Present: John Badger (Chairman), Eric Botterman (Town Council representative), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Rick McMenimen (Alternate), Justin Normand (Alternate), Janice Rosa, PeterRoy (Vice-Chairman), Val Shelton, Eric Weston, and George Willant
Absent: Adam Schroadter (Alternate)
Chairman Badger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Public Comments
Chairman Badger noted he had asked Tax Assessor Andy Blais to attend tonight’s meeting to answer questions about how property taxes are applied to rental versus condominium residential properties.
Tax Assessor Andy Blais explained tax assessments are based on fair market value regardless of the type of property. Last year’s tax rate was $22.06/$1,000. This rate was applied to all properties last year whether they were owner-occupied or rental properties. He noted if he had to answer which type of property brought more tax income into the Town, he would have to answer condominiums for several reasons: the units are owned, so there is a pride of ownership which keeps the property maintained; condo fees are paid by the owners to help maintain common areas; and condominiums are assessed at a higher market value than apartments. He provided an example using the Bennett Way Apartments and the condominiums on Ladyslipper Drive. The rental units are assessed at $110,000 per unit, and the condominiums are assessed at $225,000 - $250,000 per unit. He added the tax assessment is also based on the market; currently there is limited market for condominiums. Generally speaking, apartments demand more in services than condominiums. He suggested condominiums seem to send fewer children into the school system. Two-thirds of the tax rate goes to the schools. If there is no condominium market, it is better to develop something than nothing, for instance, in the mills. There are collateral advantages to developing the mills, including more demand for goods and services from the existing businesses in town. The redevelopment of the mills could help to revitalize the downtown area. There are three ways to develop a value for land: the cost approach, market approach, and income approach. Towns need a balance of condominiums and apartments. Apartments do pay their fair share of taxes, because of the way they are assessed. He estimated rental units versus condominium units to be balanced at 20-25% each in town.
Vice-Chairman Roy asked if a business’s operating statement is used to determine tax assessment. Tax Assessor Andy Blais answered all efforts are made to obtain the operating statements, but currently there is no law requiring businesses to provide this information. The method he is referring to is the capitalization approach. There are efforts ongoing at the legislative level to require such information to be submitted.
Review and Approval of Minutes: 09/08/09
September 8, 2009
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted on page 2, line 30 it should state Eric Chinburg requested a continuance to October 13, 2009 not September 22, 2009.
Val Shelton noted on page 5, line 25 the proposal had not yet been submitted. On page 6, line 42 the sentence should read the grant application would be filed. Vice Chairman Roy asked about the projected cost noting on Page 7, line 15 it stated the grant would be for $500,000. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the total cost of the project would be $550,000; the grant would fund the project minus a 20% match by the town. The Town’s portion of the cost is $110,000. These figures were changed after the initial discussion because the builder’s cost estimate came in higher than anticipated.
Action
Motion: Vice-Chairman Roy made a motion to accept the minutes from the September 8, 2009 Planning Board meeting as amended.
Seconded: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Regular Business
Applicants: Newmarket Community Development Corp./Fraternal Order of Eagles/Town of Newmarket/Newmarket Mills, LLC
Location: Main Street, Tax Map U2, Lots 365, 366, 367, M1 Zone and Tax Map U2, Lots 56C, 60A, 60B, 61, B1 Zone
Proposal: There will be a public hearing for an application for site plan. The proposal is for the redevelopment of the Newmarket mill buildings to include residential units at each of the two mill buildings, as well as space for public and non-residential uses. Parking will be provided on-site and at lots on the west side of Main Street. The complete application is available to view at the Newmarket Planning Office, 186 Main Street, Newmarket, NH, during regular business hours.
Status: Continued from the September Planning Board meeting.
Chairman Badger noted he would turn this portion of the meeting over to the members of the Technical Review Committee and Town Planner Diane Hardy to discuss the details of the application.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted there have been a number of Technical Review Committee meetings. The preparation by all the members made a great cooperative effort. The Technical Review Committee most recently discussed removing wires, drains being plugged and editing errors that needed to be corrected. He noted the Technical Review Committee had reviewed the application in detail to ensure everything had been addressed adequately. There are a number of administrative things that still need to be tweaked and refined.
Vice-Chairman Roy opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Bill Zecker, of Paczek Investors, expressed his appreciation for the Board’s work, as well as the cooperativeness of the applicant. He noted parking for 53 Main Street, however, has not specifically been addressed yet. The loading docks have been addressed.
Jim Wible, of Rivermoor Landing, noted he had heard a rumor the developer would be renting space to a shoe manufacturer. He asked for the accuracy of this rumor and how traffic would be addressed, because such traffic would impact Rivermoor Landing residents significantly. Eric Chinburg answered his application includes 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of non-residential/commercial space for uses allowed under the zoning ordinance. The situation he is negotiating now is for 5,000 square feet of warehouse, office and retail space. The potential tenant is aware of the parking and traffic constraints. He has been having good faith conversations with the potential tenant prior to receiving approval for site plan from the Planning Board, because the conversations he has had with the Building Inspector suggest this is an allowed use under the current zoning. No lease has been signed, because he had hoped he would receive an approval to the site plan tonight; they are working on a memo of understanding. He is hoping for an approval tonight, so he can set the lease under the current approved plan.
Val Shelton believed renting the space to an allowed use would not trigger site plan approval. This would be a Zoning Administrator issue. She asked if the conditions on the approval would need to be complete prior to obtaining an occupancy permit under the new approved site plan because this project is not phased.
Eric Chinburg explained he is trying to get space rented before winter, so there is a presence in the building. He understands he would need to make the space code compliant.
Janice Rosa liked this idea stating it could not only bring a new tax base to the community, but the business could also bring jobs to Newmarket.
George Willant suggested Eric Chinburg apply for the use under the existing zoning, because the conditions of the approval of the special use permit and site plan would need to be met before an occupancy permit is granted, if applied for as part of the mixed-use development.
Town Planner Diane Hardy agreed all conditions of a site plan approval must be met in order for the mixed-use development with multi-unit housing to proceed. The date the plan is signed is the date the final approval is given. She explained a commercial use may not consist of a change in use which would not need further approval. The Special Use Permit could be in place, but does not need to be used. This situation needs to be reviewed further with the Zoning Administrator for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance as it applies to Mr. Chinburg’s prospective tenant.
Jim Wible noted he was under the impression the old uses are gone as a result of the new approved uses through the Special Use Permit. He was concerned with the traffic volume and flow. He didn’t think there would be any more of this type of use in the mills. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the Special Use Permit allows for a mixed-use development, which would still include commercial uses. Vice-Chairman Roy explained, under the mixed-use scenario, there would be no trucks allowed beyond a certain point, so there will be no interference with Rivermoor residents.
Rick McMenimen, Alternate to the Planning Board, asked about the contracts between the NCDC, Eric Chinburg, Rivermoor Landing and the Town. At one point, there had been discussion about a gate between Rivermoor Landing and the mills at a Technical Review Committee meeting. He asked what the Police Chief’s thoughts were about safety for pedestrians without the skybridge and what the road safety would be with the new configuration at the exit beyond the mills.
Mark Suennen, from Vanasse Hangen Brustlin (VHB) out of Bedford, explained a step-by-step traffic evaluation was done including the projected traffic volume, trucks, vehicles, patterns, and pedestrians. The volume of traffic was not significantly higher considering this type of development. The pedestrian traffic would increase, but the applicant has provided every measure reasonable to enhance the mobility of mid-block crossings.
Rick McMenimen asked about the easements along the traffic lane behind the mills and Rivermoor. Vice-Chairman Roy explained the easements are still in process; there is no final resolution yet.
Rick McMenimen asked if there are provisions to ensure the pollutants do not drain into the river. Vice-Chairman Roy explained the developer has addressed these water quality concerns.
Rick McMenimen asked if the left turn out of the north driveway has been eliminated and if parking spaces along Main Street would be lost as a result. Vice-Chairman Roy answered the left turn has been eliminated out of the north driveway. There may be parking reconfigurations to accommodate the lost parking spaces along Main Street. The mill is an existing site with many challenges. He felt all parties worked hard to create a good plan for development.
Jeff Clifford, from Altus Engineering, explained the plan has been reconfigured so no parking spaces were lost. He doubled the hydrant spot with the crosswalk.
George Willant explained there is an easement for two-way traffic behind Rivermoor Landing. Val Shelton explained there is one-way traffic through Rivermoor Landing relative to the development, but two-way traffic for Rivermoor Landing residents. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the easement plan would clearly define what the easements are.
Rob Phillips explained the parking could be enhanced for the downtown area, because of joint parking. Val Shelton explained the plan before the Planning Board has 20 designated public parking spaces. The applicant has agreed not to post the remaining spaces, but that doesn’t mean signs won’t be posted in the future. Town Planner Diane Hardy added the developer also has the option to lease spaces for overnight parking.
Vice-Chairman Roy closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m.
Town Planner Diane Hardy explained there are still several outstanding administrative items such as sequencing of numbers, adding a Planning Board approval box, noise levels and clarifications. She will send an email to Eric Chinburg and his engineer tomorrow. There are some items that need further discussion such as whether the roof drainage ties into the water quality units.
Phil MacDonald, from Underwood Engineers, explained the applicant has shown a willingness to install storm water treatment units. Due to the location of the development with respect to the river, the number and size of the units were limited. Most sediments will come from the parking lot and paved areas and will drain to the water quality units. The roof run-off is clean compared to the pavement flow. The storm water units’ function is also dependent upon volume of flow. It was his opinion the roof-run off should not be tied into the treatment system.
The Board discussed the roof material of N, N1, J, K, L and M buildings. Jeff Clifford explained during the pre-application meetings with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (DES) this issue was raised. It was determined then the roof water would not need to go through the treatment system. Phil MacDonald explained asphalt roofs can provide some contaminants initially, but are not significant enough to warrant treatment. Jeff Clifford explained there is a combination of rubber and asphalt roofs now; the net impervious surfaces will be decreased. Eric Botterman noted it is standard practice to keep the roof run-off out of the drainage system unless the roof is metal.
Val Shelton noted the Technical Review Committee hoped the debris removed from the maintenance of the culverts and drainage pipes would be removed off-site. Jeff Clifford agreed stating a note would be added to the plan.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted there are several drains that need to be shown as being plugged as discussed during the Technical Review Committee meetings.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted pedestrian crossing symbols in the pavement made sense for calming measures. Mark Suennen noted painting pedestrian crossing symbols on the pavement for advanced warning is acceptable. The research done for traffic calming measures on this suggestion is inconclusive. He did not feel these warning symbols were necessary at this time.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted there are eight crosswalks between the Town Hall and Bay Road; five of them are not marked, three of them are. He suggested because of the paintings on the road, he is alerted to look to both sides of the crosswalk before continuing. Janice Rosa asked if the option of a pedestrian light crossing had been reviewed versus a sky bridge. Mark Suennen suggested a signalized crossing is not recommended at this location. There was a consensus of Board members, applicant’s engineer and town review engineer this was not necessary.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the lighting fixtures provided by the applicant were more contemporary than historic. She asked the applicant to reevaluate the lighting to see if there are more compatible options. She added the lighting plan in general would need to be reviewed. Since the stairway was moved, there may not be enough light shed from the locations of the lights to illuminate the stairs. There are also questions whether street lighting at the northerly entrance is needed. Val Shelton noted the Technical Review Committee discussed three above ground lights that currently exist that are not depicted on the plan. Phil MacDonald understood those lights would be removed by the Town as part of the Main Street renovation. He was not aware of any plans to replace them. He agreed the intersection of Spring Street and Elm Street should be reviewed for lighting. Eric Chinburg noted it was an oversight. There is not a light included at the northerly entrance; a light will be added.
Jeff Clifford noted the lighting engineer had been asked about the lighting for the stairway when it was moved. At that time, it had been determined no additional lighting would be needed; the graphics on the plan have not caught up with the discussed changes. Val Shelton asked if the lighting had been evaluated once the landscaping proposed along the stairway has grown to maturity. Eric Chinburg noted a bollard will be added at the midway landing of the stairway to ensure there is enough light for safety. The bollard will be connected to the outside lighting. He will have the landscaping plans reviewed as well. He was concerned with the location of the white pine in front of the windows and whether they would block the lighting.
Town Planner Diane Hardy asked about the stop sign being relocated at the northerly entrance. Jeff Clifford explained that is a typo. The sign that will be relocated is a “no left turn” sign.
George Willant asked about the site line distance. Mark Suennen explained the applicant’s engineer provided site distance sketches. He discussed the site distance. The updated drawing shows the site line 14-feet back from the travelled way with the same 200-foot site distance. The parking striping plan is to accommodate the site distance. Normally the State requires 400 feet for all season site distance safe lines. He has not seen what the State has required at this location yet. If the State requires 400 feet of site distance, the parking along Main Street on the right hand side could be lost. 200 feet is the minimum acceptable highway standards.
Val Shelton asked about the pedestrian signs and crossings. Mark Suennen explained the sign referenced specifically the sign that is there now. The “Yield to Pedestrians State Law” sign is intended to be placed in the middle of the crosswalk in the street. The Town has it mounted to the light pole on the side of the street, which is not appropriate. He suggested the signs be changed to the caution diamonds with a picture of a pedestrian crossing and include a downward arrow pointing to the crosswalk. Jeff Clifford noted the caution sign may be yellow, because the State only allows the fluorescent signs in more congested areas. Mark Suennen, under the mixed-use scenario, recommended just using the pedestrian signs; nothing guaranteed pedestrians would use the crosswalks.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the consensus of the Technical Review Committee was the two crosswalks to be similar to those already in the downtown area. They are to be 10-feet in width, with just white lines, no thermoplastic paint and no red paint in the center. Jeff Clifford understood other crosswalks downtown did use thermoplastic paint. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the lines could be thermoplastic paint. The lines should be 18-inches with no painting on the inside of the crosswalk. The total width of the crosswalk will be 10-feet.
Eric Botterman noted he is okay with the 200-foot site line distance. If the State required more, he suggested that come back before the Board for further discussion as it may impact the parking along Main Street. Town Planner Diane Hardy suggested a condition of approval could include any loss in parking would need to come back to the Board for review.
Eric Chinburg explained conversations with Rivermoor Landing are ongoing relative to the easement access. He understood the easement needed to be in place and documented prior to plan signing. Rob Phillips agreed stating there will be a plan making use of Rivermoor Landing property for this development. The easement agreement will spell out what is allowed and how it is allowed.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted there is a section in the New Hampshire law relative to vesting. If a project is not vested, it is subject to any changes in the zoning ordinances or subdivision regulations. The Board has been advised by the Local Government Center and legal counsel this needs to be defined. She recommended Active and Substantial Development within 12 months is defined as:
Complete demolition of exterior structures (with the exception of the Eagles Building)
Removal of overhead wiring along Main Street
Removal of concrete pads
Installation of erosion control and sediment control mechanisms
Installation of core drainage system
Completion of rough grading
Completion of improvements within the public right-of-way
Bonding associated with improvements within the public right-of-way
Completion of north driveway entrance site improvements, including base coat and temporary striping
Completion of entrance between N-1 Building and Main Street
Completion of landscaping between N-1 Building and Main Street
Completion of signage work restricting access behind Rivermoor Landing
She went on to add the permanent vesting of rights is granted if the following is completed within four years from the date of approval:
All site work on the easterly side of Main Street and all exterior improvements to building are complete
Vice-Chairman Roy noted the Board would not conclude this application tonight. A special meeting will be scheduled for October 27, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. Throughout this process, the Planning Board and Technical Review Committee have looked at all aspects of the plan and impacts to the neighborhood. Points from the developer, abutters and residents as a whole have been taken into consideration. There has been a great cooperative effort among all parties.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted input from department heads and commissions have been solicited. The water department has agreed to sign off on the revised plans. Fire Chief Rick Malasky has agreed. He has concerns with certain plantings and landscaping around hydrants and the ability of the fire department to access the connections. She read a letter of support from Jennifer Jarvis, Chairman of the Advisory Heritage Commission:
“Thank you for forwarding the Chinburg drawings to the Advisory Heritage Commission. We are very interested in the project and appreciate the opportunity to review and discuss the plans. Mr. Chinburg attended our September 24th meeting at which time he gave us an informal presentation on his current and future plans for the redevelopment of the mills. Mr. Chinburg expressed his intention to follow the same standards that he used in the Bryant Rock Development as he tries to preserve the history and the story of the mill buildings. The Advisory Heritage Commission voted to approve and support the retaining wall plans and we look forward to seeing the architectural plans at a later date. Overall, we appreciate and encourage the applicant’s interest and efforts in historic preservation and are in support of the current plans.”
Eric Weston asked about the artist live/work space and whether the Town would be subsidizing these units. He also asked how eligibility for these units would be determined. Vice-Chairman Roy explained these units would be apartments with a portion set aside for the artist to work and/or display their work. These units are intended to encourage local artisans in the community and to encourage culture within the building. The Town will not be subsidizing these apartments.
Town Planner Diane Hardy asked for the applicant’s concurrence on continuing the public hearing until the October 27, 2009. She added she would like this agreement in writing for the file. Eric Chinburg agreed.
Jim Wible asked about the smart sponges. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted smart sponges are a water quality enhancement to a catch basin. A construction easement would need to be maintained in order for the developer to maintain these units twice per year.
Val Shelton suggested Rivermoor Landing might want to consider adding these to the other catch basins on the property because it will also help with Rivermoor Landing’s run-off into the river. Rob Phillips suggested seeing how the first one worked and Rivermoor Landing would assess the situation from there.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application for Newmarket Community Development Corp./Fraternal Order of Eagles/Town of Newmarket/Newmarket Mills, LLC for public hearing for site plan approval to October 27, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor
Applicants: Wayne & Janice Rosa
Location: 421 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 2, B3 Zone
Proposal: There will be a public hearing for an application for renewal of an excavation permit. The application and plans are available for viewing at the Newmarket Planning Office, 186 Main Street, Newmarket, NH, during regular business hours.
Status: Postponed – will be heard at the November 10, 2009 Planning Board meeting
Chairman Badger explained there has been a formal request to postpone this agenda item until the November 10, 2009 meeting.
Action
Motion: Vice-Chairman Roy made a motion to continue the application for to the November 10, 2009 meeting.
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor – Janice Rosa abstained
Other Business
Janice Rosa noted the Advisory Heritage Commission is holding a meeting on Thursday, October 22, 2009 in the Town Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m. This will be a public input session on the Historic District Ordinance as written.
George Willant noted he would not be present at the November 10, 2009 meeting.
Rick McMenimen explained the Strafford Regional Planning Commission Executive Council met Thursday relative to apartments and housing. He would provide the Board with information. Chairman Badger noted multi-family units are not necessarily rental units. Rick McMenimen noted this document broke it down by housing type. Chairman Badger believed rental units in Newmarket were around 53% of the total housing market.
Adjournment
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:09 p.m.
