Town of Plaistow, NH
Office of the Planning Board
145 Main Street, Plaistow, NH 03865
September 19, 2012
Call to Order: 6:34 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Vice Chairman; Charles Lanza, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Tim Moore. Excused was Gennifer Silva.
Also present was Alternate; 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 September 5, 2012
C. Lanza motioned to approve the minutes of September 5, 2012, second T. Moore.
R. Gray noted that S. Ranlett appointed G. Adams as a voting member for the meeting. He stated that an alternate cannot sit in for a Selectman Ex-Officio position. He said that since no official votes were taken at the meeting it was alright but wanted it noted for future reference.
S. Ranlett asked who would be the alternate for him in the event of his absence.
R. Gray answered that the Selectmen would need to appoint someone or there would be no one.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Three:
A Public Hearing on a final Site Plan Amendment application to include razing the existing gas station and constructing a 4,052 square foot bakery/café at 4 Plaistow Road (Stateline Plaza) Tax Map 24, Lot 44. This property is located in the Commercial I Zone and totals 17.5 acres and has 2,346 feet of frontage. The owner of record is Northstar Centers, LLC.
Present was Ken Knowles, Eaglebrook Engineering & Survey representing Plaistow Project, LLC.; Attorney Charles Cleary, Waldeigh, Starr & Peters and Marjorie Hession, representing Northstar Centers, LLC.
M. Hession clarified for the record that the owner name is Plaistow Project, LLC. not Northstar Centers, LLC.
L. Komornick stated that it is correct on the application.
K. Knowles noted the following plan changes since the last meeting:
- Minor CLD comments have been addressed
- The stop sign / bar the Board requested was added as well as the “do not Block intersection” sign
- The Lot Coverage Plan was updated; increased pervious area around Panera Bread and the proposed lot coverage is now 76%
The Board reviewed the Staff Report and made the following comments to each one:
- The NH RSA regarding the development of property that falls in two municipalities. The RSA does not specify if in one state or two, however, based upon the Planning Board’s attorney, Craig Donais, should still be considered relevant for purposes of this site plan review.
In general, the RSA stipulates that the Plaistow Planning Board should be working/coordinating with the City of Haverhill on this plan review and approve it jointly.
R. Gray stated that it is his opinion that the RSA is clear that both municipalities, Plaistow and Haverhill, need to approve this plan.
S. Ranlett read a letter from John Pettis, City Engineer for Haverhill, requesting a joint meeting to discuss the Proposed Panera Bread Plan including parking and utility issues. The letter was dated September 19, 2012.
The Board discussed the issue of the joint meeting with Haverhill.
L. Komornick noted that as Haverhill will be the supplier of the water and sewer for Panera they cannot move forward without their approval. She added that she can follow-up with J. Pettis.
Att. C. Cleary referenced RSA 674.53, land affected by municipal boundaries. He said that the Towns powers and authorities come from the States Enabling Statute, then zoning ordinances and regulations are approved and that is what they are here under tonight. The statute is dealing with municipalities within the state of NH because both are in the same state and under the same statutes.
R. Gray asked if it was his opinion that the interpretation of this statute is between two municipalities within the State of NH as it does not discuss what border it is at.
Att. C. Cleary replied that there are three reasons:
- It is his opinion.
- There are sections in the statute, like section 4, that say no planner or plat showing land or streets in more than one municipality in the state shall be approved without the other. He added that NH cannot bind Massachusetts to anything.
- Plaistow’s authority ends at the boarders.
L. Komornick asked if Massachusetts had a similar RSA.
Att. C. Cleary answered not that he is aware of.
L. Komornick noted that the Board’s attorney has discussed the need to look at both jurisdictions requirements. She explained it further to the Board saying that if the Town chose to simply ignore the RSA and do what they want and Haverhill came back on the Town it would go to Federal Court. She stated that this is an attempt to work something out between the two municipalities. This process will improve the planning.
Att. C. Cleary said that if both municipalities were in NH it would be the applicant that would request the joint meeting, not the Boards. He added that they have not asked for that in this case because there would be an intersection of regulations that might be difficult to comprehend. He said they do not know if Haverhill will have jurisdictional site plan approval over the parking lot; it might not be an issue as so far Haverhill has not ordered it to come before them for site plan approval. He stated that if both municipalities were in NH and there was no joint meeting, each board would deal with the property within its jurisdiction and grant / deny site plan approval based on the materials and facts within its boundaries.
L. Komornick disagreed using Pro Bark as an example. The site was half Plaistow and half Newton NH and the joint meeting was not at the request of the applicant but at the request of each board.
The Board discussed the issue further.
G. Adams suggested the Town have the joint meeting.
The Board decided to revisit this issue later in the hearing.
- Letter and supporting documentation regarding a written agreement regarding the bank pad on the Haverhill portion of the existing site plan: The offices of the City of Haverhill Solicitor (Attorney) has provided both a letter and supporting documentation regarding the Plaistow site plans showing the removal of the bank pad and the addition of 56 parking spaces. Upon consultation with the Plaistow Planning Board’s Attorney, Craig Donais, while the letter from the Attorney is somewhat “obtuse”, it does clearly explain the City of Haverhill’s position regarding the bank pad being removed and approved by the Plaistow Planning Board by stating,
“If the Panera project is approved, it would suggest that Northstar would be unable to satisfy its commitment to the City as represented in its 2005 RFP response.”
According to Attorney Donais, while the Town of Plaistow is not legally bound by this agreement (as it is an agreement between the City of Haverhill and the applicant), as part of the RSA regarding review of a plan/project in two municipalities, this is information that should be taken into account and further reviewed when meeting with Haverhill staff.
L. Komornick gave K. Knowles the letter from The City of Haverhill Solicitor per his request.
Att. C. Cleary gave the Board a packet of documents from Haverhill’s approving sale of a small parcel of land to his client; when the alleged agreement comes in. He and his client disagree that there is any agreement with Haverhill. They met the proposal and paid a substantial price and bought land per the documents. He added that the documents do not say anything about an agreement. He suggested to the Board that it is best to stay out of private disputes.
The Board discussed this issue further.
G. Adams stated that the Board needs to decide, for the sake of the project before them, do they count those parking spaces or do they need a variance or waiver for the parking spaces.
- The Stateline Plaza (Plaistow Project, LLC) property is located in a Groundwater Management Zone and therefore falls under the requirements of the State of NH Dept. of Environmental Services Groundwater Management Permit.~ This is due to various contaminants that have been identified over the years as being present in the ground and groundwater and causing indoor air quality problems.~ As a result of these issues, many of the existing businesses in Plaistow have indoor monitoring devices as required by the NHDES.
In addition, this property also comes under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection and they have been notified of by the applicant (their environmental engineering firm Sovereign) that they are requesting an amendment to that permit due to the additional contamination on this site.
The Board decided to revisit this issue later in the meeting.
- Water and Sewer: This office has not yet received any information or verification as to the provision of water and/or sewer by the City of Haverhill. However, in discussing the issue of sewer with the City of Haverhill’s staff, it appears that there is existing sewer to the old Citgo Station and that the applicant will be upgrading this to meet the Panera Bread needs. It should be noted at this time that that no application has been made to the NHDES for a septic system approval for the proposed Panera Bread.
Given the above information on the Groundwater Management Zone, this could be a significant issue if they are not able to negotiate with the City of Haverhill for water and sewer.
C. Lanza noted a discrepancy between two letters submitted from the City of Haverhill that came in earlier in the day. One stated that there is no agreement for the service of water and sewer from Haverhill and the other letter states the project is to be serviced by Haverhill water and sewer. He asked the applicant if there was an agreement right now.
S. Ranlett suggested that the Board conditionally approve the plan with the condition that if they do not get water and sewer from Haverhill they cannot move forward to build without septic approval from NHDES.
R. Gray expressed concern over conditionally approving a plan without being aware of the water and sewer issues. He would like to know where they are coming from before approving the plan.
Att. C. Cleary stated for the record that the site has water and sewer available to it from the City of Haverhill and water and sewer will be supplied from Haverhill for this new addition.
K. Knowles added that the plans reflect that.
G. Adams asked if they have made application to Haverhill for those services and the appropriate authorities.
K. Knowles and M. Hession answered yes; they have a letter of request and a certified letter. He will submit them to the Board per R. Gray’s request.
The Board decided that as the applicant will need to come back before them if they do not get water and sewer from Haverhill this issue is okay.
- Circulation: Regarding the queues at the Drive-Thru and the overall site circulation, does the Planning Board have concerns that cars could be backed up in the drive thru, thus spilling out into the entryway of the drive isle? As provided in a written review, TEC, the traffic engineers for the applicant, have asked for documentation about what percentage of their customers are drive-thru versus sit down and how low it takes to get the food in the drive thru.
K. Knowles explained that the drive-thru is 30% and the remaining 70% is broken down to sit down is 60% and take-out is 40%. The proposed panera has the ability to queue 10 cars. They position menu boards and receiving to have 4 cars between them being serviced at one time. He added that TEC is comfortable with the circulation as well as is Panera. He noted that the median has been extended as far as it can without cutting into a lane and also to allow trucks to make the turn into Panera.
The Board agreed they covered this at the last meeting, added the stop sign and are okay with it as discussed at the last meeting.
Regarding the access point at Wentworth Avenue, if increased usage results, the intersection of the driveway and Wentworth Avenue does not currently meet sight distance requirements for those vehicles turning left out of the plaza onto Wentworth Avenue. The suggestion has been made to open Haynes Boulevard so that it is two-way and allow vehicles to utilize this access to turn left onto Wentworth Avenue. This would require that the Board of Selectmen vote to make it two-way. How does the Planning Board stand on this issue?
S. Ranlett explained that the stop bar is 8’ away from Wentworth Ave. and added that the trees could be cut back; both would improve site distance.
M. Dorman stated that he will bring this issue before the Highway Safety Committee; it has been put on the agenda.
K. Knowles replied that they can discuss where the stop bar needs to be with traffic engineer.
The Board discussed this issue further and it was decided that it might be doable but they will let the Highway Safety Committee discuss it.
- Parking: The applicant is requesting a waiver from the Town of Plaistow’s Site Plan Review regulations for parking. It is unclear at this time how many parking spaces they are requesting a waiver for, as the existing plan was based upon parking calculations that have since been changed.
K. Knowles stated that the waiver requests are very clear on the proposed plan. The plan has a table with all the site tenants in the plaza with their use, square footage, parking requirement and the parking demands for that tenant as well as for Panera Bread.
R. Gray noted that when Grande Mexico went in it was required to have 50 parking spaces and the proposed Panera location will be where some of those spaces are. He asked where the 50 spaces will be located to.
L. Komornick added that the existing 2006 plan showed 10 parking spaces for Grande Mexico which now needs 50 spaces.
S. Ranlett asked whose calculations are they using, Haverhill’s or Plaistow’s.
L. Komornick answered Plaistow’s.
S. Ranlett asked why when Grande Mexico is in Haverhill.
T. Moore stated that it would make sense to him for Haverhill businesses to use Haverhill’s parking codes while business in Plaistow use Plaistow’s.
R. Gray noted that there are then not enough spaces in Plaistow for what is going on there.
There was more discussion on the parking conflict of usage issue.
K. Knowles clarified that in 2006 the whole plaza was permitted as one Plaza; one comprehensive Plaza with typical shared parking. He added that the demand for retail does not coincide with the demand for the night time restaurant. He believes that is why the PB granted the waiver from 813 to 708. Parking calculations are all based from Plaistow’s requirements including Panera, retail and the restaurant in Haverhill.
The Board continued to discuss this issue. It was decided that as they have a written request for a technical meeting that the Board will meet with Haverhill staff.
Att. C. Cleary expressed concern over where that meeting will go; everything the Board will learn here will come from that meeting and they will not know whose regulations were followed.
L. Komornick stated that it will be Plaistow’s and everything discussed will be documented.
S. Ranlett added that as the project is in Plaistow it will be Plaistow’s regulations that will be followed.
The Board revisited the discrepancy issue between the two letters from Haverhill stating that there is and is not water and sewer serviced to the proposed site.
L. Komornick clarified that it is proposed to be serviced but it is not yet approved.
The Board revisited issue #3:
The Stateline Plaza (Plaistow Project, LLC) property is located in a Groundwater Management Zone and therefore falls under the requirements of the State of NH Dept. of Environmental Services Groundwater Management Permit.~ This is due to various contaminants that have been identified over the years as being present in the ground and groundwater and causing indoor air quality problems.~ As a result of these issues, many of the existing businesses in Plaistow have indoor monitoring devices as required by the NHDES.
In addition, this property also comes under the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection and they have been notified of by the applicant (their environmental engineering firm Sovereign) that they are requesting an amendment to that permit due to the additional contamination on this site.
Att. C. Cleary stated that if Plaistow requires it from every applicant that has ground water issues then it should be in their regulations but otherwise they should leave the environmental issues to the environmental agencies.
L. Komornick clarified that in speaking with the head project person for the Groundwater Management Program at NHDES, she referenced that fact that as there are other businesses on our side that have this indoor air quality monitoring that likely Panera might need it.
C. Lanza stated that they cannot put it on the plan if it is not required by NHDES.
L. Komornick agreed and added that the applicant could reference the Ground Water Management number on the plan.
Att. C. Cleary agreed to reference the Ground Water Management number on the plan.
The Board revisited issue #4:
S. Ranlett explained to L. Komornick that the applicant will forward the Board a copy of the request for water and sewer to Haverhill.
R. Gray added that if the Board can conditionally approve and if the applicants do not receive the water and sewer from Haverhill they will need to come back before the Board.
L. Komornick replied that if they Board wished to handle it that way then that would mean they do not want to have the joint meeting with Haverhill. She reminded the Board that they have a written request from Haverhill to meet and discuss the issues.
The Board discussed this and came to a consensus that it would be courteous to Haverhill to hold the joint meeting. L. Komornick will post the meeting.
K. Knowles asked what the goal of the joint meeting will be.
L. Komornick answered to discuss the bank pad, parking and utility issues; water and sewer. She added that the applicants will be notified of the date and time of the meeting.
R. Gray suggested that the Board politely requests that they (Plaistow) be notified of any changes on their (Haverhill’s) side in the future.
Att. C. Cleary again expressed concern regarding what Haverhill would want to discuss during the joint meeting. He stated for the record that if the bank pad issue is a real planning issue he is okay with it, but if it is the agreement issue; it is not a planning function.
S. Ranlett stated that the Board has already addressed this issue.
L. Komornick stated that if this plan gets approved then there will be two sets of plans; one that shows the bank pad that will stay on the Northstar website and the set that Plaistow will record that will show the 56 spaces.
Att. C. Cleary explained for L. Komornick (as she had stepped out of the room) the documents he had earlier submitted to the Board. He said that Haverhill is looking at the old 2005 RFP (Request for Proposals) and would love to have a bank in that project; but unfortunately a bank could not go in. He stated that we (the applicants) cannot wait forever for that bank to go in and by NH law you cannot have an agreement were someone is stuck with something that might never occur.
L. Komornick agreed stating that it was very clear in her staff report that the Board’s attorney related the fact; that it is not a legally binding agreement.
Att. C. Cleary stated that that is their position.
The Board stated that that was their position as well.
S. Ranlett said the bank pad may be an issue and the Board does not want to get in between a lawsuit between Haverhill and Plaistow Projects, LLC.
The Board decided to discontinue this discussion until after the joint meeting with Haverhill.
- Abutter Input: The attorney for Heavenly Donuts has provided the Planning Board office with the documentation concerning two issues: 1) the written easement agreements in place between Northstar Properties and Heavenly Donuts, and 2) The copies of pictures taken of the Panera Bread store presently located in Derry, N.H. and I assume they were provided to this office to support his statements made at the last public hearing.
The Board will revisit this item later in the meeting.
- Lot Coverage: I have asked the applicant’s engineer to provide the Planning Board with an updated lot coverage plan which was sent out the Board as part of the September 7th email. Based upon a conversation I had with the applicant’s engineer yesterday afternoon, he is working on the update to this.
K. Knowles submitted the Lot Coverage Plan to the Board. He noted that it is the plan he presented in the initial presentation.
- Comments received so far from other departments:
The Police Chief’s comment is as follows:
“I have reviewed the plans and noted that it will be challenging to footprint the building in that location.~ However the upside to that is the improvement to the area that will disallow bus and tractor trailer parking across the parking spaces.~ Other than that observation, there are no other real concerns.”
The Fire Chief’s Comments are addressed as part of the CLD review comments.
L. Komornick noted that there are more comments in with the CLD comments.
K. Knowles stated that the only clarification from the Fire Chief is whether he wants a fire lane stripped area against the building. He added there is no parking there anyway if that is what the Fire Chief would like.
S. Ranlett read the comments to the Board:
- Regarding the proposed 4-inch fire service line that will be connected to the proposed building, the need to show the proposed point of connection on the plans, and the lack of a fire lane shown on the plan, I consulted with Fire Chief McArdle last evening and the following was his reply which indicates that follow-up is needed:
“Are there building plans available?~ Are they going to put sprinklers in the building, if they are they have to be coordinated with Haverhill Water dept. ~Depending on the flow of traffic around the building will depend on fire lanes.~ Do you have more recent plans that I can look at?”
L. Komornick said she will need to get the Fire Chief the most current plan.
K. Knowles stated the plan that was submitted has not really changed other than notes requested by CLD. The Fire Chief was fine with the connection to Haverhill and did not request extension to his fire line or additional hydrants; although he did mention a fire lane. K. Knowles will follow-up with the Fire Chief regarding the fire lane issue.
The Highway Supervisor has not provided this office with any input.
- NHDOT Driveway Permit: Kevin Russell, NHDOT District VI Engineer, is still reviewing the application for the change in use and has initially requested that the median at the traffic signal located at Route 125 and the Plaza be extended to the west. However, according to CLD, it is not clear whether any specific traffic-related data was submitted, including information regarding any proposed traffic changes and copies of all documents submitted to NHDOT.
L. Komornick stated that whatever NHDOT approves the Board will require a final set of that documentation.
K. Knowles stated that he was unable to follow-up with K. Russell as he was out of town this week, but everything submitted to DOT has been CC’d to the town as well as CLD. When he last spoke with K. Russell the only thing he required was the extension of the median island and a note on Wentworth Ave., that if tree trimming will improve circulation that it be done. K. Russell does have a copy of the plan that reflects those two items and will reference that in his approval.
L. Komornick stated for the record that the issue with Wentworth Ave. will go away if they make Haynes a two-way street.
The Board agreed the Haynes Street discussion is an issue for the BOS.
- CLD’s second set of review written comments. These have been provided and yesterday I had a chance to review the various comments with the applicant’s engineer in detail and have the following summary/status of the comments:
- Regarding a commercial/industrial site maintenance plan, there is an existing plan in place that can be updated and referenced.
L. Komornick stated that this will be taken care of; it is not an issue.
- Regarding the need to show wetland boundaries on the plans, the applicant’s engineer has added a note stating the currently occupied gas station is not within a wetland area. If the bank pad is removed and parking added, this note should apply to both areas.
L. Komornick noted that the bank pad area is already paved.
K. Knowles added that CLD brought it up to see if the Board wanted to request a formal waiver from showing all the wetlands on the entire site plan. There is a section of wetland behind Shaw’s greater than 650’ away from any proposed improvements so a note was added that there were no wetlands near the proposed work.
The Board agreed the note was sufficient.
- Regarding lot coverage, the applicant’s engineer has agreed to provide an update plan. As CLD has indicated, in 2006, they did receive a variance to allow coverage up to 78%.
L. Komornick stated that this issue has been dealt with.
- Regarding snow storage, the applicant’s engineer has agreed to add a note that no snow can be piled up in the parking lot that will occupy parking spaces. This is in addition to the existing snow storage amendment plan approved by the Planning Board a number of years ago that is on record.
S. Ranlett explained to the applicants that there can be no snow storage where the cars are parked; it will need to be trucked off site.
L. Komornick added that the applicant has agreed to add a note to the plan regarding the removal of snow off site.
- Regarding parking and ADA parking requirements, the existing site plan was approved with 708 spaces versus the then required 813 spaces. CLD has asked for verification that adequate ADA accessible parking spaces have been provided for. At the last public hearing on this project, the Planning Board discussed concerns over the number of ADA accessible parking spaces and if they are adequate. The applicant’s engineer explained at that meeting that for this size lot it will be 2% of the total, whether they calculate using 734 spaces or 846 spaces. They still have 22 spaces currently shown so the ADA requirement would be 15 or 16. They have 2 parking spaces directly in front of the building. There are no changes to the additional handicap spaces; they are spread around the site. Therefore,
it was the consensus of the Board that they are fine with where the ADA parking is being proposed.
K. Knowles stated that they have more than is required and noted that CLD agreed with that as well.
- Regarding the comment that there is no loading area shown on the plan, I discussed this with the applicant’s engineer and determined that the only trucks that will be able to “properly” access the building are box trucks which he stated will be providing daily deliveries. There is an interior circulation plan for the SU Box Trucks, however, for tractor trailers, information has not been provided. CLD has indicated that the loading door is on the opposite side of the building and that larger trucks will have difficulties returning to the “common area” of the parking lot where the site drive exists are located. Although the applicant’s engineer has agreed to add a note stating “Tractor Trailers will only access the proposed Panera Bread 1-2 times a week and will do so
during the off hours,” the Planning Board should discuss this issue further.
L. Komornick explained that CLD’s concern is regarding the tractor trailer trucks that will deliver once or twice a week off hours. She asked a note be put on the plan for only off hours deliveries from the tractor trailers.
K. Knowles expressed concern asking about the enforcement issues should a truck come to deliver during the day.
M. Dorman replied that he would call the police and a ticket would be issued.
- Regarding the comment about providing deeds and/or deed restrictions, I discussed this with the applicant’s engineer and I indicated that we have deed information on file from when they completed the lot consolidation and site plan in 2006. Regarding any deed restrictions, as noted under the abutter concerns, additional information may need to be added regarding the portion of the site next to Heavenly Donuts.
This item was not discussed.
- The applicant has noted the need for three waivers on the plan set --- they are for: 230-12, 230-22 and 230.14.I.II.
L. Komornick asked the applicant for a comprehensive list of all the waivers they will need.
K. Knowles stated that those are the three waivers they are requesting; two for the lighting because they did not present a plan and one for the parking.
- Regarding the need to provide ZBA requirements, I discussed with the applicant’s engineer the need to document on the plans all prior variances that have been granted for this site. In addition to the information the applicant is showing on the plan that includes a list of lot coverage as defined in our Zoning Ordinance, and a breakdown of the building and pavement is included in an abbreviated dimensional control table. However, Lot Coverage should be reviewed based upon their submittal of the updated plan tonight.
K. Knowles stated that the only one he knows of that would apply is the lot coverage. He added that there is a note on the plan that there is a variance.
- Regarding the Alteration of Terrain Permit from NHDES, the applicant has received a waiver from the NHDES. This note should be added to the plans for clarification.
K. Knowles said they got the waiver.
- Regarding providing a removal and demolition plan, this information will be required for the preconstruction meeting. Given the abandoned use and structure as a gas station, this is important to have clearly documented as NHDES will need to approve the removal of the existing tanks.
L. Komornick stated that CLD wants the plan now.
M. Dorman noted that he does not need the plan as he knows what they will do; they will need documentation that all the utilities have been shut off, etc... He added that the Fire Chief will be there as well as NHDES
L. Komornick stated that she thinks CLD has asked for it because of the erosion control. She added that that information is presented on the plan.
- Regarding the scale of the plans, I have discussed this with the applicant’s engineer and noted that they should request a formal waiver and that the Planning Board can address the request.
C. Lanza asked for this item to be added to the list of zoning changes to be discussed.
K. Knowles said he is not sure a waiver is required; it is 1 to 50 and the only plan that shows 1 to 60 is the overall site plan. The detail of the proposed project is 1 to 20 which meets the Towns regulations. He can ask for the waiver if the Board would like it.
L. Komornick replied that it would be good to have the waiver to show the Board is following the regulations.
- Regarding the provision of boundary lines with angles or bearings of the lines and dimensions, I discussed this with the applicant’s engineer and noted that the Registry of Deeds will not record plans that are not stamped by a surveyor. He agreed to follow-up on this and if needed, incorporate the information from Doucet Survey. As far as the need to confirm the NGVD 1929 Datum, this will be checked, but if not available, the Board could consider a waiver. This also will address CLD’s comment about thee not being a NH state surveyor name or stamp on the plan.
L. Komornick asked if the applicant has checked with the registry.
K. Knowles answered yes; but added that by NH RSA you are not allowed to record a site plan that doesn’t change boundary lines or show determination. He added that they have the engineering stamp on the plan.
C. Lanza stated that they will need the surveyors stamp as well or it will not be recorded.
K. Knowles will bring it to the registry and ask them.
- Regarding spot grades, the applicant’s engineer is following up on this information.
K. Knowles replied that he is not sure what CLD is asking for; they have more than adequate spot grades on the site plan. He asked for clarification from CLD.
The Board decided they were okay with the spot grades. L. Komornick will discuss with CLD.
- Regarding the proposed 4-inch fire service line that will be connected to the proposed building, the need to show the proposed point of connection on the plans, and the lack of a fire lane shown on the plan, I consulted with Fire Chief McArdle last evening and the following was his reply which indicates that follow-up is needed:
“Are there building plans available?~ Are they going to put sprinklers in the building, if they are they have to be coordinated with Haverhill Water dept. ~Depending on the flow of traffic around the building will depend on fire lanes.~ Do you have more recent plans that I can look at?”
The Board discussed this issue earlier.
- Regarding the provision of test-pit data on the plans, a test pit has been conducted and inspected by Mike Dorman. The information will not need to be shown on the plans if sewer is supplied from the City of Haverhill.
- Regarding fences, the only fence the applicant is proposing is around the dumpster.
K. Knowles answered yes.
- Regarding the Traffic/Trip Generation information provided by the applicant’s traffic engineer, TEC, CLD has indicated that they are believe that the net traffic generation should have minimal impact to the operations and driveways. They also point out that the report they reviewed for traffic did not provide any traffic data reflecting the use of adjacent driveways and parking isles, such as right-turn in, right-turn out at the driveway just north of the proposed building. Therefore, any suggestions to change accessibility to and/or from the plaza would require additional information.
K. Knowles stated that NHDOT is comfortable with the information that has been submitted.
- Regarding the need to provide a construction sequence, I informed the applicant that this information would be required for the Preconstruction Meeting. At this time, all erosion control measure issues can be reviewed in detail as far as sequence.
K. Knowles said they showed erosion control on the plan and a note that it be installed prior to any site work. His concern is that they start ripping up pavement with no silt sock, hay bales or silt fence. If they want additional construction sequencing beyond that it can be done at the construction meeting with the contractor that will do the site work.
- Regarding lighting, the applicant’s engineer has agreed to add a note that any new or relocated lighting will conform to the Town of Plaistow lighting regulations.
A variance will be requested.
- Regarding landscaping, CLD has recommended that the Planning Board review the alteration to the required regulations regarding location of trees, buffers, interior islands, etc…that the applicant’s engineer feels will make the site more “aesthetically pleasing.”
K. Knowles replied that the Town’s regulations say 1 tree every 25’; the site is designed with that amount of trees but instead of having small caliber trees on a 25’ grid they have the trees grouped and have screened the dumpster to make the site look better. He will provide M. Dorman with a copy of the landscaping design.
- Regarding request waivers, a thorough, overall review of which items may require waivers needs to be conducted and the waivers should be submitted in writing and listed on the plan.
This issue was already discussed. K. Knowles will add the plan scale waiver.
R. Gray asked if they have discussed the signage with M. Dorman.
K. Knowles replied that a comprehensive sign package will be submitted to M. Dorman from Panera.
G. Adams asked if the BOS decides to open Haynes Boulevard to a two-way would the applicant be willing to contribute monetarily.
K. Knowles replied that he did not know but would ask the owners.
T. Moore noted that the plan was accepted on August 15th 2012 and will most likely be continued until October 17th meeting. He added that if it looks like something regarding the plan will linger for another 4 or 5 days then the applicant should request for the 65 day period to be extended.
L. Komornick questioned how long can they wait for the water and sewer approval given the conditional approval.
Att. C. Cleary replied that under the new statute, you can make it conditional and it is final because those are permits under other authorities. It could be a year out. He added that the water and sewer will not be an issue.
K. Knowles asked what else he should add to the plan per tonight’s discussions in addition to the one waiver discussed.
C. Lanza replied the environmental service number and following-up with the Fire Chief.
The Board revisited Item 7:
- Abutter Input: The attorney for Heavenly Donuts has provided the Planning Board office with the documentation concerning two issues: 1) the written easement agreements in place between Northstar Properties and Heavenly Donuts, and 2) The copies of pictures taken of the Panera Bread store presently located in Derry, N.H. and I assume they were provided to this office to support his statements made at the last public hearing.
Present was Attorney Geoffrey Dowd; representing Heavenly Investments 1, LLC., the abutter at 104 Plaistow Road, Haverhill. He presented the six pictures to the Board (of Panera Bread in Derry, NH) that he presented at the last hearing; there was a request for clarification. He stated that he cannot do an apples to apples comparison of the Panera cafes as the Derry site delineates based on square footage and square footage is not provided on this proposed site plan. He stated he took the pictures on August 14, 2012 about noontime. He noted in the first picture was a Panera bread and a Goodwill Retail store.
L. Komornick asked if the square footage was provided in the parking table.
K. Knowles stated that the parking requirements for Plaistow are based off of how many seats. The plan shows both square footage and seats for the proposed Panera Bread.
Att. G. Dowd explained the pictures and responded to the Boards previous question at the last meeting (regarding the Derry Panera):
- The total development (including other businesses not just Panera) is 41,000 square feet of retail.
- Parking required is 269 with 240 spaces granted.
- There are approximately 74 spaces surrounding Panera. He noted that at the time the pictures were taken there were not a lot of open spaces available.
Att. G. Dowd stated the Town has reasonable parking requirements but added that an 88 seat restaurant is quite intensive for the tight lot; he noted the Board is aware of his concern. He is also concerned regarding deliveries during the day by box truck and tractor trailers at night, but as the applicant said, if the tractor trailer shows up during the day there is nothing you can do about it. He noted the question of do we have a Planning Board and a Town Planner may come up at a later date; the Town does and the Planner has brought up some interesting issues involving the influence of parking relative to the locations in the proposed plan and not a lot (of parking spaces) are close. He stated that RSA 674.73 was mentioned and the point that Haverhill has no jurisdiction in Plaistow and Plaistow no Jurisdiction in Haverhill
was brought up. He added that RSA 674.53 gives Plaistow the authority to look at this plan in a multi-jurisdictional environment involving another municipality. He said there are requirements that the other municipality be brought in to sign off on the site plan. He questioned why they were not involved when Grande Mexico was brought in.
S. Ranlett replied that they had never notified the Board when Grande Mexico went in nor did they sign off on it.
L. Komornick clarified that when the site plan was approved they did not know that Grande Mexico was going in; it was just a retail use. When Grande Mexico came in, similar to Plaistow for retail, they look at parking and septic. She added that she does not know if they did that but said that may be one of the reasons they want to sit down with Plaistow; so this does not happen again.
Att. G. Dowd explained that that is why RSA 674.53 makes sense; it allows for consideration of the additional spots. He added that if they do not want input from Haverhill’s PB on this plan then dissect the plan and give a waiver for whatever spots are on this (Plaistow’s) side; treat them as two separate sites. Under the current RSA 674.53, there may be no jurisdiction for Haverhill to Plaistow and Plaistow to Haverhill, but this RSA is there for a reason; to be able to get the plans to reconcile between the towns creating a combined effort and everyone knows what everyone is doing. He asked the Board what action they would take tonight regarding this proposal.
S. Ranlett replied that they would take no action tonight. There will be a meeting set up with Haverhill. Att. G. Dowd is welcomed to attend.
Att. G. Dowd asked what the waiver request is for parking.
K. Knowles replied it is on the plan; waiver sought from section 230-12G, required 846 spaces as detailed to 734 spaces provided; with the 56 spaces. The waiver will be for 112 spaces.
C. Lanza asked if this use is less intensive than the current waiver that is granted on that site as proposed today.
L. Komornick answered no; the original waiver was based on 10 spaces. It may be less or maybe the same.
Att. G. Dowd stated that this plan will create the most overburdened lot in the Town.
The Board discussed this issue further. It was noted by the Board that they take each case on a case by case basis as it comes in.
Att. G. Dowd asked what would stop this from becoming a more intensive use restaurant that is busy all day and night.
L. Komornick replied the City of Haverhill as more water would be required.
R. Gray stated that the Town’s regulations do not address more intense uses when the footprint does not change.
This issue was discussed further. L. Komornick noted that an engineer had informed her that Panera bread was a low water user; they use paper plate with no dishes to wash. Any additional water they request from Haverhill will not be that high.
R. Gray asked Att. G. Dowd if with all his issues and concerns brought up the bottom line is do all of these things comply with the health, safety and welfare of the public and that the Board can deny it right now if they feel that would not happen
Att. G. Dowd replied yes.
L. Komornick asked Att. G. Dowd what he would like the Board to do with the easement information he provided the Board.
Att. G. Dowd answered that the Board had requested a copy. He stated that there had been no source of water on the plan as it had not yet been approved.
R. Gray clarified that at this point there is no water approved for that site.
K. Knowles added that there is no septic for the gas station; the gas station is connected to the sewer system on site which is provided by Haverhill.
L. Komornick asked the Board if they would consider the bank pad staying with the 11 spaces in case the Staff from Haverhill asks for that.
The Board discussed her question and decided that they would like to wait until they meet with Haverhill before making any decisions on waivers and parking.
The Hearing was continued to the October 17, 2012 meeting.
Item Four:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan for a mixed use including a proposed office building, vehicle maintenance building and existing apartment building on the property located at 241 Main Street, Tax Map 31, Lot 18-1, totaling 3.36 acres with 200 feet of frontage. The property is located in the MDR zone and the owner of record is RNK Realty, LLC.
Present was Tim Lavelle, representing Pentucket Companies and Mark Lagasse. T. Lavelle submitted a site plan to the Board members and explained the following:
- The proposal for the maintenance garage has been removed from the plan.
- They will change the plan to leave the existing apartment building and the garage to the north, leaving the buildings as they are.
- They propose to store the storage containers and open bin containers.
- Plan shows a wooden guardrail to be put along the buffer lines as discussed.
M. Lagasse stated that the existing garage is still structurally sound so they will use it. It will give them a feel when the containers are in if there will be room to put the building. He added that their lease has been extended so they are not in a rush. It will give him more time to do calculations and Mr. Kidder is rushing him to make the deal so he can get the money to pay the Town his taxes due.
T. Lavelle reminded the board of the wetland issue on the plan. Since the last meeting the wetlands violation were put on a plan and sent to NHDES, the Plan has been approved and the wetland areas have been reclaimed; those are shown on the plan.
L. Komornick added all the wetlands information is in the staff report and noted that per the Notice of Findings from DES, “DES is pleased with your commitment to ensure the success of the wetland restoration portion of the project”.
T. Lavelle noted for the record that the encroachment on the wetlands is 30+ years old, based on the materials pull out.
L. Komornick asked about the abutters.
T. Lavelle replied that as long as Mr. Kidder took responsibility for cleaning it up; it was pushed over the lot line by the previous owner.
S. Ranlett stated that when they decide they want to build the garage they will need to come back in before the Board for approval.
L. Komornick mentioned two issues for when they come back: the lighting question from the comment the Police Chief made.
M. Lagasse stated that there is a telephone pole with a street light on it near the apartment house approaching the gated area.
L. Komornick said that was ok. She asked about the guardrail.
M. Dorman replied that it is on the plan.
T. Lavelle stated they have come before the Board tonight to notify the Board because it is a substantial change to the plan. They are not expecting approval tonight but wanted input from the Board. He spoke with NHDOT regarding the Change of Use Driveway Permit and should have that when they return before the Board.
S. Ranlett stated they can come back after they notify the abutters.
The hearing on the site plan for mixed use was closed.
M. Lagasse expressed concern over closing the hearing. He is worried about losing the variance for the mixed ude.
G. Adams explained that the variance is attached to the property at the time of granting.
The applicant is withdrawing the application and will come in next month with a new application.
The Board agreed to waive the application fee but the applicant will still pay the abutter notification fee and legal fees.
Item Five
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects
Update on the October 3rd Workshop
The workshop will be held on Wednesday October 3rd at 7:00pm
The workshop will be held at Town Hall, second floor.
Discussed will be the NH Plan Charrett and the Main Street Calming Study.
L. Komornick noted that the goal of the workshop is for public input.
Item Six:
Adjournment
There was no further business before the Planning Board and the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Steve Ranlett, Chairman
| 
