REGULAR MEETING

PLANNING BOARD

PORTSMOUTH, NEW HAMPSHIRE

7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOVEMBER 15, 2001

CITY HALL, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX, 1 JUNKINS AVENUE

Prior to proceeding with the meeting, Mr. Smith thanked Arthur Parrott, the former Chairman of the Board, and Faye Goldberg for their years of service explaining that Mr. Parrott ran for office and won and, thus, is no longer a member of the board and that as far as Ms. Goldberg is concerned, she has moved to another community. Mr. Smith wished them both well.

The Planning Director, David Holden, introduced a new secretary with the Planning Department, Terry Provencher, and informed the Board that Peter Britz, the City’s Environmental Planner, was present as a resource person for the Board..

Mr. Sullivan moved approval of the minutes as presented. The motion was seconded. It was SO VOTED.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

A. The application of the City of Portsmouth for property located off Haig Avenue, an abandoned paper street, and William Gladhill for property located at 8 Barberry Lane wherein Preliminary and Final Approval is requested for a lot line relocation whereby the lot area of 8 Barberry Lane would increase to 11,155 s.f. + and the lot area for the lot owned by the City of Portsmouth known as Lot 147 on Assessor Plan 233 would decrease to 27,050 s.f. +. The plan also shows the reversion of Haig Avenue as voted by the City Council at its May 7, 2001, meeting. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 233 as Lots 141, 143, 144, 146 and 147 and lies within a Single Residence B district. Plat plans are recorded in the Planning Department office as 20.1-01.

The Chair read the legal notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Attorney Bernard W. Pelech addressed the board and stated that he was representing Mr. and Mrs. Gladhill in the culmination of many months, actually years of negotiations between the Gladhills and the City regarding certain lots in the area. Attorney Pelech went on to explain that the Gladhills were desirous of purchasing a triangularly shaped piece of land from the City. Subsequently, Mr. Gladhill was able to acquire a nearby lot via a tax sale which he is willing to exchange with the City for the triangularly shaped lot. Additionally, in May, the City Council discontinued a section of Haig Avenue. The Planning Department expressed a desire of putting all these transactions on a plan.

The Chair made three calls for speakers. There being none, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Holden indicated that all the conditions have been basically met; that the easement on Lot 140 for the benefit of Lot 144 had been removed. He asked that the Board in its approval add the condition that the plan not be filed until all abutters have signed off on the mylar. Attorney Pelech indicated that the condition was fine with him.

Ms. Clews moved Preliminary and Final Approval subject to the following three stipulations.

1. That the deeds/easements involved in the land swap be reviewed by the City Attorney as to content and form;
2. That permanent boundary monuments be established as per the requirements of the Public Works Department; and,
3. That the plan not be filed until all abutters have signed off on the mylar.

Mr. Will seconded the motion.

Mr. Coker inquired if by removing an easement off a plot plan, would the easement go away. Mr. Holden responded that the easement was not a part of the application before the board; that by removing the easement, the board would be seeing it as part of another application. He further explained that the easement does not exist at the present time reiterating that the board would be seeing it or some other vehicle shortly in terms of another application.

The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

B. The application of the City of Portsmouth for property located off Franklin Drive and Dennett Street wherein site plan approval is requested for the construction of a 9,646 s.f. one-story addition to the rear of the existing New Franklin School with related paving, utilities, landscaping, drainage and associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 220 as Lot 2 and lies within a Municipal district.

Let the record show that Mr. Smith stepped down from sitting on this application and handed the gavel over to Mr. Carrier.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

W. Peter Torrey, Business Administrator with the School Department, addressed the board and stated that an item in the Capital Improvement Program involves some needs of the School Department. Phase I of the plan is the design and renovation of the high school and the redistricting of the overcrowded Dondero School. To address the overcrowding and redistricting, four classrooms and a cafeteria will be added to the New Franklin School to accommodate an additional 60 children. The redistricting would be in place by the fall of 2002. The City Council has earmarked some two million dollars for the redistricting.

Mr. Torrey went on to state that a second kindergarten is possible. Art and music share a room. A full-time art and a full-time music teacher would need separate rooms.

Brad Mesquita of Appledore Engineering addressed the board and spoke to the existing 26 parking spaces. Fifty-two spaces will be created by restriping. Eighteen additional spaces will be provided to the rear of the building. A proposed future parking area would provide an additional 28 spaces. A gate system would duplicate what is out there today.

An additional water line will be installed in the rear from Myrtle Avenue which would loop around to the front of the building and would tie into the existing system. The electric utility supply would be shifted. Deliveries would be to the rear and would exit out to Myrtle Avenue.

Mr. Coker spoke to the wetlands in the vicinity of the school and asked the distance from the new pavement. Mr. Holden interjected that the Technical Advisory Committee had reviewed the plans; that any new pavement/construction would be over 100’ away from any jurisdictional wetlands.

Mr. Will commented that he noticed some 18 spaces on another part of the plan which appeared to be in the vicinity of some wetlands. Mr. Holden replied that there are other wetlands on the site which are not jurisdictional adding that no Conditional Use Permit Application has been triggered by this application.

Ken Smith of 298 Myrtle Avenue addressed the board pointing out that he is a direct abutter to the New Franklin School property. He stated that he was not opposed to the construction of the addition; however, he was concerned about the possibility of the gate coming down that leads to Myrtle Avenue. Right now a concrete barrier is in place. He spoke to some speeding issues and the fact that Myrtle Avenue does not have sidewalks.

He asked that the gate at this point be another jersey barrier not an operable gate. He asked that the neighborhood be allowed to get together with the school department and discuss access from the school to Myrtle Avenue. He went on to state that it is his understanding that trucks will come in, go around to the rear of the school and exit onto Myrtle Avenue.

The Chair made a second call for speakers.

Rai Bowles of 43 Pray Street stated that he was present as a member of the School Board and expressed his hope that the board would approve the application. He stated that he was Chairman of the Redistricting Committee adding that redistricting is a very difficult thing to

accomplish at the elementary level. The study circle consisting of 103 people spent five weeks studying the obvious situation of overcrowding at the Dondero School. It was the unanimous opinion of the study circle that New Franklin School was the spot to send more students. He went on to state that the timing was exquisite; that they would be in kind of a pickle with any measurable delay. He expressed the hope that the plan would go forward.

Peter Fletcher of 260Myrtle Avenue agreed with the expansion of the school; however, he definitely had some concerns with traffic on Myrtle Avenue. He stated that the road is in disrepair; that he didn’t like the idea of traffic coming through from New Franklin School to Myrtle Avenue and asked that a meeting with the School Department be scheduled.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Coker inquired as to how long Myrtle Avenue had been blocked off with Mr. Smith replying that he had lived there for the past six years. Connie Carmody, Principal of the New Franklin School, stated that the gate had been in place for some 17 years.

Mr. Coker commented that having lived at the end of a dead-end street for many years, he could attest to the value of a dead end street and urged the Board to leave it as such unless there is some overriding reason it needs to be opened up again.

Ms. Clews stated that she would like to hear from the planners as to why the road is proposed to be open. She wondered what the point was in changing something that had been in place for 17 years.

Mr. Mesquita explained that the street itself is not closed; that the barrier is on school property and the gate would be on school property. Right now there is still enough room to turn around. However, with the addition, they are just running out of real estate; that there would not be enough room to wheel around.

Mr. Torrey commented that what they would be using are panel trucks – minimal in nature adding that there is currently a traffic flow problem in the area; that the school is difficult to approach from the Dennett Street bridge as well as the outflow on Franklin Drive. He spoke to the expansion of parking primarily for staff.

Mr. Torrey stated that he would be happy to speak with the neighbors; that it is not intended to open up the drive to all traffic. He stated that 18 staff members could park in that area coming in once a day and leaving once a day. The gate would be closed at night. He asked that the board approve the rest of the application.

Mr. Sullivan stated that he would like to ask the Planning Director about the fact that the landscaping plan is to be approved by the Planning Department. Mr. Holden replied that the department would be working with Alan Sturgis of the Conservation Commission; that Mrs. Straus, the City Arborist, was not taking an active role as arborist right now.

Mr. Sullivan went on to state that Myrtle Avenue used to be a two-way street out to Rockingham Avenue; that there was a dirt road on the easterly side of the school out to Myrtle Avenue which people used to traverse over. It was his opinion that the City’s Transportation and Parking Engineer, John Burke, should get involved. Mr. Sullivan spoke to the two access ways to the school -- the old bridge from Dennett Street over the Route 1 ByPass and the narrow driveway from Woodbury Avenue between two hotels. He did not feel that the exit to Myrtle Avenue

should be blocked off permanently; that there should be some kind of device that would allow emergency vehicles to enter and exit as well as delivery trucks. He suggested that Mr. Burke sit down with the neighbors and come up with a common sense approach.

Mr. Coker stated that he was confused and asked if the jersey barriers were in place right now. Mr. Mesquita reiterated that the road (Myrtle Avenue) is not blocked off; that the jersey barriers are located on school property. In other words the drive from New Franklin School to Myrtle Avenue is blocked off.

The question was asked as to the type of trucks that would service the school. Mr. Torrey replied by referring to paper supply trucks that would deliver products during late summer/early fall and that Sysco trucks would come describing them as six wheel panel type vehicles.

Mr. Carrier remarked that if the board was ready, the Chair was looking for a motion.

Mr. Smith interjected that currently the trash trucks show up around 6:00 in the morning. He felt the situation worked well with the drive closed off.

Mr. Sullivan moved approval of the request with the following three stipulations from the Planning Department’s memo with the added condition that the School Department work with the neighborhood to come up with a reasonable solution to the situation pertaining to the back gate. Mr. Will seconded the motion and asked that John Burke be involved in resolving the gate issue. Mr. Holden replied that he was sure that would happen and advised those present that the Police and Fire Departments had been involved in the project.

Mr. Coker asked that the condition be more specific and refer to a "mutually satisfactory resolution" to the gate issue. He went on to state that he and Mr. Smith share 6:00 a.m. trash truck stories. It was his opinion that traffic would be there no matter what adding that he did not oppose the project. However, he pointed out that the drive had been closed off for some years and he was concerned about the impact to the quality of life of the neighbors if the drive was re-opened.

Mr. Sullivan did not object to the addition of the words, "mutually satisfactory resolution" although he did state that he had all the confidence in the world in Mr. Burke and the City’s department heads. The requested amendment was more than wholeheartedly agreeable to the second.

It was the consensus of the Board, that the department should come back with a report from the neighborhood meeting.

The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Let the record show that Mr. Jankowski did not take part in the discussion and did not vote as this is considered to be a City project.

1. That a note be added to the site plan indicating that the addition will be sprinklered and that additional sprinklering will be subject to a schedule agreed to by the applicant and the contractors;
2. That the landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning Department; and,
3. That the size and type of all utilities will be designated on the plan.

1. That the School Department and other members of the City staff; such as, John Burke, the City’s Transportation Engineer, work with the neighborhood to come up with a reasonable and mutually satisfactory solution to the situation pertaining to the back gate

Let the record show that Mr. Carrier returned the gavel to Mr. Smith.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

C. The application of the Portsmouth Housing Authority for property located off Wedgewood Road wherein a Conditional Use Permit is requested as allowed in Article VI, Section 10-608(B) of the Zoning Ordinance for the construction of an 875 s.f. + storage building within an Inland Wetlands Protection district. The storage building is actually an addition to an existing maintenance facility for the Gosling Meadows housing project. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 239 as Lot 12 and lies within a Garden Apartment/Mobile Home district. Plans are recorded in the Planning Department office as 12.1-01.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Timothy J. "Ted" Connors, Executive Director of the Portsmouth Housing Authority, addressed the board and informed them that David Gates of CLD was present to answer any questions the board might have. Mr. Connors went on to state that the project had received the unanimous approval of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Connors explained that the addition is necessary as a storage facility for the Gosling Meadow housing development.

Mr. Coker had a question about the wetland delineation. Mr. Holden interjected that what the Board was looking at was a jurisdictional wetland. He suggested that the Board consider whether the area being disturbed had been previously disturbed; that an independent soil scientist is brought in only when an area has not been previously disturbed; that the City’s Environmental Planner, Peter Britz, had looked at the site and had worked closely with CLD.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Jankowski moved approval of the application. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

C. The application of John W. Bosa for property located at 248 Peverly Hill Road wherein Preliminary and Final Approval is requested for the creation of three lots from an existing lot. Proposed Lot 1 would contain the existing buildings, have a lot area of 20,372 s.f. + and adequate continuous frontage off Peverly Hill Road and a proposed cul-de-sac. Proposed Lot 2 would have a lot area of 51,207 s.f. + and adequate continuous frontage off a proposed cul-de-sac. Proposed Lot 3 would have a lot area of 110,164 s.f. + and adequate continuous frontage off

a proposed cul-de-sac. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 243 as Lots 54 and 23 and lies within a Single Residence B district. Plat plans are recorded in the Planning Department office

as 08.4-01. (A previous application for this property for a four lot subdivision was tabled indefinitely by the Planning Board at its July 19, 2001 meeting.)

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Mr. Carrier moved to take the application off the table. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

Attorney Bernard W. Pelech addressed the Board and stated that he was representing John Bosa, the applicant and property owner. Attorney Pelech reviewed the history of the project starting back in June; such as, the issue of wetlands which has since been resolved. He went on to state that the Planning Department was dissatisfied with the number of lots; thus, the reduction from a four lot subdivision to a three lot subdivision.

Also worked out with the Planning Department was the configuration of the two new lots, the third lot being the existing lot on Peverly Hill Road. The property lines still show to a middle of a paper street. He asked for Preliminary Approval with the hope that they would be back at next month’s meeting for Final Subdivision Approval and Site Review Approval. At that time, the property lines would be drawn to the edge of the paper streets.

Attorney Pelech stated that Chris Ogden of the Maguire Group, who drew the plan, was unable to attend the meeting. He (Attorney Pelech) made the request that that the requirement for sidewalks be waived.

Mr. Will inquired if the cul-de-sac would become a City street with the response being in the affirmative.

Ms. Clews inquired if the rest of the paper streets would remain paper streets with Attorney Pelech responding by stating, "that is correct".

Mr. Coker felt that now is not the time to move this forward until the issue of paper streets is cleared up. Attorney Pelech responded that the applicant has no interest in paper streets. Mr. Holden interjected that there is no issue with Moffatt Street becoming a public City street. In other words, half of the paper street is becoming a City street; the other half reverts to the abutters of record. The property lines will be relocated to the edge of the paper streets.

Mr. Holden urged the Board to grant Preliminary Approval; that due to the construction of a public street, the plan would be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee.

Mr. Robert Iafolla of 2 Regina Road addressed the board explaining that he is the proud owner of a number of lots in the area; that he recently received his tax bills; that the tax bills refer to the names of the paper streets. He stated that he was looking for assurances that he would have access to the lots over a right-of-way; that is, that access to the remaining lots on the paper streets be maintained. Attorney Pelech commented that Mr. Iafolla’s rights would not be affected; that he would still have the right of passage over the paper streets. Attorney Pelech reminded the Board that the City had never accepted the paper streets.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Ms. Clews moved Preliminary Subdivision Approval subject to the following stipulations. Mr. Will seconded the motion.

1. That a conforming street shall be built to City specifications with a waiver on the construction of sidewalks;
2. That the recorded plat shall indicate that any subsequent development off this street shall require the construction of conforming sidewalks;
3. That the development be reviewed by the Technical Advisory Committee with a recommendation back to the Planning Board;
4. That provisions be made for street plantings;
5. That all utilities shall be placed underground;
6. That the plat shall indicate the correct revision dates; and
7. That the plat shall be modified such that the property lines are to the edge of any paper streets.

The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

E. The application of Kenneth and Catherine Adair for property located at 320 F. W. Hartford Drive wherein an amendment to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the construction of a 2,791 s.f. single-family home within an Inland Wetlands Protection district. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 270 as Lot 20 and lies within a Single Residence B district. Plans are recorded in the Planning Department office as 13.1-01.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Attorney Bernard W. Pelech addressed the board and stated that he was present on behalf of Mr. Adair who was the property owner and applicant. Attorney Pelech explained that the property was previously owned by Dr. Gray. A Conditional Use Permit was granted by the Planning Board for the construction of a single-family home. The plan at that time was presented by Bob Prokop and reviewed by the City’s independent scientist, Jim Gove.

Unaware of the conditions placed upon the permit by the Planning Board, Mr. Adair hired Lisa DeStefano, architect, to design a house to be sited on the lot. When Mr. Adair applied for a Building Permit, he was informed by the Planning Department that the application did not adhere to the Conditional Use Permit. Thus, the request for an amendment.

The Conservation Commission has reviewed the request and has recommended that the Planning Board approve the amended plan.

Attorney Pelech explained that the house has been pulled back; that the plan calls for a deck which would be cantilevered and on pilings; that storm water runoff would flow under the deck. About 10’ has been added to the previously approved garage over what was approved as a paved driveway. It was Attorney Pelech’s opinion that the amount of impervious surface would not be increased substantially and that much less fill would be required with this design.

Attorney Pelech went on to explain that both side of the lot have been developed already; that the value to the wildlife habitat was minimal. He stated that they would not affect any storm water runoff into the wetlands. He felt that the modification to the approved plan was minimal and informed the board that Lisa DeStefano was present in case the board had any questions for her.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed.

Mr. Coker commented that the situation was a very difficult one for him personally. He stated that applicants make representations as to what they are going to do, i.e, minimize impact on wetlands. He pointed out that when the Conditional Use Permit was granted, there was a representation by the wetlands consultant representing the applicants that if the request was approved that Lot 18 would be combined with the current house lot. Mr. Coker went on to state that when he hears representations made, he tries to give the person every benefit of the doubt. However, in this case, the two lots have not been combined, and it was Mr. Coker’s feeling that he could not support the amendment until what was represented to the Board had been completed.

Attorney Pelech responded by stating that he did not represent Dr. Gray.

Mr. Holden interjected that Mr. Coker was correct; that the board did apply conditions to the original approval. An independent lot was created. He recommended that if the Conditional Use Permit is amended, that the department work with the present applicant and the City Attorney to ensure that all requirements are met. He went on to state that perhaps shame on the department that Lots 18 and 19 were not combined into one lot; however, he went on to state that somebody has to bring Dr. Gray to task.

Mr. Coker stated that he wanted to make sure that the project moves forward and that representations are met.

The Chair felt that Lot 20 was a separate lot and the board had to look at the area as two separate lots. Mr. Holden interjected that he tended to term it as an "omission"; that is, the fact that Lots 18 and 19 had not been combined as yet. Mr. Coker commented that such a statement does not give him a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Mr. Carrier agreed with the department and went on to state that in his estimation even though there was an agreement still pending between the previous owner of the land; that the present applicant had purchased the lot and crossed the first legal hurdle. He felt that if the applicant was willing to work with the department, then the board could go ahead and approve the amended plan.

Mr. Carrier went on to state that he felt the board should just move on. However, having said that, he stated that he agreed with Mr. Coker and understood his frustrations but did not feel that this was the board’s fight.

Mr. Will stated that he had all the faith in the world in the department and the applicant; that it was the previous applicant who had not combined the two lots. He pointed out that the third party was not in the room to assure that such would happen; that warm and fuzzy was not going to be given this evening. He stated that like Mr. Coker, he was not able to separate the issues. It was his thought that the City Attorney should be brought in.

Mr. Holden interjected that he has spoken with the City Attorney about this matter; that by combining Lot 18 with an existing lot, there would be no chance that Lot 18 would be a buildable lot. He pointed out that the applicant was present in good faith.

It was Ms. Clew’s opinion that the applicant had bargained in good faith; that it perhaps was a department omission and the department would be more prudent with the next situation.

A question was asked about the NHDES Permit. The response was that the permit was in place quite some time ago – over a year ago. Mr. Adair stated that they did receive something from the DES; that he thought it was current; that it came to them after they purchased the property; that he would submit a copy of same.

The Chair wondered why the board was looking at this again and asked why the footprint previously approved couldn’t be adhered to. The response was that the garage was not of sufficient size to accommodate Mr. Adair’s needs. Furthermore, some decking space was designed for outside living space; that Mr. Adair was advised by the engineer that he did not have to adhere to the footprint.

Mr. Hopley moved approval with the following stipulations contained in the department’s memo plus the additional condition that prior to an above-ground permit being issued, that a certified plot plan for the foundation be submitted. Mr. Carrier seconded the motion. A condition was also added regarding the use of chemical fertilizers. Mr. Hopley explained his reason for a certified plot plan in that the house would be sited very, very close to jurisdictional wetlands.

The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

1. That the plan indicate the location of the erosion control fences or construction limitation fences;
2. That the plan indicate the area that will not be subject to clear cutting and which would be left in an undisturbed natural vegetative state;
3. That lots 18 and 19 on Assessor Plan 270 be combined;
4. That there shall be no use of fertilizer, except low phosphate, slow release nitrogen fertilizer, or limestone, which may be used on areas with grass; and,
5. That prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for above-ground construction, that a certified plot plan shall be submitted to the Inspection Department indicating the location of the foundation to ensure that the foundation is properly sited.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Let the record show that the board took a break at this time. Upon returning, Mr. Holden was informed that he had been asked to have the Maxam application tabled to allow for the applicant to continue working with the Conservation Commission.

Mr. Will moved to suspend the rules to take the Maxam application out of order. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

A. The application of Bernard and Agnes Maxam for property located off Coach Road wherein a Conditional Use Permit is requested as allowed in Article VI, Section 10-608(B) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a 9,100 s.f. building for office and manufacturing use within an Inland Wetlands Protection District. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 297 as Lots 4-3 and 4-3A and lies within an Industrial district. Plans are recorded in the Planning Department as 10.3-01. (This application was tabled at the Board’s October 18, 2001, meeting to this meeting.)

Mr. Hopley moved to take the application off the table. Mr. Coker seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote. Mr. Holden indicated that it was his understanding that the tabling would allow the applicant to work with the Conservation Commission.

A motion was made that the application be tabled to the December 20, 2001, meeting. The motion was seconded. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

F. The application of Rene A. Therrien, owner, and Port City Nissan/Suzuki, applicant, for property located at 406 Route 1 ByPass wherein site plan approval is requested for the conversion of an existing car care facility into an auto dealership with related paving, utilities, landscaping, drainage and associated site improvements. Said property is shown on Assessor Plan 172 as Lot 2 and lies within an Industrial district.

The Chair read the notice and opened the Public Hearing.

Dennis Moulton of Millette, Sprague & Colwell addressed the board explaining that he had submitted revised plans due to a special meeting held by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) on the previous Tuesday. He referred to traffic management notations. He stated that the note was added after a demonstration was performed on site for the Traffic/Safety Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. The demonstration showed the ability of a 75’ tractor trailer to enter the site during the early morning traffic hour on the By-Pass. Mr. Moulton commented that this was an important issue for TAC due to a condition attached to a Variance that vehicles would be unloaded on site. He went on to explain that a Variance had been granted for the use by the Board of Adjustment in August.

Minor changes are proposed to the existing building; such as, three small extensions will be eliminated, some very minor paving and landscaping will be added to the front of the building.

Striping is proposed to accommodate customers and employees of the new use. Twenty-one spots are proposed with two handicapped spots. City regulations require nineteen spaces.

Additional lighting will be added to the site along the front edge of the building. Reflectors will minimize the glare of the light on the ByPass. There will also be some building mounted lights so that the entire lot will be illuminated.

Mr. Moulton informed the board that the project had been presented to the Technical Advisory Committee on October 30<sup>th</sup>. The added notes and additional details were incorporated on the plans that were included in the board’s packet. The application was tabled at that time to a special meeting this past Tuesday (November 13<sup>th</sup>). A favorable recommendation was received from both the Traffic/Safety Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee.

Mr. Will commented that the property abuts the railroad tracks and asked if Mr. Moulton had any sense of security between the site and the railroad tracks. Mr. Moulton spoke to the significant change in elevation from the tracks to their site; that in order to protect the vehicles, a fence would have to be installed around the entire lot. Mr. Will stated that he was just letting Mr. Moulton know that the tracks are a traveled way.

Mr. Hopley asked if Mr. Moulton would have any objections labeling the vehicle off-loading limits.

Mr. Sullivan noted that the width of the travel lane is only 12’ and asked if that is a sufficient width for two-way traffic. Mr. Moulton replied that such is only the exit lane.

Ms. Clews inquired as to whether the tractor trailer truck would have to cross over into the other lane. Mr. Moulton responded that two cars were parked in the other lane during the demonstration and the truck was able to make the turn into the site without stopping.

Mr. Jankowski noted that the use is a pretty significant change in use and inquired as to the proposed lighting and what affect it would have on the apartment house on the back side of the property. Mr. Moulton stated that there were no lights on the back side. Mr. Jankowski asked that minimal light pollution to that building be ensured.

The Chair inquired as to dumpster and snow storage location and asked that the plan show the dumpster location with screening on a concrete slab.

Attorney Peter Loughlin addressed the board and submitted an aerial photo of the area in question and assured the board that there would be no light shining outside of the property line. Rick Fecteau, who was seated in the audience, stated that the lights would be "neighborhood sensitive lights".

Mr. Holden inquired about the jersey barriers that were located on land other than that controlled by Attorney Loughlin’s client stating that it was his (Mr. Holden’s) understanding that it would be unreasonable for the board to ask that different traffic flows be considered. It was Attorney Loughlin’s understanding that Attorney Lyons, who represents the abutting property owner, indicated that such considerations would not produce any significant results.

Mr. Sullivan expressed his concern that every parking space would be filled up and the traffic flow would be terrible adding his concern about parking and unloading. Attorney Loughlin informed the board that there can be no parking or unloading in the right-of-way. He understood what Mr. Sullivan was saying, but Attorney Loughlin thought that the issue could be addressed.

Mr. Sullivan then stated that when people come in and take a demonstration ride, the only way to get back to the site would be to go down to Greenleaf Avenue. It was his opinion that the traffic pattern left a lot to be desired and would increase traffic on Greenleaf Avenue.

Attorney John Lyons addressed the board explaining that he represented Jask Realty who is the owner of property upon which State Transportation and the Frank Jones Bingo Hall are located. He concurred that there is no parking allowed in the right-of-way and stated that bingo parking is located on the other side of the jersey barriers.

Discussion ensued regarding the existing signage and whether the signage was permitted with the response being that he (Attorney Lyons) was sure it was as the signage had been there for a long time.

There being no further speakers, the Chair declared the Public Hearing closed and asked the Board’s pleasure.

Mr. Carrier moved for approval as submitted with the following listed and stated stipulations. Mr. Will seconded the motion. The motion passed on an 8-0 vote.

1. That a note be added to the site plan indicating that no parking shall be allowed in the

Route 1 ByPass right-of-way (green space area);

2. That the site plan indicate the location of "no parking" signs as per the direction of the Police and Public Works Departments;
3. That site plan approval shall be contingent upon the satisfactory resolution of the water line issue;
4. That a look be taken at the existing vegetation as one exits the property onto the Route 1 ByPass as far as visibility is concerned;
5. That the site plan indicate exit and entrance arrows as per the direction of the Police and Public Works Departments.

1. That the off-loading area be labeled as such on the site plan
2. That the lighting plan be such that light pollution is minimized on adjacent properties; and,
3. That the dumpster location and screening thereof be indicated on the site plan

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Mr. Holden informed the board that he had met with Ms. Porter who had some interesting information which could be incorporated into the City’s Site Review Regulations. He encouraged the board to allow Ms. Porter to make a ten to fifteen minute presentation at the December meeting.

Mr. Sullivan commented that he would be out of town from December 20^th on. Mr. Coker stated that he would encourage the board to take up light pollution and noise pollution; that one is just as bad as the other and to grant whatever time is needed by Ms. Porter.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

1. Mayor’s Blue Ribbon Committee on Arts & Culture

Mr. Holden stated that an informational report had been provided to the Board and urged them to read it; that a public hearing would be scheduled to allow the committee to present their report and to have it incorporated into the existing Master Plan.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

 

2. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) subcommittee

Mr. Holden announced that the subcommitee would meet on November 30<sup>th</sup> from 12 noon to 5:00 p.m. with pizza being served. Ray Will, John Sullivan, Don Coker, Ken Smith and Noele Clews (time permitting) volunteered to serve on the subcommittee.

Prior to adjourning, the board discussed the letter from the Salvation Army regarding manning the kettles. Mr. Will suggested that members chose one location/one day.

Mr. Holden wished all present a "Happy Thanksgiving".

There being no further business to come before the meeting, adjournment was had at approximately 9:30 p.m.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara B. Driscoll

Acting Secretary for the Planning Board

These minutes were approved by the Planning Board at its February 21, 2002, meeting.