Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JULY 8, 2014
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, John Badger, John Brackett, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), Rose-Anne Kwaks (Alternate)
Absent: Jane Ford, Ginger Smith (Alternate) – both excused
Called to order: 7:05 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:48 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Ed Portyrata, 177 Exeter Road, stated when they were working on Route 108, there was so much gravel piled there that, when the wind blew toward their house, they were concerned because his wife has asthma. He went to the Town Administrator and he sent someone down and they started putting water on it. He also stated the water line in front of his house is a 4 inch line. He asked if they were hooked onto that. Chairman Botterman stated he thought they were putting in an 8 inch line and looping it through the development. Diane Hardy stated, where it loops through the development, it is a 10 inch line. She stated he could come to her office and she could show him the plans. Mr. Portyrata asked if there was a water line going through the other side. Vice Chairman Shelton stated it came in from Ladyslipper Drive and connects. Diane Hardy stated it will provide a loop off of Route 108 down onto the new roadway and loop through to Ladyslipper Drive. This will increase the water flow in his area. The engineers told us that.
There were no other public comments.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 06/10/14
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of June 10, 2014
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor 3-0
John Brackett abstained as he had not read them
Rose-Anne Kwaks and John Badger abstained as they were not yet members of the Board in June
Dan Wright abstained due to absence for that meeting
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp – Continuation of a 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.
Chairman Botterman asked Diane Hardy to give an update on what has occurred since the last meeting.
Diane Hardy stated the Technical Review Committee (TRC) did meet on June 18. It was a productive meeting. The applicant has provided revised plans based on the comments they received from the TRC. The Board received those plans last evening at about 5 p.m., so there has been no chance for the engineer to review them. There has been discussion with the NH Department of Transportation (NH DOT) about this application and she has been in touch with Jim Hewitt, who is the person taking over the role of issuing highway access permits. He has some concerns. She had given the Board a copy of his letter of July 8. She stated the DOT was concerned about the proposed 1.5 horizontal and 1 vertical foot grade along Route 108 and the 60’ deep slope that is 15’ from the Route 108 right of way and its potential to destabilize the roadway. Mr. Hewitt marked out the area on the most recent plan which is attached to the e-mail. They are recommending that a geotechnical study be performed to evaluate the stability of the slope in this area. It is her understanding they have provided some general specifications to the applicant and the applicant has agreed to do the study. It is not something that can be done that quickly, so they are looking at a couple of weeks possibly before they get the study. Rob Graham, representing the applicant, stated they ordered the work from the geotechnical group. He expects them onsite late next week or early the week after. They will be able to turn that information right around. They are moving forward with that work.
Chairman Botterman stated Jane Ford is out tonight and he appointed Rose-Anne Kwaks to sit in for her.
Diane Hardy stated there has been quite a bit of discussion of the traffic situation and the impact of the proposed development on Route 108. The applicant has provided a traffic study that was prepared by Steve Pernaw, who is present. The Board has copies. DOT goes on to say they are concerned about the intersection, because it is less than ideal for access and sight lines. There needs to be some improvements made to that intersection. She stated they recommend the application be continued until the next meeting to give the applicant an opportunity to get their traffic study to DOT and work through any problems. The Town has been told a NH Highway Access Permit needs to be submitted, because they view this project as a change of use. They would like to get some feedback from DOT on the types of improvements they are envisioning. The applicant is willing to work with the Board and DOT to resolve the issues. They just need more time to do this. Also, the Town is gearing up for the Route 108 bike lane project. They want to make sure the potential traffic improvements for this site are coordinated with the bike lane project. She recommends this application be continued to August 12, 2014.
Rob Graham stated they have submitted their warrant analysis to DOT. They will need the Town’s application for the driveway permit for the roadway. Diane Hardy stated it is in the Town Administrator’s office ready for signature when he returns tomorrow.
Chairman Botterman asked for an update on what “modest modifications” means from DOT. Rob Graham stated they have not had any discussions about it yet.
Joe Persechino, the applicant’s engineer, stated the review they received from Underwood Engineers (the Town’s engineer) was pretty minimal for plan changes. There was a little back and forth at the TRC meeting and he will go over the changes made from that meeting. The new plan everyone has in front of them has the grass swale defined as a 6” deep minimum throughout the parking area. There were catchbasins they thought needed cleaning. One was within Forbes Road. The DPW Director had noted they are on the maintenance schedule for this year. There is a second catch basin on the shared driveway. They noted it on their plan to be cleaned. Those have all been done. There are circles on the plan indicating existing trees, some of them are missing or dying, so they noted those to be replaced. They also wanted a concrete sidewalk detail to be labeled “60” wide” to match the plan. They wanted the erosion control blanket specification and type, as well as the seed specification type added to the plans. It was on the plan in a note, but they also added that to the revised plan. The two other items were a bicycle rack that was added to the plan and the vegetative buffer along Route 108 which would be planted with new trees and the existing trees removed, so there would be hardier plants rather than saplings. They replaced the original tree plan with a mix of hemlock, arborvitae and spruce. The hemlocks are in the shadier areas.
Diane Hardy stated she was of the impression, with the berm and the expansion of the setback area from Route 108, there would not be a need for a guardrail and she saw one on the plan. Joe Persechino stated there will not be a guardrail anymore. That was from a previous plan. There is an existing guardrail that will remain. Diane Hardy stated it was on the new plan. Joe Persechino says the notes refer to it. The note should have been deleted.
Diane Hardy stated there was a question raised by DOT about tensar material being proposed for slope stabilization. Joe Persechino stated everything they provided to the Town and Town Engineer has gone to the DOT. The material specified was sent to the DOT. That is part of the geotechnical analysis. That will be addressed.
John Brackett asked what size trees would be planted. Joe Persechino stated it is on the landscape plan on sheet C4.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated it was suggested at the TRC meeting they notify the other people off of Forbes Road. Diane Hardy stated they could do that for the next meeting. Rob Graham stated they did not say they would do that, they said they did not object to that. Diane Hardy stated that was a reasonable suggestion. They will notify the abutters on Stanorm Drive.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated it says “Revised” on the plans with the dates and what was done. She asked if any of the site and demolition plans was submitted to get the Alteration of Terrains Permit from the State. Joe Persechino stated the plans sent for the permit were similar plans, just not the revised plans. All of the plans were submitted. The revised plans they have tonight did not get submitted, because the changes were very minimal. They would not trigger any amendment requirement from the State. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they had to send the revised plans to see if the State thought it was worthy of an amendment. Joe Persechino stated if everyone in the state made a change to plans, they would never be able to approve them all in an appropriate timeframe. They have a very friendly relationship with DES. If they, as engineers, recognize anything on the plans that may involve a change, they call the State and ask. For the most part, based on their knowledge and experience permitting with the State, they know whether they will have an objection to something. Rob Graham stated there are substantive changes and there are ancillary changes. A slope change or a design change in the slope would require an amendment. He said they would be happy to forward plan, if the Board would like them to do that. Chairman Botterman stated he was happy with them making the phone calls to ask, he agrees with them, he deals with the State all the time. Joe Persechino stated there is a list of items that would trigger an amendment and these do not rise to that, but he would make a phone call if the Board wished. Chairman Botterman stated he would like them to do that. Rob Graham stated they are going to go through a DOT process that will review their slope and geotech work. If there are going to be changes, that is when it would happen and that is when they would seek an amendment.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, at one of the meetings, Chairman Botterman asked if there was a time limit from when they excavated to when they started building. She went through the excavation section. Diane Hardy stated that section does not apply in this case. The Planning Board determined this project, as submitted, does not fall under the excavation guidelines or RSA 155E. Chairman Botterman stated this was a decision of the Planning Board. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she read through Town excavation regulations. Diane Hardy stated those do not apply. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated it applies to the time limit for permit. It says, “The following projects are exempt from a permit and are not subject to regulation by the Board: Excavation that is exclusively incidental to the lawful construction or alteration of a building or structure parking lot on the premises where removal occurs. This excavation cannot be started, however, until any required State permits”, which they are getting, “and local permits have been issued.” She stated she interprets that to say if they are excavating to build a building or a road or repair a building that they have to get the necessary State permits, but they also have to have local permits. In her mind, that would be a building permit to prove they should be allowed to excavate, in order to build for the land. They do not have local permits. Chairman Botterman stated they cannot get a building permit until they have an approved plan. He disagreed it was a building permit. The process mandates they come through the Planning Board. If they went to get a building permit tomorrow, the Building Inspector would say no, because there is no approved site plan. The Town cannot put an applicant in a “to-do” loop, where they can never resolve that. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked wouldn’t they have to have a plan for the footprint of the building, then go to the Building Official for a building permit. Chairman Botterman stated he cannot issue it.
Vice Chairman had a concern regarding the landscape plan. It depicts a 40’ landscaping barrier of the proposed tree line along Route 108. The proposed tree line is 40’ in width. Joe Persechino stated the individual trees to be planted are shown and have been revised since the last plan.
John Brackett asked who would maintain the trees or would it go wild. Joe Persechino stated it was up to the owner to maintain any landscaping. Vice Chairman Shelton stated there are recommended guidelines for landscaping. Diane Hardy stated, if landscaping is shown on a plan and a plant does not live, the Board has the authority to go back even if it is five years later and ask it be replanted and be brought into compliance with the approved site plan. Joe Persechino stated this could be a condition of approval and they have no problem maintaining the buffer.
Rob Graham stated they would like to continue to the August 12 meeting.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp to continue their public hearing for an application for Major Site Plan review, at 2 Forbes Road (NIP Lot 6 LLC), Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, etc. to the August 12, 2014 meeting
Second: Dan Wright
Vote: All in favor
Newmarket Mills, LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for Site Plan Review, at Main Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 57, M-2A Zone. The proposal is to convert and expand the existing “Riverdale Automotive” building for a grocer focusing on local produce and meats, with a drive-through coffee service.
Val Shelton recused herself from this application.
Diane Hardy stated they had the second of the two Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings since the last Planning Board meeting. They met on June 5 and 23rd. On the 5th, the Traffic Engineer representing the Town from VHB had some questions regarding the traffic analysis pertaining to the queuing that was prepared by Mr. Pernaw, who is the traffic engineer for Newmarket Mills LLC. There was a request for additional data and clarification on the hours of operation. The applicant has provided that information and the Town’s traffic engineer has reviewed it and provided a follow up memo, a copy of which was distributed to the Planning Board. There were recommendations that there be a management plan provided. They did receive a “Drive Through Coffee Management Plan”. At the TRC meeting, they went through a series of changes requested by Public Works. Some modifications were recommended on widening the lanes and making the entrance turning radius wider to better accommodate vehicles to bypass the stacking lanes.
Jeff Clifford, Altus Engineering, reviewed the changes. Matt Assia, Chinburg Builders, and Steve Pernaw, the Traffic Engineer, were also present. The dumpster has been relocated and made more accessible. The plan shows where they can stack eight cars behind the last window, making a total of nine cars on the site. There was a question whether a car could bypass the stacking lane if they did not want to be in line for the drive-through. There was some landscaping between the curb and sidewalk and that was eliminated to widen the area. They have 20.5 feet at the narrowest spot, which is wider than some roads, so two cars can get by. They were asked about the turning radius of the vehicle coming in, so they provided a plan for that in the Board’s packet. A good sized vehicle can go through there and make the turn.
He stated there is a pole that provides power to a light on the Polish Club’s property and that is all it does. The pole and the corresponding wire will be eliminated. Their final plan will reflect that.
He stated the patio will be a little bit bigger. They added a bike rack. The curbing is different. They originally had a mix, but made all of it vertical granite curb in the front. In back it is sloped granite.
He showed the landscape plan. The HVAC equipment will be screened with fencing material that will match the material of the building. He stated there are plantings that will go out in the front of the building. He indicated them on the plan.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated there would be no buffer in the winter with the deciduous trees that are being proposed. Jeff Clifford stated they are providing a mix of material. He stated their landscape architect prepared the plan. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they would buffer the side of the building from the road. When they lose their leaves, you will see the building. Jeff Clifford stated he would take that under advisement and talk to their landscape architect. Maybe they could come to an agreement with the Planner. He could not speak to the specifics.
Jeff Clifford stated the project has about 3,500 square feet of impervious surface being added. The existing site does not have any drainage structures. It is at the top of a watershed. The water from the north goes across toward the bridge and the catch basin on Main Street. The other side drains over land to another catchbasin. The problem of trying to tie into the storm water system is there is a tremendous amount of underground utilities that were part of the downtown revitalization work. It made it so they cannot get into those structures directly from the site. He indicated the direction of drainage from the site. What they have proposed, where they are limited, is a catchbasin at the edge of the parking lot near the corner of the building, which is as far as they could bring it in that direction. They can tie that back into the system taking a fair amount of drainage within the watershed to a treatment structure. At the back of the building, they are tying into a line they installed as part of the big parking lot upgrade to get ready for the retail building there. That will catch some pavement and roof runoff. They are breaking this into four places where water will go. He indicated them on the plan. They are adding treatment and reducing the amount of water going over land. These are little pieces of the site. Less than half a cubic foot per second is going toward a drainage facility. The Town is responsible for maintenance. He stated another piece of that is snow melting. There is no snow storage on site. It will all be removed. That will help prevent icing problems at the crosswalks. John Brackett asked about the pole on this property that was mentioned supplying power to the Polish Club for their exterior light. He asked how power would be supplied. Jeff Clifford stated they have options on their own land.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they were putting cement bollards out front, with the drive-through there, for pedestrian safety. Jeff Clifford stated none were proposed. He stated that was one of the reasons they have the vertical granite curb in that location. It is a different situation than a large shopping center parking area, where people can get a head of steam going. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated a lot could happen there.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked about the loading dock and the coordination of days and times it would be utilized. Jeff Clifford stated that was part of the document given to the Board on the management of the facility. Diane Hardy read from the document “Deliveries to the market and coffee shop will be scheduled by management to avoid the weekday morning peak period”. Rose-Anne Kwaks said, as a little refresher, trucking companies do things in sequence for a route. If they are at a place of business at a certain date and time, that is when the delivery will be made. She did not know how feasible that is going forward. Jeff Clifford stated there was a fair amount of discussion about this at the TRC meeting. They had other people there, who are not present this evening, who talked about management of the facility and the hours they have deliveries coming to their other facilities. They left everyone with a pretty good feeling. Chairman Botterman stated, if the truck comes at peak hours, there will be cars sitting in their way and they will not want to do that either. He trusts they will schedule deliveries at other times. They have to coordinate that with management and make it work. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what the hours of operation were for the grocery store. Dana Spence stated they would be 9 am to 9 pm.
Jeff Clifford reviewed the waiver requests that were granted for the prior application. Given the nuance of the changes, they felt they should be addressed.
Steve Pernaw, Pernaw & Company Traffic Engineer, was present. He did the initial traffic analysis. He updated the Board on what has happened over the last two months. The last time he was before the Board was May 13. Since that time, they did their own traffic counts on a similar Aroma Joe’s on Charles Street, in Dover. They picked that location, because it is the busiest store to date. They attended the TRC meeting and shared some of the information from that meeting. They prepared a memo that provided the information the Town was looking for. They followed up with another TRC meeting. The purpose of the first memo was to come up with a queue length estimate. They came up with eight vehicles of stacking during the morning peak hour. That was based on an arrival and discharge rate and traffic flow theory. What they found out by doing the analysis at the similar site was that it had the same discharge rate as what they had used in their report. It was a busy site and they picked the busiest day. The stacking of eight cars was reviewed by VHB and they agreed with the analysis and methodology. In terms of the Saturday analysis, they estimate during the peak hour period when both shops will be open, the site will generate 137 trips during that peak hour period. They ran the analysis on the queuing and it came out to five vehicles during the Saturday period. To summarize what VHB said in their memo he stated they said the methodology is appropriate for the site, the service rate is appropriate and they agreed with the Saturday peak hour projections. They also did go to The Coffee Station, at the Board’s request, and did some observations there. That is also in their queuing memorandum. He stated that is like dealing with apples and oranges. The way that particular coffee shop is set up is entirely different than what is proposed for Aroma Joe’s.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the studies were done with the traffic calming concept. Diane Hardy stated it really doesn’t have to do with the onsite work, but they will coordinate the two efforts. They will get copies of the plans to the Town’s design engineer and vice versa. She has spoken to the applicant about the timing. Their site improvements will probably be done before the Town starts the traffic calming improvements. They are talking about a fall 2014 completion date. The Town will be going out to bid on the traffic calming project during the winter. There will be coordination to make sure it is a coherent and cohesive plan. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated this is one of the most dangerous areas in town and to have cars queuing up there that could back up onto the street makes it more hazardous. There have been complaints about cars at The Coffee Station with cars backing up onto the roads and causing problems. This even happens during the day, not just at peak hours. She asked if this store would go forward without the Aroma Joe’s in it. Matt Assia stated, at prior meetings, they have spoken about the owner’s need to have Aroma Joe’s as part of their revenue stream in order to make the project financially feasible.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the owner has other grocery stores he has had for several years. She asked if any of those have Aroma Joe’s with them. Matt Assia stated they do not. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they were financially solvent. She stated Eric Chinburg had said at previous meetings they had to have this in order to be viable. Chairman Botterman stated they just reiterated that tonight. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated he has several other stores that he has had for many years that are doing fine without an Aroma Joe’s. Chairman Botterman stated every site is unique. The grocery tenant has a standalone market in South Berwick, but that has nothing to do with what is viable in Newmarket. It is beyond this Board to get into their financial information. Diane Hardy stated it is not just that the site is unique, the market area is also unique. Chairman Botterman stated he understands Mrs. Kwak’s concerns about the traffic calming project. What is in front of the Board right now is a traffic analysis by Mr. Pernaw that says that traffic will not back up onto Route 108. The Town’s engineer reviewed it and came to the same conclusion. Chairman Botterman stated he is an engineer, but not a traffic engineer. When the Town’s own review engineer says the site is okay, he has to take that at face value. VHB has no vested interest in this at all. The VHB consultant was working for the Town and he has no reason to doubt that VHB’s analysis is accurate. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what happens if they start having problems at the site. Diane Hardy stated there is recourse. There is follow-up memorandum from the Town’s Traffic Engineer. She had the opportunity to talk with him this afternoon. She submitted to him the revised plans that were given to the Planning Office last Wednesday. She has also submitted to him the “Drive-through Coffee Management plan”. She went over his comments from his memo and stated he is available by phone this evening, if the Board has questions. She read the memo, which is as follows:
It appears the Drive Through Management Plan is short and to the point. Maybe for the record tonight, some reference to “observe a consistent queue longer than 5 cars” can be discussed to make sure it is understood by all what a “consistent queue” looks like. For example, if there are 6 or more in queue for 5 minutes, is that the trigger? What about anytime the queue exceeds the 8 “positions” indicated on the site plan? I assume that adherence to the Management Plan will be a condition of approval.
I also remember at the first TRC meeting some discussion of what happens if the queue does back-up onto Route 108. Perhaps this can be discussed on the record to indicate that if the queue ever exceeds on-site storage capacity, the Police will be called to monitor traffic at the operator’s expense. If the back-ups were to become a regular occurrence, it could be grounds for revocation. Again, the analysis indicates that with 95% confidence, back-ups to Route 108 are unlikely to occur but it doesn’t hurt to have this on the record anyway.
It may also be beneficial to require that the drive-through pavement markings remain in “like-new” condition for at least the first 24 months of operations as drivers get used to the two entry lanes at Driveway B (left side for drive-through, right side for parking access).
Other than these few items, I think the discussions at the two TRC meetings covered the key issues for the approval conditions.
Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding about attendance at the meeting tonight. I will be available by phone (603-361-0133) until about 9:30PM if you would like to conference me into the discussion at the meeting.
Mark D. Suennen, P.E., PTOE
Project Manager
Diane Hardy asked Mr. Pernaw if he had a chance to look at the memo. Matt Assia stated Harry Wesson and Dana Spence are the operators of the market and coffee shop and they were present at the TRC meeting, as well as Loren Goodridge from Aroma Joe’s corporate. He had spoken in detail about how Aroma Joe’s operates their drive-throughs to ensure their customers are served in a timely manner and they have the best experience they can have. It was Loren Goodrich that went over the management plan and how they train their staff to observe the line and make sure they are using both windows effectively and efficiently, so if the line is longer than five cars as mentioned, it can be serviced quickly and the service time can be reduced. They are in the business of selling coffee and they want to make sure that the line does not get too long, because people will not stop if it is. They have two windows rather than a machine you are talking to. Both are service windows.
Diane Hardy stated the second paragraph addresses what Rose-Anne Kwaks had asked about. She stated it was suggested if the traffic does back up enough to be on Route 108, the police would be contacted to monitor the traffic at the owner’s expense. If it becomes a regular occurrence, it could be grounds for revocation of the site plan. The Planning Board would review the situation, have a public hearing, and if it was felt to be a critical situation that could not be resolved, then the Board could revoke this approval. Chairman Botterman stated more than likely the NH DOT Access Permit would be the same way. The applicant has been willing to work in partnership with the Town and, if there is a problem, the Town will work with them to rectify the situation. The memo stated the analysis was done with 95% confidence, which means they are 95% sure that there will never be a backup on Route 108, which is a high percentage. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked that this memo be included verbatim in the minutes.
Janice Rosa stated she was on the TRC and she was not comfortable with the queuing. She was disappointed with the owner being very adamant that he would not make any changes to the plan with different approaches to the property. He could redesign it. This was highly discussed. She asked if the Chief of Police had given any input. Diane Hardy stated they have not received a response. She would be happy to follow up, if the Board wished.
There was a general question and answer about the mill tenants’ parking behind the library.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, at the May meeting, Diane Hardy had asked for a new analysis of parking review and a spreadsheet. Diane Hardy stated she had received it. Jeff Clifford stated the table was developed last year. They looked at the available parking and assessed what the demand was in relation to the supply. He indicated the parking on a plan. He showed where the mill parking was located. He showed the parking at the Riverdale location and the retail shops. The demand at the Riverdale site actually went down by one from the restaurant plan. The supply went down by three, because there are three fewer parking spaces at the Riverdale site. The net effect of that is the surplus went from 22 to 20. It is not a significant amount. There are still 20 parking spaces as a buffer during peak times.
Jeff Clifford went over the waiver requests. They are requesting a waiver from 3.02(A) for the number of parking spaces. The M1 and M2 District, which they are not in, but it is still all part of the M1 analysis that was done. It is part of the previously approved shared parking arrangement for the mills, which has a net surplus of 20 spaces.
He stated the next one is from Section 3.02(B)(4) curbing. They are asking for granite curbs. They would like to provide consistency with the curbing at the mill sites.
He stated the other waiver from Section 3.02(C) parking location. Except in the M1 and M2, parking shall comply with setback requirements. Parking is no permitted in the front parking setback. They majority of the parking is within areas currently used for parking. Because of the zoning change, the setbacks changed. The majority of the parking on site should be considered grandfathered.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Diane Hardy stated she had started a list of conditions of approval. She made a recommendation with four conditions. There may be conditions added based on tonight’s comments. She recommends conditional approval subject to the implementation of the drive-thru coffee management plan provided by the applicant in their letter dated June 30, 2014. She would also like to include the conditions recommended by our Traffic Consultant Mark Suennen in his July 8, 2014 email. The next condition that it is subject to the issuance of an updated highway access permit but the NH DOT Division Six for the proposed use of the property for the Newmarket Mills/Riverdale Market with the drive-through for coffee service, as presented by the applicant in these Planning Board proceedings and discussions with the TRC. For condition three, she recommends the granting of the waivers outlined. She would like to identify that there was one additional waiver, hydric soils, that applied to the old site and it will apply to this. Hydric soils are critical if there are wetlands and newly developed sites, so it does not apply. She added this to be consistent with the last review. For number four, she did not hear from Rick Malasky, the Public Works Director/Fire Chief, on the review of the revised plans submitted last week. By all indications at the TRC meeting from last week, he seemed to be on board with the changes. He had a couple of initial concerns with the location of the HVAC equipment in the front of the building and that was taken care of by screening. He also had the same concern that John Brackett raised about getting in and out of the handicap parking space and that was addressed. He initially had concerns with the traffic queuing, but seemed satisfied at the TRC meeting. Chairman Botterman stated he ran into Mr. Malasky and he said he was okay with everything. He would still recommend a condition stating that he is okay with it. Mr. Malasky stated it was a good TRC meeting and all of his issues were addressed. Diane Hardy stated there had been discussion about working with the applicant on the selection of plant materials along the buffer. She was willing to work with Mrs. Kwaks and the applicant on this. Also, regarding the concept of a bollard for pedestrian safety, she knows nothing is planned and it is a low traffic area, with low speeds. She would defer to the Planning Board as to whether something is needed. There is a six inch vertical granite curb there. She stated the hours of operation were clarified. Mrs. Rosa had suggested obtaining correspondence from the Police Chief. She was happy to show the plans to him and work with him, if the Board chooses.
There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Botterman stated they will go through the waivers one by one.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to grant the reconsideration of the waiver that was granted by the Planning Board on April 9, 2013, for Section 3.02(A)(1) Number of Parking Spaces
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to grant the waiver for Section 3.02(B)(4) Curbing
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to grant the waiver that was granted by the Planning Board on April 9, 2013, Section 3.02 Parking Location with respect to setbacks
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to grant the waiver for the reconsideration of the waiver that was granted by the Planning Board on April 9, 2013, Section 4.10(B)(2) Hydric Soils
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated he was fine with Diane Hardy’s recommendation and asked the Board if they had anything further.
Chairman Botterman stated there had been discussion of plant materials in the buffer in front of the building. He is okay with it. The Board agreed it was a good suggestion.
Chairman Botterman stated there was a suggestion of putting bollards in front. He understands Mrs. Kwak’s concern. He said, to him, it is at the discretion of the developer to put them in. He did not feel they should require them. John Badger stated the curbing will be sufficient. John Brackett stated he agreed with leaving this to the developer for the aesthetics of the lot. He did not believe they were necessary. The majority of the Board did not want to require bollards.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the staff recommendations for the conditional approval, subject to the conditions for the Riverdale market
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Hayden Family Rev. Trust, Mark L & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision, at 74 Bald Hill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone. The proposal is to subdivide a 41.399 acre parcel into two lots, one being a 29.953 acre lot and the other an 11.447 acre lot to remain with the existing residence.
Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the plans against the checklist and they are substantially complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application as complete
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Christian Smith, Beals Associates, represented the owner and applicant. He stated the proposal is fairly simple, virtually the same as what they went through in the Design Review. He described the proposal. Mr. Hayden will keep his farmhouse on one parcel and the other lot would be larger. He would like to keep an area where he can cut trees for firewood. They left a 15’ wide pedestrian access for possibly a four wheeler, so he can access the trees back there. The remaining area is 29.95 acres. That parcel will be the subject of the next hearing for the 10-lot subdivision. These are both oversized conforming lots. The only thing they are waiting for is the issuance of tax map and lot numbers for the parcels.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Diane Hardy stated she recommended conditional approval with the following conditions:
1. Total frontage calculations be provided on the plan for both lots, pursuant to Section 4.06 Approval Sheets of the Town of Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
2. Each lot shall be labeled in accordance with the Town’s tax mapping system as set forth in Section 4.10 Site Information of the Town of Newmarket Subdivision Regulations in consultation with the Town Assessor’s office
3. The plan, with the above-noted changes shall be recorded at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds prior to the 10-lot subdivision for the Open Space development that is being submitted concurrently at this meeting.
It was decided to keep #3 off of the approval and add it to the next approval.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application for subdivision for the Hayden Family Rev. Trust, Mark L & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. for an application the two-lot subdivision to subdivide a 41.399 acre parcel into two lots, one being a 29.953 acre lot and the other an 11.447 acre lot subject the conditions:
1. Total frontage calculations be provided on the plan for both lots, pursuant to Section 4.06 Approval Sheets of the Town of Newmarket Subdivision Regulations.
2. Each lot shall be labeled in accordance with the Town’s tax mapping system as set forth in Section 4.10 Site Information of the Town of Newmarket Subdivision Regulations in consultation with the Town Assessor’s office.
Second: John Badger
Vote: All in favor
Hayden Family Revocable Trust/Mark L. & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for Special Use Permit and Subdivision related to a ten (10) lot Residential Open Space Design Development at 74 Bald Hill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone. The proposed development involves the construction of single family homes on a small cul-de-sac, and the preservation of 21.09 acres as open space on a parcel of approximately 36 acres. A Special Use Permit is also requested in reference to Section 6.0 Residential Open Space Design of the Newmarket Zoning Ordinance.
The Board decided to discuss the two applications separately.
Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the application against the checklist. She recommended the Board accept the Special Use Permit application for technical review and the Planning Board set up a site walk. Also, a TRC should be set up to review the application to see if a Special Use Permit is in order. She had identified a couple of deficiencies and the applicant will address those this evening. One of her primary concerns was there was not a clear understanding of how the proposed open space design corresponds to the environmental constraints of the land.
Diane Hardy stated there needs to be a correlation between the environmental features of this site and the design. The design should protect steep slopes, scenic vistas, habitat, vegetation, mature trees, and buffers.
Christian Smith, Beals Associates, stated the plan in front of the Board tonight is just a fleshed out version of what they had proposed at that time. He stated they would forward plans to Underwood Engineers and the Conservation Commission. They tried to prepare a plan using the aerial photo for existing conditions and overlay the development on that. You can see the topography. Diane Hardy had asked if there were any highly erodible soils that should be in the Environmental Resource Analysis. There are none according to the Wetland Scientist. There was a question about how the plan deals with stone walls. The stone wall at the street will be interrupted to get the road through. There is one stone wall along a trail out there and it is not in good shape. It falls near a lot line between lot 6 and 7. They would like to use some of it between those lots and use some along the road to demarcate the open space entrance. It is a common thing to do with the old stone walls. He stated they have tucked everything back in keeping with minimal disturbance of woodlands. The only unforested area is near the existing home. They did pull things back as far as possible to keep the deforestation on the lots to a minimum and they are basically preserving the steep slopes. There are steep slopes on the back of some of the lots and the only thing that might affect those are wells. No more than 20% is being cleared for buildings and driveways. Those are set back only to facilitate getting the septic fields in. Regarding preservation of scenic views, ridgetops and hilltops, he showed the plan. The top of Bald Hill will be completely preserved and all of the native forest will remain in its natural state. Regarding the protection of wildlife, pulling this down toward the existing house, maintaining the required 75’ setbacks keeps the wildlife corridor intact. They do have some existing trails. Doucet Survey did not go beyond the area of development to locate those. He has asked them to pick those up. Regarding maintenance of common facilities and open space, there are no common facilities proposed and the open space will be in conversation. Regarding the land stewardship plan, there is nothing proposed and this would make sure people are not doing things they should not be doing, like using ATVs. They will talk to the Conservation Commission about the provisions to include.
Regarding a waiver for Lots 1, 2, and 3, he has prepared a request to that effect regarding access to the open space. They are asking this to be allowed to abut the right of way on the frontage but not along the rear of the lots. The three lots have access to the open space via the fee title strip opening at the end of the cul de sac. All are within 300’ feet from the furthest point of those three parcels. Providing physical lot line contact with the open space for those lots would require a lot configuration that would create bigger lots and push things into the areas they are trying to stay away from and result in odd looking parcels. It would also reduce the open space area.
Another waiver will be for the paving width. They propose a 10’ lane as opposed to 12’ lane or a 20’ paved road as opposed to 24’. They feel it is in keeping with the rural character of the development. There was a question of having enough room in the cul de sac if cars were parked. If the cul de sac is made one-way travel, that would alleviate the problem. There is also a 4’ shoulder. They are trying to minimize pavement.
Diane Hardy stated she was satisfied with their response to her concerns. The application is substantially complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hayden Family Revocable Trust/Mark L. & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. at 74 Bald Hill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
A TRC meeting will be held, as well as a site walk. Rose-Anne Kwaks and Janice Rosa volunteered for the committee.
There will be a site walk on Monday, July 21, 2014, at 6:00 p.m.
Christian Smith will get the plans to Underwood Engineers.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue both of the public hearings to the August 12, 2014 Planning Board meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Chairman's Report
Committee Reports
Planner's Report
Diane Hardy reminded everyone of the traffic calming public information meeting on July 9.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to adjourn at 9:48 p.m.
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor