Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Val Shelton, John Brackett, Elizabeth Dudley, Janice Rosa, Gabriel Jerome (Alternate), Jane Ford (Alternate)
Absent: Ginger Smith (Alternate), Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio) were excused
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 - Review & approval of minutes: 09/10/13 & 10/08/13
09/10/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the minutes of the 09/10/13 meeting with corrections, if necessary
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
10/08/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the minutes of the 10/08/13 Planning Board meeting minutes with corrections, if necessary
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
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.
Chairman Botterman stated they have received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance to the December 10, 2013 meeting.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to continue the application of Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. for a Subdivision under Residential Open Space Design and Special Use Permit, at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone (editorial note: see above mentioned date).
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
David Loiselle/Lynn P. Sweet & John E. Perkins for FJ Durell Corp & Perkins Agency Inc.- Public hearing for an application for Site Plan, at 195 South Main Street, Tax Map U4, Lot 27, M3 Zone. The proposal is to convert a residential dwelling to a professional office use and residential use.
Val Shelton stated she wanted to disclose she has a relative who works for Perkins Agency, Inc. and they handle her insurance personally and for business. She does not believe she has a conflict of interest hearing this application. If the applicant, Board members, or abutters feel differently, she would recuse herself. No one had an issue with this and Val Shelton remained seated on the Board.
Tobin Farwell, Farwell Engineering Services, represented the applicants. He stated they have to relocate the business from their current location across from the High School. They had the opportunity to purchase this property. It is in the M-3 Zone. They obtained a Special Exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment in order to have this use in the M-3 Zone.
He stated they started to prepare a site plan and wanted to have a one-way access off of South Main Street. They met with NH DOT several times and there were issues. NH DOT was not sure if they wanted to give them the one-way access. The applicants felt, with such a low volume of traffic, it should not be an issue. NH DOT recommended they get the Town’s backing. The Public Works Director worked with them and NH DOT gave them a conceptual approval and a letter, which he showed to the Board. Now that they have NH DOT approval, they are ready to move forward.
He stated this is a very small lot, being a little less than a quarter acre. There is an existing dwelling on it. He gave photos to the Board to look at.
He stated the applicants would like to move their business to the first floor, and have an apartment on the second floor. This would require seven parking spaces, but it is a very tight lot and they can provide six spaces. The Town parking lot is close by for clients to use, so they are requesting a waiver from the number of spaces required. This is not a high use business. They occasionally have clients come by to sign paperwork.
He stated there will be some wall mounted lighting to light the parking lot. It will be on a timer and a switch, so it is only lit when needed. In the middle of winter, when they are heading home, they would like to have the lot lit up. The lighting will be downward casting and shielded lighting, meeting the Town’s standards.
Regarding drainage, they are proposing very little change to the site. They have to add a little bit of pavement to accommodate the parking. The drainage flows to the south and they are proposing a rain garden to attenuate the flow. There will be very little increase in the runoff. The soils there are very tight and there is high runoff right now. That will not change. With the rain garden, it should be less than it is now.
He stated he got a copy of the recommendations for conditions of approval and he reviewed them with the owners. They are concerned about a large 24” caliper maple tree right next to the parking area. Obviously, some excavation will have to happen right next to it. Some roots may be damaged. They intend to keep the tree. You have dig down to make the pavement secure and they do not know how deep the roots are. Elizabeth Dudley stated she copied some details to protect the tree. One is the installation of a grade beam, so the wall is supported with a non-continuous footing that would limit the root damage. She thought it looked like this will be a fill condition with a retaining wall around it. If the tree does die, she suggested a condition that they replace it.
Mr. Farwell stated there is an existing sign at the old site. They intend to relocate that and he showed a rendering of the sign. He stated it meets the requirements of the sign ordinance.
Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the application and it is substantially complete. Mr. Farwell had mentioned they would be seeking a waiver to the parking requirements. They need to provide a landscaping plan that could address the protection of the tree. Other than that the application meets the requirements and can be accepted for technical review. Mr. Farwell stated the waiver request was on the plan.
Diane Hardy stated there is a requirement where parking cannot be located within the setback. The setback requirement is 25’. A portion of the handicap aisle falls within that area. The question is whether the access aisle constitutes a parking space or is it just related to the space. It is sort of a gray area. Val Shelton stated her opinion that it did not constitute part of the actual parking space. The regulation does not refer to pavement within the setback. It refers to parking within the setback. Elizabeth Dudley stated given the limitations of the site and the fact that a car will not be parked there, it is simply an access space to facilitate someone getting in and out of a car and she was fine with that. The rest of the Board was agreeable to that. Diane Hardy stated the Board could disregard number six on her list of conditions.
Action
Motion: Elizabeth Dudley made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Marcia Moody, 1 Maple Street, passed a camera to the Board, so they could see a photo on it. She stated the applicant would like to tear down the garage on the property. That area will contain the pavement of the driveway and will have two parking spaces. She stated they could see how close that is to her property. Val Shelton asked if the garage encroached on her property. Ms. Moody stated it is right there. Val Shelton asked if this property had been surveyed. Mr. Farwell stated it had. Val Shelton asked him if the garage encroached on the abutter’s property. Mr. Farwell stated according to the survey plan, it does not encroach. It is right on the property line.
Ms. Moody stated regarding the garden, there is an impervious liner to that and there is a drainage pipe beneath that. She believes there is an overflow pipe directing water to an approved discharge point. She stated that would drain into her yard or her neighbor’s yard. Mr. Farwell stated this was a common detail for a rain garden. There will be no overflow structure. The intent of this rain garden is to fill up and take advantage of any percolation that will take place. The volume of water will fill just as it does now and the overflow will flow onto the abutting property. There will not be a liner, it will infiltrate as best it can. Chairman Botterman stated there will be no more water leaving the site than there is now. Elizabeth Dudley stated there is more impervious surface. Mr. Farwell stated according to his rough calculations, the runoff will be less than the previous conditions. Diane Hardy asked for a written statement to that effect. She has some of the same concerns. John Brackett stated that sounded fair. Janice Rosa stated Ms. Moody has a valid point. She would have the same concerns. Val Shelton stated she would like to hear what all of the abutters’ concerns are and then get into the discussion of the application. Chairman Botterman agreed with Val Shelton. They should wait to discuss this item until all of the abutters have spoken.
Ms. Moody stated whenever there are heavy rains or snow, one of the problems they have on Maple Street is there are a lot of power outages. She has two sump pumps in the basement and they go out when the power goes out. They are frequently on. She has had flooding in her basement three times and it has cost her over $10,000 to dry the basement out, disinfect it and repair the damage. She is very concerned about any kind of additional drainage.
She also expressed concern about the retaining wall. She asked how high it would be and how close to her property it would be located.
She asked since the municipal parking lot is so close why they could not use that for parking.
Larry Moore was present with his wife, Arlene. They own an abutting property. The tree in question really shades their apartment house during the summer. The applicant says, if they lost the tree, they could plant another one.
He stated it would take a lifetime for the new tree to be the size of this one. His other concern is about the rain garden. Right now there is lawn all the way across. If there was a heavy rainfall, the lawn absorbed it. He stated if the hot top goes in, the water will be concentrated and it will go into the rain garden. He asked if the rain garden does not handle it, what kind of recourse the abutters would have. He asked if this would get revisited. Chairman Botterman stated no, it would not. If it gets approved, it is approved. The abutters would have recourse with the property owners, but they would not have recourse with the Planning Board. You cannot open up another hearing and try to change the terms of the approval. Mr. Moore stated that a lawsuit would be the only way around it. Chairman Botterman stated there was discussion with the property owners. Mr. Moore stated once it was paved, all the water would be concentrated in one spot and it had to go somewhere.
Hector Hamel, 193 South Main Street, stated they have been tenants of the Moore's for the past twelve years. He found it upsetting they were paving over 80% of the green space between the properties and putting the maple tree in danger. This is hardly consistent with a residential neighborhood. All of the neighbors are very upset about this project and they don’t want to see it happen.
He said at the Zoning Board meeting, they stated they would make minor exterior changes and would keep the look and feel of the present neighborhood. Paving the area and endangering the tree is not in keeping with the look and feel of the neighborhood.
He stated regarding the rain garden, even though it is hard soil, it is soil. A lot of water will percolate down. If you pave, whatever water it holds will turn into a mosquito pit until it perks out. With the runoff, he did not see how the area could contain that much water without overflowing. This little rain garden would not contain the runoff. He felt the entire proposal was bad for the neighborhood. They want to keep their residential neighborhood as residential.
Diane Hardy stated she had a concern about the rain garden. They had to make sure the subsurface soils would percolate so there would be infiltration. She asked if any soils borings had been done. Mr. Farwell stated he looked up the NRCS soil data for this area. Diane Hardy stated that was generalized. Mr. Farwell agreed.
Chairman Botterman stated runoff was a concern. The regulations, because of the size of this plan, do not require an official drainage analysis. Diane Hardy stated they could still ask for additional information. Chairman Botterman stated at this point, the engineer has not provided drainage calculations. What he was hearing was the abutters would want to see, at least, a drainage memo, with the simple calculations showing that the runoff after construction is going to be equal to or less than before construction. He explained the applicant is not required to stop all water from going onto abutting properties. All they have to do is prevent any additional runoff from going onto those properties. So, what is going there now can continue. They can’t increase the flow of run-off.
Elizabeth Dudley stated there has to be a notation of the mean average water table, because the rain garden bottom should be 2 feet above the water table to prevent any contamination of waters into the groundwater. Diane Hardy stated that was relevant.
Val Shelton stated the Board should have a better understanding of the functionality of the rain garden and the pre- and post- development runoff calculations. There has to be some burden put on an engineer that is certifying that the pre- and post-runoff is not increased. Diane Hardy stated they should know if the soils in the substrata are capable of handling any increase and that requires test pits.
Elizabeth Dudley asked if, instead of asking for a waiver for one parking space, they could ask for a waiver for more than one. That would give more of an area for infiltration. There is also street parking nearby. If parking spaces were decreased then a lot of these other problems would be ameliorated.
Chairman Botterman stated he was comfortable asking for a summary drainage study in a brief memo, with the imposed calculations and the size of the rain garden stamped by the engineer.
Elizabeth Dudley stated they could have permeable pavement.
Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Farwell would need to do a test pit.
Elizabeth Dudley stated if they did away with one or two spaces, there could be a very nice landscaped evergreen buffer between the properties, where the garage now stands. There are options for less impervious paving.
Chairman Botterman stated he is comfortable with the parking, as shown, as long as runoff does not exceed what is there now. He understands some members want reduced parking, but people will not park down the street and walk up to the location.
John Perkins, Perkins Agency, stated Mr. Farwell did a number of plans. They have tried to address the tree issue and some of the parking. One of the plans, because of NH DOT, was to have one entrance off Maple Street. In that case, that would take a tree out. They had the Town, the DPW, and the Fire Department all go to bat for them with NH DOT. NH DOT said they could have the one way in, which put the tree back in and gave them more green space. It doubled the size of the rain garden. He understood the calculations, but they have tried to come to an agreeable solution.
Chairman Botterman asked if the two spaces on the side were going to be for the apartment. Mr. Perkins stated they could be for anyone, employees, tenants, or customers, it was part of the overall parking. There would be one apartment unit.
Val Shelton asked Diane Hardy about the comment on recourse should the rain garden fail. She asked if it was the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that all conditions of the site plan are maintained. Diane Hardy stated it could be a condition of approval. She stated they could ask them to add some notes to the plan to clarify how the rain garden would be maintained. These plans will be stamped by a professional engineer and, if he says that the post flow is not greater than the predevelopment flow and this is a system designed to handle the 50 year flood event, which would give legal recourse should any problems arise. Chairman Botterman stated if the rain garden is built and it does not work, the neighbors will complain to the Town and the owners. The owners will get hold of their engineer, who will decide whether it was not built correctly or working properly, but it is a civil issue at that point. The Town has the ability to inspect it during construction and make sure it is properly built, but five years from now if there is an issue, the Town will not be in the middle of it. Diane Hardy stated that was why the stormwater regulations call for an operation maintenance plan. If it is on the plan, it is enforceable. Just because it does not meet the threshold for a stormwater management plan, does not mean that the Board should just ignore stormwater.
Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Farwell has shown a rain garden, the Board just needs to see the backup material for it. Elizabeth Dudley stated there are more options for the rain garden than to have overflow go into a cistern or second rain garden. She would like a second look at this. Chairman Botterman stated they need to see the engineer’s calculations first. Janice Rosa stated she like the idea of a cistern. The Perkins business graciously sold their business site to the school. The Town has an obligation to make this happen and make the abutters happy. It can be done. Chairman Botterman stated there is no requirement anywhere in the regulations for anyone to install a cistern. He stated a cistern is not inexpensive. Elizabeth Dudley stated it could be an underground storage facility. Chairman Botterman asked if the rest of the Board felt the same way. John Brackett stated that would be helpful.
Chairman Botterman stated until they see a drainage study, any discussion is premature. In the big picture, if this final site design does not dump any more water off the site than it does today, that is all the regulation requires. He did not feel the Board had the right to require more than that. If they applicant wants to look at doing something different, that is within their right. Diane Hardy stated the Board did adopt stormwater regulations and the threshold is if a project adds more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area, you need to present a detailed stormwater management plan and a maintenance plan. This is not that far away from the threshold, because the additional impervious area is 4,257 square feet. She did not believe anything suggested by the Board is being unreasonable or contrary to the intent of the ordinance. Chairman Botterman stated the Board is just asking for a drainage report at this point. This will give the answers the Board needs.
Chairman Botterman stated regarding Ms. Moody’s reference to a retaining wall, there is one on the plan located at the house, but not on the property line. He understood Ms. Moody’s concerns. The garage is right on the property line. Under this proposal, the driveway will now be between 5’ and 8’ off of the property line. There is a stockade fence proposed and the area is one that will be landscaped. Elizabeth Dudley stated the style of the fence should be a quality fence. Stockade is very inexpensive and not high quality. It is not appropriate for the look of Newmarket’s downtown area. The fence should be upgraded to a higher quality fence. Chairman Botterman asked if the applicant knew what the landscaping would be in that area. Mr. Farwell stated there will be snow storage in that area. There will be hardy, bush type plantings. Plowing will put snow in that area. Chairman Botterman stated they will be seeing a landscaping plan from the applicant. Val Shelton stated there is no water draining from that area, because of the garage, onto that neighbor’s property. Now that snow will be piled there, based upon the topography, that will be running onto the abutter’s property. Mr. Farwell stated the existing garage is pitch roofed. Half of the rainfall that hits the roof goes directly onto the abutter’s property. Val Shelton stated half is going there now, but if you are piling snow there, there will be all run-off associated with the additional snow coverage there. If an applicant is planning to store snow on particular areas on the site, it should be noted on the site plan.
Val Shelton asked about the stockade fence and which side needed to face the abutter. Diane Hardy stated there are no regulations for that. There is no fence ordinance in Newmarket and the Town does not require permits for fences, like they do in some towns.
John Brackett asked if you could store snow on a rain garden. Elizabeth Dudley stated you can, as water flows below the snow.
Val Shelton stated there are vertical granite curbing details on the sheet, but she did not see callouts on the site plan. Mr. Farwell stated there will be vertical granite or sloped along the sidewalk. He stated it does need to be noted. Chairman Botterman asked with the location of the handicap space, whether there was a ramp there. Mr. Farwell stated there will be a tip down on the sidewalk.
Val Shelton asked about the M3 district where office is allowed under Special Exception. Diane Hardy stated they did get a Special Exception, from the Zoning Board.
Chairman Botterman stated the Board will be looking for a drainage analysis both pre- and post-construction to size the rain garden with test pit data. They are also looking for a landscape plan.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she would like to see alternatives for the runoff onto the abutter’s property. She would like to see a provision for what happens when the surplus water meets the top of the rain garden in the event of a 50 year storm. Chairman Botterman stated they are not required to do that, they are required to make sure no additional water goes there. Elizabeth Dudley stated they could ask for things other than the minimum. Chairman Botterman stated you have to be careful. He is sensitive to the concerns, but the Board cannot ask for anything more than what is stated in the regulations. There are also situations where, for example, if they came in and say they are going to stop all water from leaving the site, it would be contrary to State law.
Chairman Botterman stated if they can attenuate the additional runoff, he is comfortable with the six parking spaces. He did not see people parking 100 yards away to walk over there.
John Brackett stated he saw all of the snow going all the way around the property into the rain garden up against the fence. He wanted to know the rain garden was going to work. He liked the parking.
Val Shelton stated the applicant should write out a waiver request for the reduction of the parking and identify the supporting information. If the Board is going to grant that waiver, they need to spell out the findings of facts in order to do that. She stated the statute is clear on it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the site plan review of David Loiselle/Lynn P. Sweet & John E. Perkins for F.J. Durell Corp & Perkins Agency Inc. for an application for Site Plan, at 195 South Main Street, Tax Map U4, Lot 27, M3 Zone to convert a residential dwelling to a professional office use and residential use to December 10, 2013
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Acadia Engineers & Constructors LLC – Request for a waiver of impact fees pursuant to Newmarket Ordinance 2001-0, Impact Fees for Public Capital Facilities, subsection 6.11.6, at 13 Water Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 4, M-2 Zone.
Chairman Botterman stated everyone had received a packet explaining the history of the project and Tim Nichol’s requests.
Tim Nichols, Acadia Engineers & Constructors, LLC, stated there are two phases to the project. That was always the intent. They have residential townhome units and an existing building, which is a historic blacksmith shop. They have been working with the State Division of Historic Resources (DHR), and the National Park Service (NPS). They spent a lot of money having archeologists and architectural historians study the building. There are three parts to a historic restoration in accordance with the National Park Service (NPS) standards. They have completed Part I and are about to submit Part II of the application process. The third part is post-construction certifying that they have restored the building the way they said they would. That is on its own separate schedule and timeline.
He stated the townhomes are under construction. Their approach has always been to complete the townhomes. The proceeds from the sale of the townhomes funded the cost to acquire the property, which they did in August. No bank or lender would fund the entire project. The only viable way to the get project done was to complete the townhomes and take the sales from those to commence on the blacksmith shop. They have done some minor work in the blacksmith building. They cleaned it out and did some selective demo. They had to do a lot of that as part of the architectural historic survey. They had to find out where the old windows were, what type of framing it had, and the type of timbers. They continue to do that as sweat equity, before they can get any lending on the property.
He stated the project is moving forward. Until they get approval from the National Park Service, they cannot do what they want to do. The only way it works financially is if they get a federal 20% historic preservation tax credit. That is a very long process. They have been at it for over a year. They have invested a lot of money, time, and effort in that process and they are committed to it. There is no plan for the blacksmith shop other than what was presented to the Town over a year ago. It will still be their place of business, with residential, commercial and retail in accordance with M-2 zoning standards. Nothing has changed from what was approved. The timing of the project and how it all happens is not something that is approved by the Planning Board, including how it is funded. He is a little taken aback by the letter of opinion from the Town Attorney. In light of that, he would like to proceed with the waiver portion. He knows there was a question of why they were requesting impact fee waivers just on the townhomes and not the blacksmith shop. The blacksmith shop is not subject to impact fees. It is an existing structure that will be renovated to its original historic condition. The only impact fee they can request is for the townhome development and that was the intent of this application.
Val Shelton stated the point of clarification is impact fees do not apply to existing uses. What she is hearing is, because there are already three residential units in that building and a commercial space, that building’s use is not changing and, therefore, it is not subject to impact fees.
Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Nichols is asking for a waiver of impact fees for the four new townhouse units. He is asking for recreation, wastewater, water supply and treatment and is suggesting that he still will pay the school portion of the impact fees.
Tim Nichols went over the history of the property. He stated there had been a couple of redevelopment plans for the property going back to 2005. The last one, before they got involved, was to construct a three-story, seven unit residential condominium building, which would have involved demolition of the blacksmith shop. His original plan was similar to that, but it would have been mixed use, with the intent of finding an office for his business. When they went through due diligence, they learned the building was part of the Newmarket Commercial and Industrial Historic District (which is on the National Register of Historic Places), but not as an individual listing of the structure. They had their own architectural historian go through it. The original determination had been made back in the 1980s, so the standards were much different than they are today. When his historian went through it, she determined it was a “primary historic building”. In order for it to be individually listed on the National Register, they had to go through a process, which required the National Park Service Part I study, report, and submittal package that went through the State Division of Historic Resources and the National Park Service (NPS) and eventually it got approved. They needed that before they could consider preserving that building and making it financially viable. The reason the two prior developments never happened was because the cost of the site infrastructure that was necessary did not work out financially, with a single structure that met all of the zoning requirements for the site. The only way he could make preserving the existing building viable was to add a second building.
He stated the previous owner, Russell Serbagi, had an agreement with the Town to fund $22,000 worth of water improvements on Water Street and also an agreement for the Riverwalk easement. Those two elements were the basis of the impact fee waiver that was given to him by the Planning Board in 2006. The Riverwalk was completed and also the water line installation project. The property owner did pay the $22,000 to the Town. The conditions of the previous waiver have been met. Those were considerations when they were analyzing the property.
He stated, in addition to the improvements the previous owner made, they had to install a new 12” gravity sewer main from the Rivermoor property onto Water Street. They added a new manhole for cleanout. They took an old cast iron sewer drain that had probably met its expected service life and needed replacement and they upgraded that with a modern drainage system and that was all at their cost of nearly $30,000. It was a necessary improvement to the site and an asset to the Town. They also paid $8,000 in water and sewer connection fees. They have paid all of their fees to the Town to date. They are asking for a waiver of the impact fees, with the exception of the school fee.
Chairman Botterman stated the applicant was asking for that, because of the money that was spent by the previous owner. The applicant is saying it runs with the property. Tim Nichols stated they made about $50,000 worth of improvements to Town facilities.
Elizabeth Dudley stated these fees were in 2005 dollars and represent very small fees. This is 2013. She didn’t know if the impact fees should have been updated. That is something the Board should do. Chairman Botterman stated they had brought this subject up in the past. Elizabeth Dudley stated she did not accept that the fees are tied to the land. This is a different time. There is no “boom”. The Town’s tax dollars are tight. She stated she appreciated the money he has put into wastewater treatment and water supply. She felt the recreation facilities are a separate piece. She did not see why that was thrown in there. Chairman Botterman stated it was not part of the school portion. Chairman Botterman stated a waiver had been granted for the Riverwalk to run through their property. Diane Hardy clarified the recreation impact fee waiver that was previously granted was for the Riverwalk project, which was funded with 50% NH Coastal Program money from NOAA, which is through the Federal Government. It required a match. The match was the value of the easement. At the time it was probably valued at $50,000, which is what would have been required for the match.
Val Shelton stated it was her opinion that a prior Planning Board determined based upon offsite improvements the landowner made and the facilities they provided benefits to the public more than offset the fiscal impacts to the Town. That Planning Board granted $9,270 for seven condo units, which is more than this applicant is looking for. The applicant has made additional improvements. The applicant meets the requirements for the Board to grant these waivers. The facts presented are clear and support the regulations to grant these.
Jane Ford agreed with Val Shelton.
Rick McMenimen stated they have to go by the fees in existence and the applicant has offset some of these fees. He stated just paying the public school portion is fine with him.
Janice Rosa agreed.
John Bracket asked what the school fees were. Chairman Botterman stated they are $2,197 per unit, which is $8,788. If they do not grant the waiver, he will be paying the additional impact fees on the other categories. John Brackett stated he agrees with the waiver of the other fees.
Gabriel Jerome stated he agreed. It was reasonable the requested waiver is granted.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she was horrified with the protection of the elm tree during construction. She would like the tree looked at by an arborist. She felt the condition of approval was not followed. Chairman Botterman stated they cannot take that up under this impact fee waiver request. They can bring it up at a different meeting.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they waive the impact fees requested by Acadia Engineers & Constructors LLC – Request for a waiver of impact fees pursuant to Newmarket Ordinance 2001-0, Impact Fees for Public Capital Facilities, Subsection 6.11.6, at 13 Water Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 4, M-2 Zone in the amount of $1,300 for recreational facilities, as the applicant has shown and, as previously granted by a prior Planning Board that the easement donation of the waterfront park for $50,000 far exceeds that particular impact; that the applicant’s request for $4,076 be waived for wastewater treatment impact fees supported by the fact that the applicant has invested $29,728 in the upgrade of the sewer lines and the request to waive the water supply and treatment impact fees of $2,448 be waived in light of the prior landowner contributing $22,000 to the Town to upgrade the water lines on Water Street
Second: Rick McMenimen
Motion to amend: Elizabeth Dudley made a motion to amend if we were to grant this waiver that we have an arborist see to the proper health and rehabilitation of the elm tree as needed
Second: None – Amendment to the Motion fails
Vote on original motion: All in favor
Elizabeth Dudley asked what her recourse would be to see that an arborist visits this elm tree. Chairman Botterman stated the site plan is still open and the Town still has review authority. At any time, any complaints may be given to the Code Enforcement Office. He believed an arborist had looked at this tree from the beginning. Elizabeth Dudley stated she meant since construction had begun. She would like more effort made to preserve the tree. Chairman Botterman stated the proper avenue was to go to the Code Enforcement Officer.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Master Plan
Chairman Botterman stated, this year, the Planning Department’s budget request has included $10,000 for work on updating the Master Plan. The Budget Committee is still reviewing that. He felt the request was not clear on what it is the Planning Department would like to do with that $10,000. There are a couple of things he would like to point out. There are two chapters in the Master Plan. One chapter is Chapter 10, which is Future Land Use. That is a mandatory chapter. Master Plans have some chapters that are mandatory in all Master Plans, by State law. Other chapters may be optional. Future Land Use was last updated in August 2002. The State laws require that chapter be updated every ten years. It was due to be updated in 2012; however funding for contracted services in the Planning Department budget has been eliminated for the last two years. The other chapter is the Vision Statement, which is also a mandatory and was last updated in September 2001. That is supposed to be updated every ten years, so that should have been done in 2011.
Chairman Botterman stated he is asking for consensus from the Board to authorize Diane Hardy to write a letter or communicate about it to the Budget Committee. Val Shelton recommended the Planning Board Chair write the letter. Chairman Botterman stated if the Board wanted him to write it that was fine.
Val Shelton stated under State statute, the Planning Board has the right to request a budget from the Town, in order to fulfill their mandates under the statute. One of those mandates is to maintain the Master Plan. Diane Hardy stated the Town Council did not cut this from the Planning Department budget. It was the Chairman of the Budget Committee, who suggested we have a more formal proposal. She was happy to work with the Chairman in putting that together. It is important and within the Planning Board’s purview to request funds for priorities for the upcoming year. She was looking for support to illustrate that the Planning Board is very serious about this.
Elizabeth Dudley asked why it was $10,000. Diane Hardy stated the last update they did was $10,000 and that was for the Economic Development chapter. They used the local funds to the extent they could to match funding from other sources. In previous years, they have used funding from Piscataqua Regional Estuary Partnership (PREP) and the NH Coastal Program. Those monies, however, are not guaranteed. At least this request would provide some funds, so they can leverage funding from other sources to complete the Master Plan. The $10,000 is only part of the cost. To do a full update of those two chapters would run around $25,000 to $30,000. Val Shelton would like to see the Board request a certain budgetary amount annually to update the various chapters of the Master Plan. Chairman Botterman stated there are other chapters that are well beyond the date of update. Val Shelton stated if they request funding every year, they would be able to stay in compliance every time the ten years came around for a chapter update.
Landscape Regulations
Diane Hardy stated they would like to postpone the Landscape Regulations to the December meeting. They did not have a chance to make all of the changes.
Conservation Commission
Janice Rosa stated the members would like copies of Mark West’s report when it is done.
Advisory Heritage
Janice Rosa stated there were great suggestions and the railroad station development was well received. John Brackett stated they talked about some architectural details on the structure that would be in a more historic time frame for a train depot.
Economic Development Committee
Val Shelton stated they are waiting to hear back from the Town Administrator for the date of their next meeting. Diane Hardy stated she met with the consultant and the Town Administrator. They went through the business zoned areas and looked at the feasibility of developing various lots. The consultant will integrate the information into a report. They spent about three hours with him. The Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) offered to assist with the maps.
Route 108 Bike Path
Diane Hardy stated they went through the RFQ process for hiring a consultant. The selection committee met last week and they have identified a firm with whom they wish to negotiate a contract. They need to ask for clearance from NH DOT, before they can move forward with that. The Town also needs to have an independent governmental cost estimate done.
Macallen Dam Removal Study
Diane Hardy stated the Town is now under contract with Gomez Sullivan. They are moving ahead with the survey, bathymetry and probing work. There was a drawdown of the impoundment behind the dam in October and she has completed her interim grant report for the Conservation Law Foundation. The consultant is proposing to have a draft report by the end of January for public review.
Pedestrian Skybridge/Walkway
Diane Hardy stated they have revised scope of work, which will be an amendment to the contract the Town has with Dubois King to further evaluate pedestrian issues at the downtown mill location. This was in response to NH DOT’s recommendations, because the feasibility study has to look at all possible alternatives. They are fine-tuning that now and hope to have the Town Council to approve it at a future meeting. They do not know the estimated cost at this point. They need to do an independent governmental estimate to assure the costs are in line. They are still looking for additional funding for the project as originally envisioned. Janice Rosa asked if this was still going forward. The Town Council did not seem to be behind it. She said a lot of money is going into all of these studies and Diane Hardy, as the Town Planner, is being pulled in too many directions. Chairman Botterman stated the Town Council had approved $55,000 for this already and there may be some additional funding requests. Diane Hardy stated there is no longer a Transportation Enhancement (TE) Program and all of the TE funds have to be committed by June 2015. The Town has to get the engineering piece done by the end of February 2014, to be able to meet the milestones that NH DOT has given by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for the grant program.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:30 p.m.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor