ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
March 31, 2011
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m.
Roll Call: Present were Larry Ordway, Chairman; Julie Matthews, Vice Chairman (arrived 7:13 p.m.) Paul Boniface; Kim Crapo, Alternate and Joyce Ingerson, Alternate. Excused were: Robert Loeffler, Jim Allen and Roderick Cole.
J. Ingerson and K. Crapo were appointed voting members for the meeting.
Minutes of December 02, 2010
L. Ordway explained that there are not enough voting members present tonight who sat in on this meeting to vote on it so it will have to be postponed.
Minutes of January 27, 2011
L. Ordway explained that there are not enough voting members present tonight who sat in on this meeting to vote on it so it will have to be postponed.
Minutes of February 24, 2011
P. Boniface motioned to accept, second by K. Crapo. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 3-0-1 (J. Ingerson abstained).
#11-02: A request from Century Leasing Corp (Michael Panniello) for a variance from Article V, §220-32K.B, to permit a retail use in the Industrial 2 District. The property is located at 214 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 45, Lot 3, in the 12 District. The property owners of record are Joseph G, Sr. and Michael J. Panniello.
L. Ordway explained to the applicant that there are only four Board members present. If the Board splits the application is denied, as it is required to have three (3) votes to the affirmative to pass a motion. He added that it is the applicant’s right to postpone until there is a five (5) person Board. The applicant chose to proceed.
Present for the application were: Terry Trudel, S.E.C. & Associates, and Michael Panniello, Century Leasing Corp.
T. Trudel summarized the following:
- Century Leasing Corp is an established commercial trailers leasing and service business
- It has been in operation for approximately three years
- The site is 2.9 acres with 200 feet of frontage on the west side of Route 125
- The site has an 8,400 square foot two-story building, 2,400 square feet is for office space and 6,000 square feet is for equipment maintenance on the first floor with another 2,400 square feet of office space on the second floor.
T. Trudel explained that the owner would like to expand the business to include sales of both commercial and recreational trailers. It is in the Industrial II Zone, where retail sales are not permitted and that is the variance they are going for, retail sales on the site. He added that the variance request is for this application only and not intended for future businesses, and that granting of the variance would allow the applicant to proceed with the site plan approval.
L. Ordway responded that once the variance is granted it goes with the property.
T. Trudel went over the location of the site with the Board, noting that it is north of MB Tractor on the left side, near Dick’s Auto Body and USA Storage. He also noted that it is not affected at this point by the Route 125 construction, but added that in the future there may be possible expansions three or five years down the road.
L. Ordway stated that there are five (5) criteria the Board needs to go through.
J. Matthews arrived at 7:13 p.m.
T. Trudel recapped the above information for J. Matthews.
T. Trudel went over the criteria for a variance request noting the following:
The proposed use would not diminish surrounding property values because:
- The property and all abutting properties are commercial/industrial uses
- The only change to the site would be to add several small display areas for the recreational trailers adjacent to the current storage and displays for the commercial trailers
- No other exterior alterations would be necessary
- The change would be indiscernible from its current use and would not diminish surrounding property values.
Granting the variance would be beneficial to the public interest because:
- It would allow the property owner full productive use of his property
- It will allow for the growth of the business without adversely affecting the abutting properties or general public
The property has/does not have a unique setting in its environment which would cause a strict application of the zoning ordinance to interfere with its reasonable use because:
- The property is located in an Industrial 2 zone with 200 feet of frontage along Route 125. This makes the property unique because although it supports the industrial use, it is limited by it
- The request is to allow retail sales on this site with frontage on a roadway that supports the same use throughout Plaistow and all the Towns it serves.
A fair and substantial relationship does/does not exist between the general purpose of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property for which the variance is being requested because:
- The restriction placed on this lot does not consider properties with exposure to existing roadways along their frontage and the expanded uses that could be supported on these sites
The variance requested would/would not injure the public rights of others because:
- The business shall be operated and maintained to protect the rights of others already established (ex: adequate access, egress, and parking)
Granting the variance would do substantial justice because:
- Not only does it allow for the full productive use of the property, it would allow the owner to expand a successful business without negatively impacting surrounding properties
This use would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
- The proposed use will still meet the objectives and characteristics of the Industrial 2 Zone while incorporating the retail use in such a manner that the spirit of the ordinance will still be maintained
L. Ordway asked if the business was primarily maintaining trailers rather than building trailers.
M. Panniello replied that they would not be manufacturing but that they’ll repair trailers, semi trailers, as they do now. He continued noting they will be adding cargo or smaller utility trailers and that they would repair them also.
J. Ingerson asked what is outback behind the gate.
M. Panniello answered that it is a storage lot where he stores his trailers.
J. Ingerson asked how many trailers are there
M. Panniello replied 50 or 60 and added that it changes based on his utilization of his rental fleet.
J. Ingerson asked if he was storing anything else on the side of the building besides trailers.
M. Panniello said no.
K. Crapo asked if the display would just be for the utility trailers.
M. Panniello answered yes, new and used inventory.
L. Ordway asked if this would only be on the lot that fronts (Route) 125 and not on the storage lots in the back.
M. Panniello replied that they would probably display samples of what they have in current inventory to be more successful.
P. Boniface asked if it would only be utility trailers, not tractor trailers sold.
M. Panniello responded that they have always sold some trailers when they turn over inventory, but currently they are not selling tractor trailers.
L. Ordway stated that he was not clear on what they are requesting the variance on, the whole site made up of more than one lot, or is it not made up of more than one lot.
M. Panniello stated that to the best of his knowledge, it is where they are asking to store trailers on the front of the property and added that they back of the property is already permitted for what they are doing.
L. Ordway asked if the variance they would grant would only be for a specific piece of the property, and M. Panniello said yes. L. Ordway stated that he is still unclear on what is the piece of property, the 2.9 acres in front or is it the area now being used for tractor trailer storage.
T. Trudel answered it would be the 2.9 acres in the front, two separate lots.
J. Ingerson asked if they would not be adding any additional tractor trailers to the back behind the gate, but that they would all be up front to be viewed for customers, and was answered yes.
K. Crapo pointed to three (3) areas on the map marked for trailer display and asked if those were the only areas of display.
T. Trudel replied no, there are five (5); three (3) out front along Route 125 and two (2) right next to the building. He explained where there would be a retaining wall square area with sand in it and the trailer would be put on it. He added that they did not design anything permanent because NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) may be doing road work in three (3) years and it would be easy to push those out of the way.
K. Crapo asked if each spot out in the front would be big enough for one (1) trailer.
M. Panniello answered yes, enough space for one (1) trailer that is typically eight (8) feet wide and then enough space to walk around it. He stated that this is a new product and they want to use the property to expand the business. He added that this will help them stay competitive.
L. Ordway asked the Board if there were any further questions from the Board there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and the case was closed.
L. Ordway explained the deliberations process and that there could be no additional input from anyone. He added that they will receive written notice of decision within ten business days, but that they cannot do anything for thirty days (30) days in case someone wants to appeal the decision.
DELIBERATIONS
#11-02: A request from Century Leasing Corp (Michael Panniello) for a variance from Article V, §220-32K.B, to permit a retail use in the Industrial 2 District. The property is located at 214 Plaistow Road, Tax Map 45, Lot 3, in the 12 District. The property owners of record are Joseph G, sr. and Michael J. Panniello.
J. Matthews motioned to grant, second by J. Ingerson and the case was opened for discussion.
L. Ordway summarized the application stating that Century Leasing Corp wants to take the 2.9 acre parcel in the front of the property and use it to display and sell smaller sized storage trailers.
J. Ingerson asked if there is a limited amount of items that can be displayed out front.
L. Ordway replied that they could add a limit if they felt it was necessary. He asked J. Ingerson if she felt it might be an over use of the lot.
J. Ingerson answered that she already sees things out front and was wondering if more would be added to that.
L. Ordway reiterated that they could impose a limit.
J. Ingerson asked if M. Dorman inspects the site before he issues any permits for this particular use.
L. Ordway said he assumed so, but was not sure. He explained that after going to the PB it is the building Inspectors job to make sure he comply with the Plan so he must be going out there along with electrical and plumbing inspectors.
The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance, noting the following:
- The Variance is not contrary to the public interest
L. Ordway stated that the public interest, Route 125, is more commercial than industrial and this will fit in with future development.
- The spirit of the ordinance is observed
L. Ordway noted that the industrial ordinances are designed to keep manufacturing businesses out of the public’s view, but still provide for jobs.
- Substantial justice is done
L. Ordway stated that in this case if they didn’t allow commercial use of the site they would be causing an injustice. He does not feel the public would be hurt on way or the other.
- The Values of surrounding properties are not diminished
L. Ordway noted that values might be enhanced by being able to sell retail and not being limited to industrial uses.
- Literal enforcement of the ordinance would not result in unnecessary hardship
L. Ordway noted that M. Panniello pointed out that most other business on that part of 125 are retail commercial. He added that it is not changing the character of the neighborhood, but is a new business that is similar to the existing trailer business.
There is discussion by the Board about amending the motion to add a restriction and the Board decides to keep the motion as is.
There was no more discussion on this matter. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A.
Minutes of December 2, 2011
The Board revisits the minutes now that there are enough members present to vote.
J. Ingerson motioned to accept the minutes of December 2, 2011, second by J. Matthews.
There is no discussion on the motion and the vote is 3-0-0 U/A.
There was no further business before the Board. The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Laurie Pagnottaro
Recording Secretary
| 
