Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD
JUNE 9, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chair), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Ezra Temko, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Gary Levy (Town Council ex officio)
Absent: Jane Ford, Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio) both excused
Called to order: 7:03 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:04 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 - Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comment
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 05/12/15
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman appointed Peter Nelson to replace Jane Ford for this meeting.
Ezra Temko arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Work Session - Newmarket Master Plan Housing and Demographics Chapter
Eric Botterman stated the first several pages, up to page 36, are facts. They will be better served to focus on the goals at the end of the chapter. Diane Hardy stated they have already had two meetings where they discussed that first section. The Board agreed.
Val Shelton stated she had no edits or concerns about pages 1 through 25.
Eric Botterman stated he had a couple of small corrective edits that he will send to Matt Sullivan, at Strafford Regional Planning (SRPC).
Janice Rosa had no concerns. She thought they had thoroughly covered those pages.
Gary Levy suggested Matt Sullivan could take them from page 26 up to the goals and recommendations. He could do a quick overview and, if anyone had questions, they could ask them.
Matt Sullivan stated, on page 26, they begin with a discussion of the downtown redevelopment. The document goes on to age-based housing trends in NH. On page 28, there is further discussion of seniors, aging in place, and assisted living. He stated Newmarket’s proximity to Durham is important and Durham does provide ample student housing. There is a focus on universal design, retrofitting structures and designing new structures, so they can have multigenerational use.
Matt Sullivan stated there is a discussion of accessory dwelling units. This is a description containing more flexibility, which is captured later in the goals and recommendations. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she felt there was too much multi-family housing in town and, unless it was for elderly parents, accessory dwelling units should not be encouraged. Val Shelton stated the accessory apartment was a way for a family to stay together and age in place. She stated a law providing more flexibility for accessory apartments had just passed the Senate, but not the House yet regarding this. Ezra Temko stated accessory apartments also assist with the economics for younger people who cannot afford their own home. They are able to live at home and save, but still have their own space. They use this as a way to manage the economics for future homeownership.
Gary Levy stated, in the section stating that home ownership was declining, he did not agree with the paragraph that says a slow recovering housing market and difficulty obtaining financing have contributed to a decline in the attractiveness of owning a home. He felt that may be true for some entities, but you can get a loan at 4% now. He thought securing a loan would have been more of an issue in 2008-2010. Val Shelton stated, speaking from a professional standpoint, they have never seen it more difficult for people to get loans than ever before. They are seeing many people having to cancel contacts, because they cannot get financing. There is a big issue with student debt and credit card debt. Gary Levy stated he was hearing that the market for homes around $200,000 was stable.
Matt Sullivan stated, on page 31, it addresses condos and cooperatives. This is discussed in light of an aging population. Gary Levy stated the Town Council increased the elderly tax exemption last year. They tried to make it more consistent with the region as a whole.
Matt Sullivan stated, under the heading of “Expansion of Ownership Opportunities”, the last paragraph discusses Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Purchases of existing homes tie into the data that suggests that perhaps Newmarket’s housing stock is not as affordable as in some communities. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated a lot of homes in town are very affordable. She stated you could buy a $60,000 two-bedroom condo at Lita Lane. She did not see the need for the Master Plan to recommend an ordinance for affordable housing in Newmarket.
Gary Levy asked how affordable housing is measured. He asked if we were comparing ourselves to housing in Farmington or Manhattan, for example. Matt Sullivan stated in this area it includes Portsmouth all the way up to Rochester and then to the western side of Rockingham County. That is referred to as the Portsmouth/Rochester HFMR. Rockingham County tends to be more expensive for owner occupied units. Strafford County has a lot of people locating there, because the housing stock is fairly inexpensive. You do end up with somewhat of an average. Gary Levy stated his sense was Newmarket was one of the more affordable areas in general. Matt Sullivan stated he agreed. He said the tone of this chapter should not be to provide more affordable housing in Newmarket. When he says perhaps Newmarket should provide more ownership opportunities, it has done quite well with that. It just needs to continue to do that. Newmarket is a destination for young families and it should continue to be. He did not want to lose that quality. Gary Levy stated, at some point, the market drives this. He did not see Newmarket becoming Rye. Eric Botterman stated he did not see that at all. If Newmarket’s prices go up, Rye’s will go higher, too.
There was a question of why Newmarket was included in with the communities of Rye and Newcastle. (Because that is the way the data is collected by HFMR which includes Newmarket, Rye and Newcastle as well as many other communities). It also includes Rochester. Val Shelton explained it shows what is happening in the region, for example, there is a housing trend in the region that shows a demand for multi-family housing, even though Newmarket does not have to fill that. Eric Botterman stated the Board should look at the regional data and see where Newmarket fits into that. Then it is up to the Board to decide what data is important and what isn’t and what recommendations should be made going forward to include in the Master Plan. There is a lot of data that gets the Board to a point to see where Newmarket fits regionally, then the Planning Board can decide how they want to implement the recommendations.
Matt Sullivan read the Goals and Recommendations.
Goal: Integrate Smart Growth and Resilience Principles into Redevelopment and New Construction Housing Projects
1. Ensure the resilience of new housing developments in the context of extreme storm event frequency and coastal flooding, particularly in area adjacent to the Lamprey River.
Matt Sullivan stated setbacks from the river are important to ensure the structures are not be affected by coastal flooding. The floods a few years ago were extreme and measures should be taken going forward to minimize and mitigate the impacts associated future flooding. Setbacks would be one way to avoid that. Eric Botterman stated the Board already has good flood plain regulations. Diane Hardy stated they will be working on the flood plain regulations this summer. Matt Sullivan stated you want to avoid having your infrastructure on the ground floor. That is a problem in Dover.
2. Encourage sustainable and energy-efficient design of new housing units.
Matt Sullivan stated this is a housing trend right now. Val Shelton stated the Town has not adopted any of the State regulations, where they do not assess for certain energy efficiencies. Diane Hardy stated there is an energy tax credit for energy efficient projects, like LEED building construction and solar energy projects. She believed there was a cap on the amount of abatement you could get.
3. Continue to promote mixed uses in the downtown area as older, obsolete uses are phased out by current downtown redevelopment efforts.
No comments.
4. Encourage sustainable and energy-efficient retrofitting of existing housing units.
No comments.
5. Continue to encourage higher density development in the downtown area.
Diane Hardy stated there have been a lot of comments on Newmarket providing its fair share of regional housing, especially for rental and moderate income families. There is a very dense downtown and very little land left for redevelopment. The idea of increasing the density in the downtown is not feasible, given the fact there is not much land. She could count on one hand the number of lots available. She suggested they exclude the bullet that says to continue to encourage higher density development downtown. There is no land for it. Rose-Anne Kwaks agreed. Janice Rosa stated she did not want to see what happened in Durham’s downtown happen here.
Ezra Temko stated he sees areas downtown that could be turned into mixed use, either owner occupied or higher (end) rentals. Gary Levy stated some of this was addressed last year in the mixed use (M-2A) ordinance that was passed. The new zoning allowed for density increases. The businesses would be on the first floor. This has already been addressed, maybe not exactly using the same terminology. Diane Hardy agreed stating they have provided for expanded opportunities for housing in the area adjacent to the downtown. Val Shelton stated they have to take into consideration the age of the housing stock in our urban center. They need to focus on how to encourage redevelopment of that housing stock to increase the tax base. It really is a goal. It should not be taken out, because the Town passed zoning. It should stay in as a goal, so it is consistent with current zoning.
Ezra Temko stated there is a waiting list for apartments in the mills. There is a demand for housing downtown along the river. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated there is a problem with the lack of parking. The mill residents have to walk across the street for parking. If she had to walk all that way to her car every day to go to work in ice and rain and carry groceries back and forth, she would not like that. That indicates there is a problem with any type of further redevelopment downtown. It is a problem if you add more housing on top of what is already there. With all of the money that was spent downtown and the great job that was done on the mills, she would not want to encourage any type of redevelopment. There is an older housing base down there. It would be redevelopment, with a new building. She would not even consider that until they have some type of design standards for the downtown, because right now we do not have any. Downtown Newmarket would start looking like downtown Durham. She would like to see some type of design standards before that is done. Val Shelton stated that could be part of the Goals and Recommendations. Gary Levy suggested saying, “Continue to encourage development in the downtown area”. There is something on the books now that gives increased density and gives a reasonable amount of development incentive to someone. Eric Botterman stated he was fine with that wording. The Board agreed. They changed “development” to “redevelopment”.
6. Plan for development in a manner that maximizes the use of existing infrastructure and reduces the need for new roads, services, and facilities.
The Board was in agreement, no comments.
7. Promote linkages and integration between neighborhoods, community facilities, and places of employment.
No comments.
8. Encourage new housing development and redevelopment in downtown mixed–use areas that promote live, work, and play lifestyles.
No comments.
9. Encourage infill development within established neighborhoods that is compatible in scale with current land uses within surrounding areas, and adequately supported by public utilities and the existing transportation system.
Diane Hardy suggested it state, “…compatible with the existing current density and land uses, compatible in scale with surrounding areas…” so there are no multi-story high rises in the middle of a single family area. She stated it was important that they reinforce current density rather than introducing new higher density.
10. Plan for an anticipated 190 new housing units per decade in a way that will not adversely impact the environmental and fiscal health of the community.
Diane Hardy suggested they add to the end of the sentence, “…which will enhance the quality of existing neighborhoods”. Val Shelton stated she would take exception, because what about the landowner who has not yet developed his land. They paid taxes on it forever and now this is in as a statement in the Master Plan, while they are trying to get a permit to do something in that neighborhood that is allowed, but all of the neighbors are saying they like things the way they are now and they don’t want that building being done.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she did not see a problem with it saying “enhance the quality of existing neighborhoods”. They are not going to put in a 20 unit apartment house if it is not allowed. That would not enhance the quality. Val Shelton stated people would say they have their neighborhood and they don’t want anything to change, so they will use the Master Plan to support their viewpoint. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they would be allowed to do things, as long as they were not detrimental to the neighborhood and within the scope of what exists. This keeps the quality there. Gary Levy stated it already says that in the bullet before this one. Eric Botterman stated the word “quality” is subjective.
Ezra Temko suggested it should state over “the next decade”, instead of “per decade”.
11. Ensure the environmental compatibility of new construction projects during site plan review and planning board approval process.
Diane Hardy stated she took exception to this, as she felt that this Board works very hard to ensure, through the Site Plan review and process, to ensure environmental compatibility. They don’t need to do it in the future, they are already doing it. Val Shelton stated this should be in the Master Plan. She suggested “…continue to ensure the environmental…” Everyone agreed.
Matt Sullivan stated there is a very fine line between being too prescriptive in the Master Plan and treating this as a study. These are intended to be broad recommendations. Otherwise, you handcuff the community in a lot of ways. Obviously, the community will change over the next ten years. Although much of this may appear to have no “teeth”, it is intended to be that way.
Goal: Continue to Emphasize the Tradition of Excellence in the Newmarket School District Educational Experience
Matt Sullivan stated, in hindsight, he was not comfortable including this goal. He was not sure it was totally relevant to the chapter as it stands right now. It could, perhaps, be included in the community facilities discussion. This is just the product of what, at the time, he felt should be included, but now he has reconsidered it. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated this belongs with the School Board and their entity and not with the Planning Board. Gary Levy stated the community facilities chapter would be an appropriate place for this language. The Board decided to remove this.
Goal: Create and Maintain Attractive and Affordable Housing that Allows for “Aging in Place” and “Aging in Community”
1. Explore the services needed to allow residents to remain in their larger single family homes in rural areas
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that is not a Planning Board item. The Board is not going to provide support services for the elderly. That is something families do. That is a function of private industry. Val Shelton stated the Economic Development Committee is working on some zoning recommendations which would provide the opportunity to have some type of support service or business entities in rural areas. Peter Nelson stated it may not be that broad. It is more like having handicap (ADA) accessible curb cuts. You can tie that to a Planning Board approval for a development. Matt Sullivan stated he was thinking more service vs. amenity. An amenity would be having a grocery store close by. A service would be like a transportation service. That is how he wrote this goal. Eric Botterman stated it should say just “single family homes”, rather than “larger single family homes”. Diane Hardy stated it does not need to state “rural areas”, it is really a town wide issue. Peter Nelson stated he liked the goal, but he doesn’t like the objective “explore the services”, because that is broad. If it is going to be an objective, it should be to do something more specific. Diane Hardy stated Matt Sullivan suggested the word “consider”, as they would be considering needs, not necessarily actively doing something like providing for the needs.
2. Develop a live, play and stay program focused on resident retention that includes a periodic assessment of resident needs, more neighborhood-based services, expanded transportation services, and increased housing options
Matt Sullivan stated a live, play and stay program allows flexibility for individuals to remain in the community and do everything they need and want to do in their daily lives right here, rather than having to get in their cars and drive to adjacent communities. Diane Hardy asked if he could include a definition in the chapter. Matt Sullivan stated he would. Gary Levy stated it was a person’s preference and it was market driven. Val Shelton agreed. Gary Levy stated this was turning into a “nanny plan” (a colloquial term describing policy whereby the government takes care of everyone.) Rose-Anne Kwaks agreed. Gary Levy stated: if a lot of people like first floor bedrooms and they are selling well, that is what will be built. If someone wants to build a bedroom on the third floor, that is their business. The market will decide what will sell. If someone is making an investment, they are not going to be building what people are not buying.
Diane Hardy stated nonprofit social service agencies would be in a much better position than the Town would be to assess neighborhood-based services and the need for specialized transportation. Gary Levy stated COAST just took out a bus route and several Town Councilors were concerned for the people who could no longer get around. There was a compromise made. At the end of the day, if COAST said they could not do that, because they could not afford to run the bus here, then they would not do it. Then it becomes a political question. He would not want to mandate this in a Master Plan, as to whether the Town wants to find the funds to run a transportation system or a scaled down version.
Val Shelton stated the format of this chapter is not consistent with the last Master Plan, where they had the goals and objectives all outlined and then the Board identified who was supposed to lead that. It is not the Board’s purview to implement the entire Master Plan for the community. The Board’s responsibility is relative to the zoning and land use matters. Diane Hardy stated Val Shelton is referring to the implementation section of the last chapter that was done, where all of the goals and recommendations and strategies were prioritized and then there was an entity identified to be responsible for implementation. All that information was compiled in a matrix of sorts. It pulled everything together in a snapshot of what the Board envisioned for the various parts of the Master Plan.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, regarding “expanded transportation services”, it was not up to the Town to provide those. The Town provides policies. She felt this whole item should be removed. Peter Nelson stated the Board is saying it is supporting this environment and values. The Board is supporting the goal of live, work, play. The Board is not developing a program. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated this exceeds the legal definition of what a Planning Board is supposed to do. She agreed stating that this is (sounds like) a “nanny state”. It is not a Planning Board consideration, like setbacks. Ezra Temko suggested changing “develop” to “support” and change “program” to “community”. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated “services” should not be in there. Gary Levy stated words like “encourage” are a lot more appropriate. Eric Botterman asked for the Board’s consensus. Janice Rosa stated they address all of this in the Planning process. If you attend the Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings, this is all addressed there. Diane Hardy stated, at the TRC meetings, they do things like coordinate with COAST. Val Shelton stated, for that reason alone, this should be in there. It gives Diane Hardy ability to say that this is part of our Master Plan. The Board should be encouraging the live, play community. She stated Diane Hardy has something to go back to and say why she is making a recommendation. For example, Diane Hardy stated there are references now in the site plan review regulations to coordinating with COAST. When they did the Rockingham Green project, they coordinated with them for a stop and turn-in for buses. She did not see a problem having a statement in the Master Plan that supports the concept. What they are hearing is this is a new way of looking at communities. It is encouraging people to have all of the facilities they need in their community, so they don’t have to drive 25 miles to do their errands. This is the new trend of smart growth and development, to make services more available and communities more livable. Having this as a general goal is okay. It identifies what is important to the people of Newmarket.
Ezra Temko stated this document contains not only new goals, but it articulates current goals, as well. Eric Botterman stated the word “encourage” does not tie them to do anything. It just says the Board supports that. Peter Nelson stated the wording needs reworking. Gary Levy stated using less definitive adjectives might be more appropriate. He also stated he felt the bullet points for each goal could be tightened up more. He felt that eight or nine points per goal were too many. Eric Botterman stated this is a draft document. If the Board does not want to include something, they don’t have to.
2. Find ways to site housing in the downtown area in a way that avoids noise and light pollution
Eric Botterman stated they should strike that, because they do that now. Everyone agreed.
3. Support the development of affordable senior housing in the downtown that provides access to vital services and amenities
Diane Hardy asked why just in the downtown. There may be other opportunities in other areas. The Board agreed.
4. Actively encourage senior housing development on lands most suitable, such as locations within walking distance to the downtown and those served by existing infrastructure and services.
It was decided to combine bullet point #3 & #4. Gary Levy stated he did not know where you would put senior development into the downtown. Diane Hardy agreed. Eric Botterman stated someone could buy a whole block and want to put one in. Gary Levy stated there was an elderly housing ordinance already in place that covers the downtown area.
5. Encourage multi-generational neighborhoods and developments
The Board discussed #5 & #6 together.
6. Consider an incentive-based zoning ordinance provision that allows increased density for development reserved for seniors.
Val Shelton stated they should talk about the tax base. Newmarket has a good housing stock and good zoning, where we have this multigenerational aspect. There is cost to municipal services in these areas. A lot of communities are encouraging 55 and older communities. Gary Levy stated the more multi-generational families you have, the more taxes will be affected. Val Shelton stated you would have to look at the tax implications of that. She stated, if they wanted to change zoning, where you have all this land in R1 zone, then make it R2 and it doubles the density requirements, which will encourage more multi-generational housing. She asked if that was really what they wanted, as a community. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the accessory apartments that are discussed under this chapter help to take care of the multi-generational aspect, by allowing in-laws and seniors to continue to live in neighborhoods. So, this bullet point is just redundant. Peter Nelson stated all four of these bullet points get summed up in the last one, “Explore zoning changes that allow for viable density and size for the development of assisted living and Continuing Care Retirement Communities”. It was decided to roll all of the bullet points into one.
Goal: Provide Education on Property Tax Policies that Allow Individuals to Remain in the Community
1. Promote elderly tax exemption under RSA 72-39 as method to “age-in-place” or “age- in-community”
2. Review existing local property tax exemption standards for senior homeowners and evaluate impact on seniors’ ability to remain in Newmarket
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated this was up to the Assessor, Town Clerk, or Town Administrator to promote this. It was not up to the Planning Board. Diane Hardy stated it should be in the Master Plan for the Town. Peter Nelson suggested changing “promote” to “support”. Matt Sullivan stated there is a need to educate citizens, it is not really support. He could change it to say something like “educate the elderly community members about the elderly tax exemption”. Val Shelton stated she was fine with it as is and, if they do a chart, this will fall under Town Council responsibility or Town Administrator. The Board decided to go with “educate”.
3. Market and publicize property tax exemption programs for home improvements intended to improve handicapped and disabled resident accessibility
The Board was in agreement.
Diane Hardy mentioned tax provision RSA 79-E should not be overlooked. Two (2) projects in Newmarket have utilized it and it has been proven to be a useful redevelopment tool. Gary Levy stated he would add “when appropriate”
Goal: Increase Community Diversity by Creating Policies that Attract and Keep Young Professionals and Families in Newmarket
1. Support the conversion of former student housing and other rental units in the downtown and adjacent areas into attractive and affordable single-family and condominium units that provide an opportunity for multi-generational housing uses
Ezra Temko thought this was too specific. Val Shelton stated Newmarket has no formal student housing. Matt Sullivan stated he was aware of that, but he was not sure how to address it. Ezra Temko stated “support the conversion of units in the downtown and adjacent areas to attractive and affordable single family condominium units and mixed use development that provide an opportunity for multi-generational housing uses”. Then you could eliminate #2, as it is now incorporated with #1 into one item. The Board decided to integrate this goal into the goal on page 35, the affordable owner and renter stock goal.
Diane Hardy stated #3, #4 and #5 are part of the Economic Development Chapter. Those points are currently in that chapter. The Board was in agreement.
5. Explore methods to create and attract high-quality local employment opportunities that provide livable wages and economic prosperity for young professionals and working families
Goal: Promote New Construction and Redevelopment Efforts that Adhere to Principles of Universal Design
1. Increase use of UD (universal design) principles intended to serve multiple age groups in housing development, redevelopment, and retrofitting
Gary Levy stated most families are not locating in the downtown. They would be in more residential neighborhoods. Val Shelton stated a lot of people want to stay in Newmarket, who may have started in the urban center and, as their family grows, they are moving outside of that, because of space needs.
Eric Botterman stated if the Board wanted to finish this tonight, it would be past 10:00 p.m., when they were done. He asked for the wishes of the Board. There were a lot of bullet points left. It was decided to add this to the next Planning Board meeting agenda. Eric Botterman suggested that everyone get their comments in to Diane Hardy ahead of the meeting.
Matt Sullivan stated he would get an updated draft of the goals and recommendations to them ahead of the next meeting.
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Eric Botterman stated Peter Nelson volunteered to become the representative to the Strafford Regional Planning Commission. The Board agreed to nominate Peter Nelson for the position on the SRPC.
Agenda Item #6 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Gary Levy made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor