro Bark
The owners of Pro Bark, Peter Brown and Jeff Brown, were not on the agenda but walked in to speak with the Board. P. Brown explained that he called Dee (Voss) to find out what they needed to do to get permission to operate New England Mulch and More at 96 Plaistow Road like they did last year, adding that they got a minor site plan last year.
R. Gray asked if it was going to be a yearly ongoing thing or will it just be for one more year.
P Brown replied that they expect they will not be able to do it because the landlord will sell the property.
S. Ranlett made a motion to continue their minor site plan.
P. Brown explained that if that piece of property sells, they have an agreement with the landlord that they would have to come back here (to the Board), but that they could move down the road to complete the year, adding that he wants to make sure that is clear.
J. Brown noted that they are all set with the landlord through July and August, their busy season.
S. Ranlett motioned to continue the minor site plan at 96 Plaistow Road for New England Mulch and More, second by P. Bealo
There was no further discussion on the matter and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Westville Realty (Westville Road)
T. Moore read a letter received from Kristina Kelly, D&H Construction of Plaistow, Inc., the owner and developer of the Westville project, which stated that they plan to complete the paving and striping no later than June 30, 2011.
S. Ranlett motioned to give them a continuance until August 31, 2011, second by P. Bealo.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman what they meant by complete the paving.
M. Dorman replied the top coat, and then they will re-do the striping
There was no more discussion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Pappalardo (Route 125)
T. Moore read a letter received from Anthony Pappalardo. The letter stated that due to the current economic climate, he has had a hard time locking in new renters. He asked the Board for a twelve month extension to allow him to finalize plans and move forward with construction.
R. Gray asked when it was approved.
M. Dorman replied that it has probably been a year or two.
There is discussion on whether to extend for six months or a year, and if that will make a difference when there are no tenants out there due to the economy. The Board again discussed the applicants coming in to reapply if they are revoked, when no zoning changes have taken place.
R. Gray stated that the only difference is that by having the revocation hearing the Town would be earning revenue by having another hearing on the site plan.
L. Komornick added that they spend money to revoke it.
T. Moore stated that if they had not gotten a response from any of the applicants on this list he would say that means they have lost interest and they then would schedule a revocation hearing, but as long as there is interest and they are requesting extensions.
R. Gray motioned to grant an extension until January 31, 2012, second by S. Ranlett.
There is no more discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Kelly Ward (Danville Road)
T. Moore read a letter received from Kelly Ward that asked for an extension as they have experience some financial trouble. They also asked if there was any money in escrow that can be released to them to aid in getting the plans registered so they can move forward.
L. Komornick told the Board that he has over &1,000. in escrow, and that he needs the money to be released to pay of the engineer to get the mylar recorded.
M. Dorman noted that there is not a plan to revoke as it has not been recorded.
T. Moore asked if there were any outstanding bills, so if they release it to him they (the Town) will not get socked (with a bill).
L. Komornick replied no, they have been done with that project for a while and CLD’s bills are all paid. She discussed the money on escrow further saying that he is in a bind and needs the plan to be recorded.
S. Ranlett asked if they would set up a bond if the project gets started.
L. Komornick answered yes.
S. Ranlett motioned to continue until January 31, 2012, second by R. Gray.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
S. Ranlet motioned to release the balance of escrow to Kelly Ward.
R. Gray wanted it clarified that there was nothing to say that if they release the money in escrow, that he will use it to record the plan.
L. Komornick replied no.
R. Gray asked how they get them to record the plan.
S. Ranlett stated that K. Ward spoke with him a month ago and expressed a financial hardship in paying the engineer, and M. Dorman added that that was what he (K. Ward) had told him today. S. Ranlett added that he would assume that it is his good intention to use the money to record the maylar as that it what he has written in the letter.
L. Komornick suggested to the Board that they not extend this one as far as it is not recorded. There is some discussion about holding K. Ward to his word and extending the same extension as the others.
P. Bealo second the motion.
R. Gray commented that he has concern with them not recording the plan and that there’s no time frame on the project. He added that they can still revisit it in six months even if a year extension has been granted, especially if the plan is not recorded yet, noting that this project is different from the rest in that it is not recorded.
L. Komornick noted that the law says the plans need to be recorded and they do that with all site plans consistently. She said that between Mike and Steve, they can work with him to get that done.
M. Dorman added that they need to go with the law.
There was no further discussion on the motion. The vote was 4-0-0 U/A
John Blinn (Autobody)
T. Moore read an e-mail received from John A. Blinn Sr. that stated they are in the process of accepting bids on the building and securing financing. They hope to get these taken care of soon so they can get started building by spring.
R. Gray asked if this plan has been recorded and L. Komornick replied yes.
R. Gray motioned to grant the extension to January 31, 2012, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Pro Bark
L. Komornick asked the Board about the discussion with Pro Bark as she had stepped out of the room and S. Ranlett gave her a summary of the discussion. L. Komornick expressed concern that the last time they had a minor site plan they had put in for March, April, May, and June and then were there through Christmas.
R. Gray clarified that the motion tonight was to continue the minor site plan until July or August when they’ll need to come back with another site plan.
L. Komornick said her other concern is that the people from the Tractor Supply Company that met with her were frustrated because they (Pro Bark) were still there and they (Tractor Supply Co.) could not survey.
R. Gray stated that it is not Town business, but is between the landlord and the tenant. He added that if they come in, tell them to call the landlord.
Item Seven:
Approval of a Lot Merger for Gary Post for Two Properties on Route 121
T. Moore noted that these are both on Atkinson Depot Road.
L. Komornick explained that Mr. Post, Gary Post’s father, has sold it to Gary and now he wants to merge them.
S. Ranlett motioned to make the lot merger, second by P. Bealo.
R. Gray asked that since they are eliminating a lot line, does there need to be a plan recorded with that for tax reasons.
M. Dorman stated that by law they need to come to the Town but a lot of people don’t.
L. Komornick replied no to R. Gray’s question and added that this serves as the notification to the Assessor and they will tell the Tax Map person to remove it.
There is no discussion on the motion and the vote is 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Eight:
Letter of Request for use of property at 2 Daybreak Drive
T. Moore read a letter received from Ed Magill, owner of Ed Magill Services, Inc. The letter explained that he would like to purchase this property as his residence and use an out building on the property for his independent physical textile testing facility business, Magill Services. He goes on to describe the business and concludes that upon the Boards approval, they will proceed with the acquisition of the property.
T. Moore noted that this property is in the ICR zone and asked if it would qualify for mixed use, and M. Dorman replied sure.
P. Bealo asked if the issue was that he has talked about doing the work in a separate building than he lives in.
M. Dorman responded that he wants to use the barn out back.
L. Komornick added that they allow mixed use in different buildings, but this is about what kind of use it was.
M. Dorman stated that if it is not a home occupation then it requires a site plan.
L. Komornick added that it cannot be a home occupation because it is in a separate building, and added that with all the activity, if she were an abutter she would want to know about it.
P. Bealo noted that these are professional services he’s doing.
L. Komornick said that they used chemicals, and S. Ranlett and P. Bealo said they had these chemicals in their own homes.
M. Dorman stated that the only issue is that it is a business. He added that maybe they should do an asbuilt to the site showing the building and property lines. There is more discussion on the issue.
T. Moore stated that they need two things; to verify that it is professional uses, and they need a site plan.
M. Dorman looked up and verified that professional use is permitted as a mixed use in the ICR.
T. Moore said to have him come in with a site plan.
Item Nine:
Other Business/Project Updates: Misc. Notices, Letters, and other correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA
Route 125 Impact Fee
T. Moore read a letter from M. Dorman regarding the withdrawal of the Route 125 Impact Fees and closing of the account to the Board, and he noted the recommendations that he did not read.
R. Gray asked if they are not going to charge anyone else for impact on Rt. 125.
M. Dorman replied that they don’t require it any more, adding that Rt. 125 is being done by the State of NH.
L. Komornick added that they could not keep it because they do not have any proposed improvements to be constructed by the Town.
R. Gray stated that they have six years to keep those.
M. Dorman said they got rid of the ordinance four or five years ago, and they have been trying to use the money. He added that if they don’t use it they need to give it back.
R. Gray asked if a major company like Wal-Mart came in, the Town could not charge an impact fee.
L. Komornick answered yes, that you would negotiate it with the state, and M. Dorman added they would pay for any improvements. There is more discussion on the matter.
T. Moore clarified that the purpose of the impact fee was to help finance the construction. He added that whenever there was a big development with direct impact on Rt. 125, they would pay for the improvements and we (The Town) would waive the impact fee. It was only for the smaller businesses because of the additional traffic their clientele caused. He stated that the Town will not be left paying for something the developer should pay for.
R. Gray motioned to draw $2,400.00 for the purpose of paying Greenman-Pederson, Inc; East Coast Signal and to reimburse the Town of Plaistow for expenses related to Police detail Officers, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray motioned that the balance to include all accrued interest is withdrawn from the Route 125 Impact Fee account and added to the monies being held for payment of Westville Road construction services and used to pay the invoice of CSSI, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray motioned that the Route 125 Impact Fee account be closed, second by S. Ranlett.
There is no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Notice of Decision for Terri Russell
T. Moore informed the Board that the ZBA did grant the variance on frontage, adding that it is in good shape.
Re-Hearing for Ron Brown
T. Moore stated that the re-hearing for Ron Brown was denied. He added that he thinks he’ll come back for a design review and that he’ll need to apply.
Notice – Preparing For a Successful Town Meeting
T. Moore explained that it is from the LGC (Local Government Center). He added that if anyone is interested to let Leigh know.
Plan NH Flyer
T. Moore explained that they hold design charrettes, adding that the one they felt would be appropriate to apply for was for the use of the transit oriented development in the Village Center, to come up with a plan for what the Town wants to see evolve into.
R. Gray motioned to apply for the grant for the charrette for the Village Center Overlay District, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray wanted to inform the Board that the NH DES overturned their decision regarding the Bridge for Beede.
Item Ten:
Adjournment
There is no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
