Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 11, 2014
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Rick McMenimen (Vice Chairman), Val Shelton, John Brackett, Jane Ford, Gabriel Jerome (Alternate), Ginger Smith (Alternate)
Absent: Janice Rosa (excused)
Called to order: 7:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:38 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 01/21/14
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the Planning Board meeting minutes of January 21, 2014 with corrections, if necessary
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Chairman Botterman stated Janice Rosa is excused tonight. He appointed Gabriel Jerome to sit on the Board in her place for the evening.
Consideration of application for full Board member – Jane Ford
Chairman Botterman stated Elizabeth Dudley has resigned from the Board. He explained that the Board could appoint a new member to fill the position until the next election. He stated Jane Ford had applied for the position.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they appoint Jane Ford as a full voting member of the Planning Board to fulfill the remaining term vacated by Elizabeth Dudley
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
John Badger – Planning Board items
John Badger, former member and Chairman of the Planning Board and current member of the Charter Commission, stated members of the Charter Commission decided each of their nine members would pick a group in town to deliver the information regarding the results of the Charter Commission’s work. He will be addressing the Planning Board. He gave a little background. There were nine members elected to the Charter Commission in May 2013. They had their first meeting on May 28 and the first public hearing on June 10. There were three additional public hearings and oral and written input from a number of citizens. There was other input from other committees including School Board, Town Council, Town Administrator, the LGC and Charter Commission members from other towns. They reviewed the charters of several towns and received a lot of advice and legal direction from the Town Attorney. There were three themes that came through. One was for the Town government to be accountable, second an affordable tax structure was needed, and the last was for the government to be more accessible. As a result, there were a number of significant improvements recommended to the Town Charter. He showed a power point presentation and went over the charter amendments that were presented at the Deliberative Session held on the previous Saturday. They will be giving this same presentation to other Town Boards and organizations.
Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. - Public hearing on an application for Residential Open Space Design Development for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 6.01 of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance and for subdivision approval under Section 3.14 of the Newmarket Subdivision Regulations, at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23, M-4 Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 52 single-family homes along the north side of the golf course with the golf course and adjacent wetlands preserved as open space.
Diane Hardy stated the public hearing was reposted and abutters were re-notified. The notice was also placed in the Foster’s newspaper.
Chairman Botterman stated the Director of Public Works and the Water & Sewer Superintendent had signed off on the application.
Matt Assia stated also signing off on the application was Mark West.
Diane Hardy stated they had received a letter from the attorney that clarified the ownership of the land and/or conveyance of conservation easements.
Matt Assia stated, at the last meeting, Eric Weinrieb, from Altus Engineering did a presentation. He stated he could give a similar update. They are working on addressing the details of the plans. They will be providing an updated set, with some plan revisions. Some revisions will address some of the conditions. They have submitted a wetlands permit application. The water line to Ladyslipper Drive will require some temporary impacts and will be placed back to the original grade. There will be very minor impacts. There will be no impacts to the prime wetlands or in the prime wetland buffer. They are waiting to hear from NH Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) on that permit application. They have submitted a NH Department of Transportation (NH DOT) permit and received comments back. They need to make a plan change and resubmit it. They submitted the Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permit application and there were two minor comments. Since then, they have made some road profile changes. They have to resubmit the drainage model. They are waiting for all of the final comments, before they will address them. They have been working with the Town on sewer changes. They are in the process of doing the sewer connection permit application. They worked with Phil McDonald on his comments and have addressed a lot of his concerns, as far as the bike path. They have added a note providing a bike easement along Route 108. They are showing it as a meandering bike path, with a location to be determined. They had talked about doing a five-year dedication for temporary easement. If the project never happens, then the temporary easement expires.
Jane Ford stated traffic is horrendous on Route 108. This development will add to the traffic. She asked how they were going to deal with that issue. Matt Assia stated it is a 52 lot development. A traffic impact study was prepared. It only required 10’ wide shoulders to allow cars waiting to turn to pass around. They are putting in a dedicated left-hand turn lane, so the through traffic both ways can be maintained. There is a deceleration right-hand turn lane that goes into the development. They have done more than what NH DOT required. Chairman Botterman stated that is a State road, so the applicant had to work that out with NH DOT.
Rick McMenimen stated he had asked for a copy of what NH DOT had to say, because the road is horrific. You have to wait for quite a while trying to get out of Hersey Lane in the morning. Where this project is located, you will have that access and Ash Swamp Road. He stated that section of road would be a death trap. Chairman Botterman stated it is a heavily traveled road, but the access is permitted by the State.
Jane Ford stated the economic development plan talks about making downtown Newmarket a destination. She asked what this subdivision would do to those businesses. When someone comes from Portsmouth to Squamscott Road to get onto Route 108, the traffic is so bad, they would come in from the north and instead of buying milk in Newmarket, would stop in Durham instead. She asked if this still allows for downtown Newmarket to be a visitor destination. She stated she realized new homes would help drive that development downtown, as well. She is trying to look at both sides of the coin.
Chairman Botterman stated traffic is a valid concern, but in the big picture, traffic added by this development is insignificant to the amount of traffic that is already on Route 108. That is basically what the State has said by not requiring a set of traffic signals. He stated it does not fall upon this development to take care of problems that already exist. You could argue that the intersection of Ash Swamp Road should have a signal now.
Diane Hardy asked if Jane Ford had reviewed Mr. Pernaw’s traffic study and she and Rick McMenimen answered they had. Diane Hardy stated it had been provided to the Board last summer.
Chairman Botterman stated over the last several months they have received one letter from a Newmarket resident, who opposes the project. He wanted to enter that into the record. They also received six or seven letters of support. These will be entered into the record.
He stated, in the January 21, 2014 minutes, page 4, line 2, to page 7, line 34, which contains some of the discussion they had regarding this project will be entered into the record, so those conversations will be part of the official minutes for any decision they may make.
Diane Hardy stated there had been a suggestion by an abutter that the meeting in December was not properly posted. She did go back and review the record with the Administrative Secretary. The secretary had a record of the postings and they were all posted in the correct places at the proper times. They did not understand why there was difficulty in locating it on the website. She went right to the website and it was there. It showed on the website this had been posted to the website under “Planning Board” as an agenda item on November 27, 2013 at 9:26 a.m. Therefore, for the record the December 10, 2013 meeting was properly posted.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Ed Portyrata, 177 Exeter Road, stated there is no good visual for cars coming the other way around what they used to call “Dead Man’s Curve”. Another problem is, when he drives down by the golf course to his residence, which is on the right-hand side of the road, he starts his directional at the top of that curve and he ends up with cars so close to him. It is a 40 mph zone there and the State will not change it. He did not understand that at all. They go more than 40 mph. A lot of times, the other drivers blow their horns and give lewd gestures, because he has to slow down to make his turn into his driveway, especially since his driveway goes up. The traffic in front of there is fast. Chairman Botterman stated, by law, there is a certain criteria to establish the speed limit. If the Town insisted the State come out and do an analysis, they may end up posting it for 50 mph. There are certain requirements. They cannot just come in and put a 30 mph speed limit there. The laws are in place. Mr. Portyrata stated you have the entrance to the Industrial Park and people are also living down there and they are all taking that road to go in. There is Lita Lane, Hersey Lane, and Ash Swamp Road, so there is a lot of traffic in that area. He stated it was too bad the State could not take the curve out a little bit.
He asked what the lot sizes were for the subdivision. Chairman Botterman stated they were small lots. That was the purpose of open space development. They would be 10,000-12,000 sq. ft. lots. Mr. Portyrata asked what type of houses there would be on lots that size. He had heard a few months ago they would be three or four bedrooms. Chairman Botterman stated he did not believe it was etched in stone yet how big the houses would be. Val Shelton stated the size of the homes did not fall under the purview of the Planning Board. Mr. Portyrata stated the Superintendent of Schools said there would be a lot of kids coming into town and they need this big school to be built.
He asked what the impact fees would be. Chairman Botterman stated the impact fees are established. It is not based on the number of children. It is per dwelling.
Mr. Portyrata stated the lot across from his house is a wetland. Chairman Botterman stated it does go down into the wetlands. Mr. Portyrata asked if that was the nine acres the developer was talking about doing something with. Chairman Botterman stated the developer was talking about where the clubhouse is. The area across from Mr. Portyrata’s house will be open space.
Mr. Portyrata asked where they would hook up for the water. He asked if it would be on the present line or if they would put in a new line. He stated they have a problem when they use their washing machine. They have to load the water over again, because it does not come in enough to do the load. Chairman Botterman stated they are going to loop the line. Mr. Portyrata stated they have really low pressure now off and on. Corey Belden, Altus Engineers, stated Underwood Engineers did a study on the project. He showed where the line was on the plan. He stated they are connecting a ten inch line, running it down the road and looping it back to connect to Ladyslipper Drive. It is actually a circular line. It is not a dead end. That is the best option based on the water models and will provide the best flow through the line. Mr. Portyrata should see an increase in water pressure based on what the studies show. Mr. Portyrata stated there is a ten inch line going into the Industrial Park. The old line starts after that toward the hill. He asked if they were putting a new line on Route 108. Mr. Belden stated they are connecting into the one on Route 108 and looping a line. This provides better pressure. Val Shelton stated they are not updating the Town’s line. Mr. Portyrata stated there is an old line there. He stated they would lose pressure. Chairman Botterman explained there will be two ways to get water to it. It will be looped, so it increases the pressure. By all of the models Underwood Engineers ran, this one showed the water pressure will increase significantly. They will tie into the line that runs by Mr. Portyrata’s house up by the corner and run it into the development and loop it into Ladyslipper Drive.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to approve the application by Rockingham Country Club, Inc./Chinburg Builders, Inc. for a Special Use Permit for a Residential Open Space Design Development pursuant to authority granted under Section 6.01 of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance for property located at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23 in the M-4 Zone to permit construction of 52 single-family homes based on the following Findings of Fact and subject to final approval of the proposed subdivision by the Newmarket Planning Board:
Findings of Fact:
- The Planning Board has the authority to interpret and apply the Zoning Ordinance as part of its jurisdiction to the review of subdivision and special use permits applications;
- The Planning Board has reviewed, discussed and deliberated the question of whether this project meets the type of development envisioned for the M-4 District and the criteria for a Special Use Permit under Section 6.00 of the Ordinance and has found the application meets the criteria as stated;
- The Planning Board has set forth the following findings:
- A golf course is a permitted use in the M-4 Zoning District;
- The purpose of the M-4 District is to “provide for the on-going use of the golf course and to facilitate adjacent commercial and residential development related to the golf course”;
c. Single Family residential uses are permitted in the M-4 District;
a. protects and preserves wetlands;
b. leaves scenic view and vistas unblocked and uninterrupted, particularly as seen from public thoroughfares;
5. The Open Space and/or common area within the development as shown on the proposed Subdivision Plan will be owned by and/or legally restricted by the subdivision’s Homeowners Association which will use it only in accordance with the proposed restrictions or which may later grant the land to a private or public entity that will hold as and have enforcement rights over said land related to the status of the land as conservation land in perpetuity;
Therefore, it is determined that the proposed development concept, as envisioned by this application, meets the current zoning requirements and the criteria for granting a Special Use Permit as set forth in Section 6.00of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance and, as may be applicable, the Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
Rick McMenimen asked if this was to approve the project entirely.Chairman Botterman stated he would like the Board to vote on it.Rick McMenimen stated he has not received answers to some of the questions he has raised.He was not going to vote on this without the information.He would like information regarding the egress and entrance to the development.Chairman Botterman stated that has been addressed.Diane Hardy stated the entrance and egress are not under the jurisdiction of the Town.It is the State’s jurisdiction.She stated the NH DOT had a few minor comments on the modifications to the plans.Corey Belden stated, since it is in the State’s right of way, the State came back and told them to make various changes to the plans, as far as the striping and lane configurations.He stated they made all of the changes to the plan, based on what NH DOT told them to do.The configuration they have is per NH DOT’s requirements and review.NH DOT provided a conditional approval based on the plans.They just need to do a couple of edits to the plan and resubmit it.Chairman Botterman stated what may be confusing is Route 108 is a State highway.The Town has no say in it.The Town could tell them they want a traffic signal and the State could say no.The State owns the road.As part of the applicant’s package, they did a traffic analysis and submitted plans and a permit application to the State of NH for access to Route 108.The State commented and had some changes and that is the extent of it.He explained the turn lane and deceleration lane configuration and how it will work.He realizes it is frustrating for towns, because they may want something and cannot get it, because the State has jurisdiction.
- to Approve the Application by Rockingham Country Club, Inc. / Chinburg Builders, Inc. for Subdivision Approval under Newmarket’s Land Use Code Regulations Chapter V: Subdivision Regulations, for property located at 200 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 23 in the M-4 Zone to permit construction of 52 single-family homes under a Residential Open Space Design Development as shown on plan sets received by the Newmarket Planning Board on January 10, 2014 subject to the following conditions and amendments:
1.Erosion Control measures and dewatering basin details be added to the plans to protect the wetlands and Prime Wetlands from impacts associated with the looping of water line and proposed directional drilling, in accordance with Mark West’s letter of January 21, 2014;
2. An easement plan shall be prepared which identifies all required easements for conservation, water, sewer, drainage and other utilities, temporary and permanent for 15 foot bike path along Route 108. Said easement plan and corresponding easement deeds, subdivision covenants (re: drainage Lots 35 and 36), and deed restrictions related to no-cut buffer zones shall be reviewed and approved by the Town’s legal counsel prior to recording of the easement plan and issuance of the final Special Use Permit and signing of the plans;
3. All state, local, and federal permits shall be provided prior to plan signing, including NH DES Wetlands, NH DES Alteration of Terrain, NH DOT Highway Access Permit, and NH DES Sewer Connection Permit. All permits shall be listed in the final plan set;
4. Construction drawings and specifications for the water system and construction drawings, calculations, and Operation Maintenance Manual for the low pressure sewer system and stormwater management plans and calculations shall be approved by the Town Engineering consultant and Newmarket Water and Sewer Department, prior to plan signing;
5. The low pressure sewer main shall be relocated on the plans from what will become the public “right-of-way” to a location on private property at least five (5) feet from the right-of-way. Lateral connections may cross the proposed road to connect with the main. The final design shall be approved by the Town’s Engineering consultant and Newmarket Water and Sewer Superintendent;
6.As recommended by the Newmarket Conservation Commission,
a. Permanent markers, such as granite posts and/or carsonite, shall be installed to delineate the edge of the no-cut zones for lots on the north side of the proposed roadway (Lots 20-32.);
b.During construction the site shall be enclosed with silt fencing (in addition to silt socks) while the soils remain unstabilized for erosion control and to safeguard against rare turtle species from entering the site;
c.There shall be an annual inspection of mitigation measures required by this approval by the Homeowners Association to be submitted in writing to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer;
7.The Developer shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement with the Town of Newmarket which includes findings of fact, special conditions, the Town’s expectations prior to and during construction, and prior to the issuance of building permits, certificates of occupancy and the requirements for the performance bond;
8.The Developer shall issue a performance bond and/or performance guarantee in an amount and form determined as acceptable by the Town’s engineering consultant and Town’s Legal Counsel to ensure completion of the proposed roadway, stormwater, water and sewer systems, and all in accordance with the final approved plans;
9. The Developer shall make an advance escrow payment to the Town in an amount determined as being acceptable by the Town’s engineering consultant to provide construction inspections services to assure proper site construction of roadway, stormwater, water and sewer systems;
10.Street numbers shall be assigned, by the Town’s 911 coordinator, prior to final plan signing;
11.A notation shall be added to the plans that all driveways and driveway aprons shall be paved;
12. All legal documents related to the Open Space Development, including the Articles of Incorporation, Homeowners’ Association By-Laws, Sewer Maintenance Agreement, Easement Plan, easement documents, covenants, and deed restrictions shall be reviewed and approved by Town’s Legal Counsel prior to plan signing;
13. The following shall be added to the plans:
a. A note that a licensed arborist or forester will be engaged to assess tree health in buffer area and recommend selective removal, as necessary, as part of the landscaping plan;
b. Shared driveway shall be labeled on all plans for lots 12, 13 and 14 and appropriate language shall be added to the deeds of each lot to reflect the terms and conditions of the shared driveway arrangement and maintenance responsibilities;
- The shared driveway easement servicing Lots 12, 13 and 14 shall also permit a public access easement for any future bike path to and from Route 108;
c.A note regarding the provision of fencing or screening adjacent to Green # 8 to address potential stray golf balls;
14. The applicant to pay impact fees in accordance with the current Town of Newmarket Impact Fee Schedule for recreation, water, sewer, and schools unless waived by the Planning Board in accordance with Section 7.07 of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance;
15. The boundaries of Lot 39 and Lot 40 shall be revised to show a reserved 50’ wide right-of-way to the Town to provide for future access to adjacent land and such right-of-way shall be included in the deed to the Town for the proposed 50’ road right-of-way;
16. As may be needed, additional evergreens shall be planted within the preserved visual buffer along Route 108 in areas shown as Site Section “A” and “C” or along the cut slopes of those areas to insure houses are adequately screened from Route 108;
17. Storm Water Management (SWM) labeling shall be consistent throughout plan set;
18. Additional notation shall be included on Plan Sheet D-7 “Typical Raingarden” specifying the maintenance requirements for the rain garden shall be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association and annual inspection reports shall be filed with the Town Code Enforcement Officer;
19.Sheet GN-1 General Notes #1 shall state “Permanent” Plaques, “Buffer” should be “Buffers”, and language added to incorporate the specifications recommended by the Newmarket Conservation Commission for permanent markers.
Second: Eric Botterman
Jane Ford asked, regarding #16, if there was a violation of the plans, whose expense was it was to rectify the situation. Diane Hardy stated if there is a violation of the plans, it is brought to the attention of the Homeowners Association and they would bring it to the Code Enforcement Officer to make sure it is addressed. The cost will be the Homeowners Association’s responsibility.
Jane Ford asked, regarding #18, would that also fall under the Homeowners Association. Chairman Botterman stated that was correct. Val Shelton stated they wanted that clarified on the plan, because it is not now. Diane Hardy stated those responsibilities will also be delineated within the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws.
Jane Ford asked, going back to the economic development plan, would any of this project affect page 63 of the development plan for the town being classified as a visiting destination. Chairman Botterman stated he did not feel it would affect it. Val Shelton stated this development plan is simply a report by the economic development consultant. No action has been taken on it whether to accept it or make revisions to it by the Economic Development Committee.
Vote: All in favor
NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp. - Public hearing for an application for Major Site Plan review, at 2 Forbes Road (NIP Lot 6 LLC), Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, and 181 Exeter Road (Shearwater Investment Corp.), Tax Map R3, Lot 8, both in the B2 Zone. The proposal is for a 24,000 square foot expansion of the existing industrial building located at 2 Forbes Road, with associated parking, drainage, and landscaping improvements. Pending site plan approval, the lots will be merged to make one lot.
Joe Persechino, Tighe & Bond Engineering, represented the applicant. He was with Rob Graham, of Shearwater Investments Corp. Mr. Persechino stated they are proposing a 24,000 square foot expansion to the existing building. It will be a new use, with a new tenant. It will not be an expansion of the current tenant. It will be a similar light manufacturing operation to what is out there now. What is there now is an aerospace component manufacturer, so it is pretty high tech. This is the trend in the market, industry coming back to the USA. There should be about 20 employees at the new building, making about 40 total employees at both operations. The house along Route 108 has been demolished. That whole slope will be pushed back, so the building may be constructed, with parking and stormwater infrastructure. The lots will be combined at the end of the process. He showed the location on a plan. It is accessed off of Forbes Road, by a shared driveway. Total parking will be just under 100 spaces onsite. There are about 50 now. Loading will be in the rear of the building. There will not be a lot of trucks, but they will have room to bring materials in. They will mostly be box trucks and small semis. This is light manufacturing business. It does not really use any raw materials. They are impacting over 100,000 square feet of land. That has required an Alteration of Terrain permit with NH DES, which they have submitted. It is currently in the review process. The soils are sandy. They are proposing rain gardens and an infiltration basin. The soils are perfect for stormwater infiltration. They are proposing more impervious area, but are reducing runoff from the site, because of the two rain gardens and the infiltration basin. He showed their positions on the plan. Landscaping will be similar to what is there now. It is all native species. The utilities will be the same as what is servicing the building now. The utility requirements are minimal. It is a simple project. He included a plan requested by Diane Hardy. It might be worth looking at the buffer from Route 108 to the site and the building. He handed out a plan showing that. He stated you are really not going to be able to see the building at all. There is a slight incline. They will be installing a guardrail there to be extra safe on the property. They will plant white pines to add a year round vegetative screen at the top of the berm. Then it will slope down and they will propose a New England conservation seed mix to grow there. It will not be mown or maintained and will look natural. The building is almost 60 feet lower than the berm, so you will not see it from Route 108.
Val Shelton asked what the elevation was at the top of the berm vs. the road. Mr. Persechino stated it varies. It is about 110 or 112 feet at the top of the berm. It is about 108 at the road. The berm is about 5 or 6 feet high.
Val Shelton asked if they had done any concept renderings relative to the other buildings in the park. The applicant is saying they will not see this building sitting down low here from the road, but there are other buildings to the rear of the park. She asked if the proposal is to buffer the berm, so you will not have a visual to any of the distant existing buildings in the park. Mr. Persechino stated you would probably still see those. He stated you could probably see those today. You can see lights through the trees.
Val Shelton asked how many employees were in the existing building. Mr. Persechino stated there are about 20. There will be about 20 more employees, probably 40-50 all together. Val Shelton asked if there were any changes to the septic system to accommodate this. Mr. Persechino stated they are looking into the now. It depends on the use of the new building.
Val Shelton asked if the existing tenant was leaving Newmarket. She stated this was just informational and if she was out of line asking to let her know. Rob Graham stated the old tenant is not leaving. The new tenant has some synergies in terms of business and supply with the existing tenant. They are trying to keep this tenant. The existing tenant is Hagen Machine.
Diane Hardy stated she has reviewed the application against the Major Site Plan checklist. There are a couple of items that need clarification. She has reviewed those with the engineer. Those modifications will be made to the plan prior to the Technical Review Committee (TRC) reviewing them. She stated the septic system is a concern. They need more information on what is there and the condition of it and whether it will accommodate the increased use. There is a concern about the adequacy of the buffer. There may be a need for greater detail on that, as the Board goes through this. The plan is substantially complete and she recommended the Planning Board accept the plan for technical review and there be an independent engineer hired to assist with the review of the site specific application. There are some concerns about geotech, because they are digging into this hillside and there could be impacts on adjacent properties and the roadway.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application for NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp. for the application for Major Site Plan review, at 2 Forbes Road (NIP Lot 6 LLC), Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, and 181 Exeter Road (Shearwater Investment Corp.), Tax Map R3, Lot 8, both in the B-2 Zone to construct a 24,000 square foot expansion of the existing industrial building located at 2 Forbes Road, with associated parking, drainage, and landscaping improvements. Pending site plan approval, the lots will be merged to make one lot.
Second: Rick McMenimen
(Editorial clarification: There was a question and discussion of whether the address for NIP Lot 6 LLC should be 21 Forbes Road or 2 Forbes Road. The applicant had written the address on the application as 21 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6. The Town of Newmarket Tax Maps and Tax Cards show the address for NIP Lot 6 LLC, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6 as 2 Forbes Road. The Tax Card and Tax Map records show 21 Forbes Road as a completely different lot not involved with this application that is owned by the Town of Newmarket. The public hearing notices and agenda reflect the Town’s tax records for the applicant’s lot as Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, 2 Forbes Road.)
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to amend her motion and delete reference to the address
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Ed Portyrata, 177 Exeter Road, stated, years ago, when they started the Industrial Park, it was all one big hill going down to the railroad tracks. He owned 200+ feet back there. They started to excavate for the park and he had to go on a business trip. His wife was home. The tractor came onto their property and started digging down. They took dirt off of his land to go down. They were supposed to leave him so many feet abutting. They built the building, and then they did not do anymore excavating. They were still supposed to leave him 50 feet abutting before they did that. He is worried, because he is on a hill now. They dug within 18 feet of his property in back. It was supposed to have been 50 feet. He got a lawyer, but there was a five year limit, after which they could not sue and it was too late.
He stated they did not know the house next door was being demolished and only found out when their house started shaking when they were tearing it down. He stated he knew what the law was and he has the papers. Chairman Botterman explained they did not have to come before the Planning Board to demolish the house. That is just a demolition permit with the Building Official.
Mr. Portyrata stated the applicant did come and talk to him and show him the plan. He is holding off on saying more to see how this goes on from here.
Val Shelton asked if this falls under Earth Excavations, Chapter 155E. Diane Hardy asked the applicant how much material will be excavated from the hillside and how much will be used on site vs. selling it elsewhere. She does not have an answer to the excavation regulation question today, but perhaps the applicant has looked into this. Mr. Persechino stated they would like to revisit that information later and get back to them with a more formal response. They are considering this a site plan application, as it is primarily for the development of the site. The excavation of material will be more than they need to use on the site. They would have to look at that. Diane Hardy stated that needs to be looked at by the Town’s Engineer and Attorney. They would need to know how much material is going to be excavated.
Diane Hardy stated there are modifications to the plans and more information will be brought in and she would like to give the applicant time to gather that, so when the TRC meets, they will have everything they need to get started.
Jane Ford volunteered to be on the TRC representing the Planning Board.
Diane Hardy asked if Mr. Persechino could get plans to Underwood Engineers the next day and they could put together a cost estimate. Meanwhile, Underwood Engineers could do their review. She would like to have the TRC meeting after they get their comments back. It will probably be 2 or 3 weeks out. She stated Mr. Portyrata was welcome to attend the TRC meeting, if he would like. He will be notified of the meetings.
Mr. Portyrata asked if Susan Conway still had anything to do with this property. Diane Hardy stated it was her understanding that Shearwater Investments is Conway Realtors. She asked Mr. Persechino and it was stated it was common knowledge that Susan, Mark and George Conway own the Industrial Park. He did not feel it was pertinent to the application.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp. for the application for Major Site Plan review, (NIP Lot 6 LLC), Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, and (Shearwater Investment Corp.), Tax Map R3, Lot 8, both in the B2 Zone to March 18, 2014
Second: Rick McMenimen
Vote: All in favor
Other Business
Request for extension of approval, from Chinburg Builders, Inc., for the retail building located behind the library along Spring Street.
Chairman Botterman stated he had a letter from Chinburg Builders, Inc. to extend their site plan approval for the retail building behind the library. They are asking for an additional six months. Diane Hardy stated they have been negotiating back and forth with NH DOT and it is taking longer than anticipated. This is regarding the decision of July 12, 2013. The six months will expire on February 12, 2014.
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to extend the Newmarket Mill retail shop request for approval Notice of Decision dated July 12, 2013 for an additional six months
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Economic Development Committee
Val Shelton stated they met last night and were starting to get into the consultant’s report. It would be helpful to her, as the Planning Board representative, if the Planning Board members could review the outline of recommendations starting on page 56 and note any items that they think should be in the Planning Board’s area of priority and would like any thoughts about proposed types of commercial enterprises and businesses that would be appropriate for the B2 and B3 zones and would also appreciate comments about urban infill. She asked if they could forward any comments to her by March via email.
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated she has distributed to the Board the revisions to the Landscaping Guidelines. She changed “shall” to “should”, because guidelines are recommendations.
Agenda Item #6 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Rick McMenimen made a motion to adjourn at 8:39 p.m.
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor