PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
January 04, 2012
Call to Order: 6:35 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Tim Moore, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Joyce Ingerson. Excused were Vice Chairman; Steve Ranlett and Charles Lanza.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
Item Two:
Minutes of December 21, 2011
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of December 21, 2011, second by J. Ingerson
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 2-0-1; J. Ingerson abstained.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on a Site Plan application to show customer parking and equipment storage areas on a property located at 15 Newton Road, Tax Map 66, Lot 28, located in the Integrated Commercial Residential (ICR) District, totaling .61 acres and having 100 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Patrick M. Connolly.
Present was Tim Lavelle, James Lavelle Associates, representing Patrick M. Connolly. T. Lavelle explained that the applicant has an existing residential structure on 15 Newton Road. The proposed use is for offices and a showroom for their business which is windows, doors, roofing and siding. They propose the following:
- A showroom; mostly by appointment only
- Three parking spots for customer parking
- Three spots for employee parking
- Equipment storage in the area behind the house; non-motorized equipment/trailers
- Removal of an area of the stone driveway in the front; some of it is within the States right-of-way for Rte.108 and some is to meet requirements for plantings and mulched areas.
T. Lavelle explained that the Site Plan the Board received had been revised today and they added the following:
- Proposed evergreen plantings along the southerly boundary
- A small picket fence across the front; for aesthetics only
R. Gray asked what type of business it is.
T. Lavelle replied that it is contracting. He explained that they do not feel it is a contractor’s yard but that they fit under the provisions of the ICR Zone which allows for the storage of equipment and vehicles used to service a product; the trailers and ladders and such. He noted that this question had come up earlier in the day when he spoke with M. Dorman and L. Komornick; whether this use is considered a contractor’s yard. They could not find in Plaistow’s rules what constitutes a contractor’s yard and what equipment to service a product is.
T. Moore clarified that the business is widows, siding, door and roofing. He asked if the equipment that would be parked in the storage area would be trailers with equipment on them.
T. Lavelle answered yes, non-motorized trailers and maybe stacks of ladders and staging.
T. Moore asked if there would be front-end loaders or backhoes and such.
T. Lavelle replied no. He explained that there is presently a backhoe on the site in the back but that is not what they are proposing.
R. Gray asked if there are windows on the site being stored.
T. Lavelle answered that most of the time there are not; the windows go directly to the job.
R. Gray said that in his opinion, what would be allowed on the site is equipment or vehicles that were being used to service the product and those vehicles cannot be motorized.
T. Lavelle reiterated that most of their equipment; hammers, nails, compressors and that sort of thing, is kept in the enclosed trailers and they will just back a pick-up truck to it.
R. Gray asked for clarification that there were no actual windows on the site as the site plan only states stuff used to service the product and not the product itself. He added that if they started keeping the product it would then become a contractor’s yard.
T. Lavelle said correct.
R. Gray said they would not be able to keep windows, doors, siding or roofing supplies on the site as that is not allowed in that zone; a contractor’s yard is not allowed in that zone.
There was discussion by the Board regarding whether this use falls under the contractor’s yard category or not and the parking spaces on the property.
T. Lavelle stated that the driveway is just crushed stone right now.
R. Gray clarified that there would be three customer parking spaces and three employee spaces.
M. Dorman replied yes, if you count the two spaces inside the garage.
T. Lavelle stated that they had intended to see if it was possible to leave the crushed stone driveway and not pave it.
R. Gray stated that he is not in favor of that.
L. Komornick stated that pictures were submitted on behalf of an abutter and she passed them out to the Board members to view.
L. Komornick clarified for the Board that the owner of record is Patrick M. Connolly Contracting LLC, but the name of the business is Absolute Roofing.
Present for the hearing was John McKinney, 18 Newton Road. J. McKinney stated that although he has not seen the plans he can see what is going on at the site as he is across the street. He added that he does not have a problem with what has been going on, everything looks well kept and it looks like it will only get better. He is not opposed to it.
Present was Ralph Scovotti, 13 Newton Road. He is the abutter who submitted the pictures to the Board. R. Scovotti explained that those pictures were taken over a five year span; the bulldozers, tractors, trailers and dump trucks are there all the time. He stated that Connolly will bring dumpsters in and fill them with trash; he had the Building Inspector take the 30yards out. He added that the picture with the dump truck being filled with trash was taken the night before last; that equipment does not belong in this district. He noted that he does not have a problem with the building out front or his business; has has a problem with the back yard. He loses his 30 foot buffer. The garage was built as a residence when it was intended to be a business all along. He added that he wants his 25 foot
buffer and a fence and therefore Connolly would not be able to get his equipment out back. He has a problem with the equipment, for five years he has been bringing in all the trucks and bulldozers and fixing them on the grass beside his (R. Scovotti’s) house. R. Scovotti told the Board he cannot live like that; he has been in his home for 30 years. He is asking for his 25 foot buffer, a fence and for no trucks to be in the back yard; it is devaluing his property. He added that the addition was built on the sly; no one has ever lived there.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman if he has a permit to operate the business.
M. Dorman replied no.
R. Gray asked if this was not a modification of an existing plan but a new plan that is already existing and going on.
M. Dorman said it is existing now. He has not issued a cease and desist order yet, but they have received letters. The next step will be a stop work order and then Attorney Sumner Kalman.
T. Moore noted that the plan does show evergreen plantings.
R. Scovotti answered that the point is once he has the right –of-way the equipment will be there; he does not keep his word.
L. Komornick explained that because the applicant built the garage he no longer has the setback for the driveway without a variance. There was some discussion regarding this issue.
R. Gray stated that M. Dorman needs to order a Cease and Desist until they can settle this issue.
M. Dorman agreed. He added that the applicant will need two variances, one for the contractor’s yard and one for the setback. There was more discussion.
R. Scovotti said it is hard to believe that he got to build a garage there like it was a residence when he had been in business there for five years.
M. Dorman replied that he receive a permit for a residential garage.
R. Scovotti said he was running it like a business; there is a sign out front. The intent of being a business was there. He did not need the setbacks because it was a residential garage and now this is where they are at.
M. Dorman clarified that he can park cars there for residential use only.
L. Komornick stated that no one lives there.
R. Scovotti restated for the Board that he does not have a problem with the business; it is just the back yard.
Present was Jim Lavelle, Jim Lavelle Associates. J. Lavelle explained that they are here to try and bring the applicant into compliance with the site plan regulations for a business. He said the Building Inspector had contacted the applicant and said he needed a site plan. They are not attempting to create a contractor’s yard. The equipment there was used to clear his rear area to get the trailers with advertising out of the front yard as required and into the back yard. J. Lavelle stated that he realizes there are issues with the setbacks to the south side and getting back there. He explained that the applicant’s intention is not to have heavy equipment and trucks out there. He had hired someone to go back there for tree and stump removal. He added that you can do tree
removal on a residential property and clear your property. There has been an attempt to keep the 25 foot buffer line on the southerly side of the property where ever possible; the only place closer than that setback requirement is to get around the garage.
R. Gray asked if a permit was pulled for the tree removal.
M. Dorman replied no, one is not needed for residential use. He added that he is now under site plan review so now he cannot touch the property.
Present was Donald Connolly. He explained that they do not run a business out of there; they bought the building five years ago and have been working on it. When the pictures were taken they had the equipment there working on it; no dumpsters have been there. He explained that there was a dumpster there from Mark Lagasse when they first bought the house but it had nothing to do with them. He added that the dump truck there now is backed up into the garage and the only way to see it is to go into the garage. He said they do not run a business out of there, they do not advertise out of there, they do not leave their trailers outside and they do not even have a phone or any paperwork on site. He explained that they did set the garage back 25 feet; if it was going to be residential he could have set it back
15 feet. He added that from the line it is 27 feet. He explained that his wife works the business out of their house. He said it does not seem proper, because it is their building and their equipment, that they should keep getting phone calls about having the equipment on the property.
T. Moore said if this gets approved and they have trailers on the site for roofing and siding equipment; non-motorized trailers easily fall under the definition of equipment storage, a permitted use. For doing site work those vehicles can be there during the construction period. If they are owned by you and you want to store them there permanently it changes the use to a contractor’s yard and that is not allowed; a variance from the ZBA will be needed.
D. Connolly asked it that was for motorized equipment.
T. Moore replied yes.
D. Connelly replied that he has four sons that work for him and they do not leave those trucks there overnight. The dump truck is inside the garage now that they have it; prior to that it was outside. He added that they go to the dump almost every day of the week.
T. Moore asked if someone was living at the site.
D. Connolly answered no; never has been.
T. Moore asked if that was the expectation for the future.
D. Connolly said he will not have anyone live there.
T. Moore asked if it would be a purely commercial site.
D. Connelly replied yes, just a showroom by appointment; they will not be open eight hours a day.
T. Moore noted that the combined use is permitted as well as commercial.
L. Komornick asked the Board to consider that storing equipment is one thing but that the applicant is accessing the equipment everyday; in and out. She added that there is no way that this property will not be accessed daily as a contractor’s yard; how will he access that equipment without driving in back of the property with motorized vehicles. In her opinion it is a contractor’s yard.
D. Connolly asked how his property was any different that George Pynn’s property.
M. Dorman and L. Komornick explained that he has permission to do so and he has a site plan for a storage facility.
R. Gray asked for clarification from D. Connolly that the vehicles that are parked at this property are there because he was building a residential garage.
D. Connolly replied that it isn’t a residential garage and it was never going to be; that is why they set it back the 25 feet. He stated that he was told to set it back the 25 feet.
M. Dorman replied that residential is 25 feet in the ICR. He added that Mr. Pynn had been there long before and he may have been grandfathered in.
T. Moore read the side backs to the Board, noting that when a residential use in the ICR abuts any other land use the side and rear setbacks are 25 feet and when a commercial use abuts any other use the setbacks are 35 feet.
R. Gray continued to summarize what he heard; there were trucks, bulldozers and heavy equipment at the property because a structure was being built and those vehicles were there for the construction. He stated that his issue is that in looking at the pictures of the property where the heavy equipment is parked and he has a hard time believing that that amount of ground is ripped out to park those vehicles. He added that in another picture where a dump truck is parked there are no tire marks in the snow meaning it was at least parked there over night.
D. Connolly replied that he has five trailers and made that space for them, not the bulldozer and backhoe. He also answered that he has left trucks parked there over night.
T. Lavelle stated that in the pictures with the snow the vehicles are parked next to the house where the garage is now.
R. Gray reiterated that what he had heard from the applicant is that the trucks were left there only for the construction of the structure.
D. Connolly answered no, that only the heavy equipment was there for the construction; the bulldozer, bobcat and backhoe.
R. Gray stated (noting that this comment has no bearing on how he will proceed with this case) for the record that nothing done on the PB infuriates him more than when something is going on at a property and the owner comes in and presents a site plan to the Board to put it into compliance before they get the PB’s approval. He added that the first priority is to put an end to what is happening there until they can deal with the issues and get it to the ZBA or whatever needs to happen.
M. Dorman stated that he agrees; it is going to be a contractor’s yard and is not a permitted use.
R. Scovotti stated that two things D. Connolly said were a lie; he did have a guy living at the house and he was not using the bulldozer but just storing it there. He added that some of the pictures have dates on them and the dates are real.
J. Lavelle said that early on the Board had seemed to almost decide that it fit the definition for that zone and that it was not a contractor’s yard because it was just the equipment and vehicles to service his business. He added that if in fact he is only going to store his trailers with the equipment he uses in his business then it fits the definition of that zone. What he is proposing is not a contractor’s yard.
J. Ingerson stated that he is using it as such already.
J. Lavelle replied that there may have been equipment and a dump truck outside but that is why the garage was built so he could put it inside.
J. Ingerson said he will need to use the trucks to access the parked trailers.
J. Lavelle answered that the definition says vehicles as well as equipment to service your product.
L. Komornick noted that it would need to then be paved.
There was some discussion on the paving and the Board agreed that any time you have motorized vehicles that will be left overnight it must be on a paved surface.
J. Lavelle said the intention was not to leave them there, but the question is does it need to be paved if vehicles are coming in and out every day.
R. Gray replied yes, just like any other commercial business.
R. Scovotti explained that if he paves the driveway to access the back his septic system is right beside where the driveway would be and everything tapers down towards his property and he will have problems with his septic.
R. Gray stated that as part of the site plan the applicant would need to locate off site wells and septic systems and he would need drainage calculations. The Board would not approve a site plan that would harm someone else’s septic system or well.
R. Scovotti also noted that the applicant parks seven to eight vehicles at the site a night on average adding that they have been moved out this week because of this hearing.
R. Gray noted that the plan is missing a lot of stuff.
L. Komornick replied that the intention of the hearing was to solicit the Boards interpretation for purposes of the variance; to get sent to the ZBA.
The Board discussed the issue of sending them to the ZBA further.
It was the consensus of the Board that this is a contractor’s yard.
R. Gray motioned to deny the site plan for the following reasons:
- It would be a contractor’s yard under Article V §220-32G and is not a permitted use per that ordinance
- It does not meet the setback requirements
R. Gray noted that they will deal with the driveway issue and the septic and well issues if it comes back from the ZBA.
J. Ingerson second the motion.
L. Komornick asked if it would be appropriate to include in the motion that until variances are received and site plan is approved that use of the property is deemed residential.
The Board discussed and decided that that was an enforcement issue.
D. Connolly asked if they cannot finish the garage that they have a permit for.
M. Dorman replied as long as there is no equipment sitting there except for the one that is working on it. There is some discussion on the issue of if he should be allowed to finish the garage. M. Dorman will find out from the Town Manager what can happen out on the property at this time.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
A Discussion with Joe DiPrimo regarding conversion of the upper units to apartments in the building located at 73 Newton Road.
Present for the discussion was Joseph DiPrimo, 73 Newton Road. He explained that at the existing building at 73 Newton Road they have had five years of bad luck in terms of rentals. He would like to get revenue by adding three efficiency apartments to the third floor. The rooms are already there and finished he will just need to partition them. He added that the efficiency apartments will bring them in enough money so they can pay their taxes. Right now only three offices are being rented and the other 9 or 10 are open. He explained that he had a hardship case with the rents last year and the year before and the Town dropped their taxes for them. He thought they could all benefit from these efficiency apartments being built.
T. Moore asked who the remaining renters are.
J. DiPrimo replied Task Company have about 2 ½ offices and an attorney is renting another office. A third renter is there but he has given them a break on the rent as they have fallen on hard times as well.
T. Moore asked if the property was all commercial uses.
J. DiPrimo replied yes.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick what is permitted there.
L. Komornick answered combined uses are permitted but the maximum square footage for the residential would be based on lot coverage; 20 percent. Permitted residential uses are single family and duplexes only; he would need a variance.
J. Ingerson asked J. DiPrimo if he had tried marketing the property at all.
J. DiPrimo replied yes. They discussed the marketing issue and he explained that no results have come from it to date.
R. Gray asked about 220-32G #4 Combined-Use.
L. Komornick stated that it is not a single family dwelling.
J. Ingerson asked how many bathrooms they have in the three apartments.
J. DiPrimo said that is something they would need to build in.
The Board discussed the issue of mixed uses and if J. DiPrimo would need a variance or special exception for this conversion. They also discussed different scenarios for the applicant like having only one apartment or two apartments with an owner living in one.
It was decided that if J. DiPrimo wanted more than one residential unit he would need a variance. They also explained that he could put in one apartment and then apply for a variance for the others later.
L. Komornick explained that he needs to get his septic plan approved to make sure he has the septic capacity at the site; hire a septic designer.
M. Dorman stated that before J. DiPrimo spends any money he will need to check with the Fire Chief (John McArdle). He added that he has spoken to the Fire chief about this and they discussed a sprinkler system for the whole building and separations between residential and commercial units.
J. DiPrimo asked if he does not need a sprinkler and the Fire Chief is supportive then can he go ahead with the single apartment and ask for a variance for a second apartment.
T. Moore said if the Fire Chief is supportive of putting a single apartment in there, and he will probably have some requirements that will need to be met, then he can move ahead with the single unit. He added that he should also mention to the Fire Chief his intent to have more than one unit which may change his requirements. T. Moore agreed that J. DiPrimo needs to speak with the Fire Chief before moving forward with any plans.
M. Dorman added that he would not be able to issue a building permit without the Fire Chief’s approval.
J. DiPrimo asked what he should do next if the Fire Chief is supportive.
L. Komornick replied that he would need a modified site plan.
Item Five:
Continuation of a Public Hearing to consider amending the Town Of Plaistow Zoning Ordinances including the following:
Article P-12-1: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article II, definition, §220-2, Definitions, as following:
Replace the existing definition of STRUCTURE with the following new definition:
(Intent: To better clarify the definition of a structure.)
STRUCTURE: Anything assembled or constructed, the use of which requires location on or in the ground or an attachment to an object located on or in the ground. This includes structures assembled or constructed of plastic, fabric, and or canvas covered frame structures, structures for agriculture uses, structures installed on skids, blocks or permanent foundations and all sheds and storage facilities. All structures shall require a building permit. Further clarification follows:
- Fences and single mast flag poles shall not be considered structures.
- Stone walls when used to define property boundaries shall not be considered structures.
Free standing signs shall be considered structures but shall be exempt from setback requirements.
(Intent: To better clarify the definition of a structure.)
The Board discussed the definition and if it covered everything they wanted it to including the Quonset huts. They agreed that this definition covered everything.
R. Gray motioned to post Article P-12-1 to the warrant as written, second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-7: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32C, “CII”- Commercial II as follows:
Add a new permitted use in paragraph B, Permitted Uses, as follows:
10. Mixed Commercial/residential uses where the work place or the residence must be owner occupied.
(Intent: To allow mixed uses in all of the Commercial II District with the restriction that either the commercial or the residential use must be owner occupied.)
T. Moore clarified that the Article means the use needs to be owner occupied and it also expands the use to be allowed in all of the CII District. The Board discussed the boundaries of the CII District.
R. Gray motioned to post Article P-12-7 to the warrant as written, second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-10: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-321, Minimum Dimensions, A. Structure Setbacks, to change the sentence that reads “where commercial II or Village Center land use abuts any other commercial use to “Where commercial II or Village Center land use abuts another any land use” and remove where land used commercially abuts a residential usage.
(Intent: To specify a distance from a residence next to another residence.)
L. Komornick noted that they made sure it was specified as a new ordinance; Article P-12-17
T. Moore explained to the Board the changes he made to the existing Table of Setbacks (see attached table for changes:..\DimensionalTableChangesfromTimJan4_2011.docx). He said they reviewed it a few times and kept finding odd combinations of uses in some unspecified district and some that were duplicated.
R. Gray motioned to replace Article P-12-10 with the new Article P-12-17 and post it to the warrant as written, second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore noted that he will need to try and sequence the Zoning Articles with a Z next year instead of a P. There was some discussion regarding the laws regarding the sequencing of the Articles. L. Komornick will call LGC and inquire about it.
R. Gray stated that he would like a map attached to the warrant for Article P-11-12. He added that they have already voted on it but he would like to make sure that it is there. He would like to see it beforehand as well.
Article P-12-14: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32D, “VC”- Village Center as follows:
Remove the restriction that the property owner must either be a resident or operate the business in a mixed use property by modifying paragraph B, Permitted uses, to read as follows:
(Intent: To allow either portion (Commercial or residential) of mixed used properties located in the Village Center District to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
Article P-12-15: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table 220-32G, “ICR”- Integrated Commercial Residential as follows:
Remove the restriction that the property owner must occupy the single family residence when used as part of a Combined Use by modifying paragraph B (4), Combined Uses, to read as follows:
(4) Combined uses. A single family dwelling may be combined with any of the following Uses:
(Intent: to allow either portion (Commercial or residential) of mixed used properties located in the Integrated Commercial Residential District to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
Article P-12-16: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance, by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and district Regulations, §220-32, District Objectives and land use controls, Table §220-32C, “CII – Commercial II as follows:
Add a new permitted use in Paragraph B, Permitted Uses, as follows:
10. Mixed Commercial/Residential Use.
(Intent: to allow for mixed uses in the entire Commercial II District and allow either portion (Commercial or Residential) of mixed used properties to be occupied by somebody other than the property owner.)
T. Moore explained that the previous three Articles (P-12-14, P-12-15, P-12-16) were up for further consideration but it was the consensus of the Board that the owner occupied restriction needs to be in place and is there already so there is no need to do anything with these Articles unless the Board wants to reconsider.
R. Gray motioned to not post Article P-12-14, P-12-15 and P-12-16, second by J. Ingerson.
L. Komornick explained by the Board did not vote on these Articles at the last hearing. She said they had hoped to have a full Board present at this hearing as some members of the Board had strong feeling on the owner occupied restriction and she wanted them to all have a voice in the vote. She also stated for the record that S. Ranlett submitted an e-mail to her stating that he did not have a problem.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-0 U/A.
Item Six:
Continuation of a Public Hearing to adopt the following updated chapters of the Town of Plaistow Master Plan:
- Community Facilities Chapter
- Population Chapter
Discussion of these two chapters was continued until the January 18, 2012 meeting.
T. Moore stated that they have the first draft for the Implementation Strategies/Action Items Section ready for the Board to review.
L. Komornick said that the section needs discussion as it is a combination of a draft that would go into the Master Plan and also a recommendation proposal that T. Moore and herself are working on; how they can develop the recommendations that will go into the Master Plan. She read from pages 2 and 3 of the draft, “Proposed Method of Preparing Plaistow’s Implementation section” to the Board and gave a quick summary of the rest of the draft. The proposed method included the following items:
- A committee or task force to develop checklist of action items, prioritize them and keep recommendations/projects moving forward
- What the checklist should include; each action step, a timeframe, department/individual responsible and the cost in dollars and time
She added that some of the items will need to be tweaked as they are more goals than action items but that it is a start for the task force or committee and can be expanded upon review of the Master Plan. She gave the Board an example of a checklist that the Town of Pelham NH uses.
R. Gray asked if the Board would need to appoint a sub-committee that will be part of this Master Plan Implementation Section Task Force.
L. Komornick said that is what she is recommending, possibly in conjunction with the BOS.
The Board discussed the committee further.
J. Ingerson asked who has been working on the Master Plan.
R. Gray answered that T. Moore, an intern, himself and others from the Board have been working on it. He added that he may not have the time in 2012 that he had this past year to devote to the MP. They will need to consider the budget if they need to outsource to get the MP done.
T. Moore replied that the PB is responsible for it; they can do it themselves or hire someone to do it.
L. Komornick said that she was hoping it could be discussed at a BOS meeting; maybe there are members of the Plaistow First Committee to may be interested in the MP. She added that it may give it the due diligence that is needed.
R. Gray stated that before he asks the BOS he would like the PB to decide what the commission board would look like. The Board discussed this further.
R. Gray suggested putting this item on the next agenda for discussion and maybe ask for volunteers.
L. Komornick will send an outline memo to the Board. She asked if R. Gray could present the outline to the BOS at the next meeting.
R. Gray said he would.
There was more discussion on the committee and the new Action Plan Section.
Item Seven:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects.
Elections
R. Gray asked who on the PB is up for election.
L. Komornick answered Steve Ranlett.
R. Gray stated that he wanted to discuss the attendance problem with the PB. He said it is hard to run an official board that has legal responsibilities for a community with only three members showing up. He added that they need members; alternates. They should have seven members at the meetings not three.
T. Moore noted that they can have three alternates and that they are not elected; it is an appointed position.
The Board discussed it further and decided to have it posted on Plaistow’s cable channel that the PB is looking for members/alternates.
Zoning Articles
R. Gray asked L. Komornick about having their legal counsel look at the new zoning articles.
L. Komornick replied that they are no longer going to do that.
T. Moore stated that everything is already posted to the warrant; it is too late.
R. Gray stated that the Board had decided at the last meeting that they wanted counsel to review the articles.
T. Moore stated that the only article that really needed review was the definition of a structure and they did not have the final wording until today.
The Board discussed further if they should send the article to counsel to give him a heads up as it is too late for a review. The Board decided that a memo with the definition of a structure should be sent to the attorney for his information.
The Board discussed starting the zoning in early October next year as to have more time to complete them on time. They discussed looking at the Town’s definition of a contractor’s yard next year.
Item Eight:
Adjournment
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
