Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
December 05, 2012
Call to Order: 6:32 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza, and Gennifer Silva. Excused was Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray. Tim Moore will arrive late.
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 until T. Moore arrives.
Item Two:
Minutes of November 7, 2012
G. Adams motioned to approve the minutes of November 7, 2012, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1; C. Lanza abstained.
Item Five
Public Hearing on an Adoption of the Updated Recreation Chapter of the Master Plan.
Present was Sue Sherman. She presented the proposed updated Recreation Chapter for the Board to review at the last meeting. She explained that L. Komornick had added some photographs showing the park and some activities but the body has remained the same since the last meeting.
The Board thanked S. Sherman for completing the project but had no questions for her.
G. Silva motioned to adopt the updated Recreation Chapter, second by G. Adams.
The vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
Public Hearing on an application for a Condominium Conversion of a Duplex on Karl’s Way.
Present was Arthur Wicks and Pat Bennett.
P. Bennett noted that it is Karl’s Circle not Karl’s Way.
L. Komornick explained that this was a 3 lot subdivision off Maple Avenue, Witch Lane, approved by the Board. The duplex was constructed and the road has been completed. The purpose of the hearing is to convert into separate owners so Mr. Wicks can sell each unit. She added that a site plan and floor plan will be recorded along with the condominium documents at the registry. The documents have been reviewed and deemed to be compliant with the requirements of the Town; the primary one being the Town is not responsible for problems with the water and sewer. It will be the responsibility of the condo owners 50/50.
S. Ranlett asked L. Komornick if they had all the necessary paperwork.
L. Komornick replied yes. She added that an abutter who had received the notice called inquiring what was happening and was ok with it.
C. Lanza motioned to accept the plan as complete, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
G. Silva motioned to approve the plan, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Seven:
Request for a Bond and Escrow Release from Dave Hoyt for Westville Business Park.
S. Ranlett read a letter dated November 20, 2012 from David Hoyt, 31/33 Westville Road, to the Board that requested the bond amount of $19,400.00 and escrow balance of $201.39 to be released. All paving and striping is completed.
S. Ranlett asked if everything was all set with this site.
M. Dorman answered yes and added that CLD has signed off on it too.
L. Komornick stated that the bond amount was actually for $7,500.00
C. Lanza motioned to release the bond in the amount of $7,500.00 and the escrow in the amount of $201.39, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
Discussion with Gary Morris regarding use of 7 Main Street for “Just Stuff” business.
Present for the discussion was Gary Morris, 7 Main Street. He explained the following:
- He would like to display some items out front or along side of the property
- The business is 100 feet from the road and potential customers cannot see items in front of store and so do not stop
- He has owned the business here for six months
- When he fixed the inside of the building he had put items out front.
- After he received the permit which says no restrictions, but he was told he could put items out front
- He would like to put out a trailer with an antique wagon and bureau on both sides of the sign out front; he will bring the items in at night
- He is limited in the sign size as well
- He asked the Board what he can do before he needs to close the doors
M. Dorman noted that the Board allowed him to display items from the building to 8’ or 9’ to the first parking space the entire length of the building, but not beyond that.
T. Moore arrived at 6:50 pm.
G. Adams asked if these restrictions were from zoning or specific to this site.
The Board reviewed a photograph of the site with G. Morris and he explained that he would also like to display along the birch tree line along the side of the site. The trees are on the site and he will bring the items in every night.
M. Dorman replied just for this site plan. It can be changed if the Board wishes to do so.
G. Silva asked about the condition of the trailer.
G. Morris replied that it is a car trailer he will put an antique wagon on it is not old or broken down; it has fenders on it and everything. He wanted to park it in the last spot because it is a registered trailer and he can bring it in every night.
L. Komornick noted that the site plan on file was originally for the pool store and there were restrictions about not going into the easement area; they could not block the driveway into the back; he is not proposing to do anything there. She added that she thinks a minor site plan would be appropriate.
There was more discussion regarding the issue. It was decided that they would allow him to place the trailer and bureau beside the sign out front and to use the side along the trees for display but he must bring all the items in every night.
T. Moore motioned to allow G. Morris to come in with a minor site plan for 7 Main Street, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A
Item Eight:
Review of Request by Attorney Cleary regarding Panera Bread Conditional Approval.
S. Ranlett asked if all the Board members had a chance to review the request. He explained that the Board does not want to get in the middle of an argument between Panera Bread and the City of Haverhill. They need to stick to their guns and not allow Panera to build without water and sewer.
C. Lanza said they needed to decide if this letter shows any new information that shows they met the conditions.
The Board discussed this issue further.
S. Ranlett stated that they cannot build until they have met all the conditions.
L. Komornick asked the Board to look at the letter from the Board’s attorney, Craig Donais, focusing on the last comments on page 3.
S. Ranlett read the paragraph to the Board. He reiterated that they need to get water and sewer; they can either get it through Haverhill or come before the Board with a revised plan for septic and well.
T. Moore agreed.
C. Lanza stated that when it was conditionally approved it was based upon one of two things happening:
- That Panera provides the PB with an agreement from Haverhill that water and sewer will be part of the project
- A legal resolution
He expressed confusion over why this information was not submitted at the hearing when the attorney accepted the conditions of approval at the hearing.
L. Komornick replied that he stated at the hearing that they did have this agreement in place but R. Gray challenged him and asked where it said that water and sewer would be provided for Panera Bread and he could not say that it did. The agreement was from 2005 for the premises, not specifically Panera but they will be within the premises.
S. Ranlett stated that the Board has done due diligence and approved the plan but the condition is that they have water and sewer for Panera. They just need to let the Board now where it is coming from.
There was some discussion about the history of water and sewer on the site.
L. Komornick noted that at the meeting held on October 17, 2012 with Haverhill, per the minutes of that meeting, the first comment made was that there continues to be no agreement between the City Of Haverhill and the applicant. If an agreement is reached the owner will be required to submit plans showing all water and sewer plans for review and approval by the City of Haverhill water and waste water divisions. L. Komornick stated that she is not sure where those negotiations stand.
The Board discussed the issue further and all agreed that they do not want to get in the middle of the dispute between Haverhill and Panera Bread.
L. Komornick expressed concern that she hopes this is not how they will go about getting court order; would they take the Board to court regarding the conditions of approval.
C. Lanza stated that he personally, not speaking for the Board, would be fine with a letter from Haverhill stating they will provide water and sewer for Panera Bread.
The Board agreed. They decided that the letter does not satisfy the conditions of approval. L. Komornick will notify them in writing.
Item Nine:
Discussion on NHDOT Permit Conditions for approval of Walgreens. (Sidewalk Maintenance by Town).
L. Komornick explained that when the Board approved Walgreens it was a conditional approval based on a NHDOT permit. NHDOT has informed the applicant & the Town that they are requiring a sign off. It will release them from any maintenance responsibility of the sidewalk that currently exists now. NHDOT has made this a condition of their approval with Walgreens and now the BOS need to sign the agreement. She added that there is a municipal agreement for the sidewalks on Route 125 dated 2010 signed by the current BOS. She was asked to find out if the Board feels there is any type of mitigation that could be pursued or should the BOS sign the agreement.
S. Ranlett stated they should recommend the BOS sign the agreement; they do not maintain the sidewalks anyway.
T. Moore agreed that if it is consistent with the sidewalk on Route 125; it is only another 400’ or so.
L. Komornick said it is maintenance and ownership. She added that this looks like it is how it will be from now on.
C. Lanza replied that the letter does not state ownership; just maintenance.
T. Moore added that not only will it be winter maintenance, but also summer maintenance if it should become cracked or something. It is consistent with what DOT is doing throughout Rockingham Commission areas; they are happy to build sidewalks but do not want the responsibility of maintenance.
G. Adams noted that he watched the last BOS meeting when this issue was brought up and the BOS stated that they would not do it; they do not want sidewalks the Town needs to maintain.
There was more discussion about this issue and discussed if the business owners could maintain the sidewalks.
L. Komornick stated that Walgreens is willing to talk with the Town. She added that she spoke with K. Russell of NHDOT about the businesses maintaining and they do not allow it.
T. Moore agreed stating they can ask the businesses to share the costs but the Town needs to do the work.
The Board decided that they support the BOS in signing the agreement, keeping consistent with the other agreement for Route 125.
Item Ten:
Discussion on $5,000 included in 2013 Planning Budget for Master Plan Update Assistance.
L. Komornick explained that she was asked to bring this before the Board. When they presented the budget to the BOS they were asked what the PB would get for $5,000. She provided them with a copy of a proposal she received two years ago from a consultant that showed what they would get for $5,600.00. She has also contacted other consultants and has provided the information in the Boards packets. She added that $5,000 will get them some technical assistance; the rate is about $75.00 an hour.
G. Adams asked if the BOS are asking if $5,000 is enough money or are they asking the Board to justify it.
S. Ranlett explained that it is the amount that was budgeted and John Sherman asked if it was adequate to update the Master Plan or if the Board would need more and to get back to him. He added that by looking at the figures L. Komornick presented tonight $5,000 would buy 66 hours; that will not be enough.
T. Moore explained that the dilemma is that the last update they hired Appledor to complete a full update of the Master Plan. What they got was boilerplate stuff and it was not tailored to Plaistow with recommendations they did not want or need. They were not fully happy with the product. Since then they have tried to update a chapter at a time but there are other projects that are important and the update gets put in the background. The $5,000 might be sufficient to do certain tasks. The RPC has agreed to update some of the Transportation Chapter’s graphs. They may need help with the Economic Development Chapter. They could easily spend $5,000 and get meaningful product for it, but it will not complete the Master Plan update.
There was more discussion regarding this issue. The Board agreed that the $5,000 will not complete the Master Plan updates, but will help. L. Komornick will send S. Fitzgerald a letter that states no, but it may help complete the Economic Chapter.
Item Six:
Public Hearing on the Draft Zoning Amendments.
The Board reviewed the following Draft Zoning Amendments and their Attorney Craig Donais’ comments and decided the following:
Article Z-13-1: 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 220-32 D, Paragraph A, by removing the last sentence that states, “This Village Center District will be implemented as an overlay district.” The removal of the notation “overlay” on the Zoning Map to all references to the Village Center District would also be included in this proposal. The Village Center District boundaries are currently as follows:
(Intent: The early discussions about the creation of the Village Center District included overlaying a certain set of uses upon some portions of the Commercial II District and the MDR District. This amendment will clarify that the Village Center District a standalone zoning district with its own geographic boundaries, its own set of uses, areas and dimensions and does not depend upon the characteristics of any other zoning district).
The Board decided that this amendment is good.
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-2: 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 expanding the geographic boundaries of the Village Center District (VCD) to include all properties “1 lot deep” on both sides of Main Street from the existing northern boundary of the district to Little River as shown below:
(Intent: The houses located in this proposed expansion are in keeping with the characteristics of the Village Center District as well as the inclusion of the American Legion property which is a focal point for social gatherings and participation in Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day celebrations.)
The Board decided to keep the wording of this amendment.
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-3: 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 Tax Map 41, Lot 11 totaling 7.55 acres (formerly known as the Penn Box Site), and Tax Map 41, Lot 13 totaling .41 acres (formerly known as the Old Bowling Alley) in the Village Center District as follows:
(Intent: The two properties proposed to be included in the Village Center District are surrounded by other properties already in the Village Center District except for the Testa property (formerly the Process Engineering and/or Chart site). They abut the Smith Farm property and Conservation Easement area and are heavily used during Old Home Days. These uses and potential future uses fit well with the characteristics of the Village Center District.)
L. Komornick explained to the Board that Dan Johnson expressed concern regarding the inclusion of the Penn Box Site in the Village District given the fact that it is Town owned and it is being look at for a Town garage. He wondered about a swap for a privately owned property.
T. Moore explained that they excluded the Penn Box site before because it was being considered for a town garage. Now they are still looking for a site for the garage. He added that the discussion should take place, but he does not think that is where people would want the Town garage. He said they are in no rush to decide this.
There was more discussion. The Board decided to post the amendment.
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-4: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Plaistow Zoning Ordinance by changing all existing references to “Church,” “Churches”, and/or “Place of Worship” to “Church/Place of Worship.”
(Intent: To insure consistency of the reference to this use throughout the Zoning Ordinance)
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva
The Board decided to strike the word church and just use “places of worship”.
C. Lanza amended his motion with the change “places of worship”
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-5: 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 “Church/Place of Worship,” and by adding a footnote which states, "Requires Site Plan Approval"?
(Intent: To require site plan approval for Church/Place of Worship, a use which is allowed in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) District.)
The Board decided will strike the word church and use “Places of worship”.
T. Moore noted that all other districts already have it as a commercial use that triggers a site plan; it is just residential.
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment striking the word ”church” and using “places or Worship”, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-6: 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 “Church/Place of Worship,” and adding a footnote which states, "Requires Site Plan Approval"?
(Intent: To require site plan approval for Church/Place of Worship, a use which is allowed in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District.)
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment, striking the word ”church” and using “places of Worship”, second by T. Moore.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-7: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article Plaistow Zoning Ordinance by modifying Article V, Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, § 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Controls, Table 220-32C: “CII” – Commercial II, Table 220-32D: “VC” – Village Center, Table 220-32E: “MDR” – Medium Density Residential, Table 220-32F: “LDR” – Low Density Residential, Table 220-32G: “ICR” – Integrated Commercial Residential, Table 220-32H: “RC1” – Residential Conservation I, and Table 220-32J: “RCII” – Residential Conservation II by removing the In-Law/Accessory Apartment as a use requiring a
special exception to a permitted residential use.
(Intent: To remove the necessity of obtaining a Special Exception for In-Law/Accessory Apartments. All other existing zoning and building permit requirements pertaining to In-Law/Accessory Apartments must still be met.)
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment as read, second by T. Moore.
L. Komornick noted that the in-law apartment would be a matter of right.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-8: 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, by modifying paragraph (4) “Combined Uses” as follows:
A single-family dwelling may be combined with any of the following uses, provided that the property owner is the occupant of the residence or of the business or both.
(Intent: To be consistent with the requirements of the Commercial II (CII) and Village Center (VC) Districts regarding mixed uses.
C. Lanza asked if this ordinance is necessary; to require the owner to live on the residence or own the business. He added that many homes go up for sale because they cannot find the right fit. He feels this ordinance does not make sense.
M. Dorman stated that it is important that the owner be on the property.
The Board discussed this issue further. It was noted that members that felt strongly regarding this issue are not present tonight. They decided to keep the amendment and strike the words “or both” as the wording is redundant.
T. Moore noted that this change makes the ICR Zone compatible with the Village Center.
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment striking the words “or both”, second by T. Moore
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-1-0, C. Lanza voted against the motion.
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.)
C. Lanza asked if owning one back hoe would be considered a contractor’s yard; do quantities matter.
The Board discussed if a residential owner has on small piece of equipment such as a back hoe for private use would it be considered a contractors yard.
L. Komornick noted that the underlined wording was recommended to be added by the attorney.
S. Ranlett stated that he read it into the record that way.
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment as read with the attorney’s corrections, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-10: 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, by adding titles to paragraphs A, B, C as follows:
A. Unregistered Vehicles.
B. Commercial Vehicles on a Residentially Used Lot
C. Commercial/Construction Equipment
(Intent: To add a title to each paragraph of this section of the Zoning Ordinance to identify the specific sub-topics. This amendment is not proposing any text change in the paragraphs.)
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
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.)
The Board discussed the attorney’s comment regarding type, use and registration of vehicles.
M. Dorman stated that he might like to make an exception for this; people in the gas and oil companies that have 24 hour services.
S. Ranlett suggested the Board table this discussion until it can be reworded.
T. Moore noted a concern over lots used residentially; does it still trigger a violation.
M. Dorman stated that this needs more discussion.
T. Moore motioned to continue this until the next meeting, second by C. Lanza.
L. Komornick and M. Dorman will work on rewording for the next meeting.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
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.)
T. Moore motioned to continue this until the next meeting, second by C. Lanza.
Staff will work on additional clarifications and exceptions for this amendment; it will be ready for the next meeting.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-13: 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 I. that reads as follows:
- Any person carrying a sign that is advertising a business, sale, or promotion shall be considered to be carrying a temporary sign and all provisions of the Temporary Sign Ordinance permitting process shall apply.
(Intent: To clarify that holding or carrying a sign to promote a business is considered a temporary sign and such requirements in the Zoning Ordinance apply.)
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment as read, second by T. Moore.
C. Lanza asked if I am not carrying the sign but wearing a tee-shirt and I still in violation.
The Board discussed this and if they should add “wearing” a sign to the amendment. It was decided that it is a matter of common sense.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-14: 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 J. that reads as follows:
J. 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
- Pennants
- Inflatables
Balloons are not permitted with a Grand Opening Sign Package.
Other signage that would not be already allowed under other sections of this ordinance are not permitted with a Grand Opening Sign Package.
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.
A Grand Opening event may also apply to an existing Plaistow business that has undergone major renovations or has a change in ownership.
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: The addition of this new sign package to the Zoning Ordinance will 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 the Zoning Ordinance).
The Board discussed if the material, latex or hot air, should be clarified in the wording. It was decided that they would add (other than hot air balloons) after “balloons are not permitted”.
The wording “be held’ will be changed to “commence”.
T. Moore asked if the start and end dates should be added to the permit.
M. Dorman replied that it is already on the permit.
T. Moore motioned to post as amended, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
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).
M. Dorman noted that Dee Voss and himself had submitted comments to the Board; the Board discussed and made the following decisions:
- The Board decided that under section A; non owner-occupied units refer to any rental unit.
- The Board discussed the time frame for an inspection; how long it takes.
M. Dorman stated that they do the inspection every Thursday. Applicants come in and request the inspection and pay $50.00 then it is done the following Thursday; seven days. The time frame is already on the application.
The Board decided to add “or his agent” after” the property owner” in Paragraph D.
The Board discussed Paragraph F., regarding the attorney’s comment for the wording “change in tenancy”. He asked “why tenant specific rather than unit specific for duration.
S. Ranlett and T. Moore stated that they like having it tenant specific in case the tenant damaged the unit and so they know who is supposed to be in the unit.
G. Adams stated that he had concerns with the whole regulation. He said that CO’s are not revocable, they are issued under the building code and the PB does not have authority over the building code.
M. Dorman replied that they are only talking about life saving codes; fire alarms, boiler systems, carbon dioxide detectors and means of egress. They are not talking about construction codes.
There was more heated discussion.
L. Komornick noted that the Boards attorney has review all these amendments and if there was a legal issue he would have told the Board.
S. Ranlett agreed that the attorney has reviewed it and said it was okay. He added that M. Dorman would like to have a safety check between each tenant. They would also like the tenants name on the Certificate of Occupancy because if a tenant comes to the Town for assistance it is needed.
There was further discussion and the Board decided to ask the attorney for clarification.
T. Moore motioned to continue the Article until the Board can get clarification on it from their attorney, second by G. Silva.
There was no further discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-16: 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 remove fire or other ruins within six months of such fire or event causing the ruins. Structures may be rebuilt on the same footprint if the rebuild starts within one year of the fire or event causing the ruins. For the fire or ruins of dwelling units, the use of a temporary mobile home is allowed for each dwelling unit while the dwelling is being rebuilt. In cases where the rebuild does not start within 1 year, the owner should check with the Department of Building Safety to see what rebuild options are available.
(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 the amount of time ruins can remain on the site. They decided to make the following changes:
- Change the first sentence to read” An owner or occupant of structure on land in any district shall remove fire or other ruins deemed uninhabitable or condemned within six months after such determination”.
- Add “not to exceed two years” after “while the dwelling is being rebuilt”.
- Omit the last sentence
C. Lanza motioned to post as amended, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-17: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by replacing every reference currently in the Zoning Ordinance from “Automobile(s)” to “Motor Vehicle(s).”
(Intent: To clarify that all zoning requirements apply to all motor vehicles, not just automobiles).
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-18: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by replacing all occurrences of “accessory uses” and/or “accessory buildings” to “accessory use or structure”.
(Intent: To provide consistency for the term “accessory use or structure”throughout the Zoning Ordinance).
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-19: Are you in favor of the adoption of an amendment as proposed by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance by removing Letter D., Signs, listed in Article V., Establishment of Districts and District Regulations, Table 220-32G, Integrated Commercial-Residential District, and adding a new section to Article IX., Signs, to read as follows:
§ 220-60.1. Integrated Commercial Residential District.
- Residential use: 1 on-site, three-square-foot sign (attached or freestanding) is permitted. The freestanding sign and supporting structure may not exceed 6 feet in height.
B. Commercial/Industrial use (single business): 1 on-site, thirty-square-foot
sign (attached or freestanding) is permitted. The freestanding sign and
supporting structure may not exceed 10 feet in height.
C. Commercial/Industrial use (multiple businesses): 1 three-square foot, attached sign per business and 1 freestanding sign per lot are permitted.
The freestanding sign and supporting structure may not exceed 25 feet in height or 150 square feet in area.
D. Combined use: 1 on-site thirty-square foot sign (attached or freestanding) is permitted. The freestanding sign and supporting structure may not exceed 10 feet in height.
(Intent: To keep all of the sign ordinance requirements in one section of the Zoning Ordinance.)
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment as read, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-20: 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 220-32J, Residential Conservation II District, by replacing Letter C. and adding a new Letter D. as follows:
- Areas and Dimensions: For New Developments – See PRD Requirements.
- Areas and Dimensions: For Existing Lots of Record with dwelling units – See MDR Requirements.
(Intent: to clarify lot areas and dimensions for existing lots of record with dwelling units that are located in the RCII District.)
L. Komornick noted that Dan Johnson expressed concern regarding parcels that are not along Main Street but are in back lands; PDR has restrictions based on ten acres.
The Board discussed the issue and decided this amendment was fine but they may need to change the PRD.
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as written, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-21: 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 changing the definition of Bed and Breakfast Facility as follows:
BED AND BREAKFAST FACILITY: A building other than a hotel or motel where both lodging and meals are provided at a single daily rate for compensation. Individual rooms shall not have cooking facilities. A facility may not have more than 8 rooms or suites for rent at any one time and the length of the rental by any guest in a single facility shall not exceed 10 consecutive days.
(Intent: To provide a separate, different definition for a Bed and Breakfast Facility than for a Boarding and Rooming House. Bed and Breakfast Facilities limit the number of rooms and the length of stay.)
The Board discussed this issue and it was noted that this is only permitted use in residential; any other zone needs to go to the ZBA.
G. Adams questioned why they would need a single daily rate.
The Board discussed that they can work around this in setting up deals. It does not say the daily rates need to be the same.
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment as read, second by T. Moore.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-22: 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, § 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Controls, Table 220-32C, “CII” – Commercial II, by adding a new permitted use as follows:
8.4 Bed and Breakfast Facility
(Intent: Bed and Breakfast Facilities are currently allowed in the CII District. This amendment is an administrative change required by the new definition of Bed and Breakfast.)
G. Silva motioned to post the amendment as read, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-23: 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, § 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Controls, Table 220-32G, “ICR” – Integrated Commercial Residential District, Letter B., Uses., Number (2) Permitted commercial/industrial uses., and Number (4), Combined uses., by adding Bed and Breakfast Facility as an allowed use.
(Intent: To allow Bed and Breakfast Facilities as an allowed use in the Commercial/Industrial and Combined Use sections of the ICR District.)
T. Moore motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-24: 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, § 220-32, District Objectives and Land Use Controls, Table 220-32D, “VC” – Village Center, by adding a new permitted use as follows:
15. Bed and Breakfast Facility
(Intent: To add Bed and Breakfast Facilities to the Village Center District
as a permitted use.)
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment as read, second by G. Silva.
.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
Article Z-13-25: 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 removing the definition of a Tourist Home and replace all references to it in the Zoning Ordinance.
(Intent: To eliminate duplication of definitions for “Rooming and Boarding Facility” and “Bed and Breakfast Facility”.)
The Board discussed this issue and decided to remove the definition of Tourist Home and all references to it in zoning.
C. Lanza motioned to post the amendment as amended, second by G. Silva.
There was no discussion and the vote was 4-0-0 U/A.
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 9:40 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
