Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 13, 2013
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Val Shelton, Janice Rosa, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), John Brackett, Gabriel Jerome (Alternate), Jane Ford (Alternate), Elizabeth Dudley
Called to order: 7:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:50 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Etta Sanders, 23 Amherst Road, stated she is organizing a retirement party to honor Carpenter’s Greenhouse. The party will be on September 14th at 1:30 p.m. She would like as many people from the town to attend, as possible. She wanted to know if the Planning Board would like to sign the retirement cards. The Board was happy to do so. She stated the public is welcome to attend.
Ed Portyrata, 177 Exeter Road, asked if the Board was going to discuss the project at the golf course location this evening. Chairman Botterman stated it was on the agenda, but there were some procedural items that had to be taken care of that would dictate how far they would be able to get this evening. Mr. Portyrata asked if people should speak regarding the application now or when the Board is working on it. Chairman Botterman explained the public would speak when the Board got to that particular item. He stated he would open up a public hearing at some point.
Bert Allen, 56 Smith Garrison Road, stated he assumed the legal postings were for two projects, the golf course and the train station. Chairman Botterman stated that was correct. He asked if any of those items had been tabled. Chairman Botterman explained there is a procedure the Board follows to determine if the Board is comfortable accepting the applications as complete. If they are complete and the Board votes to accept the application for review, he can then open up the public hearing. Bert Allen asked if the Chairman was
going to suspend the rules. Chairman Botterman stated there are no rules for the Planning Board to suspend, as there are for the Town Council under its protocols. If the Board believes the application package is complete, they will open the public hearing and start discussing the projects. If they are not complete, they will return them to the applicant to complete.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes
07/09/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of July 9, 2013, with corrections, if necessary
Second: Janice Rosa
Rick McMenimen made a correction to a name written in the minutes as Mark McKinsey. It should be Martin McKinsey. On page 11, line 38, where it states, “presented by this town to the High School” after that the word “students” should be added.
Val Shelton stated, in one of the conditions on page 8, line 22, she stated the Building Inspector should be included in the condition. (The original motion was in the minutes verbatim without the Building Inspector being included. The Building Inspector was added to that condition in a later separate motion, which amended that condition. The progression is shown in the July 9, 2013 minutes, as it occurred.)
Val Shelton stated on page 9, line 2, the number should be 11.
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Consideration of application for Alternate member – Ginger Smith
Ginger Smith spoke about her background. She just moved to Newmarket about 2 months ago. She is a retired school teacher. She would like to help here in town.
Chairman Eric Botterman thanked her for volunteering.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to appoint Ginger Smith as an Alternate to the Planning Board for a term expiring in March 2016
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Newmarket Mills LLC – Notice of Merger, 9 Elm Street, Newmarket, NH, Tax Map Number U2, Lots 60-A, and 1 Spring Street, Newmarket, NH, Tax Map Number U2, Lot 61.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve a lot merger on 9 Elm Street, Newmarket, NH, Tax Map Number U2, Lots 60-A, and 1 Spring Street, Newmarket, NH, Tax Map Number U2, Lot 61 and to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
A public hearing is not required for a Notice of Merger, but Chairman Botterman allowed Rose-Anne Kwaks to ask a question.
Rose-Anne Kwaks, Wadleigh Falls Road, asked what the language of the merger was and what parcels were being merged. Diane Hardy explained which lots were being consolidated into one lot. They are both owned by Newmarket Mills, LLC. She explained the lot locations. The Planning Board had requested they do a lot merger. All of the parking will now be located on one lot.
Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision under Residential Open Space Design and for a Special Use Permit, at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone. The proposal is to construct 52 single-family homes along the north side of the golf course and to preserve the golf course as open space. The existing clubhouse will be located on an 8-acre lot.
Chairman Botterman explained the Planning Board’s procedure.
Diane Hardy stated there is a checklist for this project. This is a Residential Open Space Development. It comes under the Special Use Permit procedure. This is the second application to fall under this heading since this was added to the regulations in 2001, the first being the Kwaks property on Wadleigh Falls Road. Mrs. Kwaks decided to convey the property to The Nature Conservancy rather than develop it. This checklist is a work in progress. As the Board goes through the process, she will be updating it. When the Board reaches the point where it is ready for conditional approval, they will all have a copy of the completed checklist.
Diane Hardy did find some deficiencies that she noted in going through the application. Some are minor, such as the name of the current owner needs to be put on the plan. She also found there were no drainage calculations or stormwater plan. An environmental resource plan needs to be developed, which identifies the environmentally sensitive and critical areas on the site, so that it can be used as a tool for the design concept to assure that significant features are protected. There are several pieces of information that are lacking. She is hoping to work with Mr. Chinburg, his landscape architect, and civil engineer to address those deficiencies. She would like to be able to get that information on one plan to superimpose the open space development concept on it, so everyone can see how those environmental features will be protected.
Diane Hardy answered some procedural questions from Board members.
Diane Hardy stated, if the developer could get these items taken care of in a timely manner, possibly by the end of this week or next week, the Board can start the process and the application can be forwarded to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) for review.
Val Shelton asked about the specific requirements on the yield plan. Diane Hardy stated she has worked through the yield plan figures. She stated there has to be calculations and this also has to be laid out on the environmental yield plan. The Board does not have this information from the applicant. She would like to see that information and environmental constraints overlaid on this plan, so the Board can make a determination whether the actual number of lots that have been identified can be developed. The yield plan would have to have a Wetland Scientist stamp from Mr. Gove.
Regarding the request for the waiver on the 100’ buffer, Diane Hardy stated the Board needs to have scientific data that documents that buffer is adequate to protect the resources.
Val Shelton asked if a variance is needed regarding the yield plan depicting a roadway going through the prime wetlands, would the applicant have to obtain that prior to the Planning Board application. Diane Hardy did not believe they were required to get a variance. The idea of the open space development is that it provides a more environmentally sensitive plan than what would normally be presented under the conventional subdivision regulations. Val Shelton stated it was important that the yield plan is realistic as it is the Planning Board’s basis for the number of units to be developed under the Residential Open Space Design.
Diane Hardy stated that was why she was suggesting the TRC sit down with the yield plan, look at the layout and identify if there are any lots that do not have access, because of wetlands, and make a judgment as to whether the yield plan shows a realistic number of lots. Mathematically, the number of units that are permitted under the calculation is 58 units. They have shown 53 on the plan.
Val Shelton asked if, under a yield plan, the assumption of having road frontage would be dependent on NH DOT driveway permits. Diane Hardy stated they could work with the TRC to make sure that item is addressed.
Diane Hardy stated the application under Major Subdivision requirements is pretty complete. They need to add the name of the owner. The rest of the items have to do with the Open Space Development requirements.
Eric Weinrub, Altus Engineering (Mr. Chinburg’s engineer), felt what they have submitted exceeds the requirements for the first meeting, as stated regarding Section 6.07 of the Zoning Ordinance and the application procedures. They were at a Planning Board meeting in June for a preliminary review. He stated, with this submittal, they only have Item D (submission hearing, preliminary plan review, and yield equation/plan approval) in the checklist to address. They realize they have not completed the drainage study and some other items, because they are in the process of gathering information and getting feedback from the Board.
Chairman Botterman stated he thought this application was complete enough to start conversations. This is going to be a long process and they will be asked for a lot of information. What is in front of the Board now is enough to get the clock ticking and organize a review. The one thing that is outstanding is the drainage analysis, which they need as soon as possible. He would like to accept the application as complete and start the review process. Chairman Botterman explained the 65 day timeline for applications, once they are accepted.
Chairman Botterman allowed Rose-Anne Kwaks, from the public, to speak. She stated regarding the 65 day timeline, her own application for an open space design development for her property took two years. The applicant can get extensions. Regarding the yield plan, a lot of the lots designated on the yield plan are intruding into the 100 foot buffer that the
applicant feels is too strict. She did not know whether the Board had enough important information to have a viable discussion tonight. This is a big project. Chairman Botterman stated the Board had not decided whether to hear this yet. There is nothing that says they have to have an in-depth discussion tonight. This is going to be a long process.
Diane Hardy went over the deficiencies that were in the application, other than drainage. There is no storm water plan. The name of the current property owner needs to be put on the plan. They need to identify on the plan the soils that are highly erodible and considered “prime farmlands” determined by the Rockingham County and the U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). We need drainage calculations and an expiration note should be put on the plan. The Planning Board needs to do a site walk. More information should be provided on landscaping and existing landscape details to determine if the project will preserve woodlands and fields and creates adequate buffers. The Board needs more information about visual buffers which will be maintained along public roadways. A visual analysis is needed to determine what scenic views will be protected. They want to make sure the upland buffer areas are being preserved. They need to know if any mature trees will be preserved. Regarding the preservation of existing vegetation, there is a vague outline of a treeline buffer on the plan, but you cannot tell whether existing vegetation will be preserved. There is no information on trails or the pedestrian network. There should be information on ridge tops or hilltops that will be protected. The open space needs to be demarcated and clearly shown on the plan. They need to know what trails will be within 50’ of the houses. They need more definitive information on the maintenance and operation of common facilities. Information is necessary about the open space, if it is going to be owned by a Homeowners Association, a nonprofit conservation group or by some other entity and how the open space will be maintained and provided for. They need a land stewardship plan. All the natural resource information should be compiled on an environmental resource plan, so it can be used to evaluate the appropriateness of the design concept.
Chairman Botterman asked if all of this was needed in order to start talking about this application. A lot of this is open for discussion or negotiation. Diane Hardy stated you need to have a site analysis of the natural constraints and features of the site before you can design the subdivision. That is what the open space development provision forces the developer to do one. Without a detailed visual and natural resource analysis, you really cannot develop a design concept without seeing how they overlay, so the appropriateness of the design concept becomes very apparent.
Diane Hardy stated she has forwarded her draft checklist to Eric Wienrub at Altus Engineering, so he was aware of the deficiencies. She suggested, since there are so many changes, the Board considering postponing the public hearing.
At this point, Bert Allen spoke from the audience. He stated public notice has been served on the Board. He counted one waiver that “she” already gave and he counts two waivers “over here”. He stated none of this talk can be put into public record or used in the situation. He stated the Board accepts the application and let the public put in their complaints publicly, verbatim, as objections, including waivers that were waived that the public may not want waived, so something can be done about it. Chairman Botterman stated the Board was talking about whether they were going to accept the application. Bert Allen stated he heard two waivers that were waived. Chairman Botterman stated he had not heard any waivers being granted. Bert Allen stated he heard the roadway, Route 108, waiver. Chairman Botterman stated no one has talked about that. That has nothing to do with what they are talking about right now. This discussion is about whether to accept the application as complete.
Val Shelton stated her issue with the yield plan. It is inconsistent with the Town’s zoning regulations. There are also several items shown on the yield plan over which the Planning Board does not have regulatory authority. This project would have to go through ZBA to be granted. Her issue was more with what they were starting with regarding the yield plan rather than where they were going with the open space development plan. She stated she felt everyone did want to see an open space development plan. She did not want to see the applicant spend a lot of money and go through this process and then find out there is no conceivable way to achieve this based upon insufficient data which is used to determine the true number of lots that could be developed on the site. There are too many issues that could not be permitted through the Planning Board. Chairman Botterman stated this is going to get tweaked and it may change significantly. To ask for a plan of walking trails, for example, is hard when you do not know what the final product is going to look like. Let’s get there first.
Diane Hardy stated the yield plan and the environmental resource plan were the heart of this. The Board needs to have a good understanding of what the natural and environmental constraints of the land are and they need to show the visual aspects of the site they are trying to protect. Once the Board has that good base of information, they will be able to look at the yield plan and identify the lots that are questionable, i.e. that could not be developed, and have those deducted from the yield plan. Val Shelton said she did not have a problem going in that direction. Chairman Botterman stated that was the logical approach. He stated they cannot talk about technical items until the application is accepted. He explained, if they accept the application, that does not say the Board is in agreement with anything on that application. Accepting the application says the applicant has given the Board enough information, so the Board is able to start discussion.
Diane Hardy stated, when the Board had the mill project before them, there were two separate processes. One was for the Special Use Permit, which was very general and conceptual. The other was for the site plan, which was more detailed and engineering oriented. She wondered if it would make sense for this Board to take a similar approach. Focus on the concept, does it make sense? Does the yield plan work? Then issue the Special Use Permit to allow the open space development and move to the next step, which is for the subdivision plan review, which would be the more detailed step of identifying where the trails are going to be, is the drainage properly done, is the culvert in the right place, and those sorts of issues. The mill process worked well, because of this phased approach to the review of the application.
Eric Chinburg, Chinburg Builders, stated it seemed to him the plan needed to be accepted in order for the municipality to engage consultants to opine on the technical issues. If they were to provide everything on this checklist now, they would have fully designed a project and the yield plan may be wrong. They may have designed 52 lots and they should have had 54 or 48. He stated accepting the plan as complete simply starts a clock. It does not open any door and there have been no waivers granted. It allows the Board to engage a traffic engineer to look at his traffic engineer’s work.
Jane Ford stated she was concerned about the linkage of one element of the project to another. If she only knows one element, she does not understand the ramifications of the linkage to this part of the project. How do you engage a traffic person to come in and validate, when you do not know the number of units that will be there. She does not want to evaluate something that is not fully defined.
Chairman Botterman stated, from the developer’s perspective, this application is complete. This is what they would like to see. The Board may have different opinions. If this was to change from 52 lots to 48, it will not alter the traffic analysis. The Catch-22 is you do not know if there are any issues until you get involved and look at the technical details. This is the developer’s best idea, a concept with more details, of the development he would like to build. Now the Board needs to go through that and figure out whether it works and meets requirements. There is a lot to do and this will be a lengthy process. He felt the Board could send the applicant away tonight, but he did not know what additional information they could come back with, at this point. There are a lot of things that will need to be resolved through discussion with other professionals and the developer. He stated the first thing the Board needs to do is look at the yield plan. Diane Hardy stated that would be part of the Special Use Permit. The Board could accept the Special Use Permit application, then the TRC can focus on the yield plan and, once they get to a point where there is some consensus on the yield plan, then they could have Mr. Chinburg come back and do his detailed engineering and present the detail that is necessary for the project. Traffic impacts come at the latter stage.
Eric Chinburg stated then their application was not complete. Val Shelton explained the Board’s regulations state the application has to be substantially complete. In any application, they are never complete, but the question is whether they are substantially complete enough, so that the process can move forward as additional information comes in. The project is different from typical projects that come before the Board. She did not think the process was different. She would hate to see the applicant spending money and time and then the Board spending time in review, before the Board is in agreement of what the potential number of units is on a yield plan.
Eric Chinburg stated he was fine with the separate acceptances of the Special Use Permit application and subdivision application.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion with regards to Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. for the application for a Special Use Permit requested at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone to be accepted
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated the application for the Special Use Permit has been accepted as complete.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing for the Special Use Permit.
Chairman Botterman stated he would allow the applicant to make a brief presentation of the project was about.
Eric Weinrub showed a yield plan. He indicated the locations of the golf course, the designated wetlands and the buffer. He stated the area has potential for 58 units under the subdivision regulations, however, this plan shows 53 units. That is what they have as the basis for the open space development.
Val Shelton stated the yield plan has not been stamped by a wetlands scientist to depict all of the wetlands on the site. Mr. Weinrub stated that was correct. He stated the Wetland Scientist, Jim Gove, was present at the meeting. The wetland buffers are all shown on the plan. Val Shelton stated they were not shown for the entire site. Mr. Weinrub stated that was correct.
Mr. Weinrub stated the plan is to do an open space development. They are looking at two significant resources, the wetlands on the north side of the project and the golf course on the south side. They tried to minimize impacts to both. They would like to try to keep the golf course intact. The project is to do 52 units under the Residential Open Space Development option. There is a ridge line through the project and he indicated the direction of drainage. They have not done a full drainage study yet. The average lot size is 8,750 square feet. The range is 5,625 square feet to 17,000 square feet. These would all be serviced by Town water and sewer. There is also an 8 acre lot at the site of the existing country club that would allow for expansion of that facility, with potential for tennis courts or a swimming pool or something like that. Jane Ford asked if those additional uses were just for the new subdivision or for Newmarket residents. Mr. Weinrub stated that would be up to whoever will operate the facilities. Chairman Botterman stated the golf course would remain as open space. He stated Mr. Chinburg is not a golf course operator and the Town is not a golf course operator. Mr. Chinburg stated the golf course would be treated as conservation land, so it will either be perpetually in use as a golf course or, if it failed as golf course, it would just go to open space that would be governed based on the conservation easement or whatever was negotiated as part of this process. The 8.4 acres would be there for the golf course operator to either lease or buy. That person would own the house, the clubhouse, the area around it and they would operate the golf course on the piece of land that has either been deeded to a conservation entity or encumbered with a conservation easement. The intent is to have the golf course operate just as it does today and put houses in without changing the golf course or impacting the wetlands. Chairman Botterman clarified the 8 separate acres is for the house, maintenance and parking and maybe future expansion if they need to buy more golf carts or put a bigger barn in or something like that. Mr. Chinburg stated that was exactly right. He stated that would be a separate lot.
Rick McMenimen asked if the golf course would be open to the public. Eric Chinburg stated it would be open to the public. The intention is it would be run as a municipal course. He doubted someone would come in and make it a private course and say the public cannot go to it. Rick McMenimen stated he wondered if the new community would claim that it was their golf course. Eric Chinburg stated no, that would be written into the deed language.
Dan Wright stated regarding the 8.4 acres, someone is presumably going to buy it and run the golf course. He asked if the owner would be able to do anything they wanted with it, such as put a house on it, subdivide it, or put a business on it. Eric Chinburg stated that lot would be subject to the Town’s zoning, site plan and subdivision regulations. Anything they did there would have to go through the Planning Board. As far as operation of the golf course, those operations would be limited by the conservation easement that would be placed on it as part of this process.
Mr. Weinrub stated regarding the wetland buffers, under normal zoning regulations there is a 100’ foot prime wetland buffer, 50’ to the very poorly drained soils and 25’ to poorly drained soils. Under the open space regulations, there is a 100’ buffer to all wetlands. He showed a plan that showed where the 100’ buffer was implemented, with all of the wetlands in that 100’ buffer preserved, and the location of the golf course. He also showed what the allowable area for development was. The developable area would be significantly limited. That is why they requested a waiver to the 100’ wetland buffer to preserve the golf course and minimize the impacts. A 25’ buffer to the poorly drained soils is shown on the plan, which is the outermost wetland. The impacts to the poorly drained wetlands would be limited. Those impacts would only be approximately 900 square feet.
Chairman Botterman asked him whether they were going to tie into the Town water and sewer system at Route 108. Mr. Weinrub stated that was correct.
Mr. Weinrub talked about the subdivision layout. They are looking at doing a closed drainage system, putting in cape cod berm curbing and a subsurface drainage system to collect the runoff. The houses from the crown of the roofline would drain forward to the roadway and get collected in the storm drain system. They would do a series of stormwater infiltration areas and rain gardens. They have identified a few locations around the site where they would drain the water to those areas to minimize the impact of the impervious areas and the peak runoff flow and mimic the existing hydraulic conditions. The runoff from the back of the lots would drain as sheet flow into the buffer areas.
Chairman Botterman invited the Conservation Commission to speak. Bruce Fecteau, Vice Chairman of the Conservation Commission, referred to their letter to the Board, which contained quite a few concerns. One of the largest is the Ash Swamp. A large area will be impacted by the 52 house lots and they are concerned about the drainage, fertilizer use, pet waste, automobile waste, and those types of items. He wanted to reinforce the concerns of the Conservation Commission. He understands this is the beginning of the process, but the concerns are there. Chairman Botterman asked if anyone from the Conservation Commission would sit in on the Technical Review Committee (TRC). Mr. Fecteau stated they would like to be included in any site walks. They could set someone up to represent the Commission. He would be responsible until they set that up. He stated several years ago, the buffer zone was changed from 50’ to 100’ for prime wetlands and that was not done lightly. The extra 50’ purified some of the runoffs from yards and it provided better protection for the land. When the buffer requirement is reduced to what it was years ago, it goes against what they were trying to do today to protect the land. The open space, which is being proposed as part of the golf course, is different from other projects where the open space was left wild and open for trails and viewing areas, like what was done at Wiggin Farm. He asked everyone to read their letter. The Conservation Commission is available for comments. He stated no one on the Commission was really impressed with this idea.
Diane Hardy stated this project will go to the State Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) for review and approval under the Alteration of Terrain process. They are encouraging LIDs and infiltration for stormwater treatment.
Mr. Fecteau stated, if you cut back on the buffer, you cut back on the space you have available to treat the runoff. He is looking forward to working with the Planning Board on this project.
Ed Portyrata, 177 Exeter Road, stated he has been watching the surveyors for two or three weeks. They are putting big flags on his markers. He was not going to speak for or against the project. He is trying to figure out who was going to put the water line in from the Industrial Park to where they are going to build all these houses. Diane Hardy stated the applicant would put the water line in. Mr. Portyrata stated, if they build the houses first, there will not be enough pressure going up the hill. Chairman Botterman stated there will be a lot of discussion with Sean Greig and Rick Malasky about the infrastructure. It is incumbent on the developer to make sure that his project fits the infrastructure the Town has.
Mr. Portyrata asked if they were going to do a traffic study. Chairman Botterman stated the applicant had done a traffic analysis. It is too early to talk about that, at this point. Mr. Portyrata stated he tried to go to the State and Town to decrease the speed limit. It is 40 miles per hour on that road and the cars go faster than that. It is a danger. When he goes by the cemetery toward his house and turns into his driveway, there is often almost a collision there. He asked if they would do anything to the road at all. Chairman Botterman stated he did not want to get too involved in discussing this at this point, but the traffic analysis indicates that they will have to widen the shoulder on the same side of the road as Mr. Portyrata’s property, so when a car is sitting to turn left into this site, the other traffic will be able to go around them. Mr. Portyrata stated, right now, there are no breakdown lanes there at all. Chairman Botterman stated, at the appropriate time, the Town’s traffic person will review that and see if they agree with that recommendation. It will ultimately be determined by the State Department of Transportation, as it is a State road.
Mr. Portyrata asked, when they did the work on the sewer line, they stopped it below the Industrial Park. After two or three years, they made another line to the top of the hill. He asked if it is the same as the rest of the town has. Chairman Botterman did not have the answer to that. Rick Malasky and Sean Greig will review it and make sure this meets the standards for sewer and water.
Mr. Portyrata asked who will widen the road, the State or the applicant. Chairman Botterman stated if the State determines the road needs to be widened, the developer will pay the cost.
John Brackett asked about the bicycle paths on Route 108. Diane Hardy stated the State is working on a bike path in Durham on Route 108 in the area of Stagecoach Road. This shoulder widening and bike path will extend down to the Newmarket town line to the Newmarket downtown. That project is under design now and moving forward. There is a second grant from the Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) program to extend bikeways and shoulder widening from New Road to the Newfields town line. The Town is going forward with requests to hire a designer and consultant. That went to the Town Meeting in 2011 and there was an appropriation of funds. This will be 100% paid for by State and Federal funds.
Mr. Portyrata stated across the road they used to pick blueberries. They had to wear boots, because it was wet. He asked if they tested the ground (soils). Chairman Botterman stated they have a Wetlands Scientist who came out and determined where the wetlands were. That has already been done.
Mr. Portyrata asked how big the houses would be and how many bedrooms they would have. He had concerns about the number of bedrooms. Chairman Botterman stated there would be plenty of opportunity to talk about that in the future meetings, at the appropriate time.
John Allen, 56 Smith Garrison Road, stated he was opposed to the 80 acres being turned over to the Conservation Commission. He stated property owners here were very angry that land was to be turned over to the school and then turned into conservation land by the slight of the hand. He had a feeling the repercussions were coming up in the next election cycle. He stated the developer would be better suited to look at turning the land over to a Section (IRS) 501 3c organization, preferably the YMCA in Portsmouth and have the Town Meeting approve a designated warrant article that it shall be for the townspeople’s use. So it doesn’t go into a situation like when you are heading toward Durham where land was supposed to be for public and, then, it was taken away from the public. On the site, there are old growth pines within the buffer that absorb a lot of nitrates. They should be harvested. He stated there had been a lot of money spent on an engineering plan telling you what backstops are. The Town is losing money on the golf course and the 8 acres. There will be zero money from the conservation land. Chairman Botterman clarified that no decisions have been made regarding this project. The land will be open space conservation land. It has not been determined whether it will go to the Conservation Commission or who will maintain it. John Allen stated he has done plenty of study of setting up Section 501 3c organizations for community purposes. There are many towns that have Section 501 3c organizations that own golf courses. They are allowed to use volunteer help and they would have the same insurance rates that the Town pays for its staff. He does not want this land to be deeded over to a conservation. He wants it deeded to a non-profit entity as an overseer, not the Conservation Commission, because they gave away land last time and lost revenue.
John Allen also stated he had been run over on Route 108 41 years ago. He is interested in what count DOT is using. He stated he knew for a fact they were at 180% capacity on Route 108 over what it was built for. They were going to straighten the road in 1979, but it did not happen. He would like to see the new traffic count in the study. Chairman Botterman stated that would be public record. The developer had a traffic engineer do a study.
John Allen stated there are a lot of units proposed. He hoped the runoff does not go into the sewer. There is no meter on the sewer. Chairman Botterman explained that is against the law to do that and it will not happen.
John Allen stated they should put matting pads on the trails where there will be a lot of foot traffic, so it does not track the high nitrates from the golf course to the wetlands. Chairman Botterman stated the trail system has not been developed. When they get to that point, they will take his point into consideration.
Rose-Anne Kwaks, Wadleigh Falls Road, asked about the yield plan. Diane Hardy stated they do have a yield plan and she would be happy to show it to her if she wanted to come into the office. She stated the revised yield plan shows the density and the layout of house lots without the wetland buffers being affected. She stated he was asking for a waiver from the 100 foot buffer requirement for the open space development. Mrs. Kwaks asked if the Board was planning on giving him a waiver for that this evening. Chairman Botterman stated not at this point.
Mrs. Kwaks asked if some houses could be built on the golf course. Chairman Botterman stated he guessed they wanted to keep the golf course intact. If houses went in along Ash Swamp Road, what you would be saying is the golf course is closing. Part of the plan is to try to keep the golf course open, if that is what the Town wants.
Mrs. Kwaks stated the golf course was beautiful and a keystone when you come into town. The 8 acre parcel with the important pieces to run the golf course will be subdivided off. It could be sold or rented. Under 6.03 of the Zoning Ordinance- Definitions, it discusses the Open Space Common Land. It states “This land area shall be designated for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the approved subdivision.” It has to have non-commercial, non-residential and non-industrial uses. She stated if they leave the golf course there (under that definition), it can only be used by the residents of the subdivision. If you look at the 8 acre lot to be created by the subdivision with those beautiful buildings, the developer could put a nice restaurant and lounge. Of course he doesn’t want houses on the golf course. He wants the view onto the open space. He is saving the best view for whatever he plans on putting there. The project will impact the wetlands. As you read the Conservation Commission’s letter it states how vital those wetlands are. There should be no encroachment on the buffer at all. According to the open space regulations, you cannot have a commercial entity there. It is a shame this is being used as a sentiment ploy to the town. Chairman Botterman stated he did not feel it was a ploy. They have to decide, as a town, whether to keep the golf course open or not. Mrs. Kwaks stated the ordinance states you cannot do that. Chairman Botterman stated you could keep it open as a golf course for the private use of the homeowners of the subdivision. Mrs. Kwaks stated it is not a money making enterprise right now, from what she understood, and this is with everyone being able to use it. She asked what guarantee you will have that everybody in this subdivision will play golf. You could not afford to keep it open. If they want to keep it open, they have to buy or lease all that property from Mr. Chinburg. It would not be viable.
She asked if the homes would be stick-built or manufactured. Chairman Botterman stated they have not had that discussion yet.
She stated the house lots are extremely small and she wondered if this project was part of any Federal or State grant money. Mr. Chinburg stated it was not.
She hoped a wildlife study would be done.
She asked if this would be an affordable housing project. Chairman Botterman stated it was his understanding it would not be. It will be for market rate housing.
She felt they were trying to cram way too many houses in there. She stated she felt they were getting a “snow job”.
Bruce Hauschel, Ash Swamp Road, stated there were too many houses. He asked if there was a density bonus. Diane Hardy stated there was not one being requested at this time. Mr. Hauschel asked what the floor area ratio was. Diane Hardy stated that information was not available, at this point. (Newmarket does not have regulations that include floor area ratios.) Bruce Hauschel stated it was anti-TDR. Diane Hardy stated Newmarket does not have a Transfer Development Right (TDR) program. Mr. Hauschel asked if it was a village plan or a traditional neighborhood. Diane Hardy stated it was a “Residential Open Space Design” development” or more commonly known as a “cluster development”, under RSA 674:21 which enables us to have Innovative Land Use Controls here in Newmarket. Mr. Hauschel stated the inventory map had not been certified. Diane Hardy stated it had not been signed by a certified wetland scientist and will be required to prior to approval.
Mr. Hauschel stated, as far as the impact on his family’s abutting property, he feared an increase in forest fires due to recreation, like fireworks and fire pits. He mentioned Fire Department access to the woodland area. He stated if they eliminated lot 38 it would provide that.
He asked if the (runoff) curve number had been established yet. Chairman Botterman stated the drainage analysis was not finished yet. Mr. Hauschel asked if there will be an easement for stormwater ponds. Diane Hardy stated the drainage analysis was not finished yet. Mr. Hauschel asked if there would be a performance bond. Chairman Botterman said, typically, there is. Mr. Hauschel asked if there was an environmental impact report. Chairman Botterman said none was required. Mr. Hauschel stated it is a deer wintering area. He asked about “dark sky” implications. Chairman Botterman stated they had not had those discussions yet, but they do take that into account. Mr. Hauschel asked for the submittal the Board had. Chairman Botterman stated it was public record and he could have a copy.
John Allen stated there was one section of Newmarket left protected under the “Endangered Species Act” for the New England Cottontail Rabbit. There are three pairs on this property. They come under Federal Endangered Species Act. Things that have happened since 1980 have wiped out the population in this area. The policies of letting the undergrowth and juniper grow there are on the back of the golf course and letting the invasive species take over has caused their extinction. He stated you put turtle signs and turtle tunnels in, but you won’t save an endangered species. He stated, if the Feds come down, you know what they will say. That is a 5,000 foot buffer. Chairman Botterman stated he assumed the engineering company has done a review of the rare species habitats and they are not impacting any with this project. Mr. Chinburg stated Gove Environmental has done that. John Allen stated the rabbits live off that golf course. Chairman Botterman stated there is a map published of all the rare species habitat and the engineering companies are required to go through that and confirm it with the State of New Hampshire Division of Forests and Lands and Fish and Game Department. They will double check it to make sure there is no impact to habitat.
Mr. Weinrub clarified the use of the open space. In the zoning regulations, there are two different types of open space. There is open space that is common land and that use is designated for the use of the residents of the approved development. There is also 6.03(B), which is open space conservation land and that is what they are looking at with this site, the dedication of this as conservation land. Conservation land is not required to be open to the public access unless it is required as an elective bonus provision. Chairman Botterman stated the Town could make that open to the public, so the golf course could be left there and made open to the public.
Mr. Portyrata stated he lived near the cemetery and he will probably be buried there someday and he would probably have to look at this project. He is going to be buried way in back so he doesn’t have to look at it. Chairman Botterman asked if he had a view easement.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to continue the public hearing for a Subdivision under Residential Open Space Design and for a Special Use Permit at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone. The proposal is to construct 52 single-family homes along the north side of the golf course and to preserve the golf course as open space. The existing clubhouse will be located on an 8-acre lot until the next meeting on September 10, 2013 at 7:00 p.m.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the public hearing for an application for Subdivision under Residential Open Space Design, requested by the applicant at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone. (editorial note: The intention of the Board was to continue to Sept 10, 2013)
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated they should set up a site walk. There was discussion of a date and time. A date was set for September 7, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. Chairman Botterman advised Bruce Fecteau, if a quorum of Conservation Commission members intended to attend, they would have to post the site walk as a Conservation Commission meeting.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the public hearing on the Special Use Permit at 200 Exeter Road Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone to September 7, 2013 at 8:00 a.m. for the purposes of conducting a site walk at the property
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Rockingham Junction, LLC - Public hearing for an application for Site Plan, at the intersection of Old Route 108 and Ash Swamp Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 13-A, B1 Zone. The proposal is to renovate the existing train depot to allow for a one bedroom apartment and a twenty seat bar and lounge.
Diane Hardy went over the permit application for completeness. She had provided the Board with the checklist. This comes under Minor Site Plan review category. She stated the fees were paid and there were only a couple of deficiencies. There should be a Licensed Land Surveyor stamp on the boundary plan. There are no accommodations on the current plan for pedestrian and bicycle facilities. There should be some detail regarding the dumpster enclosure. This property is adjacent to the Rockingham trail, which is a state recreation trail. There should be some signage defining where the access for that is located. The applicant has offered to provide some trail parking. There should be signage identifying the location of that parking. There should be a septic system plan number included on the plan. A waiver of parking, paving of the parking area and notifications of the Town departments are needed. She recommended acceptance of the application, because it is substantially complete and this be forwarded to the TRC, which will include coordination with the State Division of Forest & Lands and Parks and Recreation, as well as the Town of Newfields, as the town boundary goes through the middle of the lot. This should be coordinated with the Newfields Planning Board. The applicant has provided a signature block for both towns to sign the plan.
Val Shelton asked if this was a mixed-use proposal and whether a variance was needed. The applicant stated there was a setback variance obtained a few years ago. Val Shelton stated in light of RSA 674:53 regarding land affected by a municipal boundary and given that most of the building is located in Newfields, it would make sense to request Newfields to do joint public hearings on this application.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they do not accept this application until the applicant receives the appropriate variances and the Planner makes a determination with the Town of Newfields Town Planner as to whether or not this hearing should be a joint hearing
Alex Ross, Ross Engineering, the surveyor and engineer who prepared the plans stated they did speak with Clay Mitchell, the Newfields Town Planner, and reviewed the plan. They have been before Newfields for variances, similar to those required in Newmarket. Due to the fact that the access is in Newmarket, as well as the proposed septic system and the parking lot, it was Mr. Mitchell’s opinion that he would defer to Newmarket. He stated they do plan on going to the Newfields Planning Board to give them due notice of everything and going through the full review process. They did discuss having a joint meeting of the two Boards with Clay Mitchell. This is a minor review, which is very low impact. Mr. Mitchell thought it did not make sense for this development. They did review the RSA. They want to comply with everything and give both towns equal time and make sure they review all concerns. Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the RSA today and, in Paragraph 6, it talks about when local land use boards for more than one municipality have jurisdiction over proposed use or property. In Paragraph A, it says the applicant may petition the respective land use boards of each such municipality to proceed with an application on a joint basis. Val Shelton stated the part that applies is that all uses of land, building or structures shall comply with the regulations or the municipality in which they are located. Diane Hardy stated that was correct and the applicant was aware of that. Val Shelton stated that was the issue of requiring a variance for mixed use within the B1 zone. You don’t know if it will comply until you go through that process. Alex Ross stated in working with the owner of the parcel in 2006 and 2007, initially he wanted to construct two more buildings on the site, which is a more intense site plan. At that point, they did come before the Newmarket Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and got required variances. All of the ins and outs of straddling the town line and for mixed use were reviewed. They will review that again.
Diane Hardy stated she did not believe the applicant needed a variance. The piece of the property that needs a variance is in Newfields. There is a very small portion of the building that would fall into the mixed use category. The portion that is physically located in Newmarket complies with the current Newmarket Zoning.
Elizabeth Dudley stated Newfields’ stance was that the entrance to the project is in Newmarket, so the application will largely be dealt with by Newmarket. Val Shelton asked if the Newmarket Building Inspector will inspect the portion of the building that is in Newmarket. Chairman Botterman stated that was correct.
Diane Hardy stated, as the Zoning Administrator for the Town, it was her determination that this does not require a variance.
Val Shelton stated, relative to mixed use, the apartment will be serviced by a septic system located in Newmarket. Diane Hardy stated the uses of the land will comply with the regulations of the municipality. The septic system is being designed appropriately. The apartment is physically in Newfields.
Alex Ross stated, in 2008, they had a site walk with the Building Inspectors from both towns and had a “huddle” on how things would be reviewed and inspected. They plan on doing that, working with both towns, and coming up with the best solution.
Chairman Botterman stated he understood Val Shelton’s concern. He felt the apartment was in Newfields and this Board does not have any say over that.
Dan Wright stated the application was substantially complete. Mr. Chinburg had a lot of things that were not completely done and the Board accepted it. There are some concerns with this application, but if it is substantially complete, the Board has to accept the application.
Val Shelton stated the concern she raised had to do with a Zoning issue. In her opinion, because it is in the B1 Zone, this is a mixed use application. It has the residential component. Her interpretation as a Board member was that this was not allowed under Newmarket’s zoning. She was not opposed to the proposal.
Chairman Botterman stated the piece of land in Newmarket is not a mixed use. The residential unit is in Newfields. If it was determined that a variance is needed, they could stop at any time during this process and let the applicant know they could not go any further until they got the appropriate variances. He did think they needed to have a memo from Clay Mitchell to make sure they were comfortable with the Newfields portion of the site plan being presented.
Rick McMenimen stated three quarters of the building was in Newfields. The only thing Newmarket has is the far corner of the building, the parking lot and the access. He would like to see what Newfields has to say. Chairman Botterman stated this will be a dual process.
Janice Rosa stated the Conservation Commission had a question about where people would access the recreation trail and where they would park. Mr. Ross stated the way this was all set up the recreational trail area was landlocked. The owner of the depot is an advocate of the trail and recreation area. He wants to see it continue. Part of the plan is a 20’ wide easement to allow everyone to gain access to that NH Division of Parks trail. They have spoken to Chris Gamauche at NH Division of Parks and Recreation. He briefly reviewed the plan and was happy they had provided access and some of the parking. He described where the parking was located on the plan.
There was no second for the motion not to accept the application. With no second, the motion dies.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to accept the application for site plan requested by the Rockingham Junction LLC at the intersection of Old Route 108 and Ash Swamp Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 13A, B1 Zone. The proposal is to renovate the existing train depot to allow for a one-bedroom apartment and a 20 seat bar and lounge.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Val Shelton voted against
John Brackett abstained, but did not state a reason for the abstention
Elizabeth Dudley, Eric Botterman, Janice Rosa, Dan Wright,
Rick McMenimen in favor
Motion passes
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Matt Weber, Ross Engineering, stated the Board had gone over a lot of the points he was going to raise. The trail lot is landlocked. They have included an easement in their design. They propose to renovate the depot. They will restore it to its original appearance and construct a very small addition. There will be a small gravel parking area. Much of the lot is already covered with gravel. They plan to clean it up and create a safe and durable parking lot. Even though a drainage analysis was not required, per the minimum site development regulations they strategically placed infiltration trenches to collect and retain storm water from the building and parking lot.
He stated the site abuts the trails corridor. It is used as a recreation path. Recognizing the need to gain access to this area, there is a 20’ easement. They have added parking to accommodate this.
They plan on providing all required information for both Newmarket and Newfields Planning Boards and they will meet all regulations. The design intent of the project was to assure very low impact development, preserving the existing character of the site.
They have created a site plan that meets Town regulations, provides continued access to the recreational area and it will be a safe, code compliant building to replace the existing unsafe train depot. This development will drastically improve the aesthetics of the lot and will be an asset to the community for years to come.
They have met with Diane Hardy and have received a checklist of minor issues they will resolve and complete very soon.
Ginger Smith, 3 Birch Drive, asked if anyone can go there and park near the depot now and hike along the railroad trail. Chairman Botterman stated people do it. Alex Ross stated the owner is open to it. Alex Ross stated currently cars park on the side of Old Route 108 in a gravel area. Ginger Smith asked to where it went. Diane Hardy stated if you go to the NH Division of Parks and Recreation, the trail is mapped on their website. It is under “DRED”.
Amy Kosh, Maplecrest, stated she loved there was an easement for this. She was concerned that four or five parking spaces were not enough during certain times. It is heavily used by bicycling groups and snowmobilers. They want to ensure there is safe and easy access for all people to use the trail and they are not limited to four parking spaces. Chairman Botterman stated that was a valid question. He explained it is not incumbent on this property owner to provide the Town with access to the rail trail. They are doing us a favor by giving us four spaces and an easement. He stated he lives off Ash Swamp Road and there are a lot of people parked there for snowmobiling in the winter. If the restaurant is open and the patrons need the parking, the owner is not going to be happy with people parking their snowmobile trailers there. Amy Kosh stated she understood and requested the Planning Board keep in mind it is a public use trail. She stated if there is some consideration of that, it would be good.
Elizabeth Dudley stated the existing spaces off of Old Route 108 could be preserved. Alex Ross stated they did consider that. He spoke to NH Division of Parks and Recreation and there is a large parcel just to the south of this parcel that could be, in the future, used for parking. The NH Division of Parks and Recreation is considering that. The applicant’s 20’ wide easement provides a pathway to get to that larger piece that is large enough for a parking area. Chairman Botterman stated it is a valid point and a lot of people use the trail. He explained this property owner is not required to provide everyone with a parking space to go use the trail. He stated it appeared the property owner was willing to work with this, but if customers for his business show up and they cannot park in the lot for the business, it will not be good.
Elizabeth Dudley stated they should consider how horses might move to the trail. She stated they might make a natural soil path at the front of the property that horses could use to access the trail. Alex Ross stated that part of their design scheme is to disturb as little area as possible.
Bruce Fecteau, 244 Ash Swamp Road, stated he has used the path in the past. He asked, once the easement is accepted, would it be in effect forever. Chairman Botterman stated it went in perpetuity with the land. Matt Weber stated the easement was there now.
Arlon Chaffee, 2 Packers Falls Road, stated he is an avid cyclist and runner and uses the rail trail extensively. He is encouraged to see there are five spaces for the public. He stated he hopes public access will be a theme running throughout the approval process and it will be maximized. He stated if anyone was familiar with Johnson’s Restaurant in Alton (New Durham) on Route 11, snowmobilers and people using the trails make really good customers.
Rick McMenimen asked about the distance between the railroad tracks and the building. Alex Ross stated the building is very close to the railroad tracks. The closest point is about 14’ to 15’. Rick McMenimen asked if there would be a fence around the building, so no one will wander onto the tracks. Alex Ross stated originally when the high speed rail was revamped, the railroad installed a fence. They have since removed it. They do want to provide a safe setting. They will work with the railroad to see if the fence can go back up.
Diane Hardy stated a waiver requested is from Section 3.02(B)(6) regarding the surface of the parking lot. The TRC will look at this and address it. Alex Ross stated this is less than 20,000 square feet and they are in a different category, which doesn’t require a stormwater plan. They do want to go to TRC and go through everything. Diane Hardy stated there were questions on drainage.
Chairman Botterman asked if the septic plan had been sent to the State. Alex Ross stated it had.
Rick McMenimen asked if there was any requirement for setback from the railroad tracks, since this building was going to be something other than a train station. Chairman Botterman stated there was not. There were train stations all over the east coast being used as restaurants.
Diane Hardy asked if the railroad had been included as an abutter. They would normally send a response about specifications. She stated the applicant should coordinate with them to make sure their concerns are addressed. Chairman Botterman asked the applicant to get a letter from the railroad to see if they have any questions or concerns.
Everyone was familiar with the site and felt a site walk was not necessary.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the public hearing for the application for the site plan for the Rockingham Junction LLC at the intersection of Old Route 108 and Ash Swamp Road, Tax Map R4, Lot 13A, B1 Zone. The proposal is to renovate the existing train depot to allow for a one bedroom apartment and a 20 seat bar and lounge.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated they would like to get the TRC together and resolve some issues and Diane Hardy could call Clay Mitchell to discuss this.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Chairman Botterman stated two applications were just continued and they both talked about TRC meetings. He asked for volunteers.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she would volunteer for the Rockingham Golf Course project.
Chairman Botterman stated he was fine with one or two members on each.
Val Shelton stated she would serve on the Rockingham Golf Course project.
Janice Rosa volunteered for the Rockingham Junction LLC project, as did Jane Ford.
Chairman Botterman mentioned the Town Council had approved the zoning amendments to the M2 zone.
Chairman Botterman stated the Town Council tabled the request for funds for the dam study.
Diane Hardy stated she had attended a meeting at UNH regarding new flood plain maps. Newmarket will be getting new maps that will more accurately depict the boundary of the 100 year flood plain. This is through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Board may have to update the floodplain regulations and adopt the new maps after January 2015.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:50 p.m.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor