PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 18, 2012
Call to Order: 6:32 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza, Tim Moore, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Gennifer Silva.
Also present was Alternate; Geoffrey Adams, Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
Item Two:
Minutes of April 04, 2012:
R. Gray made a motion to approve the minutes of April 4, 2012, second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray asked if the Town logo and PB heading were the same as usual. L. Pagnottaro will check it and make any corrections necessary.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0; U/A.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit by Pennichuck Water Works originally granted by the Planning Board on June 15, 2011 for a new well to be located on common land within the Twin Ridge Condominiums. This amendment involves the addition of the well line (pipe) and electrical line connections from the newly installed well south and easterly to connect back to an existing waterline located just north of the intersection of Lower and Brentwood Roads.
C. Lanza stepped down for this discussion at 6:35pm.
Present for the hearing was John Boisvert, Chief Engineer for Pennichuck Water Works. He explained that he was presenting an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit granted last June by the Planning Board and noted the following:
- The well they drilled last year was successful.
- The well was just 3 feet into the wetland buffer so required the Conditional Use Permit.
- They are now at the point of connecting that well to the system.
- They have received DES approval with some administrative conditions.
- They would like to start the process of installing the electrical and well pipeline to bring the new well into service.
J. Boisvert handed out copies of the plan to the Board members. He showed the Board on the map where the well is located, where the condominiums are located and where the proposed well line would be. He showed the Board where the pipeline would encroach the wetland buffer and explained that the reason they have pushed it back farther is that there are septic fields in the fill area so they want to stay down below those areas as to not disturb the growth and vegetation that is there. He showed the Board where the existing pipelines are between Culver and Brentwood Streets. He added that everything will be underground.
R. Gray asked if there was a way to identify where the location of the septic fields are on the plan.
J. Boisvert answered that he could show where they are within the area but he cannot tell them the exact location; he pointed to the area on the plan.
L. Komornick stated that they should have a plan that shows where the fields are located.
There was more discussion on the location of the fields. It was noted that Pete’s Septic Systems was who serviced the area.
R. Gray asked M. Dorman what the distance is between a structure and the septic system.
M. Dorman replied very little; 10 feet to 15 feet.
J. Boisvert added that there are a couple manhole covers out there that can help to identify where the septic tanks may be.
J. Boisvert stated that the wells have over 60 feet of well casing grouted into the bedrock. They were concerned with the proximity to other septic systems as well as being concerned with surface waters. He added that during tests there was no impact of pumping from the bedrock aquifer any impact from the surface waters near this well.
R. Gray asked how those test went.
J. Boisvert replied that the test went well. They went down about 600 feet, they pumped the well at 45 gallons per minute; the flow stayed consistent and the water levels leveled off. All water quality tests were all well within parameters; significantly better that the current wells. He added that they say no impact or connections with any issues of surface water.
L. Komornick noted that DES requires all this information anyway. She added that she included in the Board’s staff report the language of the first conditional approval to alert the Board of their previous concerns.
S. Ranlett read the initial approval to the Board; receiving a letter from the Conservation Committee with conditions.
L. Komornick added that the conditions where that a note is added to the plan that standard erosion control be added to the plan, that clay and sediment be completely removed off site and that MPA pump tests be performed.
J. Boisvert said that the MPA pump tests were completed; results came back as very low risk. He added that the site is a raw well site right now. When they put the pipeline in it will all be loamed, seeded and restored. The permanent access to the well will be through the woods road coming off the development.
M. Dorman asked what they will use for erosion control.
J. Boisvert answered a silt sock as they usually work the best.
L. Komornick added that the note is one the plan about the erosion control.
R. Gray noted that they were drilling the wells due to lack of water flow to the condominiums. He asked how much of the new water from this site is going to the condos and from the water going to Culver Street, how much is of that water is being diverted off-site.
J. Boisvert replied that the Rolling Hill Development and the Twin Ridge Development used to be two different water systems; right now they have the same water system. This new well has a maintenance plan; it can be revisited every few years to be redeveloped and flushed out; this is a DES requirement and they do not have this in place with the old wells. This new well not only gives the capacity they need but will also allow them to take the old wells out of service that they cannot do right now. Everything goes through the two condominiums and through the treatment process.
T. Moore made a motion to approve the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by G. Silva.
There was some discussion regarding adding the removal of clay and sediments from the site into the motion.
J. Boisvert stated that they will be taking out whatever is excess any way and putting clean sand over the pipe as required as well as all residual drill cuttings will be removed. He added there will be a gravel area for a vehicle to drive up to the well but all other area will be loamed and seeded.
The Board was ok with that.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0; U/A.
C. Lanza rejoined the Board at 6:53 p.m.
Item Four:
A Public Hearing on a site plan amendment to add a 25 X 16 sunroom to the residential portion of 2,688 square foot, 2-story residential unit with a small art studio with room for instruction of 5 art students, and a in-law unit. The property is located at 92 Newton
Road, Tax Map 68, Lot 8B containing 1.84 acres and 547 feet of frontage. The property is located in the Integrated Commercial Residential (ICR) District and the owner of record is Steve and Nicole Murray.
Present for this hearing was Steve Murray, 92 Newton Road. He explained that he proposes to build a sunroom off the back of his house. He asked the Board what they would require from him in order to allow him to build the room. He handed out a drawing to the Board members to review.
L. Komornick informed the Board that she noticed this site plan tonight as well as notified all the abutters and put a legal notice in the paper. The Board needs to decide if it is a site plan amendment or if it just needs a building permit. She added that sites like this in the ICR District with work being done to the residential portion at this small level; do they mandate that’s they go back to the engineer and have it amended and re-recorded. She said the Board needs to discuss this issue.
S. Murray noted that this will be a 3 season room.
C. Lanza asked if it will be an expansion of the business.
S. Murray answered no. He explained that they have an in-law unit that his mother in-law has now moved into; they are trying to give her more living space as the unit is small. It is on the first floor.
G. Adams asked if it would be a glass structure.
S. Murray replied yes; all glass with an aluminum frame.
S. Ranlett asked M. Dorman if there were any issues.
M. Dorman replied that there was none other than the issue of whether the applicant would need an amended site plan or just a building permit with an asbuilt after the fact.
C. Lanza gave his opinion that if it is a residential addition onto an existing ICR zoned property and it meets all the setbacks and zoning then he does not see the need to go through site planning.
G. Adams agreed with C. Lanza; it just needs a building permit.
T. Moore concurred. He liked that the applicant came in with a sketch for the Board to review.
R. Gray agreed with the other Board members stating that as long as there is access to the residential portion other than through the business.
S. Murray clarified that they need to go through the gallery to access the sunroom.
S. Ranlett asked if the sunroom is just for the in-law apartment and not for the students.
S. Murray replied yes, just for the in-law unit.
L. Komornick asked if they need to go through the gallery to get into the in-law unit now.
S. Murray answered yes, or they can go through the garage to access it; the bulk head is in the way of it being access from the in-law unit.
M. Dorman asked for future reference if they will need to bring each applicant in to decide case by case or should he just give each applicant a permit with an asbuilt afterwards.
The Board discussed this issue further and decided that for this case they will issue a building permit and for all other cases they will deal with each issue on a case by case issue.
T. Moore moved to allow Steve and Nicole Murray to proceed with the addition by way of a Building Permit with no site plan required, seconded by G. Silva.
C. Lanza asked if they need to notify everyone.
S. Ranlett stated that it keeps it clean and is a courtesy to everyone. The Board discussed this further. It was noted that this is only for mixed uses in the ICR District.
C. Lanza added that they should put this on the site plan regulations.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0; U/A
Item Five:
Letter of Request Re: Occupancy of a Unit at Red Oak on Newton Road for Classic Car Restoration Business
S. Ranlett read a letter from Anthony J. Scappaticci, Sr. A. Scappaticci requested permission from the PB to use this unit to run his classic car restoration business. He noted in the letter that there will be no retail usage, it will not be open to the general public, no work will be conducted on the site grounds and there will be no storage of vehicles in the parking area.
S. Ranlett asked if he would be painting cars at the site. He then read the staff report noting that it stated there will be no retail sale and no spray booth.
The Board discussed the issue and decided they were okay with M. Dorman issuing an occupancy permit as long as there would be no paint booth as well as storage of vehicles on the site grounds.
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 the Implementation Chapter is coming along. She added that it will be modeled after Pelham and Moultonborough’s chapters. She explained that in her research of the chapter she came across an Implementation Committee that the Town Of Moultonborough has. In her opinion I might be a great way to have in place a committee who will determine where the Town is at with all the implementation strategies. She gave the Board members a sample order for creating such a committee and reviewed the sample with the Board members. She asked the Board to review it and see if it is something they might want to pursue.
G. Adams asked how the Master Plan (MP) is currently implemented.
L. Komornick replied the Planning Board. She explained that they also update it which is a large task so to have a committee that would look at how it is implemented would be a very supportive role.
T. Moore stated that they have not had such a committee before and he added that they had talked at the Plaistow First meeting about them doing the same thing. He was concerned with having two committees doing the same thing.
The Board discussed the Plaistow First committee and it was noted that it is a charter under the BOS. They discussed if the Plaistow First committee could possibly take on this role as they are a BOS charter and not under the PB. Other Board members expressed concerns over redundancy as well.
S. Ranlett asked what the Plaistow First Committee does.
C. Lanza stated that their work is winding down; they may only be meeting quarterly from now on to check on the land use recommendations they’ve made. He added that T. Moore was suggesting that this might be a good task for them to take on. He recommended that they put it on the Plaistow First agenda for the committee to discuss it.
L. Komornick replied that they should ask the BOS to change the charter.
There was more discussion on this issue; who should ask the Plaistow First Committee, the PB or the BOS. There was some disagreement regarding under whose authority the Plaistow First or Implementation Committee would be under.
C. Lanza recommended it being not just an Implementation Committee, but also a Master Plan Committee that can help with some of the chapters. He asked if the PB could decide first if they want an Implementation Committee.
The Board members all agreed that the PB can monitor the Implementation Chapter.
T. Moore stated he does not object to the Implementation Chapter but suggested that they try it without a committee first.
The other Board members agreed.
Citizen Planner of the Year Award
S. Ranlett congratulated T. Moore for being chosen for the award. He read a letter from NH Planners Association written to T. Moore to the Board.
ZBA
The Board was given the ZBA agenda for the April 26, 2012 meeting for their information.
Plan NH
A reminder for the Board: Monday, April 23rd at 6:30pm the Plan NH team will present their final report at the BOS meeting.
T. Moore stated that they committed to holding some workshops once the Plan NH study came back to help prioritize the recommendations.
It was decided that they would put it on the May PB agenda to be discussed by the Board members first.
North Avenue/Truck Traffic
G. Adams followed up with a discussion from the last meeting regarding truck traffic on North Avenue in Haverhill. He noted that trucks can turn up Marsh Road in Haverhill as there is no posting.
S. Ranlett clarified that it is weight restricted; Haverhill needs a new sign.
L. Komornick informed the Board that they are meeting with Haverhill at Plaistow Town Hall this Friday at 10:00am. She will post the meeting so all Board members that wish to attend can.
Item Seven:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
Steven Ranlett, Chairman
| 
