Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 20, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), John Brackett, John Badger, Rose-Anne Kwaks (Alternate), Peter Nelson (Alternate)
Absent: Eric Botterman (Chairman) excused
Called to order: 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:01 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Vice Chairman Shelton appointed Rose-Anne Kwaks to replace Chairman Botterman for voting purposes in this meeting.
No public comments were given.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 12/09/14
Action
Motion: John Badger made a motion to approve the minutes of the 12/09/14 meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Vice Chairman Shelton abstained due to absence
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.
Joe Persechino, Engineer for Tighe & Bond, represented the applicant. He gave a summary of the proposal so far and a brief update.
He stated they have wrapped up the outstanding issues, besides the NH Department of Transportation (NH DOT) permit process. They met with NH DOT in November at a Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting with the Town. It was decided, at that meeting, they should look at one final item with NH DOT, which was site distance at the intersection of Forbes Road and Route 108. They had an additional survey done. They met with NH DOT last week to review that plan. At this point, the site distance to the north is limited by the abutters’ property. (property of Adam and Danielle Blackadar.) They cannot change the site distance without affecting those properties. It is their opinion that it is out of their control, at this point. They are still working toward a solution of how to improve the intersection. They have presented a mitigation package expressing their willingness to work to provide additional turning radius at the intersection when and if the right-of-way is made available and they will provide an additional right of way along the property they own to help the Town’s bicycle improvement project for that section of Route 108. They plan to meet again to work out the details of how that mitigation will move forward. They were hoping for conditional approval tonight, but it is probably going to take at least one more meeting with the Town and the TRC to work out that mitigation package.
Diane Hardy stated they would like to have the Town Engineer review the letter and schedule a TRC meeting within the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Persechino stated they looked at the site distance, turning radius, and traffic counts. These are existing conditions. These conditions were not created by this project. The applicant feels they have made a worthy contribution with an eye to improving the intersection they will be using.
He stated NH DOT was contacted, by the Town, to look at the development and look at other things that could be done at the intersection. They looked at the different alternatives. These were items that improved the intersection, but are not requirements.
Jane Ford stated the access was built for the existing buildings. They did not know the magnitude of future traffic, as they do not know who the tenant of this new building will be. She appreciates the approach on improving the intersection, but she wanted to make sure they put the right weight on doing the right thing versus what they really should be doing anyway, because there will be more vehicles. She wanted to make sure they were clear on that, as a member of the TRC.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if NH DOT was concerned, because the excavation of the area will take two to three years. Mr. Persechino stated they looked at whether the additional traffic required a wider intersection for an additional lane and the answer was an overwhelming no. They asked if the truck traffic for the development would require additional turning radius and the answer to that was no. The reason they looked at doing these improvements was for the existing trucks that frequent the area that are larger than the trucks are for this development.
Rob Graham stated they are going to do their best to do what they can do at the intersection. He stated there should be a cooperative solution with the TRC. A primary concern of NH DOT is the site distance. There is some vegetation on private property they cannot do anything with. They are looking at some configuration changes. It has been a long process. They have done a lot of survey and additional work for NH DOT, which will benefit long range planning there.
Mr. Persechino stated NH DOT reviewed the geo technical plan for the slope and they were fine with that.
Diane Hardy stated the Town is the applicant for the highway access permit, because Forbes Road is a Town road. They have not received any official correspondence from NH DOT yet.
Mr. Persechino stated the site distance was the original item for review. With the realization that the site distance could not be improved without cutting vegetation on abutting property, they bounced around some ideas with NH DOT and will be presenting these as “mitigation plan” as an offset.
Diane Hardy stated Jim Hewitt, NH DOT, will be at the next TRC meeting.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue the application to February 10, 2015
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Vice Chairman Shelton asked if anyone in the audience was present for the PSNH agenda item. No one was.
Matt Sullivan, Planner at the Strafford Regional Planning Commission - Update of Newmarket Master Plan Housing and Demographics Chapter. Matt will provide an overview of the results of the demographic analysis, to include historic and future population trends related to age, school, income and employment, housing characteristics, trends, and affordability, and discussion of future directions.
Matt Sullivan gave a PowerPoint presentation. Vice Chairman Shelton clarified they were not looking to get into any detail tonight, as the Board had just received the draft from him.
Matt Sullivan stated he has been working to prepare the statistical analysis and that is what the Board received. He asked that the Board submit comments on the draft and he will use those refine the draft. As he works on the trends, goals, and recommendation sections over the next 2-4 weeks, he can integrate those comments on a rolling basis. He will do another presentation on the findings and recommendations section.
He stated, in the past, there were chapters on housing and population. They were independent. Demographics and trends have changed and they are looking at these two issues together. He has included economic characteristics, as well. They play a role in housing stock and future development and what types of people live in the community. It provides a context of how change is happening in Newmarket.
He did some population number crunching. He showed the 2010 population, which was around 8,936. That is the US census count. There was a lot of population growth between 1980 and 1990. He showed projected population over five years. The population according to NH Office of State Planning (NH OEP) and demographics is expected to level out. This is happening across the state. It is something a community planning for the future really needs to think about. It projects a 405 resident per decade growth over the next 30 years. What is interesting in Newmarket is that the population is expected to decrease between 2035 and 2040. Newmarket is planning for a leveling off, and then a decrease in population.
He stated another thing that is happening is NH is aging. There is a pronounced baby boom shift. He showed the 1990 and 2010 populations. They are losing population in the 25-34 age range. The 45-54 age range increased. 55-59 and 60-64 on up is increasing. There is an aging population in Newmarket we need to think about and provide services for.
He stated there is a decrease in family age population. They need to think about how to approach capital improvements related to schools. He asked, since there will be fewer children, how does the town need to think about that regarding schools.
He stated between 2000 and 2013, school enrollment declined. This is happening across New Hampshire. Of 160 school districts, 130 experienced decreased enrollment. One of those was Newmarket.
He stated smaller household formation is happening. There used to be a lot of four and five person households between 1990 and 2000. Now there is an increase in one and two person households. Newmarket has a college student population, but we are still seeing that change to more one and two person households outside of students.
Between 1990 and 2000, there had typically been a large number of school age students attributed to new home construction. That is not happening today. Now, new housing is producing between .64 students for each single family unit and .17 students for each multi-family unit. He stated that is unbelievable, as that is not what was happening between 1990 and 2000. They cannot anticipate the same level of school enrollments they have had in the past.
He did some work on income and employment. These are closely related to population demographics and housing. Unemployment is right on par with the nation. In 2007 and 2008 there was a huge spike in unemployment in Newmarket. It has begun to decrease.
Between 1990 and 2010 something interesting happened in Newmarket. The lower household income group between 0 and $10,000 experienced a 250% increase. Middle incomes decreased. The higher income bracket increased 250-300%.
He also found Newmarket is not a place where people work. It is a place where people live. He asked how they plan the housing stock around that. Of the people with primary employment within Newmarket, 80% of those come from outside the community. 92.4% of working people in Newmarket commute outside of the community for primary employment.
He showed some housing stock facts. The average lot size for residential lots is 1.37 acres. The average year of construction is 1964. The median was 1985. The median total parcel value is about $250,000. Looking at the sale prices for last year, the average home sold for about $250,000. There was a 262% increase in vacant housing units between 1990 and 2010. In 1990, 77% of households identified themselves as family. In 2010, only 54% identified themselves as family households. There is a much higher housing formation rate with smaller households than larger households. There are more one and two person households, than three and four person or more households.
Regarding building trends per NH Office of Energy and Planning (NH OEP) permit data, there has been relatively stable housing growth. You have 2001-2003 with sort of a building boom and then, between 2006-2012, it shows the housing crash was very real here in Newmarket.
He will be providing a home affordability and rental affordability study and some baseline projections for future housing trends.
He left the Board with some thoughts and trends to think about. Home ownership is declining. There is still an unstable housing market. The single family home is not attractive to young couples starting out. They need to think about that. The young population is looking at more flexible housing. A lot of young people are living with other young professionals. They need to look at how that is impacting the town. Older populations with households of one and a half people are downsizing from those large 3+ bedroom homes into smaller ranch units and apartments like those at the mills. He stated they need to think about how to plan for that, with stairs and elevators. A lot of the existing housing stock, especially single family housing, is not really flexible for older residents. There are second story bathrooms and many sets of stairs. What is happening is there is a competition for ranch homes issues among older and younger people who don’t have the same needs. These ranch homes are becoming extremely expensive to purchase.
This is an opportunity for a community to create ordinances and regulations that allow for innovative repurposing and the expansion and rehabilitation of existing structures. That is when we get into goals and recommendations. What can we, as planners, do to allow for some flexible uses in the future?
The age of the baby boom population is expected to result in the doubling of the senior population in NH by 2030. How are we going to take care of these people?
Seniors are also choosing to age in place. They love NH. They may move from their single family home on the outskirts of town, to a smaller unit in the downtown area. You can stay in your home or move and stay in the community. It needs to be possible for seniors to do that. Only 3% of NH seniors move annually to other states. For example, people are not going to Florida. This information is from AARP. They have done some specific studies in NH. 86% of respondents would like to stay in their current residence as long as possible. 75% of the state’s senior population lives in suburban or rural areas that typically lack access to key services and amenities, as simple as health care and food. How are we going to provide services to those people? Downsizing seniors are searching for that downtown housing stock that does have the access. Much of the existing housing stock is older and not senior friendly, having stairs and second floor bathrooms. How can Newmarket do something about this and design or retrofit its existing housing for seniors with and without disabilities. 45% of the state’s senior population classify themselves as having at least one disability. Of those, 18% say it is something that makes independent living challenging. What is going to happen when that senior population doubles?
There is a report done by NH Housing Finance Authority (NHHFA) that suggested that demand for nursing home beds would increase by 50% by 2025. State nursing homes are now at 100% capacity. What are we going to do about that? That is something Newmarket can do something about.
Demand for assisted living (55+ age restricted housing) is expected to grow from 4,400 units to 7,400 units statewide within the next 15 years. This is a 70% increase from today.
Matt Sullivan stated he would be available after the meeting to talk to anyone who had questions or thoughts on the chapter.
There was a question of how many rental units there are in Newmarket for students. Matt Sullivan stated that was very difficult to quantify. In response to a question of how the growth in student housing in Durham will affect Newmarket, he stated there is a relationship to the amount of student housing supply in Durham and the economy created by students in surrounding communities. In working on the Durham Master Plan, they were very cognizant of the key role students play in Dover and Newmarket particularly. As the Durham supply begins to approach the demand and students are no longer looking to move to Newmarket and Dover, there could be a real shortfall for both communities. They need to plan for that distribution in the future. It is wonderful Durham and Newmarket both are working on this chapter, as it is an opportunity to cooperate and tackle this as a joint issue. There will be an impact.
A question was asked if the Newmarket student rentals decrease, would rentals become similar to workforce housing in town. Matt Sullivan stated there is a stigma around the term “workforce housing”. The workforce housing definition in this area, because it is Rockingham County, is $260,000 for a single family home. For a rental unit, it is fairly high. There is a misconception that this is low income or subsidized housing. The units that are currently occupied as student housing becoming workforce housing would be a great thing. There would be a lot of young professionals contributing to the communities. You want stewards to come into our communities and young people have to be those stewards. Having workforce housing, which is something he will probably recommend, is a great thing to transform a community. The mill has some units that may be, by definition, workforce housing. The actual rents themselves would be under the workforce housing definition.
There was a clarification of the recent Master Plan process.
Recommendation from Planning Board to Town Council regarding a request from Public Service of New Hampshire regarding the removal of trees along a scenic road pursuant to RSA 231: 158.
Vice Chairman Shelton stated the Town Council is requesting the Planning Board recommend the removal of certain trees along Bay Road for PSNH. The RSA states a public hearing must be held which will be held by the Town Council at their meeting on the following evening, January 21, 2015.
Vice Chairman Shelton provided an opportunity for public comments. No one responded.
John Brackett asked what the criteria was to determine what trees were hazardous i.e. the difference between a tree that is pushing on a ground line and what which is not. He finds irregularity in the determination made for one of these trees. It says it is pushing hard, but it is not touching. He asked what the process is to decide which trees should be removed. Vice Chairman Shelton stated they do know from past history that PSNH works with an arborist and with the local Director of Public Works. They point out which vegetation, trees, etc. are a potential hazard for power failures and the Director of Public Works is adding other types of safety hazards to that for them to clear when they are cutting. The experts are going out and determining which ones they want cut. In the past, the Board would never get the description of a twin lead ash pushing hard on the neutral. John Brackett stated the descriptions are accurate, with the exception of one. It does not look like it is pushing on the neutral. He stated arborist or not, it does not make sense to him.
Diane Hardy stated there is an arborist that does the evaluations and works with the communities to help identify whether the trees are hazardous. From previous correspondence received, the arborist does refer to PSNH specifications. They call for the removal of brush less than 6” in diameter at the ground level and limbs that are located within 8’ to the side, 10’ below, or 15’ above. They have specifications they use to do these evaluations and to guide their tree removal work. Unfortunately, the arborist is not here this evening. Previously, when this was a Planning Board function, we would have the arborist come and explain his or her rationale. It is her understanding the Town Council will be having a public hearing on this tomorrow night. She did not know if someone from PSNH will be there.
Vice Chairman Shelton stated the Planning Board’s role tonight is to make a recommendation to the Town Council.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated perhaps the tree is only pushing when it was windy out or there were other weather conditions causing it.
Vice Chairman Shelton stated if there is an issue with this, it should be brought up to the Town Council, as opposed to further discussion here. This is just a recommendation.
Action
Motion: John Brackett made a motion subject to review of that particular item that they move forward with this
Vice Chairman Shelton clarified there is a motion on the table that the Planning Board recommends to the Town Council to approve the requested cutting of the trees subject to the Council looking further at the issue relative to Pole 9 84-85 of the 26” oak pushing on the neutral.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Janice Rosa abstained as she has not been out to see the trees
There was a clarification of the process for cutting trees on a scenic road. Diane Hardy stated this has come before the Board twice since she has been here. She shared some conditions in the past. In 2012, the Planning Board required photographic evidence and identification of the trees to be provided and they do have that documentation in the file. Another condition was, if the Town is interested in the wood chips, that they be available to the public. PSNH did indicate they would be more than willing to work with the Town on that. She stated she did learn today from the Town Administrator, according to common law in NH, the property owners have first claim on the wood chips and any other wood from the trees taken down.
Dan Wright stated he would bring that information to the Town Council. He stated he believed photos had been taken of the trees.
Agenda Item #5 – Old/New Business
There was no old business.
Economic Development Committee
Vice Chairman Shelton stated there is a meeting Thursday night. They are moving forward and will have more to report on at a future meeting.
CIP Committee
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they have finished up with reviewing the CIP submitted by the Superintendent of Schools.
Conservation Commission
John Brackett stated they were happy with the site development plan for the Wastewater Plant. This was for the wetlands permit.
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated their engineer for the Pedestrian Improvement Project has submitted the final engineering plans to NH DOT for review. We had to provide right of way acquisition and market data prepared by a qualified real estate professional to justify the purchase of easements that are necessary in order to achieve the project. They are hoping to go out to bid sometime in February.
She also stated she would like to get together with the subcommittee that was set up for the visioning chapter. She has been working with Kyle Pimental, SRPC. She would like to meet sometime within the next couple of weeks and will get an e-mail out to the subcommittee members to schedule that meeting.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:01 p.m.
Second: John Badger
Vote: All in favor