Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Val Shelton, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), Elizabeth Dudley, Jane Ford (Alternate), Ginger Smith (Alternate), Diane Hardy (Town Planner)
Absent: John Brackett, Gabriel Jerome (Alternate)
Called to order: 7:02 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:43 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes:
None.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Chairman Botterman appointed Jane Ford to take John Brackett’s place.
Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. – Continuation of a 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 stated the Board voted to accept the Special Use Permit portion of the application at the last meeting, so they could review the yield plan. Also, at the last meeting, they set up a Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. The Board has not yet accepted the application for subdivision. He advised, at this point, the Board should only comment on the yield plan. The TRC had reviewed the yield plan.
Val Shelton explained the regulations involved in this review. The first is 6.00 in the Zoning Ordinance relative to the Residential Open Space Design Development by Special Use Permit. This section refers to density. She stated the developer was putting forth their yield plan and the Board is looking at it relative to environmental impacts, economic realities and sound land use. At this point, the applicant placed a plan where everyone could see it. Val Shelton stated the design scheme shows 52 lots. The TRC felt the yield plan shown by the developer indicates the proposed lots are situated in the best possible locations. This plan would require Special Use Permits from the Planning Board, because there are wetlands crossings.
There are driveway and utility crossings that would fall under Section 5.03(E)(4) of the Zoning Ordinance which would require Special Use Permits by the Planning Board. This would affect Lot 10 for a driveway crossing which is less than 6,000 square feet. Also, there are four (4) utility crossings, where the roadways are located, would also require a Special Use Permit under that same section. Under Section 5.03 (F), other dredge, fills and impacts related to development would also require a Special Use Permit. This requires Conservation Commission input and the increase (doubling) of buffers. The increased buffers would be relative to wetlands of a greater size or functional value than the wetlands that being impacted. In looking at the yield plan, the roadway wetland impact can be seen coming in next to Lots 32, 31, and 30. There is another minor one by Lots 38, one by Lots 24 and 25, and one by Lot 2.
Relative to Section 5.03(F), the dredge and fill permits required to cross those wetlands can be addressed by increasing buffers to the prime wetlands or the larger lot in the middle. Those can be done by removing Lots 8, 9, and 10 from the yield plan and increasing the buffers with requirements to have no-cut zones on Lots 1, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24. The zoning requires a minimum lot size of one acre. If the developer did away with Lots 8, 9, and 10, increased the buffer to the prime wetland and increased the no-cut zones, the yield plan would change to 48 lots. They would be able to apply for a 15% density bonus. Even with the elimination of the three lots, Lots 8, 9, and 10, they would still get a yield of 55 lots under open space subdivision.
She stated they would need a waiver under subdivision regulations for the length of the cul-de-sac. Section 3.02 (B) 7 Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
They would also need to add access to the adjacent land or apply for a waiver. - Section 3.02 © (2) Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
They meet the requirement for a 2-acre park parcel. Section 3.11 (A) 1 and 2. Everything else meets the subdivision regulations. If a developer came before the Board with a plan similar to this, but modified to have greater setbacks and they eliminated some lots, it is conceivable they could present a 48-lot subdivision. With the Special Use Permits and waiver of road length, they would meet current subdivision regulations.
Using the density evaluation, the yield plan, and sound land use, the TRC asked if it was an economic reality that this could be developed with 48 lots.
There is approximately 5500 feet of road. The TRC did a calculation of $350/foot for underground utilities, water and sewer, divided by 48 lots, at $40,000 per lot. In the discussions, the developer proposed house sizes of 1800 square feet. The value of each lot with a house on it would be just under $300,000 and then there would be the land cost and financing. If you were to do a full blown economic feasibility study of this, you would find, in order to make it economically feasible, your house packages would have to sell at around $340,000 to $350,000. She felt that was realistic.
The TRC went over this process to determine whether this was a realistic yield plan. The plan met the three criteria to determine what the potential density would be for an open space subdivision. It would be conceivable that a developer could propose 55 lots on this site under an open space plan. This is only dealing with the yield plan and what the potential density would be. Other factors in the regulations and ordinance would take that number and adjust it accordingly. She stated the TRC meeting was attended by herself, Elizabeth Dudley, Diane Hardy, Eric Chinburg, and two of his engineers.
Val Shelton asked if someone brought in a conventional subdivision for this property, would the Board grant a waiver for road length. That would be required to move this forward as a conventional plan. Some of the discussion at the TRC meeting was, if the waiver was related to life safety, would it matter whether that road length was in a conventional subdivision or an open space subdivision. The question would center on the reason for the road length. Elizabeth Dudley went over some of the discussion at the TRC meeting.
Chairman Botterman stated the TRC reviewed the yield plan. The yield plan now in front of the Board meets the requirements. Val Shelton stated it was reasonable to conclude that based upon the Special Use Permit ordinance and the subdivision regulations the Planning Board would come to a conclusion this property could be developed with 48 lots.
Chairman Botterman stated there were several long cul-de-sacs in town, such as Ladyslipper Drive, which is a very long cul-de-sac. Val Shelton stated Moody Point is another and is a mile and a half long.
Diane Hardy stated the regulations state the Planning Board needs to approve the yield plan calculations. They could then move forward with the application and site engineering. She asked Val Shelton if it was her intent the Board act on each waiver as part of this review. Val Shelton stated, no, under Section 6.10 the idea was to not have the applicant have the burden of going through full engineering plans. Elizabeth Dudley stated she agreed, it clearly says a formal engineering design is not necessary under the regulations at this stage for achieving density. Val Shelton stated it was a matter of whether other Board members, as she outlined, would agree that this would be a reasonable plan with some of the changes that she proposed, that 48 units would fit on there and you could get the increased buffers necessary for the Special Use Permit. These would be more important buffers to the Prime Wetland and the pond area for the minimal crossings. The total crossing for utilities and roads for poorly drained wetlands and the buffers is 14,400 feet, .33 acres. The Board has approved so many projects with far greater impacts. Maya’s Way had a no-cut zone, because they increased the buffer to offset the crossing.
Val Shelton asked the applicant if they had any objection to the thought that this would be 48 units, as opposed to 51. Eric Weinrub, Altus Engineering, stated they were confident with the 51, however, with the density bonuses allowed to them, they have no objection to going down to 48 knowing they were proposing 53 units and they would still meet that density bonus.
Diane Hardy recommended the Planning Board approve the yield plan and the methodology outlined by Val Shelton, with the understanding there would be 48 lots to be developed under conventional subdivision regulations and with consideration to a 15% density bonus increase, which would bring the total up to a potential of 55 lots. That would be used as the basis for the open space development.
Rick McMenimen stated he didn’t want to vote on something he had not seen. If this was changed from 51 lots to 48 with a potential of 55, he would like to see the yield plan for that. Elizabeth Dudley stated that yield plan would be similar to what is being looked at here, but with two or three fewer lots. Val Shelton stated what she was commenting on was that she did not believe that 51 units would be approved by the Planning Board, because of the zoning regulations relative to wetlands and buffers. If you look at this yield plan and take out Lots 8, 9, and 10, then take the buffers that are shown on Lots 1, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24 and increase those buffers so the buildable portions of those lots become one acre, they are all well over one acre, you would be seeing greater buffer areas or a line that would say “no-cut”, a no-cut zone on those particular lots. The plan before you would not change visually other than Lots 8, 9, and 10 would go away and on those lots in excess of the one acre, there would be a big black line that says “no-cut zone”. Diane Hardy asked, if the Planning Board was inclined to approve this tonight, if they could ask the applicant to provide an updated plan that reflects that configuration and would be part of the record and part of the Special Use Permit.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the Special Use Permit relative to the yield plan with the requirement that the applicant resubmit a revised plan depicting 48 potential lots, with Lots 8, 9, and 10 being not developed, being open space, and that there be increased buffers to Lots 1, 11, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 24, so that the applicant could meet the requirements as set forth under Article 5.03(F) of our Zoning Ordinance
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Rick McMenimen abstained, no reason was given
All others in favor
Chairman Botterman stated there had been a lot of discussion at the last meeting, regarding whether the subdivision application was complete to accept. The Board accepted the yield plan, but did not accept the application for the open space subdivision. Before the Board can discuss anything, they need to accept the application. He stated his opinion is they have the information to start the discussions. They do not have enough information to make a decision. They need to be able to start talking about hiring the Board’s own consultants to review what the applicant has submitted and now that the yield plan is worked out the applicant can go forward with a drainage design. Either the Board does not accept the application and does not talk about anything or the Board starts the process and starts getting the Board’s own ducks in a row. He would like to see the application accepted to start the discussion process. It does not mean they are going to approve anything, it just means they can start the process. He stated Bruce Fecteau, from the Conservation Commission, was present, and he will have some recommendations, but the Board cannot talk about this until they accept the application.
Rick McMenimen asked Diane Hardy if she had enough information to recommend accepting the application. Diane Hardy stated she did, at this point. She would like to make sure it is clear this is subject to a detailed landscaping plan and detailed stormwater plan and they get a clear and concise plan on ownership of the open space, with information on how it will legally be set up with the various legal instruments, whether it will be through deed restriction or covenants or easements. As long as that comes in within a six week time frame, the review should be far enough along that the Board could consider all of the information in total and move forward to an approval or conditional approval.
Chairman Botterman explained, for the public, the only thing accepting the application does is start the process. It does not tie the Board’s hands in any way. There is a certain amount of time the Board would have to vote. If they do not have the information they need to vote, they ask the applicant for a continuance to allow more time. If they say no, the Board votes on the information in front of them. There is no downside to this. It just gets the process going. There are a lot of moving pieces to this and it is time to start talking about it.
Dan Wright stated, at the last meeting, it was said the application was substantially complete, but there were seventeen items outstanding. Diane Hardy stated they had gone through a lot of it and much of it pertained to the environmental yield plan. There is a second color rendering that clearly delineates the environmental resources. She had asked the applicant to put the calculations on the plan. They have worked through a lot of those requests, so the Board has the information to move forward with consideration of the application. The main detail is there is no stormwater plan. It takes a while to get an engineer on board to review the regulations. Val Shelton stated the applicant may not want to spend money on those elements, at this point, because they may not get certain waivers and then they have to redesign the layouts. Chairman Botterman stated up until now the applicant wasn’t even sure the Board was going to accept the yield plan. It is an iterative process.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to accept the application for the Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. 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, with the following conditions:
* The applicant submits a stormwater management plan
* The applicant submits a landscaping plan
* The applicant submits a definitive ownership plan for the open space, so it is clear how it will be preserved in perpetuity
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman recapped the site walk. There were several representatives for the developer there. Bruce Fecteau, from the Conservation Commission, was present, as well as Mr. Hauschel, an abutter. They spent about an hour and a half walking the site. They had flagged the centerline of the road. They looked at the little wetland area that was going to be filled for the road. Mr. Hauschel had some concerns about access to his property. The developer is willing to address those. As part of the application, the developer submitted a Wildlife Habitat Assessment done by Gove Environmental, who had a representative at the site walk. The Conservation Commission would like to have the report sent out for a peer review to make sure they concur with the report. He stated the report is very thorough.
Val Shelton asked if the applicant could put the yield plan on the screen for people to view. He did do that.
Eric Weinrub, Altus Engineering, stated they would like to request the Board discuss the waivers. One of the waivers they were looking for was a wetland buffer waiver. In a traditional subdivision, all they are required to do is have a 100’ buffer to the prime wetland, a 50’ buffer to very poorly drained soils, and a 25’ buffer to poorly drained soils. In the open space requirements, you must be 100’ from all wetlands, very poorly drained, and poorly drained. They were proposing to honor the traditional subdivision setbacks to wetlands, with a 25’ to poorly drained, 50’ to very poorly drained, and 100’ to the prime wetlands. If they have to honor the open space setbacks, they end up with a very limited development area that takes up the golf course. Val Shelton asked if the only way the applicant would propose an open space development for this property would be if they could retain the golf course in its entirety. Mr. Weinrub stated that is the only way. The plan is to keep the golf course. He went over the plan. The only area where they will impact any of the forest is at the edge of the ninth hole. It will just nip the edge, but will still maintain the ninth in its entirety. Everything else stays. Their goal is to balance these conflicting constraints, maintain the golf course, and stay 100’ from the prime wetland. They end up where something has to give. The 100’ buffer that is part of the open space development requirements vs. conventional requirements is the only constraint for which they are asking for relief. There would be “protected wetand buffer” placards put up so people would know where the 25’ buffer is located and there could be some restriction on pesticides and fertilizers.
Elizabeth Dudley asked if some environmental awareness measures could be passed on to the owners. For example, there could be some restrictions in terms of what can be done there for pesticides, fertilizers and so on. They could encourage people to have lawns that do not go to the buffer area or they could have a meadow area, instead of a lawn, that could be mowed once a year.
Mr. Weinrub stated he has prepared an environmental resources plan. They have a copy, stamped by Altus engineers and Gove Environmental.
He stated they were required to research the agricultural and farmland significance of the property. The golf course is not on prime farmland. There are some prime farmland soils on part of the area they are not developing. He showed a map of farmland of local importance which is mostly golf course, the wetland and part of the area they are developing. He indicated another area that was farmland of statewide importance.
He stated there are no highly erodible soils located on the project site.
They were asked to identify trails and recreation areas. The public golf course is the recreation area. They have the Rockingham “Rails-to-Trail” that starts just south of the property.
They presented information to show how the project would impact view sheds. He showed a photo taken on Route 108 northbound. He indicated where the road would go in. The only area where you will see into the project is where you come in. He showed where there would be a deceleration lane. There will be a little bit of clearing along that area. The buffer will stay as is. As you leave town, at the northern end of the property, they are maintaining a significant vegetative buffer along the right-of-way. The buffer as you leave town will not change. He showed photos and indicated the exact areas involved in the prior conversation.
He showed the view from the cemetery and where the entrance to the subdivision will go. What you see of the golf course now will be what you see in the future. There will be no change along Ash Swamp Road in the view shed.
The other waivers requested were for the roadway length, for which they have support from the Fire Department and Public Works for the length of the cul-de-sac.
They also requested a waiver of curbing to be able to install Cape Cod berm curbing. They stated it was less expensive and they would like to have a mountable curb, since it is a narrower road. If people have guests they could park more easily. If something is going on it is an easier access for a fire truck. It makes it a better site.
They asked for a waiver for the width of the roadway.
They asked for a waiver to go from 18” of gravel with 6” of crushed gravel to go to a more standard 6” of crushed gravel with 12” of gravel for road base.
The last waiver they are requesting pertains to cul-de-sacs, where necessary. The regulations require those serving six houses or fewer to be designed with a hammerhead facilitating a 3 point turn. The hammerhead they are proposing serves eight homes vs. six, therefore a waiver is required.
Mr. Weinrub stated the waterline comes up Route 108 and veers into the site cross country, comes back up and runs down through the golf course, they believe. It is undersized without enough pressure and flow. They will go back and connect to the water at Route 108 at a location approved by Sean Grieg at Public Works. They will install a new water line along the road and stub out for future extension or reconnect to the existing one to allow someone in the future to extend it further. They will then extend a waterline to the end of the road with hydrants, as required every 500’. It will be an 8 inch water line.
He stated municipal sewer ends around the curve. It is a dry sewer, as nothing is connected to the last couple of lines. They will come up with a low pressure forced main system, so each house has its own grinder pump. It will pump up to the forced main to the existing gravity line. That is a better system for this site. There would be not be as much infrastructure for the Town to maintain, each person maintains their own. If this was a conventional subdivision, with gravity to a pump station, an entire pump station would have to be built before you could sell one house. This allows them to start constructing houses without that large capital cost. They have had preliminary discussions with Sean Grieg from Public Works.
He stated they have hired Steve Pernaw to look at the traffic. They have met with NH DOT. They had two scenarios. One was to do a bypass lane on the cemetery side. The other was to shift the centerline slightly and have a left turn lane on the northbound side. They decided to do all of the work on the golf course side, so they are not moving any closer to the cemetery or impacting the trees there.
Janice Rosa stated they keep stating the golf course is going to stay. She stated Mr. Chinburg had said he was not in a business to run a golf course and he was going to look for someone to lease it. She understood they cannot control everything, but, if they cannot find someone to lease it, then the golf course will not be there. When they say the golf course will stay, that is what is in people’s minds. If they cannot find someone to lease it, she asked what would become of that space. Eric Chinburg stated they would make sure they craft it in the conservation easement documents that would govern the use of this property that it will either be, in perpetuity, a golf course or, if that fails for whatever reason, it would be open space. They have had three different parties who understand how to run those businesses approach them and they think that someone will take it over. It has been there a long time and been successful. It is their expectation it will remain as a golf course, but, if it does not, it will remain as open space.
Dan Wright stated whoever takes over the golf course has to purchase eight acres from the developer. Eric Chinburg stated that was the most likely scenario. Dan Wright asked if they would purchase it first and build a clubhouse. Eric Chinburg stated the eight acres includes the clubhouse and the yellow house. Chairman Botterman asked what the intent of the eight acres was. Eric Chinburg stated one of the people, with whom they have spoken, expressed an interest in adding a swimming pool and tennis courts. They left enough room for that.
Elizabeth Dudley asked what the general selling price would be for these homes. Eric Chinburg stated they would like to have some starting in the high 200s and going up from there. He stated the average would be in the 330,000 to 340,000 range including house and land. He stated they would put up models and people would buy the whole thing at once.
Jane Ford asked about when Mr. Chinburg had said someone purchasing the golf course would be the preferable option. She asked what the other scenarios would be if that did not happen. Eric Chinburg stated they envision 54 lots, one of which is the golf course. That brings them to 53. The 53rd lot is the 8 acres that includes the yellow house and clubhouse, then 52 new homes. It is conceivable that someone will say they want to just have a caddy shack and a starter’s booth on the 53 acres and they will not need a clubhouse and a house. There may be a model for that. That person would sell the house and barn to someone else. The people who have expressed interest in running the golf course have said they want the property that includes the barn, the house, and the golf course.
Jane Ford asked if it was possible that the eight acres could be developed. Eric Chinburg stated there would be a restriction, where it would continue as a commercial use, it is an existing commercial use, which has a clubhouse and shed. It could be a country club. The reason they want that land is in case someone wants a pool and tennis courts or to makes it more of a country club rather than just a golf course.
Janice Rosa asked, if they did not find someone to lease it as a golf course for three years and it became open space land, where and who would put in a management plan to make sure things are properly maintained and mowed to keep the vista pretty. Eric Chinburg stated Diane Hardy has mentioned the need to create a conservation easement document, which would be a negotiation between them and whatever conservation body wants to hold the easement or dictate its terms. They are open to how that gets negotiated.
Diane Hardy stated often, when these conservation lands get conveyed, there is a management plan that goes along with them that provides monitoring and oversight, many times by a third party such as the local conservation commission or a local land trust. In the future, if those scenarios come to pass, there will be something in place to assure the conservation land will forever be maintained as such and will be properly maintained and managed.
Chairman Botterman stated if it was going to be a golf course, in the winter, there will be provisions made for cross country skiing. Eric Chinburg stated that was correct. The current operators said cross country skiing can damage greens, but fairways and golf cart paths are fair game for open public use. Chairman Botterman stated this would be predicated on the Board approving something and upon getting the conservation easement worked out.
Janice Rosa asked, if the property is leased to someone, wouldn’t they have a say as to whether someone could ski on their property. Eric Chinburg stated their lease would be subject to the easement that is on the land.
Val Shelton stated the reason this discussion is important is because, if the premise of requesting the granting of a waiver for the 100’ wetland setback is the area is proposed to be maintained in perpetuity as a golf course, that is a different scenario than if that land is just going to remain open. This means, if several years down the road, there is just an overgrown field there, this has defeated the purpose of the application, when this whole project could have moved into the golf course. That is the premise of the perpetuity deed restriction for maintaining this open space as the gateway to Newmarket and protecting its corresponding scenic vistas. Eric Chinburg stated they have done others where there were fields and a requirement that it be mowed once a year in a certain month or twice a year. Val Shelton stated it is a case in point. It is very different driving down Bay Road to the Nature Conservancy area, which is beautiful, being a wide open field, but it looks so different now that it is mowed once a year vs. when it was privately owned and was mowed and maintained several times during the summer months. Chairman Botterman stated if it is not going to be a golf course, there are a lot of people who would rather see it just grow in.
Val Shelton asked if they have anything in writing from Rick Malasky regarding the waivers relating to the roads. Diane Hardy stated they were just starting the TRC process for that aspect of the project and they do not have anything at this point.
Mr. Weinrub stated regarding water and access, the abutter requested they do not necessarily have to extend water to his property, but he would like them to provide an access so emergency vehicles could get to his property. Mr. Weinrub stated they would honor that request.
Val Shelton stated she believed the regulations require contiguous connections to other developable land. They may need a waiver if they are not creating a 50-foot access to other land. Mr. Weinrub stated he was not sure that was in the open space regulations.
Chairman Botterman stated, in the next couple of weeks, he would like to have the developer’s representatives meet with Diane Hardy, go through this and make sure all of the waivers are on the table. He would like to get it all up front one time and discuss it all.
Val Shelton stated Section 3.14(C)(3) states no lots shall be cleared in excess of 20% other than construction of the dwellings. There was discussion at the site walk regarding clearing within the 75’ setback. She asked the applicant to look at that relative to any lots being proposed to be cleared beyond 20%. Diane Hardy stated she had requested that they see a plan showing what areas are going to be cleared and what will have the tree line maintained, so they can get a handle on how many lots that will affect.
Chairman Botterman asked Bruce Fecteau, Conservation Commission to come up and talk about their concerns.
Bruce Fecteau stated he was at the site walk and the Conservation Commission would like to see some things done. One concerns wildlife habitat impact. He looked at the study the developer had done. They would like to see one done by an independent specialist.
He stated he is hearing both “open space” and “conservation land” references. He puts those into two different categories. Typically, open space does not have to be open to the public, as far as the Town’s public. Usually, it is for the development’s occupants. The Conservation Commission is very particular about conservation land they acquire. They feel conservation land should be used by everyone in town, for things like bird watching, dog walking, hunting, fishing, cross country skiing, etc. The Wiggin Farm on Grant Road is heavily used all year round. The developer is proposing this section of land to do two different things. Mr. Fecteau cannot see that happening. He was pretty sure if he went up there to walk a dog in July when people are teeing off, there would be upset people. He asked if the land will be conservation land or open space. Typically, open space development property owners have language in their deeds and pay taxes on the open space and they maintain it. Conservation lands in town are maintained by the Conservation Commission, they make sure the inventory, monitoring and repairs are done. He asked if the land going to be a golf course or open space.
He stated the Conservation Commission has discussed the use of fertilizers. Usually in a subdivision everyone has to have a greener lawn. This location is not that far from Great Bay. The Town is going to upgrade the sewer plant to take care of what nitrogen levels they can. Most nitrogen levels that go into the bay are not controllable. There are people that use fertilizers and there are natural runoffs.
He stated the use of salt on the roads was a concern. Ash Swamp Road is named that, because of the swamp. There is a lot of wildlife in there. Introducing salt to the marsh area is not a great idea. He would like to see the Planning Board regulate the use of salt on the road in the winter and also regulate fertilizer.
He stated the number of cars for 52 house lots could mean 60-100 cars. Those cars will be washed and the runoff could go into the swamp. He stated they did show a good design of the storm water being handled in a closed system. With that many houses, it should be stricter with something in writing regarding the amount of runoff.
Val Shelton asked, regarding open space/conservation land, under the ordinance the conservation land is referred to as land that will not be developed. If they want the 5% bonus, they will have to have that land open to the public. In the winter people will not be golfing and there can be winter activities.
Bruce Fecteau stated he has seen golfers out in December. You see them April 1st depending on the weather. It would be hard to make any sort of schedule and still be able to have a viable golf course.
Bruce Fecteau stated the Conservation Commission has turned down conservation land in the past, because the people who owned it had too many restrictions on the use. For example, the Conservation Commission is not in the habit of having conservation land, so that someone can have a private garden and a private view and not have to pay their fair share of taxes on it and then expect the Conservation Commission maintain it, too.
Ginger Smith asked if cross country skiers and snowshoers had been allowed on the golf course in the past. Bruce Fecteau stated the golf course tried it several years ago. It is a lot of work and it never worked out. It was more expensive to do than what they made from it. Rick McMenimen stated those activities cause a lot of damage to a golf course. It destroys the grass. The fairways at Rockingham are beautiful and well kept.
Jane Ford asked if the golf course would be public or private. Chairman Botterman stated it would be open to the public as a public golf course.
Janice Rosa asked if Moody Point was an open space development. Diane Hardy explained it was not developed under our current open space development regulations. It is considered a cluster development or, at the time, they called them Alternate Design Subdivisions (ADS). It is a similar design concept. Janice Rosa stated the public used to be able to walk at Moody Point, now they cannot. Chairman Botterman stated they would craft the agreement to have public access. Diane Hardy stated there would have to be a management plan to assure the vision everyone has is followed through. Chairman Botterman stated it is up to the townspeople to let the Board know what they want to see there. He believes the general consensus is the people in town want to see the golf course stay there and remain open. People watching the meetings at home need to come forward and voice their opinions or let the Board know where they stand. That is part of the process.
Val Shelton stated the Board and Zoning Administrator need to determine whether the proposed classification and deed restrictions on the open space, as proposed, will meet the ordinance. Diane Hardy stated that is part of the review process.
There was discussion of whether the land will be open to the public. Val Shelton stated it depended on whether the developer wanted the 5% density bonus. If they take the bonus, it has to be open to the public. If they do not take it, the land does not have to be open to the public.
Val Shelton asked Bruce Fecteau if the Conservation Commission was looking for an independent wildlife study or an independent review of the wildlife study the developer had done and asked if they are looking for a study relative to post development. Bruce Fecteau stated they are looking for an independent study, not a review of the study. This would be post development.
Rose-Anne Kwaks, 332 Wadleigh Falls Road, stated she had heard the golf course would be leased. She asked who will lease it to be used as a golf course and would it be for a fee. Chairman Botterman stated he did not know if Mr. Chinburg knew at this point what the parameters will be. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if he would ask a fee from whoever he leases it to. Elizabeth Dudley asked how this was pertinent. Mrs. Kwaks referred to Section 6.03 Definitions (A) Open Space Common Land. It states any parcel of land set aside as an approval under this ordinance shall be designed for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents of the approved development. These areas may contain accessory structures for recreation purposes, water access and improvements necessary and appropriate for the educational, recreational, cultural, social or other non-commercial, non-residential, non-industrial uses for the residents of the subdivision. She stated they cannot put anything on that golf course land that is going to generate money. It has to be non-commercial. She stated Val Shelton just said they have to look into whether they are allowed by ordinance to do this and they are not. Chairman Botterman stated that section talks about the open space common land for use just by the residents of the subdivision. Mrs. Kwaks stated it says all the land designated in an open space subdivision is designated as open space either for the public or, if the residents would rather have it non-public for their own use, that goes into an agreement with the land use. That is their option. She would hate to see the public walked down a dead end.
She stated the Board is trying to make this development very attractive to the residents of Newmarket stating that you are going to cluster 50+ houses on there and the golf course will be kept open, because it is dear to everyone in town. She stated the Board was not telling the truth. It cannot be used as a golf course. It states right in the definition. This is a legal document. Diane Hardy stated that was correct, there would have to be a variance granted. Elizabeth Dudley stated the spirit of this development was to prevent a traditional development that would eliminate the viewshed and do away with the golf course and be much more detrimental to the wildlife and other resources for the people of Newmarket. She stated in this situation a variance may be granted fairly easily. This is one of the first open space developments done under this ordinance. This is a pioneering project in many ways.
Chairman Botterman stated he understood Mrs. Kwaks’ concerns and, certainly, as this project goes forward and before the Board goes very far, Mr. Chinburg’s attorney and the Town attorney will weigh in on it.
Mrs. Kwaks stated this is how it is being sold to the town and that is not fair. If the Board follows the letter of the law in the ordinance it says the land area “shall” be designated. The Board cannot just willy-nilly do what they want to do. Chairman Botterman stated this Board does not grant variances. The ZBA does that. Mrs. Kwaks asked, if Mr. Chinburg wanted to protect that land to a certain degree knowing that he is trying to sell it with the golf course still there, why would he cut off that eight acres with all of those buildings needed to run the golf course. She stated that was very disingenuous.
She stated she agreed with Bruce Fecteau there should be a separate wildlife study.
She stated she saw that Mr. Gove was present. She asked if he was the realtor handling this. Chairman Botterman stated that did not matter at this point. Mrs. Kwaks stated it did matter, because, if the answer is yes to her next question regarding the person who did the environmental study on this having the same last name of Gove. She asked if this was Scott Gove’s brother. Mr. Gove stated it was not.
Mrs. Kwaks stated the view sheds could be kept. A lot of conservation people let the land grow up, but you want to keep some open fields in view sheds. All you have to do is put in the land management agreement that it shall be mowed so many times a year.
Chairman Botterman stated he understood Mrs. Kwaks’ concerns about the open space. There will be lawyers involved in this as it goes forward. The Board is not making any promises to the townspeople. They have not voted to approve the project. Mrs. Kwaks stated it is being sold this way. Chairman Botterman disagreed. Elizabeth Dudley stated she did not think it was fair to ascribe the Board as selling anything.
Mrs. Kwaks stated she had concerns with the amount of road base they are planning to put down. Chairman Botterman stated that was a waiver request they have not addressed yet. Mrs. Kwaks stated if they do not put enough road base down, once the Town takes ownership of the road, the Town will be responsible to maintain a road that may not be built as well as it should be. Chairman Botterman stated that will all be discussed in due process.
Eric Chinburg stated in their reading of the ordinance, under Section 6.06 Standards of Approval, it states 40% of the developable land base must be set aside as open space. Then it says 75% of that should be conservation land and up to 25% may be common land. He stated the more pertinent definition is not 6.03(A), it is 6.03(B), which clearly states it is simply land that is protected as open space in perpetuity through deed restriction, easement or other. There is no limitation against commercial use. There is no requirement that it just be used by the residents of the development. They are basing their project on the proper interpretation of the ordinance. They believe they have done so correctly.
Chairman Botterman stated they have a traffic study done by Stephen Pernaw, they have wetlands that were delineated by Jim Gove, and they have the wildlife habitat assessment that was also done by Jim Gove. They have water and sewer connections that are going to have to be reviewed as well as drainage, stormwater and some other items. He stated the Board needed to get their review people in line to look at things as they come in.
He stated the Board has a wildlife habitat assessment that was completed by the developer’s environmental consultant and the Conservation Commission would like a second assessment to be done. He does not agree with that. Typically, the Board gets reports from the developer and has them reviewed by other professionals. Dan Wright stated if the Conservation Commission is concerned and would like a report done, the Board should have it done. Elizabeth Dudley felt the request was reasonable. Some members expressed their support for the report. Diane Hardy stated the person originally contacted to possibly do the separate study was not able to do it, but that person recommended Mark West. Diane Hardy stated she has had good experiences working with Mark West in the past. This would be for a brand new analysis.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to have Mark West to do the study requested by the Conservation Commission, the cost of which will be paid by the developer
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman referred to the traffic study by Steve Pernaw. Corey Beldman, Altus Engineering, stated the driveway permit application has been submitted and they have received comments back from NHDOT. They need to address their comments and resubmit the application. The proposal is to do all of the work on the golf course side of the road and avoid impacts on the cemetery side involving the removal of trees and re-location of poles. There will be a left hand turn pocket in the northbound lane. The southbound lane will be shifted to go around that left turn pocket, and then shifted back in.
Rick McMenimen stated he lives off Hersey Lane and he sees the traffic that far down. He is concerned about what will happen at the new intersection on Route 108 and at the Ash Swamp Road intersection. He would like to see either an independent study or would like to see the results from the State. Chairman Botterman asked if they wanted to wait for NH DOT’s response and then discuss it. The Board was agreeable to that.
Chairman Botterman stated another issue is having an engineer review storm water, drainage, grading, and utilities. Corey Beldman stated the project will require NH DES “alteration of terrain” approval, so they will be submitting the storm water management plan and drainage calculations to them.
Bruce Fecteau stated he wanted to add that a big portion of this development rests on the idea that they will take the 100’ buffer and reduce it to 50’. It was stated that the State of New Hampshire has no say on that. The Town set these buffers up years ago. When that was done, they didn’t just pick numbers out of the air. It was important. He asked the Board to keep that in mind throughout this process. These buffers cut the treatment area in half from what the Town considered a good usable space. If the only way this developer can do this is to bring the buffers down to 50’, it does away with the work of the previous people on the Conservation Commission and the Planning Board. This was one of their more important concerns. Chairman Botterman stated that is one of the things Mark West will address. Diane Hardy stated they will make sure he reviews the waiver requests and comments on them.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked how many houses on the design plan are in the 100’ buffer. Chairman Botterman stated zero. Diane Hardy asked if she meant houses or house lots. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she meant house lots. Elizabeth Dudley stated the structure setbacks are 100’. Mrs. Kwaks stated from the structure it will be 50’ to the wetlands. Chairman Botterman stated it was 100’, but some of the lots will be in the buffer zone. That doesn’t mean it will be cleared, but some of the back of the lots will be in the buffer zone. Corey Beldman stated four house lots are impacted by the 100’ buffer zone. The prime wetlands have a 100’ buffer and that is maintained throughout the project. They are providing 50’ buffers to very poorly drained soils. They are providing a 25’ buffer to poorly drained soils. These are the same standards that are in the traditional subdivision regulations.
Mrs. Kwaks stated she knew there would be a no-cut zone. From being on Planning Board before, she knew how hard it was to police private homes to make sure they are not cutting and dumping grasses within the buffer and wetlands. The water in the prime wetlands is the water that the town will utilize for the MacIntosh Well. She stated everything should be done to protect that. If the Town is putting millions into the well, she would hate to see it be destroyed.
Diane Hardy stated she would like to have an engineer on staff. She had asked for a proposal from Underwood Engineers. They provided her with a cost estimate. Mr. Chinburg has reviewed it and agreed to it. That is who she would recommend unless the Board would like her to solicit other proposals from other engineers. Chairman Botterman stated Underwood is familiar with the Town’s regulations.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to hire Underwood Engineers to conduct an engineering review with the cost to be borne by the developer
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
A TRC meeting was discussed. Val Shelton and Elizabeth Dudley will be on the committee.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to have the public hearing continued to the October 8, 2013 meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Bruce Fecteau asked about the Maya’s Way project. They put the final coat down last week. He took a ride around the neighborhood. He stated the Planning Board should think about something when they review their regulations. The Town will own that road shortly. The driveways are not paved other than if the owners pave them themselves. To save the Town money in the future, the driveways should have an apron with a finish coat of pavement. If you look now, the edge of the road is around the cul-de-sac and the driveways are gravel. One driveway is paved. When you come out of an unpaved driveway, it tears up the edge of the pavement and the Town will be responsible for repairing that. He stated to save costs for the Town it would not have been that much more money for the developer to put a 3-5 foot apron.
Rockingham Junction, LLC – Continuation of a 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.
Alex Ross, Ross Engineering, stated they were before the Board last month with a lot of good input and positive comments from the public. Last week, there was a TRC meeting. They have tried to incorporate everyone’s comments and address all issues.
He stated that parking for the use of the trail has been a concern for a lot of people. They recognize that. They have been working on this project, with the owner, since 2006. One of the first things they did was grant a public easement through the property. Currently, the adjacent NH Division of Parks and Recreation land is landlocked. Even though the owner has let people go through there and park on the property, it is really not set up for public trail head parking. That is one of the things this plan does. They have provided and recorded an easement across the property to allow the public access to the Rockingham Recreation Trail. They have talked with NH Division of Parks and Recreation and they have been are very receptive to working cooperatively with the owner, who is a big advocate for the recreation area. He stated this is a great opportunity to clean up an old, abandoned site and building that has been out of use for a long time. They do want to ensure public access to the recreational land.
Matt Weber, Ross Engineering, stated they were proposing a small addition to the existing depot. The TRC meeting led to additional Notes 9-16, which have been put on the plan. Other improvements resulting from the TRC meeting include the addition of the path, which leads from the parking lot to the trail. They have added a 6-foot mowed path to allow access. They added fencing along Old Route 108 and the railroad tracks to address safety concerns and have included landscaping notes for that area. Signage notes were added, as well as lighting locations. Timber curb stops, snow storage and bike rack locations were added. Sean Greig, Water & Wastewater Superintendent, wrote a memo stating water supply was adequate. Rick Malasky, Director Public Works, recommended the posting of “no parking” signs on Old Route 108, which will be the Town’s responsibility.
He stated everyone was in favor of the project and excited to see the train depot be restored. Some members of the TRC were concerned about parking. After that meeting, they contacted Chris Gamache, NH Trails Bureau. Mr. Gamache stated their intent is to create parking on the NH State land, at some point. The easement leads across the owner’s land onto the State land and that will allow for parking to be incorporated on the other side of the trail.
They are going before the Newfields Planning Board on September 26. They anticipate approval at the first meeting. The design intent is to assure very low impact development, while preserving the existing character of the site.
Chairman Botterman stated Diane Hardy had provided recommendations to the Board. There are waivers required. One waiver is for parking within the setback and the other is about paving the parking lot. There is a recommendation on the second page of her memo, with several conditions.
Val Shelton asked about the request for a waiver for Section 3.02(C). She had thought there was a variance granted for that. Diane Hardy stated there was for setbacks, but not for parking. It was only for buildings.
Ginger Smith asked when parking on the State land would go in. Chairman Botterman stated that parking probably would not happen for several years. It is under the purview of the State and has nothing to do with these applicants. Janice Rosa commented that they had been nice enough to give some parking and an easement for the trail use. Matt Weber stated the owner is designating five parking spaces in his lot for public parking.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing. (It had been open since the last meeting. Note: No members of the public were present at this point in the meeting.)
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion for the Planning Board to grant a waiver for Site Plan Review Regulations for 3.02(C) – parking area should comply with all setback requirements – so the proposed parking will be set back 15 feet instead of the required 25 feet from the property line to allow for adequate space for operating and preserving the natural vegetation at the site
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to request that the Newmarket Planning Board grant a waiver to the Site Plan Review Regulations listed below:
3.02(B)(6) Parking lots, driveways, and aisles shall be paved – The proposed parking lot will be gravel, which will assist with stormwater infiltration, as opposed to asphalt.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Dan Wright had a concern regarding ADA parking. He asked what type of gravel they would be using. Alex Ross stated it is hard packed gravel to NH DOT specification. It meets the ADA requirements.
Rick McMenimen asked if there was ADA parking. There is and they showed him where it was on the plan. Diane Hardy stated they also added a note to the plan that all parking areas and accessways shall be ADA compliant.
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated there is a recommendation from Diane Hardy they approve the minor site plan, with six conditions. Alex Ross stated they are in favor of all of the conditions. He asked if one could be slightly re-worded. That was Item B, having to do with the Advisory Heritage Commission. It states “review and approval” in conjunction with a lot of details. This stems from 2008, when they were before the ZBA and were granted variances. On that motion, it was written, “Although not a requirement, it is recommended that since the property is of historical importance, that the applicant meet with the Advisory Heritage Commission for their input.” They want to heed that recommendation, meet with the committee and receive their input. He knows there have been different people coming and going on that board. He asked that Item B state “Meet and review with the committee and gather their input”. Chairman Botterman stated they were recommending they take the words “and approval” out. Alex Ross stated that was correct, the same words from the ZBA. They do want to meet with them and make sure they are designing something they like.
Val Shelton asked if a copy of the application had gone to the Advisory Heritage Commission. Diane Hardy stated it had not yet. She stated they have not been active for a long time. This came up at the TRC meeting and that is why it is a recommendation. Val Shelton asked if the Advisory Heritage Commission had advised the Planning Board in the past. Diane Hardy stated that was correct. Val Shelton stated the question was whether it was required to have this condition. At this point, the Planning Board will be voting without having the Advisory Heritage Commission’s comment.
Chairman Botterman asked Val Shelton if her position was to eliminate Condition B. Val Shelton stated the recommendation was from the ZBA to meet with the Advisory Heritage Commission, which the applicant should have done before and then brought their comments to the Planning Board.
Dan Wright stated the applicant should not have to go to the Advisory Heritage Committee. Val Shelton stated it just means nothing, at this point. Jane Ford agreed with Dan Wright and Val Shelton. Janice Rosa stated the Advisory Heritage Commission went through a long process to be established. She did not expect the applicant would have any problem with that committee. She is on the committee. It was put into place and is required. Val Shelton stated they are only advising the Planning Board. Elizabeth Dudley stated the Planning Board could be educated by the Advisory Heritage Commission. They have other areas of expertise. She did not see any reason why the Board should not be advised on this. Val Shelton stated the Board is going to be voting to approve. Elizabeth Dudley stated if something happens in this process that derails the project the applicant can bring it back to the Board again. Val Shelton stated that was not correct. The application gets approved and the applicant moves forward. Chairman Botterman explained there was nothing that would bring the developer back here. The Advisory Heritage Commission can say they want X, Y and Z and the developer can say no. Elizabeth Dudley felt it was important for the applicant to go before the Advisory Heritage Committee. Rick McMenimen stated he did not think it was necessary for the applicant to do that. Diane Hardy stated she had spoken with the applicant about this. At the TRC meeting, they asked the applicant for details on the fencing and signage. They asked for special treatment on the signpost. They asked for consideration of lighting fixtures. There were a number of things that were presented by the TRC and they were not specifically addressed in the plan. When she spoke with Mr. Ross this afternoon, she expressed that to him and they discussed the intent of the ZBA. They felt all of those things needed to be considered and looked at by the Advisory Heritage Committee and that had been the ZBA’s intent when the variance was granted. Mr. Ross agreed and did not object to going to them to get some advice and a recommendation. Diane Hardy told Mr. Ross she would include this as a recommendation for approval. She felt this was important. This is a building that is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is a significant landmark in Newmarket. When it comes to the details of these projects, it can make or break a project. If you look at the mills, they were very successful, because there was attention paid to the detailing on fencing and lighting, etc. She drafted this condition in response to the ZBA’s Condition of Approval and also in response to the comments made at the TRC meeting. Val Shelton asked if all of those details were in the application and regulations. Diane Hardy stated they were not. Val Shelton asked if they were voting on a plan that was not complete, because they do not have those. Diane Hardy stated questions were asked by the TRC. She was assured those items would be reviewed and considered. They talked about getting the details prior to the issuance of a building permit. That seemed to be a workable option.
Alex Ross stated they did meet with the TRC. They offered to meet with the Advisory Heritage Commission. They would be happy to sit down with that committee and review this material. He stated the context of this project has to be kept in mind. This is a minor site review. If you go through the checklist, there are a lot of items that are not required, like contours. They have gone over and above. They have shown all of that. They recognize the historical importance of this building and they want to do that right. They want to keep the historic feel and that includes the fencing, lighting, and signage. They would be happy to sit with that committee and seek input and have a back and forth. If, because of the order of things, it does not make sense to come back to the Planning Board, then Item B could state that the applicant, prior to a building permit being issued, has to sit down with the Advisory Heritage Committee.
Val Shelton stated the difference is, what Diane Hardy has in the language for the approval makes sense, because the Board does not have the benefit of the input of the Advisory Heritage Committee before voting. If you are taking that advice away or the benefit of getting that advice and there is no requirement for the applicant to follow the advice, it just circumvents the Planning Board approval.
Rick McMenimen asked whether most of this building is in Newfields. Alex Ross stated it was. Rick McMenimen stated he thought they should not have to go to our Advisory Heritage Committee, because, as far as the building goes, there is nothing Newmarket needs to approve. Diane Hardy stated this will be reviewed by Newfields. She met with their planner and their Board is very aware of historic preservation and the need to assure things are done in a tasteful and aesthetically pleasing manner. Their planner assured her they would be looking at that very closely. One of Newmarket’s conditions is there will be approval by the Newfields Planning Board. She was trying to honor the intent of the ZBA when she suggested this condition. She felt, since this was discussed at the TRC meeting, there should be some follow-through on it.
Val Shelton asked if they could have a conditional approval stating if the applicant does not concur with the recommendations of the Advisory Heritage Committee they need to come back to the Planning Board. Then the Planning Board is protected in that the applicant will meet with the Advisory Heritage Commission. Then, if they are in agreement with what they recommend, it is a moot point. Chairman Botterman stated he does not generally support things that force applicants to go to a meeting and then not have to abide by anything. It is pointless. He does not know if the applicant wants to come back to the Planning Board. Alex Ross stated, on the ZBA approval, it states “Although not a requirement, it is recommended that the applicant meet with the Advisory Heritage Committee for their input”. Chairman Botterman states the applicant does not have to agree with that input. Alex Ross stated they would be happy to meet with them, if that is the Board’s decision. Diane Hardy stated take out the words “and approval” and just say “An effort to coordinate with them has to happen before the plan is signed.” Chairman Botterman stated the Board is at the point to approve or not approve and whoever makes the motion can say “in accordance with the recommendations” or not.
Chairman Botterman read over the recommended conditions of approval. Condition C is “Approval of the plans are subject to approval by the Newfields Planning Board”. D is “A section of Old Route 108 adjacent to the railroad depot from the corner of Ash Swamp Road to the entrance leading to the railroad depot will be restricted to no parking on either side of the road”. That came from Rick Malasky and the Town Council will have to vote on to make it part of the parking ordinance. E is “The Town of Newmarket to inspect the town boundary monument which exists in the crawlspace in the railroad depot after renovations to assure it has been property protected”. F is “A meeting be convened between the property owner, the Town of Newfields and Newmarket officials and members of the NH Division of Parks and Recreation, the NH Department of Forests and Lands, NH Department of Transportation and Strafford Regional Planning Commission to discuss the high usage of the Rockingham Multi-Use Recreation Trail and the need for a permanent parking facility at this trailhead location to meet the current and future needs of the trail users”.
Action
Motion: Elizabeth Dudley made a motion which would suggest that they follow these recommendations A through F, as written with minor change that B they take out two words “and approval” for the façade, etc., and for F that the meeting be convened and the property owner is extended an invitation to participate in that meeting, but it is not mandatory for the property owner to attend that
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Update - Landscape Regulation
Chairman Botterman stated due to the late hour, he would recommend putting it on the next meeting’s agenda. Everyone concurred.
CIP Committee
Diane Hardy stated the process is starting and they have proposals from the departments. The meeting will be on September 17, from 4-7. There will be follow-up meetings with the goal of having it completed by October 1.
Other Boards & Committees
Chairman Botterman stated the Dam Removal Feasibility Study was reviewed by the Town Council. Diane Hardy stated a public information meeting was coming up on September 16.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:43 p.m.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor