Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 17, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Rose-Anne Kwaks, Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Peter Nelson (Alternate)
Absent: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman) both excused
(no new Town Council ex officio or ex officio alternate were appointed in time for this meeting)
Called to order: 7:00 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:25 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Prior to the Pledge of Allegiance, Diane Hardy stated she would like to begin the meeting with the appointment of a Chairman for the evening, as the Chairman and Vice Chairman were unable to attend. She took the opportunity to welcome a newly elected full Board member, Ezra Temko, and Rose-Anne Kwaks, who was an Alternate on the Board and is now newly elected as a full Board member. Diane Hardy also appointed Peter Nelson, Alternate, to serve as a full Board member for the evening.
Jane Ford nominated Rose-Anne Kwaks to sit in as Chairman. Janice Rosa seconded. The Board voted in favor.
The Board then said the Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comment
This item was done after Agenda Item #3, the review and approval of minutes.
Trish Simon, Cushing Road, asked the Planning Board to allow all of the people who are attending the meeting from Moody Point to make comments after the presentation of the Moody Point Company application. Acting Chairman Kwaks stated that would be allowed.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 02/10/15
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated the only one present this evening who had attended the February 10, 2015 meeting was herself. Since there was no quorum present, who had attended, the minutes will be postponed to the next meeting.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the review and approval of the minutes of February 10, 2015 minutes
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Organizational
Election of Chairman
Election of Vice Chairman
Appointment to vacant full Board member seat
Appointment of Alternates
Consideration of applicant Peter Nelson, for a term expiring March 2016
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated they would not be addressing the organizational portion of the meeting, until they had a full Board present.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to reschedule the organizational portion of the meeting to the next meeting
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Regular Business
Moody Point Co. - Public hearing for an application for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 5.03 Wetlands Protection Overlay District, Paragraphs C, E, F, involving wetland modification, dredging and filling, and mitigation associated with the development of a duplex structure (two units) with a proposed impervious area of 6,100 square feet on Lot 2, Building Space 7. The application proposes: (1) a 1824 square foot direct wetland impact on wetlands soils, classified as Hydric B (poorly drained soils); and (2) disturbance, construction, filling, dredging and removal of vegetation within said wetlands and the corresponding 25 foot buffer area around said wetlands for the construction of buildings, driveways, drainage modifications and two (2) bioretention areas. The property is located at 505 Cushing Road, Tax Map R2, Lot 36-2-7, R1 Zone.
Brendon Quigley, Gove Environmental Services, represented Moody Point Company. Mr. Quigley stated he understood there were a number of open issues. They have a State permit application, which has not yet been submitted, and the subject will be discussed with the Conservation Commission. He understood the Planning Board will want the Conservation Commission’s comments.
Mr. Quigley stated he hoped to get the discussion started tonight. He was sure there would be comments from the public and he wanted to answer any questions. He stated it is a relatively simple application.
He stated the proposal is to construct a duplex unit on this lot. This is a resubmittal of an old application from 2008. Impacts have been reduced since that application, from approximately 2400 sq. ft. to 1824 sq. ft. of direct wetland impacts and the associated buffer zone.
With the reduction of impacts, there has been an effort to mitigate some of the functions of the wetland, which were identified to be water quality, storm water quality and water quality management. The wetland is a vegetative swale-like feature in a maintained grass field. It was found to serve as a groundwater discharge area, to some extent. It captures runoff from Cushing Road and the surrounding area and manages that water, as far as water quality treatment. To mitigate for that, the project includes two bioretention basins behind the proposed structure, with grading to divert and capture the existing runoff from that area and divert it to those basins. It has been designed to mitigate peak flow, so there will be no change in peak flow off this lot post development. The water will be treated with the vegetation and the infiltration characteristics that will be designed under that small gravel wetland feature. This is commonly known as a rain garden. This gravel wetland will be more of a commercial type instance of the same idea.
He indicated on the plan the location of the wetland, the impact, and the 25 foot buffer to the poorly drained soils.
He stated Jim Gove attempted to do a review of this area with Rockingham County Conservation District at the beginning of the winter. They were unable to do that conclusively, because of the frost. That may be something with which the Board wishes to continue. Rather than wait until that is done, they wanted to get the application submitted. The wetland on this plan is the same one from the old application, reviewed and stamped by Jim Gove. No changes were made to that since the 2008 application.
Acting Chairman Kwaks asked how long ago the wetland was surveyed by a Wetland Soil Scientist. Mr. Quigley stated, at the end of December, Jim Gove went out and reflagged that wetland. Then, the Town of Newmarket got wind of the proposal and requested this area be reviewed similarly to what it had been in 2008. They attempted to do that, but it was cold enough that the review could not be done. Diane Hardy stated the soils mapping has been updated. She clarified that the Board did not just “get wind” of the application. Mr. Cheney had contacted the Building and Planning Departments and asked if he could take fill from one of the lots, where he was excavating for a foundation, and place it on this lot. That immediately raised some red flags, as she was aware the Wetlands Board had turned down a Wetlands Permit for this lot in 2008. At that point, she got in touch with the Rockingham County Conservation District and Mr. Coumo, from the District, agreed to do an evaluation for the Town. Part of that evaluation was to go out and do a site inspection, which was done on January 16. At that site investigation, Mr. Gove indicated and it was agreed between the Soil Scientists that, given the conditions of the land, you could not do much in terms of digging to be able to do an evaluation. It was agreed, by all parties, that they should hold off until the frost disappeared and the ground conditions would permit a full investigation. Subsequent to that, they submitted their application. That is pending and she is making a recommendation there be further evaluation of this application, by the Rockingham County Conservation District.
Mr. Quigley stated they understand that is one of the outstanding items, which they expect to complete when conditions permit. The proposal is for a duplex structure. As far as it having been denied by the State previously, they feel that the attorney’s analysis may not have adequately considered the uses.
Acting Chairman Kwaks asked if he was saying he felt that DES denial did not consider the best use of the land. Mr. Quigley stated they felt there was, possibly, not enough consideration for the alternatives. That is the basis on which they are resubmitting. Acting Chairman Kwaks asked what the alternative was they were submitting this time that they did not submit the last time. Mr. Quigley stated the alternative is they feel, having been created for development in a planned community, the only practical thing that could be done with this lot is similar development to what was proposed. That is, basically, what they will argue with this application. They expect NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) will have comments. He stated they have a State application prepared and they hope to submit it this week. The Board will get a copy.
Mr. Quigley stated he really wants to get the discussion started. He knows there are a number of outstanding issues. He understood the Board would probably want to have a site walk. There will be comments from the Conservation Commission. As far as the quality of the wetlands, the proposal mitigates for what values the wetland currently has. It is located in a maintained field between similar development in a planned community. He stated he did not want to focus on the origin of the wetland. That is always a little fuzzy, dating back to the earliest time in this development. This has been partially influenced by the development since its conception. It might not have been there before. It is there now and they recognize there is a wetland feature there. He stated it is a grass swale and it is an area of poorly drained soil.
Mr. Quigley stated he had photos. He described this lot as a “missing tooth” on Cushing Road. A good portion of that lot is a maintained lawn, from the adjacent property to the right. There is a clear path of runoff. There are no other wetland species other than what is similar to what you would find in any sort of wet fields.
Acting Chairman Kwaks asked if there was a stream there. Mr. Quigley stated he would not call it a stream. The term he would use is a “scour channel”. That is a soil transport. It emanates from what appears to be an area of groundwater seep and it looks to him like it captures some runoff from Cushing Road.
Acting Chair Kwaks asked if a fire pond was depicted on the plan. Mr. Quigley indicated the wetland feature and fire pond on the plan. He showed where Lot 36-3-7 was located. He showed the wetland feature he had talked about. He showed where you could see a swale. It does flow into a fire pond. This is not depicted on the plan, as all of the proposed work is above that. The fire pond is connected to Great Bay through a controlled outlet structure. It is not tidal. The whole thing is close to 600 feet from the Bay. This all slopes off and is maintained.
Peter Nelson stated DES was very explicit in their findings of facts with the thirty five points they made. Eleven of these were findings in support of denial. He stated the burden of proof was on the applicant to show point by point where they are changing something that would make any of those previous points moot. He has not heard any of that. DES also stated the applicant must provide evidence that demonstrates the proposal is the alternative with the least adverse impact to the areas and environments under jurisdiction and they must demonstrate and have a plan for each factor listed. The Board would be expecting to hear a point by point rebuttal of DES’s very thorough examination of the previous case. Mr. Quigley stated the burden of proof is on Moody Point Company. He did not have that argument to present tonight. That will be part of the wetland application process. To the extent that develops, the Board will be provided with it.
Ezra Temko stated he saw, from the last proposal in 2008, one of the adverse impacts noted by DES was about this potentially exacerbating flooding, as an adverse impact to the abutters. He knew Mr. Quigley had mentioned there would be no change in peak flow off the lot post-development. He asked if Mr. Quigley could talk more about what impact this would or would not have on surrounding property. Mr. Quigley stated he was not aware of any flooding problems. He stated some of the members of the public from Moody Point might be able to provide a better account of that. Typically, with this small amount of impact and the mitigation that is proposed, he would not expect any impact with flooding. He may not be adequately informed about the long term effects at this property. He does wetland applications of this type regularly and he did not see a lot of problems with flooding.
Peter Nelson stated he drove out there before the meeting tonight and he could clearly see drainage right down the middle of the property. He stated Mr. Quigley was going to have to come up with a plan that would somehow make the obvious clearer on how you would mitigate that, because it is very clear water is running right down the middle of that lot right now. Mr. Quigley stated, in the proposed conditions, it will run to the sides of that structure and into the basins.
Ezra Temko stated Mr. Quigley had said this would be discussed at the State. The State’s alternative offer was to construct one structure on the property in the uplands. He was wondering what that would look like and why Mr. Quigley had not done that. Mr. Quigley stated they would look at that more closely and Mr. Temko may be getting at the crux of the argument. With that wetland in the middle, there may not be an opportunity to build anything on that lot. That gets to the heart of the issue. The lot was created for the purpose of developing a single or duplex and is not usable for either. That is something that will be included in the application. Acting Chairman Kwaks stated that would have been a mistake, where an unbuildable lot was included in the subdivision. She did not know if DES could rectify that mistake. Mr. Quigley stated that was some of the question, whether or not this was the case when these lots were created and the Town approved them. There is more research that needs to be done with some old plans. If this is developed, there seems to be a clear case that the only practical alternative is to allow some of that development to take place, with property mitigation.
Diane Hardy stated she would like to hear from the abutters. There have been some questions raised on whether there is enough information this evening for the Board to comment and take jurisdiction over the application. Before she provides her recommendation, she would like to hear from the abutters.
Mr. Quigley stated the engineer was supposed to be here tonight and would probably have been able to give more details on the drainage and mitigation. He did not have all of the details tonight.
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated the alternative is not the fault of DES, it is the fault of the developer carving out a lot that is not buildable.
Acting Chairman Kwaks opened up public comment at 7:34 p.m.
John Badger, 508 Cushing Road, gave a handout to the Board. He stated he was present as a member of the Board of Directors of the Moody Point Community Association (MPCA). He stated he was not sure why they were here once again considering construction on Lot 2-7, given the property’s history. He stated there was a spring and a stream that feeds fresh water through the fire pond. He indicated the fire pond on the plan. The MPCA was concerned about the continual replenishing of fresh water to the fire pond. The stream prevents groundwater from spreading to the buildings that are adjacent to this lot. He showed where he lived. When he moved in, every time there was a rain event, he could go in the backyard and the water would be above his ankles. The Association of the four buildings spent over $10,000 in drainage behind this building. They do not want anything to happen to that.
Mr. Badger went over the history of the area. This lot was declared by DES as wetlands on July 22, 2005. Mr. Badger offered the following:
On November 16, 2005, a wetlands permit was filed with DES, by Mr. Cheney. This was his first time around. On February 9, 2006, DES requested more information. May 11, 2006, DES grants an additional 120 days to Mr. Cheney to supply the information. The information was never filed.
On January 8, 2009, this is Mr. Cheney’s second time, DES wrote the applicant declaring this property was wetlands. It is Item #33 in the letter, “DES finds that the wetland on this lot is a headwater wetland connected to the larger wetland system that includes wetlands, a stream and a fire pond.
Mr. Cheney’s third time, May 29, 2009, the DES decision was appealed by Mr. Cheney and DES inspected the property again. June 5, 2009, DES stated, “It was understood that the wetlands served important functions in their positions in the landscape and the filling of these wetlands for lot development would not be approvable by DES”. Further, DES said, “The applicant agreed to redesign the development to confine construction to uplands only, with no wetlands impact”. Thirty days from June 5, 2009, he was given that time to submit plans and nothing was ever submitted and the lot remains a wetland.
Mr. Cheney’s fourth time, 2015, Mr. Badger stated here we go again and look at the design. He asked if that looked like a design for uplands only. He stated he did not think so.
Mr. Badger stated the application is substantially incomplete. To the immediate right of the little lot he had highlighted in yellow is the abutter, Waterfront Condominium Association. To the left is The Meadows Homeowners Association. Mr. Cheney is a property owner and a member of that association. To the immediate north is The Ridge Condominium Association. Immediately south is The Moody Point Community Association, owner of Lot 4 and the fire pond. None of these associations were notified of this hearing. His is the only association here tonight. The other three associations do not have official representatives here. The abutters list is inaccurate and poorly done.
He stated another major error on the application is in the description of the project as “wetlands modification/mitigation of a manmade ditch”. Yet, DES, in the January 8, 2009 letter, page 4, item 33, states that this “stream” is a headwater wetland including a stream to the fire pond. This is not a manmade ditch. It is a spring fed stream, which is replenishing fresh water to the fire pond, which you can see clearly on the map. It runs through the middle of Lot 2-7 all year long. He lives in the building next door and it is not a ditch, he has seen it running for the ten years he has lived there. This application should be rejected tonight for inaccuracies. They ask the Planning Board to reject the application permanently, because of the property’s designation as a vital wetlands, by DES. If the Board is unable to permanently reject this application, they ask that the Board agree tonight the application is not complete due to the failure of the accuracy and the comprehensive abutter list and the misrepresentation of the project and that they send the applicant back to try again. He asked they agree with the Rockingham County Conservation District inspector, Mr. Michael Cuomo, who inspected the property January 16, 2015, and concluded that little can be done to inspect the property and reach any conclusions until snow is melted, frost is gone, and the lot is thawed, perhaps by the middle of May.
Mr. Badger referred to the statement “We questioned the applicant’s assertion that only a 25’ setback, which is Hydric B, is needed”. Mr. Badger asked what if the determination is Hydric A and a 50’ setback. How can you determine that when the lot is full of snow? He asked the Planning Board to schedule a site walk in mid-May, work with Mr. Cuomo, from Rockingham County, and the applicant’s representatives to completely understand the lot, the soil configuration, the stream, and the fire pond replenishment. Finally, if this application then moves forward, it has to be properly noticed and the contents correct for what they hope would be a June Planning Board meeting. To summarize, he stated this is a stream, not a manmade ditch. This spring feeds our fire pond vital to our safety and security at Moody Point. Previously, three attempts, by the applicant, have failed with DES. It has been declared a wetlands and must remain so. He asked the Board to reject the application tonight as inaccurate and incomplete, schedule a site walk in May, and take it up in June.
Trish Simon, 510 Cushing Road, stated there was some confusion. When Mr. Quigley said he was representing Moody Point, it is the Moody Point Company. The abutters were here as the Moody Point Community Association.
She stated she had a letter she had been asked to read, by the President of the MPCA, Ken Geremia. He lives at 235 Cushing Road. She read his letter (contained in the record file). Ms. Simon showed the common land on the map and how the MPCA was an abutter to the subject property. She stated, in Mr. Geremia’s letter, he states Lot 2-7 in The Meadows drains to the MPCA’s common land and the fire pond. That lot was designated as wetlands in 2005 and reaffirmed in June 2009, by NH DES. Under governing documents of The Meadows Homeowners Association, as established by Mr. Cheney, its developer, all members of the Association own common property/land. Individuals own the house footprint and driveway. All members own the common property. Mr. Cheney is already constructing a duplex in The Meadows at Lot 2-4. Mr. Geremia wrote that they ask if Mr. Cheney has received approval and signoff from all remaining members of The Meadow for the duplex now under construction. He asked if it was correct, if the common land is owned by the members, all would have to agree to construction and sale. On Registry of Deeds recorded plan D-25510, Mr. Cheney is approved for 0-2 duplexes on Lot 2 in The Meadows. There is already an existing duplex in The Meadows and the second is under construction. It is their understanding that subsequent filings modifying this approved plan were not approved by the Planning Board. He asked how can Mr. Cheney propose a third duplex on Lot 2-7, when he will reach the maximum approved under Plan D-25510, with the duplex now under construction. How can changes to the approved plan be filed in the County Courthouse without Planning Board approval? He asked that the Board please understand they have no interest in challenging Mr. Cheney’s ownership of his easement to build on his lots. Their concern is the impact on the MPCA common land, the fire pond, and the shoreline. It is suggested that Mr. Cheney also shares these concerns. He asked that these issues be reviewed with the Town Planner, the Code Enforcement Officer, and, as necessary, the Town Attorney.
Bill Duchard, 503 Cushing Road, stated the stream definitely runs. He showed his house location on the plan. He has spent over $15,000 since purchasing the house in October 2012, diverting water to the culvert that dumps out into the common area of Moody Point. Even with all that, he cannot walk in his backyard. If he walks there, he sinks up to his ankles. They do not mow it. Indigenous grasses and plant grow in his yard that only grow in wetlands. This project abuts his property. They want to divert the stream and put in biorention areas, where this is already saturated. It is worse than a sponge. He does not begrudge someone for wanting to build on their own property, but, if DES has designated it a wetland, it is a stream, it is not Poorly Drained Soil by itself, it is a spring fed stream accentuated by runoff coming down from the hill. That water runs 24/7, 365 days a year.
Cari Moorhead, 215 Cushing Road, showed her home location on the plan. She can see the stream from her deck, as her home is on higher ground. She can clearly see water constantly. If you look down on the snow, you can see it all the time from that height, as it streams away through the wetlands into the fire pond. She has lived there for ten years. For ten years, she thinks the area will be one way and then the rug keeps getting pulled out from under her. They all live in this place and, at some point, some certainty would be really nice to feel like they know what they are dealing with.
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated she was not going to close the public comment.
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated Diane Hardy has done a large amount of research on this. To say it is convoluted is an understatement. From a January 8, 2008, letter, she read that Moody Point Company said, “The applicant states that he demonstrated need for the proposed wetland impact to achieve financial success by buildout of the remaining three lots of the Moody Point development and he will not feel that his environmentally conscious development is a success unless he meets his financial goals.” She stated “financial goals” is repeated over and over.
In going over everything Diane has been researching, she stated there was one public notice envelope returned undeliverable for an abutter. Ms. Simon stated she had met with the Planning Board secretary, who referred her to the Tax Assessor (the addresses that are kept on file for abutters to use for their lists are from the tax records). She had met with the Tax Assessor and she cleared up the addresses for the MPCA with him. On one application, the applicant had the MPCA’s address almost correct. On the final application, it showed what was on the tax records, which was still the gazebo on Cushing Road, which should have been corrected by the Assessor. She was going to try to meet with the Assessor to find out why this was not updated. Acting Chairman Kwaks mentioned it was the applicant’s responsibility to certify their abutters list is correct.
Ezra Temko asked about the lot where the duplex is currently under construction. Diane Hardy stated there are no wetlands involved with that lot.
Diane Hardy stated one of the first things the Planning Board does in looking at an application is make a determination whether the application is complete. If the application is complete, then a formal vote is taken and that starts the 65-day statutory timeframe for the review of the application.
Administratively, when applications come in, she goes through the Town’s checklist and ordinances to make sure there is adequate information. She did go through that exercise with this application. There were several items she found initially that were incomplete or unclear. She provided an email to the applicant and his Wetlands Scientist and asked for additional information. For the most part, they provided the additional information. Based on that, she has recommended acceptance of the application for technical review with some conditions. She realizes there has been testimony that may change the Board’s feeling on this. One of the first conditions she recommends is that there be funds provided up front, by the developer, for an independent third party consultant, who works on behalf of the Town to review the application and comment on the wetlands boundaries, impacts, and mitigation proposal. Also, they should provide input on the adequacy of those materials.
She has received a proposal from Rockingham County Conservation District. They have provided wetlands assessments for the Town in the past, with success. She would like to suggest, if the Planning Board decides to accept the application, that it be conditioned upon the applicant providing those funds in advance of the technical review, so the Board has their own consultant. Another recommendation is for a site walk. This is standard practice. She agrees with the abutters that this should not be until April or May. Another recommendation is all plans and supporting documentation be provided to the Conservation Commission. Under the Town’s ordinances, they are required to review the adequacy of the mitigation plan and to make a determination on whether there is an equal tradeoff for the overall mitigation.
She agrees with Peter Nelson that the Board needs more information. It would be advantageous to have the applicant go through each of the findings from DES and be able to build a case on why this application is different. The Board should set up a Technical Review Committee to work with the staff and consultants to put together recommendations and come back to the Board with those to conditionally approve or deny.
Jane Ford asked if the application was 100% filled out. Diane Hardy stated it is filled out. There is no checklist for Special Use applications, like there is for subdivisions. This puts the Board at a disadvantage. There were a lot of questions that were raised that need to be addressed that will affect the ultimate decision. She would be comfortable having the Board postpone taking action on application acceptance, until there is more information and the applicant’s engineer can come and address drainage, wetlands, and groundwater issues. That is critical. Jane Ford stated the applicant did not notify the right people and she cannot support going forward. The application is foggy.
Janice Rosa stated she does not support acceptance of the application. The most important part is the DES wetlands permit and it has been through the process a couple of times and she would have expected more information would have been given.
Ezra Temko asked about the acceptance process. Diane Hardy stated it will take a while for the applicant to get the information the Board is requesting. If that information is critical for the review of the application, it would make sense for action to be postponed.
Peter Nelson stated this is a problem lot that cannot be engineered away. Everyone spoke very clearly to that. He was in favor of denying it and not spending any more time on it. Diane Hardy explained the Board would have to take jurisdiction of the application, before they can deny it. It has been her experience with denials that the Board needs to work carefully with legal counsel and craft the findings of fact, similar to what DES did.
Ms. Simon asked a procedural question. She stated Mr. Quigley mentioned they have an application ready to go to DES. Can they go to DES or does it depend on what the Planning Board does first? Diane Hardy stated, under the Town’s requirements, if an application requires federal or State permits, they need to show they have provided an application to the agency. They do not need an action by the agency, just proof that they have provided one. What the Planning Board cannot do is say they are not going to hear it until they go to DES and get their permit. This is by State RSA. The Board has to accept the application and review it, then make a condition of approval about permits and approvals.
John Badger stated the Board could deny acceptance of the application this evening based on inaccuracies and an incomplete application, with other errors. Diane Hardy stated that is a policy decision of the Board. Ezra Temko stated that just delays the process. The feelings have been expressed. He did not know if it would be helpful to the Board or the community to have them all come out a month from now again.
Mr. Quigley stated he had hoped there would be requests for more information and a lot of questions. He wanted to get the process started and have the application accepted, so they would know what the concerns were and they could respond to them.
Jane Ford stated Mr. Quigley had said he came to talk about how they were going to do things differently. He cannot identify what those differences are and he wants to hear more about questions and concerns. Their concerns are probably what they have had all along about the stream. She can appreciate the statement, but she is not sure she can accept it. Mr. Quigley stated, if he had said they were doing things differently, he may have misspoken. Jane Ford stated he had said they found ways to mitigate things, but cannot answer some of those questions tonight. Also, the right people did not come to help answer those questions. This is the Board’s time, as well as the abutters’ time.
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated the sentiment of the Board tonight is to not accept the application, because it is not complete, not everyone was notified by the applicant, and there was other necessary information Diane Hardy had requested from the applicant for the next meeting. If the Board accepted the application, they would get into the problem of doing a technical review when a Board member cannot visualize the parcel without snow and ice on it. They cannot have a final evaluation from a third party on soils for a couple of months. She did not see how they could have an efficient technical review right now.
Diane Hardy stated she has a proposal from Rockingham County Conservation District. She gave it to Mr. Quigley to pass on to his client. She stated perhaps between now and the next meeting that can be taken care of, so the Board might be in a position to accept the application for technical review. At that point, they could schedule a site walk and technical review. The next meeting would be April 14. Acting Chairman Kwaks asked if that was acceptable to the applicant to come back with additional information to complete the application in order to accept it. Mr. Quigley stated that was acceptable.
John Badger asked, if they were going to come back to the next meeting, will the abutters be re-notified. Acting Chairman Kwaks asked, if Mr. Badger could provide the Board with a timeline and who he felt was not notified, that would be helpful. Diane Hardy stated there is a returned public hearing notice and it had been sent to the Moody Point Community Association. The address is The Moody Point Gazebo, Cushing Road, Newmarket, NH. She explained that she asked the Planning Board secretary, who has been in consultation with the Assessor’s Office about other address issues, about it and the Assessor’s Office does not have Post Office addresses for all common land in town. They use geographic locations, such as the Moody Point gazebo, because it does exist and is a physical location. That can be corrected. It is up to the applicant to certify on the application that is submitted that the abutters are the abutters as of the Town’s records five days prior to the submission of the application.
Another issue that came up was the underlying property is owned by the Homeowners Association. Mr. Cheney is an easement holder of that property. She would like to get a legal opinion from Town Counsel on whether all of the people who have an interest in the property, including everyone in the Homeowners Association, should be individually noticed and also if they need to sign off on the application. Mr. Badger stated, not only the Homeowners Association, but, in this case, there may be 8-12 property owners who have to be noticed individually. Diane Hardy stated, not only would they have to be notified, but they may have to sign off on the application, because they have an interest in the property. That begs legal interpretation. She asked if the Board would like her to get answers to that in writing for the next meeting. The Board was in favor of that.
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated Diane Hardy will notify the applicant on what they have to do prior to the April 14 meeting. The Board will not accept the application this evening.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion “to that effect”
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Acting Chairman Kwaks stated this will be on the next agenda on April 14. She is keeping the public comment open. Diane Hardy stated abutters should be notified again.
Agenda Item #5 - New/Old Business
Planner's Report
Diane Hardy stated, since the last meeting regarding the Industrial Park project, she has learned they have purchased an adjacent property, which will provide the land area necessary for a reasonable turning lane to the north at Forbes Road. They will be getting together with DES and the Technical Review Committee to discuss those plans and solidify that agreement.
She also stated it was noted that, at the last meeting, the Planning Board did not formally continue the Industrial Park application to the next meeting date, which terminates the process. The abutters have to be re-notified. It turns out, too, that the Board needs to work with the Technical Review Committee and get some clarification, before they can come back anyway. The cost of re-notification will be borne by the Town.
Committee Report
Peter Nelson spoke about the Visioning Committee. They had a meeting and came up with the acronym “Newmarket L.I.V.E.”, which stands for “Local Interactive Visioning Exercise”. There will be a public participation process and questions and answers. The regional planners are developing a Google Forms-based questionnaire. People can submit questions and ideas. There is a set of dates for the follow up meetings and it is moving forward. Diane Hardy stated the meetings are Saturdays, the first being April 18, 9-noon, in the Town Hall auditorium downstairs. The second date is up in the air due to Memorial Day Services and she did not want to conflict. The services are in the evening. Janice Rosa stated she did not see a conflict with the services time-wise, but Saturday is a day children have all of their sports activities and parents would never give that time up to go to this. She suggested picking a different day. Diane Hardy asked if they wanted to go into June to the sixth. It would also be a Saturday, 9-noon.
Diane Hardy mentioned the Planning & Zoning training workshop put on by the NH Office of State Planning is on May 2. There are funds available to cover training and travel. This is an excellent program for Board members and she highly recommended it for new members, as well as old.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:25 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor