Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
October 17,, 2012
Call to Order: 6:33 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Gennifer Silva. Excused was Tim Moore.
Also present was Alternate; Geoff Adams, Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
S. Ranlett appointed G. Adams a voting member for the meeting.
Item Two:
Minutes of October 3, 2012
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of October 3, 2012, second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray noted that on page 2, the time T. Moore returned should read 6:45pm, not 7:45pm. He also noted that the Board took a recess break at 6:41; not 7:41.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1; S. Ranlett abstained.
Item Three:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on 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 was Tim Lavelle, representing Pentucket Companies and Mark Lagasse.
T. Lavelle passed out site plans for the Board members to review.
S. Ranlett asked for the restoration plan.
T. Lavelle gave it to L. Komornick. He explained the following to the Board:
- They are no longer proposing to build a maintenance garage
- They propose to utilize the existing apartment building
- They have a new approved septic design to upgrade the building with
- The area for the septic has been added to the plan; up by 121A
- They propose to store empty containers on the site
- The restoration has taken place and the new wetland lines are on the plans
- They are proposing a guardrail along the edge of the wetland buffer to keep containers from being pushed into the buffer
- They propose to increase the buffer in one area to avoid putting the fence in that area
- The amended driveway permit is still pending; just a change in use
S. Ranlett noted that the Chief of Police has reviewed the site plan and stated that it seems to work well from a police perspective; including parking and site distance. He added that the Police Chief recommended there be some lighting added.
L. Komornick noted that they discussed this at the last hearing; it is well lit as there is lighting on a telephone pole in front of the apartment building. She asked if they would store demolition material on the site.
M. Lagasse replied that they do not store any demolition materials because it is all disposed of immediately; all storage containers will be empty.
The Board asked for a note be put on the plan that clarifies that the containers will have no construction debris in containers or on site.
T. Lavelle will add the note as well as a note regarding the septic.
G. Adams asked if they will be storing containers in the buffer zone.
T. Lavelle answered no; the guardrail in most places is 25’ from the buffer and some places more.
R. Gray motioned to accept the plan 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 conditionally approve the site plan based on receipt of the NH Driveway Permit and the 2 notes mentioned earlier be added to the plan, second by G. Adams.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
A Public Hearing on a Condominium Conversion of a previously approved Site Plan for a 40-Unit Elderly Housing Complex Project on 34.05 acres resulting from the Consolidation Plan of Tax Map 62, Lots 41-4 through 41-14 totaling 43.05 acres and +/- 3,606 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Ronald Brown Investments, LLC.
Present for the hearing was Terry Trudell; SEC & Associates, Bernie Pelech; Attorney representing Ron Brown Investments and Ronald Brown.
C. Lanza stepped down from the Board for this hearing at 6:45pm.
T. Trudell passed out the condominium plans to the board. The explained that they are before the board to submit condominium documents to the Board for the Elderly Housing Project. He noted the following:
- Condominium site
- 40 acres
- Same design as previously approved
- Changes made on Pg. 3&4 are limited common areas and common areas that are designated
- Page 5 has a typical floor plan of a proposed building
- They have the state subdivision approval for the condominium; the note has been added to the plan
- They have submitted the Condominium documents both to the Town as well as to NHDES for review.
T. Trudell added that they just received tonight the handouts from the Town regarding the Town Counsel’s comments on the condominium document.
Att. Pelech stated that the Town approved the site plan a year ago. They are proposing a change in the form of ownership; there are no other substantial changes to the plan. He reiterated that they have just received the letter from the Town’s Counsel C. Donais and has not yet had a chance to review it. He asked that the Board allow him to discuss the issues with their Counsel; he feels confident that they will be able to address and resolve any concerns or issues they have. He asked that the Board grant the conversion conditioned upon receipt from Town Counsel that his concerns have been satisfied and receipt of any amended Condominium documents if necessary. He noted the following:
- The Supreme Court has stated that if the only change involved is the form of ownership then the Planning Board has to approve it
- There is no substantial changes to the plan
- They would like to move the project forwards as soon as possible
- The Condominium Documents need to be reviewed and approved by the Attorney General’s Office; they need the Boards approval first.
The Board discussed if they needed to approve it before it goes onto the Attorney General’s Office.
L. Komornick stated that it is a formality; they do this for anything with a change of ownership so that they have records in Town Hall. She added that she has not problem with Att. Pelech’s request to work with Att. Donais. As this is the Town’s first elderly housing project it is important that they go over it all.
S. Ranlett also stated that the Board would be okay with the attorney’s working the issues out together. He added that the billing will be at the applicant’s expense.
Att. Pelech agreed.
The Board discussed conditional approval of the plan.
G. Adams expressed concern that he does not know where the attorneys concerns are from as he does not have the condominium documents.
Att. Pelech stated that he delivered ten copies of the document to Town Hall last Week.
L. Komornick got each Board member a copy.
Att. Pelech noted that a lot of Att. Donais’s comments are mostly about adding language regarding the elderly housing ordinance and adding the words “since repealed.” He does not have a problem doing that but still adhering to the intent of what the elderly housing ordinance was.
The Board looked at and discussed briefly some of the comments. L. Komornick gave each Board member the condominium document. The Board decided to continue the hearing until November 7, 2012.
R. Gray asked if the applicant has permits for the flags and tent they have at the front of the site.
M. Dorman replied no, he has sent a letter to R. Brown. He needs a permit for both.
R. Brown asked the Board if there were any more questions that they will need to address T. Trudell and Att. Pelech at the next hearing so they can cover everything they need to.
S. Ranlett replied they would do that at the next meeting. They cannot say if they will need to attend the next hearing.
L. Komornick added that if the attorneys work out the issues then his attorney may not need to attend the next meeting as well.
S. Ranlett stated that L. Komornick will inform them of who will need to be at the meeting after the attorneys meet.
C. Lanza rejoined the Board at 7:05pm.
Item Five
A Public Hearing on a Final Site Plan Amendment application 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 was Ken Knowles, Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey representing Plaistow Project, LLC.; Attorney Charles Cleary, Waldeigh, Starr & Peters representing Plaistow Project, LLC. and Marjorie Hession.
K. Knowles clarified for the record that the owners name is Plaistow Project, LLC. not Northstar Centers, LLC.
S. Ranlett asked L. Komornick to make the change from Northstar to Plaistow Project, LLC o all the paperwork.
L. Komornick gave the applicants copies of the correspondence from Attorney C. Donais regarding the Stateline Plaza Development issues to review.
Att. Cleary stated that they have had a few public hearings now including a joint meeting with Haverhill. Based on the last hearing, most issues have been resolved. There was still an issue over the parking request and they propose to request the original waiver.
K. Knowles stated that they submitted revised plans a week ago and he noted the following changes:
- The NHDES Groundwater Permit number was added to sheet C2
- Surveyor signature block was added
- Revised the note for no snow storage shall occur in designated parking spaces
- The waiver request was added for the requirement of 1” = 50’
- Revised note to specify NGVD = 1129; vertical data of record
- Note 15 on C5, utility plan was added stating that any new lights added will comply with Plaistow’s regulations
The Board reviewed the new staff report with the applicants.
S. Gray noted that the Board accepted this plan as complete on August 15, 2012 which was about 65 days ago. He said that the Board will need to take action on this hearing tonight.
S. Ranlett stated that the biggest issues are the parking waiver and septic/water.
Att. Cleary noted that they provided L. Komornick at the joint meeting with Haverhill a recorded final agreement with Haverhill for water and sewer for the project.
R. Gray read from the correspondence received from Haverhill dated October 17, 2012 that stated “There continues to be NO agreement between the City of Haverhill and the applicant regarding the City providing water (domestic and fire) and sewer services to the project. If an agreement is reached for Haverhill to provide water and sewer services, the owner will be required to submit plans showing all water and sewer facilities for review and approval by the City of Haverhill Water and Wastewater Divisions.” He was confused because the applicant stated they provided L. Komornick with an agreement but then they have this letter.
Att. Cleary replied that he provided the actual agreement signed by both parties. At the joint staff meeting they admitted that the applicant had supplied water and sewer plans to them.
L. Komornick stated that she had it; it was a permit from when they re-developed.
R. Gray stated that they provide water and sewer to the whole site, but it does not state that they have an agreement and will provide it for this new development; specifically Panera Bread.
Att. Cleary disagreed.
G. Adams asked if anyone knew if Haverhill requires a separate agreement for each hook-up to their system on the site.
No one answered. There was some discussion regarding the agreement over water and septic from Haverhill and how it affects the acceptance of this plan.
L. Komornick expressed concern over the Board conditionally approving without the water and sewer plan in hand.
The Board continued the discussion and came to the consensus that if they conditionally approve the plan and they do not receive a written agreement from Haverhill stating that they will provide Panera Bread with water and sewer then the applicants will need to come back in before the Board with a water and sewer plan approved from NH before they can get any permits.
L. Komornick asked if they could receive a complete set of plans that have all the details of the water and sewer so the Fire Chief can know where the lines are.
K. Knowles stated that they have been on the plans since day one. He added that they have the legal right to connect now and may never have a letter from Haverhill saying Panara is allowed.
G. Adams stated that they need to provide Plaistow with proof of that agreement or they cannot build.
The Board discussed who would be liable if the applicants hook-up to Haverhill’s water and sewer without the agreement. It was reiterated that if Plaistow does not receive proof of agreement or approval from NH then they will not get a building permit.
S. Ranlett explained to the applicants that at some point they will need Bob Ward from Haverhill to come out and inspect what they are doing and so will need something in writing about their review process. They will have something from Bob Ward about them connecting to Haverhill.
L. Komornick stated that her recommendation is that the Board not conditionally approve based on the water and sewer issue; there are too many variables. She asked what the rush is. They should be approving it first.
R. Gray stated that he thinks the Board has the right under the RSA to grant conditional approval.
M. Dorman disagreed and R. Gray stated he would review the RSA.
Att. Cleary noted that it is a governmental permit and he does not see what the difference is. He feels the plan should be conditionally approved.
L. Komornick stated that a governmental permit in another state that isn’t septic and well, it is water and sewer; there is ground water contamination all around out there. She added that right now the Department of Environmental Services has no idea that Panera Bread is going in. They don’t know how disturbance of the soil will affect things because it is in Plaistow and not Massachusetts. She is concerned that the state of NH has no knowledge of this project.
Att. Cleary stated that both of her concerns require the applicant to comply with both Haverhill’s and NH’s requirements. He added that they will comply with all those regulations. He stated that the PB will find themselves in difficulty if they continue to step into the shoes of Haverhill and other state agencies. They as the applicant will address them and if they do not get approval they know they cannot proceed and they are prepared for that.
G. Adams asked if they have submitted an application to the DEP.
Att. Cleary replied yes, for the Groundwater Management Permit. Both MADEP and NHDES are in place.
L. Komornick stated that she received a letter from Haverhill stating that they (the applicant) are not in compliance with their mitigation regulations right now. She added that the only way NHDES would know about this project is if they were applying for septic and well; and the applicants are not applying for either. She noted that there are several buildings on the Plaistow side of the site that have indoor monitoring equipment because of the contamination issues there.
S. Ranlett stated that this issue was discussed at the last meeting and the outcome was that the applicant put a note on the plan with the ground water management permit number.
K. Knowles replied that the owner does not want a building that cannot be occupied; Plaistow Project, LLC. will do whatever they need to do to get the building occupied. In other properties they have gone above and beyond what is required so they will certainly adhere to DES requirements.
S. Ranlett asked when they will need to take action on this plan; how long should they wait for Haverhill.
L. Komornick answered they would take action if the applicant comes in with an agreement from Haverhill or when they come in with septic and well approval.
S. Ranlett stated they could conditionally approve it with those two points.
There was more discussion on the conditional approval. The Board agreed that they can conditionally approve it with the conditions noted above.
L. Komornick asked if they applied for a permit to remove the tanks
K. Knowles answered no.
L. Komornick stated that that would be one permit, but that will not notify other departments. She said they need some sort of written verification from DES that the Panera Bread as proposed will not require any permit or other changes.
There was more discussion regarding this issue and regarding whether the divisions of DES notify each other of other permits.
K. Knowles explained that it has been submitted to DES Alteration of Terrain Division; they have reviewed the plan and submitted a letter that a separate AOT permit is not required for Panera Bread. They are not doing this project without DES knowing. They are also up against the ten year window of an AOT permit. This letter was read into the record of the first public meeting.
C. Lanza asked L. Komornick if DES requires a permit.
L. Komornick stated that she does not know. She said they mentioned in her discussions with the DES representative that they would probably need to be indoor monitoring. She feels that if the applicants call DES and let them know they will be digging in the ground water management area that they would find this out. She does not know the process but she would be happy to find out.
Att. Cleary stated that the Board has probably not required this of all their applicants and now they are asking this applicant to ask third party agencies if they need a permit. He added that if they need permits and they do not get them there are enforcement mechanisms in place to take care of the problem.
L. Komornick replied that one of the jobs as a Town Planner is to know what permits are needed.
S. Ranlett stated that the roll of the PB and Town Planner is to do due diligence for the community and the Town of Plaistow. In the event that they need air quality assurance then the applicants will do that as they have done for other businesses. We can have a note added to the plan.
L. Komornick asked who would know it is needed. The applicant was asked if they do testing at their other sites.
S. Ranlett asked if the applicant if they had groundwater permits for the other businesses on the site.
Att. Cleary stated that there is a Groundwater Management Permit for the whole site.
S. Ranlett asked if we are notified of any testing or monitoring.
L. Komornick answered yes,
S. Ranlett stated that they will know about the Panera site because they have an existing permit and if they put a note on the plan that they need to notify DES; will that satisfy the Board.
L. Komornick said yes, if a note is added that says they will notify the Department of Environmental Services, Groundwater Management Division that they are (doing the project).
Att. Cleary stated he will agree to do it with or without a note on the plan.
The Board moved on to discuss the parking waiver. They reviewed Attorney Donais’s letter to the Board.
R. Gray read a portion of the letter to the Board and noted that the problem with considering the site as existing only in Plaistow is that it would make the whole site null and void as parking would be inadequate.
S. Ranlett pointed out the previous paragraph in the letter to the Board. He asked the applicant to go over both scenarios of the waiver request.
K. Knowles said that without the bank pad, stripped as proposed, the waiver request is 846 required down to 734 as shown on site plan. With the bank pad, as shown on the preliminary, there would be 856 (the bank is 10) required down to 689.
R. Gray asked Att. Cleary if he agreed with Att. Donais (per the letter) that RSA 674:53 does not apply to this project; because if he does then that means this entire site belongs in the state of NH and the parking calculations are no good.
Att. Cleary stated that the site has always been treated as an entire site, the property owner owns the entire site, all the parking is needed and they are prepared to treat the property as is exists today.
C. Lanza asked if they move forward with the project and the bank pad remains is there a possibility that they will go ahead and build the bank in two years saying that Haverhill said they could build it.
Att. Cleary said they would have to come back before the Board first because the Board has approved an entire site plan.
L. Komornick said they had discussed this and were not sure if it needed to be on a formal document such as a deed.
Att. Cleary added that the site plan enforcement mechanisms are strong enough that Plaistow could pull the CO; cease and desist.
L. Komornick asked if they could do that in Haverhill.
There was more discussion over this issue; why Plaistow Project, LLC would come back before the Board to build a bank in Haverhill.
Att. Cleary reiterated that once they approve this site plan they are stuck with the Boards approval. Any changes they want to make to the plan; Plaistow has jurisdiction.
Attorney Geoff Dowd, representing Heav’nly Investments, was present for the hearing.
S. Ranlett asked for his opinion on the bank pad issue.
Att. Dowd gave Grande Mexico as an example noting that when it changed from retail to a restaurant there was no jurisdiction there just as there will be no jurisdiction with the bank pad.
L. Komornick explained that those extra spaces for the restaurant where already there. Now they want to remove many spots that were there for the restaurant which is another issue.
There was more discussion regarding this issue. It was noted that a restaurant is still considered a retail use.
Att. Cleary stated that they (the applicant) will affirmatively agree that if they do anything in Haverhill they will come back before the Board.
L. Komornick stated that it is fine, but she would like to speak with Counsel about how to do that.
Att. Cleary said Plaistow could go ahead and shut down Panera bread if the applicant was to build a bank behind the Boards back.
S. Ranlett asked if they wanted the waiver with or without the bank pad.
K. Knowles said the applicant will take it either way.
The Board discussed this issue further.
K. Knowles stated that the original approval in 2006 was 708 spaces. The waiver request before the Board today is for a reduction of 112 spaces which is 24 additional spots from the original waiver.
The Board decided to approve the waiver with the condition that any proposed building structure in Haverhill would require site plan approval from the Plaistow Planning Board.
L. Komornick asked why on the original plan from 2007 the proposed conditions show 796 spaces with a total provided of 708 and the new number on this proposed plan says the existing conditions is 812 required. The waiver received then was based on the restaurant only needing 9 spaces. She asked why the waiver amount did not go up as much as it seemed it should.
K. Knowles explained that the tenants have changed. The 813 is based on the demand out there today. The proposed is that demand, plus Panera and minus the bank.
L. Komornick just wanted it clarified for the record.
M. Hession added that they have reduced the CVS footprint as well.
C. Lanza noted that the gas station is listed as having two spaces but really is ten or fifteen spaces.
The Board discussed the NHDOT permit.
K. Knowles stated that DOT asked for the original lot of record in 1971; they supplied the record plan that was actually from 1966. They asked for two changes: that the existing driveway width labeled on the plan and in regards to the small bump out near Sleepy’s to the cigar place, they request the right of way be granted to the state and be squared off or an easement put in place. He will discuss with Kevin Russell from NHDOT which one he prefers. He noted that the plans will not change based on these requests.
L. Komornick stated that the Fire Chief was fine with the plan, where the sprinkler connection is and he does not want a fire lane.
The Board opened the hearing up for public comments.
Att. Dowd explained that he is representing abutter Heav’nly Investments. He stated that from his pictures they can all see how congested the Derry site is that is in a similar location with just one retail unit. He asked what the original petition for the waiver was.
K. Knowles said at the preliminary hearing it did have the bank pad, he does not remember the exact number, based on the Boards input when they submitted the final plan that is before the Board now. The waiver request is on that plan set when they made the formal plan for submission.
Att. Dowd said there has been a tremendous amount of confusion in regards to what the actual request for parking spaces is. By Plaistow’s own zoning ordinance, section 220-125 waivers, subsection C, Procedures “a petition for such waivers shall be submitted in writing by the applicant with the application for Board review. The petition shall state fully the grounds for the waiver and all the facts relied upon by the applicant. Failure to submit the petition in writing shall require an automatic denial.”
C. Lanza asked if the waiver noted on the plan is submitted in writing.
L. Komornick answered yes. She added that some applicants will submit them on a piece of paper but they have never, since she’s been here, had a detailed description it has always been discussed.
Att. Dowd explained that this is the Towns ordinance; that it be in writing and why the applicant needs the waiver so the Board can review it. He pointed out to the Board that now that this has been brought to their attention, it would be a violation of their own ordinance to approve this application.
The Board discussed this issue.
K. Knowles stated that in the project narrative submitted to the Board on July 20th with the application, it outlines what the waiver requirement is and the number has not changed since the original.
L. Komornick stated that they have always allowed the applicant to come in and talk to the Board. She added that Att. Dowd has brought something they need to amend in their zoning.
S. Ranlett explained that they have done this the way they always have; the applicant comes before the Board with the waiver request, they put it on the application and on the plan then they discuss it and why it is needed. They may need to amend the ordinance.
Att. Dowd stated that this project will create the most overburdened lot in Town. Per the Towns waiver requirement under 221-25, is this waiver needed due to extraordinary hardship for the applicant; does this waiver meet any of the criteria. Will this project add to the safety and welfare of this Town.
C. Lanza asked if there was a variance granted for this site in relation to parking.
M. Dorman replied there is a variance for the building and a waiver for the parking.
Att. Dowd asked the Board to consider if they would allow an 88 seat restaurant in the Wal-Mart parking lot or a development like this to go across the street in the old Shaw’s Plaza in the middle of the parking lot.
S. Ranlett replied that they cannot answer that as they take each application on a case by case basis.
Att. Dowd continued to express his concerns that this will be an overburdened lot, a lot of traffic and no tractor trailer parking restrictions.
S. Ranlett clarified that there is no tractor trailer parking in the parking lot.
Att. Dowd asked the Board if they felt that RSA 674:53, regarding multi-state jurisdiction applies to this case. How can they approve something in another state.
S. Ranlett stated that they have discussed this; Panera Bread is in Plaistow.
There was further discussion regarding this issue.
L. Komornick said that they have done due diligence; they met with Haverhill and have their comment and Haverhill has theirs.
Att. Cleary stated that he does not recall that the Board found the lot to be overburdened or that the addition of Panera Bread would overburden it so this should not be an issue.
L. Komornick added that the open lot right now is a “free for all”; this lot has not been full to date.
Waiver requests:
Section 230-12: Waiver is sought from section 230-12.G from a required 846 spaces as detailed in the parking table below to 734 spaces provided.
C. Lanza motioned to grant the waiver for section 230-12, second by G. Adams.
C. Lanza noted that intensity of the existing waiver that has already been granted for the site is almost exactly that same as this waiver. He feels this site layout will provide better traffic flow than what is there right now.
R. Gray pointed out that the notes provided from the Fire Chief and Police Chief in regards to public safety have not indicated that there would be an issue with this waiver requirement. If there was they would have brought it to the Boards attention. He said he takes the considerations of the public safety officials and is in favor of granting the waiver.
S. Ranlett added that in the last staff report the Police Chief felt the site plan had better flow and would help to keep tractor trailers out of the parking lot.
There is no further discussion and the vote is 5-0-0 U/A.
Section 230-22 and 230-14.1.II: Waiver is sought from section 230-22 and 230-14.1.II, requiring the submission of a separate lighting plan. The site has been designed to maintain the existing light poles around the proposed building while relocating one light pole 10’.
G. Adams motioned to grant waiver, second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray asked if there will be lights from the building.
K. Knowles replied yes, they will comply with zoning. They added a note that any new lighting on the site be in conformance with Plaistow lighting regulations.
There is no further discussion and the vote is 5-0-0 U/A.
Section 230-14.1.S: Waiver is sought from section 230-14.1.S specifying the scale of plans shall not exceed one inch equals 50 feet. The site plan for the Proposed Panera Bread Café are prepared at 1”=20’. The existing conditions site plan, sheet C-1, and the overall site plan, sheet C-2, are prepared at 1”=60’ in order to depict the entire lot.
R. Gray motioned to grant waiver, second by G. Silva.
R. Gray stated that this waiver request is before the Board on almost every plan. It is impossible to get everything on one sheet blown up like this.
C. Lanza added that according to T. Moore the requirement comes from the tax maps.
There is no further discussion and the vote is 5-0-0 U/A.
The Board discussed the conditions of approval for the site plan as follows:
- Plaistow Planning Board’s receipt of written approval from Haverhill for Haverhill water, sewer and fire suppression hook-up for Panera Bread Café, or a written court order or similar written evidence that would satisfy the Planning Board.
- Plaistow Planning Board’s receipt of NHDOT Amended Driveway Permit approval.
- Add to the note on plan that they comply with all NHDES requirements for the Groundwater Management Permit including Indoor Air Quality Monitoring.
- A note added to the plan that states if any further site development is proposed in Haverhill, the applicant needs to come back before the Plaistow Planning Board for site plan amendment approval.
R. Gray motioned to conditionally approve the site plan based on the four condition listed above, seconded by G. Silva.
There is no further discussion and the vote is 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Six:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects
Project Updates
M. Dorman stated the following:
- John Blinn’s building is going up.
- Walgreens is awaiting their driveway permit so they can start.
- Received and application for an occupancy permit for a hair salon at151 Main Street. Is a permitted use. FYI
Item Seven:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
