Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
June 06, 2012
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, Tim Moore and Gennifer Silva. Excused was Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza.
Also present was Alternate; Joyce Ingerson, Alternate; Geoff Adams, Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
C. Lanza appointed J. Ingerson a voting member for the meeting.
Item Two:
Minutes of May 16, 2012
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of May 16, 2012, second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2; J. Ingerson and S. Ranlett abstained.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on a Preliminary Design Review for a site plan amendment to include razing the existing gas station and constructing a 4,052 square foot bakery/café at 4 Plaistow Road (Stateline Plaza) – Tax Map 24, Lot 44. This property is located in the Commercial I Zone and totals 17.5 acres and has 2,346 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Northstar Centers, LLC.
Present for the review was Ken Knowles; Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey to represent Northstar Centers, LLC., Marjorie Hession, representing Northstar Centers, LLC. and Attorney Geoffrey Dowd; representing Heavenly Donuts.
K. Knowles summarized the proposed site plan amendment to the Board noting the following:
- The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to give the Board some information and get their feedback prior to site design
- They propose to raze the existing gas station and construct a 4,052 square foot Panera Bread
- The existing gas station sits forward of the proposed Panera Bakery
- The Driveway will be a one way circulation coming in with a drive thru lane in the back and angled parking
- The original site plan in 2006 a waiver was granted for 708 parking spaces total instead of the required 796
The Board discussed the parking spaces and the regulations.
R. Gray asked how many spaces they currently have on the site.
K. Knowles replied they currently have 715 parking spaces. He added that they are asking for a waiver to have 689 parking spaces total. He continued on with the summary:
- In the original 2006 site plan a waiver was granted for lot coverage for up to 78% from the required 75%
- They have additional green space compared to the original plan
- Modifications including extending the curbed island and egress around to the drive through
- No change on curb cuts on Route 125
- Will got to NH DOT for change in use for driveway permit
- No change to the signals
- The dumpster will be screened with wood fence and surrounded by landscaping
- There is eight proposed employees on the largest shift
K. Knowles stated they will have the full details when they come back in before the Board.
R. Gray asked if the applicant understands that by changing the plan the original waivers from 2006 go away.
K. Knowles replied that he has handled it both ways; either a modified request or new waiver requests. He added that however the Board handles it is fine.
R. Gray asked if Heavenly Donut was a part of this lot.
M. Dorman answered no, but the other businesses are.
K. Knowles added that they are all part of the parking total.
R. Gray asked about the proposed building that is on the site plan in front of Shaw’s. That building has never been built and he stated he would have an issue with signing a plan without the existing conditions on the plan. He was concerned with using the parking in both jurisdictions, Haverhill and Plaistow, to satisfy the parking requirements for Plaistow.
T. Moore explained that when the original plan was approved they worked with Haverhill and Haverhill agreed they would not build in those parking spaces that Plaistow required with the condition that Plaistow allows a bank building to be built. That is what that (proposed) building is.
R. Gray asked if with the proposed change of the site plan would that agreement with Haverhill still be in effect.
T. Moore replied they are not impacting the Haverhill site; he does not see why it would not be.
There was more discussion on this issue.
R. Gray asked L. Komornick to provide him with the written agreement between Haverhill and Plaistow.
L. Komornick stated that there is no written agreement; it was just negotiated.
K. Knowles stated that there will be no changes to any other section of the site; just the gas station. No changes to the Haverhill section of the site.
G. Adams asked if traffic would be allowed to turn right at the end of the drive though lane.
K. Knowles answered yes.
G. Adams suggested restricting right turns at that location it may be safer to restrict the right hand turn to avoid the sharp right u-turn at that intersection.
The Board discussed some other options for this intersection. The suggestion was noted and the Board moved on.
L. Komornick noted that she had comments from both the Fire Chief and Police Chief in her staff report. She added that those comments are based on the preliminary plan. She gave K. Knowles and G. Dowd a copy of the report.
S. Ranlet stated that he agrees with the Police Chief; taking out the gas station and extending the curbs will help to control the traffic flow.
T. Moore asked if employees would be asked to park in the angled spaces along route 125.
K. Knowles stated that a smart employer would ask the employees to park there, but there is adequate parking.
G. Dowd stated that Panera will be a great addition to Plaistow but suggested that the old
Starbucks would be a better location. He said putting it at the proposed location would create the most congested site in Town. He added that this project will need relief of double the parking spaces it requires. His client, Heavenly Donut, currently has issues with no parking spaces at night. He stated that the bylaws allow in the C1 zone more than one building be constructed on a lot if the PB finds that the buildings improve general health, safety and welfare. It is his opinion that this proposal will not improve it.
S. Ranlett asked G. Dowd if Heavenly Donut considered their parking spaces in terms of the whole lot.
G. Dowd replied that they had a mutual easement with Northstar Center for some of the spaces. He showed that Board the spaces on the map.
S. Ranlett asked if Haverhill notified Plaistow when they approved Grande Mexico.
L. Komornick answered no.
S. Ranlett replied they (The Board) needs to look at what will better Plaistow. If a business can give the Town some tax relief and help to get rid of a deplorable gas station it is better for the Town.
There was more discussion on the issue of overcrowding the lot, parking spaces and if Haverhill notified Plaistow when Grande Mexico went in.
S. Ranlett stated that L. Komornick did notify Haverhill with a registered letter of the Panera Bread proposal.
G. Dowd asked if relief would be required for a setback.
M. Dorman stated that it meets the setback requirements. They are moving it back to meet the requirements. He also expressed concern over tractor trailers using the vacant gas station to park; there is no tractor trailer parking allowed on that site with the exception of the loading areas.
S. Ranlett noted that they can address that when and if the final site plan comes back before the Board.
The Board stated they will consider Attorney G. Dowd’s concerns.
R. Gray asked what their plan is for the water supply needed for the sprinkler systems.
K. Knowles stated the water concerns are fire suppression and domestic water. He added that they will be talking with the Fire Chief about his preference. They are proposing to get the domestic water from Haverhill. They hope to have it all planned out before coming back to the Board.
T. Moore requested they explain how they will load and unload as well as the business hours when they come back before the Board.
L. Komornick noted that the original 2006 plan had a slick parking requirement and she suggested they have it updated for this project.
J. Ingerson asked why there are jersey barriers taking up parking spots on the plan; near the bank.
The Board discussed the barriers and it was decided that if they are not taking up parking spaces but preventing people from parking on the bank pad it they would be ok. It will need to be looked at. The Board also discussed why the proposed bank is still on the plan.
R. Gray would like to have something in writing between Plaistow and Haverhill and the owner of the development stating what the agreement is.
L. Komornick reiterated that it was a negotiated agreement between Haverhill and the applicant; Plaistow approved the site plan with the proposed building shown. She added that if they continue to want to propose it they have the right to do so.
The discussion regarding the proposed building and the parking continued.
R. Gray asked if they would look at the paving and striping; there are holes around Steve’s Pizza.
M. Dorman replied he had been at the site earlier that day to look at it. He added that the Board could ask the applicant to fix the paving/holes.
M. Hession stated they will fix what is on their lot.
S. Ranlett noted that the lot is all shared parking and in the morning when some businesses are busy others are not and vice versa in the evening; it works.
L. Komornick asked G. Dowd if the Board could see the agreement for the shared parking spaces with Northstar; the mutual easement. She added it will be helpful to the Board to see it.
G. Dowd answered yes.
The Board reviewed the staff report discussing the following:
- Traffic Flow: NHDOT will do a traffic study
There are seven exits in and out of the lot
NHDOT will look at the traffic signal
The plan will have a full engineer review as usual
They will get NHDES septic and well permits if needed
Removal of gas tanks: NHDES will control the permits for the tank pull; the Fire Chief will also be on site and the environmental engineer
L. Komornick noted that they will need a packet for NHDES to explain how they will do the demolition of the gas station. She requested a copy of the Packet for the Board so their engineer could review it.
The Board discussed this issue and it was decided that if NHDES is satisfied then that is good with them.
- Lot coverage; it will be covered under engineering
K. Knowles stated that they are proposing 77% lot coverage; they will be gaining about 2% which is a lot for the lot size.
- Hours of operation; they will come back with the hours on the site plan
- The Fire Chiefs comments will be address before they come back before the board
There were no further questions or comments from the Board.
Item Four:
Request by Firestone for Bond Reduction
It was recommended by the Board’s Engineer that they hold $5,000 of the $43,910 bond until next spring to ensure the seeding and turf are established.
M. Dorman explained that after the drainage failure he was assured by the engineer that it would not happen again; the problem was found and fixed.
T. Moore motioned to release $38,910 to Firestone and hold the remaining $5,000, second by J. Ingerson
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Five:
New Tenant at Testa Corp. – 144 Main Street
Allquip Leasing is asking to occupy a small space and add two parking spaces. All plans have been accurately updated.
T. Moore motioned to approve Allquip Leasing, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Six:
Workshop on Public Meeting to Review the Plan NH Report with Citizens.
The Board reviewed the outline of the proposed agenda for Public Workshops on Main Street. The following items were also discussed:
- What should happen if the BOS do not approve of the PB recommendations they put in the Master Plan (MP)
- The MP is meant only to be a guide
- Getting public input on recommendations
- The goals the BOS gave to the Town Manager, Sean Fitzgerald: the elimination of slip lane on Elm Street and reducing truck traffic
- Elm Street options A (roundabout) & B (“T” intersection). The Board favors the “T” intersection
- The workshop should include 2 or 3 meetings; 1st would be the presentation and the 2nd would be the MP hearing update
The Board discussed the date for the workshop and decided to hold it at the August 1, 2012 meeting.
Item Seven:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects
Karate Class/Westville Road
R. Gray questioned the karate class wondering if they had a permit for it as well as for the sign.
L. Komornick replied that they came before the Board. She added they may have expanded to include Zumba classes.
The Board discussed parking. It was noted that there is not an issue with parking.
R. Gray asked for the meeting minutes of that meeting to review.
Master Plan
R. Gray asked for an update on the three sections the Board will complete this year; Recreation, Energy and Housing.
S. Ranlett stated he was really close to finishing the Energy Chapter.
The Board discussed who was responsible for writing the MP.
T. Moore stated that they have all volunteered, doing as much as they can. He suggested they do as much as they can with the resources they have and if they cannot get something done they can budget for it.
J. Ingerson noted that in other Towns the Planning Department is responsible for organizing the MP but not necessarily writing it.
There was more discussion regarding this issue.
T. Moore suggested it would be helpful for the PB and the BOS for the PB to provide monthly status report on the MP; so there is constant feedback as to where the MP is at.
Contractor’s Yard Definition
S. Ranlett explained that the Town needs a definition of a Contractor’s Yard. He said the Connolly case had gone before the ZBA and they could eventually come back to the PB and it will be necessary for them to have a clear definition. He gave the Board a definition from Hanover to review. Until they get a definition the Board should come to a consensus of what a Contractor’s Yard is.
S. Ranlett read ICR Permitted Use 220-32G, 2, O, page 37 to the Board: “storage of equipment and vehicles used to service a product”.
It was stated that the ZBA denied both Connolly cases. The Board discussed the cases further.
Item Eight:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
