Present: John Badger (Chairman), Judith Carr (Town Council representative), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Chester Jablonski, Rick McMenimen (alternate), Janice Rosa, PeterRoy (Vice-Chairman), Adam Schroadter (Alternate), Val Shelton, George Willant
Absent:
Chairman Badger called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Public Comments
Review and Approval of Minutes: January 20, 2009
Rick McMenimen felt there needed to be clarification on page 8, lines 36 through 40. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the new work force housing law applies to all communities. Newmarket has a healthy balance of affordable rental multi-family housing. Rick McMenimen noted it should be clear the new state law regarding work force housing does apply. Val Shelton suggested adding language that Newmarket may already comply.
Val Shelton noted on page 4, line 30 Minor Site Plan Review should be capitalized. On page 5, line 9, “last” should be inserted before “minute rush.” On page 8, line 14 should read “Shoreline Protection Overlay District Ordinance to be more consistent with State laws.” She noted it should be clarified Chairman Badger appointed Rick McMenimen to sit in for Vice-Chairman Roy. Rick McMenimen noted that had been documented on the top of page 2.
Action
Motion: Chester Jablonski made a motion to accept the minutes from January 20, 2009 as amended.
Seconded: George Willant
Vote: In favor: John Badger, Judith Carr, Chester Jablonski,
Janice Rosa, Val Shelton, George Willant
Opposed:
Abstain: Peter Roy
Vice-Chairman Roy noted he abstained from the vote because he had not been present at the meeting.
Regular Business
Public hearing to amend Title III: Land Use Code and Regulations, Chapter VI: Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with RSA 675:6 and RSA 675:7. The proposed amendments are as follows:
Amend Section 1.11 Definitions by adding Historic District Commission, Historic District and Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines.
Add a new paragraph to Section 5: Overlay Zoning Districts titled Section 5.09 Historic Overlay District. The proposed language establishes the “Newmarket Industrial and Commercial Historic District” as a local historic overlay zoning district; creates a Historic District Commission to regulate construction and alterations to structures within said district through the issuance of Certifications of Approval; proposes Historic District Standards and Guidelines and procedures for the review of applications, appeals and enforcement pursuant to RSA 674:45-46, 48-49, 675:6, 676:17, and 677:17. The full text of the proposed zoning amendments is available in the Planning Office of the Newmarket Town Hall during normal business hours, and online at www.newmarketnh.gov.
Chairman Badger noted this is a public hearing on the draft Historic District Ordinance. The Town Council had asked the Planning Board to draft a Historic District Ordinance and present it to the Council with a recommendation. He understood there would be different viewpoints on the establishment of this district, but suggested this would not be the venue for such opinions. The purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to hear resident and business owner concerns on specific provisions provided within the draft ordinance. He suggested opinions whether the Historic District Ordinance should be put into effect would be best heard at the Town Council during the public hearing they would hold. He also suggested concerned citizens could contact their Council representatives to express concerns or opinions.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted there were copies of the ordinance available for the public, as well as copies of the map showing the proposed boundaries of the historic district. There were also informational brochures from the National Park Service on the benefits of a local historic district. She explained the purpose of tonight’s public hearing was to listen to concerns, answer questions, encourage citizen participation, solicit input, and modify the proposed ordinance as necessary. The Advisory Heritage Commission had presented the Town Council with a proposal to create a Historic District Commission in October 2008. The Town Council asked the Planning Board to make a recommendation on the formation of a Historic District Ordinance. In response to Town Council directive, the Planning Board has held two public work sessions with members of the downtown business association, property and business owners, and the Advisory Heritage Commission. The Planning Board has created proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The goal of the Planning Board is to balance the interest of downtown businesses, property owners, advocates for historic preservation and other stakeholders; allow for reasonable opportunities for adaptive re-use of historic buildings and development within the district; and respect the spirit of Newmarket’s Master Plan which recommends “developing and implementing zoning and site plan regulations that preserve and protect the historic nature of Newmarket.” The proposed ordinance would create a new Historic Overlay District, which is based on the “Newmarket Industrial and Commercial Historic District,” as listed on the National Register of Historic Places in December 1980. She outlined the proposed boundaries of the Historic Overlay District explaining the purpose of the district is to protect and preserve cultural resources, particular structures and buildings of historic, architectural and community value; to promote a vibrant downtown to support new and existing businesses; conserve property values; foster economic development and revitalization; and strengthen and expand the local economy and business community. The proposed ordinance would help instill an appreciation of the Town’s cultural heritage and civic beauty for the education, pleasure and general welfare of the community. The proposed Historic District Commission would be made up of seven members and three alternate members consisting of two members who operate a business or own commercial property within the district, two members who reside in or own residential property within the district, one member from the Advisory Heritage Commission, one member of the Town Council and one representative at large. Members of the Historic District Commission should have expertise or interest in historic preservation, architecture, real estate brokerage or appraisal and/or construction trades.
The Historic District Commission will be responsible for administering the Historic District Ordinance including regulating construction, alterations, repairs, moving, demolition and use of property within the district. The Historic District Commission would review applications, conduct public hearings and issue Certificates of Approval or Notices of Disapproval. The Historic District Commission will maintain an inventory of historic places, provide an annual report to the Town Council, adopt rules of procedure and regulations and perform other duties as set forth in RSA 674:46-a. The Historic District Commission shall use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67) until the Commission adopts its own regulations. There are provisions for appeals, exemptions, enforcement and penalties. Diane Hardy explained the Building Official could supercede the ordinance in emergency situations, allowing for repairs prior to Historic District Commission Certification of Approval if necessary for public safety reasons.
Chairman Badger opened the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Barbara Briggs, of 20 Chapel Street, noted she had several concerns with proposing another layer of regulations for this district. She was not clear how this would benefit the residents of Newmarket. She noted the Master Plan is a guideline, not a rule book, and does not have to be followed. She felt allowing the Historic District Commission to abide by the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation until they created their own guidelines was poor planning. She felt it was important to, at minimum, have the regulations in hand prior to the adoption of the Historic District Commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the State RSAs empower the Historic District Commission to create their own guidelines.
Barbara Briggs referenced page 6, item 1 of the draft Historic District Ordinance: “Requesting reports and recommendations regarding the feasibility of the applicant’s proposal.” She asked who would do this work. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Historic District Commission would request the information.
Barbara Briggs noted it was not clearly stated these guidelines would specifically relate to the exterior of the buildings. Chairman Badger agreed stating the Planning Board had also picked up on that.
Barbara Briggs noted she had attended an Advisory Heritage Commission meeting on October 23, 2008, where there was discussion about granite steps on a lot on Exeter Road being removed and replaced with wooden stairs. The steps had been removed, because of deterioration. She did not feel the steps were deteriorating. She felt the Advisory Heritage Commission has made whimsical decisions. She would bring her concerns to the Town Council. She was against the proposed ordinance as written.
Chairman Badger noted the Town Council would also hold a public hearing before deciding upon adopting the ordinance. He encouraged residents to bring their concerns and comments to the Town Council, as well.
Richard Gilbert, of 16 Chapel Street, stated he is opposed to any ordinance that dictates what he is able to do with his property. He has lived in his house for 40 years and has kept his property maintained. He did not see any benefit in having a Commission telling him what he can and cannot do with his property. The presentation suggests this ordinance and commission is to preserve the historic nature of the downtown area. He felt the Town had destroyed that historic nature when it did the downtown construction. He has lived in Town for 75 years and has never seen wide sidewalks or lampposts. He asked what was historic about the streetscape now. He did not feel the ordinance was necessary.
Bob Adamcheck noted he lived in Durham, but owned property in the proposed district. As a former member of the Board who helped create architectural review regulations, he was in favor of keeping the Advisory Heritage Commission as it is in effect today. He did not feel the ordinance was ready yet. He was in favor of the concept, but had concerns about using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. He felt these standards were good to apply to a place like Strawberry Bank, but not for a town like Newmarket, where the commercial downtown would be changing. He has used a historic matching grant for renovations he was completing on his barn; he found these standards to be very restrictive. He felt it was premature to approve the ordinance before guidelines were in place.
Phil LePage, Chairman of the Advisory Heritage Commission, noted he had been before the Town Council and the Planning Board stating the most successful downtowns are those located in historic districts. He congratulated the Planning Board on the makeup of the Commission feeling the mix provided would guarantee anyone in or around the district would be protected. He is in favor of the public investments made to the downtown. This ordinance would further ensure that revitalization effort would be protected, so there are no chain businesses like Burger King being constructed where the community church is located. He added the Advisory Heritage Commission had not weighed in on the granite steps that were mentioned earlier. The Building Inspector approved that permit. He, agreed, the steps could have been restored.
Gerry O’Connell, of 26 Grant Road, noted he had the opportunity to receive more feedback from the Newmarket Business Association members. He had many comments to make on behalf of the members. He noted the original makeup of the Commission did not include a Town Councilor. He asked what the change was for. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained according to the RSAs a Town Council representative must be on the Commission. George Willant noted the RSA was 673:4; he read the RSA and provided a copy to Gerry O’Connell. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the local governing body in Newmarket is the Town Council.
Gerry O’Connell referenced the statement that was made indicating the Board is looking for specific comments, as opposed to general opinions, regarding the ordinance. He stated this makes some residents fearful they will not have another opportunity to speak on the ordinance. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained once the draft ordinance is presented to the Town Council and the Town Council would hold a public hearing as required by the Newmarket Town Charter. There would be a first reading of the ordinance, a second reading of the ordinance and a public hearing. The Town Council could then vote whether to adopt the ordinance. Chairman Badger noted the Planning Board’s intent is to present the best possible ordinance to the Town Council. There have been a number of meetings, all of which were public, as well as specific public hearings. Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact Town Council representatives with their concerns.
Gerry O’Connell noted several members of the Newmarket Business Association had reviewed the proposed ordinance and provided comments. He reviewed the comments provided, starting with the beginning of the document. He noted Section 1.11 Definitions should be eliminated; a Historic District Commission is not necessary, because the Planning Board has the authority under RSA 674:46 to administer this district. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted, in order for the Historic District Commission to be created, the Town Council must adopt the Historic District Ordinance and create the Historic District Commission. The Planning Board does not have the same authority the Historic District Commission would have. The Town is authorized by State law to adopt a Historic District and create a Historic District Commission to regulate alterations to buildings. Municipalities are only empowered to do what State law allows. In order to do what is allowed by the State, the Town must adopt the ordinance.
Adam Schroadter asked if, without the ordinance, the Planning Board would be able to make the decisions the Historic District Commission is proposed to have the authority to make. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Planning Board does not have the same authority to make specific decisions about the exterior architectural details of a building as a Historic District Commission does.
Gerry O’Connell noted the basic theme of the comments he received from the Newmarket Business Association is the Planning Board already has the authority to make the decisions the proposed Historic District Commission will make.
Val Shelton noted Newmarket was incorporated in 1727. She believed that RSA 674:46 only refers to unincorporated towns. Gerry O’Connell asked why the ordinance relates to this RSA, if it does not apply. It was noted that this would be researched Chairman Badger explained the Planning Board will not become the Historic District Commission. Gerry O’Connell agreed, stating the Town has the ability to put these regulations in place already. He recommended keeping the Advisory Heritage Commission opposed to creating a new Historic District Commission with regulatory powers. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the Advisory Heritage Commission is strictly advisory. There are provisions that allow the Advisory Heritage Commission to provide comments to the Planning Board during site plan review, but Planning Board site plan review powers relate to only to multi-family developments with over three units, and commercial and industrial developments. The Planning Board does not have the same authority, as a Historic District Commission does, to make specific requests on the exterior of the individual buildings, which do not fall under the site plan review jurisdiction.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted the reference to the RSA should be corrected if it is incorrect.
Gerry O’Connell noted, in response to Historic District Design Standards and Guidelines, the comments he received were that section should be deleted, as additional rules of procedure and regulations were not necessary. The feeling was the Planning Board could add and adopt additional regulations, if needed. The comments received also noted the Overlay District Boundaries should be removed.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted this ordinance would go through the same process for amendment as any other zoning ordinance. The Town Council would vote to adopt amendments after a public hearing. The Town Council charged the Planning Board with creating this ordinance and making a recommendation to the Town Council. The process for adoption and amendment to a historic district is outlined in State RSA 675.
Gerry O’Connell noted, when the Newmarket Industrial and Commercial Historic District was created and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in December 1980, there had been 100% approval of property owners within the district. He recommended polling property owners within the district again and amending the ordinance only if 100% of the property owners agreed. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she did not believe 100% approval of property owners within the district was required in order to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. She suggested property owners may have been polled at the time as a courtesy.
Mike Provost, of 16 Beech Street, explained he had been involved in the Newmarket Service Club, when this process began. The process of instituting a National Register Historic District is the district first needs to be delineated, then nominated and accepted by the New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources. The New Hampshire Division of Historic Resources then brings the nomination forward to the Secretary of the Interior. At that time, every property owner within the district was sent, by registered mail, a listing of their property and a description of whether the property was contributing or non-contributing to the character of the district. At this time, they were also given the opportunity to vote whether to be part of the district; the vote was determined by a majority rule, a 100% agreement was not required. Had there been a large number of disagreeing votes, the district would not have become a reality.
Gerry O’Connell suggested asking property owners their opinion this time, as well. He went on to explain the comments he received also recommended deleting C1 under Section 5.09 Historic Overlay District which states: “Pursuant to RSA 674:46, the Town is empowered to regulate the construction, alteration, repair, moving, demolition or use of structures and places within an established Historic District” stating this statement confirms the Planning Board has this authority. C2 relating to membership of the Historic District Commission should also be deleted as the Planning Board is already formed. He recommended if the Historic District Commission is to be formed, rather than having a Town Council representative, a Planning Board representative serve on the Commission. He questioned who would determine the expertise of the applicants and noted interest would be implied by the submission of an application. C3 relating to alternate members should be deleted.
Adam Schroadter noted it has been established the Planning Board does not have the authority; he asked whether the Zoning Board of Adjustment would have the authority. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Zoning Board of Adjustment deals just with appeals to administrative decisions, variances and special exceptions.
Gerry O’Connell noted C4 relating to Election of Officers and C5 relating to Meetings and Records have the same comments; the Planning Board has this authority. In C6 relating to Inventory of Historic Properties and C7 relating to Annual Report, Historic District Commission should be changed to Advisory Heritage Commission. In C8 relating to Notice to Owners and Prospective Buyers, Historic District Commission should be changed to Advisory Heritage Commission and contact information should be provided to property owners on obtaining grants and funding for projects. CLG status is not necessary to apply for these funds. Under D relating to Certification of Approval Required it states: “No building, structure or addition shall be erected, restored, moved, demolished or altered within the Historic Overlay District.” One comment provided suggested the word altered should be deleted because altered could be a simple minor repair. Historic District Commission should also be changed to Planning Board. Section E relating to Historic District Standards and Guidelines should be deleted as the Planning Board is already empowered to act and if necessary, add additional regulations. The Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation seem to be very strict. If these guidelines do not need to be abided by, creating a commission to have the power to administer rules and regulations without knowing what those rules and regulations are is irresponsible. The question was asked why adopt temporary rules. He questioned E1 which states: “A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics. . .” asking how each property would be used for its historic purpose. Chairman Badger noted these are guidelines to be used in the interim.
Gerry O’Connell noted under E6, “shall” should be replaced with “should be.” He referenced F2 relating to Review of Applications asking who would pay for the advice sought from “professional, educational, cultural, or other groups as deemed necessary for determination of a reasonable decision.” Town Planner Diane Hardy suggested that was a good question and she did not yet have the answer, but would research it for the Board.
Gerry O’Connell referenced Section G relating to Certificate of Approval/Notice of Disapproval feeling 45 days with a public hearing seemed inappropriate, as a building permit is difficult to obtain within 45 days. He felt this period of time was too long for certain projects and too short for others. He felt 45 days was extreme. He asked if the Town really needed another board. There are so many boards and committees in town struggling to fill vacancies. This would not only add another commission, but also another process to go through including meetings and public hearings. The Planning Board is fully capable of administering zoning ordinances; he questioned why this ordinance was being treated differently. In today’s economy, people are looking at ways to streamline and minimize the use of resources. By creating a Historic District Commission when the Planning Board already has the authority to administer the ordinance would be a waste of time, money and resources. He thanked the Planning Board for allowing him to provide the comments and feedback he had received.
Mike Provost congratulated the Board on the proposed ordinance. The makeup of the Commission and the way the ordinance has been proposed would enable the Town to make decisions that would suit the uniqueness of Newmarket’s downtown. He noted he has worked with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and is quite familiar with them. The first paragraph of the guidelines overrides the rest of the guidelines. He referenced the last sentence: “The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.” He did not feel these guidelines are indiscriminately applied. He felt residents enjoy the community as it is today and felt it was important to preserve the community for future generations to enjoy the same features.
Tracey Bogasz noted she and her husband owned property within the district. She questioned Section J relating to Maintenance or Destruction of Unsafe Structures asking if there was vandalism or damage done to her building, would she need to get notice in writing from the Building Inspector this was a safety hazard before being able to make repairs. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted there are provisions which would allow emergency repairs. Tracey Bogasz noted the way the paragraph is written, it is implied written authority must be granted prior to any changes. She asked for the paragraph to include protective measures to ensure property owners would be able to make emergency repairs. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the intent is the Building Inspector would be able to make that decision and would notify the Historic District Commission of the authorization in writing at his earliest convenience. Tracey Bogasz asked if as a business owner, she would be able to make the necessary repairs and then have the Building Inspector certify the repairs after they were complete. Town Planner Diane Hardy stated that was
intent and that she would clarify this section.
Barbara Briggs asked for clarification of RSA 674:46 noting it stated: “For the purpose of this subdivision, the local legislative body of any city, town, or county in which there are located unincorporated towns or unorganized places shall have the authority, by ordinance, to establish, change, lay out and define historic districts. Within the district, the municipality is empowered to regulate the construction, alteration, repair, moving, demolition or use of such structures and places.” She felt Newmarket has the power to do the things listed within this RSA. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the RSA states “shall have the authority by ordinance” which indicates an ordinance needs to be adopted in order to have the authorization. “Within the district, the municipality is empowered to regulate the construction, alteration, repair, moving, and demolition.” The authorization is enabled by the state RSA’s and is implemented at the local level by the adoption of an ordinance. The first sentence states an ordinance must be adopted; once the ordinance is adopted, the municipality is then empowered to act.
Chairman Badger closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Chairman Badger thanked everyone for their participation stating the Board appreciated hearing the input provided. He encouraged residents to speak to Town Council representatives and attend the Town Council public hearing on the ordinance.
Mike Provost – SRPC Application for designation of Route 108 as Federal Scenic Highway/Byway
Mike Provost, of 16 Beech Street, noted he has been working with the Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) on preparing an application for a proposed scenic highway and byway for Route 108 and Route 4. He provided a map of the proposed route which would begin in Exeter, continue into Rollinsford and could conceivably travel into Maine. The proposal is for a mills and water powered scenic byway. There are no more than four scenic byways within the state. The process requires an application be prepared documenting the historic importance of the byway. This route would be anchored in Exeter with the American Independence Museum, connecting to Route 108 in Newfields, traveling through Newmarket, Dover and Rollinsford. This is one of the first communities that have been approached. He provided copies of the federal regulations that must be met once the state regulations have been met. A corridor management team made up of representatives from each community must be established. This would not affect proposed bike routes. This would bring a federal designation and opportunity for funds to promote the district as an economic development tool to entice people to the area. It can also provide infrastructure, such as pull overs, rest areas, picnic areas and signage for these areas. At this time, the intent is to get the information out there and obtain support from the communities.
Vice-Chairman Roy asked what responsibility the Town would have if this occurred. Mike Provost explained there would be a representative from the Town appointed to the management team to develop a corridor management plan. Billboards are not favored, so determining which types of signs can be established along the routes is important. Most of Route 108, except the golf course, is fully developed. The management plan, at this time, would follow the zoning ordinance and land use regulations in place. No funding is required by the community. The application is being prepared by the SRPC within their budget. The date for submission of the application is June 1, 2009. Representatives from the SRPC will be meeting with the Durham Historic District Commission next week. He will approach the Town Council, Advisory Heritage Commission and Newmarket Community Development Corporation.
Chester Jablonski asked what this would do in terms of widening the road. Mike Provost noted this would not do anything towards widening the road. The intent is to maintain the road in the context it is currently in. The proposed bike route would not be affected. This would ensure surrounding communities are working together to promote cooperation. Restaurants, retail stores, businesses, and attractions can benefit by a designated scenic highway/byway. The route would be listed and promoted on a federal level once it gets through state acceptance.
Janice Rosa asked how it would affect future development of Route 108. She asked if it would restrict development possibilities. Mike Provost noted anything that strict under state and federal law would constitute taking of property. What this designation would do is take into consideration the appearance of the development from the road. There may be certain setbacks recommended to ensure the development looks like it is supposed to be there.
Mike Provost noted he is looking for an indication of support and interest in participation in the process. He would provide contact information as to who a letter can be forwarded to. Bill Proulx from SRPC is the person in charge of this application process.
Chester Jablonski asked if there was anything going on in regards to modifying Route 108. Mike Provost noted there is nothing as part of this process that would modify Route 108. At this time, the state proposed bike path would be the only modifications to the road. Chester Jablonski noted the section of Route 108 towards Newfields is dangerous. Mike Provost noted the bike project would help to address that by providing a corridor for bicycles and pedestrians. This designation would have communities looking at the road as a cohesive project so all parts are treated the same. He referenced the Route 1-A scenic highway/byway project on the coast, as well as the Connecticut River Valley project, which included Vermont as well as New Hampshire. They have done a nice job promoting the area as a economic development tool. The later designated byway has mills or manufacturing sites along the river; thus creating a story of the industrial revolution of New Hampshire.
Chairman Badger asked if this would restrict what the Town is able to do with the road in the future. Mike Provost noted it would not restrict future development. The management plan would be developed by representatives of impacted communities. Route 108 would remain a state highway. He referenced the “National Heritage Corridors” located in the Mid-Atlantic states, which are used for economic development, improving the roadways and stimulating tourism. This project is much like that, but on a smaller scale.
Adam Schroadter asked how the signage and development would be enforced. Mike Provost noted that would be established and enforced through the corridor management plan. There are federal guidelines for signage. Also, the Town’s own ordinances would be part of that process.
Public hearing for an application for Lot Line Adjustment and Subdivision
Applicants/Location: Bosinger 2006 Family Trust-Eliot & Sandra Bosinger, Trustees at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9/David & Linda Dodds & Jacqueline Berg at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6, R1 Zone.
Proposal: The proposal is to revise the lot line between Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9 and Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6 and subsequently create a six lot subdivision on the newly created Lot 57-9. Lot 57-9 will increase in size from 10.009 acres to 14.730 acres, while Lot 57-6 will decrease in size from 17.47 +/- acres to 12.75 +/- acres. Lot 57-9 will then be subdivided into six conforming lots. The full application is available to view at the Newmarket Planning Office, 186 Main Street, during business hours.
Bill Doucet, from Doucet Survey, explained this application is for a lot line revision and subdivision. This application was before the Board about a year ago; there had been a site walk and technical review committee set up. The complication was one of the owners had been in Russia, so it had taken some time to get the documents finalized. There had also been an old woods road running through the property, which after some research it was discovered, there were potential rights of others to that road. The application was withdrawn for those reasons. The
applicant petitioned the court to quiet the title. The result is the property is now free from any outside claims. This is basically the same application filed a year or so ago. He showed the existing lot line explaining the odd configuration resulting from a proposed cul-de-sac that had never been created. The lot line revision is a result of balancing seller and buyer needs. The seller needs to keep as much land as possible, because it is unclear what the land will be used for in the future, while the buyer needs enough land to create the subdivision. This application has been calculated carefully to ensure the six lots would conform as a 900-foot road is all that can be built due to the presence of wetlands. Lot 57-9 is as small as it can be, while still meeting zoning requirements and having the capacity to create six lots with enough upland to conform.
Town Planner Diane Hardy asked if it was intended to build on the back of the lot. Bill Doucet noted he would be willing to speak about possible deed restrictions, but did not feel the lot can be accessed.
Val Shelton asked if the Board needed to deal with the two situations separately. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Board should review the application requests together, but make two separate motions for decision.
Bill Doucet explained the six lot subdivision has been calculated very carefully. Newmarket allows up to 25% of the lot to consist of Hydric B soils. In this case, up to ½ acre can be wetlands. He explained each lot is at least 2 acres in size and meets this requirement. There is a proposed 900-foot road to access the lots. The main focus of the site walk one year ago was on proposed lot 2, where it was difficult to envision the layout of a home site. This application shows the potential house site and land area for a yard. On the site walk, he illustrated that this as a suitable house site. He noted the applicant is requesting a few waivers: a reduction in road width from a twelve foot lane to a ten foot lane; a waiver from a streetlight requirement; and a waiver from the requirement of providing sidewalks.
Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the Board should have received a copy of her review memo. There is a slight boundary shift in this plan, as opposed to the plan proposed last year. The application had required a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, because the lot had not conformed to frontage requirements. She has reviewed this modification with Code Enforcement Officer Dan Vincent; the proposal is consistent with what had been approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. She has reviewed the application for completeness and found it to be substantially complete. She had checked the frontage of a couple of the lots and referenced a correction concerning an EPA notice of intent permit. She recommended acceptance of the plan subject to a technical review of wetlands impacts by a qualified wetlands scientist to advise the Planning Board on measures to be taken during construction and development to minimize and/or mitigate any wetlands impacts and to have the application reviewed by Farwell Engineering Services, LLC with the advance payment of the engineering and wetland review fee of $6,750 prior to scheduling the subdivision for review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Val Shelton asked if this application would be subject to Section 5.03F relating to the crossing of wetlands and whether this application would need a Special Use Permit. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the application would need a Special Use Permit for that reason, but had not been included with the request.
Adam Schroadter asked if Lot 57-6 would be landlocked after this lot line adjustment and subdivision. Bill Doucet noted that lot would not be landlocked; they are separate parcels today and the right to access would remain.
Town Planner Diane Hardy recommended the Board not take action on the application tonight, because of the adjustment. She wanted to ensure the application met the upland requirements and suggested this may be subject to change based on the review of what the wetland scientist sees in the field.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application for boundary line adjustment as requested by Bosinger 2006 Family Trust-Eliot & Sandra Bosinger, Trustees at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9/David & Linda Dodds & Jacqueline Berg at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6, R1 Zone. The proposal is to revise the lot line between Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9 and Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6. Lot 57-9 will increase in size from 10.009 acres to 14.730 acres, while Lot 57-6 will decrease in size from 17.47 +/- acres to 12.75 +/- acres. This application is subject to site plan review.
Seconded: Chester Jablonski
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Badger noted Town Planner Diane Hardy had recommended the application be accepted for technical review, subject to reviews by a wetlands scientist and the Town’s consulting engineer.
Bill Doucet noted he had asked the Planning Department to obtain competitive price comparisons on review engineers. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she had obtained other quotes and continues to recommend the Planning Board use Farwell Engineering as the review engineer for this application. She had entertained a proposal from Appledore Engineering, which was quoted less than Tobin Farwell’s proposal, but felt the level of effort provided by Tobin Farwell was greater than Appledore Engineering’s proposal. She estimated for similar services, Tobin Farwell would be $90 per hour and Appledore Engineering would be $110 per hour. She recommended the Board remain with Farwell Engineering.
Bill Doucet noted there had been a third price. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted a firm had expressed interest, but had not submitted a formal quote. She has spoken with that engineer who felt the pricing was appropriate for the level of effort that would be displayed. Bill Doucet questioned the price quoted by Tobin Farwell noting it would not take a week and a half to complete the review of this application. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the quote included a contingency. There have been a few instances where the review process took longer than expected and ran over in cost; to avoid that situation, a contingency has been built in to Tobin’s proposal.
Bill Doucet questioned the price of review services noting the review services cost was nearly what the design cost was. He did not feel the review process would generate the hours to support the fee being quoted for a simple subdivision. He noted Tobin Farwell’s proposed cost was $6,800 which seemed out of line. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Appledore Engineering cost had been a fixed cost of $3,800, whereas Tobin’s proposal was an amount not to exceed type contract. Chairman Badger noted the Board would use Tobin Farwell as the review engineer for this application.
Rick McMenimen referenced page 2 of Town Planner Diane Hardy’s recommendations noting the request for verification of road frontage for two lots. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she had spoken with the applicant’s engineer; he had indicated he would check on that frontage. The figures didn’t seem to add up.
Chairman Badger noted Town Planner Diane Hardy recommended accepting the application for minor site plan review subject to technical review of the wetlands impact and review of the application by Tobin Farwell.
Janice Rosa noted the applicant pays for the review engineer services and felt the applicant’s opinion should weigh in on the decision on who is used. Val Shelton asked how the Board determines which engineer to use. She asked if the applicant had the right to bring in a second engineer for purposes of review. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Planning Board has the right to bring in the review engineer. The Board had sought proposals a few years ago from a number of firms. George Willant noted the Planning Board has historically used three to four firms based on the kind of application before them. Certain engineers could provide expertise in specific areas. Tobin Farwell has historically been used for subdivisions. Val Shelton asked if there were requirements to get bids per application. George Willant answered there were no requirements to that.
Chairman Badger noted the review engineer that is being recommended is familiar with the Town and the Town’s requirements. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the procuring engineering services and architectural services is not the same as procuring construction bids. It is not based on the lowest bid for services. There is an RSA stating engineers and architects are to be hired based on their qualifications and not on price. George Willant suggested the Board should obtain proposals for services periodically. Tobin Farwell had become one of several engineers the Board used. The last time the Board sought proposals was a number of years ago. The Board should have a pool of review engineers. He suggested asking Town Planner Diane Hardy to solicit bids and make the determination based on qualifications. He did not feel it would be helpful to seek bids for each application.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted Tobin Farwell did not have high overhead, as a lot of other firms do. He understands the town’s process and what is expected by the Board. George Willant suggested the Board needs several review engineers, in case there is a conflict on a particular project. Chairman Badger suggested he and Town Planner Diane Hardy would take that project on.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the application for major subdivision be accepted for technical review, subject to:
A technical review of wetlands impacts by a qualified wetlands scientist to advise the Planning Board on measures to be taken during construction and development to minimize and/or mitigate any wetlands impacts.
The review of the application by Farwell Engineering Services, LLC and advance payment of the engineering review fee of $6,750 prior to scheduling the subdivision for review by the Technical Review Committee (TRC).
Seconded: Chester Jablonski
Vice-Chairman Roy wanted to make sure it was clear the quote includes the wetlands scientist fee.
Janice Rosa amended her motion to clarify the quote for engineering services for $6,750 includes the wetland review services. Chester Jablonski seconded the amendment.
Val Shelton asked if the quote is a “not to exceed” amount. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the quote is a “not to exceed” unless another iteration of plans is needed. Bill Doucet questioned whether the quote was not to exceed, as it did not specifically state that. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she would make sure the quote is a not to exceed amount. She will ask Tobin Farwell include specific language to that point in the contract.
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Badger opened the public hearing at 9:01 p.m.
Bruce Fecteau, of 244 Ash Swamp Road, noted he lives across from the proposed road. His concerns have not changed from what they were last year, when this proposal was presented. He suggested the original proposal had been for three or four lots. This proposal has created lot line adjustments to go around wetlands in order to create an additional three house lots. This would create more traffic than originally anticipated. He had expected this land to be developed at some point and was prepared for the extra traffic. He questioned the reduction in road width, stating his concern for vehicles and emergency access. He noted he would like protection from the traffic. He appreciated the recommendation there be no street light, as his living room and bedroom is directly across the street. He recalled the cul-de-sac plan noting the plan had not been complete, as the family did not want to go into full development. The father had sold off two lots to help the family financially. The Planning Board had said no to three or four house lots off that cul-de-sac. They had wanted to see a plan for the entire parcel. That was not something generally required at the time, and the family withdrew the whole application. He understood in order to make the development affordable additional house lots were being added, but asked that he have some protection from the additional traffic.
Chairman Badger closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m.
Chairman Badger suggested the Board set up a Technical Review Committee.
Bruce Fecteau asked if another site walk would be performed as there were some new faces on the Board. Chairman Badger felt another site walk would be a good idea.
Val Shelton, Vice-Chairman Roy and Chairman Badger volunteered for the technical review committee.
Chester Jablonski asked what the advantage would be to performing another site walk. Val Shelton noted the people who had not had a chance to view the property would have an opportunity to see it. Town Planner Diane Hardy recommended postponing the site walk for a few weeks to allow the snow to melt so the Board could see the wet areas. Bill Doucet recommended waiting until the engineer’s review was back. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted it would be problematic trying to see the wetlands through the snow. Val Shelton did not feel she needed to physically see the wetlands. She would be comfortable looking at the engineered plans which would show the wetlands. Chester Jablonski noted, when he had walked the property, he had noticed a lot of wetlands. He anticipated the wetlands scientist wanting to take soil samples.
Vice-Chairman Roy suggested getting the engineering review results and wetlands analysis and then perform the site walk. Chairman Badger agreed noting the Technical Review Committee will meet and the site walk will be scheduled when the engineering review comes back.
Bruce Fecteau asked to be notified when the site walk is scheduled, so he can attend. Chairman Badger noted the site walk would be scheduled at a public meeting and would be publicly noticed.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the subdivision requested by Bosinger 2006 Family Trust-Eliot & Sandra Bosinger Trustees at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9/David & Linda Dodds & Jacqueline Berg at Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6, R1 Zone. The proposal is to revise the lot line between Tax Map R4, Lot 57-9 and Tax Map R4, Lot 57-6 and subsequently create a six lot subdivision on the newly created Lot 57-9. Lot 57-9 will increase in size from 10.009 acres to 14.730 acres, while Lot 57-6 will decrease in size from 17.47 +/- acres to 12.75 +/- acres. Lot 57-9 will then be subdivided into six conforming lots. This application will be continued to the March Planning Board meeting.
Seconded: Judith Carr
George Willant noted the application needs to be continued to a date certain. Chairman Badger noted the next Planning Board meeting will be March 17, 2009. (Meeting has been postponed to March 24, 2009)
Janice Rosa amended her motion to indicate the next Planning Board meeting will be held March 17, 2009. Judith Carr seconded the amendment.
Chairman Badger noted he would not be available for the March meeting. Rick McMenimen noted he also would not be available.
Vote: All in favor
Adoption of Rules of Procedure
Chairman Badger noted all Planning Board members have had the opportunity to review the second draft of the Rules of Procedure dated February 17, 2009. Town Planner Diane Hardy had received further changes and input via email; these changes should be incorporated. Val Shelton noted the changes were not incorporated in this draft. Town Planner Diane Hardy agreed noting the changes provided via email have not been incorporated. Val Shelton asked if the changes could be made so the Board could vote on the amended draft tonight.
Val Shelton noted on page 1 under the Members section, “a” should be deleted at the end of the paragraph. Under Alternates, there should be a period after regular members. “The voting privileges of alternates shall be restricted unless the Chair designates the alternate as a voting member” should be added. Adverse weather conditions should be added as a reason for the Chair to be able to cancel a meeting. She suggested deleting the Post Office as a required notification spot for cancelled meetings. On page 3, under minutes the names of voting members should be deleted as the Board does not require roll call for each vote. On page 5, under Non-Public Session, it should be clearly noted consultations with legal counsel are not considered public meetings. She recommended replacing bylaws with Rules of Procedure throughout the document for consistency. She also suggested the use of Chair versus Chairman throughout the document for consistency.
Action
Motion: Judith Carr made a motion to adopt the Newmarket Planning Board Rules of Procedure as amended.
Seconded: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Other Business
Chairman Badger noted the Planning Board had heard from the public tonight on the proposal for the Historic District Ordinance and Historic District Commission. He asked the Board if they felt there were substantial revisions that needed to be made.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted the particular section of RSA 674:46 needs to be clarified due to the questions raised tonight. Town Planner Diane Hardy felt that had been clarified during the meeting. It had been explained the Town needs to adopt an ordinance in order to have the authority to enforce these regulations.
Adam Schroadter asked about the unincorporated Town questions. Val Shelton noted she had misread that part and the incorporated part only applies to that particular section and sentence.
Chairman Badger noted Gerry O’Connell had raised the question as to whether the Planning Board already had the authority to enforce the regulations. He noted whether the Planning Board does or does not have the authority, this is not what the ordinance was intended for.
Adam Schroadter asked whether there were zoning ordinances that could be adopted to include the standards for the Historic Overlay District for people to adhere to rather than needing to creating a Historic District Commission. Val Shelton felt Adam Schroadter was asking who would develop the rules and regulations. Chairman Badger suggested the Historic District Commission would develop the rules and regulations. Adam Schroadter noted Gerry O’Connell had suggested the Town could create rules and regulations that would have the same intent as the goals of the commission without the creation of the Historic District Commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the RSAs are clear in stating the Historic District Commission needs to be formed in order for the Town to be empowered to enforce and administer the Historic District Ordinance. The Planning Board is not authorized to administer the ordinance.
Val Shelton noted many of the concerns of the people who spoke against the Historic Overlay District Ordinance were relative to adopting the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation. She felt the point that may need to be clarified is under the RSA it states the Historic District Commission may adopt and amend regulations. She asked if that would prohibit the Planning Board from within this ordinance, specifying the Historic District Commission will adopt those regulations, from adopting them as part of the ordinance. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted state law empowers the Historic District Commission to adopt their own regulations.
Chester Jablonski noted the Historic District Commission would have to send the proposed rules and regulations to the Town Council. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the Historic District Commission would hold a public hearing and then be able to adopt the rules. It would not have to first go through the Town Council. Chairman Badger noted the Town Council would vote to adopt the zoning ordinance and creation of the Historic District Commission. The Historic District Commission would then develop its own regulations.
Chairman Badger noted the Planning Board should not have an ordinance to determine the size of windows, paint colors or kind of siding used. He suggested these determinations should be part of the Historic District Commission regulations. He suggested this is not what the Planning Board is for.
Chester Jablonski felt people were afraid of the creation of the Historic District Commission. Vice-Chairman Roy suggested he would have the same concerns. If he was told he could not replace an old window with an energy efficient window, he would be concerned about that decision. He understood people’s concerns with the district being over regulated. Janice Rosa agreed feeling people may be more comfortable if they were able to see the regulations prior to the creation of the district and commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy felt that was not the purview of the Planning Board. Janice Rosa understood that, but felt if the Commission were able to provide the regulations prior to the adoption of them, people would be more comfortable.
Rick McMenimen asked if it would be possible for the regulations to be approved by the Town Council or the Planning Board prior to adoption. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted the State RSAs provide authority for the Historic District Commission to write their own regulations. Rick McMenimen understood the fear that would cause amongst residents.
Val Shelton noted State RSA 674:46 A(2) states: “The Historic District Commission may adopt.” She felt the concern tonight surrounded the idea the Planning Board creating and adopting the regulations directly through the ordinance. The Planning Board is proposing to adopt the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. In lieu of that recommendation, could the Planning Board propose to adopt a set of guidelines created specifically for Newmarket.
Vice-Chairman Roy noted the makeup of the Board is comprised of a Town Council member and one member from the Advisory Heritage Commission. The remaining members are interested members of the district. Chester Jablonski agreed stating it was the membership that would control the regulations.
George Willant suggested the question becomes which comes first; establishing the Historic Overlay District or establishing the Historic District Commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted they should be created at the same time. The Historic District Commission is needed to administer the Historic Overlay District. The Advisory Heritage Commission could be authorized to serve in that capacity, also.
George Willant noted there are not separate commissions to administer the Wetlands Overlay District or the Aquifer Protection Overlay District. He understood some of the residents’ concerns about needing another Commission to administer this overlay district. Anything that would affect other overlay districts is part of the Planning Board’s purview. Changing one thing within the Historic Overlay District would not require appearance before the Planning Board. Town Planner Diane Hardy answered that was correct. Any appeals would be before the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
George Willant asked why the Town would need an Advisory Heritage Commission with the creation of the Historic District Commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy explained the role of the Advisory Heritage Commission is broader than that of the Historic District Commission. The Historic District Commission would focus on regulating development within the Historic District The Advisory Heritage Commission’s charge is much broader, they can provide public education, complete a Town wide inventory of structures, and provide walking tours, or create a marker program.
Vice-Chairman Roy suggested as a property owner, he would be more comfortable being represented by the Historic District Commission (HDC) than by the Advisory Heritage Commission because he felt the members of the Advisory Heritage Commission were interested in their own agenda. His intent by this statement was not to be demeaning; he felt the members of the Advisory Heritage Commission were very knowledgeable, but felt he would be better served by members of a Commission who were also property owners within the district. He felt there was a better balance of membership proposed for the Historic District Commission. Chester Jablonski agreed stating the Historic District Commission would have residential property owners and commercial property owners working together.
George Willant understood the concern this would be adding another layer of oversight in an area of the town where people have expressed concern with the Town having too much oversight. He noted members who have sat on the Advisory Heritage Commission have also expressed this concern. He felt this was a concern that should be considered by the Planning Board and the Town Council. He understood the Planning Board is proposing the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as an interim measure, but that was not explicitly stated anywhere. He suggested adding a sunset clause to make that clear. Chairman Badger felt that was a good point.
Chairman Badger shared the concern of an additional level of oversight and yet another entity for an applicant to appear before. He reminded the Board they had been charged by the Town Council to create a Historic District Ordinance to present to the Town Council. He had been asked if the Planning Board could simply refuse the charge. He did not feel this was something the Board would want to do. It was important for the Boards and Committees in Town to work together. Town Planner Diane Hardy agreed stating the Town Council had asked the Planning Board to review the draft ordinance and make their recommendation back to the Council. The recommendation from the Planning Board could be this is not something the Board feels the Town should pursue.
George Willant noted the Board needed to look at whether this would be worthwhile for the Town to pursue and whether it would benefit the residents of Newmarket. Judith Carr noted there is a group that has worked very hard for a number of years to have this passed. The question is whether it should be adopted because it would be very restrictive and create the possibility of another organization for an applicant to appear before.
Adam Schroadter felt the goals are well intentioned. He asked if there is a possibility of presenting alternatives. Judith Carr noted it would be interesting to have an idea of how many people in the district feel this would be a positive thing for the district. Chairman Badger suggested that is the purpose of a public hearing. Judith Carr agreed, but added, not every property owner feels comfortable speaking before the Board.
George Willant noted the Town had taken a poll for the mills. The governing body needs to make some hard decisions. He agreed this could create an economic boost to the town, but if it is too restrictive it could dissuade potential businesses from coming to town as well. He felt the Board had done a great job trying to put this together. He asked if this would restrict development within the mills. He questioned whether the downtown revitalization project could have moved forward if this ordinance was in effect.
Vice-Chairman Roy asked if the Board could recommend to the Town Council this be the ordinance to be adopted if the Council chooses to adopt it, but the Board was unsure whether it should be done. Chester Jablonski felt it was the Council’s job to make the decision whether to accept the ordinance or not. The Planning Board did their job in writing the best ordinance they possible could. The determination on whether to pass the ordinance is solely a Council decision. Val Shelton noted the Council is looking to the Planning Board to provide a recommendation on what the Board feels is in the best interest of the Town from a planning perspective. Chairman Badger suggested an informal straw poll of the Board to see who feels it should be sent forward to the Town Council.
Judith Carr asked Town Planner Diane Hardy what her professional opinion was on the creation of such an ordinance and district in general terms. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted Historic District Ordinances are used as a mechanism to preserve community character and ensure alterations are done in a manner to respectfully preserve the historical nature and architectural character of the community. These districts can be a very effective tool to promote the kind of downtown the community is hoping for which would reflect the history of the community. There have been many instances where there have been alterations to buildings, awnings and signage that does not respectfully reflect the architecture of the area. However, she sympathized with business owners, but note there is a trust element at play, here.
Janice Rosa asked if those aspects could be accomplished without the creation of a Historic District Commission. Town Planner Diane Hardy felt the Town has gone as far as possible to protect the character by having a site plan review process and recommendations from the Advisory Heritage Commission. The Planning Board cannot mandate those recommendations.
Janice Rosa asked about a tear down ordinance. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted that kind of ordinance worked on more of a scattered basis rather than a delineated area, which legal counsel said was not allowed.
Chester Jablonski asked how this ordinance would work with a big project such as the mills. Town Planner Diane Hardy felt it was an adequate document that would provide a process for oversight. She noted one of the concerns is how to discourage a property owner from tearing down a historic building. She noted Newmarket is very fortunate to have a streetscape that is pretty much intact. This should be used as an opportunity to promote businesses and the community. From a planning perspective, she felt this ordinance would be a very important tool. Exeter, Somersworth, Concord and Hopkinton have very successful downtowns that have been preserved. She noted this is a policy issue the Planning Board needs to make. The Planning Board has been elected by the Town to represents the interests of the town and to make tough decisions on what is right and best for the community. There are pros and cons on each side of the issues that need to be considered and balanced in making that policy decision.
Janice Rosa did not feel the mill redevelopment would take place for four to five years. She referenced an article sent via email to Planning Board members on property taxes within historic districts stating she would like more information and feedback on that prior to making a decision. She was in favor of protecting the history of the Town, but felt these were hard economic times and suggested this be put off for one year. She felt it would be in the best interest of the community not to put these restrictions on business owners this year. She recommended working on the regulations over the next year so people would know what they are up front. She added she didn’t like the makeup of the Board. She would like it to state there cannot be two members from the same board or committee also sitting on this Commission. She was concerned with the Commission being “stacked.” Judith Carr noted there are so many little committees in Town and not enough volunteers to fill the positions.
Adam Schroadter asked how towns who do not have a historic downtown, but have the same goals in preservation accomplish this. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted there is an architectural review committee in Concord, which has specific guidelines to ensure the architecture of the area is preserved. It is her understanding that the committee makes recommendations to the Planning Board and through a negotiated process, the exterior and architectural design of the building is influenced.
Judith Carr noted there is a large population of property owners in the district who do not want to be told what to do. The intent is to keep the character of the neighborhood. Val Shelton suggested areas within the proposed district have changed significantly. She noted the architecture along Main Street is very different than the architecture along Nichols Ave. She asked if there could be more restrictive zoning mechanisms to control things such as signage. She felt some of these goals could be achieved by stricter or additional zoning and site plan review regulations.
Judith Carr felt this could be viewed as one more hoop to jump through. There are too many committees and too many avenues determining what can be done.
The Board discussed a tear down ordinance in relation to businesses coming in that do not look like typical businesses (i.e. McDonalds).
Rick McMenimen noted he used to live in Lexington, Massachusetts. The only requirements for downtown Lexington was commercial buildings have a colonial appearance. Many historical homes have been preserved. He offered to find out from them how they accomplished this goal. He noted Newmarket needs commercial business in the downtown area. He was concerned with adding another layer for an applicant to have to clear.
Chairman Badger noted the Board has two choices; the ordinance can be further refined and sent to the Town Council or the Board can say the draft is done but the Board does not feel this is the best thing for the Town.
Judith Carr noted as representative of the Town Council she will report there has been a great deal of discussion on how to handle this. Chairman Badger noted there has been a lot of work put into the creation of this ordinance. Vice-Chairman Roy felt if there is going to be a Historic District Commission it should be along the lines of what has been drafted. He felt by not submitting something to the Town Council, the Board would not be fulfilling the task they were charged with. Rick McMenimen agreed stating the Board began with the draft the Advisory Heritage Commission had fashioned.
Val Shelton noted there seem to be two major factors; the additional overlay property owners would be subject to and the adoption of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation as opposed to setting forth specific guidelines for Newmarket within the proposed ordinance up front. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she would not recommend specific guidelines within the ordinance. She did not feel it was appropriate for the Planning Board to develop specific guidelines in the ordinance because then everything would then need to go through the Zoning Board, if variations were appropriate.
George Willant agreed with Val Shelton noting not only would there be an additional layer, but that layer was not yet defined. He felt residents would be more comfortable knowing what the regulations are up front.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted one of the original proposals had been to set up a Historic District Commission, establish the boundaries and charge the Historic District Commission with creating the guidelines for the ordinance, then go to the Town Council to get the entire thing approved. The Advisory Heritage Commission determined that would not be workable.
Val Shelton asked if there needed to be standards or guidelines within the ordinance. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted there is no requirement to have the guidelines stated within the ordinance. Adam Schroadter asked if they had been included as a result of residents’ concerns. Chester Jablonski noted the membership would hold the trust. Residents and business owners would have the opportunity to serve on this Commission.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion at this time the Planning Board not send the draft ordinance to the Town Council.
Seconded: Vice-Chairman Roy
Judith Carr noted she would abstain from voting because she feels she would have two votes if she had the opportunity to vote at this point.
Val Shelton clarified if the motion fails, the assumption is the draft ordinance goes to the Town Council. Chairman Badger suggested the motion should be phrased positively versus negatively.
Janice Rosa amended her motion to state the Planning Board shall send the revised draft ordinance to the Town Council.
Vice-Chairman Roy seconded the amendment.
Adam Schroadter felt whether the Board sends the draft to the Council or not, he felt it would be prudent to submit the Board’s opinions and concerns. Chairman Badger agreed. Chester Jablonski felt the draft ordinance should be sent forward as that was the task the Council charged the Board with.
Rick McMenimen was concerned the Board would not see the final draft before it was sent on to the Council. Chairman Badger noted the motion could be amended to include the amendments as discussed by the Board and with input provided by the public.
Val Shelton amended the motion to “pending final approval of the draft Historic District Ordinance by the Planning Board the vote is to send the draft ordinance to the Town Council for consideration.”
Vice-Chairman Roy seconded the amendment.
Town Planner Diane Hardy noted if substantive changes are made to this ordinance, the Planning Board would need to hold another public hearing.
The Board voted on the following amended motion: To send the draft Historic District Ordinance to the Town Council for consideration pending final changes made to the draft and approval by the Planning Board.
Vote: In favor: John Badger, Chester Jablonski, Janice Rosa,
Peter Roy, Val Shelton, George Willant
Opposed:
Abstain: Judith Carr
The Board conducted a roll call vote on the following motion: To send the draft Historic District Ordinance to the Town Council for consideration.
Vote: In favor: John Badger, Chester Jablonski Peter Roy, Val
Shelton
Opposed: Janice Rosa, George Willant
Abstain: Judith Carr
Town Planner Diane Hardy will revise the draft ordinance and send to Planning Board members via email. Chairman Badger suggested comments from Board members be sent to Town Planner Diane Hardy via email without replying to all Board members. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted another public hearing will need to be held. Chairman Badger suggested putting the public hearing on the March agenda. The Board agreed.
Town Planner Diane Hardy asked if the Board wished to keep the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in the ordinance. Val Shelton suggested each Board member provide their feedback to Town Planner Diane Hardy. Town Planner Diane Hardy noted she would provide a sunset provision in the ordinance. She noted one concern she had was the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation apply to the interior of the building, which is not the intent of this ordinance. She noted she would make those clarifications. George Willant noted the sunset clause should not extend beyond 12 months.
Adjournment
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to adjourn at 10:27 p.m.
