Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, John Badger, John Brackett, Jane Ford, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio)-arrived late due to conflicting meeting
Absent: Rose-Anne Kwaks (Alternate) – excused
Called to order: 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:11 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: October 14, 2014
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of 10/14/14
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Acadia Engineers & Constructors, LLC - Public hearing for an application for modification of a site plan at 13 & 15 Water Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 4, M2 Zone. The proposal is to modify an approved Site Plan for a mixed use development at 13 & 15 Water Street that was approved by the Planning Board and signed by the Planning Board Chairman on July 19, 2013. The project involves the restoration and renovation of the F.E. Lang Blacksmith building and construction of four new townhome units. Modifications include landscaping, curbing, stormwater management and drainage, signage, lighting, elimination of waste and recycling area, and siting of above ground propane fuel tank.
Chairman Botterman asked if everyone had read the letter regarding the applicant’s responses to the inspection letter of the Town’s review engineer, Emanuel Engineering.
Peter Nelson recused himself and Janice Rosa recused herself due to potential conflicts.
Tim Nichols, Acadia Engineers & Constructors, LLC, stated Phase One, in terms of site work, is substantially complete. They recently put down the base course for the driveway. The top coat will be completed in the spring. Drainage structures were installed. They added a third infiltration drainage basin and the underground cistern was installed. Granite curbing was installed along the front of the blacksmith shop and granite curbing and edging was installed at the end of the driveway along the Rivermoor property.
Chairman Botterman stated from his recollection of the site walk this past fall, there were several issues. The biggest issue was the seashells as opposed to paving and that has been rectified. There have been a lot of other minor modifications to the site plan.
Diane Hardy stated, in the discussions about drainage, they did ask Mr. Nichols to provide the Planning Board with a drainage statement from his engineer and he did provide that, along with some specifications on the new catchbasin design. Those were reviewed internally and approved administratively.
She stated there were a couple of issues, where they wanted to get some feedback from the Public Works Director. The first was with the specific site signage regarding the fire lanes, access and parking. In the original plan, there was a proposal to have signage every 50’ to identify the fire lane location and Mr. Nichols thought that was excessive. He has proposed to have signage at the driveway entrance and also there are provisions in the condo documents regarding parking restrictions and fire lane clearance requirements, which are very detailed. Diane Hardy stated she felt they were in keeping with the spirit of what the Planning Board was trying to achieve. The second item was the above ground fuel cylinder located at the northeasternmost corner of the property. The Public Works Director reviewed that and he was in agreement that there was no need for any additional bollard protection in that area. She received a memo from Public Works Director, Rick Malasky, today stating he had met with Mr. Nichols, did a site walk of all of the changes and he was in agreement with all of the changes, as proposed and shown on the revised site plan.
Chairman Botterman stated he had gone to the site and the site looks good. The changes that have been made, had they been on the original plan, would have been approved. The biggest issue was the seashells vs. the pavement. He stated he would accept what is in front of them in way of a revised plan.
Diane Hardy stated she received a call from Rob Phillips, the Chairman of the Rivermoor Board of Directors, and he explained that Rivermoor was in agreement with the revised landscaping plan. Mr. Nichols has removed some invasive Norway Maples. Everyone is pleased with the revised landscaping.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
No comments
Action
Motion: John Badger made a motion that they accept the amended site plan for the applicant at Lang’s Wharf Townhomes, 15 Water Street, Newmarket, as presented tonight
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.
Joe Persechino, Tighe & Bond, stated they met with the Technical Review Committee (TRC) on November 6 and wrapped up the outstanding items, besides the NH Department of Transportation (NH DOT) permit. They are still working through that. The NH DOT has requested they do some additional surveying to look at site distances. They are hoping to have that wrapped up at the next meeting and get approval.
He stated there has been a change to the site plan. It was revised to reflect the recommendations from the Geotechnical Report and it was approved by NH DOT. It changes the slope treatment. This change was based on NH DOT recommendations.
They are working on the survey for the access point.
Diane Hardy stated the TRC would like to meet again to look at the plan once the additional data is in and NH DOT wants to be part of that meeting.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Mr. Persechino stated they are still trying to maintain the landscape buffer they had previously proposed. The recommendation from the Planning Board was to go to NH DOT to get approval for the slope. They did a geotech study, which found some different soils and NH DOT then said, based on the soils that were found, they felt a riprapped slope was better. They had been expecting more of a gravel subsoil and NH DOT was concerned about the stability of Route 108.
He asked for a continuance to the next meeting and asked if there was anything the Board wanted to see, so they could come prepared for approval at the next meeting. No one requested anything further.
Action
Motion: John Badger made a motion to continue the application to the December 9, 2014 meeting for Shearwater Investments on Forbes Road
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Hayden Family Revocable Trust/Mark L. & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for 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.
Chairman Botterman stated they had been waiting for word on how the open space would be managed. They now have a letter from Matt Assia, Chinburg Builders, outlining that Southeast Land Trust is going to maintain the open space.
Christian Smith stated they have a letter, from Underwood Engineers, stating they have satisfactorily addressed all comments. They have also addressed everything from TRC, aside from the open space piece. It appears Chinburg Builders has come to a conclusive agreement with Southeast Land Trust. They will hold the easement and do the annual maintenance and stewardship. Based on that, Chinburg Builders had not gotten the actual stewardship plan together, because, when it became evident that it may not be the Conservation Commission maintaining the open space, Southeast Land Trust has their own documents they like to use. The only thing that would be different from most of Southeast Land Trust’s management plans for this, is the owner’s desire to continue to allow ATVs and, in the winter, the motorized snowmobile traffic on the trails. That will be forthcoming. It appears they could be in position for conditional approval this evening.
John Brackett stated the Conservation Commission had asked who would pay for the signs delineating the land as conservation land. Christian Smith stated that was agreed to at a previous meeting, by Chinburg Builders. Once it is turned over to the Southeast Land Trust, they will maintain them.
Diane Hardy stated one of the conditions of the Special Use Permit was that there be a management plan developed by a professional that would address things like protection of significant trees on the property and the views from the top and continuing public access. She had the impression, from the Conservation Commission, they wanted to be part of those discussions, with the Land Trust. She thought it would be advantageous to have a meeting with the Conservation Commission and the Land Trust. She recommended holding off on a conditional approval until then. Christian Smith stated he read a number of Southeast Land Trust management plans for properties. With regard to the management and preservation of trees, there is no allowance in any of them to harvest anything that is not dead or diseased or a threat to the public. Val Shelton stated they could make this a condition of approval. Chairman Botterman stated he would not have an issue with an approval subject to an acceptable management plan.
Christian Smith stated they put together a road bond estimate, but he would double check on it. That may not have gotten submitted to Underwood Engineers.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the Hayden Family Revocable Trust/Mark L. & Karen S. Hayden, Trustees/Chinburg Builders, Inc. for the subdivision of ten (10) lot Residential Open Space Design Development at 74 Bald Hill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 24, R1 Zone subject to the condition of that Planning Board accept the management plan when available
Second: John Badger
Vote: All in favor
Newmarket Housing Authority/Newmarket Town Solar, LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for minor site plan review, at 34 Gordon Avenue, Tax Map U4, Lot 8, M3 Zone. The proposal is to allow for a community solar array to be built on the grounds of the Newmarket Housing Authority to provide discounted electricity to the tenants in the complex. The system is a low-profile project that will have no safety or health concerns and provides no view, smell or sound concerns for the surrounding community.
Andrew Kellar, NH Solar Garden, stated the first issue the Board had was the age of the topographic plan. They are asking for a waiver for having topography surveyed for the site plan. They were able to go back the local survey company who did some topographic survey work on the site three years ago. They have a limited time and it is hard to get workers out there to do actual field work. He has presented a memo written by that firm to verify there have not been any physical changes since then so the existing plan data is reliable.
He stated they have clarified on the plan where the fence would be.
They ensured the path, while it is not a public path, is clearly defined on the plan. The property owner allows people to pass through. The field work done three years ago defined where the path was.
The next issues were related to the height of the solar panels. It was not clearly identified. They have provided a cross section of what they will look like.
There was a question of spacing between the panels and they have put a reference in the main plan.
There was discussion of drainage. They have no intention of changing the surface under the panels. It will be grass. Their engineer has written a memo on drainage impacts into the brook. It was the engineer’s opinion there would be no concerns about having the panels there.
He stated he felt that he addressed all of the items from last time.
John Brackett asked if there was any coating on the panels that would reflect and be an issue to someone living nearby. Andrew Kellar stated the panels are designed to absorb, not reflect. There is a slight chance if you walk by at the right point at the right time, like any window, there might be a little reflectivity off the edges of the metal. These panels are being installed at airports. There are no plantings planned. He stated this technology comes with 25 year warranties on the panel and invertors. Short term maintenance is minimal. These are simple systems. They check on the output remotely.
Diane Hardy stated there are recommendations for conditions that the plans be stamped, the survey prepared by Doucet and also the other two sheets be stamped by the professional engineer who designed the plans.
Chairman Botterman asked if anyone from the public would like to speak.
There were no comments.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Val Shelton stated she was still struggling with the issue of the zoning, as to whether this fits into a permitted use in the M3 zone. This is a commercial enterprise, because they are leasing the property and the tenants are getting benefits from this. She asked if this meets the permitted use in the M3 Zone and how that fits in. Diane Hardy stated she thought they decided, at the last meeting, it was a permitted mixed use development. Val Shelton asked where it fit in on the list of permitted uses. In the Zoning Ordinance it defines mixed use as a mix of non-residential and commercial uses. Diane Hardy stated this is an M3 Zone. Under Section 7.02 of the Zoning Ordinance, there are requirements for mixed use developments. She read, “A mix of residential and non-residential uses on one lot permitted in the following districts…the M-3 District is a zone where mixed-use developments are permitted.” The requirement for that is site plan approval. Val Shelton stated it still states within that paragraph it is a mix of permitted uses. Diane Hardy stated it is a mixed use. It says a non-residential use. Val Shelton stated it said permitted use. If you go to the Table of Permitted Uses, she did not see where they could fit it in. Diane Hardy stated she would classify it as a mixed use for purposes of this application. Val Shelton agreed it was a mixed use, but must it be a permitted use within that zone? She asked if they were manufacturing electricity. Diane Hardy stated it is an interpretation question. It says under 7.02(B), in certain instances, it is appropriate to have a mix of permitted uses on a single lot. That doesn’t say you have to have all permitted uses within a mixed use development. It’s not a requirement. Val Shelton stated there are two subsections under (B) and it says “provided the following conditions are met”. Diane Hardy stated it does not say the “uses” are permitted, it says “where the mixed uses are permitted”. She stated she was looking at it in a broader way rather than a specific way. Chairman Botterman stated solar panels on houses are a commercial operation. Most of them are leased. Diane Hardy stated she is considering this is a mixed-use development. It is residential and this new commercial feature has been introduced and that is mixed use and it is permitted in that zone. The statement implies it needs to be all permitted uses for that zone, but it does not specifically state that. Mixed use is allowed. Diane Hardy stated it does not say both of those uses have to be permitted in that zone. Chairman Botterman stated he understood Val Shelton’s concerns, however, he was comfortable approving this, as presented. Val Shelton stated she was not opposed to this. Chairman Botterman stated Diane Hardy is the Zoning Administrator, who is the person that interprets the Zoning Ordinance. Diane Hardy stated she looks at it as a mixed development, that broad category, is permitted in that zone. Therefore, it is a permitted use. She did not see that it said in that paragraph that it has to be a mixture of permitted uses in every instance. It says in some instances. Diane Hardy stated her decision could be appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, if someone wishes to disagree. When the Board looks at updating the zoning ordinance, this language can be tightened up. The Board felt this was reasonable.
Action
Motion: John Badger made a motion to accept the waiver request of NH Solar Garden at Newmarket Housing Authority site for additional topographic survey for the proposed solar panel array
Second: John Brackett
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: John Badger made a motion to approve the Newmarket Housing Authority/Newmarket Town Solar, LLC, 34 Gordon Avenue, Tax Map U4, Lot 8, M3 Zone with the following conditions:
1. That the plan be stamped by a Licensed Land Surveyor
2. That Sheets 2 & 3 be stamped by a licensed professional engineer
Second: John Brackett
Vote: Val Shelton & Janice Rosa opposed
All others in favor
Gerard Hamel & Eileen Murphy Hamel - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision, at 7 Gonet Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 11A, R1 Zone. The proposal is to subdivide Tax Map R2, Lot 11A (11.07 acres with 509.86’ frontage) into two separate lots. Lot 11A will become 5.69 acres, with 299.02’ of frontage, while the newly created Lot 11C will be 5.38 acres, with 210.83’ of frontage.
Gerard “Gerry” Hamel, 7 Gonet Drive, stated they were creating a new lot, by splitting the existing lot almost down the middle. He felt he met the requirements, with the exception of one waiver request for the contours for the back lot. There is quite a wetlands area dividing the lots, which really restricts any building to the street side of that wetland.
Diane Hardy recommends that the application be accepted for technical review, because it is substantially complete.
John Badger asked if this lot was part of a homeowners association. Mr. Hamel stated this lot was exempt from all of the covenants. There has been a previous subdivision of this lot. This was part of the original Gonet Drive subdivision and they had to, because the covenants would not have worked for them, as they had a farm and horses, exclude this lot from any of the provisions of the covenants. Diane Hardy stated she went back and looked at the regulations under which this was developed and there is no stipulation, as there is today, in determining the number of lots based on a density calculation. The only stipulation is there be almost a third of the land set aside for open space, which there was at the time.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they accept the application for subdivision of 7 Gonet Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 11A, in the R1 Zone to provide for two separate lots, one being 5.69 acres and the remaining being 5.38 acres
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Peter Nelson asked why the two well locations were now on one lot. They are getting an easement for the existing well up until that time when the property passes hands and then that easement evaporates. The two wellheads are on the one lot and that existing lot has no well. Mr. Hamel stated the easement will be put into place for the existing house lot. It is one of those wells people all wish they had, a 75 gallon a minute spring. It went with the existing Gonet Farm. They can’t change the location of it. When he built, he got the well and it will go with the house on 11A with an easement in perpetuity. Val Shelton asked why the second proposed well was going onto the existing house lot. Mr. Hamel stated this well is already hooked up to the house. The other shows the protected well radius for a future house lot. If people purchase his home, then he would put a well onto their lot and he would use that well for the new lot. He has to show something right now. Chairman Botterman stated Note 11 on the plan talks about it. Mr. Hamel stated there is a protective well radius in place from when Gonets owned it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the applicant’s waiver request from Section 4.10(B)(1) elevation contours at 2 foot intervals. The applicant has provided necessary information.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
No comments.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing.
Val Shelton stated they have an extensive application, the Planner has reviewed it, and made her recommendations.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they approve the application for a two lot subdivision at 7 Gonet Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 11A, R1 Zone to provide Lot 11A becoming 5.69 acres, with 299.02’ of road frontage, and the newly created lot 11C with 5.38 acres with 210.83 frontage subject to the recommendations by the Town Planner as outlined on the staff recommendation November 18 report, subsections 1, 2, 3, & 4
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Conservation Commission
John Brackett stated they were concerned about the way the land would be managed at the Hayden subdivision.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:11 p.m.
Second: John Badger
Vote: All in favor