Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
PB Minutes 11/7/12


Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865


November 7, 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; 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 17, 2012  

 R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of October 17, 2012, second by G. Silva.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-1; T. Moore abstained.

Item Seven:

Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects

Francis Shallow

S. Ranlett read a letter to the Board from F. Shallow, dated October 18, 2012.  The letter explained that she was issued a building permit on October 1, 1991 and that the building still exists on the site.  She asked what she will need to do to rent it to be used for a government sponsored food pantry.

Present was Francis Shallow, 240 Main Street.  

S. Ranlett explained that because the site is in the MDR District and has not been used for one (1) year; she will need to go to the ZBA for a variance.

R. Gray motioned to deny the proposed use due to the fact that it is not an allowed use in the MDR zone and to send the applicant to the ZBA, second by T. Moore.

The Board discussed the wording of the motion deciding that it is worded correctly.

There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Item Three:
Presentation by Sue Sherman, Secretary of the Recreation Commission on the updated Recreation Chapter of the Master Plan.

Present was Sue Sherman.  She explained that the chapter has been in the revision process for the last two years.  With L. Komornick’s help charts have been updated and she has formatted this draft copy of the chapter which includes the following:

  • Introduction and definitions of terms used in the chapter
  • Recreation goals and objectives
  • Existing recreation conditions and the current facilities
  • Recreation needs
  • Gaps that exist between existing conditions and needs
  • Recommendations
  • Summary
S. Sherman asked that the Board members review the draft.  She added that the Recreation Department has not yet had a chance to review the whole document in her format.  She hopes the PB will be able to use the document.  If the Board has any questions she asked that they e-mail her their questions and she will submit those questions to the Recreation Department.

S. Ranlett stated that the board will review it and submit their questions to L. Komornick who can forward them to S. Sherman.

L. Komornick thanked S. Sherman for taking on the task of completing the draft chapter.  She added that T. Moore also helped give input for the chapter.  She feels this chapter reflects the sentiment of the Towns vision for the Recreation Department.  She noted that as with all the updates, they will put the schedule at the end of the chapter as to when it should next be updated.  They will also pull the recommendation out and include them in the summary Chapter.

R. Gray asked that footer be added that stated it is a draft document with the today’s date.

The Board discussed the date for the public hearing to accept the document and decided that they will have the public hearing for the Recreation Chapter on December 5, 2012.  It was noted for the public that the Board will not hold a meeting on November 21, 2012 for Thanksgiving Break.

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 Ron Brown from Ronald Brown Investments, LLC.  

S. Ranlett explained that the applicant’s attorney and the Boards attorney had met and worked out all the kinks in the condominium documents.  

L. Komornick added that she received the final e-mail form the Boards attorney, C. Donais, and he said they have incorporated and complied with all the changes in the condominium document.  The site plans are fine and match the condominium document.  

T. Moore motioned to approve the condominium conversion of the previously approved site plan for a 40-unit elderly housing complex, 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., Second by R. Gray.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

L. Komornick told R. Brown that she will need to work with Charlie to get the final mylar recorded.  She will get the final condominium documents from his attorney as well.  

R. Brown replied that he would prefer to wait until after his approval from the Attorney General.  He added that the site should be paved next Wednesday (November 14, 2012).  

Item Five

A Public Hearing on the conversion of an existing duplex building into two condominium units.  The property is located at 24 Hale Spring Road (FKA 17 Kingston Road), Tax Map 53, Lot 14.   The total lot is 1.1 acres and has 248 +/- feet of frontage. The site and building are located in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.  The owner of record is Mark Salvo.

Present for the hearing was Robert Balquist, Engineering Technician representing Mark Salvo.  He explained the following:

  • They are proposing a condominium  subdivision of a one (1) acre parcel in the MDR zone
  • The property is triangular in shape
  • It is bounded on all three sides by a road
  • There are no direct abutters
  • The three surrounding roads are Ruth’s Road, Hale Spring Road and Kingston
  • Road.
  • There was previously a one-story duplex on the property; it has been torn down
  • A new two-story duplex is under construction on the property
  • This two-story duplex is what the owner would like to convert to a condominium.
  • They have NH approval for the septic system & subdivision
L. Komornick stated that she has received a copy of the approvals.

R. Balquist noted that there was a problem with the address.  It was previously 17 Kingston Road and has now changed to 24 Hale Spring Road with the new duplex.  The proposed driveway has access onto Hale Spring Road.  They will need to revise the title block information with the new address.

L. Komornick stated they will make that change part of the conditional approval.  She noted that it is also Ruth’s Way not road and that will need to be corrected.  She added that the condominium documents are currently being reviewed for compliance with the requirements; the main requirement being that the Town is relieved of responsibility if there is a water or septic issue.  She said the Board’s attorney will get back to her in the next day or two.  She added that they were pretty straight forward but they will review them like they do all the condominium documents that come before the Board.  R. Balquist and herself went over everything including the driveway parking and if they want an additional parking space per each unit.  

There was discussion regarding the parking space requirements and adding an additional space per unit.  It was decided that they meet the requirements as proposed and it is up to the applicant if he wishes to add another space.

R. Gray stated that he spoke with the Majors (site abutters) about the site; they were not familiar with the duplex being converted into condominiums.  
G. Adams asked if there was on street parking allowed.

S. Ranlett replied only in spring and summer; there are parking restrictions in the fall/winter.

R. Gray motioned to approve the conversion with the conditions that they receive the final condominium documents, that the address change information is added to the title block and the correction is made from Ruth’s Road to Ruth’s Way.  The motion was second by G. Silva.

S. Ranlett noted that there was no one to speak for or against the application.

There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.

Item Six:

Review of Draft Zoning Amendments and Summary of October 3rd Planning Board Workshop Input

L. Komornick stated that they will not discuss the Workshop input at this meeting.

  • Article P-13-___:  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 220-32E, “MDR” – Medium Density Residential, by changing Permitted Use Number 7., Churches, to “Churches/Place of Worship,” and adding a footnote which states, "Requires Site Plan Approval?"
(Intent:  To require site plan approval for this use which is allowed in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.)

L. Komornick will add an s to place to make it plural.  There was no further comment.

  • Article P-13-___:  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 220-32F, “LDR” – Low Density Residential, by changing Permitted Use Number 9., Churches, to “Churches/Place of Worship,” and adding a footnote which states, "Requires Site Plan Approval?"
(Intent:  To require site plan approval for this use which is allowed in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District.)

L. Komornick will add an s to place to make plural as well as putting the ?  outside the quotation mark.  

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article VIII, In-Law Accessory Apartments, §220-57. General Requirements, Letter K., by removing it?  Letter K., as currently included in the zoning ordinance, reads as follows:
  • “If a home that had a special exception for an in-law/accessory apartment is sold, the occupancy permit for the in-law/accessory apartment shall cease to exist. The new property owner shall make an application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a special exception for the in-law/accessory apartment prior to using the in-law/accessory apartment under the provision in letters A through J in this ordinance. [Added 3-10-2009 ATM by Art. 9-09-18]”
  • (Intent:  To bring this section of the ordinance into compliance with the NH State Statutes that state that Special Exceptions run with the land, not the person.)
M. Dorman stated that this is a state law; just like a variance – it follows the land.  The first tenants should be in-laws but after that they can do what they want with it.

The Board discussed this amendment and if the ZBA can put a condition on the special exception that when an owner moves out the special exception ends.  It was decided that that cannot be done as this is a state RSA and it is being changed to meet that RSA.  

L. Komornick asked if they could change the use of an in-law apartment so that it is not based on a special exception.  

M. Dorman stated that it is the Town requirement that they get a special exception, not the State.  If owners meet the criteria then maybe they should not be required to go the ZBA.

L. Komornick noted that all going to the ZBA does is give the abutter notification and allow them to come in and speak.  She added that it is also good income for the Town.  

There was more discussion on the amendment and taking out the ordinance and putting in-law apartments in permitted uses provided applicants meet all the criteria.  The Board decided that they agree with making it a permitted use.  L. Komornick will change the wording to be reviewed at the zoning amendments public hearing and she will send a letter the ZBA to notify them of the change and when the hearing is.  

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article X, Home Occupation, §220-68. Application for special exception; inspections., Letter A., by removing it?  Letter A., as currently included in the zoning ordinance, reads as follows:
  • “A. Special exceptions granted under this article are intended to allow for a specific business use by the current residents and, as such, shall not be transferable to subsequent occupants. To apply for an exception, the proper forms must be filled out and returned to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The applicant is required to provide:  
  • A sketch and/or drawing of the floor plan of the residence, clearly showing the dimensions of the living area and the area to be used for the business and plot plan of the property showing provisions for off-street parking.  
  • A copy of the deed must be submitted to the Board when applying for an exception.  
  • An accurate list of abutters and mailing addresses on labels.”
  • (Intent:  To bring this section of the ordinance into compliance with the NH State Statutes that state that Special Exceptions run with the land, not the person.)
There was no discussion regarding this amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying the Official Zoning Map by including all of Tax Map 41, Lot 14, totaling +/- 29 acres that is currently split between two zoning districts (the Industrial I (IND1) District and the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District to be zoned entirely MDR.












  • (Intent:  This is a large piece of residentially used property with +/- 28 acres of the land that falls under a conservation easement. Having any portion of this lot zoned Industrial is incompatible with the current and any future use of the property based upon the terms of the conservation easement).
R. Gray asked if this map accurate.  He asked if they can split it into two maps; one side existing and one side proposed.

L. Komornick replied that it is accurate and she can split the map.

T. Moore asked if they wanted to put this portion in the Village District.

The Board discussed this and if it would be considered spot zoning.  They also discussed if they wanted to include the Penn Box site in this zone and get rid of the overlay zone.  

The Board skipped ahead and discussed the following zoning change to the overlay district:


  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by making the Village Center Overlay District a distinct zoning district?
M. Dorman stated that before changing the Penn Box site it should be discussed with the Board of Selectmen (BOS).  

The Board decided to change it all into the MDR zone and R. Gray will discuss the Penn Box site with the BOS.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article V. Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32G, “Integrated Commercial Residential (ICR) District, as follows:
  • “Mixed commercial/residential uses in the district that either the commercial or the residential use must be owner occupied.”
  • (Intent: To be consistent with the requirements of the Commercial II (CII) District mixed uses.
There was no discussion for the amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article II, Definitions, by adding a new definition for contractor storage yard as follows:
  • “Contractor's Storage Yard - A site upon which heavy vehicles and equipment (such as bulldozers, front-end loaders, and back-hoes) and materials used by professional contractors in construction, land clearing, landscaping or other similar activities are stored.  Land upon which any of the above items are temporarily stored on-site during the course of an active construction project shall not be considered a contractor's storage yard.”
  • (Intent:  To provide a definition for Contractor’s Storage Yard to provide a clear description of this use).
R. Gray asked what the definition of temporary is.

M. Dorman replied that it would be for making an improvement to a site; such as a new septic, and however long it would take to do that.

There was no further discussion for the amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article Change the road profile to reflect 26 feet total pavement, 2 eleven foot wide travel lanes and a 4 foot walkway?
  • (Intent:  To redefine the existing road profile to be compatible with what is desired as part of new developments).
The Board did not discuss this issue because it is subdivision.  L. Komornick will add it to subdivision changes.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article.
  • III, General Provisions, § 220-13. Unregistered vehicles and commercial equipment, letter B., as follows:
  • “B.    No more than two one commercial motor, one-ton weight limit each, vehicles may be kept on any lot in the residential zone.  The exception being as part of an approved home occupation.  Then no more than two commercial, one-ton weight limit each, vehicle may be kept on any lot in the residential zone. One shall be garaged or fenced in with a stockade fence or other solid screening.”
  • (Intent:  Currently, more than one commercial vehicle on a residential lot suggests there is a business at that location.  Limiting the number of commercial vehicles to one, without a home occupation, would be another check to make sure that people who should be getting home occupation were indeed doing so.  This would protect residential neighborhoods from businesses cropping up unchecked without limiting the person who works for a commercial business from bringing home a “company vehicle.”  Currently, the home occupation ordinance limits the number of employees (not living in the home) to one.  So a second commercial vehicle is a possibility.)
  • Note: This change is in addition to the suggested change in the wording from “residential zone” to “residentially used parcel” in sections B and C.
T. Moore suggested changing any lot in the residential zone to any lot in any residential zone.  L. Komornick will make the change.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article.
  • III, General Provisions, §220-13., Unregistered vehicles and commercial equipment., letters B. and C. as follows:
  • No more than two commercial motor, one-ton weight limit each, vehicles may be kept on any lot in the residential zone residentially used parcel.  One shall be garaged or fenced in with a stockade fence or other solid screening.
  • No construction equipment may be parked or stored on any lot in the residential zone residentially used parcel.
  • (Intent:  Currently, a case could be made that those few residentially used parcel located in the commercial district (Route 125) and those in the ICR would not have to comply with these two sections because they are not specifically “residentially zoned.”  This amendment would place the restriction on any residentially used parcel no matter what district they are located in, which would prevent a business from being started on those parcels without the required review and permitting.)
  • Note: This change is in addition to the suggested change to Section B limiting the number of commercial vehicles.
There was no discussion for the amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Wellhead Protection Area Zoning:  (Leigh’s comment:  I think we have this covered with the Aquifer Protection District restrictions we added based upon CLF recommendations.
  • (I am following up on a letter that was mailed to the planning board of your town in May 2012 by Pierce Rigrod, my supervisor. We have reviewed your community’s zoning and it appears the groundwater/aquifer protection ordinance does not include wellhead protection areas (WHPAs). WHPAs represent land that contributes water to public water supply wells, so it’s important to minimize the release of contaminants in these areas.)
  • (Intent:  I think we already have this covered in our Aquifer Protection District with wording recommended by the CLF years ago).
L. Komornick stated that she added this to make sure they acknowledged the fact the NHDES asked them to look at this.  

T. Moore clarified that is applies only to public water supplies.  He added that the only water supplies the Town has are serving condominiums.  He does not see any advantage to doing this around condominium wells; the NHDES regulations cover them.  

The Board decided to remove this change from the draft.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article IX, §220-62., Temporary signs., by adding a new Section H. that reads as follows:
  • “H. Grand Opening Sign Package Permit  
  • All temporary signs must be of the like and type currently allowed and must be affixed or displayed in accordance with all sections of this ordinance.
  • A Grand Opening Sign Package includes Permits for:
  • Up to two (2) banners, securely attached to the building’s façade by all four corners
  • Up to three (3) forms of temporary signage (i.e. A-frame signs, wheeled signs, wave runners, feathers)
  • Bunting, securely attached to the building’s façade
  • Not permitted with a Grand Opening Sign Package:
  • Balloons
  • Pennants
  • Inflatables
  • Other signage that would not be already allowed under other sections of this ordinance
  • A Grand Opening Event must be held within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new business.
  • Only grand openings for Plaistow locations qualify for the Grand Opening Sign Package Permit.  Company-wide celebrations of new branch locations do not qualify.
  • All signs permitted under the Grand Opening Sign Package Permit must be located and displayed on the property for which the permit is issued.  No off-site signage is allowed.
  • The cost of the permit is $100.00
  • The duration of the permit is for one (1) week”
  • (Intent: This sign package is to allow a new business to display additional, appropriate temporary signage for a shorter term than is allowed under the monthly temporary signage section for a grand opening event.  Signage for all other sales and special promotions must meet the requirements of §220-61 and §220-62 of this ordinance).
The Board discussed why they do not allow balloons, pennants and inflatables for these events.  

G. Silva stated that due to environmental issues she is against having balloons for any events.

The Board decided that they will restrict balloons but allow pennants and inflatables.  They also discussed what the duration of these events shall be; a weekend or a full week.  It was decided to keep it at one week.   They can have wave runners and temporary signs for the duration of the open house.  

The Board discussed what defines a grand opening and decided that a grand opening applies to a new store or a re-opening of a remodel in Town.  L. Komornick will work on the language.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by proposing a new ARTICLE VII., Residential Rental Certificates of Occupancy, that reads as follows:
  • “RESIDENTIAL RENTAL CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
  • §220-51.  Purpose
  • The purpose of the residential rental certificate of occupation is to insure that all residential rental units meet a minimal life safety standard prior to being occupied by a new tenant and to comply with the International Residential Code which has been adopted by the Town of Plaistow as its standard.
  • §220-52.  General Requirements
  • certificate of occupancy shall be issued, once a safety inspection has been completed, for the following residential rental units:
  • Single-family dwellings
  • Non owner-occupied duplex dwellings
  • Multi-unit residential building
  • Residential rental condo units
  • Residential rental apartments
  • In-Law/Accessory apartments
  • Prior to the issuance of a residential rental occupancy permit the following conditions must be met:
  • Application filed with the Department of Building Safety to include the following information:
  • Full name of all tenants over the age of 21
  • Contact telephone number for all tenants listed on application
  • Payment of Application/Inspection fee as prescribed in      
  • Chapter 31(Fee Schedule) of the Selectmen’s Regulations
  • The rental unit must pass a minimal life safety inspection by the Building Inspector (or designee) and the Fire Chief (or designee) in accordance with all minimum housing standards (codes) and applicable ICC, NFPA, NEC codes.
  • All inspections are pass/fail and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a unit not deemed to meet minimal life safety requirements.
  • If a unit fails the minimal safety inspection a list of deficiencies shall be provided to the property owner within five (5) business days of the inspection.
  • A re-inspection fee as prescribed in Chapter 31 (Fee Schedule) of the Selectmen’s Regulations shall be charged before a re-inspection will be scheduled.
  • All residential rental certificates of occupancy expire with a change in tenancy.”
(Intent: To insure that all residential rental units meet a minimal life safety standard prior to being occupied by a new tenant and to comply with the International Residential Code which has been adopted by the Town of Plaistow as its standard).

S. Ranlett asked M. Dorman why he would need full name of tenants over the age of 21; a tenant could be 18.

M. Dorman replied that they want the full name of the primary tenant on the Certificate of Occupancy.

It was decided to eliminate over the age of 21.  It will read the full name of the primary tenant.

There was discussion regarding landlords asking for safety inspections for rentals between tenants as required.  It was noted that this is the landlord’s duty to notify M. Dorman that they are renting the apartment and need the safety inspection.  

R. Gray asked why the Town needs the tenants contact numbers.

M. Dorman stated that he only needs the landlord’s contact numbers.

L. Komornick stated that in addition to safety reasons it is a requirement for rental assistance purposes.  

The Board decided to change the wording to state that “the contact number of the landlord is listed on the application” (not the tenants).

G. Adams expressed concern over this zoning amendment referencing the International Residential Code.  He is concerned that their minimum safety standard is more involved that the Towns.  

M. Dorman stated that he is looking for minimum safety; fire detectors and two exits.  

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article III, General Provisions, §220-4., Fire and other ruins., to read as follows:
  • “An owner or occupant of structures on land in any district shall not permit fire or other ruins to be left and must remove or rebuild on the same footprint within six months (currently reads one year) of such fire or other ruins. The use of a temporary mobile home is allowed, for a maximum of six months, after the destruction of a residential dwelling by fire, while the dwelling is being rebuilt.”  
  • (Intent: To reduce the amount of time that hazardous structures can remain on a lot.  This is for the protection to abutters and to the general health, safety and welfare of the public).
The Board discussed this amendment and decided to change the trailer time allotment to a maximum of one (1) year.  

The Board discussed the portion that states it must be rebuilt within six months.

M. Dorman stated that he wants the ruins removed within six months.

T. Moore suggested adding the following sentences to the amendment:

  • Any debris must be removed within six (6) months.
  • If and when re-built, the structure must be rebuilt on the same footprint.
  • The application for the permit is done within one (1) year.
The Board agreed with T. Moore’s suggestions.  L. Komornick will make the changes.

R. Gray asked what would happen if this happened at a condominium.  There will be multiple homes; add an s to homes to make it plural.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by replacing every reference in the Zoning Ordinance this says, “Automobile” to “Motor Vehicle.”
  • (Intent: To clarify that this regulations apply to all motor vehicles, not just automobiles).
There was no discussion for the amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article VIII, §220-3., One building per lot., Letter A. which currently states, “Not more than one house or other principal building or principal structure shall be placed on a lot,” by adding the following sentence after the first sentence as follows:  
  • “Exception in the residential districts would be in-law apartments. (See ARTICLE VIII
  • In-Law/Accessory Apartments, § 220-56.)”
  • (Intent: To note the exception for in-laws apartments that was adopted at Plaistow Town Meeting in March 2012).
The Board had no comment on this amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32G, Integrated Commercial-Residential (ICR) District, Letter D., Signs., by adding a new Number 6 that reads as follows:
  • “All free standing signs are required to have a street address that includes the street name and number and that is a minimum of six inches for signs for commercial uses and a minimum of three inches for signs for residential uses.  The space required for the address portion of the sign shall not be counted as part of the required sign size.”
  • (Intent:  While added at the 2012 Plaistow Town Meeting as a new paragraph in the sign ordinance, including this description in the ICR District will provide better clarity).
The Board had no comment on this amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying RCII District – No minimum lot size listed and no frontage.
L. Komornick stated that she is not sure how to deal with this issue.  There is a lot line adjustment coming up and they have no lot size and frontage listed.

T. Moore stated that he will work with L. Komornick on this issue.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying What about if people stand outside a business on the street with a sign?  
  • (Intent:  I think the Dept. of Building Safety wants to define them as a temporary sign and spell this out in the sign ordinance?)
The Board discussed this amendment and decided if the sign is depicting a business then it is considered a temporary sign and needs a permit.  L. Komornick will fix the wording.  

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article II, Definitions, by adding a new definition for small contractor as follows:
  • ADD SMALL CONTRACTOR DEFINITION HERE?.  (I.e. carpenter, plumber, etc…);
  • (Intent:  To provide a definition for small contractor as there is currently none in the Zoning Ordinance).
The Board decided that a home business or home occupation will cover this.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article V, Establishment of Zoning District Regulations, Tables 220-32A (Industrial I District), 220-32B (Commercial I District), 220-32C (Commercial II District), 220-32G (Integrated Commercial-Residential District) and Table 220-32K (Industrial II District) to add “Small Contractor” as an allowed use
  • (Intent:  To allow small contractor as a use in the industrial, commercial and ICR Districts).
The Board had no comment on this amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by making the Village Center Overlay District a distinct zoning district?
  • (Intent:  To… Tim requested this one! ).
L. Komornick explained that currently the Town has a Village District that does not overlay the CII; there are boundaries.  She added that 148 Main Street is right now allowed to have a retail use; a farmers market.

The Board members questioned why this would be an issue; allowing a farm stand.

L. Komornick explained he could apply to have his landscaping business there with trucks and such.  She added he would need a variance right now.  

The Board decided they would discuss this amendment at the December 5th public hearing.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying the Definition of Structure?
  • (Intent:  I think Tim Moore had identified a problem with the current definition?).
The Board decided this issue was fixed last year and that they do not need this amendment.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article Table 220-32I – B. Pavement Setbacks as follows:
T. Moore explained that they need a setback.  He added that they do not want people to pave up to the lot line.

The Board discussed this amendment.

M. Dorman noted that the landscaping requirements will not allow paving up to the lot line; they need to have a green buffer on all four sides; unless the PB waives it.

T. Moore added that they would need a number to waive.

M. Dorman replied that there is a number in the regulations for a buffer; 15’ or 25 depending.

L. Komornick and T. Moore will work on this issue.

R. Gray stated that they are more concerned with residential driveways for this issue.

  • Article P-13-____:  Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article Add a new definition for Bed and Breakfast and reevaluate the definition of Rooming and Boarding House?
L. Komornick and T. Moore will look into this issue.

L. Komornick noted the following ideas for site plan and subdivision changes:

IDEAS/PROPOSALS FOR 2013 SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION AMENDMENTS:
  • Bonding requirement for subdivisions – require 100% or 50%, not 10%;
  • Requirement for Street Lighting in subdivisions!!!
R. Gray asked L. Komornick to find out what other towns are doing for bonding requirements and get back to the Board.

Item Seven:

Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects

R. Gray asked L. Komornick about the issue of map scale in regards to site reviews. He asked if they will need a public hearing to change that.

L. Komornick will add a second public hearing to the December 5th meeting.

Item Eight:

Adjournment

There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.


Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________

_______________________________________  
Steve Ranlett, Chairman