Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
December 19, 2012
Call to Order: 6:30 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Tim Moore. Excused were Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza and Gennifer Silva.
Also present was Alternate; Geoff Adams, Town Planner; Leigh Komornick and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
S. Ranlett appointed G. Adams a voting member for the meeting.
Item Two:
Minutes of December 05, 2012
T. Moore motioned to approve the minutes of December 05, 2012, second by G. Adams
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1; R. Gray abstained.
Item Five:
Review/Discussion regarding a request to locate “Phil’s Old Fashioned Barbeque” at 127 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 29, Lot 58 (existing location of Hope’s Diner). The owner of record is Hope Pentoliros.
Present was Phil Bouchard, 111 Glen Road, Deering NH. He explained the following to the Board:
- He proposes a summertime BBQ business on the Hope’s Diner lot.
- He has the owner’s permission.
- The location would be where the Christmas tree business is during winter months.
- It is a level location.
- There is a berm he would like to utilize; to block traffic and it would create a natural step for people to reach the rig’s window.
- There will be no change in the temporary service; he has an agreement with the Christmas tree lot person to use his temporary service. They will either transfer his name or he will pay the Christmas tree guy when bill comes in.
L. Komornick stated that the Board would need to decide if this fits the requirements of a minor site plan. She added that the Health Officer has spoken with P. Bouchard and is comfortable with plan. She questioned if the picnic tables would be considered seating and if he would have a porta potty available.
P. Bouchard replied that picnic tables are not considered seating by the state. He will have a porta potty on site but it will be more for personal; it is rarely used by customers.
R. Gray expressed concern regarding the amount of proposed businesses using the site on a continuous basis and noted a regulation that states that multiple businesses can not be allowed on the same site. He added that maybe in the future they should subdivide the site and rent off the other side.
T. Moore stated that he thinks the regulation is that all businesses should be in the same building. He added that he thinks the regulation was changed to state that there could be a second building if deemed safe by the Planning Board. He thinks the regulations would cover this use. He suggested that if they allow a minor site plan for the BBQ business and if it is successful they ask the applicant to come in next year for a site plan.
R. Gray expressed another concern over the condition of the paving on the site. He added that if they allow it this year and if the applicant comes back next year then they could make it a condition that the owner paves up to the berm. He feels the Board should always look at the paving for any new site plans.
S. Ranlett asked what the hours of operation would be.
P. Bouchard answered April 1st through October 30th.
L. Komornick explained to the applicant that he will need to apply to NHDOT for an amended driveway permit as they require for every site plan; even temporary. She also suggested that the Board receive a copy in writing for the agreement between the applicant and the Christmas tree business owner for the utilities.
P. Bouchard agreed.
The Board discussed if they would need this agreement.
S. Ranlett stated that if the applicant does not get the agreement then he will need to get his own service.
R. Gray asked if there would be proper lighting at the site.
P. Bouchard replied that he only operates during daylight. He added that the rig does have spotlights that will illuminate the menu board but he will not operate in the dark.
R. Gray stated that he would like a letter issued to the owner of Hope’s Diner that states that if this type of business should continue that the Board will ask them to repave the parking area; to put them on notice.
T. Moore stated that he does not think the Board should approve a site plan they have not seen. He added that if the Board agrees then the applicant can come back next month with a plan.
The Board discussed this. It was noted that the abutters would need to be notified again at the expense of the applicant.
The Board came to the consensus that they would continue the application until the next meeting so they can review the site plan. It was noted that the applicant will not need to come into the next meeting.
Item Three:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on the Draft Zoning Amendments.
Present for the hearing was Dan Poliquin, 126 Main Street.
The Board discussed the following Articles:
Article Z-13-11: 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, paragraph B., as follows:
B. Commercial Vehicles on a Residentially Used Lot. No commercial motor vehicles that exceed a one ton gross weight may be kept on any residentially used parcel. No more than one (1) commercial motor vehicle with a one-ton gross weight limit may be kept on any residentially used parcel. If the residence on the lot has an approved Home Occupation, then up to two (2) commercial vehicles, each with a up to, but not exceeding, one-ton gross weight limit, may be kept on the lot. One of these two such vehicles 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 approvals 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.)
T. Moore noted that at the last meeting when this article was discussed Mike Dorman had concerns about it in terms of the gas and oils companies that had employees working 24 hour service calls. He added that M. Dorman is not present tonight to discuss this.
D. Poliquin stated that he understands the intent behind the amendment but he is concerned that it will raise more issues than it will rectify. His personal vehicle is a commercially registered vehicle over 1 ton, therefore, he would be in violation everyday parking his vehicle at his home.
S. Ranlett explained that they will table the discussion on this article again as M. Dorman is not present to discuss it.
D. Poliquin suggested they limit the amount of commercial vehicles to one on a residential lot as opposed to the one ton weight limit. He added that it would cover M. Dorman’s issue as well.
There was more discussion on the issue as well as the timeline for the amendments. The Board decided to continue all three amendments until the January 2, 2013 meeting as M. Dorman will be present to discuss all three.
Article Z-13-12: 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. paragraph C. as follows:
C. Construction Equipment. No construction equipment may be parked or stored on any residentially used parcel.
(Intent: This amendment would place the prohibition of parking or storing any construction equipment on any residentially used parcel, regardless of what Zoning District they are located in.)
Continued until the January 2, 2013 meeting.
Article Z-13-15: 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
A. 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
A. A certificate of occupancy shall be issued, once a safety inspection has been completed, for the following residential rental units:
a. Single-family dwellings
b. Non owner-occupied duplex dwellings
c. Multi-unit residential building
d. Residential rental condo units
e. Residential rental apartments
f. In-Law/Accessory apartments
B. Prior to the issuance of a residential rental occupancy permit the following conditions must be met:
a. Application filed with the Department of Building Safety to include the following information:
i. Full name of the primary tenant
ii. Contact telephone number for the landlord
iii. Payment of Application/Inspection fee as prescribed in
Chapter 31(Fee Schedule) of the Selectmen’s Regulations
B. 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.
C. All inspections are pass/fail and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for a unit not deemed to meet minimal life safety requirements.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. 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).
Continued until the January 2, 2013 meeting.
D. Poliquin asked to discuss Article Z-13-9 even though the Board had already voted to post it.
The Board discussed whether the article can be readdressed once it has been voted on to post.
D. Poliquin read the article to the Board:
Article Z-13-9: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying all occurrences of “Contractor’s Yard” in the Zoning Ordinance to “Contractor’s Storage Yard” and 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, supplies and forms, used by professional contractors in construction, land clearing, site work, utilities, landscaping or other similar activities are stored, including waste disposal containers. 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.)
D. Poliquin explained that with the types of equipment listed, a farm would be considered a contractor’s storage yard as well as his own yard; which it is not. He added that anyone that has a back hoe or tractor of any size would be considered a contractor’s storage yard. He recommended that the definition be more specific.
S. Ranlett stated that he brought that up at the last meeting. He added that M. Dorman stated it was okay because he personally owned it; it was not commercial.
D. Poliquin replied that based on Article Z-13-12, you would not be able to (C. Construction Equipment. No construction equipment may be parked or stored on any residentially used parcel).
G. Adams suggested putting in an exception that equipment is allowed for personal use at the residence to delineate it from commercial use.
The Board reviewed the definition of a contractor’s storage yard and discussed D. Poliquin’s concerns. It was decided that they would ask the Board’s attorney if they can readdress the article again.
T. Moore added that they may need to post a retraction if it is legal to do.
L. Komornick will talk to the Board’s attorney.
G. Adams inquired about Article Z-13-15; asking why they received an e-mail of the Manchester ordinance.
L. Komornick answered that it was to support the fact that it is not illegal.
G. Adams replied that it actually supports his stance that it is illegal; that the Certificate of Occupancy is not voided for those inspections. It is not triggered by tenancy and does not have an application for the tenant; it is for the owner.
D. Poliquin added that landlords are required to supply the Town with a list of tenants and if there is an occupancy change they are required to let the Town Clerk know. This proposed ordinance was in effect but was rescinded by the BOS, but it has been enforced to an extent. If a tenant goes to the Town for assistance they check to see if an occupancy permit is in place. If one is not in place the tenant is told to have the landlord apply for an occupancy permit for $50, and have an inspection. It either passes or fails; if it passes the assistance carries on. He added that some landlords to this at every change of tenancy but some do not as it is not an ordinance and is not required. It is not enforceable.
S. Ranlett explained that M. Dorman is just looking for basic health and safety; fire and carbon dioxide detector’s and means of egress as is required by state law.
D. Poliquin explained that you only need the combination fire and carbon dioxide detector’s if you have tenants receiving state aid; otherwise only smoke detectors are required. He also noted that under general requirement as rental units they have single family dwellings listed; he asked why they would not have owner occupied dwellings listed as well.
There was more discussion.
G. Adams explained that he understands the intent of it but the route is technically illegal. It has nothing to do with the Certificate of Occupancy; it is a safety inspection that is required of any rental building in the city every three years regardless of who is living there.
S. Ranlett asked if they change the ordinance to state “at the change of every tenant they will do a safety inspection”; would that be legal.
G. Adams said yes but the safety inspection cannot use the IRC because it opens the window to the building code.
L. Komornick pointed out the suggestions for language she made on page 7 of the packets that read:
Inspections are a basic safety check including but not limited to the following:
- All egresses/accesses are clear and operable
- All smoke detectors are properly installed and in good working order
- Stair and handrails are securely in place
- GFI receptacles are located and operational where applicable
All inspections are pass/fail. If the inspection is failed, a $30 re-inspection fee will be required prior to the rescheduling of the inspection. Any unit that is not available for inspection at the appointed time will be considered a filed inspection.
All CO’s expire with the change in tenancy.
S. Ranlett suggested they do not have the $30 re-inspection fee.
G. Adams expressed concern that tying the inspection fee into a new tenant will penalize the tenant; it is the landlord who is responsible but is the tenant who will most likely pay the fee. He added that proving residency can be done with utility bills and a lease from a landlord who is up to snuff; it should not be an issue.
R. Gray agreed with G. Adams and stated that he might be in favor of getting rid of this issue.
S. Ranlett stated that he liked having the safety inspections because currently there is nothing in place for them in the ordinances.
There was more discussion regarding this issue. It was decided they will continue this discussion at the January 2, 2013 meeting.
D. Poliquin asked to discuss Article Z-13-17. He stated the definition of motor vehicles is a very broad definition. He recommended the Board look at it further; is it registered vehicle, un-registered, off-road.
L. Komornick replied that they were trying to make it consistent between all zoning.
R. Gray read the definition to the Board and noted that it states “any self propelled vehicle designed for operation on a public street”.
D. Poliquin had not realized the wording “public Street” had been changed. He was okay with it.
There was more discussion. The Board decided to continue the hearing for the three articles until the January 2, 2013 meeting and to find out from counsel if they can discuss Article Z-13-9.
Item Six: Update on PPW Realty Trust
S. Ranlett read a letter from Peter De Jager Jr., PPW Realty Trust, dated December 12, 2012. The letter stated that despite the hard econmimic times they still have intentions to begin construction as soon as they are able to substantially lease the building. They are requesting that the Board grant them an extension of approvals.
L. Komornick stated that they do not have a bond for them. She added that they are fearful that their plan will be revoked. She added that there is no reason to revoke the plan.
T. Moore stated that the ordinance stated one year to start construction. He added that in this case economic conditions have gotten in the way and they are requesting an extension on that one year start up period. He does not see any reason why they should not grant the request.
The Board discussed other projects that are in the same situation that have not come in before the Board and when plans should be revoked.
T. Moore stated that if zoning has changed since approval it would be fair to say that the approval is no longer valid, then we can give them the opportunity to come in and say they will get started in a few months. If there are other cases where it looks like it will not happen then revoke it and get them off the books. He does not think the RSA’s prevent it, but it is not common practice and is not the intent of revocation. The intent of revocation would be if the zoning had changed and the site plan would no longer meet the zoning requirements and their one year period had expired then they could justify a revocation. When that hearing is held if it makes sense for the Board to extend it then they can. He added that for this plan there is no change.
T. Moore motioned to extend the one year requirement as specified in RSA 674:39 to June 2, 2013, second by R. Gray.
S. Ranlett asked that the Board continue to receive monthly the list of projects and their status. He added that it will keep it consistent in the case that they do need to pull a site plan.
The Board agreed.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Seven:
Request for Dance Studio in Basement of Recesso Physical Therapy
S. Ranlett read the letter of request from Caroline Sharplin, 19 Little River Lane, Atkinson NH, to the Board that noted the following:
- She is proposing to open a second location within Recesso Physical Therapy
- She will offer dance, karate and adult fitness
- Hours are Monday 4-6, Tuesday 9:30 – 11:00am & 4:00 to 5:30pm and Thursdays 9:30 to 11:00am
- Class size will be 6 to 8 students
- Two instructors are employed
S. Ranlett said he did not have a problem as long as they meet all the codes and get a Certificate of Occupancy.
T. Moore added that she will need a letter from the owner as well.
L. Komornick will send C. Sharplin a letter stating what she needs to occupy the site.
Item Eight:
Request by Ron Pica Regarding Temporary Occupancy Permit for Blinn’s Auto Body.
S. Ranlett read the letter from Ron Pica, dated December 14, 2012, to the Board. The letter requested that the Board allow Blinn Auto Body to operate with a temporary occupancy permit until he returns from Florida in April to address the concerns of the Town Engineer regarding a revised site plan for the installation of a new water supply well and capping of the existing contaminated well.
R. Gray asked if there are any residents living at the site. He is concerned about the well contamination.
S. Ranlett replied that no tenants are living at the site now. He added that they will drink bottled water and just need water on the site. If they drill a new well it may be more contaminated than the existing well. He has no problem allowing them to use it until he can return and resolve the problem. The state is monitoring it.
L. Komornick stated that she has seen no documentation of that. They are working with DES. She is not sure if the Board would be violating DES approval by allowing the continued use.
There was more discussion on this issue. It was decided to allow the temporary use with the condition that bottled water be used for drinking.
T. Moore motioned to allow the temporary occupancy permit to be in place until May 31, 2013 with the condition that either bottled water be used for drinking water or a treatment is provided by the owner or DES so the drinking water meets standards, second by R. Gray.
L. Komornick noted that the bond posted for the project was a letter of credit from People’s Bank. It was set to expire and they were not going to renew it. She had no confirmation that he would come in with the money and so it was pulled and is now in a cash bond account.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Nine:
Request for CO at 51 Kingston Road (ProBark) by Dick Babigian, Jr.
S. Ranlett read the letter of request for a Certificate of Occupancy from Dick Babigian, Jr., dated December 19, 2012, to the Board. The letter stated that the equipment leasing company will not store any vehicles or equipment on the site; it will be just an office.
R. Gray expressed concern regarding whether their current site plan allows them to lease property to other companies.
L. Komornick replied that this person bought the property. They are in the process of updating the site plan so there should be no Mayer Trucks parked on the site. She added that they have been put on notice that they need to amend the site plan, they are also moving the office closer to the road and have done some clearing and she has been contacted by an abutter.
R. Gray stated that there have been concerns from neighbors in the area about noise. He added that if there is a new operation happening there.
L. Komornick noted that it is not a new operation but merely just a desk.
There was further discussion regarding this issue.
S. Ranlett asked if they did not move the office would they need to come in with an amended site plan; when you change owners do you need an amended site plan.
L. Komornick answered no. She added the applicant understands that when they update the site plan he will need a review of all of what is out there.
T. Moore motioned to allow a Certificate of Occupancy to be obtained for The Equipment Leasing Company at 51 Kingston Road, second by G. Adams.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1, R. Gray abstained.
T. Moore suggested that they write a letter to the applicant stating that this in no way signifies that the Board would approve nor disapprove a site plan.
L. Komornick will add it into the letter and send it to the Board for review.
Item Ten:
Recommendation to the Board of Selectmen regarding acceptance of Karl’s Circle as a class V (Town) Road.
S. Ranlett asked how they can recommend it when it has only been there for two years.
L. Komornick explained that they can accept it as long as there is a performance bond. It has met all the checklist items required by the Town; received proposed deed to the Town, received Asbuilt plan, recommendations from both the Highway Supervisor and Town Engineer. She added that D. Garlington recommended they hold the full bond amount for two years.
T. Moore noted that they made a procedural change. The Planning Board would go through the checklist, and get the bond and when all of the PB requirements were met then they can recommend the acceptance to the BOS.
T. Moore motioned to send a letter of recommendation to the Board of Selectmen to accept Karl’s Circle as a class V Town Road, second by G. Adams.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
Further Discussion on $5,000 included in 2013 Planning Budget for Master Plan Update Assistance.
S. Ranlett stated that he spoke with The Town Manager, Sean Fitzgerald, and the BOS have decided to cut out the $5,000 to help with the Master Plan update assistance. He added that S. Fitzgerald asked that the Board specify which chapters so they can convince the BOS not to cut it out.
R. Gray stated that the BOS want to know the breakdown of what that $5,000 will purchase.
L. Komornick stated that she gave the BOS that information.
T. Moore recommended the following:
- They create the Economic Development Chapter
- 4 hours to analyze Plaistow Zoning Ordinances for areas where economic development is either advanced or hindered
- 44 hours to collect Plaistow economic data on Commercial, Industrial, Residential and as a part of larger economic area such as Rockingham County. To attend local Economic Development Committee Meetings
- 2 hours to analyze economic incentives already in place
- 14 hours to analyze other economic incentives and answer questions about each incentive.
- Total of 64 hours @ $75.00/hour = $4800 + $200 contingency = $5,000
R. Gray said to type that up and send it to the BOS. They will discuss it at the next meeting. He added that if they can resend a copy of the chapter schedule as a part of the packet.
L. Komornick will take care of it.
Item Eleven:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects
There was no other business tonight.
Item Twelve:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
