Minutes

 NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING

FEBRUARY 10, 2015

MINUTES

Present:           Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Planner), Dan Wright (Town Council ex officio), John Badger, Rose-Anne Kwaks (Alternate), John Brackett

Absent:            Eric Botterman (Chairman), Jane Ford, Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson (Alternate)

(all excused)

Called to order:           7:05 p.m.

Adjourned:                  7:47 p.m.

Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance

Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments

            None.

            Vice Chairman Shelton appointed Rose-Anne Kwaks to fill in for Jane Ford.

Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: January 20, 2015

            Action

Motion:          John Badger made a motion that the minutes of January 20, 2015 be approved as presented

                        Second:           Rose-Anne Kwaks

                        Vote:               John Brackett abstained, as he had not reviewed them

                                                All others in favor

Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business

Matt Sullivan, Planner-Strafford Regional Planning Commission - Review of Newmarket Master Plan Housing and Demographics Chapter.  Matt will be available to answer questions related to the demographic analysis, which  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 stated, since his last presentation, he has worked on developing a few more pages of the Housing & Demographics chapter.  Primarily, those include a discussion of workforce housing, a housing affordability study and lightly delving into some of the housing trends he discussed at the last meeting.  There are a couple of edits incorporated, some from Diane Hardy and some edits done internally by the SRPC staff.  There are additional edits to incorporate later in the week. 

            He would like to do a question and answer session based on what has been done so far. 

            Vice Chairman Shelton asked if he would go over the updates.  Mr. Sullivan stated starting on page 21, there is a brief description of the workforce housing statute and a more practical discussion on what that statute means for this area.  It talks about definitions that are used to determine what is affordable.  It focuses on the definition in the state statute.  There have been conversations in a lot of communities that the definition is not very meaningful within a specific area.  The workforce housing law is based on a regional geography, so it is what is affordable to a broad region.  This is an interesting area, because we have Rockingham communities, which tend to be a little more affluent, but we also have working class communities to the north in Strafford County.  You get something sort of in the middle and that determines what is affordable. 

            He stated workforce housing has developed a negative connotation, but it is the best way to monitor the affordability of the housing stock within a community. 

            There is some more specific technical information in the materials, specifically the page about what workforce housing means. 

            Then it delves into the affordability study itself.  What this attempts to do is to look at the assessment database and determine how many of your housing units are actually affordable to residents at that workforce housing income level. There is a lot of information there.  He pointed out the third table on the page.  The bolded row tells us that 64% of the housing units in Newmarket are under the affordable housing threshold for this area.  That is an impressive number of units.  This tells us that Newmarket is affordable.

            Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what the norm was for other towns.  Mr. Sullivan stated they just did a study in Durham and 11% of the units there qualified as affordable.  There are many communities in between that range. A comparable community would be Somersworth.  Rochester would likely be higher.  Exeter would be lower, possibly in the 30% range. 

            Vice Chairman Shelton asked if there was a particular percentage that is almost a trigger for a community to adopt affordable housing zoning.  Mr. Sullivan stated no.  Part of the workforce housing law is about a community providing its regional fair share of affordable housing.  It is about creating a region that provides enough affordable housing for people to commute to employment and different services within that area.  With that said, the statutory definition may be regional, but he stated it was important to look at it on a local level, as well.  There is no trigger point, which is good for a community.

            The rental cost affordability analysis is based on a survey, so it is a little more loosely done. This is based on a sample of the rental units within this community.  When NH Housing Finance Authority (NHHFA) does this survey, they do attempt to exclude student and seasonal housing, however, of course there are errors.  They send a survey out to landlords within the community, the landlord completes the survey, and sends the information back.  What they found is Newmarket is relatively unaffordable when it comes to the affordability threshold in the region.  It is attributable to a lot of student housing that may have been counted within the survey and a lot of the condo units that may be counted as rentals and the large mill redevelopment in the downtown area.  He lives in a Chinburg development in another town and his rent would not be affordable under this threshold, so he suspects some of those units may not be affordable.  This gives an idea of where Newmarket stands.

            Vice Chairman Shelton asked what region he referred to.  Mr. Sullivan stated it is the HUD Fair Market Rent Area (HFMR).  There is a definition included in the paperwork showing what communities are included in that area. 

            Dan Wright stated he looked at the Center for Public Policy in NH housing data and they have Rockingham County as $1300 for two bedroom rent.  There is a big discrepancy between that $1300 and the $1012 in this information.  Mr. Sullivan stated those Rockingham County statistics would be more affluent and includes Portsmouth, where rents are extremely high and that would drive that cost right up.  Rental units in Somersworth, Rochester, and Dover tend to be much lower.  There are always issues raised with these housing geographies, but it is the lowest reportable geography for a lot of data sets, so they are limited to it. 

            It was interesting that the three bedroom unit numbers in Newmarket and the region, if you look at the annual costs, there is a $6000 gap between the regional and the Newmarket value.

            Housing unit projections are based off the population projections included earlier in this chapter and your housing stock characteristics as reported in the 2010 Census.  He estimated renter and owner occupied growth through 2035.  He used that year, because that is the max buildout according to the population projections.  That is the highest expected year of population within the town of Newmarket.  Going to 2040 would have brought those numbers down.  Except through demolition, they do not expect housing units to decrease over that time.

            Diane Hardy stated he identified 562 new housing units and then he distributed that data according to owner occupied and rental occupied units.  She asked if the percentage that he used was the same percentage as the current housing stock.  Mr. Sullivan stated that was correct.  He looked at the 2010 housing stock characteristics.  He stated he was talking about owner and renter occupied and vacant housing units.  He then took the average household size in 2010, which was 2.16 persons and multiplied it by the projected population for 2015 and then he incorporated the renter, owner and vacant housing unit numbers to get that breakdown.  It is a proration.

            Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if he took into consideration 562 new housing units with the land available and zoned for just that use.  Mr. Sullivan stated he did not.  Vice Chairman Shelton stated this was just demographics.  Diane Hardy stated they had done a buildout analysis as part of the Existing Land Use chapter.  Mr. Sullivan stated, ideally, they want to look at this with respect to land use constraints.  Mr. Sullivan stated things like repurposing may happen.

            Mr. Sullivan stated the data was projected to 2015 and we are now in 2015.  They wanted to look at how close our projections were to the actual buildout numbers according to building permits.  Although the data they looked at did not include 2014, they saw a real growth of 130 units between 2010 and 2013 in Newmarket and that nearly parallels the projected 149 unit growth between 2010 and 2015 that they projected.  That means if 19 units are built in 2014 and 2015 then these would perfectly match what we actually saw for 2015.  That lines up pretty perfectly and they were happy to see that. 

            Mr. Sullivan stated in the second part of this chapter, they moved away from the data component quite a bit, so it would be more interesting to read.  He gave a sample of what they would look like in handout.  Some of the trends they are seeing are very interesting and some of the trends of the last twenty years, as well. 

            Diane Hardy asked what the source was of the housing data.  Mr. Sullivan stated he will include that.  There is a NH Public Policy Center study that he used, as well as several AARP studies that he referenced in the text, but did not cite.  There is also NH HFA Senior Housing Perspectives report from 2012.  There will be an index of the resources. 

            He spoke about the school enrollment projections.  They have become aware of a study that was done through the Newmarket Joint Action Committee that shows different enrollment projections than the ones he had for the Master Plan.  He is attempting to contact the people who did that study.  The consultant is on vacation for a month.  They are trying to determine how they got those numbers.  They projected a continuing slow decrease in enrollment and he projected a slow increase.  He did run an alternative projection.  His enrollment projections incorporate demographics they have seen in the town of Newmarket and he is not sure the consultants did that.  He is not saying his might have more value because of that, but he prefers to use the “on the ground” data we have.  What he looked at was change of family age population.  In his original projections that meant individuals in the 25-54 year old age range. Those are people who typically have children.  He looked at how those population cohorts have changed from 1990 to 2010.  Based on that change and those cohorts, he projected the continuing decline in that population out to 2040.  The flaw in that is, if you think about people ages 45-54, they are not going to be the individuals bringing new children into the community.  By including them and because that population cohort went through the roof, because of the baby boom shift, you are going to automatically increase enrollment figures.  In the second projection he developed, he only included people ages 25-44.  The numbers are a little different, but there is still some increase out to 2040.  When you look at 2015, there is a slight decline.  So, they would like to talk to the school’s consultant (Randy Bell) and see what they did differently and arrive at some sort of consensus or at least an understanding of why the numbers are different.  Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the school’s consultant used actual enrollment figures as that trend shows an decrease.  It is not a supposition of what could happen with the age related to children.  For the analysis, they used actual numbers from what is occurring.  Mr. Sullivan stated he did use the enrollment figures from 2000-2013.  The process is detailed in the materials.  He used the most local data sets that are available.  With enrollment being a challenge for a lot of communities, this is something they want to get right.

            The next step is to press on with the pending content.  The housing trends tend to go more quickly.  The trends will be downtown redevelopment efforts, senior housing preferences, UNH student housing needs, and single family housing development.  These will all be about two pages each.  There will also be some goals and recommendations to come out of it all.

            Dan Wright asked if there was a calculation for the percentage of renters.  Mr. Sullivan stated he could show the ten year trend and projections.

            Mr. Sullivan asked, when it comes to housing trends, if there were any other housing trends they feel are important.  Dan Wright stated it would be interesting to see the demographics of the people who have purchased at Rockingham Green so far.

            Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if there was any data on how many children are living in the mills.  Diane Hardy stated they currently don’t have any data, but they can ask the Chinburgs for the information. 

            Vice Chairman, Val Shelton, asked if there was a trend of multiple generations of families living together.  This is regarding the zoning trends for single family homes, duplexes, and accessory apartments.  Mr. Sullivan stated there is a trend and it is often with related individuals, but they are seeing unrelated individuals, as well.  We have even seen some co-generational housing pop up in NH, where you have a senior who sends an application out, someone applies, moves in, provides care for the elderly person and also lives there.  That is a real trend.  He alludes to it in the section about existing senior housing.  It will be acknowledged when he talks about housing preference shifts.  There is a financial need for seniors trying to afford taxes and other expenses on a fixed income, but there is also a need for young people who often cannot afford to live in the housing they would like, so this is also a viable option for young people.  There is a bill being considered in the New Hampshire legislature to allow accessory dwelling units in any residential zone in New Hampshire.  

            Diane Hardy stated there is a very flexible ordinance in Newmarket and accessory apartments are allowed in all residential districts subject to Zoning Board approval of a Special Exception, provided certain criteria are met.  They are seeing interest in having the zoning expanded to allow detached accessory apartments.  Mr. Sullivan stated that is much different from most communities he works with.  Vice Chairman stated she was a member of the committee that worked on the accessory apartment criteria at the time and they had recommended to the Town Council to allow two dwelling units, whether it was an accessory apartment or a detached, second dwelling unit.  There were specific thresholds for caps.  The concept got revised at the Town Council level. 

            Mr. Sullivan stated it will be interesting to see how progressive this chapter ends up being and how many bold recommendations are made.  Now is the time to do it, as there are several trends that may have a huge impact on the communities. 

            There was a discussion of the procedure of the Master Plan adoption and its effect on amendments to the existing Zoning Ordinance and the creation of new Town Ordinances. 

Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business

            Vice Chairman Shelton mentioned the Spring Planning & Zoning Conference. 

            Vice Chairman Shelton thanked John Badger, John Brackett, and Dan Wright for their service to the Planning Board. 

            The Planning Board appreciated the efforts of the Newmarket Department of Public Works and their snow removal efforts in the wake of the recent numerous and severe snowstorms.

Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn

            Action

                        Motion:          John Badger made a motion to adjourn at 7:48 p.m.

                        Second:           John Brackett

                        Vote:               All in favor