Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 11, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Peter Nelson, Jane Ford, Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Gretchen Kast (Town Council ex officio Alternate)
Absent: Glen Wilkinson (excused)
Called to order: 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 7:45 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 02/14/17 & 03/21/17
02/14/17
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of 02/14/17
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
The changes made to these minutes at the last meeting were re-read. Val Shelton stated an abutter had made a comment on page 8, line 33, and was identified only as “an abutter”. Robert MacDonald, 1 Grape Street, was identified as the abutter.
On page 9, fourth paragraph at the end of the last sentence, “on the sides of the building” was added after “clapboards”.
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman, Amy Burns, Janice Rosa, Gretchen Kast abstained as they were not present at that meeting
Note: Val Shelton was not present at the meeting, but had watched the meeting on video and felt comfortable voting to approve the minutes
03/21/17
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the March 21, 2017 minutes
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Rose-Anne Kwaks, Amy Burns, Gretchen Kast abstained, as they were not present
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Work Sessions:
1) Signage and Aesthetic Regulations
Eric Botterman stated they had all gone over these. If anyone wanted to make any final revisions, they should do so.
Peter Nelson stated, on the third page, change “Impacts” to “Images”.
Diane Hardy stated she added a definition for LED lighting. She also moved sandwich board signs into the Design Standards section.
Diane Hardy stated there is also a proposed change to Impact Fees. She stated, since she has been here, the impact fees for accessory apartments have been consistently waived. She suggested that they add to the section of the ordinance that defines new development to exempt accessory dwelling units from impact fees. Val Shelton stated the committee wanted the Planning Board to decide if they want to exempt all accessory apartments or only studio and one bedroom accessory apartments. With the recent changes in the law, you can now have a two bedroom accessory apartment.
Rose-Anne stated she did not believe the Board should allow any impact fee waivers for accessory apartments anymore. They had to take the language out of the ordinance that had to do with children, schools, and bedrooms. She felt that, because they went up to allowing 1,000 sq. ft. and you are now allowing two bedrooms, there is a high likelihood there will be children. Since they are not allowed to take children into consideration anymore, she did not feel they could offer impact fee waivers, at all, for any accessory apartments. An applicant can request a waiver, but they should not automatically be exempt from impact fees. The only reason on which they can base a request for a waiver is that they will not have children in there. Val Shelton stated they would have to show they will not have an impact on that particular fee. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the school is the biggest portion of the impact fee and none of those requests should be considered for a waiver. Eric Botterman stated he did not think a future Planning Board could be told they could not consider a particular waiver. He stated they could not discriminate and say one bedroom units were okay, but not two bedroom. Rose-Anne Kwaks agreed they could not discriminate. It was her opinion that there should be no waivers for school impact fees for any accessory apartment.
Val Shelton stated that it should be up to each Planning Board to decide relative to the application. The question now is whether to continue to have people come in with impact fee waiver requests for accessory apartments or make studio and one bedroom accessory apartments exempt. She did not think the Board would support an exemption for a two bedroom accessory apartment. The Board could not just say no waivers will be granted.
Eric Botterman stated he did not think, if it was a studio apartment, the Board could say they would not have to come before the Board, but, if it is a two bedroom, you would. He felt the Board should remain silent on this and make a decision on these when the people come before the Board with a request. Legally, they would have a problem having different approaches for the number of bedrooms, because it could be said they were discriminating against family size.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, if someone came in with a waiver request for a studio or one bedroom, she did not think they should be granted a waiver, because someone states they will not have children living there. She thought they should get a legal opinion on this. Eric Botterman stated, if they ever get into a position where the Board members cannot agree, they could get a legal opinion for that case.
Diane Hardy stated one of the reasons the law was passed was so that accessory dwellings would be treated the same as single family homes, as far as the requirements for frontage, lot size, etc. To take that one step further, if a single family home owner was subject to impact fees, then why wouldn’t an owner of an accessory apartment also be subject to them. Val Shelton asked for clarification of the frontage, lot size, etc., requirement. Diane Hardy stated it says in the interpretive materials from The Local Government Center and from the NH Office of Energy and Planning that you are supposed to treat an accessory apartment the same way you would a single family home and you cannot impose additional lot size, density and setback requirements on it. You could argue that you should be treating them as you would a single family home. Rose-Anne Kwaks felt very strongly that, because of the language in the new ordinance, no one should be able to come before the Board and get a waiver of school impact fees. The new law has taken that out of the Board’s jurisdiction. She still felt the Board should get a legal opinion. Someone should not be able to come in and be granted a waiver for the school portion, because they have a studio. There are no restrictions on the number of people who can live there. Diane Hardy clarified you could have a multi-unit building with twelve studio apartments in it. Studios are not only found as accessory apartments. Val Shelton stated there were several in the mills downtown.
Diane Hardy stated her opinion was they should treat all classifications of housing the same and keep this as a waiver for the Board to review on a case by case basis. If there is a need for a legal opinion, the Board can get it at that point. Eric Botterman stated you really can’t arbitrarily say if you have studio or one bedroom you might get a waiver, but you can’t get one for a two bedroom. He felt that this was heading on the wrong path.
Diane Hardy said the other change is one suggested by Attorney Ratigan regarding architectural design standards. He suggested language be added to the Purpose section. Everyone was fine with that change.
Val Shelton stated the other section was related to Article IV. Signs, which was gone over at the meeting on January 24, 2017. Diane Hardy explained that she added a definition regarding Electronic Message Board signs and clarified that normal maintenance did not require a permit. She asked if the Board was ready to advance this to a public hearing.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they move to public hearing amendments to the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance Section 32-2 to add the proposed new subsection under paragraph nine which will state, “To advance aesthetic values through design and architecture, because the preservation or enhancement of the visual environment may promote prosperity in the general welfare and then also to Section 32-11, as recommended by the Town Planner, update to the sign ordinance being replaced in whole, to be moved to public hearing at the next meeting on May 9, 2017
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to change Appendix A of our Subdivision Regulations under Section 3.09 Landscaping to add the new Section C relative to entrance design and signage, as stated within the handout by Diane Hardy, for public hearing on May 9, 2017
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
2) Update from Zoning Subcommittee
Diane Hardy stated the committee has met and is recommending language for the Assisted Living Overlay District, which includes three lots located off of New Road, Tax Map R3, Lots 58, 7 through 11, 56, and 54. She brought a map to show the area.
Val Shelton pointed out the properties. Some portions are in B1 and some are B2 Zones. The Town owns two parcels, Shearwater Investments owns the middle section, and the Ham property is at the back. Eric Botterman stated it is a little less than one hundred acres.
Diane Hardy stated the proposal is to set up an overlay district for assisted living. The purpose of this district is to allow for opportunities for low traffic impacts, for assisted living and memory care units. The underlying zoning would remain. Assisted living units are for persons over 55, who require assistance with at least one daily personal life activity, which is walking, bathing, eating, dressing, etc. These facilities would have to be licensed by the State of NH and meet regulations through Health & Human Services. In addition to providing residential care, it would provide supportive service for personal and health related services beyond just room and board. This would also provide the opportunity for memory care, which is a more specialized form of skilled nursing, for memory impairments, such as dementia, Alzheimer’s, and any other forms of memory loss. There would be 24 hours supervised care within the facility.
The Committee has come up with minimum design standards. Minimum lot size would be 20 acres, there would be a road setback of 100’, and there would be an overall development cap of 75 units for the entire zone. There would be a landscape buffer around the perimeter and parking based on the number of units or beds in the facility. This type of use would be allowed by Special Use Permit and subject to normal Site Plan review requirements. This proposal originally came from the Economic Development Committee.
Val Shelton asked if they had ever received an answer to the question about RSA 161:J(2), if, in fact, they have an age restriction in there. Assisted living could also apply to a young person with a head injury. The intent is for people in need of assistance. The Board removed the wording stating it was for persons over 55.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they could make the ordinance more restrictive than State laws. She was wondering if they would end up with a rehab type of place that would not be good for the community or certain areas. She would rather leave the 55 and older in there. It protects the community a little bit better. Diane Hardy stated, in the State law, there are several exclusions. It does not include a correctional facility or a treatment center for alcoholism or substance abuse. It is not a shelter for the homeless or victims of domestic violence. It is not a hospital and is not a treatment facility for psychiatric or substance abuse issues. It is not a hotel or motel or a recreation facility providing overnight accommodations. It is not a community living facility pursuant to RSA 126 A: 19. She would have to go back and research that, but she believes they are referring to community living facilities for persons with developmental or mental disabilities.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they hold a public hearing on the new section to be added to the Ordinance Section 32-162 with regards to Assisted Living Overlay District, as outlined and amended tonight to be held on May 9, 2017
Second: Amy Burns
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Diane Hardy stated they needed to make committee appointments.
Rose-Anne Kwaks volunteered to be on the CIP Committee and Jane Ford volunteered to be Alternate.
Peter Nelson would like to continue on SRPC.
Conservation Commission had no volunteers.
Val Shelton stated she would stay on Economic Development Committee. She did not know what the status of that would be with the Town Council.
Amy Burns will ask Dale Pike if he would like to continue on the Zoning subcommittee.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked Amy Burns if Steve Fournier had any other committee before the Town Council recently. Amy Burns stated he had not, because they met with Planning Board at the beginning of March, then they had the election, then they had the recount, then their organizational meeting. So they have not been able to have any other committees meet with them yet. Rose-Anne would like her to remind Steve Fournier that he is required to have all Boards and Committees in front of the Town Council in February.
Eric Botterman stated the Spring Conference is on April 29.
Committee Reports
Val Shelton stated the Zoning Subcommittee is continuing to work on the overlay district for the CCRC.
Newmarket Gardeners
Rose-Anne Kwaks mentioned they had new members and had been meeting. They are planning a plant sale and will be planting around town. They can always use more people.
Town Council
Amy Burns went over recent Town Council meeting items, committee appointments, elections of Chairman and Vice Chairman. At the last meeting, they did the dedications for the Town Report and thanked the outgoing Town Councilors. They had an orientation for new councilors.
Janice Rosa asked when the Macallen Dam Committee was going to update what is going on. Diane Hardy reported they are moving forward with a revised scope of services and going back to the three engineering firms that submitted proposals last fall. Gomez & Sullivan had come back to go over some of the figures, because they found some areas where they had been an overestimation of the design flow which is required to be met by the NH DES letter of deficiency. The committee will be meeting again on April 20 to fine tune the scope of work and go to the next phase, which is bringing the consultants back and negotiating a contract for the next phase of the project. They hope to go before the Council in June with a recommendation for hiring an engineer. They are focusing on preliminary design and cost estimating related to raising the abutment walls on either side of the dam to meet the design capacity.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 7:45 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor