PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
February 01, 2012
Call to Order: 6:53 P.M.
Item One:
ROLL CALL: Present was Chairman; Tim Moore, Vice Chairman; Steve Ranlett, Charles Lanza, Selectman Ex- Officio; Robert Gray and Joyce Ingerson.
Also present was Town Planner; Leigh Komornick, Chief Building Official; Mike Dorman and Recording Secretary; Laurie Pagnottaro.
Item Two:
Minutes of January 04, 2011
R. Gray motioned to approve the minutes of January 04, 2011, second by J. Ingerson
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-2; S. Ranlett and C. Lanza abstained.
Item Three:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Consolidation and a 2-Lot Subdivision for property located at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1, totaling 21.37 acres and 605 feet of frontage. One lot will be 3.97 acres and have 263 feet of frontage; the other lot will be 17.4 acres and have 342 feet of frontage. The property is located in the CI Zoning District and the owner of record is William Conte Marital Trust II, Rick Cretarolo.
Present for the hearing was Matt Ruthier, Allen & Major Associates. He reviewed the changes in the plan that has taken place since they last met with the Board including the following:
- They included two additional lots to be added to Lot B; it increased .3 acres on the back portion and on the front north of the property it increased .44 acres.
- The new design will allow drainage to sheet flow off the pavement and into a swale that will then be carried into a storm water treatment system
- They created a wet pond in the back due to ground water conditions.
- They have requested a waiver in regards to the street trees based on conversation with Bartlett (Bill Bartlett & Son Landscaping Inc.)
L. Komornick noted that the Board has a copy of Bill Bartlett’s letter to the Board in their packets.
M. Ruthier explained that the original plan had 11 street trees in the front and the new plan has 5 trees in the front due to DOT drainage easements that have already been approved and signed. They took the remainder of the trees and put on the south side as previously requested by the Board.
R. Gray noted that B. Bartlett’s letter does not address the waiver for the front of the property but only mentions plenty of screening in the back and that plants slated for the back should be used to thicken the open space on the side lot lines.
M. Ruthier explained that was based on a conversation had during the site walk and may not be included in the letter.
L. Komornick asked where in the front.
M. Ruthier replied in the front along the street; he added that it originally calls for a tree every 20’. He explained that that would be too tight. They moved a few around and changed some of the species to work with the drainage swale to create a buffering along the south property line.
L. Komornick noted that when the Route 125 widening project comes through the trees may be taken out; it would not make sense to plant them.
There is more discussion on the issue of the trees, the widening project and how tolerant the tree would be along the road.
M. Ruthier noted that the trees would be pear trees and are salt tolerant.
R. Gray stated that it would be good to have the trees because even if they got destroyed during the widening they would still be responsible for replacing them as they were on the plan.
Also present was Frank Alexander. He explained that they are willing to take the gamble on putting the trees out front.
There is more discussion and the Board decided that if the applicants want to put the tree out front then they can.
M. Ruthier explained that the majority of the waivers deal with the off-site survey requirements both in the site plan regulations as well as the sub-division regulations. He said they provided existing utilities within 100’ of the development area. They have a waiver request in for the interior landscape as well as the side landscape in regards to the evergreen shrubs vs. deciduous. He added that they tried to provide screening on the side with 6 evergreen trees as well as some deciduous to break up the view that is currently there.
F. Alexander stated that they had asked the Board for more time to digest the Boards comments and tweak the plan. They went back to the seller and acquired more land. He added that they feel good about the way the plan has come out and feel they have addressed the concerns the Board had.
L. Komornick noted that the applicants have really stepped up and worked with the Town and the engineer. She added that they had a conference call this morning with DOT to confirm that they are comfortable with where they are at. She does have a comment in the CLD letter that she has forwarded onto DOT so they are aware with CLD’s concerns; but DOT is comfortable and they do have the plans as well as went out and looked at the drainage and storm water to make sure everything will work. She asked if the applicants had the lot subdivision/consolidation plan.
M. Ruthier showed the Board the lot subdivision plan. He explained that the owner of the land had asked them to include the smaller two lots with the bigger lot.
L. Komornick noted that it is the applicant’s choice to do merge these two lots with the larger lot. She added that it will make everything more conforming; they were two non-conforming lots small lots.
J. Ingerson asked if they could be separated again later.
L. Komornick replied yes, they can be subdivided if they have enough frontage. She added that they could build another house on it.
M. Dorman stated that this makes sense to do for the Town.
L. Komornick added that the Town did not request for them to merge; the applicant and the property owner made the decision to merge the lots. She noted that they have provided documentation that is being reviewed by the Town Assessor; she stated that the Board would want to include in the motion that they have completed the lot merger form. An attorney has signed-off on it and it is doable.
S. Ranlett motioned to approve the voluntary lot merger, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
T. Moore will sign the lot merger.
C. Lanza motion to approve the 2-lot subdivision located at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1; second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
L. Komornick stated for the record that M. Ruthier has received from the assessor the new lot and map numbers so when he applies to the state for state subdivision he will have the correct numbers.
M. Ruthier noted that the submittal will go out this week for the state subdivision.
C. Lanza amended his motion to be a conditional approval based on receipt of state subdivision, S. Ranlett amended his second.
There was no further discussion on the amended motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Four:
Continuation of a Public Hearing on a Site Plan for one of the 2-Lots Subdivided for property located at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1, totaling 3.97 acres and 263 feet of frontage for a proposed new building to be a tractor supply retail store totaling 19,097 square feet. The owner of record is William Conte Marital Trust II, Rick Cretarolo.
Present was Matt Ruthier and Frank Alexander.
L. Komornick explained that she had received the review letter from CLD with their comments tonight.
R. Gray motioned to accept the site plan as complete, second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
The Board went through each item on CLD’s letter in order:
F. Alexander stated that he is not opposed to adding a sign. He is not sure what he would put on the sign but he will need Tractor’s approval. He added that CLD is the first to ever raise this issue. He said if you go to any Tractor store in the country you see this condition and there has never been a problem.
The Board discussed what would be on the sign as well as where the sign would be located.
S. Ranlett added that he has been to Tractor Supply stores before and there have been no signs and it does work.
R. Gray asked if this was a requirement.
L. Komornick answered no.
There was more discussion. The Board decided that the applicant does not need a sign; if it should become an issue not having a sign then they will address it.
- Utility Crossings near northwest corner of building
M. Ruthier showed the Board the area in the back corner on the plan that CLD is concerned about. He explained that they had some gas lines crossing a roof drain line as well as a water line, electrical, telephone, cable, and a sewer line that goes out to the septic fields. He said there are required separation distances between these items. He added that unless it was really messy with multiple crossings at the same exact location they typically do not get into doing crossing details; it is usually determined in the field at the time of construction. All the lines coming in have separate crossings so they are not really intertwined over the roof drain leader coming across.
R. Gray asked if they were sure that is the section of the building CLD is talking about as it looked like M. Ruthier pointed to the southwest corner.
M. Ruthier replied that they have no utilities any other place.
Also Present for the hearing was Bob Clark, Allen & Major Associates, Inc. B. Clark explained that they have spent a lot of time working out the drainage and water lines. They can propose a gas line along the building but the gas company will come in and put the gas line where they see fit per their regulations. He said the drainage works on slope and gravity, sewer is 10’ away from water line and the water line needs to be 5’ down for frost protection; so those are the things they needed to nail and they have. He added that the same goes with the telephone and cable. He stated that they will submit any drawings that come in from those companies to the Building Inspector.
R. Gray asked if the Town requires the applicants to locate on the plans the gas and utilities.
M. Dorman replied yes; on the Asbuilt plan, after the fact, it will show the utilities.
B. Clark added that they do show it for coordination purposes only.
F. Alexander noted that the superintendant that over sees the Tractor construction has put five in the area and is familiar with the local utility companies and that gives them comfort in the fact that they are very experienced in what they are doing with utilities companies and making sure everything is done the way it should be.
There was more discussion by the Board on this issue and a possible change in their ordinance to handle this issue in the future. It was decided that Asbuilt will take care of it.
- Driveway and NHDOT Issues
L. Komornick noted that she has provided NHDOT with this information and as of this morning they are fine with it. She added that if they have any problems they can deal with it.
The Board decided this issue is all set.
- Landscaping and Amount of Topsoil
T. Moore noted that from CLD’s point of view this issue is all set.
L. Komornick stated that CLD was very adamant about having 6” of loam.
M. Ruthier said that 4” to 6” is their standard; 6” can be a little excessive at times. He added that the soils on site are not as permeable as originally intended and adding that amount of soil will probably not help with drainage.
T. Moore stated that there is a waiver and they will discuss this issue later when discussing the waivers. He noted that they have already discussed the trees.
T. Moore noted that CLD had no further comments on this issue and they are all set with it.
M. Ruthier explained that they have done the test pit on the lot and that M. Dorman was there to witness it. It showed that the lot can handle the septic. He added that they did not break it down for high intensity soil survey that they typically expect to see so the soils on the plans are those taken from the National Conservation Services which give the type of soil.
There was some discussion on this issue and the Board decided that because the test pit and septic came back okay then this issue was all set.
The Board discussed the waivers the applicants are requesting.
SPRR 230-14.I(AA), SPRR 230-14.I(BB), SPRR 230-14.1(CC), SR 235-12.A(2)(a)[2], SR 235-18(QQ), SR 230-18(RR) & SR 235-18(SS) The applicant has not shown existing features, existing structures, existing septic systems or existing wells on Lot B of the subdivision or on the adjacent lots on the plan set. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
R. Gray asked about the small lot. He is concerned with the wells and septic not the structure; that someone’s well/septic could be overlapping.
M. Ruthier showed where the Board where on the plan the well is located. He explained that the 100’ well radius does not cross over the property line and the septic is in the rear of the lot away from any property lines.
T. Moore explained that the regulation is 100’ between a well and septic so if their 100’ radius is within their lot them it is ok. He added that their septic is in the rear of the lot not next to any property lines.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant waiver (Ref # SPRR 230-14.1(AA), SPRR 230-14.1(BB), SPRR 230-14.1(CC), SR 235-12.A (2) (a) [2], SR 235-18(QQ), SR 230-18(RR) & SR 235-18(SS)), second by C. Lanza.
R. Gray asked that every motion have the reference number in it for the record.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-14.1(EE) & SR 235-18(TT) The applicant has not shown inside radii of existing curves. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
M. Ruthier explained that they want the existing curve on the pavement as far as radius from road in and out. He added that it is asking for a lot of extra information that is not pertinent to what is happening on this lot.
B. Clark showed the Board a picture of the site and explained the curve radius to them further. He added that they do show the radius on the proposed plan but there is no curbing on it so there is no inside radius.
There is more discussion.
B. Clark noted that it can be verified later with Asbuilt.
M. Ruthier added that the waiver is for the current conditions that will no longer be there.
S. Ranlett motioned to waive the inside radii of existing curves (Ref # SPRR 230-14.1(EE) & SR 235-18(TT)), second by R. Gray.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR230-14.1(GG) The applicant has not shown existing features to be removed on Lot B of the subdivision. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
M. Ruthier stated that Lot B has only an existing foundation. He said that when Conte comes back in the future to develop on that then it will have to be removed. They are not removing anything on that lot.
T. Moore said if they are not removing it then there is no need to put a note saying they are not removing it.
There is more discussion on whether a note is needed or not.
M. Ruthier said they are not removing the foundation; they are just trying to follow all the Town’s regulations.
C. Lanza motioned to grant the waiver (Ref # SPRR230-14.1(GG)), second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 4-1-0; R. Gray voted against the motion.
SPRR 230-14.1(HH) The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set for the interior landscaping requirement, plant types and side and rear screening requirements.
T. Moore stated that the only feature not covered in Bill Bartlett’s letter is the interior landscaping. He asked if there would be enough parking spaces to require some plantings in the parking area.
M. Ruthier replied that they have provided some plantings on the outer edge of the island; based on the count it does not meet so many evergreen and so many deciduous trees.
R. Gray stated that he would like to see on the plan exactly what trees will be on the site.
M. Ruthier answered that it is all on the plan.
R. Gray motioned to waive SPRR 230-14.1(HH), second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-14.1(RR) and SR 235-18(ZZ) The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set for the cross section of proposed driveways and streets. We note that a typical pavement section and grading information have been provided on the plan set.
T. Moore read CLD’s current comments to the Board and noted that the applicant should review the proposal with the Town to confirm that a waiver is not needed.
M. Ruthier explained that the Route 125 improvement project will include a sidewalk that crosses in front of the site; he believes that is why NHDOT wanted a section though their drive into what is existing there now. He added that they have not finalized grades and such. He added that for them to look into the future and see how they might tie into it would be hard. DOT will do what they want to do and meet the requirements later.
T. Moore stated that this item was all set.
SR 235-12.A (2) (a) [3] The applicant has not shown an indication of any future subdivision contemplated in or adjacent to the parcel. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
T. Moore read CLD’s current comments to the Board which noted that the applicant should discuss with the Town if a waiver should be pursued.
L. Komornick said that this is an issue of whether they should note on the plan that says as the land adjacent to the proposed site that is being developed is not owned by them and they have no knowledge of what will go on with it.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant the waiver (REF # SR 235-12.A (2) (a) [3]), second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SR 235-12.A (2) (a) [4] the applicant has not shown existing topographic information on Lot B of the subdivision or on the adjacent lots on the plan set. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
T. Moore noted that the lot is flat out there.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant the waiver # SR 235-12.A (2) (a) [4], second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SR 235-12.A(2)(a)[6] The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set for the requirement to show proposed layout of streets, recreation areas, watercourses and natural features for Lot B of the subdivision.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant the waiver # SR 235-12.A(2)(a)[6], second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SR 235-18(CC) The applicant has not shown existing watercourses and ponds on the plan set. The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set.
T. Moore stated there are no existing ponds or watercourses on Lot A and lot B is not in the development. He added that it is fair to grant this waiver.
C. Lanza motioned to grant the waiver # SR 235-18(CC), second by S. Ranlett.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SR 235-18(EE) & SR 235-18(PP) The applicant has noted on the plan set that the vertical datum is NAVD88. The applicant has requested a waiver for the NGVD29 requirement on the plan set. If the Town wishes to compare adjacent property plans that may have utilized the required NGVD29 datum, we would not recommend granting this waiver.
M. Ruthier said they have added the conversions so it is shown on both datum elevations; one is 19-29 which is what a lot of the old flood plan maps are done on and they are using the newer datum. They have provided and noted the conversion on all the plans so someone can differentiate between the two and tie in.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant the waiver # SR 235-18(EE) & SR 235-18(PP), second by C. Lanza.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[2] The applicant has revised the number of trees along the front buffer due to NHDOT easement and has provided 6 trees. The applicant has added a waiver request to the plan set.
C. Lanza motioned to grant the waiver # SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[2], second by S. Ranlett.
R. Gray stated that he would typically not be in favor of this waiver but because of the trees being located in where the drainage easements are due to the NHDOT widening project; he does not see how they can fit the required amount of trees there.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[3] The applicant has requested a waiver for the side and rear buffer strip landscaping requirements on the plan set.
R. Gray motioned to grant waiver # SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[3], second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[4] The applicant has not provided the required 5% of interior landscaping. We also note that the required number of interior shade trees does not meet the regulation. Additionally, the breakdown of deciduous and evergreen shrubs does not meet the regulation. The applicant has requested a waiver for these requirements on the plan set.
S. Ranlett motioned to grant the waiver # SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[4], second by J. Ingerson.
There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[1] The applicant has requested a waiver on the plan set to be able to provide 4” (versus 6 inches) of topsoil where required.
R. Gray motioned to grant waiver #SPRR 230-23.B(3)(b)[1].
R. Gray asked if they will have a note on the plan stating they will have the 4” of topsoil.
M. Ruthier replied that it is on their details on the plan.
C. Lanza second the motion.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
NHDES Alteration of Terrain Permit
T. Moore asked if the applicants have applied for this permit.
M. Ruthier answered that they have updated them with these new plans and they expect to have their review next week.
NHDES State Subdivision
The Board already discussed this issue with the applicants earlier in the meeting.
NHDES Individual Septic Plan Approval
M. Ruthier stated that this would be submitted concurrently with the subdivision.
NHDES Water Supply Permit
M. Ruthier said they have not submitted this.
Additional Utility permits
T. Moore asked if there were any other outstanding issues.
L. Komornick replied no.
R. Gray motioned to conditionally approve the site plan for Tractor Supply Outlet at 96 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 27, Lots 23, 24 and 24-1 on the condition that they receive NHDES AOT, NHDES State Subdivision, NHDES Individual Septic Plan approval, NHDES Water supply Permit and the DOT permit.
M. Dorman noted that the applicant should know that there will be Impact Fees.
L. Komornick replied that the Town’s regulations state that a letter of decision be sent that includes not only the conditions but also the impact fees assessed, the impact fee credits approved and vesting requirements.
F. Alexander commented that they are extending the Towns fire water line by 300’ down the Road so the Fire Chief said he would off-set for the cost.
S. Ranlett second the motion.
L. Komornick clarified for the record that they did receive comments from the Police Chief that she provided to the applicant and has discussed with NHDOT. His concerns were about accidents turning into the site. They discussed today the fact that there will be enough room on the right side to have a slip area to go around. There is no concern from a DOT standpoint about that issue. She said she spoke with the Fire Chief and he was comfortable with the plans. He followed up with DOT regarding a warrant article for next year to approve the amount of money for that segment of road and that will move forward. Other than that he is also comfortable with the plan.
R. Gray stated that is motion still stands, second by S. Ranlett.
There was no further discussion on the motion and the vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Item Five:
Continuation of a Public Hearing to adopt the following updated chapters of the Town of Plaistow Master Plan:
- Community Facilities Chapter
- Population Chapter
T. Moore gave the Board an update on the progress of these chapters. He gave the Board members a table from the Population chapter to review.
J. Ingerson asked where he received the information on the table.
T. Moore answered the Census. He added that he needs to do about another eight hours on the chapter to complete it.
L. Komornick explained that in working on the Town report she has realized that the draft for the Community Facilities Chapter could stand to have more information clarified in sections such as the Public Safety Complex and the need for more space. She wanted to add more into the Highway Department as well.
R. Gray asked when they will see a final version.
L. Komornick replied maybe next year sometime.
Item Six:
Other Business/Updates: Misc. Notices, letters, and other Correspondence from Dept. of Building Safety, Planning Department and ZBA; Status of Projects.
Deliberative Session
R. Gray reminded everyone that Deliberative session is this Saturday (February 4, 2012) at 10:00am.
S. Ranlett explained that he is the moderator. He will read through them and if anyone has any questions they can interrupt.
There is more discussion on the deliberative session.
PB Candidate
Jennifer Silva was present to introduce herself to the Board. She is running for the opening on Board. She explained that she is studying for her master’s degree in Elementary Education to be a Science Teacher. She also wants to work in ESL. She currently works at Playmates Learning Center. She was born and raised in Plaistow.
The Board members wished her good luck.
Item Eight:
Adjournment
There was no other business before the Planning Board; the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted as recorded by Laurie Pagnottaro.
Approved by the Planning Board on ______________________________________
_______________________________________
Timothy E. Moore, Chairman
| 
