Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
June 20, 2012
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray, and Tim Moore. Excused was Gennifer Silva.
Also present was Alternate; Joyce Ingerson, Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
S. Ranlett appointed J. Ingerson a voting member for the meeting.
Item Two:
Minutes of June 06, 2012
T. Moore motioned to approve the minutes of June 06, 2012, second by R. Gray.
C. Lanza noted that he was not present at the meeting and so could not appoint J. Ingerson as a voting member. The record needs to reflect that Steve Ranlett appointed J. Ingerson as voting member for the meeting.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1; C. Lanza abstained.
Item Three:
A Site Plan Amendment for a retaining wall for property located at 29 Newton Road, Tax Map 66, Lot 20 totaling 7.29 acres. The owner of record is George Pynn Realty, LLC.
Present for the hearing was George Pynn. He noted that the wall is not completed; he is awaiting approval to finish it.
No one was present to speak for or against the application.
R. Gray motioned to accept the site plan amendment as complete, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
R. Gray motioned to approve the site plan amendment, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
A Site Plan for a mixed use including a proposed office building, vehicle maintenance building and existing apartment building on the property located at 241 Main Street, Tax Map 31, Lot 18-1, totaling 3.36 acres with 200 feet of frontage. The property is located in the MDR zone and the owner of record is RNK Realty, LLC.
Present for the hearing was Tim Lavelle, James Lavelle & Associates, representing RNK Realty LLC. and Pentucket Companies. Also present was Mark Lagasse, Pentucket Companies.
T. Lavelle explained the proposed plan to the Board noting the following:
- The plans have not changed
- Pentucket Companies propose to have the roll-off construction containers they use as dumpsters at job sites stored on the site; will be empty
- Trucks and equipment will be maintained in the building
- They propose an office area in the building
- They want to utilize the existing apartment building
- They received a mixed use variance last year
- The site is in a residential zone but is surrounded by commercial properties
- The existing Pentucket Company business is at 2 Danville Road
- The rest of the yard would be for the container storage
- They are not accessing the containers
- The containers are empty
T. Lavelle offered the following history on the site:
- It was recently subdivided
- It is 3.36 acres
- In the subdivision process wetland violations were noticed on site
- The Wetlands Bureau has investigated the site
- They have a Reclamation Plan that has been submitted and they are working with the Bureau but the plan has not been approved by the bureau yet
- An area of 400 square feet will impact their lot a little but the rest is on the three different lots
- It is all one owner
- They will take care of the wetland violations
- The new wetland boundary will be off lot; not near proposed building or septics
- CLD had a lot of small items that the applicant will take care of
It was noted that J. Ingerson and R. Gray went on a site walk of the property.
G. Adams arrived at 6:45pm
L. Komornick explained that she summarized CLD’s comments in the staff report and highlighted the ones that require the Boards attention as well as staff issues. The important questions are:
- Approximately 400 Sq. Feet for the filled wetland exist on the Kidder property but the remainder is on abutting properties; how will they restore the area with three property owners.
- What will the timeline be and is it approved by DES
- Where will the final wetland boundary be once it is restored and will it have an impact on the buffer zones
- Are abutting property owners aware of violations on their property
L. Komornick added that the Boards attorney noted that the storage containers will be brought in and out of the site and will be tightly stacked; will the containers have residual lead based paint or other materials that could cause hazardous leaching into the wetlands. She asked if the containers would be cleaned out or rinsed before they are stored on the site. She also asked how they will access the containers in and out of the site.
C. Lanza asked if the approved restoration plan would include a full dredge and fill.
T. Lavelle answered yes. He added that it will require full permitting. They are working with Eban Lewis and the process has been expedited because it is a violation. The applicants will take care of the violations as soon as they are permitted to do so. Meridian Services is handling the restoration plan.
The Board reviewed CLD’s comments from the staff report and the following was noted:
- The variance from the ZBA takes care of this question.
- T. Lavelle noted that it is an existing chain link fence and it is in good condition; they propose to leave it up and put a chain link fence around the rest of the property line.
There was more discussion on the chain link fence. The Board decided they had no issue with the fence but asked the applicants to make the fence clear on the plan.
- The Board discussed this issue reviewing the town’s regulations. It was decided that as they need state approval for the well the state will find any issues if there are any.
- The Board discussed where the proposed pavement would be on the site plan and if a variance would be needed. It was decided that the applicants can stay within the 50’ buffer and comply with the regulations it will work.
- T. Lavelle explained that about 1’ under some areas of lawn there is concrete; they are proposing to leave it. The previous owner paved the entire site with concrete.
The Board decided they are ok with this being left.
- R. Gray asked if they could have assurance that they containers would be cleaned out before brought on site.
The Board asked the applicants if they could store the containers somewhere else; not in the 25’ and 50’ buffers.
T. Lavelle reiterated that they will not be constructing anything. He added that his applicants need to know if they cannot store the containers within the 50’ buffer. They are fully intending to keep them outside the 25’ buffer.
M. Dorman noted that the 25’ buffer is not okay but that they should be okay in the 50’ buffer; it is okay in terms of zoning.
L. Komornick suggested putting the fence along the 25’ buffer.
T. Lavelle agreed they could put the fence there or they could put shrubbery there to help protect the wetlands.
M. Lagasse stated that all the containers are emptied out and swept out after each use. He added that they are not water tight. They are used for mostly wood and construction debris that comes right out when emptied. They are open top containers/dumpsters. He noted that this site was formerly a junk yard and is a barren site. They are trying to make it work but if they cannot use the 50’ buffer it would limit them too much making it unusable. It is already disturbed and they are trying to clean it up. He added that it will be better than what is there now.
G, Adams asked what the containers would be on.
M. Lagasse replied crushed stone.
M. Dorman stated concern over the access of the containers and driving over the silt sock.
There was more discussion on the issue of using a fence along the 25’ buffer to protect the silt sock. The Board agreed that the ground cover can be permeable gravel; the containers will be empty and no storage in the 25’ buffer zone. The applicant will add a note to the plan of items not allowed in the containers. The Board also asked the applicants to note on the plan where the construction equipment will be parked / stored; on paved surfaces or in the garage and the hours of operation.
T. Lavelle noted that they are not sure of the boundaries as the restoration is not complete yet.
L. Komornick asked if they will have an asbuilt of the final boundaries after the restoration is complete.
T. Lavelle replied yes. He noted they may use concrete pads to park the equipment. The Board was okay with this.
G. Adams suggested the applicants use a guard rail instead of a fence to protect the silt sock.
The applicants will take it under consideration.
The Board reviewed the Police Chiefs comments and noted that he recommends lighting to be added to the building. The Board asked the applicant to add this to the plan.
Present was Robert Rizzuto, 58 Old County Road. He expressed concern with overcrowding in the Town, residual contamination from the containers, noise pollution and a possible increased crime rate.
L. Komornick noted that Kelly Brook abuts the site. She added that the Town is under the MS4 permit to repair the Brook. When they approve a plan they will make sure it is environmentally safe.
R. Rizzuto asked if the applicant could put up a noise buffer instead of a chain link fence to help with the noise issues.
The Board discussed the noise issue and replied that if abutters hear any noxious noise they can speak with M. Dorman and he will handle the complaint.
There was no one else to speak in favor of or against the application and the hearing was closed. The hearing will be continued on July 18, 2012.
Item Five:
A Site Plan for the demolition of a portion of an existing shopping center (approximately 12,820 square feet) located at 5-9 Plaistow Road, and a proposed 14,820 square foot free standing pharmacy with a drive-thru and associated parking. This property is known as Tax Map 24, Lot 38, is located in the Commercial I Zone, and totals 20.39 acres with 983.53 +/- feet of frontage along Plaistow Road (NH Route 125) and 246.26 feet of frontage along Haseltine Street (NH Route 121A). The owner of record is Taurus Plaistow Investors Limited Partnership, LLC.
Present for the application was Edward Vydra; Taurus New England Investments – General Partner with applicant, Robert Clark; Allen & Major Associates, Mark Donahoe; Taurus New England Investments - Project Manager, Kevin Danrade; TEC – Traffic Engineer and Tim Tobin; Phase Zero Design Inc – Architect.
E. Vydra explained the following:
- Taurus has owned this project for 7 years
- They purchased Plaistow Commons in 2005
- Shaws has since relocated creating a 30% vacancy
- The 2008 recession has evaporated the retail marketplace
- They have managed to maintain status quo under these negative conditions but are not happy with the plaza’s performance
- Typically Taurus manages all their businesses; occasionally the will co-manage with other operators
- Walgreens will be under a 20 year lease; the lease is for the building and not the land.
- They will demolish portions of the existing center
R. Clark added the following information:
- It property is located at Tax Map 24 Lot 38
- The parcel is over 20 acres
- They will demolish approximately 12,820 square feet and propose to construct 14, 820 square feet; and increase of 2,000 square feet.
- Cartridge World will relocate; no other tenants in that section of the plaza
- There will be a one-way circulation between 125 Bridal and Walgreens; a 16’ wide roadway
- They have 43 proposed parking spaces
- They propose a green strip all the way around the development; maintaining some of the existing curb cuts
- They propose to shut off the curb cut closest to Rt. 125 on Haseltine Road; they propose to maintain an entrance and exit closer to the property zone further to the east
- There are 4 septic systems on site
- They have a 10’ buffer shielding the abutters behind the site
K. Danrade was present to discuss the traffic plans with the Board. He explained that TEC did the traffic study for this plan. He gave copies of TEC’s responses to CLD’s review comments and went over them with the Board. He explained that their numbers were good, even conservative by some of CLD’s comments. He said it comes down to the access point on Haseltine Road; a concern with the traffic flow at this intersection. It does require an access permit from NHDOT. They propose to put the access point slightly east of where it now exists.
The Board and K. Danrade discussed various traffic flow options and the pros and cons of each one.
K. Danrade noted that the applicant has filed an application with DOT but have not received any comments yet. He added that their study has shown that they are not adversely impacting that intersection.
C. Lanza asked if their traffic study considers the plaza full or as it is today.
K. Danrade replied both ways; as existing now and in a ten year projection which would include the pharmacy.
R. Gray asked if DOT is considering other proposed projects in this area.
L. Komornick replied yes.
There was further discussion on the traffic flow options for this intersection. The Board asked the applicants to continue working with NHDOT as it is a DOT issue. The Board will discuss the issue with the applicants again after they review DOT’s comments.
R. Clark showed the Board the grading plan. He noted the following:
- They are not exceeding 5% of any other the running slopes
- They are not exceeding 2% of any of the cross slopes
- The septic field in the back; test pits have been submitted to the State
- AOT; they did an analysis of the entire plaza
R. Gray asked if they would need a variance from the ZBA for the demolition.
L. Komornick answered no.
M. Dorman added that zoning will allow for multiple buildings as long as the health, welfare and safety of the Town is not affected.
C. Lanza asked if the one-way access around the pharmacy will be an access to get to shaws or just a service only access way.
R. Clark replied that it will not be a fundamental change; you can already access Shaws from behind the building.
R. Gray noted that they should have a discussion on how far the applicants will be resurfacing the pavement.
R. Clark replied that they can do an overlay to show the Board on the plan. They are not proposing to pave all the way around, there will be a transition line.
C. Lanza asked if they would have signage to show the drive-thru.
R. Clark answered yes.
L. Komornick asked for a plan set for the demolition so the Board can see where the demolition will occur.
R. Clark said they would provide an overlay for the demolition as well; it is the demising wall of 125 Bridal.
T. Tobin handed out floor plans to the Board to review. He explained that the layout may not be the exact fixture layout they will have in the store but they are all usually very similar. He gave the Board a package with all the proposed signs including the monument sign and pylon. He added that it is a contemporary brick and block building and showed the Board what all four sides would look like.
R. Gray asked how wide it will be between 125 Bridal and Walgreens.
T. Tobin answered it would be the separate paved surfaces; the 16’ drive isle and 18’ of concrete, 34’ total. In the 18’ there will be dumpsters and the pick-up area; they are both fenced in.
The Board discussed the signage.
M. Dorman told the applicants to see him to discuss the signs. They will need a variance for all the signs proposed on this plan.
L. Komornick asked how the architecture of the new building will fit with the existing buildings there.
T. Tobin replied that it will improve the area.
L. Komorick asked if there would be a new well.
M. Donahue answered no; they will tap into an existing well. There are two wells on site but they are currently only using one as they are over capacity with water. The second well is there if they should someday need it.
R. Clark added that they do not need DES approval for the well but they will check into it and get a formal response.
There was more discussion on this issue. It was noted that they report to DES quarterly regarding the water supply. The applicant will check in with DES regarding a permit.
L. Komornick noted that Haseltine is no longer the name of the road, it is 121A. She wanted it clear on the plans. She added that the applicants have a completed application and the Board can accept it as complete. She said the applicants understand they need to work with DOT and deal with the signage issues.
R. Clark added that they have addresses all of CLD’s comments but have not sent their response document back to them; they will send it on Monday. He requested to come back before the Board on July 18th after receiving CLD’s new comments. He stated that they also have a couple of waivers they will need to discuss with the Board.
The Board decided to discuss the waivers at the next meeting.
L. Komornick suggested the applicants speak with the Fire Chief regarding the sprinklers and the waterline impact fees.
R. Clark said they will speak with the Fire Chief.
T. Moore motioned to accept the site plan as complete, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The hearing was continued until the July 18, 2012.
Item Six:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects
Doggie Daycare
It was noted that Doggie Daycare’s project looks good. They have a website if anyone is interested in seeing the finished project.
L. Komornick stated that the applicants will be in a hurry to get their bond back. She asked if she could send out an email to the Board with the details so she can release it to them before the next meeting.
The Board decided they where okay with the email. They said to hold back the recommended amount and let them know through email.
Economic Development Meeting
They will hold a meeting Wednesday, June 27, 2012 @ 11:30am; 2nd floor of Town Hall. A free lunch will be served.
Sullivan Tire
They will hold a Customer Appreciation Day on June 23, 2012 from 10am to 2pm.
John Lynn
It was noted the John Lynn has started his project.
Tractor Supply
It was noted that The Tractor Supply project is moving along as well.
The next meeting will be July 18, 2012; there will be no meeting on July 4, 2012.
Item Eight:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
