Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JULY 14, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Ezra Temko, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio), Gary Levy (Town Council ex-officio Alternate). Town Planner, Diane Hardy
Agenda Item #1 - Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 06/09/15
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of 06/09/15
Second: Jane Ford
Val Shelton stated, on page 10, line 12-15, where she is speaking, regarding making a statement that they did not want this. It should also say “multigenerational”, not “multi-family”. This should be all one sentence. Her position was this was something she did not think the community was looking for. She made a statement; it was not a question. It should read as “She stated if they wanted to change zoning, where you have all this land in the R1 zone, then make it R2 and double the density requirements, which will encourage more multi-generational housing. She asked if that was really what they wanted, as a community.”
Vote: Jane Ford & Dale Pike abstained due to absence
All others in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
NIP Lot 6 – Notice of Merger – 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6 and 181 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 8.
Chairman Botterman stated this item has been postponed. Under the State Law pertaining to mergers, the properties have to be owned by the same legal entity. These lots are owned by two separate entities, even though the principal of the entities were the same person. The applicant has to go back and make some changes, possibly conveying the land between the entities.
Consideration of Application for Alternate – Diane Germanowski
Val Shelton stated there is an open three year position. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she would rather have the applicant present to answer any questions the Board may have. The Board decided to move this item to the August meeting.
Lubberland Creek Homeowners Association and its members - Public hearing for an application for subdivision/site plan, requested by the Lubberland Creek Homeowners Association and its members. The following lots are involved in this application. All are located on Tax Map R2 and are within the R1 Zone. The lots are 117 Cushing Rd, Lot 36-6-1; 118 Cushing Rd, 36-6-2; 119 Cushing Rd, 36-6-3; 120 Cushing Rd, 36-6-4; 121 Cushing Rd, 36-6-5, 122 Cushing Rd, 36-6-6; 123 Cushing Rd, 36-6-7; 124 Cushing Rd, 36-6-8; 131 Cushing Rd, 36-6-9; 132 Cushing Rd, 36-6-10; 133 Cushing Rd, 36-6-11. The purpose of this application is to reaffirm the lot lines, as originally approved by the Newmarket Planning Board in 1992 Plan D-21973 and revised in 1995, Plan D-23691; affirm that the policy of requiring a “Final Configuration Plan” does not apply to these lots; and reaffirm their prior votes that density, setback, and building location requirements continue to be vested, as established under the Alternative Design Subdivision (ADS) approval for Moody Point.
Val Shelton recused herself, as she owns 124 Cushing Road.
Diane Hardy stated the application is complete. The applicant did a very thorough job in putting together the previous plans, deed references, and examples of final configuration plans. There is enough information contained within for the Board to understand the essence of what is being requested.
Chairman Botterman appointed Peter Nelson to sit in for Val Shelton.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
F.X. Bruton, an attorney with Bruton & Berube in Dover, represented the applicants. Lubberland Creek has, basically, single-family homes and is a smaller part of the Moody Point subdivision. When that subdivision was created, it was created with a number of lots. One of those lots was Lot 6. Lot 6, at one point, was to have multi-units, as were most of the lots at Moody Point. In 1992, the developer came back to the Board and asked that eleven lots be created out of Lot 6. In 1995, there were some minor adjustments to a lot line. In essence, that 1995 plan became the plan for these eleven lots. Conveyances occurred after the 1995 plan. Their reference is the 1995 plan. At that point, eleven lots were created under the Alternative Design Subdivision (ADS) regulations that were in place. Those regulations related to density, which allowed the eleven lots to be created. They understand that some of the density originally related to Lot 6 was moved to some other portions of Moody Point, but it did not affect Lot 6 from going forward. It had zero lot line provisions. Those lots were created and those houses were developed premised on that approval. To date nine of the lots have been developed and two remain undeveloped. He provided some historical background. What happened on Lot 6 at Moody Point was the developer sold the lot to the homeowner, who in turn, designed and constructed their house. In addition, the homeowner would get a mortgage on property. Once the house and driveway was done, the homeowner would have to hire a surveyor to create a plot plan with a metes and bounds description of the house and driveway, which what was referred to as a Final Configuration Plan. That was a plot plan of what existed after construction. The homeowner would then take that plan to the Planning Board. There are some records, minutes and notes indicating the Planning Board was not sure why they had to do this, but they had a written policy stating that when the Applicant came back to the Board with the final configuration plan, the Board would approve it. The current Planning Board did not see much purpose in doing this. They were not sure how this all came about, but the homeowner would then deed the property to a Trustee. The Trustee would then deed the area of land where the house and the driveway sat and an exclusive use easement for use of the entirety of the lot back to the homeowner. And, the Trustee would deed the fee simple land underneath the easement back to the Association. This would happen at the same time, because there was a mortgage and multiple conveyances and the landowner was left without a fee simple interest under the exclusive easement area. The mortgage holder would then have to partially discharge their mortgage. This was a very convoluted process and went on for a number of years. It was done at a time when going through the steps of preparing plans and deeds was manageable. Now those things have become very expensive to do. With one of the lots recently under agreement, it was under contract and it was understood that they would purchase the land and design the house, but they would have to go through the process in place. The purchasers backed out of the deal, because they could not understand it. An attorney would have a hard time telling anyone why this was set up this way. More importantly, the banks did not understand it, so they could not underwrite the financing on the purchase.
What they are asking for tonight is that the entirety of the lot, which is under exclusive control of each homeowner, including maintenance and things that an Association would normally take care of, be conveyed to the individual homeowners, so if the request is granted then the individual homeowners would then own the land under the easement in fee simple, and the easement would go away. They are asking the Board to reaffirm the 1995 plan. There is no change to the plan and no physical change to the lots. They are asking that the final reconfiguration policy, as it applies to these lots, goes away. There would not be a need for all of these plans and approvals coming before the Board. At the end of the day, they would have a traditional situation where a developer sells a lot to the homeowner, which they would own in its entirety, and the banks would grant a mortgage to build a house.
The hardship is real in terms of what they dealt with for the last two lots and the nine current owners who have to describe that they own everything, except that they don’t. The Town’s attorney put it perfectly today when he said the request before the Board was a good example of what we should be doing.
The approval should not require this practice, so there is no good reason as to why this was happening. They would like to have the Board reconfirm the original plan and recognize that the zoning provisions applicable at that time are applicable now. This would include the density and zero lot line provision and the last two lots can be developed. Nothing else changes in the current configuration. They tried to take a convoluted process and bring it to its simplest form. By granting that relief, they avoid unnecessary multiple conveyances, surveys and eliminate confusion. This would merge what the Association has with what the homeowners own. If they get approval, they would make those conveyances from the Association to the homeowner, so they would own their entire lot.
Ezra Temko has no problem with the proposal, but he was curious what the reasons were for this practice to be developed. Attorney Bruton stated there does not appear to be any legal reasons. They looked through the records, but from what they see in the minutes and approvals is there are no requirements to do this.
Dale Pike asked what would have granted them zero lot lines. Diane Hardy stated that was part of the original Moody Point subdivision, which came in as an ADS (Alternative Design Subdivision. That waived the setback and density requirements that were in effect for conventional development in that zone. The Planning Board recognized that there was some leeway there, because of the type of development. She did not understand why this was done. There is no real rationale. This policy did help to expedite things somewhat, as the applicant would have had to come back with a full blown subdivision and boundary adjustment. Attorney Bruton stated it was like a Band Aid. They found themselves trapped in this process and the Board tried to make it easier, by streamlining the process.
Val Shelton stated, prior to this being done, there were two other lots at Moody Point that had a similar arrangement, but all of the land was going back to the Association to be maintained by the Association.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked about ADS subdivisions. Diane Hardy stated they were a precursor to the open space developments as we know them today.
Attorney Bruton provided proposed findings and asked that the Board adopt those.
Chairman Botterman opened the public hearing.
None.
Attorney Bruton stated this part of the development is unique. The homeowner maintains the parcel. Anywhere else, it is done by the Associations.
Chairman Botterman closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to grant the owners in the Lubberland Creek (development) to return to the configuration of their lots to the bounds depicted on Plan D-23691 and request that the Planning Board reaffirm the approval of that plan
A. The plan recorded as Plan No. D-23691 is re-affirmed and the property lines for each lot in Lubberland Creek may be restored to the lines as depicted on this plan.
B. The policy of requiring a “Final Configuration Plan” does not apply to the lots in Lubberland Creek, and the practice of requiring multiple plans and deeds for each lot does not apply to Lubberland Creek.
C. The Board re-affirms its prior votes that the density and building location requirements for Lubberland Creek, including the zero lot line side setback provisions, as established for the Alternative Design Subdivision approval for Moody Point, continue to be vested.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Attorney Bruton requested the Board vote that the document could be recorded.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to amend the motion to state the document could be recorded
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Milton Elm Street, LLC, and Cammar Properties, LLC - Public hearing for an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment and Subdivision, at 1 Elm Dr., Tax Map U2, Lot 248; 2 Elm Dr., Tax Map U2, Lot 243; and 2 Elm St., Tax Map U2, Lot 249, all located in the M2-A Zone. The proposal is for a boundary line adjustment involving the three lots, then the subdivision of the revised Lot 243 into five lots.
Matt Fagginer-Auer from Doucet Survey gave a brief presentation of the proposal. The intent is to modify the lot lines with four boundary adjustments and subdivide Lot 243 into five lots for residential use. The lots range in size from 10,973 square feet to 14,050 square feet. The subdivision also includes a 17,683 square foot lot adjacent to the Lamprey River that will be owned in common by the five residential property owners. There is approximately 370 feet of river frontage. The proposed subdivision will be serviced by municipal water and sewer.
Diane Hardy has reviewed the applicant against the major subdivision checklist and has requested additional information on: the floodplain boundaries, the stamping of the plans by the wetlands scientist and land surveyor, and lot numbering. It was noted that the property falls within the 250 foot NH DES Shoreland Protection Zone as the property is adjacent to the Lamprey River. State shoreland permits will be necessary for the development of the house lots. She stated the application is substantially complete and can be accepted for technical review.
Matt Fagginer-Auer stated that he has been in touch with the Assessor’s office about the numbering of the parcels. He clarified that the signature on the abutter’s certification was Bill Doucet’s, which will be clearly notated on the application. The flood plain boundary has been added to the subdivision plan. They will obtain Mark West’s wetlands scientist stamp and certification for the plan. Land surveyor Bill Doucet will also stamp the final plans and Mylar prior to recording. The plans have been submitted to the Conservation Commission and the Local River Advisory Committee (LRAC) for comment and coordination purposes. The Planning Department will be coordinating a meeting with the Technical Review Committee (TRC). The applicant will apply for the NH DES shoreland permits at the time that construction of the buildings occurs.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the application for a technical review subject to the applicant providing the additional information stated above.
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Peter Nelson asked what the process was locally for acquiring public access easements across the common land. Given the proximity to the river, this may be a good idea. Diane Hardy explained there was no formal requirement that the land be provided for public access on small subdivisions under 25 lots, however, the Conservation Commission or Local Rivers Advisory Committee (LRAC) could recommend it and something like that could be negotiated with the developer. Peter Nelson felt it would be in the Town’s best interest to have public access for recreational opportunities and conservation along the River.
Matt Fagginger-Auer said that was something that could be taken up with his client. The purpose of the common land as it stands now would be as a private benefit to the people who eventually will buy one of the five (5) lots within the subdivision. He would be happy to discuss this with his client (the Applicant).
A question was asked about the Shoreland Protection Zone which extends from the reference line (the mean high water mark) and is 250 feet wide. The Town’s requirements call for a 125 foot building setback from reference line. Ezra Temko, the Planning Board liaison to the Conservation Commission, indicated the Commission would be making recommendations to the NH Department of Environmental Services on any shoreland permits. Any alteration of the land within that zone requires state permitting. It was noted that the land between the proposed house lots, the common land and the River is quite steep. Direct access to the River may be difficult for homeowners.
Matt Fagginger-Auer stated that the intent is to keep the development as far as possible away from the River. He clarified that they are not proposing to remove the retaining wall that runs along the top of the slope. The plan will be corrected to reflect that.
Ezra Temko asked if the applicant had considered a cluster development. It had been considered by the former owner but it doesn’t meet the requirements for a cluster (open space development), as you need a minimum of 8 acres of open space. Also, open space developments are not allowed in the current M-2A zone.
Chairman Eric Botterman opened the public hearing for commentary from members of the public and the abutters.
Gerry O’Connell, 26 Grant Road, who is representing the seller, confirmed the intent of the common land is to provide river access for the owners of the lots. There is a pathway that goes down to the river’s edge. There is a potential for a large dock to be permitted which would be shared by the five (5) lot owners. The question was raised whether the lots were intended for duplexes. The applicant’s engineer will evaluate whether the current lot sizes meet the density requirements for duplexes.
Abutter Martin MacKenzie, who resides at 6-8 Washington Street, asked if the owner of the property has the right to build on the lots, if the subdivision is approved. It was explained that provided the lots meet the Town’s zoning and subdivision regulations, the lots can be subdivided and then sold to individual property owners. After the lots are conveyed, then the property owner can apply for a building permit from the Town and for any shoreland permits from the State.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed.
Members Rose-Anne Kwaks, Jane Ford, and Janice Rosa offered to sit on the Technical Review Committee (TRC), which will be scheduled once the availability of the Public Works Director, Fire Chief, and Water and Wastewater Superintendent is established. The TRC will also do a site walk of the proposed project. The Conservation Commission and representatives from the Local Rivers Advisory Committee will be invited to the TRC meeting.
Vote
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the application to the August 11, 2015 meeting.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Matt Sullivan, Strafford Regional Planning Commission – Review of June Visioning Session and update to the Housing & Demographics Chapter of the Master Plan.
Matt Sullivan gave a brief overview of the changes that were made the chapter (Draft 07.06.2015) since the last meeting. Some changes were made to the text in order to make it more readable. He noted the recommendations section is now one page shorter than the previous iteration. Several recommendations have been taken out, while others have been modified based on the Board’s discussion. At the last meeting, the Planning Board had left off on Page 34. The Planning Board resumed discussion about promoting accessory apartments and dwelling units as a multi-generational housing solution.
GOAL: PROMOTE ACCESSORY APARTMENTS AND DWELLING UNITS AS A MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING SOLUTION
This section generated a lively discussion among Board members. Matt Sullivan reviewed each bullet and entertained questions along the way. The following is a recap of the discussions:
Parking - The Planning Board discussed the rationale for having parking requirements for accessory apartments. It has been used as a mechanism the Town has employed in the past. This is especially an issue in the downtown area where there are small lots and very little land area. In some neighborhoods where there are apartments, parking occurs in a helter-skelter fashion within the front yards and side yards of property and very little green space and lawn areas remain. The town’s requirements currently call for there to be two spaces per unit. These have to be reasonable parking spaces large enough to allow for access without the driver having to back out on the street. It was suggested that the requirement be reduced for accessory apartments from two cars per unit to one car per unit to provide more flexibility and to allow accessory apartments in more dense areas.
Accessibility - This requirement is related to aesthetics, so the accessory apartment fits into the fabric of neighborhood.
Regulations – There was discussion about how the Town regulates accessory apartments and what limitations are in place to assure fairness. Currently, there are no limitations on who the accessory apartment can be leased to. An applicant can go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and request a Special Exception. If the application meets the criteria, then the accessory apartment is allowed. It was noted that some communities try to regulate who the apartment is rented to, such as to other family members, for example, in the case of an in-law apartment. It is very difficult to enforce that type of restriction from a practical point of view. It is also a problem for the landowner who has to convert the property back after the family situation changes.
Density - It was clarified that current density restrictions such as a zoning requirements that limit the number of dwelling units per acre do not apply to accessory apartments. It was noted that accessory apartments do in effect increase the overall density of the Town. If it is an owner-occupied single family house, the owner can apply for an accessory unit within all residential zones. However, there is a limit on the size of the unit. It can’t exceed 800 square feet in size. It can only be a studio or one bedroom apartment. In addition, there has to be adequate parking and water and sewer service. It does have to be within the footprint of an existing dwelling so there wouldn’t be more lot coverage. The Planning Board routinely waives impacts fees for accessory apartments.
Chairman Botterman asked for the sentiments of the Board on this issue.
Dale Pike raised the question if accessory units are already allowed, why do we want to promote more. He has concerns about increasing the current densities to allow more accessory apartments. We need to be mindful of the fiscal impacts of increasing density so the burden doesn’t fall on current property taxpayers. Before we allow any more accessory units, we should do some kind of density analysis and look at what the fiscal impacts will be on the Town. Also, he is not sure we should allow having a second or separate building on a lot for this type of use.
What is not represented in this proposed Master Plan, which was clearly stated in the previous Master Plan, and which is of grave concern to the citizens, is that we should not be encouraging housing growth that will not increase the demand for services above the property tax revenue it generates.
Rose-Anne Kwaks agreed stating we should not be going in this direction. We have enough apartments in Newmarket. We are inundated with apartments. We have enough density. I don’t think we should be promoting more accessory apartments. It was suggested that it was a problem downtown where there is little area for parking. Newmarket has a saturation of density in comparison to other communities in the region. We shouldn’t do anything above and beyond what we are currently doing for accessory apartments. We should not even have a goal to that effect in the Master Plan. We are talking about apartments here. Multi-generational housing implies family housing, and we are not promoting family housing here, but just more apartments in Town.
Jane Ford and Janice Rosa agreed and don’t believe we should be promoting accessory apartments.
Ezra Temko said if we don’t do this then we will be behind the curve in terms of where other communities are going. It is important that we make this a priority. We are not talking about having large scale apartment complexes which could have a negative fiscal impact. Also, this isn’t going to result in the widespread development of accessory apartments. Also, we shouldn’t try to define “family” and go in that direction. He stated that we should allow front access to the accessory dwelling units, when appropriate, and suggested that change be made to the last bullet under the Goal.
Diane Hardy we do need to clarify language in the Zoning Ordinance as to what residential districts we will allow accessory apartments in.
Peter Nelson stated that we need to move away from promoting accessory apartments but still provide an opportunity for keeping our aging population in Town. With respect to whether we allow access to the front, side and rear of a building, he thinks we should have some design guidelines for accessory apartments.
Val Shelton feels that there is a place in the Master Plan for allowing these types of accessory dwellings in Town. She feels that this is appropriate and makes total sense. We should not minimize the use of property in the R-1 zone where there are large lots, by requiring the property owner to go through a subdivision process to create a housing opportunity for an aging family member. We need to have flexibility and be fair to our current property owners. She recommends that we remove the whole goal and combine the bullets with the goal below. Also, we should change the language from “promoting” accessory units to “accommodating” accessory units. That way, it is in the Master Plan, to support our current practices.
Eric Botterman felt that if we take the goal out entirely that we will be giving the wrong message to future Planning Boards that we don’t want accessory apartments which could, then, be used as justification for changing the zoning.
Gary Levy asked why should we address something that we are already doing. He believes the language as stated is setting an agenda that he doesn’t personally agree with. We have a large percentage of multi-family units in town, we are already making accommodations for affordable housing and apartments in Newmarket.
Val Shelton felt that we should change the language in the next paragraph, second bullet, from “promote” to “accommodate” accessory apartments and take out the whole separate goal and six bullets above that talks about accessory apartments as a “multi-generational” housing solution.
Therefore, it is still a component in our current Master Plan and is consistent with the current zoning, but isn’t stated as a separate priority. The Planning Board agreed that we would eliminate the entire goal pertaining to accessory units and multi-generational housing and incorporate some of the bullets in the following section:
GOAL: CONTINUE TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCESS TO ATTRACTIVE OWNER AND RENTER HOUSING STOCK.
In the first bullet, Dale Pike asked whether we should use the language to “create” housing. The Town doesn’t create housing. The Town “provides zoning regulations to allow” owner-occupied and renter housing stock. So, the language should read that Newmarket should continue “to provide zoning regulations to allow” such housing.
It was agreed by all that Newmarket does provide a diverse range of housing opportunities. Gary Levy noted that some of the communities in the region are not providing a housing stock to a diverse group of residents. Newmarket, however, has provided its fair share.
Ezra Temko wants to include references in this section to (1) providing opportunities for “young families and professionals”; and (2) adding “multi-generational housing “ to the second bullet.
It was agreed to omit the first reference and add the second.
It was suggested that we remove “smaller cottage-style” housing units, as the Town doesn’t want to encourage lower valued properties. It was suggested that this is market driven and we shouldn’t be trying to promote any particular style of housing, so the language was taken out.
Upon Val Shelton’s recommendation, the Planning Board agreed to add the following language to the third bullet down “to contribute to expanding the tax base”.
Also, the Board agreed to take out the term “vibrant” which can be misleading and replace with “quality”.
Also, the Board requested that references to “multi-family housing and condominiums” be taken out because of the significant number of such units that exist in Newmarket. It was suggested we need to better understand density before allowing additional multi-family housing units and that we continue to require cost-benefit analysis to assure there will be a positive tax benefit before allowing more such units.
It was clarified that we are talking about “repurposing and redeveloping vacant and deteriorated housing”, not necessarily adding more multi-family and condominium units, so the reference to multi-family and condominiums units should be deleted.
It was agreed to take out the bullet regarding doing a regulatory audit. The term “regulatory audit” is very vague. This should be couched in terms of evaluating the zoning ordinance in a comprehensive way for changes to implement this chapter.
There was consensus that a bullet be added that the Planning Board “establish design standards for the downtown area.” to assure that private investments in the downtown are protected.
Matt Sullivan also was noted that references to specific types of housing such as senior housing, housing for families, etc. were taken out. Also, language regarding affordability and work force housing have been deleted because Newmarket is already providing its fair share of affordable housing.
Ezra Temko suggested that instead of “maintaining” opportunities for housing for individuals with diverse socio-economic backgrounds say “providing.” Everyone agreed with that change.
Peter Nelson said we should “explore and document” the relationship between economic growth, housing availability and cost. Everyone agreed with that change.
The Planning Board then went back to the beginning of the Goals and Recommendations section to review the other changes that Matt Sullivan had made to the report:
On Page 33, first Goal regarding “Aging in Place”, where 190 units is referenced, change to “additional” rather than “new” units. There was agreement.
On the subject of adding language about ”meeting the needs of young families and professionals”, it was suggested that we provide a “range of housing opportunity’ so all groups are covered. It was decided that we shouldn’t single out a particular age group such as students. It is already covered in other parts of the Goals Section.
On Page 34, the goal pertaining to property tax policies: delete references to “providing education” and change to “supporting property tax policies”.
On Page 34, in the second paragraph and second bullet, Gary Levy felt that this bullet flies in the face of what the Economic Development Committee (EDC) is trying to do and wants the language about “life stage” housing concepts to be eliminated. A Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) for residents over age 55 is life stage housing. There was consensus that should be changed.
In the Goal about Universal Design, having one-grade level entry housing, should not be a policy. Housing types and designs should be market driven. It was agreed to take out the whole section.
Rose-Anne Kwaks felt the language regarding the “Live, Play, and Stay” lifestyles should be deleted. It was agreed to leave it in.
Val Shelton requesting that the report be re-formatted with letters or numbers, so it will be easier to find things. The report needs to be reformatted so we have consistent numbering and formatting like the rest of the Master Plan. It was noted that the bullets don’t reflect priorities.
Matt Sullivan gave an overview of the second visioning session. All of the information from the visioning sessions and the data from the survey will be synthesized into a Vision Statement for review by the Planning Board. The SRPC will get a draft of the Vision Statement out to the Planning Board, as early as by the end of this week. At the August 11 Planning Board meeting, there will be a work session on the Vision Statement. Nothing in the Vision Statement will change the content of the Housing and Demographics chapter. To his knowledge, Matt Sullivan thought that there were no incompatible statements. A draft of the Visioning Statement will be carefully vetted by the Planning Board before adoption to assure that it is consistent with the Housing and Demographic chapter.
A public hearing on the Housing and Demographics chapter will be held on Tuesday, August 11. Draft materials with the changes from this evening’s meeting should be available by Friday. The revised draft will be put on the town’s website to allow ample time for the public to review and comment at the Public Hearing.
Cynthia Copeland of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) commended the Board on the delightful conversation that has transpired. She wanted to clarify that the SRPC is not here to advocate for a position. She referred to the AICP Code of Ethics that governs the planning profession, which talks about a planner’s ethical responsibility to work with and act in a manner that regards the client’s best interest and ensures that the needs of the community are being met. She stated we hear your perspectives and congratulate you on reaching a consensus on these important issues.
Committee Reports
Economic Development Committee - Val Shelton gave an update from the Economic Development Committee (EDC). Copies of the Kwass report have been forwarded to the Planning Board members, as well as a memo from the Town Administrator and an eleven page memo from John Connery with recommendations for zoning changes. There will be a separate work session in August to discuss the Kwass report, we will move on to focus and hear John Connery’s zoning recommendations.
Gary Levy, as the Chairman of the Economic Development Committee, gave an overview of the Kwass report. The e The report was very broad and included some recommendations, such as ways to work collaboratively with UNH and find an economy of scale for incubators and start-up businesses in Newmarket. One of the findings of the report is that you are not going to grow your way into a lower tax rate with commercial and industrial development. For example, you would need 45 million dollars (not entirely sure of the exact figure) in new development, or five industrial parks, to get one dollar off the tax rate. Another conclusion was that people seem to like Newmarket as it is, and that we should “enhance” what we are already doing. So, the question then becomes one of how can we drive more revenue into the community, without adversely impacting the taxpayers.
In preparation for the work session, Gary Levy thought it would be helpful if Planning Board members could forward their thoughts, comments or recommendations with respect to Peter Kwass’s report so they can be discussed at the workshop. It would be nice to get some feedback from the Planning Board. Please forward your comments to Diane Hardy, she will forward them to Gary. The Planning Board set up the work session with the EDC up for at 6:00 pm on Monday, August 3, 2015. Diane Hardy will confirm the date and time with John Connery.
Strafford Regional Planning Commission - Peter Nelson will be appointed as one of the Town’s representatives to the Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) at the Town Council meeting tomorrow night, July 15, 2015. He attended Commission training and will be attending the upcoming MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) meeting. He offered to keep Board members informed about new projects and regional initiatives.
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Committee will meet sometime in July for an organizational meeting.
New Business
Flood Plain Maps – Eric Botterman and Val Shelton offered to help Diane Hardy with the Flood Plain Maps and ordinance re-writes. Amendments to the zoning ordinance and subdivision and site review regulations are needed as well as the adoption of the new Flood Plain maps, once FEMA provides the effective date of the maps to the Town.
Other Business
Sidewalks - Janice Rosa is very interested in seeing sidewalks in new developments. When we approve future developments we should consider put sidewalks over sewage lines as they are planned and require developers to build sidewalks at the time of the development approval.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:48 pm.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor