Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 12, 2014
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy, (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), Ginger Smith (Alternate), Rose-Anne Kwaks (Alternate)
Absent: John Badger, John Brackett both excused
Called to order: 7:02 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:56 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Chairman Botterman appointed Rose-Anne Kwaks to sit in for John Badger and Ginger Smith to sit in for John Brackett.
Robert Gazda, 27 Packers Falls Road, expressed his concern about the appearance of the condominiums at 15 Water Street. He had attended the earlier site walk at 13-15 Water Street. He asked if anything could be done to improve the appearance of the side of the building facing the street. Chairman Botterman explained it was beyond the Planning Board’s purview to control the design of a building. Val Shelton mentioned that citizens were always welcome to bring concerns to the Board and Town Council and suggest changes to the regulations and ordinances. She stated the question is whether the owner is in compliance with the landscaping plan that was submitted. Diane Hardy stated there was some landscaping proposed for that side of the building, but the applicant stated the landscape architect felt it was too dark and confined there to put in any landscaping. She stated you could not put in 40’ trees to block the building from the street back there. Mr. Gazda asked if they could put potted trees, like Rivermoor Landing did in the parking lot. Diane Hardy stated they could ask the owner to do that, but the Board does not have the jurisdiction to require him to do that. She stated they had worked with this applicant for over three years on this project. Mr. Gazda asked why their previous plans were “shot down”. Diane Hardy stated they were not “shot down”, the owner revised the plans. Chairman Botterman stated Mr. Gazda was welcome to go to the office and review the files to see the progression of this application over the years. Mr. Gazda asked if there was anything the citizens could petition or do to change the façade of that building. Chairman Botterman stated the citizens of Newmarket could petition the Town Council or Planning Board for anything they wish. He felt the response they would get would be the Town has no jurisdiction over telling him what his building has to look like. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated he could have citizens petition the Town Council for an architectural review ordinance, so in the future, there would be some regulations in place and there will not be this kind of problem.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes
07/08/14
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of July 8, 2014
Second: Ginger Smith
Vote: All in favor
Ginger Smith & Jane Ford abstained due to absence
07/21/14 Site Walk
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the Planning Board minutes of the site walk on Bald Hill Road
Diane Hardy stated there were only two Planning Board members at the site walk, which is not a quorum, so this did not officially qualify as a meeting. No minutes were necessary. They will be kept as a record of the site walk, but no approval is needed.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Consideration of application for Alternate: Peter Nelson
Peter Nelson stated he had moved to Newmarket and wanted to participate in the community. He has an Undergraduate Degree in Urban and Environmental Planning and a Master’s Degree in Regional Planning. He has not done a lot of planning. He is a software entrepreneur. He and his wife like to immerse themselves locally. They came from Nashua. His wife was Conservation Commission Chair for a number of years. They have always been very active in the communities in which they have lived.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to appoint Peter Nelson as an Alternate member of the Planning Board, the term to expire March 2015
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
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.
The applicant has requested a continuance to the next meeting.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application for NIP Lot 6 LLC/Shearwater Investment Corp. regarding Tax Map R3, Lot 8, and R3, Lot 9-6 to the September 9th meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
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.
Chairman Botterman stated they would hold off on the Subdivision public hearing until they get through the Special Use Permit.
Diane Hardy updated the Board on the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting. There was a site walk on July 21, 2014. The TRC Committee, made up of Rose-Anne Kwaks and Janice Rosa, and the applicant’s engineer met primarily to review the criteria for the Special Use Permit. They went through the checklist for the Special Use Permit. Several changes were recommended. The applicant took those under advisement and came in with revised plans and all of the TRC recommendations had been met. She has put together a recommended motion for conditional approval for the Special Use Permit for the Board. This outlines the Findings of Fact. She stated the application is ready for conditional approval.
Chairman Botterman asked Christian Smith, from Beals Associates, to walk them through the development, the yield plan and the open space plan again for the people watching the meeting at home.
Christian Smith stated they gave Diane Hardy a copy of the revised yield plan this evening and he went over it. He stated there had been a site walk on July 21. The proposal right now is to bequeath the open space land to the Town.
Diane Hardy recommended the following conditions for the conditional approval for the Special Use Permit:
1. All deeds and easements pertaining to the open space drainage structures and best management practices to be reviewed and approved by the Town’s legal counsel.
2. A land stewardship plan in narrative form be professionally prepared, which focuses on the long term maintenance of the open space and addresses items such as measures to correct potentially destructive measures such as erosion, a maintenance and operation to maintain the stability of the natural resources and cultural resources on the site, management of the woodlands and buffer area, landscaping, the preservation of wildlife values, enhancement of scenic views, and the protection of the significant mature trees on the site.
Diane Hardy noted here there was an area near the proposed cul de sac, with rows of sugar maples. The applicant had expressed a willingness to preserve those and offered to work with the Board in the drafting of the conservation restrictions to ensure they would be maintained and preserved.
3. The open space conservation land be clearly marked on the plan.
She stated, right now, it is just identified as R7, Lot 21, but that is the open space that will be preserved in perpetuity, as part of the easement documents that will be prepared as part of the conveyance to the Town, if, in fact, that is what the ultimate provision will be.
4. Given the remote location of the site, which is probably over 5 miles from the Town’s Fire Station, the Fire Chief is adamant that we have some alternative form of fire protection. The Fire Chief is recommending the construction of a 30,000 gallon cistern. Diane Hardy wanted this included in the conditions, so the applicant knows up front that is what the Town’s expectations are.
5. Suitable provisions will be provided for trail parking.
Diane Hardy stated the applicant has offered to make the open space available to the public for the hiking trails. The Conservation Commission asked there be some provisions for parking, so the public can take advantage of that. They would like to see this integrated into the final subdivision plan. This is contingent upon the applicant coming forward with a subdivision application that meets the Town’s subdivision requirements. There is a TRC meeting scheduled for this coming Thursday.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked about the drainage system being closed. Diane Hardy stated, typically, those are things that come up in the subdivision review process. They will be working with the applicant and the Town Engineer. There are concerns about the steepness of the road. In some places the grade is 8%. The Public Works Director has had experiences, with other steep roads in Town that have been washed out during storm events. They have been repaired at the Town’s expense and they want to avert those problems in the future.
Dan Wright asked where the parking would be to access the open space. Christian Smith stated the cul de sac would be a one-way to the right, so that vehicles can park on the 4’ shoulder. It would be easy to fit six average sized cars there. They did not have the size of Newmarket’s ladder truck, so they used Hampton’s truck size and it can get around the circle without clipping a vehicle if they are properly parked off to the side.
Val Shelton stated the deeding of the conservation land to the Town should be clearly shown on the plan.
Chairman Botterman stated regarding the cistern, he felt it was not part of the Special Use Permit and should not be talking about that, at this time. If they are going to address it at this point, the Board should give themselves some wiggle room to say they understand the Fire Chief would like a cistern, but there are other potential alternatives. The Board should not restrict this to a cistern, if something else comes up in the design process that is deemed to be acceptable to the Fire Chief. He did not want to overrule him, but a cistern is not the only way. A fire pond could be dug, for example, among other things. He suggested, if this condition is left in there, they should say, “Construction of a cistern or other system acceptable to the Fire Chief”. Val Shelton stated this provision should fall under Subdivision approval. This discussion should take place during that process. Christian Smith stated that would be a more appropriate condition for the Subdivision approval.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application for a Special Use Permit for the Hayden Family Revocable Trust, /Mark L. & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. to do a Residential Open Space Design Development on Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone with the conditions as outlined in the memorandum of the Town Planner August 8, 2014, Numbers 1, 2, 3 amended to add that the land be deeded to the Town of Newmarket be shown on the plan, and Number 5 be included that there be an addition to the subdivision plan for parking for a minimum of six vehicles for public use.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman stated they would now move on to the Subdivision application.
Diane Hardy recommended the Board accept the application for technical review as it is complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they accept the application as substantially complete for Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone, for a proposed development of 36 acres to include ten lots
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
Chairman Botterman read the public hearing notice.
Christian Smith described the subdivision plan. There is a waiver request to reduce the road width to 20’ of pavement. The Public Works Director and Underwood Engineers had stated that should be 22’. The applicant has no issue with changing the request. They will bring in a revised waiver request to the TRC meeting.
He stated they are proposing a 10 lot Open Space Subdivision. It consists of a 570’ length road that ends in a cul de sac. Around the loop it goes to about 816’ before it comes back together. The lots have been test pitted. The soil scientist has done site specific soils tests. They have also done a drainage analysis. The proposal is for open swales. There is an infiltration pond at one location. The soils are very good. The bulk of soils are classified as hydrologic A or B. They have comments from Underwood Engineers stating they would prefer bituminous cape cod curbing, as does the Department of Public Works. They will eliminate the infiltration pond in favor of an infiltration trench with a bypass pipe. That would end up with about four catchbasins. They have not yet done the new drainage evaluation. That may mean the pond needs to be larger. There is an existing culvert. They were planning on putting in a drainage manhole, which would collect water from either side of the road from culverts into the manhole and then extend or maintain the existing one. They were going to look at the condition of the existing pipe. It is corrugated metal. They do provide the street trees. In the center of the cul de sac they are proposing a planting of three deciduous trees. They had proposed the cul de sac to drain away from the exterior swales. The DPW Director is requesting that the crown of the road be carried all the way around the cul de sac and that the interior become a small depression with a culvert outlet. The applicant is not requesting a waiver on the road slope. This is designed at 8% for about 300’. That is the Town’s allowed maximum. For fire suppression, there is an existing hydrant in Newfields. It is within 7/10 of a mile from the proposed intersection. The regulations state a suitable hydrant with a suitable volume of water for firefighting needs to be available within a mile of the most remote home. From the intersection, the most remote home would be another 1500 feet and would still be code compliant. There will not be any homes further away than 1500 feet away from the intersection. This is likely a fire fighting source that meets the regulations.
Val Shelton stated there are a lot of mature trees along the stone wall that would buffer the development. With the development of the detention pond and the potential for enlargement of it, she asked if that would impact the root systems of these trees. Christian Smith stated the intent was the grading was back far enough it should not impact the roots of those trees along the stone wall. They are also proposing some tree plantings in that area.
Jane Ford asked, in general, about sharing of such municipal resources, and whether there would be any cost obligation to Newmarket if such an arrangement were possible. Christian Smith stated there is a mutual aid agreement between the towns. Maintenance of the hydrant would be Newfields’ responsibility. Chairman Botterman stated there is nothing that says Newfields cannot remove that hydrant tomorrow and there wouldn’t be proper fire protection. They would need a better understanding of that situation.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they can put a condition on something that is against the wishes of the Fire Chief. Chairman Botterman stated he was not sure the Board is going to do that. He was just stating his opinion.
Robert Gazda, Packers Falls Road, stated he was on the Conservation Commission. The other night, they had discussed whether any consideration had been given to making a parking (separate) lot instead of having parking on the cul-de-sac. Diane Hardy stated that was discussed at the TRC meeting. They agreed to provide parking along the cul de sac. It had been suggested that there be a couple of parking spaces off the cul de sac. She stated she understood there was going to be a meeting between the applicant and the Conservation Commission this coming Thursday. She was hoping they would hammer out the details and provide more specific input to the Planning Board.
Dan Wright asked if they went with the fire hydrant option, would a flow test be done. Christian Smith stated he thought they would have to do a flow test.
Diane Hardy stated the TRC meeting would be this coming Thursday at 1:00 p.m. at the Fire Station.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the subdivision application for the 10 lot Residential Open Space Design subdivision at 74 Bald Hill Road, Tax Map R7, lot 24, R1 Zone to the September 9, 2014 Planning Board meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Kenepp, Keefe, Janelle - Public hearing for an application for Boundary Line Adjustment, requested by David G. Kenepp & Ellen Keefe, 10 Great Cove Drive, Tax Map U3, Lot 76 and Tracy & William Janelle, 6 Great Cove Drive, Tax Map U3, Lot 74, both lots located in the R2 Zone. The proposal is to take 0.21 acres of land from Lot 76, which currently has an area of 1.62 acres, and add it to Lot 74, which currently has an area of 0.62 acres.
Bill Janelle, owner of Lot 74, presented the plan. On his lot, there is an existing mobile home, driveway and garage. A portion of the mobile home and the driveway extend over the lot line onto his neighbor’s lot. He showed a plan of the properties. The proposal is to take about .2 acres and add it to the other lot to correct the situation.
Diane Hardy stated the application meets the checklist requirements and can be accepted for review. There are a couple of things to note. Typically they ask the applicant to draw the building setbacks on the plan. Those have not been provided on the newly configured lots. That would be helpful going forward. Also, the property is located on the Lamprey River. One of the checklist requirements is that the 100 year floodplain be shown. That data should be included on the plan.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the application for the Boundary Line Adjustment request by David G. Kenepp & Ellen Keefe, 10 Great Cove Drive, Tax Map U3, Lot 76 and Tracy & William Janelle, 6 Great Cove Drive, Tax Map U3, Lot 74, both lots located in the R2 Zone. The proposal is to take 0.21 acres of land from Lot 76, which currently has an area of 1.62 acres, and add it to Lot 74, which currently has an area of 0.62 acres.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Walter Cheney - Design Review, at Tax Map U4, Lots 12 (56 Exeter Road), 13 (54 Exeter Road), & 14 (52 Exeter Road), M2A Zone. The proposal is to remove the three existing buildings and construct a new two-story mixed-use building. As part of the site plan approval process and upon approval, the lots will be merged into one lot and added to the Newmarket Business Park.
Dan Wright stated he owns property in the Newmarket Business Park, but would experience no financial gain from this project. He asked for the Board’s opinion of whether he should recuse himself. The Board had no issues with him remaining seated on the Board for discussion of this application.
Mike Sievert, MJS Engineering, represented the applicant. He described the property location. There is a commercial office on the southerly lot, closest to the Business Park entrance. There are two residential houses on the other lots, with four residential units between them. The proposal is to combine the lots, remove all of the existing buildings and redevelop this with one commercial/mixed use building. It would be about 11,500 sq. ft. The first floor would be all commercial. The second would be all residential. There would be a total of eight 1,000 sq. ft. residential units. There would be a separate residential access in the northerly corner, with some commercial accesses in the back. There are three driveways currently coming off of Route 108. This would close all of those and the access would be from the existing road into the Business Park. There would be a one-way loop through to accommodate the parking and narrowness of the lot. There are 78 parking spaces. They have calculated that about 74 are required, using 200 sq. ft. for the commercial use and 16 parking spaces for the residential. He showed the parking on the plan. They laid out some sidewalks. There is good access from Route 108. There would be sidewalks in the back. There would be an elevator to the upstairs, as well as stairwells on each end. He showed the location of a retaining wall. It would be about 4’ to 5’ high. There is quite a bit of ledge. Some of that may be incorporated into the wall. There will be a retaining wall between the two parking areas. He did not know what material would be used yet. They are hoping to be able to use the existing rock. Ideally, they would like to use a precast block.
Val Shelton stated one thing that came up with the Economic Development Committee was relative to the density criteria and limitations in the M2A Zone. If you look at the building, there is 11, 500 sq. ft. on the first floor. If they did a traditional colonial style building, 44% of the second floor is non-residential area, because of the limitation. She asked if the design of the building, in order to deal with the current zoning, would be like a Cape style. Mike Sievert stated that was correct. The previous plan for this lot showed kind of a Cape with a mansard roof and a railroad depot type look. The way they have this laid out was to utilize these spaces, because of the extra space, and build a storage and utility area to keep the utilities out of the interior. Each space would be accessed by the hallway, so the utilities could be maintained. There could be some indoor storage in the units. They are trying to figure out some storage outside of the units. It is not livable space. They anticipate you could put a water heater or a heating and cooling unit, like a utility room. He stated they could incorporate a hallway, stairs and elevator that would eat up some space.
Mike Sievert stated he would like to flesh out some things, such as the parking. He asked if they really needed to have 78 parking spaces. If he did not, they would be happy. They would be able to utilize more commercial space. They are a little concerned about drainage.
Val Shelton asked if the existing parking ever filled for the other buildings. Dan Wright stated it did not for the Wentworth Douglass building. His office has arranged for the patients to be as close to the entrance as possible, while the workers park out back. That works out well. He believes they have 28 or 30 parking spaces. Diane Hardy stated she was surprised by the large amount of impervious surface, when she saw the plan. She stated there is 20% of the area left as open space, which is very small, they should do anything they can to reduce the amount of impervious. There is a parking requirement for the residential units.
For the commercial aspect, the Planning Board has flexibility and does not have to require the prescribed parking standard. She would ask they look at the parking needs based on the ITE standards to see if they could reduce the parking. In the M2 District shared parking is possible through reciprocal agreements. Mike Sievert stated he showed meeting the worst case scenario. Ideally, they would like to reduce that. They would like to reduce the parking and maybe go a little bit bigger with the building, drainage, and green space. Diane Hardy stated this project would be subject to the new stormwater regulations, where they encourage the use of porous pavement, rain gardens and best management practices to keep the water on site. They may need that extra room to be able to do that. Mike Sievert stated, on this site, porous pavement would be tough given the ledge.
Rose-Anne stated she wanted to see more parking. Route 108 is busy and has parking on one side. The railroad tracks are there. She would like to see more parking. They may need the parking spaces. She did not want to see the homeowners across the street affected by their parking spaces being utilized. The parking lot at the other two buildings does not have any problems, but there is a third building approved there and that has not been built. When that comes online, it could be a problem. Dan Wright stated the parking spaces for those buildings are already reserved. Eric Botterman stated he would like to see a reduction in parking in exchange for green space and stormwater management. It has to meet Mr. Cheney’s plans for the project. He agrees with Rose-Anne Kwaks in they do not want to be short on parking, but you very seldom see parking lots full.
Diane Hardy stated the Town owns a lot that is adjacent to the three lots. The lot is next to the railroad tracks. There is an access easement that currently crosses Lot 14. That needs to be maintained. She would like that easement to be shown on the final plan. That provides access to the Town’s land.
Val Shelton asked if the applicant considered having access to their property through the Town’s lot. She stated she realized this is the Town Council’s purview. Eric Botterman stated Mr. Cheney had approached the Town Council in the past about purchasing that lot.
Eric Botterman stated the applicant would like some direction on some issues. He stated they touched on some of the significant issues.
Diane Hardy stated they would like an architectural drawing when they come in with a site plan. Mike Sievert stated they have contacted an architect.
Lisa Parker asked if the residential would be two bedroom. Mike Sievert stated they would be two bedroom. Lisa Parker asked what kind of business would be in the commercial portion. Mike Sievert stated anything that would go in there. They do not have tenants yet. There would be four units maximum. Lisa Parker stated she would like to know what is going into the commercial space.
Dan Wright stated parking is great except for two things. You have to pay for it and you are assessed every year on a parking space. It is not cheap.
Mike Sievert stated the stairwells would be spread apart and the elevator area could go in the center. Given the length of the stairwell, the stairwell could be in the center.
Chairman Botterman stated he would like to see a reduction in parking. That needs to be detailed in the analysis for the commercial space. They need to justify that. He would rather see more green space.
Mike Sievert stated, in the past, they have done some parking studies. The hard part is, unless they get really lucky, they will not know the commercial uses. They could anticipate some mixed uses that might drive some parking up and look at a happy medium.
Val Shelton stated, from a site plan perspective, they really need to delineate the use. Diane Hardy stated it may mean they might have to revisit the site plan, as they did with the Chinburg (Retail Center) project.
Chairman Botterman stated what is worse than building too much parking is building too little. It will choke the commercial enterprises. He leaves it up to the owner to what they feel comfortable with. If there is a significant portion of the site where parking is eliminated, there is nothing saying it cannot be added later if something changes. Mike Sievert stated the idea would be to minimize the parking, but have it available so it does not minimize the use of that commercial space in the future. That balance will be what they strive for.
Chairman Botterman asked what they think their best guess is for stormwater management. Mike Sievert stated the soils are not that great and that is good as far as drainage. There will not be a huge increase in runoff. They will look for more space in one corner, with some kind of infiltration or stormwater management system there, whether it is a rain garden or something else. If they would end up with a lot of this parking, they could do an underground storage system that would detain the water. It does not do a lot for treatment or reduction of volume. The underground drainage is a lot higher expense. There is some closed drainage in Route 108 they could tie into.
Diane Hardy stated they would need a traffic impact study. Chairman Botterman stated the State will be happy, because they are reducing curb cuts.
Val Shelton asked if they would request any waivers. Mike Sievert stated parking might be able to be worked out. He did not think he would be looking for any yet.
Diane Hardy stated there is a requirement that there be a buffer around the property with a rear and side setback and that area be suitable landscaped.
She stated in the M2A District, there will be underground utilities. Mike Sievert stated there is overhead across the front that does go underground from there.
Diane Hardy stated there needs to be public bicycle parking.
She stated there is an LPG tank located in the front of the lot. The Building Official had mentioned it should not be adjacent to the railroad tracks or along the road frontage. The location will require delivery trucks to back into the parking lot. The propane tank should be buried with “aesthetically pleasing” bollards. She stated he also noted there was not a 36” wide unobstructed passage for ADA access along the southeast side of the building. Mike Sievert stated he will work on that.
Diane Hardy stated the traffic control island is less than a minimum of 10’. She stated the requirement is it is at least 10’. It does not show any landscaping.
The parking area along Route 108 should be landscaped in the buffer.
There should be a pedestrian linkage from the north side to the sidewalk. Mike Sievert stated the reason he did not show that was that the grade is pretty steep there. Diane Hardy stated it could be a stairway. Mike Sievert stated that would not be a problem.
Chairman Botterman stated he was okay with not having an island there, because he knew the grades make it so you cannot put one there. Mike Sievert stated he is going to have to put a rail up there, since it is a two-tiered parking area. He can do something with the wall to make it look nice or it could be wood, too.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the buffer at the rear of this development may not be necessary. The buffer was there to separate the business park from this property, while it was residential. There are no buffers between the two existing buildings in the park. Diane Hardy asked if they could get some nice trees in that space.
Mike Sievert stated they were hoping for some retail space outside for a display area or outdoor patio for a restaurant. He stated lighting would be on the building and some would be up in the parking lot.
He stated they need to figure out if a variance will be needed. Diane Hardy stated this requires a site plan and a special use permit. Mike Sievert stated he saw some waivers and it talked about setbacks. He will sit down with Diane Hardy and review it.
Mike Sievert stated his concern is the language saying the Town chooses the consultant. Val Shelton stated the Board can waive certain things.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Chairman’s Report
Chairman Botterman stated he has nothing to report this month.
Committee Reports
CIP
Diane Hardy stated they are waiting for the appointments to the committee from the Town Council.
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated she did not have anything to report.
Other
Rose-Anne Kwaks had concerns about the Riverdale project. If there is a problem with stacking of cars, she wondered if the plan could be revoked. Diane Hardy stated it could. There is a provision in the RSAs that allows that. There is also an RSA giving the Commissioner of the DOT continuing authority over driveway permits. They can revoke the driveway permit and the applicant would have to take steps to alleviate the hazard. The DOT permit was issued and there is language in it to that effect.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what would trigger the revocation. She asked if it would be one incident a week, five a month. Diane Hardy stated there is a Developer’s Agreement that clarifies all of the conditions and they will work with Town’s legal counsel to define what a regular occurrence is. The Police Chief will provide a letter with feedback from him on this. Chairman Botterman stated he is comfortable leaving it up to the Police Chief to determine when it is a nuisance. Jane Ford and Janice Rosa stated the TRC spent quite a bit of time on this question. Chairman Botterman stated he will not sign the Developer’s Agreement until there was some clarity on this. Val Shelton stated that defining the number of incidents to determine when this becomes a problem was beyond the purview of the Planning Board. It is a enforcement and legal question.
Diane Hardy reported the she and Rose-Anne Kwaks went to the Riverdale site and identified three or four things that could be implemented to enhance the landscaping. They sent Chinburg an email and they would have their landscape architect review it.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:56 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor