Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 10, 2013
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, John Brackett, Val Shelton, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), Elizabeth Dudley, Jane Ford (Alternate), Gabriel Jerome (Alternate), Ginger Smith (Alternate)
Called to order: 7:02 p.m.
Adjourned: 10:09 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Chairman Botterman thanked the “Linked Together” children for the nice ornaments and cards they made for the Board members. Ree Cooper does a great job with the kids and the kids do a great job, too.
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review and approval of minutes: 10/29/13 & 11/12/13
10/29/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of 10/29/13 with corrections, if necessary
Second: Janice Rosa
Elizabeth Dudley had a correction on page 5, line 6, to change “engineers” to “landscape architects”.
Val Shelton stated the secretary transcribing the minutes needed to know how the vote had gone on the motion on page 5. It was clarified that Eric Botterman, Rick McMenimen, Janice Rosa, and Dan Wright voted in favor. Elizabeth Dudley, Val Shelton, and John Brackett voted against.
Val Shelton stated on page 10, line 30, change “large trees” to “trees and plants specified”.
Vote: All in favor
The 11/12/13 minutes were not ready for distribution and this item was postponed to January 21, 2014.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Acadia Engineers & Constructors, LLC - Public hearing for an application for subdivision at 13 Water Street, U3, Lot 4, M2 Zone. The proposal is to convert the four townhome units to condominium units pursuant to Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
Chairman Botterman stated Tim Nichols, Acadia Engineers & Constructors, LLC, had asked if he could go first, as he felt his application would go very quickly. He asked Eric Chinburg if that was okay with him and he stated that was fine. No one in attendance or on the Board had any issue with this.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Chairman Botterman asked Tim Nichols to explain his request.
Tim Nichols stated this was a formal request to subdivide the property for condominium units. They were not subdividing the actual land parcel. The regulations require this process for condo units.
Diane Hardy explained, under the RSAs, the definition of subdivision does include the phrase “…and condominium conveyance”, so whenever you have conveyance of land for condominium conveyance, it is considered a subdivision. It has been the protocol of this Board to consider it a subdivision. However, it has been a perfunctory matter, where the Board assures there is a subdivision plan that can be recorded. The past practice has been to approve it subject to legal review by the Town Counsel to assure the condominium documents and plans are consistent. She recommends the approval of this subdivision subject to legal counsel doing a cursory review of the documents, so it can be moved forward.
Chairman Botterman stated this is only a change in the type of ownership.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she was not able to find this in the subdivision regulations. Diane Hardy stated it is in the State RSAs. Also, it is in the definition of subdivision in the Town’s regulations. The process and reasons were explained to Elizabeth Dudley.
There were no public comments and Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application by Acadia Engineers & Constructors LLC for the subdivision of 13 Water Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 4, M2 Zone, to convert the new four townhome units to condominium units pursuant to Newmarket Subdivision Regulations, subject to legal review by Town Counsel of the condominium documents for compliance with the approved plans.
Second: Janice Rosa
Val Shelton stated this is only for the townhome units to become condominiums. They are not subdividing the lot. There will be five units as shown on the plan.
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to amend the motion made that the approval is for five condominium units on U3 Lot 4, in the M-2 Zone
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote on the amendment: All in favor
Vote on the motion: All in favor
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.
Corey Belden, Altus Engineers, stated the overall plan is similar to what they had before, with minor changes. The biggest change is they are submitting a new application to subdivide off the clubhouse lot, prior to doing the open space development. There is a revised yield plan and a revised environmental resources plan. Upon approval of those, they will still have the allowable lot numbers to proceed with the open space development. There are no real changes to the yield plan.
They are addressing the TRC’s (Technical Review Committee) comments, Mark West’s report and the engineering comments of Phil MacDonald, who has done the review of water, sewer and storm water. They also have addressed the Public Works Director’s comments.
They would like to discuss Mark West’s suggestion involving the removal of lots 23, 24, and 25 in further detail. They are willing to provide a detailed grading plan for those lots and look at the other options about improving the buffer to the wetlands in those areas. They do not have a revised set of plans yet.
Diane Hardy stated they just received Mark West’s report last week and it has been forwarded to the Conservation Commission. It was her understanding they were meeting this coming Thursday night. They were hoping to give some feedback to the Planning Board on the recommendations. If they would like to have a special meeting with the TRC and the wildlife consultant to work through some of the issues, in particular Item F, that could certainly be set up.
Corey Belden stated their primary objective for tonight is addressing the waiver requests. Diane Hardy stated she just received the revised request and it has not been submitted to the Conservation Commission for review. There is one additional Public Works related waiver. Diane Hardy stated they were in a position to address three or four of the waivers, but not all of them.
Chairman Botterman stated he had a list of things he would like to get through tonight.
Rick McMenimen asked if the Police Chief or the State had sent any comments about the access and egress. Diane Hardy stated they had received comments from the State Department of Transportation (NH DOT). They reviewed Steve Pernaw’s report and had some recommendations which have been addressed by the developer’s engineer.
Corey Belden stated there are two new requests tonight. One is for construction of side slopes. They reduced the slopes to 2 to 1 through the wetland areas, to reduce impacts to the wetlands. In those areas, they also placed guardrail. There is also a requirement that only 20% of a single wooded lot can be cleared. It seems a little bit contradictory to some of the other open space requirements. When you reduce the lot sizes and you have quarter acre lots, 20% of 10,000 sq. ft. is 2,000 sq. ft. It is difficult to fit a driveway and a house. They removed the waiver request for the base course, because the Public Works Director wanted to keep the 18” rather than reducing it to 12”. They would like to finalize their plans and submit them for the January meeting. If any waivers are not approved, they will change the design. Chairman Botterman stated they have a lot of work to do to finalize some of the comments and with the Conservation Commission and TRC.
The first waiver request was from Section 3.02 (B)(4). They propose to reduce the pavement lane by one foot to 11’ lanes making a 22’ wide road. Corey Belden stated they have addressed reasons for the waivers in each of their written requests. The reduction of the pavement by one foot supports the studies saying narrow roadways reduce speeds and impervious area, which favorably impacts peak flows and water quality. They went through the Public Works Director with this waiver and he was fine with it. Diane Hardy stated she had a memo from Rick Malasky Public Works Director stating he was fine with it, as the Road Agent and Fire Chief. The TRC had agreed with him.
Val Shelton asked if the 4’ wide gravel shoulder would fall under the waiver or would the lawns go right up to the Cape Cod berm curbing. Corey Belden stated the lawns would go to the Cape Cod berm curbing. They are asking for a full waiver of that section. Val Shelton stated there would be no shoulder for walking purposes. Corey Belden stated there would be a flat area adjacent to the curbing, before they start grading back toward the properties. Chairman Botterman stated he supported this request, as it reduces runoff and helps to reduce traffic speed.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that we (the Planning Board) waive with regards to the application for the Rockingham Country Club/Chinburg Builders proposed subdivision (Tax Map R3, Lot 23) in the M-4 Zone, Section 3.02 Roads subsection (B)(4) of our (the) Subdivision Regulations in that waiving this particular section of the regulations will: reduce runoff to provide increased protection of our wetlands and also decrease the amount of impervious surface within the subdivision
Second: Janice Rosa
Rick McMenimen questioned the wording of the motion. Val Shelton stated he was correct, in that it did sound like she was waiving that entire section.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton amended her motion to clarify that subsection (B)(4) would be waived so that the minimum width of pavement of the travel lane is reduced from a 12 foot width by one foot to a 11 foot width and to allow curbing to be Cape Cod berm (type curbing) and there will be no gravel shoulders
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated the next waiver was for Section 3.02 (B) (7) Roads, for the length of the cul-de-sac. He read the section. Corey Belden showed the plan. He stated the goal of this project is to minimize impacts to the golf course. It takes advantage of utilizing the open space on the north side of the golf course. The developable land between the golf course and wetlands runs along that area. To get the number of lots required to make this project feasible, they need a road longer than 1,000 feet.
Chairman Botterman mentioned the alternative of connecting to Ladyslipper Drive. Corey Belden stated there is a prime wetland in between that connection. They proposed the cul-de-sac to eliminate the potential wetland crossing. Val Shelton stated Rick Malasky had no issues with this from a life safety standpoint. There are other subdivisions in town like this. Diane Hardy stated the regulations do talk about encouraging connectivity; however not at the expense of adversely impacting wetlands and other environmental resources. Corey Belden stated they are providing a connection for possible future development at the end of the cul-de-sac, if any of the adjacent lots are ever subdivided.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that we waive Section 3.02 Roads, Subsection (B)(7) relative to the road not being longer than 1,000 feet from a single point of access in the road network based upon the reasons provided by the applicant and also input from the Newmarket Fire Chief and Director of Public Works, Rick Malasky, having no objections to this waiver request
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated the next waiver request is for Section 3.02 (D) (5) Roads regarding the construction of side slopes. He read the section. Corey Belden stated this would apply only in areas adjacent to the wetlands. They increased the slopes to a 2 to 1 grade and put guardrail in to minimize the impact to the wetlands. He indicated the areas on the plan. Val Shelton stated the slope will change, but the road width will not. The pavement width will still be 22’. Chairman Botterman stated the curbing to the property line will have a steeper slope. Diane Hardy stated there is less of an impact to the house lots. Corey Belden stated the areas where the wetlands will come up to the road will be the buffer area. The slope will come down, then there will be a wetland buffer area. Chairman Botterman stated on the first crossing it saves wetlands fill and the second saves buffer impacts.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the waiver of Section 3.02 Roads, Subsection (D)(5) with regards to slopes, as requested by the applicant based upon the reasons provided, subject to our Town Engineer approving the applicant’s plan for slope stabilization of those areas
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated the next request was for Section 3.03 Stormwater Management (A)(4) regarding curbing. He read the section. Corey Belden stated it seems like Cape Cod berm curbing is allowed, as it is mentioned in the regulations, but the wording here requires a waiver. They would like to use Cape Cod berm curbing. It is a mountable curb. If there was vertical curb and someone had guests, they would have to park in the road if there was granite curbing. It is standard for a higher density development. Chairman Botterman stated this was discussed at a prior meeting. Diane Hardy stated she spoke to Rick Malasky and he was in support of the Cape Cod berm curbing.
Elizabeth Dudley stated, in Mark West’s report, it states the Cape Cod curbing allows the turtles to cross the road. She would think you would not want the turtles to cross the road. Luke Hurley, Gove Environmental Services, stated he had never actually heard it presented like that. One of the things they did early on was coordinate with the NH Fish & Game Department regarding some of the turtle species. The wildlife biologist at NH Fish & Game recommended they use Cape Cod berms for curbing. If a turtle gets into the street, it can get out again. With granite curbing, they can’t climb up over the curb.
Action
Motion: Elizabeth Dudley stated for the sake of the turtles and overall ease of parking she says yes let’s make a waiver of the granite and go with the Cape Cod berm curb
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated the next waiver was from Section 3.14 Residential Open Space Design (A)(4). He read the section. Corey Belden stated, in August, Gove Environmental prepared the rationale for a wetland buffer. The standard subdivision buffer requirements are 100’ for prime wetlands, 50’ for very poorly drained soils, and 25’ for poorly drained soils. They are requesting to use the conventional standards. The Residential Open Space Design standards are more restrictive and say a 100’ buffer to all wetlands. There is no distinction between soil types. They presented a rationale for reducing the buffer requirement and the Town requested Mark West to look at the buffer waivers, as well, as part of his study. Diane Hardy stated she would like to hold off on this until they hear back from the Conservation Commission. She had asked Mark West to address that. Elizabeth Dudley stated he had noted that reducing the buffer reduced the wetlands’ ability to absorb water.
Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services, stated he thought the issue was the 100’. This is only an issue with a couple of lots. Mark West had concerns. If you look at his reports, you will see he makes no mention about maintaining that 100’ throughout the development. That is the critical element. Regarding the Board’s review of this item and whether a couple of lots need to be modified, this issue is specific to that on area. He stated Mark West did not think the 100’ was necessary throughout, otherwise there would be more lots going away. By waiving the 100’, he did not think they were giving up any of the rights to modify the subdivision at a future time. It does make it allowable for the applicant to move forward with the rest of the design. Those two lots would be discussed at a later time.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to postpone action on this waiver until they have input from the Conservation Commission
Second: Rick McMenimen
Val Shelton stated the Board had decided this right from the first meeting. They wanted Conservation Commission input. It would be disingenuous to not hear from them first.
Elizabeth Dudley stated, if they do not grant that waiver tonight, there are an awful lot of lots that will be affected. Strategically, it would be difficult for the development to move ahead without this waiver. At the earlier TRC meetings and during the discussions of the yield plan, it was understood this waiver would be granted. If the Board does not grant this now, it would be akin to not granting the waiver for the longer cul-de-sac length. It is material to the overall design.
Val Shelton stated, if they grant this waiver tonight, there is no requirement for the developer to make any modifications.
Chairman Botterman asked if a waiver could be granted with the exception of two lots. Eric Chinburg suggested they could grant the waiver subject to the applicant satisfactorily addressing the concerns posted in Mr. West’s letter. This was one of the first things talked about by the Board. Mr. Gove’s letter was written on August 8. They do not have a project without this waiver. For them to wait another month, when this letter has been out there for months, was not the appropriate course. Elizabeth Dudley stated the waiver to which Mr. Chinburg is referring is one they had said they were amenable to granting. Val Shelton stated, if they went back to the meeting minutes, they will find the discussion of this was that the Board wanted the Conservation Commission’s input. Elizabeth Dudley stated they had that input. Chairman Botterman stated they have some input. They haven’t given any on this latest report. He agrees to a point. They never said they were going to follow the Conservation Commission’s input 100%. They get the input, then make a decision based on it. He is comfortable with the waiver with conditions.
Val Shelton withdrew her motion and Rick McMenimen withdrew his second.
Elizabeth Dudley tried to word out a motion to grant this waiver subject to future abilities to accommodate the mitigation recommendations of the Mark West assessment and grant the waiver subject to the applicant working to resolve the mitigation recommendations of the Mark West report. Val Shelton asked if the intent was to waive the 100’ setback for all lots impacted, with the exception of Lots 25, 26, and 27. Elizabeth Dudley stated they were not going to go into detail with that until they had further information. The waiver would be granted with the understanding that the issues that were brought up and stated in the mitigation recommendations are still on the table for negotiation. Chairman Botterman stated a lot of Mark West’s recommendations have nothing to do with the 100’ buffer. Val Shelton stated, if they make the waiver subject to the satisfaction of the implementation of the recommendations of the Mark West report, she was not sure the applicant would want to do that.
Eric Chinburg stated, if they grant the waiver on all lots except those three that means they have to come and ask for a waiver for those lots after they resolve things. He would think they would be protected if they said the Board grants the setback waiver, but if there are concerns, they would still have to satisfy those. The Board could grant the waiver subject to the applicant satisfying the concerns brought up in West’s letter. If they cannot satisfy those, they eliminate those lots. If they can, they need the setback to even have the lots. Chairman Botterman stated he was okay with that.
Rick McMenimen stated they may need that 100’ setback. He was leery of waiving it. That wetlands area is tied into our drinking water. He wanted to make sure what they do does not impact the drinking water. Chairman Botterman stated that was a valid point, but the reason they are doing an open space development is to minimize the impact. It is the Board’s job to make sure it meets the requirements. Part of the reason for these requirements is to protect other resources in town. He stated he was fine with the motion subject to satisfactorily resolving Mark West’s mitigation recommendations. It is up to the Board to decide whether they are resolved.
Action
Motion: Eric Botterman made a motion that we grant the waiver to Section 3.14 the Residential Open Space Design (A)(4) 100 foot setback to wetlands. They grant the waiver subject to satisfactorily resolution of the mitigation recommendations from Mark West’s report dated November of 2013
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Three in favor
Rick McMenimen not in favor
Val Shelton & John Brackett abstained – no reasons were given for the abstentions
Motion passes
Chairman Botterman went over the next waiver request for Section 3.14 Open Space Design (C)(3) 20% single lot clearing. He read the section. Corey Belden stated this was another waiver where, without it, there is no project. The goal of this project is to preserve the golf course. The golf course falls under prime farmlands. In between the woodlands and golf course is the only place to build the project. The lot sizes are approximately ¼ acre, which is about 10,900 feet. If they were only allowed to clear 20% of each lot, there would only be about 2,000 sq. ft. to have a house and a driveway. On the back side they really need to do some full grading of the hillside.
Elizabeth Dudley asked if they could clear less on some lots to make up for clearing more on others. Corey Belden stated they would only be able to clear up to the buffer on the lots bordering wetlands. They are still maintaining the wetland soils buffers. Each lot has an area that could be developed.
Eric Chinburg stated, out of the approximately 100 acres, they are only developing 14 of them. These are going to be small lots with a neighborhood feel. They will protect the buffers. They do not want to put in bigger yards that cost more money and people have to mow them. They want to make them reasonable and compact.
Elizabeth Dudley asked if they could make some of the area a meadow. Eric Chinburg stated the lots were really too small. Corey Belden stated they are preserving the golf course.
There was a discussion of prime farmland and the intent of a conservation subdivision. Val Shelton stated, in this situation for this subdivision, you can’t protect both the farmland and the wetland. On many of these, the Board is picking and choosing what the more important aspect is to protect. Diane Hardy stated one of the criteria for open space development is to preserve areas for outdoor recreation and, of course, by protecting the golf course, this goal is met.
Chairman Botterman stated there would not be a problem if the developer wanted to eliminate the open space and put houses on the golf course.
Diane Hardy stated they have not yet received a landscaping plan. Before a final approval, the Board needs to see a plan that identifies the areas that are going to be preserved vs. areas that will be cleared. There should be some existing wooded areas maintained, even if they are small to add to the character of the area. Corey Belden stated they would be preserving a woodland area adjacent to the houses by the eighth tee. Along NH Route 108, they are adding low canopy trees behind it to preserve the view.
Chairman Botterman stated, if they approve this waiver, it does not give them permission to clear 100% of every lot. They still need an overall landscaping plan for the project. Diane Hardy asked if they knew when they might have a landscaping plan. The applicant stated by the end of the year.
Stacia Sower stated she has lived in Newmarket for 31 years. She spoke in favor of keeping the golf course. There are hundreds of people who use that golf course, probably a couple of hundred on a regular basis, including kids, people from surrounding communities, and various groups. If you are going to build 52 houses, the golf course could be used for other recreational uses, like cross country skiing. You can’t go over the greens, but could go on the edges and cart paths. She hoped they could preserve it as a golf course open to the public. They have the largest women’s league in the state of New Hampshire. This golf course is only the second like it in all of New England. It is an “old links” type golf course and very unique.
Action
Motion: Elizabeth Dudley made a motion to move ahead to grant the waiver of Section 3.14(C) of the Residential Open Space Design Requirements that we (the Planning Board) waive the requirement to refrain from cutting only 20% of a single wooded lot and that we allow for greater clearing to accommodate the small lot sizes
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman read the section regarding the next waiver for Section 3.14 Residential Open Space Design (E)(6)(c) Street & Lot Layout. Chris Belden stated the hammerhead is at Lots 9 through 16. They had discussed this at the TRC meeting and with the DPW Director/Fire Chief. Director Malasky had one comment, saying they increase the turning radius in the hammerhead, which they have done on the plans. They made it a wider turnaround. From the center of the roadway it is 58 feet in each direction. In one direction, they had it shorter. The Director requested they keep the length the same on both sides for turning of emergency vehicles and plows. They will pave the driveways.
Diane Hardy mentioned the Town Council accepted Maya’s Way last week and Councilor Dan Wright had concerns about the driveways. He suggested there should be some regulations saying there should be an apron paved on each driveway to protect the road.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to waive Section 3.14 of the Residential Open Space Design Subsection (E)(6)(c) of limitation of six of fewer homes on the hammerhead to accommodate the eight lots as shown on the plan
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated there were two other things he wanted to talk about. One is Mark West’s report, which is going before the Conservation Commission for discussion this coming Thursday. The other item is there have been letters from John Ratigan, who is the Planning Board’s attorney, and from Mr. Chinburg’s attorney.
Diane Hardy stated they need to have an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance. This has to do with open space. When this first came in to the Board in August, a question was raised as to whether the open space could be used for commercial purposes. There was a question on whether that was consistent with the ordinance and the Planning Board had asked for a legal opinion. She put together a packet for each Planning Board member and distributed it. The Zoning Ordinance’s intent of the M-4 zone is pretty clear. She paraphrased the letter from the Planning Board’s attorney, John Ratigan. The purpose of the M-4 district is to facilitate adjacent commercial and residential development related to the golf course. Single family uses are permitted as are other accessory uses related to the golf course. As part of the process in determining whether a Special Use Permit for this project should be granted, the Board needs to determine whether the uses, as proposed, are consistent with purposes of the district; are related to golf or outdoor recreation; are suitable for the location; and will not cause adverse impacts. One of the interpretations is that what is being proposed would be consistent with the M-4 zoning and the open space development should be allowed by Special Use Permit. Elizabeth Dudley stated this is a little different. The golf course already exists. This is different from designing something new. This is working within given parameters that are unique. Chairman Botterman agreed and stated the M-4 District was developed to preserve the golf course and this subdivision does exactly that.
Chairman Botterman stated the other point was the ownership of the golf course. Diane Hardy stated, in the zoning ordinance, it clearly says there are two options for the open space. It can be owned by a Homeowners Association or it can be owned by a conservation entity and restricted by deed restrictions or easements. After reviewing this, at length, with the attorney, it is her understanding they will have to come up with a plan that is compatible with that. She did not know if that had been worked out yet.
Eric Chinburg stated, right now, they would say it would be the Homeowners Association owning the golf course. They have not yet found a nonprofit to take it. They will say, for now, they will do it as a Homeowners Association and continue to look for a nonprofit.
Chairman Botterman asked the Board to read Attorney Ratigan’s letter between now and the next meeting and do their homework. Diane Hardy asked the Board if they were comfortable giving Mr. Chinburg a copy of Attorney Ratigan’s letter. The Board had no issue with that.
Chairman Botterman stated he got an email with Attorney Crotty’s response to Attorney Ratigan’s original letter. There is a lot of good background in that.
Diane Hardy stated there will be a revised environmental resource plan and yield plan.
Chairman Botterman stated the original plan was they were going to take eight acres and keep it with the golf course. The proposal is to go to six acres and subdivide that out ahead of time. This changes the calculations.
Chairman Botterman stated another item was the water line. There is a letter from Underwood Engineers regarding that. The applicant has agreed to loop the water line and provide a 10 inch main. Corey Belden stated they will connect with Ladyslipper Drive and provide a 10 inch line from there to NH Route 108, but not going all the way to Forbes Road. Chairman Botterman stated that is subject to NH Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) approval, as it goes through wetlands.
Chairman Botterman stated there have been ongoing discussions between the Wastewater Department and the TRC. Val Shelton stated the applicant will be required to maintain the entire system to the point of gravity feed to the Town’s system. Corey Belden stated they would possibly look at designing it as a HDP pipe E1 system with a low pressure sewer main pumping back up to the gravity system manhole at the high point on NH Route 108. The Town does not have the equipment to work on that type of a line and it is the Town’s policy they do not accept forced main lines, so the Homeowners Association would have to own the sewer system up to the point where it turns into a gravity sewer.
Chairman Botterman mentioned the State NH DOT Highway Access Permit. The State made some suggestions about widening a lane and having a left hand turn lane northbound. Corey Belden stated NH DOT has reviewed the driveway permit plans and provided their comments. They wrote a letter of conditional approval. Once Chinburg becomes owner of the property, they will grant the permit.
Janice Rosa stated the Conservation Commission had requested copies of Mark West’s report and asked the applicant to contact them. They may want to be at the meeting where this will be discussed.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application by Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders for the subdivision of the residential open space design, Special Use Permit, 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone, to January 21
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
David Loiselle/Lynn P. Sweet & John E. Perkins for FJ Durell Corp & Perkins Agency Inc.- Continuation of a 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.
Chairman Botterman stated, at the last hearing, the applicant and engineer were going to come back with responses to questions about stormwater, grading, and associated issues.
Tobin Farwell, Farwell Engineering, stated last time they talked about drainage and that was the number one issue. They dug a test pit on the site, in the area of the rain garden, to see where the seasonal high water table was and to confirm the soil type. Mark Jacobs went out there and did a test pit and found the seasonal high water table to be at 26 inches and a different soil type than they were expecting. It was a tighter clay soil. Based on that information, they ran a Hydrocad analysis and have a reduction in offsite flow in the cubic feet per second for the two year storm, but slight increases for the ten, twenty-five and fifty year event. There was a drop in the actual volume of stormwater flow offsite for the larger events. The volume is running off faster, but the volume is less. They had a rain garden and now they have added a catch basin to try to mitigate some of the runoff.
Mr. Farwell stated they talked with the neighbors and spoke with Larry Moore, who owns the property next door. He showed Mr. Moore’s and Marcia Moody’s property on a plan of the subject property. He showed the direction of water flow. It is a steep grade and it eventually it ends up on Mr. Moore’s property, where the flow will slow down and percolate. Mr. Moore is accepting to that. They are also talking to Ms. Moody. They propose to eliminate the garage next to her property that sheds water directly onto her property. That flows to a slightly paved alleyway between the buildings. That will be eliminated and some of that will be replaced with a grassed area. He showed the rain garden. They came to an agreement that, when installing the rain garden, they could have the backhoe make a bit of a swale. She was agreeable to that. Mr. Farwell stated they are requesting a waiver to Section 3.07. Mr. Farwell stated, because of the nature of the soils and the small size of the property, they are unable to attenuate the flow for the larger rain events. They believe this is a reasonable request, as they are proposing a reduction of the amount of parking required. They provided, in writing, a request for their reduction of parking. They are supposed to have seven parking spaces and they are providing six onsite. This will reduce the amount of impervious surface and they will utilize the Town parking area.
Mr. Farwell stated they will use sloped granite curbing. There will be no vertical granite curbing.
Mr. Farwell stated they will use bituminous sidewalk.
Diane Hardy stated she is making a list of changes that need to be made.
On plan D1, left hand corner, it says “Site plan for residence converted to office space”. That should say “…mixed use.”
Halfway down on the left it says, “Receiving waters Wheelwright Pond”. That needs to be changed.
On D2 there are two references to vertical granite curbing that needs to be changed to sloped.
There was discussion of whether they should be reviewing plans at a meeting. The plans had just been handed to them by the applicant at the start of their hearing. Elizabeth Dudley stated there were a lot of things she would like to discuss that are more material. Val Shelton stated, at the last meeting, there were changes that were supposed to be made to Plan C1. Val Shelton stated she was looking to see if those changes had been made to the plan. She was trying to get clarification on what they discussed at the last meeting.
Diane Hardy stated Plan C1 needs to be corrected to show sloped curbing.
Chairman Botterman stated the other update was, on C1, they added the planting list of the rain garden. They need a plant schedule and details.
Chairman Botterman stated they have a letter from Larry Moore, the abutter, indicating he understands the drainage situation. He does not say he is okay with it, but it appears to be implied. Diane Hardy stated that should be clarified as an easement shown on the plan that has metes and bounds and is recorded. Chairman Botterman stated he didn’t know if you could show metes and bounds, because the water goes into a grassy area. Diane Hardy stated there could be a description, so in the event the property is conveyed in the future, the new party is aware there is a drainage easement there and an agreement. Chairman Botterman stated there should be a new deed. Mr. Farwell stated they are not proposing an easement. The water naturally goes in that direction now. They are not proposing to put any sort of structure there. That is where the water is going and the homeowner recognizes that is where it is going.
Elizabeth Dudley stated this is not a rain garden, because it is on clay soil. A rain garden allows for infiltration. You cannot call it a rain garden and throw that word around. There is no grading on the adjacent properties. There is more than one abutter involved. The plan shows a little grading. It looks like it is going to the Moody house as much as to the adjacent property. You can take out the clay soil, but you still have the high water table. They have to decide how to handle this water and she did not think it was an insurmountable problem. She stated they are saying it is clay soil and, too bad, it is going to drain in the neighbor’s property.
Mr. Farwell stated they intend to excavate in that area, remove the soil, and place it back in the detail that is provided.
Val Shelton stated the water table is at 26 inches. Mr. Farwell stated they were excavating and replacing the clay soils to allow infiltration into the water table. When you count your storage area to determine how the runoff rate is doing, you can’t take anything below the water table. When they do the analysis, some of this will be in the water table. Val Shelton asked at what level they were disturbing the undisturbed native subgrade. Mr. Farwell stated 30 inches. Val Shelton stated they are building up to the water table, which is at 26 inches.
Elizabeth Dudley stated they needed a plan with an underdrain and the proper soil mix specified. They should incorporate calculations on the volume the “rain garden” will actually hold or detain and specify other systems for absorbing water. They could use porous pavers. There is a whole list of conditions she did not see were addressed. Chairman Botterman stated a bigger issue would be if there was an increase in runoff. Then, other mitigating measures should be taken. Elizabeth Dudley stated that was correct. Mr. Farwell stated they did look at the pervious pavement. The pervious pavement has to have 42 inches of materials under it. Elizabeth Dudley stated she had different details about pervious pavement than what Mr. Farwell is looking at. There is a subbase that has to be installed.
Mr. Farwell stated they looked at pervious pavement, but because of the shallow depth, they would have to build up the site another two feet. That would make it cost prohibitive. Mr. Farwell stated pervious pavers require a substratum similar to the pervious pavement.
Chairman Botterman asked if they had done any analysis about adding storage where they have the snow storage along the property line. Mr. Farwell stated they extended the rain garden as big as they felt reasonable. Because it will be snow storage and the topography going downhill, they could look at extending the rain garden into that area, if that is the Board’s wish. It won’t help the numbers. The water will flow to the low portion of the site.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she did not agree with the depth required for pervious pavement. Pervious pavers, asphalt, and bituminous paving all have different specifications. She disagrees with the depth Mr. Farwell is quoting for pervious pavers. Chairman Botterman stated he quoted it for pervious pavement. Mr. Farwell stated he is basing his answers on the standards used for the NH Alteration of Terrain program. Elizabeth Dudley stated they are not talking about a highway situation, they are talking about a private parking area. Chairman Botterman stated the Alteration of Terrain program applies to private as well as public projects.
Val Shelton stated it was her understanding, from the letter they received, one of the abutters has no issues. She asked if the other abutter had any issues. She stated the regulations say there is no increase in runoff from “pre” vs. “post” development conditions. They have decreased post-development volume, but increased the rate. Val Shelton stated they needed a waiver from the rate, not the volume. If the issue is relative to the rate, he is providing less volume, but the rate is increased. The abutter has no issue with it. She stated Diane Hardy has a good point that something should be on record with those properties, so if the properties transfer in the future, whoever is purchasing that property understands the Planning Board has approved it and it is running with that land. She is trying to focus on getting the conversation back to the regulation.
Elizabeth Dudley stated they do not have a plan showing where this water is going on the other abutter’s property. The other abutter has existing water problems. Chairman Botterman stated that abutter is here. Val Shelton stated they have one abutter, who does not have a problem with it. When public comments are opened, she would like to know what the other abutter has to say. She would like to stay focused on what the regulation is and if the applicant is asking for a waiver. They meet the regulation relative to post development volume. It has been decreased. It is the regulation relative to the post-development rate from which they are asking for a waiver.
Elizabeth Dudley stated increasing the rate is increasing the storm overflow for the town overall. The larger the storm event the more the water will be contributing to the main stormwater for the town. Val Shelton stated that is a pretty big field behind the abutter’s house for the water to sit in.
Jane Ford stated she agreed with Val Shelton. They have to stick to the regulations and understand he is just looking for that one waiver.
Rick McMenimen stated he agreed with Val Shelton and would also like to hear what the other abutter has to say.
Chairman Botterman and Janice Rosa stated they were both of similar opinions.
Chairman Botterman opened a public hearing and asked the other abutter to come up and speak.
Marcia Moody, the abutter directly next door to the property, stated she would like to point out something on the map, then go into the discussion. She pointed out her house and the applicant’s property on the map. She indicated the location of her backyard. She stated you can’t see it on the map, but the land slopes and her backyard slopes another way. Any overflow water would gather in the corner. She indicated the location. She stated the engineer and “everybody” got together and walked the two yards and discussed the overflow. She showed the location of the rain garden. There was a possibility to prevent an overflow from gathering in her backyard by laying a pipe that would drain onto some unoccupied land. When this was discussed at the Town Office, they said you can’t just agree to this, there should be an easement. They discussed what the consequences might be. She is still concerned with an overflow. When they talked about the shallow depth, it was a concern because of the clay bottom. If there is an overflow during the 25 or 50 year storm given the extra amount of rain, they could do an easement or whatever is required at the time. She showed where the pipe that was discussed would go, which would be on Mr. Moore’s land.
Diane Hardy stated there would be a three way agreement between property owners. It would have to have some validity from an engineering standpoint, as far as how big the pipe is and the pitch of it and it has to be constructed properly and maintained. There should be provisions in the easement to address those things.
Lynne Sweet, Perkins Agency, stated they did meet with both abutters. They have been working to resolve these problems. They understand it may involve a legal easement at some point. They did not feel it was necessary, at this point, because they are all in agreement. They have met most of the recommendations and requirements.
Chairman Botterman stated he did not think they needed to have an easement in place today, but any one of them could sell their property. They will need one at some point. When they vote, he would want to see a condition to have the easements in place.
Lynne Sweet asked why they needed an easement now, if there is no problem. Chairman Botterman stated there is no problem now. Any one of them could sell their property tomorrow and the new owners could say you cannot put your water on their property and dam the pipe up. The new owner doesn’t have to go along with it.
Lynne Sweet stated, because they met the two year requirement and the depth is the 26 inches, her understanding was, because the property was less than 5,000 sq. ft. that they would not even have to go through this. They made all of these arrangements and she felt they were overstepping.
Diane Hardy read from the regulations, “All development shall make adequate provisions for stormwater management, which shall include onsite control of peak flows and runoff volumes, as well as water quality treatment.” She stated it goes on to say all development, and it does provide that threshold of 5,000 sq. ft., shall submit a stormwater management plan as part of the process. This project does not require a fully fledged management plan, but it does require there be some provision for stormwater management, which includes onsite control of peak flows and runoff volumes. That is where the engineer comes in to develop and design a system that meets that requirement. She hears the engineer saying this is difficult to achieve. There seems to be some debate on whether the solution will be adequate. Lynne Sweet stated they had done the work on flows, runoffs and water treatment. Chairman Botterman stated, technically, they are less than 5,000 sq. ft. and they do not need to do a whole lot. Based on the discussions at the last meeting with the abutters, both were concerned about the runoff, which exists today. The applicant was asked to take a look at how to improve that situation. When they revised the regulations, there was a threshold of not having to do anything and he felt they were below that threshold.
Elizabeth Dudley stated that was not true.
Chairman Botterman stated they have two abutters who are impacted by this and they both are happy with this solution. Val Shelton stated neither abutter is speaking against this proposal. That needs to be part of the record.
Ms. Moody stated her concern was, if there was overflow, that there was an adequate solution to the problem with an agreement with all parties. The overflow will affect both properties. If the applicant is willing to create a solution when that happens, she is satisfied. If it is not an adequate solution, then it is a problem.
Chairman Botterman stated that is reasonable. She wants to be protected and the other abutter wants to be protected, too.
Elizabeth Dudley stated, on page 33, it states, “All development shall make adequate provisions for stormwater management, which shall include onsite control of peak flow and runoff volumes, as well as water treatment…” She stated that is the low threshold. Every town in the country has to control water. Chairman Botterman stated that was not true in New Hampshire. He stated the regulations state, “…shall make adequate provisions for stormwater management...” That does not say the post runoff has to be less than or equal to the peak, it says “adequate controls”. Val Shelton stated if it was over 5,000 sq. ft. it does. Elizabeth Dudley stated it states these things elsewhere in the regulations. Jane Ford asked where in the regulations.
Elizabeth Dudley stated she interprets “adequate” to mean the water stays on the property. Chairman Botterman stated the water goes onto Ms. Moody’s property, then onto the Moore’s property and they are okay with that. Elizabeth Dudley stated it mattered, because they are devaluing the downstream property for the Town of Newmarket’s taxes. That property will no longer have good drainage. They are just pushing it off to the property downstream. That may have hydric soils over time and will not be developable. Chairman Botterman stated if the people who own it want that to happen, that is their business.
Val Shelton stated to clarify, the actual volume will be less. Elizabeth Dudley stated if the runoff is faster, you don’t get the infiltration. Chairman Botterman there is no infiltration there already.
Diane Hardy stated they should ask Mr. Farwell, the engineer, what can be done to minimize the impact of the increase in the peak flow and the rate. Mr. Farwell stated they looked at pervious pavements and pervious surfaces. The number one thing they looked at is reducing the amount of impervious area. There are several iterations, where they worked with NH DOT that showed a larger impervious footprint. They were able to work with DOT and the Town to reduce the footprint of the impervious areas to what they have now. It is still large, but it is low. Because of the side slope of the area, they can put some sort of rain garden or filter strip there, but they do not have the separation that the State requires per their regulations. There was also an issue of landscaping and snow storage. Where the water concentrates at the low point of property seemed like the reasonable place to put the rain garden. They also looked at the roof. They can put downspouts into leaching catch basins. There is only so much water they can get into it, but every little bit helps.
Diane Hardy asked about the overflow extending into the pipe that was mentioned earlier. Mr. Farwell stated it gets complicated, at that point. They would have to do easements. It does not get rid of the problem. It pushes it downstream. Now are they going to create a pond on Mr. Moore’s property to handle this. He did not think this quarter acre lot rises to that level. This is a very small amount of increase. There is a decrease in the two year event and a decrease in the actual overall flow. That was his rationale for not wanting to go that route.
Rick McMenimen stated, prior to the applicant buying this property, there was already a runoff from this property to the Moody and Moore properties. They cannot mitigate the entire problem. They try to do their best effort to mitigate it to some extent, which it appears from the write-up they saw that they are trying to do that with the rain garden. They have met their need. They should not be required to do something for something that existed long before them buying the property. The problem came with the property.
Elizabeth Dudley talked about filter strips and said there are other ways to handle this. She did not think pushing the water onto the neighbor’s property was an elegant solution.
Val Shelton stated she wanted to comment, particularly with what they are dealing with on the Economic Development Committee, that these are particular areas of town that we want converted over to commercial or mixed use. They are all very small lots, with little area to deal with water. This particular application is creating a better situation than what is there now, given this post development volume. There will be less water going offsite. That is an improvement. She understood the water and 10, 25, and 50 year storms will run off more quickly than it is now, given the variations in the cubic feet per second. When you look at the numbers, the percentage of the increase for those storm events is minimal. They are significant when you look at the reduction in volume. She stated the Board is having this discussion, but needs to bring it back to the relativity of what the reality is during these storm events. The Board also needs to be conscientious that there are abutters who are agreeable to be working with the applicant. She has no problem granting a waiver to this section, if needed. They can make it subject to the applicant obtaining an agreement with the abutters to address any impact from peak flow and post development rate. That can be a simple agreement and it would be on record at the Planning Office. It goes in all of those files. If a subsequent purchaser of any of these properties has an issue, it is a disclosure issue from the person selling and information is available to the public. It is an obligation of this Board to protect the public interest and that would do it. Elizabeth Dudley stated she understood that, but rate does matter. It becomes erosive. Val Shelton stated she understood that, but having been to the site and looked at the percentages relative to the post development peak, it is minimal. It is not like it is a big hillside.
Ms. Moody stated they talk about a decrease in the flow. Right now, if you look at the properties and the garage, shed and her roof, it is pouring right down there, because all the roofs are slanted. By taking out the garage and the shed, it will eliminate some of that water flow that is coming now. There is an increase in the sense there will be a driveway, but there is green space between it. There is no green space there absorbing water now. It will give it a decrease in volume.
Elizabeth Dudley stated Mrs. Moody is putting her faith in the Board. She is looking to the Board to protect her. She is trying to be diligent.
Chairman Botterman asked, if you have a bathtub that holds 50 gallons, do you care if someone fills it in five minutes or ten minutes. He stated no. He asked if you care if they put 60 gallons in it. He stated yes. Ultimately, there is less water getting there. The rates here are so small and the increases so insignificant, it will not cause scour or erosion. His opinion was it was fine, with the blessing of the two abutters. He had no issue with it. He did not think they needed a waiver, but if it will simplify this, they could vote on it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they grant a waiver to Section 3.07(C)(1) of the Site Plan Review Regulations with regards to the offsite flow rates based upon the fact the applicant has shown that the post development volume will be greatly reduced subject to the applicant obtaining an agreement with the abutters to address any negative impact from post development peak flow in excess of the post development rate
Second: Rick McMenimen
Elizabeth Dudley asked how that negotiation works in terms of the satisfaction of the abutter. Val Shelton stated that is out of the Board’s purview. The applicant needs to bring in an agreement signed by her and the abutters. Diane Hardy asked about a time frame.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to amend her motion by adding “prior to signing the plan” to the end of her original motion
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote on amendment: All in favor
Vote on waiver: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated they would address the waiver for parking spaces, Section 3.02. They are requesting a waiver from seven to six parking spaces.
There was discussion of which part of Section 3.02 applied. Mr. Farwell stated, in order reduce the amount of impervious area onsite, they are looking for a decrease in spaces. There is a residential apartment, which requires two parking spaces, and five spaces for the business, totaling seven. Due to the tight nature of the site and to reduce impervious area, they are requesting a reduction to six. There is a municipal parking area nearby they could utilize. There is an ADA parking space.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the applicant’s request for a waiver from Section 3.02 Parking Requirements to reduce the onsite required spaces from seven to six based upon the applicants’ reasoning that they are trying to reduce the amount of impervious area by a reduction of the number of parking spaces and the fact that they municipal parking area is in close proximity to this particular lot
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman asked how the Board felt about approval tonight. The Board agreed to keep going.
Chairman Botterman stated they have received tonight a revised plan C1. At the last meeting, Diane Hardy had put a list of proposed conditions together. Diane Hardy stated she had the changes noted earlier by Val Shelton. She would add those to the list of conditions.
It is recommended that this plan be conditionally approved subject to:
1. Approval by the NH DOT Highway Access Permit.
2. Adequate protection shall be provided for protecting the 24” caliper sugar maple east of the proposed parking lot.
3. The fencing along the southerly side of the property be “board on board” or shadowbox fencing.
4. Drainage plans and site improvements shall be stamped by a Professional Engineer.
5. There be a landscaping plan submitted prior to signing.
6. (number six eliminated)
7. Site conditions shall comply with ADA requirements.
Diane Hardy stated that was all of them, with the changes noted earlier to plans D1, D2, and C1. She has made note of those and will review the new plans, when they come in.
Mr. Farwell stated he was not sure about condition #2. He did not know what that meant. They had stated they will try their best to keep the tree. Elizabeth Dudley stated there were several protection measures. Mr. Farwell stated he had looked at the information Elizabeth Dudley had given him, but all it showed was a distance from the tree to the wall. Diane Hardy has a publication on how to save trees during construction, from the Arbor Day Foundation, she could share with Mr. Farwell. He could add notes to the plan accordingly. Mr. Farwell stated they plan to pave practically to the edge of this tree. Chairman Botterman stated based on the logistics of this the appropriate protection is to put snow fence around it as far from the trunk as possible to ensure it does not get hit during construction. Elizabeth Dudley stated there are things that could be done. They could move the pavement four or five feet if necessary and there are other creative things they could do. Chairman Botterman explained they were approving the site plan and the applicant could not go out and do something different after that. Elizabeth Dudley stated more could be done. Chairman Botterman asked how close the pavement was to the tree. Mr. Farwell stated it would be less than 2 feet. Val Shelton stated they need to use their best efforts. Otherwise they should be showing the tree as coming down. Chairman Botterman stated one side of the tree will be by the pavement, the other will be free and clear. Elizabeth Dudley asked if it had to be 2 feet. Mr. Farwell stated yes. Chairman Botterman stated it had to be, for the circulation of traffic. Elizabeth Dudley asked if they could make the pavement narrower. Chairman Botterman stated there was not enough room to get past the parking and not much radius to get around the corner.
Chairman Botterman asked if Mr. Farwell had any other issues with the conditions. Mr. Farwell asked what they wanted regarding the landscaping plan. There is not much landscaping between their property and the neighbors to the east and they would like to keep it that way for snow storage. He has never gone through Newmarket’s landscaping plan process. They are happy to come up with a planting quantity for the rain garden area. He was looking for guidance on the rest of the area. Elizabeth Dudley suggested he plant some things that will slow the velocity of the runoff. Mr. Farwell asked what the requirements were that he had to meet. Chairman Botterman stated they do not have specific requirements. Diane Hardy stated they just ask for a plan showing what they are going to be planting. Mr. Farwell stated they will highlight the existing plants that will remain and will provide the detail and quantity for the rain garden. Diane Hardy stated they need to put together a plan and submit it, with specifications and detail of what he is going to plant. Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Farwell said he was not planting anything. Diane Hardy stated then the plantings he will have in the rain garden.
Chairman Botterman stated they are still hung up on the preservation of the 24” caliper maple tree. Val Shelton stated to use best efforts to protect the tree. Elizabeth Dudley stated Diane Hardy could decide on that, as she would come up with a reasonable compromise.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the meeting past 10:00 p.m.
Second: John Brackett
Janice Rosa suggested amending the motion to having the meeting end at 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Farwell stated, if this is continued, they go beyond the 65 day approval period.
Chairman Botterman stated they would continue until 10:30 p.m.
Vote: All in favor of continuing to 10:30 p.m.
John Brackett asked, in the past, when they get this close to trees, whether they survive. Val Shelton stated the problem is they are setting a precedent to encourage landowners who have residential properties in commercial zones to cut all of their trees before they sell the property for a commercial development. The public out there, who are landowners along Routes 152 and 108 are hearing from this Board on this topic. Elizabeth Dudley stated she did not think they were asking for anything unreasonable. Val Shelton stated they are asking for something an applicant may not be able to do. They can use their best efforts to protect that tree and they understand it is a specimen tree. With the existing regulations and given the issues and constraints of this particular lot, they cannot go beyond that. Elizabeth Dudley described a protective fence for the tree during construction. Chairman Botterman stated this is asking for things that are not in the regulations.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they aprrove the application for David Loiselle, Lynne P. Sweet, and John E. Perkins for FJ Durell Corp. and Perkins Agency Inc. for the site plan approval at 195 South Main Street, Tax Map U4, Lot 27, M3 Zone to convert the existing residential dwelling to professional office use and residential use subject to six conditions noted on the Planner’s recommendations dated November 12, 2013 being Conditions 1-5 and 7 and the additional five items noted as changes to the site plan submitted by the applicant noted earlier
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Val Shelton thanked the Perkins Agency for staying in Newmarket. They had opportunities to leave town.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
None.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourned
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to adjourn at 10:09 p.m.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor