Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
AUGUST 11, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Jane Ford, Janice Rosa, Ezra Temko, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio), Diane Hardy (Town Planner)
Absent: Rose-Anne Kwaks, Gary Levy (Alternate Town Council ex officio)
Called to order: 7:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:05 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comment
Eric Botterman appointed Peter Nelson to serve as a full Board member.
There were no public comments.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 07/14/15
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion the Planning Board approve the minutes from 07/14/15
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Consideration of appointment of Alternate: D. Diane Germanowski
Eric Botterman stated Diane was not able to attend the meeting this evening. Val Shelton spoke on her behalf. She stated she knows Diane professionally. Diane is also a member of the community at Moody Point. She has a strong background in real estate and in planning and zoning in the Newburyport and Amesbury, MA area. She has been involved with a lot of the redevelopment of those areas and she will have a lot to bring to the Board. She will come in as an Alternate, but she does plan to be a full Board member in the future.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion to appoint her as an Alternate with a three year term
Second: Val Shelton
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 M2A Zone. The proposal is for a boundary line adjustment involving the three lots, then the subdivision of five lots on the revised Lot 243.
Eric Botterman stated he had a letter from Bill Doucet, Doucet Survey, on behalf of the applicant requesting a continuance. He read the letter:
“This is a request to continue the Planning Board public hearing on the above referenced project until the September meeting. This will allow for the submittal and Town review of Homeowners Association and easement documents prior to that meeting. In addition, the project team understands the need for a comprehensive grading and drainage plan to ensure there is no increase to the Lincoln Street drainage system and no adverse impact to the Lamprey River. Sincerely, William Doucet.”
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to continue the application to the September 8, 2015 meeting
Second: Dale Pike
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated she had a conflict on September 8. The Board decided to hold the next meeting on September 15.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko amended his motion to continue the application to the September 15, 2015 meeting
Second: Dale Pike
Vote: All in favor
Housing & Demographics Chapter of Master Plan – Public hearing regarding the adoption of the Housing and Demographics Chapter, as an amendment to the Town of Newmarket Master Plan. The amendment includes a discussion of population, income and employment characteristics, and housing data, issues, trends, goals and recommendations.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing
There were no comments from the public.
Dale Pike stated he reviewed the minutes of the meetings and watched the joint meeting of the Planning Board and Economic Development Committee. Regarding the section on page 30 on Accessory Dwelling Units, the language in the report does not match the conversations of the Board very well. It does not lead to the changes the Board had made in the goals. The goals had been changed to reflect they did not want to promote accessory dwelling units. It is a convenience for the citizens of the town, but it is not something the Board views as the ideal way to increase density. That whole section extolls the virtues of those units and does not fit the discussion the Board has had.
Ezra Temko stated there are policies in place with these units now. He asked if there was anything in the language that contrasted with the current policy. Dale Pike stated he would not say there is anything that contrasts. The discussion was that they did not want to promote more accessory dwelling units. They are not trying to increase density in areas where they are happy with the existing density by creating more of these units. It does not fit the conversation the Board had. Val Shelton stated it fits under the trends of what is happening. They are seeing more applications for waivers of impact fees for accessory dwelling units come before the Board. The Board would be remiss not to have any call-out on the subject, especially given it is in the zoning ordinance now. She did not look at the narrative as highlighting the need to expand the number of accessory dwelling units.
Matt Sullivan, Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC), stated, when he removed accessory dwelling unit from the Goals and Recommendations, he had the same thought. He stated this section was really just a general commentary on the subject. It could be valuable to keep the language as is. He stated he could “soften” it, if the Board wished. Dale Pike stated that would be good. Eric Botterman stated he thought it was neutral. It just states what is in place now. In the Visioning meetings, this was the second most preferred type of housing people said they wanted to see. He did not think this was promoting it. Matt Sullivan stated the reason this was written this way was because the Goals and Recommendations suggested some modification to the Zoning Ordinance. This is Newmarket-specific, with an eye to the future where something could be changed.
Val Shelton stated this highlights more of the issues of what zoning regulations would be needed, if the Board in the future is going to look at accessory units in town. It talks about the density. Perhaps, if you are going to have an accessory unit, you would have to double the density. Dale Pike stated, when they had their dialog on this, it was that these units exist outside of our density objectives, because it is at the convenience of the owner. It is designed for somebody who owns a unit now and wants the convenience of accommodating family or special needs. It is not supposed to be a way for someone who is not otherwise qualified for increased density to achieve that density. He did not feel this section reflects the sense of the Planning Board at the last meeting.
Jane Ford stated this is a knowledge transfer. As we develop different policies, it can help lead to that. She was comfortable with it falling under the clarification of a trend, as opposed to it being part of an ongoing plan.
Ezra Temko stated he thought people did not have issues with having Grandma live in the accessory apartment, but the concern was more about when Grandma moves on, when other people outside of relatives move into these units. The Board still wanted to have some control over the process.
Dale Pike stated if someone builds an accessory apartment and Grandma moved on, there is no way of stopping the unit from continuing to be an apartment. There are no good ways to enforce that type of restriction if a relative lives there in the first place. In the end, they did not want to take that option away from people. That is an important convenience and meets real needs that people have. In the end, the Board did not want to take that away from people. On the other hand, the Board did not want to say this is the way we want to increase density in our town. It is sort of outside of any real Planning process. Eric Botterman stated he agreed. The way he read it was he did not think it was necessarily promoting accessory units, it is just saying what is happening now and what the trends are. It is not saying we are going to support more such units or not to support them.
Matt Sullivan stated the first paragraph was really intended to set the stage of why you might need to explore doing this. The next two paragraphs are the solutions you might use to create an opportunity. The last paragraph is a recognition of what could happen if you do not do this. He hoped this does not sell an accessory dwelling unit as opportunity for people to simply increase density anywhere and everywhere. He hoped that was not the message this was sending. If it does, it is a significant issue. He wanted this to be a solution to some of the demographic trends talked about earlier in the document. They want to create these small increases or increments in density, but often regulations require doubling of land area on a lot and massive improvements to a site.
Ezra Temko asked if communities have regulations on whether the units are allowed to be rentals vs. not being rented. Diane Hardy stated, in Merrimack, these opportunities were only available to people with whom the homeowner had a family relationship. It might be a grandmother, a disabled child, etc. They had covenants that were placed in the properties and recorded at the Registry of Deeds, so any property owner who had one of these units and no longer had the need as presented to the Planning Board would have to convert the unit back. It is very difficult to police and enforce it. She did not think Newmarket was in a position to be able to do that.
She also stated they are not increasing the density that much. There is a limitation of the size of these units. They cannot be greater than 800 sq. ft. They cannot be larger than a studio or one bedroom apartment. They are not increasing the density to the extent it would be if duplexes were allowed in that zone. They were talking about small units, not 2000 or 3000 sq. ft. dwelling units that could increase density considerably.
The Board stated they were fine with this section the way it was.
Ezra Temko stated he was thinking it would be nice for the Conservation Commission to review the first goal. If it does not make any difference timewise, he would like to see them review it. Eric Botterman stated he did not see a need for the Conservation Commission to comment on this. There is nothing specific for them to comment on. Any new developments would be commented on by the Conservation Commission as part of our process. Val Shelton stated this was the Master Plan from the Planning Board. As any regulations are developed, the Conservation Commission would have the opportunity to provide input.
Diane Hardy had a few editorial changes to share with Matt Sullivan. She gave him a copy of her changes.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the Housing & Demographics Chapter of the Master Plan, draft 07/17/2015, as amended by the editorial comments and grammatical changes from Diane Hardy
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Worksession: Vision Chapter of the Master Plan
There was a discussion of ways to clarify the use of the future tense involving the vision for 2025 in the phrasing of the chapter in order to avoid confusing people.
Matt Sullivan gave a synopsis of each section.
The forward is a discussion of the 10+ years since the 2001 Master Plan. It focuses on what has been accomplished in the downtown area. They looked back at the Goals and Recommendations of the Vision Chapter and most of them have come to fruition, in some way, and that is impressive. Not all communities are able to accomplish the Goals and Recommendations in the Vision section of their Master Plans. Newmarket had done a great job in that regard.
The Vision Statement is quite long and involved. It may be a bit too lengthy. Matt Sullivan felt it captured the input from the public forums.
On page three, he felt the outreach and visioning process they had done for the community was robust and he wanted to include some discussion of how they got to the final document. That process was captured on pages four and five. It goes on to page six where the survey and forum are discussed.
On pages four, five and six, there are small text boxes, with quick hitting items with results related to the outreach.
In the 2001 Vision Chapter, there was a long list of visionary statements. Matt Sullivan stated his staff went back and forth about whether they wanted one list or stick with the planning areas they had gone with at the outreach events. They decided to stick with the planning areas. You see them on pages seven to nine.
Val Shelton stated, on page three, the header should be “Newmarket’s Vision Statement”. Her opinion was to keep things simple. She understood pages four to six contained all of the background, but that is more administrative and she questions why this is part of the chapter. She stated they could have page three, seven, eight and nine and maybe just expand on the intro for the vision of high quality of life. She stated she did not think it was important in the Master Plan to include the process. She did not think they did that in any of the other chapters. Maybe the process could be an appendix. It could be referred to as “Appendix A” on page seven. “Appendix B” would be the public input.
Matt Sullivan stated they tried to get as much in as they could. They tried to bring separate ideas together.
Everyone who responded to the surveys identified the same issues. They did not touch on the solutions in this chapter. The same trends were found across the board. Parking, transportation issues, safety in the downtown, density in some areas, and an interest in economic development were trends in the survey. Everyone is interested in the community prospering.
Peter Nelson stated water supply protection and waterfront development concerns were highly ranked in the surveys. He was wondering why this was not included in the section on natural resources. These were clearly priorities. Another topic was land conservation efforts. He would like to see those incorporated a little more. Drinking water supply was not addressed.
Peter Nelson stated nothing addressed energy topics. They were supposed to be blended into natural resources or environment. This should encourage alternative energy, such as solar. They talked about having zoning standards for designs for these.
Diane Hardy stated they also talked about sustainability. Some text should be added for that.
Matt Sullivan stated they could certainly add text for those items.
Jane Ford stated it could say “evolving” energy and not limit it to solar for example. If something comes up that is different, the wording is there.
Matt Sullivan stated it would go at the end of the first paragraph under “Sustainable Development & Land Use”. There is a discussion there about smart growth principles. It will fit in there. Diane Hardy stated there should also be mention of opportunities for sustainable agriculture.
Diane Hardy stated they could change the heading on page seven from “Newmarket’s Vision for High Quality of Life” to “Newmarket’s Vision for the Future”. You could integrate the high quality of life in the narrative.
Ezra Temko stated he had comments on page nine under “Leadership, Volunteerism & Engagement”. Where it talks about volunteer groups, community events, and programs and partnering with the local businesses and school system, he thought they could add community organizations to that. He did not know if there is better language for parent and student involvement, as far as caregivers or guardians that reflects the diversity of who is involved with students. Also regarding diversity, it talks about Newmarket benefiting from a diverse and active citizenry and that had been included in the public input material, but he thinks what it does not get back to is when they are talking about engagement or recruitment of new volunteers. It should talk about how that engagement reflects the town’s diversity. After some discussion, Val Shelton stated she thought what they were trying to say was, if today is 2025 and she wanted to make the statement that Newmarket benefits from a diverse and active citizenry, what that says to her is that she lives in a town with a diverse population and that population is very active. Ezra Temko stated he did not read it that way. Val Shelton stated it was two separate things. It is diverse and active. It is not a diverse active citizenry. We have both. We have diverse citizenry that may not all be active. We can still benefit from a diverse population.
Peter Nelson stated he did not like the last sentence, “The municipal leadership remains unbroken”. He thought they might say, “The municipal leadership has been strong”. It should be rephrased a bit. Val Shelton stated they could say it remains strong “with the continuity of Town leaders”. After further discussion, she suggested …”continuity and expansion of Town leaders”. A goal for 2025 would be to have more diversity on Town boards or volunteering for organizations.
Peter Nelson commented on the Transportation section. He wondered if they should mention specific names of businesses involved in transportation in the area. Matt Sullivan recommended staying away from those references. Peter Nelson stated on the questionnaire responses, transportation was consistently ranked low. He thought was because other things ranked high. It should not be knocked out of being part of the Vision Statement. Val Shelton stated this section involves more than public transportation. It would be great to say in ten years there are good bike paths, for example. Matt Sullivan stated this was captured on the forms people filled out, it just was not captured in the survey. The COAST Route 7 issue was a hot topic at the time.
Janice Rosa stated they could mention providing electric hookups for cars. People could stroll downtown, while their car charged.
Matt Sullivan will make the necessary revisions. He will have it ready for the September meeting. He will get the draft to the Board in the next two weeks.
Chairman’s Report
Eric Botterman stated he received a copy of a letter from the Town of Raymond. Their Planning Board is inviting our Board to a meeting on September 17. It is a regional meeting. It sounds like they are interested in hearing from us about the success we have had in redeveloping our downtown. He will attend if he can. All Board members are welcome, as is Matt Sullivan.
Town Planner’s Report
The CIP Committee met and started the process. They are working to get a proposal to the Town Administrator by October 1. They will be touring Town facilities.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:05 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor