Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2014
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Val Shelton, John Brackett, Elizabeth Dudley, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), Jane Ford (Alternate), Ginger Smith (Alternate)
Absent: Gabriel Jerome, Janice Rosa (both excused)
Called to Order: 7:07 P.M.
Adjourned: 9:29 P.M.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Chairman Botterman stated Janice Rosa and Gabriel Jerome were excused from the meeting. He appointed Jane Ford to replace Janice Rosa for the evening.
There were no public comments.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 11/12/13 & 12/10/13
11/12/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of November 12, 2013 with corrections, if necessary
Second: Val Shelton
Val Shelton on page 11, line 38 should read “Val Shelton stated it was her opinion”. She stated on line 39, delete “which”. On the motion on page 12, line 26, the comma should be moved from after “granted” to line 27 after “Board”. On line 28, there should be a semicolon after “impact”. Line 29: delete the word “to” after “4076. Line 30: delete the word “is”. Line 33: delete “would”.
Rick McMenimen stated page 5, line 17, “Chairman Botterman stated that or” should be changed to “there was discussion”.
Vote: All in favor
Elizabeth Dudley abstained
12/10/13
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of December 10, 2013 with corrections, if necessary
Second: Val Shelton
Rick McMenimen stated on page 10, line 34, “waiver to item number c”, should be 3.14(C). On page 14, line 45, delete the sentence.
Val Shelton stated page 5, line 10, delete the comma after “waives” and make the word “waive”. Another comma can be added after “zone”. On page 6, within the motion, change “that they” to “to”. On line 28 after “slopes” the comma should be deleted.
Rick McMenimen stated in the motion on line 6, the third line down “a thousand feet”.
Val Shelton stated on page 11, “to waive”, on line 12 delete “that they waive the” and the word “of” should be in there. On line 30, the word “it” should be “the golf course”. On page 15, line 15, “rain garden”. On page 17, line 25, the word “they” should be “the Board”. On page 20, line 19, after “reduce” should be a comma. Line 20 should be “pre” not “post”. One Page 21, line 7, the word “they” should be deleted.
Val Shelton stated the recording secretary had requested clarification from the Board regarding a vote on a waiver request on page 9 of the minutes. There had been two abstentions on that vote. It was clarified that three members were in favor, one member was not in favor and there were two abstentions. The motion carried.
Vote: All in favor
Elizabeth Dudley abstained
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Rockingham Country Club/Chinburg Builders, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision, at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone. The proposal is for a subdivision of the existing 104.679 acre lot into two conforming lots of 97.941 acres and 6.738 acres.
Eric Weinrub, Altus Engineering, represented the applicants. He gave an update on the larger open space residential development project related to this application. They submitted an application for an Alteration of Terrain permit for stormwater management to the NH Department of Environmental Services (NH DES). The State came back with comments for them to address. They will do that in their final set of plans. They have revised the design to extend the water line through the cul-de-sac to Ladyslipper Drive. The water line will not impact the prime wetland. There will be a temporary impact to a small wetland. They will realign the sewer line to minimize the crossings to the road. The Wastewater Department has requested they make the low pressure forced main for the sewer a private system. The wetland impact change will be resubmitted to the NH DES and the Town. Chinburg Builders has purchased the property. The NH Department of Transportation has approved the highway access plans conceptually prior to the change in ownership. They resubmitted the change to DOT. They did not do this prior, as they wanted their own name on the approved paperwork. They will be submitting final sewer designs to the Town prior to getting State NH DES approval. They have submitted a landscape plan.
Regarding the 15’ temporary easement, he stated they have narrowed it down to a 6’ easement for a future bike path. If they have to cut a significant amount of that buffer, it will defeat the purpose of the buffer. He would like to keep that more fluid. He would rather see the bike path come down and utilize the subdivision road and some of the maintenance path. This would get people away from NH Route 108.
Val Shelton asked if they were proposing to add an easement for the bike path over Lots 10 and 11. Mr. Weinrub stated he was thinking of having it almost follow the common driveway, almost where the water line comes down through the woods. It would be a more gradual slope than going between Lots 10 and 11, which is very steep. There would be a public access easement.
Val Shelton stated there are primarily white pines along Route 108 with very little undergrowth. She understood evergreens are not being proposed to be added to that buffer area. Mr. Weinrub stated the only area they were proposing to provide a buffer on Route 108 is at the entrance. Right now, when you come off of Route 108, there is a berm, then the grade drops off. The undergrowth is masked by the berm. If the bike path went along Route 108, the berm would be taken out. Val Shelton stated it was showing on the rendering as a grade down to the house. There is no undergrowth there. Diane Hardy stated the trees currently provide a canopy and you can see through underneath the canopy. As the trees age, the lower section of tree branches will be lost opening that area up. Chairman Botterman stated in looking at the cross section, it looks like a 45’-50’ buffer will be kept without planting any smaller things to fill it in. The proposal is there are no additional plantings.
Chairman Botterman stated, in the next cross section in Section B, there is more of a drop off and there are no additional plantings going in there. Diane Hardy stated all of the trees on the grade change will be removed.
Chairman Botterman stated the Conservation Commission had concerns over the last couple of months. Mark West (the Town’s environmental consultant) came up with some recommendations from his independent study. Mr. Weinrub stated, in order to get the density to make this project viable, they need to maintain the golf course. They had to design the subdivision as close to the wetlands as possible. In order to do that, they came up with this layout and it forced them into filling a small wetland. They will fill 846 sq. ft. with a buffer impact of 5400 sq. ft. The rest of the area required no wetland fills. The water line came up as an issue and they had to extend it out and they ended up with a temporary impact because of that. The conventional subdivision regulations only require a 25’ setback to wetland buffers for poorly drained soils. The open space design development regulations require a 100’ setback to wetlands. They got a waiver from that at the last meeting. They had competing resources with this project with protecting both the wetlands and the golf course. If they had to protect both, this would not have worked economically. Mark West did a wildlife and vegetation study. They worked with Mr. West and Gove Environmental (the developer’s environmental consultant) on looking at ways to enhance the wetland buffer area. They came up with a planting plan to improve upon the buffer. He indicated the areas on the plan. Diane Hardy stated Mark West prepared several recommendations. The applicant agreed to comply with Items A-E. There was a question about Item F. Mr. West suggested eliminating Lots 25 & 27 and that was not viewed as being acceptable by the applicant. They worked with the Conservation Commission, Mr. West, and the engineer to come up with a mitigation plan to address Item F. One mitigation measure suggested was to move the road over 20 feet, away from the wetlands. As a result of the discussions, the road was moved over, so Lots 25, 26, and 27 would have more of a buildable envelope and a greater buffer to the wetlands. Mr. West was satisfied with the latest plan and provided a recommendation. The Conservation Commission based their last letter on the previous plan. There were other recommendations the Conservation Commission still wanted the Board to consider. Diane Hardy has incorporated those into her own staff recommendations.
Mr. Weinrub stated they added notes to Plan GN-1 (General Notes) to meet Mark West’s concerns. They elaborated on the landscape notes. The plan now has six notes. On C-2, they added the additional information Mr. West wanted on restoration areas.
Rick McMenimen asked if they had something they could show that would illustrate what the old road realignment looked like vs. the new. Mr. Weinrub pointed the areas out on the plan. They moved the road closer to the golf course. Chairman Botterman stated it was in the vicinity of Lots 20-27.
Rick McMenimen stated people were concerned about Lots 25-27. He asked what the setback was with the road change to the wetlands. Mr. Weinrub stated they maintained the 25’ no-cut buffer and increased the wetlands buffer. The 100’ from the prime wetland is being maintained.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Bruce Hauschel, 150 Ash Swamp Road, asked about Dark Sky implications with street lighting. Mr. Weinrub stated there would be two street lights, one at each intersection. He pointed them out on the plan.
Mr. Hauschel asked about the possibility of tying his lot into the water supply in the future. Chairman Botterman stated there will be a water line in the subdivision. There is an access to his property through an easement. Diane Hardy stated it was recommended it be a deeded right of way. Mr. Weinrub stated there is a utility easement to his property, as well as a 50’ wide access easement. What is depicted on the plan is an easement. Chairman Botterman stated the answer to Mr. Hauschel is yes. He has access to tie into the water. The issue is they are doing a low flow (pressure) sewer system. Their system may not be big enough to handle what would come from the adjacent property. They might have to have their own line. Mr. Weinrub stated it was more complex than that. The Town did not accept a pump station. In order for this to be a public sewer, there would have to be a gravity system with a pump station and forced main going up. It is the Town’s current policy that it would have to be a privately owned pump station. What is going in is a low pressure sewer and the Town will not accept ownership of it. If you were to tie into the sewer in the future from another property, the owner would have to negotiate with the Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Hauschel stated he understood and it would be a buy-in. He asked if it would be written that possibility would be there for him. Chairman Botterman stated it would not, because it had nothing to do with this approval. It is a private business deal.
Mr. Hauschel stated he missed the last hearing on December 10. He did not see it noticed online. Diane Hardy stated all agendas are noticed online. Mr. Hauschel stated it was not online. An audience member stated they had seen it online. He asked when it had been posted. (The December 10, 2013 agenda was posted online on November 27, 2013 at 9:26 a.m. http://www.newmarketnh.gov/planning-board/agenda/agenda-41)
Mr. Hauschel stated his recommendation was a “down vote”.
Stacia Sower, 125 Main Street, stated she was in favor of the project, as long as it keeps the golf course. The course is very important to this community. There are hundreds of people who play on this course, the youngest is 2 years old and the oldest is 90. She had one concern about the traffic during rush hours. She cannot get across from Ash Swamp Road to go north. She stated the new road location will be a nightmare. Chairman Botterman stated that is a State road and any lighting will be at the direction of the State. He agreed that coming out of Ash Swamp Road you encounter a lot of traffic. Ms. Sower stated the golf course is underutilized in the winter. As long as they block off the greens, you could cross-country ski around the golf cart trails.
Crescentia Anne Healy, 125 Main Street, stated she did not golf, but thought the golf course was an incredible asset. She stated it was necessary. These new homes will be taxed and bring revenue to the Town. She lives by the mills and watched those empty gape toothed mill buildings for years and look at them now. They are beautiful. Based on that, she was sure this would be a beautiful development and an asset to the community.
There were no further comments and Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Botterman stated there were letters back and forth with the Town Attorney about the issue brought up by Rose-Anne Kwaks. To summarize, Attorney Ratigan, the Town’s attorney in his latest letter, stated the Planning Board has the ability to interpret the zoning regulations. Chairman Botterman had asked the Board at a previous meeting to read through the regulations and do some homework and make sure they were comfortable with that. He asked if the Board was comfortable. He stated he was comfortable that the zoning allows this. Val Shelton concurred particularly based upon the follow-up letter from the Town’s attorney to the applicant’s attorney regarding reference to other statutes. She concurred with the Town Planner recommendations that this would qualify for the purposes of the intent of the zoning as open space.
John Brackett asked if the homeowners would own the open space. Eric Chinburg stated they define two open spaces: Open Space A and B. The Homeowners Association would own the open space that is the wetland. Diane Hardy stated, it was her understanding, that the open space would be owned by the Homeowners Association. Matt Assia stated the conservation easement would be held by the Homeowners Association over the golf course, which is allowed and provided. This is what was recommended by Attorney Ratigan in his letter and that was agreed to by Ms. Anne Crotty, Mr. Chinburg’s attorney.
Mr. Assia stated he was pretty sure he had said it would be protected by an easement that was owned by the Homeowners Association. Chairman Botterman read, “Open Space design provisions do not otherwise exclude the inclusion of the commercial golf course as part of such an application.” Diane Hardy stated the open space under the ordinance can be owned by the Homeowners Association or it can be protected by a conservation easement by a conservation entity. It was her understanding that the Homeowners would still own it, but it would be protected by an easement. Chairman Botterman stated he thought they would have an easement, but it would be run by a commercial entity. Diane Hardy stated if they wanted to lease it to a private concern to run as golf course they could, but that is a separate matter. They would still own it. Eric Chinburg stated the way they worded it in the letter that their own attorney sent to Attorney Ratigan, which he believes is what was ultimately sent to the Planning Board, was that the applicant will provide for a deed restriction to name the Homeowners Association or a public or private conservation entity as the legal entity holding the deed restriction to the open space. It is the same as owning, but it is a deed restriction. Mr. Chinburg stated there is still open space that is still owned by the person granting the easement, but the easement is owned by the conservation, nonprofit group or whomever. Diane Hardy asked who would own the fee simple ownership of the property. Mr. Chinburg stated, in this case, it would be someone who owns the golf course. They would be burdened by an easement that is held by the Homeowner’s Association or a nonprofit. Diane Hardy stated that was not her understanding, as it was raised as an issue in Attorney Ratigan’s letter of November 8, 2013. He had written it has been addressed by the applicant. “The application will be revised to comply with this provision.” Mr. Chinburg stated, in Attorney Ratigan’s letter at the bottom of page 2, he says that Section 6.06(C)(4) specifies that the open space shall be owned by and/or legally restricted by requirements of this ordinance by an easement owned by one of the following: A Homeowners Association, or a public or private conservation entity. He is saying that the easement will be owned. Chairman Botterman and Val Shelton stated that is how they read it, as well. Chairman Botterman stated the conservation restriction can be owned by any one of those mentioned. Mr. Chinburg stated it becomes important just for the purpose that the commercial entity that has to finance and run that business will have more difficulty in doing that and obtaining financing if they do not have the fee ownership, despite the fact that they lose a lot of their rights by virtue of granting this easement that is owned by a conservation entity. Val Shelton stated the deed restriction will allow use as a golf course, but that would be the limitation or with other open space uses. Diane Hardy stated everything would be reviewed by legal counsel before final approval; however, she would get clarification for the Board.
Dan Wright asked who controls the deed restriction or easement. Mr. Chinburg stated that would be either the Homeowners Association or a nonprofit that holds the conservation easements. Dan Wright stated, at one time, they said there would be A and B lots for open space. B is the wetland and the Homeowners will own that. He asked if the Homeowners had the deed restriction for A on the golf course. Mr. Chinburg stated it could be them or if they can find a nonprofit that would monitor those restrictions, they would prefer to do that. The Homeowners Association is an appropriate backup if they cannot find one. Dan Wright stated the person who is running the golf course would have an easement on their property. He asked, if for some reason this is not a golf course anymore, who would hold the easement. Val Shelton stated there may be some confusion and offered the following explanation. Entity A owns the fee simple interest in the land. The land is encumbered by an easement over it. The person who holds the easement could be the Homeowners Association, who would have the responsibility of enforcing it. It could be Southeast Land Trust or the Newmarket Conservation Commission, or it could be any kind of nonprofit conservation organization like those. Whoever owns the property is subject to whatever these restrictions are on it through the easement. Under this conservation restriction, she assumed that Attorney Ratigan would be looking for one of the permitted uses to be as a golf course. The land has to remain as open space in perpetuity. It is not that the owner of this land can come before the Board fifty years from now and say they want to develop this into more house lots. Dan Wright asked if the open space could become a driving range. Mr. Chinburg stated the easement will be crafted so that it could only be a used for open space. It could become an agricultural use or a hayfield. There are a lot of allowed uses which would qualify as open space.
Chairman Botterman asked if anyone on the Board had any other questions. There were none. He stated they could deliberate. Diane Hardy pointed out this is for the subdivision that is before the Board right now in public hearing.
She stated this is a two-lot subdivision that will separate out the land that is part of the open space development from the clubhouse and other golf course facilities. Diane Hardy went over her recommendations. She stated they need a motion to accept the application for review. This is a new application that came in during December. It has been properly noticed (posted at Town Hall, Post Office, website 01/06/14; sent to all abutters certified mail, placed in newspaper). It has been reviewed against the checklist. There are several items that need to be changed. The applicant has responded to most of those items. The application is ready for acceptance for technical review.
Val Shelton stated this application for the two lot subdivision was on the agenda. The Special Use Permit and Subdivision continuance was not on it. Diane Hardy stated they will have to re-notice the Special Use Permit and Subdivision application.
Chairman Botterman called a five minute recess.
Diane Hardy stated the public hearing for the two-lot subdivision was properly noticed.
Mr. Weinrub stated they are proposing to subdivide off from the entire golf course parcel a parcel encompassing the clubhouse and ninth green and the area around it for maintenance facilities. The reason for subdividing this off is, if they did not, it would be part of the open space development and would be required to meet the Homeowners Association and other restrictions. As previously configured, the clubhouse lot would be in violation of the zoning ordinance because it would not meet the front setback requirements. Rather than go through a variance process, they are proceeding with subdividing this piece off.
Diane Hardy recommended acceptance of the application.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application of the Rockingham Country Club/Chinburg Builders Inc for the subdivision at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, in the M4 zone to subdivide the existing 104.679 acre lot into two conforming lots of 97.941 acres and 6.738 acres
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated there a question of why the tees associated with the golf course remain on the proposed lot. Mr. Chinburg stated they are not proposing to move any part of the golf course. One tee remains on the golf course land and the other is on this parcel. They provided an area of 6.738 acres that is large enough to allow whoever is managing the golf course to do some future expansion. They gave them some flexibility. They may need to reconfigure the first hole or something similar. They did not want to physically change any part of the course, at this point. The future expansion area would be in the upland. They do not know what someone might want. It is not a natural wetland. Someone may want to get a wetland fill for access to the other side or alter that wetland down the road. They have no intent, with this application, to make any physical changes on the ground in that area.
Diane Hardy recommended approval of the two-lot subdivision subject to the following conditions:
1. There be a cross easement shown on the plan for the tee that is proposed on Lot 23 that is related to the golf course and referred to as “the remaining land” and that the language for the cross easement be reviewed by legal counsel prior to the plan signing.
2. There is a misspelling on the plan. It states for the golf course lot that it is the “reamining land”, it should state “remaining land”. That lot should be clarified with a lot number that meets the Town’s numbering system after consultation with the Town Assessor’s Office.
3. A reference is incorrect. It refers to Plans 1 of 4. It should read 1 of 5.
4. They need frontage figures for both lots.
5. They want to make sure the figures shown on this subdivision plan are consistent with the acreage figures shown on the open space plan, the yield plan and the environmental resource plans.
She has reviewed all of these items with the applicant’s engineers. They were in agreement with those changes. These conditions are for the two-lot subdivision only.
Chairman Botterman opened up public comments. There were none and he closed the public comments.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they accept the application of the Rockingham Country Club/Chinburg Builders, Inc. for the subdivision at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M4 Zone to subdivide the existing 104.679 acre lot into two conforming lots of 97.941 acres and 6.738 acres subject to the five items noted on the staff recommendation report to the Planning Board. An additional requirement to correct the labeling of the tees and the greens and, on Item 1, to include tees and greens.
Second: Rick McMenimen
Chairman Botterman stated Val Shelton had stated “accept” rather than “approve”.
Motion: Val Shelton amended her motion to be “approve” not “accept”
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated the subdivision and special use application was not on the agenda. She stated this should be continued to the February meeting to give an opportunity to notify the abutters and post the public hearing and agenda.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Landscape Guidelines
Chairman Botterman asked how the Board wished to proceed. Val Shelton stated they could discuss them, to try to move forward. The Board decided to discuss them.
Val Shelton stated she had some changes. In Site Plan Review, Section 3.05(B)(1) General Requirements they had discussed a landscape plan for all developed areas shall be submitted. She stated only just the developed areas required the landscape plan, not the whole site. Elizabeth Dudley stated that Diane Hardy had worked to apply the considerations they had already discussed for the Subdivision Regulations. Val Shelton stated she had done a great job of that. She took Diane’s update and went through her own notes. She found some small items. On (8), it says landscaping shall be used to establish or maintain an attractive streetscape adjacent to roadways by preserving and maintaining one tree per thirty linear feet along the perimeter frontage or portions thereof. They had talked about whether this section should be zone-dependent. It would depend on what zone it is in as to whether you were going to have that type of a planting scheme. She asked if the spacing should be different in zones with smaller lots. Elizabeth Dudley stated it was a question of canopy size. A nice shade tree is typically thirty feet wide. They were talking about significant trees, not small ones. Val Shelton stated then it was fine, as written.
Val Shelton stated, on page 4, under (E)(8), it states landscape beds shall be of an adequate size to support the healthy growth of large trees. They had changed that to, instead of large trees, say healthy growth of trees and plants specified.
Val Shelton stated, under (F)(1), newly constructed berms and soils should be designed to blend into final topography and adjacent surroundings. She stated the word “final” had been left out of the copy.
Val Shelton stated, on (4), all cut and fill areas and/or terraces shall be graded to prevent erosion. Soil types vary in their ability to sustain steeper slopes. They had removed the language about each soil having its on natural angle of repose. Elizabeth Dudley stated you do not need that detail. It is stated in other ways. No changes were made to written copy.
Val Shelton stated, under (6), any soil stockpiled is to be adequately protected. This should read any soil stockpiled on-site.
Val Shelton stated, on page 5 under Screening (G)(1), it states the screening shall be designed to screen or minimize unsightly features. From the prior meeting, it should say “or all other impacts resulting from development”. Elizabeth Dudley stated she would leave it as is, with unsightly impacts in it. If it says all other impacts, if you put a house there you would have to screen the whole thing. It was agreed to leave it as is.
Val Shelton stated, on page 6, under (M) Parking Areas, (5) speaks about planting of trees. She read the section. They had talked about this being zone-dependent. The setbacks required should be based on the zone. When they talk about small, urban, in-town lots, there may not be 20’ of anything to buffer. That needs to be reworked a little. She stated it could state “Along the perimeter of parking lots with ten or more spaces, a buffer of perimeter landscaping is required along the right of way.” Then the Planning Board can determine what is adequate. She stated Riverdale does not have much frontage, but they will have more than ten spaces on the small lot. If they take out the language about the minimum 20’ width, the Planning Board could determine what would be the adequate buffer. Elizabeth Dudley suggested it state, “Adequate buffer as is suitable per location.”
Val Shelton stated, on page 8, it talks about recommended plants. That could go into an appendix.
Val Shelton stated, on page 10, on Maintenance and Enforcement, they had decided this would not be part of the guidelines, because it was all administrative.
Val Shelton stated she had some changes to the Subdivision Regulations. In 3.09(B)(1) it would be the same change as was just made in that section of the Site Plan Regulations.
She stated, on page 2, (C)(5), the statement “When required, irrigation systems…” It should say “When proposed…”.
On page 3, (F) Sidewalks, they had discussed that being zone-dependent. All redevelopments have been requiring sidewalks. There is no room for buffer strips. Chairman Botterman stated he tried to reach the Public Works Director about this. A lot of towns do not want the grass strip, because they have to maintain them. Elizabeth Dudley stated it gives further protection for people using the sidewalk. Diane Hardy stated zone-dependency is making things too complicated. It is too difficult to administer. Chairman Botterman stated the way it originally read was fine. If they have to waive it, they have the option.
Val Shelton stated, on page 4, at the top, continuing on cul de sacs, the word “it” should be “cul de sac”.
She stated, on (H) Street Trees (6) “and site conditions” should be added after “species”.
On (7), she asked if they should add “signage”. The Board agreed.
On page 5 (7) move the recommended plants into an appendix.
She stated, on (1) it is for residential open space design development. There should be a period. That paragraph only applies to those. Then it says “This Association is responsible” the word “shall” should be in there. On the last sentence, it should read “The legal instrument establishing this requirement shall be approved by legal counsel.” It should not have to come back to the Board.
On (2), she asked if the sentence about the Town’s responsibility should be in there. It is a fact they will do the maintenance anyway.
Val Shelton asked about non residential open space development, where the road is not dedicated to the Town or the Town does not accept it. There is nothing about that in there. She did not want to see any Fox Hollow type issues. She asked if taking out open space residential. It would cover both. The Board thought that was a good suggestion.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion that the Landscape Design Standards for Subdivision and for Site Plans should be treated as guidelines and not regulations and to be given to the appropriate parties, when the time comes by the Planning Office
Second: John Brackett
Val Shelton stated, respectfully, she would vote against that. There are landscape regulations on the books. These would conflict with those. She stated the Board should have the regulations and that is how they should be deliberating on applications relative to those and not also have guidelines and tell applicants these are what the Board would like to see. It is either in the regulations or it is not. If the applicant would like to request a waiver, then the Planning Board can listen to the reasons and, if the findings of fact support it, they can waive it. Having both regulations and guidelines that are in conflict will not be good for an applicant. It will create future problems.
Rick McMenimen stated he was afraid they were too cumbersome. They are too cumbersome for people coming to the Town who want to build. They are better as guidelines. Val Shelton stated she would have agreed with that under the initial documents that came before the Board. These are so completely watered down from where they originally were. They are the next step above our existing regulations, which really do not provide much guidance. The Board wants to see landscape plans, but the regulations do not really allow the Board to do that.
Elizabeth Dudley stated the Board has to have whatever they are going to put forward accessible to the applicant and it needs to be in the regulations. They should not have to go to the office for it. Chairman Botterman stated it would be part of the application, not the Zoning Ordinance.
Val Shelton asked do they replace the existing regulations with these or do they keep what is now in place, which is in conflict with the proposed guidelines, and say to the applicant, “Oh by the way, here is extra information and this is what we would like to see, we don’t have the right to ask for any of it.”
Dan Wright would like to stick with guidelines. Jane Ford supported having the guidelines.
Elizabeth Dudley stated there are two documents that conflict. Newmarket will come off as illogical.
Rick McMenimen stated they could correct the differences. Val Shelton asked then why wouldn’t they just adopt the guidelines. Rick McMenimen stated they are too cumbersome. They are trying to make it easier for people come into the town. To put this into a regulation is adding another layer.
Val Shelton stated this provides greater clarity for an applicant coming to town. Last meeting, when the Perkins property came before them, the applicant asked what the Board was looking for regarding landscaping. The current regulations do not tell you.
Elizabeth Dudley asked what the specifics were that were too cumbersome. Rick McMenimen stated there are too many regulations and rules. Six pages of regulations are too many. Elizabeth Dudley asked how many they have now. Rick McMenimen stated it was a page and a half. He stated you are looking for a problem that does not exist and fighting it. Elizabeth Dudley stated there is a problem. There is shoddy development practice.
Val Shelton stated she looks at the problem as being that applicants do not know what is expected from this Board. The Board is also bringing in very subjective opinions regarding landscaping that are out of the purview of this Board. If it is not in the regulations, it is not something the Board can demand or request. The Board is out of line doing that. There are regulations and the Board should be abiding by those. They should not be out trying to hold an applicant to some higher level. Let the applicant know what the Board wants to see and then, if the applicant has an issue, they can request a waiver. Elizabeth Dudley stated that was the Planning Board’s purpose. They were there to make Newmarket the best place it could be. Chairman Botterman stated they had to do that within the framework of their regulations. Elizabeth Dudley stated the Board changes. Some people know things about plants and some do not. To have Newmarket at the mercy of the vagaries of the Planning Board does not make any sense to her.
Diane Hardy clarified they cannot adopt anything tonight as regulations. There has to be a public hearing. Val Shelton stated the current motion is whether the Board would adopt these as guidelines. Diane Hardy stated they would not need a public hearing to adopt them as guidelines.
Vote: Dan Wright, Jane Ford, Rick McMenimen, John Brackett, Eric Botterman in favor
Elizabeth Dudley, Val Shelton opposed
Chairman’s Report
Nothing to report.
Committee Reports
Val Shelton stated the Economic Development Committee will meet this coming Thursday night.
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated the Master Plan budget request has made it through the Budget Committee, so far.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to adjourn at 9:29 p.m.
Second: Dan Wright
Vote: All in favor