PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
November 16, 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 November 02, 2011
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of November 02, 2011, second by C. Lanza
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
Public Hearing on the Site Plan Amendment to George Pynn’s property on Newton Road.
Present for the application was Kevin Hatch, Cornerstone Survey & Associates, and George Pynn, Property Owner.
K. Hatch explained that this was a site plan amendment for the storage units and masonry businesses on Route 108, Newton Road. He offered the following information to the Board:
- The request is to add a retaining wall at the rear of the parking area on the Pynn Masonry side.
- The Board had discussed this a month ago and the Conservation Committee has also looked at the site.
He showed the Board on the site plan where the proposed retaining wall would be and noted that nothing else on the plan would change. He stated that the Conservation Committee was going to write a favorable letter but he has not yet seen it.
L. Komornick gave a copy of the letter to K. Hatch.
R. Gray asked if the proposed wall would be within 25’ of the wetland area.
T. Moore replied that there is a small area of it that would be in the 25’ no cut no disturb area. He added that the area has already been cut and disturbed so it is not a new intrusion.
R. Gray read a section from the letter, “ the Conservation commission could support the efforts to allow the retaining wall, however, we feel that any and all parts of the retaining wall should be moved to the outside of the 25’ no cut no disturb buffer”.
K. Hatch stated that that is not how he understood it when they left the Conservation Meeting.
C. Lanza asked if the existing conditions are loamed and seeded with grass.
K. Hatch answered that the area the wall is proposed in is part of a slope and showed him on the map where the disturbed section is, noting that the sloped section is off the parking lot. They propose to put a pre-fab block retaining wall just off the edge of the parking lot to level it off and make it usable for staging and material. It is all in an approved area that has been disturbed and re-graded; no vegetation is being cut for the project. He does not feel the blocks/retaining wall should be considered a structure and added that they can use boulders to do the same thing; it is allowed, but it would not be as good of a retaining wall and would allow silt to go through and not protect the wetland as well as the retaining wall would. He does not think his client will wait another month for Conservation or
the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) but will instead use the boulders which are permitted. He reiterated that he felt the Conservation Commission was going to write them a favorable letter.
T. Moore replied that he thought that was the direction they were going in but after he wrote the letter it was changed.
C. Lanza stated that he is not sure a retaining wall would fit in their definition of a structure.
T. Moore said that it is an area they need to clarify in their zoning changes; to make it clear if they consider a retaining wall a structure or not.
M. Dorman read the Town’s definition of a structure to the Board.
R. Gray noted that based on the definition read, a wall is a structure that is put in the ground and can be considered a structure.
C. Lanza asked if this had come up with roads and pavement where roads were being constructed within 25’ or 50’ and there was a provision to waive it. He added that they did it for Snowsbrook.
T. Moore replied that he thought Snowsbrook had applied for a conditional-use permit for the culvert crossing the street so all the construction that was supporting the culvert was included in that permit.
R. Gray asked K. Hatch to clarify that if the Board does not allow this, that his client will put boulders up; which would be allowed. He added that what would not be allowed is to use that area for dry storage that is not listed on the plan.
M. Dorman stated they could store dry storage there.
K. Hatch clarified that it would be used for pipe scaffolding that they could set off to the side on the lawn now as it is.
R. Gray stated that on the existing plan they have snow storage in the area where the wall would be located, but that it is taken off this plan as he is assuming they would want to plow the new area. He would want to know on the plan where all the snow that was in this area would be located.
K. Hatch answered that there is more than enough room for the snow there. It is the same contractor that takes care of the Shaw’s Plaza and if the snow is in the way he will have the equipment to move it.
G. Pynn added that snow will not be a problem.
R. Gray asked T. Moore if there would be a problem as far as Conservation with adding additional snow close to the buffer zone.
T. Moore replied no; it is a fairly significant area for snow storage.
There were no further questions or comments from the Board.
Present to speak against the application was Bill Sullivan, 125 Newton Rd. He stated that G. Pynn is scamming the Town again. He stated that G. Pynn has already built the wall, he is storing vehicles that hold fuel there and that M. Dorman has pictures of this.
M. Dorman said he has some pictures of the area. He added that certain members of the Conservation Committee have been out to the site.
B. Sullivan went on to explain that the area he (G. Pynn) was supposed to be storing his supplies is down along the South West corner of the property, he usually does not store supplies there but did store some trailers there last winter. He added that not many supplies come into the property, that it is mostly vehicles and that is what is being parked in these new expanded areas. He added that G. Pynn does not have room for the tractor trailers he has coming into the parking area as that is for cars.
T. Moore stated that with dry storage you cannot have motorized vehicles there.
B. Sullivan said that he (G. Pynn) is parking motorized vehicles in both locations; the new location and the one he is not supposed to park vehicles in.
T. Moore replied that it is an enforcement issue.
B. Sullivan explained that since the original plan has gone into effect, there is a swamp at the end of his property line. He added that K. Hatch looked at it and said that it was not there originally. He said it gets worse every year and is creeping on his property so much that he cannot cut the grass there as it is wet year round.
T. Moore noted that it is possible for this to happen.
R. Gray asked K. Hatch if the wetlands go onto B. Sullivan’s property although they do not show on the map.
K. Hatch replied that he did not map outside of the site and added that he is sure the wetland does not magically fall on the lot line. He added that B. Sullivan’s septic system is raised higher and slopes back towards his lot line.
B. Sullivan said that used to be his septic system but it failed after they did their work there.
There was further discussion on this issue.
B. Sullivan restated that G. Pynn has not been truthful with the Board. He asked G. Pynn how long he has had his vehicles there.
G. Pynn replied a year and a half and added that there have been no vehicles parked off the hot top. He stated that M. Dorman does not have pictures of vehicles parked there as he has asked him.
M. Dorman stated that he only has pictures of the wall.
B. Sullivan said he can bring in pictures of vehicles parked off the hot top but did not as he thought M. Dorman had some.
T. Moore asked M. Dorman what was on the site the day he was there.
M. Dorman replied that he went out and took pictures of the wall and on that day there was nothing motorized on the dirt.
K. Hatch explained that G. Pynn started the wall without realizing he needed permission to build a landscaping retaining wall. There was equipment out there because he was working. He added that when he was at the site there were vehicles in and out of the site, but not in that area. He noted that it was not being used for dry storage either. He reminded the Board that the application before them was to put in a retaining wall, essentially landscaping. He stated that the Board needs to decide if it is landscaping and permissible or if it is a structure that needs to go before the ZBA; and they will do it another way.
T. Moore noted the plans show a bituminous curb along the edge of the pavement.
K. Hatch replied yes, it is part of the original drainage design and will remain there. He added that it is a Cape Cod berm and is about 5” or 6” tall.
L. Komornick wanted to clarify for the record that the hearing was for the amendment on the retaining wall. She said that if there were prior enforcement issues they should be separate from this hearing.
The Board members agreed.
L. Komornick asked K. Hatch when did any impact to the abutter begin versus what is going on now based on what he could see when he was out on the site.
K. Hatch showed on the plan where the abutters stockade fence is that shields him from the property. He explained there is wooden brush that is very thick and stated that nothing they are doing is effecting drainage. He explained that it will reduce the speed of the run-off going down to the wetland and eventually down to the abutter’s lot. K. Hatch stated that the original drainage report shows that the run-off has always run off onto the abutter’s property at the same rate as before they did anything.
L. Komornick asked K. Hatch to clarify that the proposed wall will only slow the run-off down.
K. Hatch replied yes, it will slow it down by having a level surface for the water to infiltrate rather than run-off.
L. Komornick asked K. Hatch if he would have an issue noting on the plan where the snow storage would be to address the snow removal issue.
K. Hatch answered no, and showed the Board on the plan where the snow storage would be reiterating that there is ample room.
L. Komornick stated that they will note the new snow removal site on the plan to address this amendment. She added that the violations and enforcement issues should be documented. She asked M. Dorman if they have been receiving complaints.
M. Dorman replied that B. Sullivan called him and he was down the next day shutting the project down and taking pictures. He noted that there was nothing there at that time.
L. Komornick added that the Board can reaffirm that when the site plan is approved, that is the way the site should be used or M. Dorman will need to enforce it.
R. Gray asked if the Conservation Commission decided that they should get a variance.
T. Moore answered that when the Conservation Commission read the definition of a structure they decided that a retaining wall would be a structure and so would require a variance. He added that they were still supportive of a retaining wall in that they felt it would help with potential erosion problems and slow the run-off. There is also plenty of area for snow storage so he didn’t consider that to be an issue.
The Board discussed the definition of a structure, whether the wall is a structure and if it could be addressed under a conditional use permit.
L. Komornick read RSA §220-25 and it was decided that this did not apply to this application
B. Sullivan expressed concern over the area becoming extended parking if in the future it should get paved.
T. Moore stated that if that happened then they would make the applicant remove the pavement.
L. Komornick asked B. Sullivan if he has observed the applicant storing motorized vehicles on the unpaved area.
B. Sullivan replied that he has seen the applicant park vehicles there during the daytime.
L. Komornick stated that that is not allowed.
R. Gray noted that that is a violation that M. Dorman needs to address, not the Board.
R. Gray motioned to deny the application based on the fact that they need to go to the ZBA to get a variance for a structure, second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray agreed that the wall makes sense in terms of run-off, but that according to their definition of a structure he feels they need a variance for it.
G. Pynn asked if he went up to the edge of the wetland and built a riff-raff wall and then filled it in, is that what the Board wants him to do. He added that he has never parked or stored vehicles there and that he does not ask anyone for favors. He stated that he has never scammed the Town. He stated that the Board needs to make a decision; the wall is not going to impact anyone but it will only help the situation. He added that he intends to finish the wall and hopes that he does not have to finish it without the Boards blessing; but that the wall will get finished. He said maybe they will change the wording to a structure in court if that is what it comes to and he prays it does not. He added that he hopes the Board does not take it as a threat, but that he needs to take care of his business and
himself. He stated that he can either finish the wall or go out and build a riff-raff wall. It is his opinion that this is no more than landscaping.
T. Moore stated that maybe that is how it should be, but that it is not now the definition.
G. Pynn added that he is there trying to comply with what is written.
R. Gray stated that the Board needs to enforce the ordinances that are in the books.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
Public Hearing on the Site Plan for the Tractor supply Store on route 125.
Present for the hearing is Matthew Ruthier, Allen & Major Associates, and Frank Alexander, Primax Properties.
M. Ruthier gave an overview of the project noting the following:
- The existing site contains three lots, a larger upper lot, a lot containing three parcels and a smaller lower lot.
- They propose to consolidate the lots carving out a 3.97 acre piece in the center of it which would give them the required frontage to meet regulations.
- They propose to create a beck supply which is 19,097 sq. ft. and has 77 associated parking spaces.
- Display areas will be in the front along Rt. 125 adjacent to the parking lot.
- A fenced in storage area on the side as well as a possible propane filling station and other materials for storage.
- Ron the rear of the building they propose a loading dock area with gated access. The dock is a mobile dock and requires no grade change.
- An enclosed dumpster will be located in the back.
- Storm water from the roof and concrete display area will be directed into a swale in the rear and then into a filtration pond.
- In an emergency with extensive amounts of water it will flow over the top and across the back onto an easement on the back lot.
C. Lanza noted that the plan said 79 parking spaces, not 77.
M. Ruthier replied that the parking table should say 77; they made adjustments for transformers and such.
- They are proposing an underground detention system which will carry water from the front of the site and tie into the existing DOT drainage which will be updated in 2013.
- They have created a 50’ entrance off of Plaistow Rd. per discussion with DOT who wanted it made wider for easier maneuvering.
- They have also been in discussion about a possible reserve area for the Town, and possibly have access in the back in the near future.
R. Gray asked if it was wet out back.
M. Ruthier showed on the map where it is wet and noted that there is a dry swath that goes between the wetlands. Where the access is shown is not wetlands, the actual edge of the pavement stops outside of the 50’.
L. Komornick noted that it was to tie in with a link that DOT suggested, to make it a service access type road in case the other areas are ever developed. They asked them to do that to stay consistent with the plan.
C. Lanza asked if this was the section of roadway that has been delayed.
L. Komornick replied yes, they just delayed it until 2018. She noted that they have been in discussions with DOT and are aware and they have also done a traffic study.
T. Moore stated that as long as it is compatible with the future widening that might occur.
M. Rutheir asked the Board if they had any questions or comments and asked if they could go through some of their waiver request to get them on record tonight.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick if this plan has gone through review.
L. Komornick answered yes, it is going through review. She said she did not know they wanted to go through the waivers tonight.
M. Ruthier replied that they wanted to read them into the record to give the Board members something to think about; they are not looking for a decision tonight.
R. Gray stated that he does not have a problem with that but he will not make a decision without the review from the Boards engineers. The Board agreed.
L. Komornick stated to M. Ruthier that she thought they would discuss those things before the next meeting, that some of them just do not make sense to discuss now as it is a long list and is associated with the review comments from CLD.
C. Lanza asked what was happening with the waiver requests as he is unaware.
L. Komornick explained to him that they are undergoing review by CLD right now and they have had comments presented that they are working through. Some of them relate to the waivers they are asking. She is concerned that there are waivers that will not be here the next time they meet.
F. Alexander added that they would like to do whatever is best for the Board however they want to get permits and start construction in the spring so as soon as they can get some definition on what they are working on the better. He noted that they have been working with L. Komornick and M. Dorman who have been very helpful. They have worked through some issues and have solid write off’s from the State and DES. He reiterated that he would like to do what would be best for the Board as well as get the ball rolling.
R. Gray stated that reading the waivers tonight or not will not impact the length of time it will take to go through the process.
The Board discussed the issue of reading through the waivers tonight.
F. Alexander stated that he had no problem waiting to discuss the waivers at a later date.
C. Lanza stated that he thinks it would be best to discuss them tonight to give the applicants some general direction from the Board to aid them in their planning process.
L. Komornick stated that she understood, but she also knows that some of the waivers they want to discuss are waivers the Board has never granted and she has not had a chance to go through it with them. She did hope they would discuss tonight the waiver that concerns a wall or fence.
It was stated that that is up to the Board to decide.
M. Ruthier explained that one waiver request is in regards to the side landscaping requirements; they hope to put in a fence in lieu of the stone wall and planting options which are extensive pricewise. He stated that there is an existing chain-link fence that runs around the edge of the property and in back; it is an abutter’s fence.
L. Komornick asked if the fence was on the abutter’s property line.
M. Ruthier replied that it may be on their property, that it is very close. He asked the Board what their ideas are on the fence in lieu of the requirement options.
F. Alexander showed the surrounding wetlands at the rear and side of the proposed building and noted that there are a lot of trees on the back perimeter. He understands the Town’s requirements but he is also trying to come up with a cost efficient way to bring the project in and make it work for the Town without planting a forest in front of another forest.
T. Moore stated that they may have done waivers where there has been natural vegetation. He added that it does not make sense to plant a forest in front of a forest.
L. Komornick asked the Board if they would like to look at the picture of the site. She added that in her opinion it is a scrappy looking forest.
T. Moore replied that he just made the comment in general. He added that they will be less lenient on the south side where there are residential properties.
R. Gray noted that there is another business there. He explained that his issue with allowing the fence versus the trees is that the whole area, including the site they want to develop, is mainly undeveloped and is prime real estate for the Town to develop in the future. The state has talked about an access road in the back to go to other businesses that may go there in the future. His concern is that the natural vegetation may in the future be disturbed and developed. If the applicants do not agree to put the vegetation in there will be none and there will be no way for the Town to go back and ask them to plant the trees. He stated that maybe they can relax the ordinance and allow less vegetation to be planted but he would like some vegetation to be planted; it would be necessary.
F. Alexander agreed that they would like to come to an agreement at the beginning and added that they will do whatever it is the Town wants them to do.
C. Lanza asked if the shrubs and planting they have on the front of the plan are what they are envisioning for that area. He also asked where the fence would go.
M. Ruthier answered yes to the shrubs in the front of the proposed building. He showed the Board on the site plan that they want to put a small 4’ wooden fence along the long side of the building and on the indented part of the right side stopping before the wetlands as to not impact them. He added that the fence is strictly aesthetic and would be to replace the vegetation. He noted for the Board that Tractor Supply Company has a policy that if they have more than 50 plantings on a site they require in-ground irrigation. He discussed this further. He stated that they can work with L. Komornick and M. Dorman further to come up with a solution that works for the Town.
The Board agreed. There was further discussion on the vegetation existing on the site.
R. Gray stated that he will go out to the site and look at it. He also asked about the display area in the front asking if there will be motorized vehicles.
F. Alexander gave the Board an overview of Tractor Supply noting the following:
- They sell replacement parts for tractors; not tractors.
- They have evolved into a more retail store
- It is not a hardware store but it has a hardware component,
- They sell clothes (Carhart and outer wear), pet care supplies, plumbing supplies, fencing, etc…
- The outside storage area is a sales area with items that are weather proof and too big for inside the store; fencing, livestock gates and feeders.
- They will line utility trailers in the front of the property for display.
- They will also have a seasonal display in the front for items such as wood pellets.
- They sell log splitters, snow blowers, welding equipment, etc…
- They sell no motorized vehicles with the exception of occasionally selling go-carts.
- There are large spaces (10’x20’) for the convenience of allowing customers to pull up and have help with loading their vehicles with merchandise.
- Hours of operation are 8am to 8pm, Monday-Saturday and 10am to 6pm on Sunday, with an occasional festival for harvest time or spring planting time.
- There will be 10 to 20 people employed.
- They will bring in a store manage from another location and everyone else is typically hired locally.
- The Company has a low turn-over rate for employees; they train well and treat their employees well.
- They have a low traffic count for a store of this size.
- They are a national company; they do advertise.
F. Alexander discussed other stores including the Brentwood store stating that it should open in March. He explained that they like to wait until after the holiday rush to open, taking the time to train their employees. He showed the Board pictures of the new design of the building with a gable on the front, earth tone tan color and goose neck lamps on the front; a country barn style.
L. Komornick explained that they will buy a piece of property and do a subdivision. She added that prior to the engineering company getting the job to put the facility in; they negotiated the property lines with the property owners. Now they have done wetland mapping and other testing and are coming across issues with buffers, water tables, and it looking like the site is not big enough to address all the Town’s requirements. She stated that she is concerned after hearing F. Alexander talk about money concerns that these issues will persist; wetlands: areas that will be in the buffer, the retention area that has not met CLD’s requirements and the high water table. She asked if they could renegotiate for additional property.
F. Alexander said that nothing is off the table. He explained that when they make a deal they give it their best shot to figure out the size of land they will need, then once you have an agreement with the seller you will spend money on the engineers to take it from there. He added that he cannot speak for the seller and said that if they go in certain directions they are crowding into some buffers so they are somewhat limited. He discussed some possibilities but stated that he does not think they are encroaching on any buffers.
M. Ruthier agreed that they have made adjustments to stay out of the buffers with the exception of being in the 50’ no construction buffer for the pond because it is the lowest spot in the back. He added that it is the natural direction the site drains anyway.
F. Alexander added that the post run-off will meet all the State standards.
L. Komornick asked about snow storage.
M. Ruthier showed the Board where on the plan the snow storage would be.
L. Komornick added that they have also agreed to remove it as they do not have enough area and it would impact their retention area. She used MB Tractor an example, explaining that it was a site that was carved out of a large area and the minimal amount of land was purchased. Now when you go there they have the site chock full. She said they had an above ground as this applicant is proposing and had to come back to amend for a below ground system. She added that she is not saying that this will happen here, but she is concerned this site will fall under the same restrictions and the Town will be the recipients. They have a number of waivers and many are related to not having the Board require a number of things in order to get conditional approval; test pits, alteration of terrain. She asked the
applicants where they stand with the test pits.
M. Ruthier replied that they had put the list (of waivers) forward not knowing the time frame. He added that DES is quite far back in their review period (60 days). They are waiting for the results which should be in at the end of the week. They will need to make adjustments per those results to meet the State requirements. He explained that their biggest waiver request is in regards to showing all existing conditions in the surrounding areas that are not being developed by them. The waivers are overlapping both in the site plan and the subdivision so the list is not as large as it seems.
C. Lanza stated that since they have put a lot of money into this project they must have already looked into the Town’s regulations.
L. Komornick answered no. She explained that they negotiated the lines before they hired a company to go out and do the wetland mapping and everything else. Then they realized that they had some issues. She added that the engineers here tonight have been told to make it fit.
C. Lanza said that it is then up to them to make it work.
The Board and applicants discussed this issue and the waivers further.
R. Gray noted that he wants to know about the wells and the septic systems
M. Ruthier stated that one of the big issues is the concern over snow storage. He added that the best management practice is to not store it adjacent to wetlands and they are not doing that. It has at least 50’ when it melts before it gets to the wetlands. He said they do not anticipate having a problem with being able to store the snow there.
L. Komornick asked if it will be in a retention area.
M. Ruthier answered no, the whole area drains away. The retention pond has a flat level shelf and then it slopes away so it will not impact it. As the snow melts it will get picked up by the system and get treated by the pond. He explained it further to the Board.
F. Alexander asked that the Board not compare them to MB Tractor. He said the lease they have with the company; they mandate that they get every one of these details worked out. They have 1,000 stores and if a manager gets over zealous they will be on the phone to him straightening it out. They do not want any problems with the towns. If the Town has any problems they can go to him because he is the person the Town will have the permit with and it will be corrected post haste.
R. Gray stated that any type of motorized vehicle, anything that will carry oil inside of it, needs to be kept on a paved surface.
F. Alexander explained that anything they display is for display only and is not fueled.
T. Moore asked if there were any abutters in the audience to speak for or against the application and there were none. He stated that they should continue to work with L. Komornick.
C. Lanza asked for L. Komornick to keep him in the loop as far as the CLD comments.
L. Komornick stated that she would if that is what he would like. She discussed the matter with him further.
F. Alexander noted that he came in to this meeting with the understanding that it was an informational meeting. He added that they came in a few months ago and had a technical meeting with their engineers, L. Komornick, M. Dorman and Fire Chief John McArdle. It has been a work in progress. He wanted to introduce himself to the Board and get some information out there. He asked when they will come back.
T. Moore replied December 21st.
L. Komornick stated that they should read the letter from the Police Chief to the applicants as it is the only formal letter they have received from the department heads. She gave the letter to T. Moore.
R. Gray asked if there might be propane sales.
F. Alexander answered that they will put an LP tank inside a fenced in area where you can get your grill tank filled. They will have a rack where you can swap your tank out. It will be fenced in and secure.
R. Gray asked if the Fire Chief had any issues with that.
L. Komornick answered no.
R. Gray said he did not see it on the plan. He added that if they think they will have it then it needs to be on the plan.
F. Alexander said they will do that. He added that it is a modern building, is fully sprinklerd and they are extending the fire water line up to the front of the store.
T. Moore read the letter from Police Chief Stephen Savage. It stated that he has received and reviewed the site plan and he does not see any issues from his perspective. He stated concerns about the traffic generated from the store may become enforcement problems along the Rt. 125 corridor and potentials for accidents may increase.
T. Moore asked if the Police Chief had estimates of the number of cars in and out.
L. Komornick answered no he did not have the traffic generation numbers. She added that the applicants have explained that it is not a high volume of traffic with this store. She thought the Police Chief was trying to say that because it is in the last pinch zone of Rt. 125, speed and right now is the worst section to get in and out of.
M. Ruthier noted that it is 10 to 15 cars per hour which is minimal based on the traffic on this road. Because the road work is delayed there will be a large shoulder on either side of the road for people turning in. They do not anticipate it being a problem.
L. Komornick noted that there will be a signal going in up the road near planet fitness which will provide a gap in traffic.
R. Gray said an issue is prime gas which has increase cars coming in and out greatly. This will have an impact on cars turning left and right. Prime is just to the north of that site. He’d like to see the applicant’s traffic studies.
L. Komornick asked if they want the traffic study to be sent to CLD.
T. Moore answered no.
The Board discussed the traffic issue further and decided that they should get back to the Police Chief with the estimated traffic numbers to re-review. M. Ruthier left a copy with L. Komornick to forward to the Chief.
L. Komornick discussed off site wells and septic noting that maybe they should change it in the zoning as is seems to be the one they are constantly waiving
T. Moore stated that they should change the regulation to say that if you locate your well on the property and the entire well radius is on that site and the septic is not within 100’ of anyone else’s well, even if it is on the property line, then you do not need to locate. If there is a possibility on smaller site where you locate a septic system and are not aware of where your neighbors well is you might have a violation. The regulations now say you need to locate the wells and septic and that is what they usually waive.
M. Ruthier showed on the map were they will locate the proposed well and added that the radius will stay on their property but project into the wetlands which is a non-developable area. They will be requesting a waiver for that.
L. Komornick pointed to a fence on the side of the building that is next to an abutter’s shed. She noted that they will be coming in next month as they want to use the building/shed for storage.
M. Dorman said it would be fine.
R. Gray asked if the location of the small building accurate to their proposed building.
M. Ruthier replied yes, and showed him on the proposed plan. He added that it is in the buffer and it will all be grassed.
The Hearing was continued until December 21, 2011.
Item Five:
Public Hearing on Master Plan Updates
The Board held the first Public Hearing for the Master Plan updates. They went through each chapter on the agenda in order discussing any changes needed.
Introduction Chapter
It was noted that there have been no changes made to this chapter since the August draft. There were no comments or corrections made to this chapter by the Board.
R. Gray motioned to adopt the Master Plan changes for the Introduction Chapter as written, second by C. Lanza.
C. Lanza mentioned a grammatical correction to L. Komornick; the 2011 update needs a space between the paragraphs. L. Komornick will correct it.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Vision Statement Chapter
It was noted that there have been no changes made to this chapter since the August draft. There were no comments or corrections made to this chapter by the Board.
R. Gray motioned to adopt the Vision Statement for the Master Plan as written, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Goals and Objectives Chapter
The Board had a consensus at the last Master Plan meeting to add goals and objectives by the categories in the Vision Statement as opposed to Master Plan chapter headers. The draft chapter presented to the Board at this hearing was new for them to review.
The Board reviewed the chapter and made no comments or correction to it.
R. Gray motioned to adopt the Goals and Objectives Chapter of the Master Plan as presented today on November 16, 2011, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Community Facilities Chapter
L. Komornick noted the changes made to the chapter since the August draft including the following:
- Clarified the Public safety complex includes the Police, Fire, Rescue and Emergency Management Departments.
- Added information about the construction project completed in 2010 for the Animal Kennel Shelter on page 4.
- Added a section on the Office of Emergency Management, page 10.
- Added the Water Department with categories for Fire Suppression and the Pump and Pump house replacement.
- Added the Cell Tower section.
- Took out CIP information as to not duplicate it.
- High-lighted under the Public Waste Management section that the Town has contracted under a new greener company.
L. Komornick noted that the Highway Department section does not seem complete. She is waiting for more information back from that Department.
The Board discussed the changes to be made to this chapter further and decided to continue this chapter at the next public hearing on December 21, 2011.
The Board discussed the date for the next public hearing noting that they need to discuss the zoning amendments on the same night. It was stated that the last day to post the notice for the first public hearing is December 23rd. They decided they will work on the zoning on December 7th and then can still have the public hearing for the zoning amendments on December 21st.
L. Komornick will e-mail the Board a list of the zoning amendments to review before the next meeting.
Population Chapter
It was noted that there have been no changes made to this chapter since the August draft.
T. Moore stated that he was disappointed that the education was not in the 2010 Census. He is not sure if it was not posted or if it was just not in it.
L. Komornick will check into it.
The Board decided to continue this chapter until the December 21, 2011 public hearing with the hope that L. Komornick will obtain the 2010 Census education information to include into the chapter.
Item Six:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects.
L. Komornick informed the Board that they received a letter from PPW Realty Trust.
C. Lanza asked if he asked for an extension.
L. Komornick read the letter and answered yes.
R. Gray motioned to extend the deadline for PPW Realty Trust for one year until January of 2013, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
The Board discussed other projects and adding them to the agenda to look into the status of each project.
It was noted that the Doggie Daycare project is still slowly moving forward.
Item Seven:
Adjournment
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
