Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 29, 2013
MINUTES
Present: Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Eric Botterman (Chairman), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Val Shelton, Elizabeth Dudley, John Brackett, Janice Rosa, Gabriel Jerome (Alternate), Ginger Smith (Alternate)
Absent: Jane Ford (Alternate)
Called to order: 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 10:14 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Discussion of Proposed Landscape Regulations
Chairman Botterman stated they would go through the draft regulations page by page and members could suggest changes as they go through. They would get a consensus of each suggestion, make changes or not, and move forward from there. He suggested they start with the site plan regulations.
Chairman Botterman opened a public hearing.
Philip Nazzaro thanked the Board for the work they do for the Town. He stated he felt very strongly about the proposed regulations. Rather than list out concerns, he had one general question and one comment. His question was what problem the community has faced or was predicted it will face that necessitates adding this layer of regulation and bureaucracy to Newmarket. He also asked what evidence there is that this problem exists or will exist. This looks like a solution in search of a problem. His other concerns lay around the fact this will make development more expensive. A developer will come in and it will be more expensive to follow this additional layer of regulation. This will, for a taxpayer, lessen the likelihood that development will occur and potentially result in not having development come to town, which could have helped to reduce the tax rate. There is also a layer of enforcement. When more regulations are added, you add enforcement to it. Everyone has seen how the Town Council has acted and will continue to act regarding the tax rate. If more enforcement is added, it will be more of a cost, which will force the Council to try to reduce services elsewhere in order to have a zero effect on the tax rate or people will see the tax rate go up. Either way it is a consequence of something this robust being passed. He stated he would like to see it not move forward at all. He saw the general comments and there were a lot of good ones in there. It should be as tight and succinct as possible, so future Planning Boards do not have the opportunity to loosely interpret something that could potentially make it harder for developers. He stated even though he had philosophical and pragmatic issues with this, he was sure the individuals who wrote it did it with the best of intentions.
Rick McMenimen supported what Mr. Nazzaro stated.
Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Nazzaro brought up valid questions and concerns. He asked, before spending time going through this, whether the members supported this document.
Elizabeth Dudley asked if Diane Hardy could give a brief history of why these regulations were drafted. Diane Hardy stated the regulations that are now in place are very general. They have had good luck with developers and the developers have hired landscape architects and professionals to help with their projects. There are a few instances where the landscaping did not come out as nicely as what everyone would have liked. It was the result of a very loose interpretation of regulations. The plant materials were small, they were not taken care of and died and there was no mechanism in place to enforce anything. With the mill redevelopment and the investment in the downtown, the thought was quality development should be encouraged in town and they looked to some area communities to see what they had for regulations. It was found that what Newmarket’s landscape requirements were very general. About the same time, the State put out a handbook on sustainable development and there was a section in that on landscaping. The ordinances that the committee came up with were basically modeled after the sustainable development regulations that were included in that handbook. At the same time, the Planning Commission learned there was additional money available through the NH Coastal Program and it was suggested that Newmarket might want to work on improving its regulations regarding landscaping. Elizabeth Dudley stated Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) was hired to write the regulations. Diane Hardy stated they helped get the first draft together. Cynthia Copeland, of Strafford Regional Planning Commission, was involved and Elizabeth Dudley, being a landscape architect, volunteered to help. In the course of six to eight months, they put together regulations. They were presented at a workshop about two years ago. Elizabeth Dudley wanted to clarify these regulations were not written by her. SRPC was paid to write them.
Chairman Botterman stated this still does not answer Mr. Nazzaro’s question. He asked if the Board members felt a necessity to update the regulations. Elizabeth Dudley stated a lot of effort was made to put these regulations more in line with those in other communities. The regulations are seen as a way to make the community more attractive to residents, potential buyers of property and the town in general. Newmarket spent a lot of money trying to make its downtown more attractive. These regulations are meant to minimize water use and make sure plants are used in a sustainable fashion. She suggested that if the Board thinks the regulations are too burdensome, they could be altered, but she did not think the whole project should be tossed out before it is considered.
Val Shelton stated they have two pages in site plan regulations that mention landscaping and much of that is subjective. She felt she would support a lot of the suggestions made in the comment sheet Diane Hardy had handed out. She is willing to go through and address items with which she has issues.
Rick McMenimen stated his problem was they are trying to invite businesses into the community and he did not want to add another layer of regulations to our process. He suggested instead of making these regulations, make them recommended guidelines Should a prospective builder come into the community, one of the things we can do is say we have our rules, but here are some guidelines we would like you to follow when developing your property. That would work a lot better than to try to make this into a law. It is not conducive to bringing modern businesses to the community. He would be willing to make a recommendation that this be used as a guideline instead of a changing the regulations.
Janice Rosa agreed. She stated there is too much government in people’s faces and a guideline is the best way to keep the development in a nice fashion for the town and not squash businesses that want to come in here.
Dan Wright stated he was concerned about the amount of money it could cost a developer. For example, it says the B1 and M2 zones shall incorporate the use of red brick. That is very, very expensive. It was so expensive the Town did not use it in the downtown project. If some of these guidelines had been in effect for his development on Exeter Road, it would have been extremely expensive to maintain and to even start to build. He did not like regulations, but he felt there were some great ideas in the draft and would like to go over them and get the comments out there. He would be okay with having them be guidelines.
Chairman Botterman appointed Gabriel Jerome to fill in for John Brackett.
Gabriel Jerome stated he understood the idea behind these regulations, but there are some concerns, such as the red brick, that were a little too much. He was not sure about having them be just guidelines.
Chairman Botterman stated there are plenty of regulations. It is incumbent on people to make their own property look good. He did not feel the Board should be telling people how their property should look or what they should use. He did not have an issue for having a guideline for people to use. They have gone from having some general landscaping suggestions in the regulations to this, which is very, very prescriptive. In the big picture for the Town, this will work against the new zoning just passed to try to encourage development. He felt this was contrary to what they just asked the Council to support and which the Council did support. He did not support a whole new regulation, but would support a guideline.
Elizabeth Dudley stated there was so much back and forth on whether we do or do not want development. Everyone has their own fears and objectives. She thought it was important to have quality development. She would rather see less development and have it be quality development. Land is typically only developed once. She did not think they needed to keep the town open to ready, cheap, “anything goes” development. People want to keep their property values up. She understood the need to keep the tax rate down. That is important, but inexpensive development does not keep the tax rate down. Quality development does, because the taxes generated from the higher income homes are the ones that support the infrastructure. Having these regulations will generate a higher quality aesthetic that will generate higher property values.
Val Shelton stated she could not accept these as a guideline. There is too much here with which the Board members disagree. They would still have to revise the landscaping rules found within the site plan and subdivision regulations, because they would contradict these as guidelines.
Rick McMenimen recommends they be used only for guidance. It is something a developer could look at and say that would be a good idea maybe we should try that. It is cumbersome as it is written. It is extremely strict. If he was a developer he would look at it and ask why he would want to build here.
Elizabeth Dudley stated they have not yet even discussed it. It has been on the agenda, but has always been pushed back.
Chairman Botterman stated there is a spectrum of opinions. He will entertain a motion from a member to do something with this.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion that the landscape document be considered a guideline and that we will review it in that case to make sure it covers all the things we want to preserve
Second: Dan Wright
Val Shelton asked how this would play into their regulations if a developer was to come in with a plan. As a Planning Board we have the ability to deal with applications relative to our regulations and we have the ability to waive regulations. If an applicant meets these regulations, any outlying documents have no effect on them. She wanted to understand, if this is a guideline, how it would be utilized by an applicant. Rick McMenimen stated they give this to the applicant and say here are some suggestions we would like you to follow in your project. Val Shelton asked how the Board should deal with that. Rick McMenimen stated the problem with this is it is too restrictive. Val Shelton stated she agreed 100%. Rick McMenimen stated he was trying to find an alternative that would work.
Elizabeth Dudley stated Newmarket should not be apologetic toward developers and say come develop and then it would be nice if you did this or that, but we cannot insist that you do it.
Janice Rosa stated they should have spoken up earlier and sent feedback to the people writing the regulations saying they are too strict. Regarding the idea of a guideline, we have an Advisory Heritage Committee. They have a guideline and make suggestions. Maybe something like that would be an answer to solve this.
Elizabeth Dudley stated the landscape architects look at the landscape regulations for parking lot and island design. It is not just about plants. It is site layout, subdivision, setbacks, all things used by a professional to design a project. It is useful to have a document that gives specifics. It needs to be clear cut.
Diane Hardy stated it could be used as an administrative tool, so when a developer comes in and is preparing a site review, the staff can refer them to some guidelines the Board agrees with. It would be a guidance tool. Most developers want guidance up front to know what the Town’s expectations are so they can go forward with a plan and have some confidence knowing that it will likely be approved. She also stated the Planning Board has been in this quandary like this before. When the former Town Planner was here, the Board spent an inordinate amount time on comprehensive lighting requirements that were very detailed and required engineering studies. The Board could not reach a consensus, so as an “alternative” they were adopted as a guidance package and are given to developers to use as tool.
Val Shelton stated she understood this to be a two part motion. We are going to adopt these as a guideline, as amended.
Rick McMenimen stated he would make a motion that these be adopted as a guideline.
If this is approved then we go through each document to make changes and corrections, as needed.
Chairman Botterman stated a motion has been made and seconded. There has to be a vote on that motion. Elizabeth Dudley asked, as a matter of principle, how people can vote on accepting something as a guideline if they do not know what it is. Chairman Botterman stated the motion has been made. Elizabeth Dudley stated that is irrational. Val Shelton stated as a point of order, a motion has been made. Elizabeth Dudley asked if irrational motions were possible. Val Shelton stated that is why you vote. You can vote them down.
Vote: Eric Botterman, Rick McMenimen, Janice Rosa, Dan Wright in favor
Elizabeth Dudley, Val Shelton, John Brackett not in favor
Motion passed 4-3
Chairman Botterman stated the Board now needs to go through the draft and edit as everyone sees necessary.
Chairman Botterman stated they would look at the site review regulations first. He asked if everyone had the general comments sheets.
In Section B (2), General Requirements, Dan Wright suggested it should state “The landscape plan shall be professionally prepared” and leave off the remaining portion requiring a licensed landscape architect to prepare a plan. Elizabeth Dudley stated it should be a licensed landscape architect or an engineer. She did not feel someone who works in a nursery would necessarily understand grading plans and drainage. If you equate a landscape architect with someone who works in a nursery, it is not professional. Chairman Botterman stated, as an engineer, he is not qualified to do a landscape architect’s job. He shows landscaping on plans, but they are prepared by someone at a nursery or a landscape architect. Putting an engineer in that position is not the way to go.
Dan Wright asked who came up with the general comments. Diane Hardy stated they distributed the drafts to a group of landscape architects, civil engineers, a wildlife biologist and the Newmarket Building Official. They received eleven sets of comments back. People took this seriously and provided extensive comments. The landscape committee pulled out the substantive changes and made changes to the draft. Some comments were more general and were summarized. She put together this summary from all comments that were received to give the Planning Board a flavor of the comments. She thought some good points were raised. She thought the best way to handle it would be to lay them out and open it up for discussion. This is a compilation of the comments received.
Val Shelton asked if Public Works was involved. Diane Hardy stated she sent a copy to the Public Works Director, but she did not receive comments back.
Dan Wright stated one of the comments states “Many small jobs cannot afford a professional designer.” That is his main concern. It is great if you have a huge bankroll, but a lot of Mom and Pop people would want to come to town and do some development and it would be out of their budget to hire a professional landscape architect or engineer.
Chairman Botterman stated Dan Wright made a suggestion #2 be changed to state “The landscape plan shall be professionally prepared”. To get a consensus, Chairman Botterman asked for those in favor to say aye and those opposed nay. Five people were in favor and two opposed.
Chairman Botterman stated he had a suggestion for #3. He stated it says “large trees”. He asked what the definition of “large tree” would be. Val Shelton says, in zoning, it starts at 12 inches. She stated they should change “large” to “12 inch”.
She also stated regarding #1 the landscape plan is only applied to the developed area. If you are looking at developing a 20 acre tract for site plan and leaving a certain portion of the site undeveloped, you would not have a landscape plan associated with it. Chairman Botterman stated they should change that for the developed portion of the site, to be clear ten years from now. Diane Hardy stated that clarification is important.
Everyone was in agreement with the changes to #1 and #3.
It was decided to delete #4.
For #5, the word “must” was changed to “should”.
For #6, Val Shelton stated the Lowes store in Greenland has landscaping in the parking area that has matured and now obstructs the sight lines. She suggested changing the wording to “Landscaping and screen, when mature, shall not obstruct the line of sight…”
For #7, there were no changes.
For #8, Dan Wright asked if a person was to put a sign next to the building and it has two granite posts 4’ apart, does this say you have to go another 4’ on either side of the posts and another 4’ front and back with landscaping. Chairman Botterman stated he would argue that you could go 2’ on each side. Someone could interpret it to be 4’ on each side. This does need clarification. He had a problem with the second sentence stating “if healthy and aesthetically pleasing”. This is the type of statement he has a lot of angst about, because who determines what is aesthetically pleasing. Diane Hardy stated it would be this Board. Chairman Botterman stated he did not want to have any Board telling him what is aesthetically pleasing on his property. He would recommend taking out the whole sentence. Regarding the first sentence, Dan Wright stated he has a granite sign at the front of his building and, if you follow this regulation, there is no way he would be able to have the space for the 4’ area. Diane Hardy stated to take out the minimum planting area dimension to read “Project entrance and building signage on a landscape strip shall have a planting area around each freestanding sign.” The second sentence was eliminated. Everyone was in agreement.
For #9, Rick McMenimen asked exactly what that meant. Diane Hardy stated that you should be looking at not only your own site, but 50’ out. Chairman Botterman stated you do not have the legal ability to survey on someone else’s property without permission. The intention is good, but you cannot do it. Elizabeth Dudley stated this is just suggesting if something is really great on the adjoining property, you note it. Maybe you do not want to block a view of a waterfall on an adjoining property. Chairman Botterman asked how you showed that unless you surveyed it. Elizabeth Dudley stated it could just be noted on your plan. Val Shelton stated you should not be putting a burden on someone to be protecting the property value of the abutter at the expense of your own development. Elizabeth Dudley stated Newmarket’s development should be high quality. Chairman Botterman stated as an engineer and someone who works with survey professionals, he was not going to show anything on a plan unless it has been surveyed. He will not put a note on a plan that says “Over here approximately 30’ is…" A surveyor will not stamp it. That is not how you do business. You do not have the right to walk on someone else’s land to locate trees or waterfalls. Elizabeth Dudley stated there is no comment in this about a survey. Chairman Botterman stated it says “the plan”. A plan is stamped. Diane Hardy stated when a landscape architect looks at a piece of land, they do a site analysis. This is similar to an existing conditions plan. It includes visual elements of the landscape, such as stone walls, vistas, large trees, and the unique landscape features that the landscape architect uses as his or her palette to go with the design for the site. That is very different from the way engineers look at a site. What this is trying to do is broaden this, so when a piece of land is looked at, it is not just looked at in exclusion to its surroundings. It is not to know the exact location of a tree. Chairman Botterman stated every landscape plan he has worked on with a landscape architect, the base of that plan is a survey. The surveyor will not put it on the plan without surveying the lot. The majority of the Board 4-3 decided to delete #9.
For #10, Val Shelton stated it was very subjective and should be deleted. The Board voted to delete it.
For #11, Val Shelton stated she thought this should be taken out, because this is already in the regulations. It could be left in if this is adopted. The Board decided to leave this in, as long as it is consistent with the regulations.
For #12, Chairman Botterman stated the second sentence “No disturbed area shall be left exposed and unprotected” is way too vague. It is in the regulations now, but does this mean everything is covered nightly, monthly, at the end of the growing season? Elizabeth Dudley stated the rest of the regulation is meant to clarify that. She suggested taking it out and leaving the rest containing the specifics. Chairman Botterman stated in the last sentence “re-soiled” could be “re-loamed”. Technically, there is soil there already. Chairman Botterman suggested the end of the sentence should be changed. He asked if the Board was really talking about holding up a Certificate of Occupancy because of landscaping. Diane Hardy stated other communities require a cash bond. Newmarket did that with the Maya’s Way project. Elizabeth Dudley stated it is not just aesthetics, it is also erosion control. Chairman Botterman stated he has seen other towns put bonds up. He has never seen a Certificate of Occupancy held up. Val Shelton stated it should be relative to releasing the bond. Diane Hardy stated not every project has a bond. It is a useful administrative tool. By using the Certificate of Occupancy and requiring the developer to come up with a cash surety, they provide the leverage necessary so the work gets done. Chairman Botterman stated he did not care when someone seeded their lawn. It has to be stabilized. Elizabeth Dudley stated the intent is to protect the water quality in the Lamprey River. The Board agreed to delete “…prior to acceptance of the plans by the Town for purposes of release of the required financial security or issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy” in the last sentence.
Under Plan Requirements, there were no issues with #1 and #2.
For #3, it was decided this should be added to the stormwater section regarding snow removal under 3.05. This is more a stormwater requirement than a landscaping requirement. Chairman Botterman stated for his business, he would never look at a landscape regulation to find out how to deal with snow storage. You look in stormwater management, because it is always a runoff issue.
There were no issues on #4.
For #5, the wording was altered from “When required, irrigation systems shall be designated…” to “When proposed, irrigation systems shall be designated…”
For #6, the first sentence was deleted regarding requiring a maintenance plan with the site plan application. The coffee kiosk had a plan, their landscaping died, and the Town had a hard time enforcing it. Diane Hardy stated the comment was made earlier, when you have more regulations, you have to add more staff. That costs money. Chairman Botterman stated we already have the ability now to write letters making businesses aware their landscaping has all died and they need to replace it.
#7 and #8 were deleted. The Board felt these stated the obvious. Applicants can ask for help and advice from anyone they want.
For Section D Preservation, the word “attractive” was deleted from the first sentence. Chairman Botterman asked Elizabeth Dudley if “attractive ornamental “was a technical term. Elizabeth Dudley stated it was not and she felt the word “attractive” should be deleted. Chairman Botterman said that word is so subjective, what is attractive to him is not necessarily attractive to someone else.
For #1 it was decided to leave it as is.
For #2, there was a grammatical correction adding the word “rather”.
For #3, the second sentence “There shall be no grading within the drip line of existing trees” was deleted. Chairman Botterman stated that sentence is overly restrictive. It forces engineers to advise their clients to cut every tree down. You cannot grade a site around the drip line of a lot of trees.
For #4, the sentence “A snow fence installed around the drip line of the tree canopy is an example of an acceptable barrier” was deleted.
For #5, Chairman Botterman stated this was overbearing with unintended consequences. If he is advising a client as an engineer, he would tell him not to save any trees. For example, if you save a tree, then you kill it, you are going to pay for it. It is easier to cut it down in the first place. It is a practical world. Val Shelton asked if the first sentence applied. If an applicant is proposing to keep existing trees and the Planning Board is making a determination based on that proposal, it should be incumbent upon the applicant to be responsible for that. Elizabeth Dudley stated this happened on Water Street. They had no protection of the elm. If this was in place as a regulation, they would have to replace the historic tree, they are so-called trying to maintain. This regulation is trying to protect trees like the historic elm that is being butchered right now. Chairman Botterman stated the unintended consequence is engineers will tell clients to cut down every tree anywhere near any work area. If a site plan is approved with conditions to maintain trees, then the applicant has a responsibility. The first sentence does apply and should remain. It was decided to delete the remaining two sentences.
For #6, Diane Hardy suggested changing the second sentence. “The applicant is required…” to “The applicant may be required…” Val Shelton stated they could leave the first sentence in and delete the second one. The wording was changed in the first sentence. The word “historic” was added to read “Efforts shall be made to preserve historic stone walls that are onsite”.
For Section (E) Vegetation, Val Shelton stated this item stems from the purpose of the grant. Elizabeth Dudley disagreed. She stated vegetation was secondary to things like stormwater control and other issues.
Chairman Botterman stated, regarding #4, he did not care what size plants or shrubs anyone plants. The Board should be concerned with what they look like when they are accepted after the two year growing period. He does not care what they looked like going in. Elizabeth Dudley stated really small plants need more effort. The five gallon size is not a very big plant. Chairman Botterman stated he was okay with that size.
For #6, Chairman Botterman stated it talked about landscaping on Town property and you could not regulate that. Janice Rosa stated this was a good idea, because you do not want a high maintenance area for the Town to maintain. If you take that out, someone could put something in that would be difficult for the Town. Chairman Botterman stated there should not be any regulation on this. The developer would put landscaping in and the Town would have to spend more money to maintain it. Low maintenance is still more money than no maintenance at all. The Board should not be approving things that require other Town departments to maintain without their concurrence ahead of time. He stated he did call the DPW Director, but he did not have an answer yet. The consensus of the Board was to leave this regulation in as is.
#7 was okay as is.
For #8, Val Shelton read, “Landscaped beds shall be of adequate size to support the healthy growth of the trees and plants specified within the landscape...” She suggested taking out the parenthetical phrase “(a minimum width of 15 feet). The Board agreed.
For #9, several Board members asked what size was meant by “large enough”. Elizabeth Dudley stated it would be large enough to have healthy tree growth on a small piece of land, such as one in the middle of a parking lot. Chairman Botterman stated he was wondering how big “large enough” should be. He was not aware of any calculation based upon the square footage of pavement in a parking lot. Elizabeth Dudley stated it depended on whether it was getting heat from a wall or the direction it faced, for example. These regulations are written for Planning Board members, in part, to consider these things when they are looking for a plan. Not just for this Board, but for the future Planning Boards, who may be very intelligent people, but who may all be theatre directors. The idea is these are salient points to be noticed. Chairman Botterman stated he did not disagree. He stated his question was how to quantify it. Elizabeth Dudley stated it was contextual. Janice Rosa supported this item. It was decided to keep #9 as is.
For #10, it was felt this regulation should be deleted for the same reasons #7 and #8 were deleted and it was taken out.
Section (F) Grading & Topography, for #1, Val Shelton stated it should read “Newly constructed berms and soils should be designed to blend into final topography of the site”. Elizabeth Dudley stated it reads as using existing topography, because you would not put Switzerland next to Utah. Val Shelton stated the topography of a developed site could change dramatically. Elizabeth Dudley stated you do not want the site to look like it was just put in yesterday. Val Shelton stated that was not what it says. Elizabeth Dudley stated if it is not clear, it needs to be reworded. Val Shelton stated it should be designed to blend with the final topography. Elizabeth Dudley stated it was a grading guideline. Chairman Botterman suggested changing it to “…blend into final topography and adjacent surroundings”. The Board agreed.
For #2, Chairman Botterman asked how big a berm was before it had a natural appearance. Elizabeth Dudley stated it requires some sophistication with how it is graded. Val Shelton suggested berms should have a natural appearance.
For #3, there were no changes.
For #4, Diane Hardy asked if the second sentence could be deleted. Elizabeth Dudley stated the sentence meant every different soil has a natural resting angle of repose, where it is not likely to erode if it is at a specific angle. Some soils can be angled more steeply than others. Chairman Botterman stated the first sentence says that. It was decided to leave the second sentence in.
For #5, it was left as is.
For #6, Chairman Botterman asked, if someone was developing a site, they should have the ability to take topsoil offsite and bring it back. He suggested the first sentence be deleted and the second sentence should begin with “Any soil stockpiled…” Elizabeth Dudley stated topsoil is one of the most valuable resources in the United States. The purpose is to value that topsoil and not just mix it in with all the subgrades. Val Shelton stated you may not have the space to maintain the topsoil onsite. Chairman Botterman stated even if you take the topsoil offsite, you are still preserving it on a different site. It is a standard practice to keep it separate. Val Shelton stated to delete the last sentence. The Board was in agreement with those changes.
For #7, Val Shelton suggested taking out the words “Landscape Architect’s” and change it to “…with the approved plan recommendations…” Val Shelton also asked how the stone and rip rap slopes pertain to this. Chairman Botterman suggested the first sentence begin with “All areas to be loamed and seeded shall…” The Board agreed.
For Section (G) Screening, The word “attractive” was deleted from the first sentence. The Board agreed.
For #1, Val Shelton suggested changing the wording in what encompassed “unsightly features”. She stated as they try to redevelop Exeter Road, for example, the Board cannot look to them to be screening new structures or their signs relative to the adjacent use, which is residential. Elizabeth Dudley stated you protect the more vulnerable use. Chairman Botterman stated this was contrary to what the Zoning Ordinance is looking for them to do. If someone on Exeter Road does a commercial development and there is a house on each side, as part of the commercial development, they have a right to put up a sign. Elizabeth Dudley stated this does not mean street frontage. It protects the more vulnerable property from being impacted in a negative way by commercial property next door. Rick McMenimen stated they could just have the first sentence state, “The screening shall be designed to eliminate or minimize potential unsightly features or all other impacts resulting from development”. The Board agreed.
For #2, Rick McMenimen asked what this one meant. Dan Wright stated #7 talks about board on board and shadow boxing. He asked, if you had a dumpster, why you could not use stockade. Elizabeth Dudley stated stockade was very ugly. Val Shelton stated the screening requirements are under numbers 3-5. Val Shelton stated it should read, “An enclosure constructed of materials compatible with the principal structure may be used for screening.” The Board agreed.
For #3, Val Shelton stated this should be taken out. She asked, if you meet the requirement of #1, why specify what the buffer needs to be, as long as you are meeting #1. Elizabeth Dudley stated these regulations reinforce that these are quality screenings. Val Shelton stated you are making an assumption on why you would need something that is 30’ in width, while not knowing what you are screening. Chairman Botterman stated the 30’ width could potentially contradict the zoning in place. Val Shelton stated you might only have a 100’ lot, now you are taking out 60’ of it. These items should come out.
For #4, Val Shelton stated numbers 3-5 should be taken out. The Board agreed.
For #6, Diane Hardy stated fences do not require building permits. There is a height limit in State RSA, because it becomes a spite fence over a certain height. The Board agreed to delete this number.
For #7, Dan Wright asked if stockade fencing could be used for dumpster enclosures. Chairman Botterman stated, in his opinion, it could. Diane Hardy stated the idea was to “raise the bar” a little bit. Elizabeth Dudley stated this is just suggestion. It was decided this should read “Fencing used for screening, or as part of a buffer, shall not use slated chain link fencing”.
For #8, Chairman Botterman asked if the Town was going to have a policy that all of our signage is going to be black round pipe. If that is what the Town wants to do, it should not be part of the landscaping regulations. It seems foolish for the Board to tell a developer on Main Street they have to put up a black round post and then the Town replaces a sign five feet away and it is a silver post. Val Shelton stated you could leave the first sentence. It was agreed to leave the first sentence only in.
For #9, Chairman Botterman stated there may be posts or metal guardrail that is crash tested. On Main Street and Route 108 you are only going to get standard guardrail. It was decided for this to read “The use of “w-beam” guardrail is discouraged”.
For (H), Stormwater, no changes.
For (I), Curbing, no changes.
For (J), Utilities, no changes.
For (K), Irrigation, no changes.
For (L), Maintenance, Elizabeth Dudley suggested taking out the first sentence. It was decided to delete the last sentence. The Board agreed to both.
For (M), Parking Areas, #1, there was discussion of the maximum number of continuous parking spaces, but this remained unchanged.
For #2, the first sentence was changed to “Bare soil is not acceptable for landscaped bed within parking area.”
For #3, there were no issues.
For #4, Val Shelton asked if a rain garden was not a landscaped strip. Elizabeth Dudley stated it was. Val Shelton stated she was not sure if 15’ in width applied. She was concerned about the widths of some of these lots. She stated our development is really going to be urban infill. As these apply to our site regulations, this is taking away a lot of the space within the sites. Diane Hardy stated this started out as 10’, but went to 15’ for a good sized tree in the planting area. She suggested changing it to 10’. Rick McMenimen stated they had to take into consideration, if there was a large parking lot with 50+ cars that has these islands, the visitors going in there and the reasons they need the parking spaces. He was concerned about having larger strips. Dan Wright stated, for infill, parking is critical. Chairman Botterman stated 15’ was excessive. It was decided to eliminate this regulation.
For #5, there were no changes.
For #6, this was already in the regulations, so it was deleted.
For #7, it was decided to tailor the buffer to be consistent with the setback requirements within the zones.
At 10:00 p.m., the Board took a moment to consider whether they could finish the site plan section this evening. It was decided to continue discussing the site plan portion, as they were getting near the end.
For #7(a), it was decided to move (c) to the end of (a).
For #7(b), Chairman Botterman asked why they could not use concrete block. He stated he could argue that concrete block can be much more attractive than finished concrete. Elizabeth Dudley suggested saying “ornamental concrete block”. The first sentence would read “A wall or fence of uniform appearance 6 feet high constructed of brick, stone, finished concrete or ornamental concrete block may be used in conjunction with plant materials between the fence and the street.
For #7(d), there were no changes and it would now be #7(c).
For #8, it was decided to delete this item for the same reasons discussed earlier about the use of red brick and using Town standards.
There was further discussion of continuing the site plan section this evening. It was decided to keep going.
For (N) Trees, numbers 1-8 were not changed.
For #9 and #10, Val Shelton stated they had already discussed maintenance plans and had taken them out of the other regulation. Other parts of the regulations just say they need to be maintained. This item was redundant. The site plan regulation should be that the property owner would need to maintain the site as it was approved. Even if a tree died in five years, it should be replaced. She suggested deleting this item. Elizabeth Dudley stated the two years was important, because the bond money would still be there. Val Shelton stated the Board deals with the site plan portion. It is up to the Administration to enforce the approvals. It is not a Planning Board issue at that point. The majority of the Board agreed to remove #9 and #10.
For #11, Chairman Botterman asked what a “mulch cone” was. Elizabeth Dudley stated a lot of landscape people put mulch up high around tree trunks in a volcano shape and it kills the tree. They charge a lot for the mulch and that is how they make a lot of money and the tree dies.
For #12, it was decided to put it into an appendix.
For (P) Financial Securities, no one had any issue with this section and it remained the same.
For (Q) Maintenance, #1 remained the same.
For #2, it was deleted, because this issue was administrative.
#3 remained the same.
(R) Enforcement remained the same.
Chairman Botterman suggested Diane Hardy make up a clean copy for review and the Board can vote on this section at the next meeting on November 12. Diane Hardy stated she would try to get it done, but there is a very full agenda already for that meeting.
Chairman Botterman stated they still have to review the subdivision regulations. Diane Hardy will work on them to match them to the spirit of what was discussed tonight, with the same sorts of changes. This will also go on the November agenda, if she can get it completed in time.
Agenda Item #3 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 10:14 p.m.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor