Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 8, 2015
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Jane Ford, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Janice Rosa, Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio)
Absent: Ezra Temko, Gary Levy (Town Council ex officio Alternate), D. Diane Germanowski, all excused
Called to order: 7:02 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:47 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Rose-Anne Kwaks commented on how nice the Christmas decorations look at the golf course and they are selling Christmas trees there, cut in New Hampshire.
There were no other comments.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 11/10/15
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the minutes of November 10, 2015
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman abstained due to absence
Eric Botterman stated Peter Nelson, Ezra Temko, and Diane Germanowski will not be attending this meeting.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Wayne & Janice Rosa – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for renewal of an excavation permit, for the property located at 421 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 2, B-3 Zone.
Janice Rosa recused herself.
Diane Hardy updated the Board. She and the Building Official did a site walk on December 2, with Mr. Rosa, per the excavation regulations. The project is proceeding per the approved plan and it meets the Town and State requirements. There were a few recommendations. As you enter the site, on the right side of the road, there is an area that has been excavated and it is fairly steep. Some sort of warning is necessary and Mr. Rosa put some boulders there to identify it and keep any vehicles out of that area. It was their recommendation there also be some warning signs, installed at that location. Mr. Rosa will have a sign made up. There was also an area further west on Route 152 that is fairly close to the road. There are signs there, but they are hidden by the woods growth. Mr. Rosa will either relocate those signs or make them more visible. Those were the only real substantive recommendations. The conditions she is suggesting for the renewal of the permit are those that were included in the last approval. There is a requirement that the construction entrance be a stabilized one to prevent erosion. Every time there has been a permit renewal, the following spring, Mr. Rosa would go out and check the area and fill any areas that needed it and regrade, as necessary, to maintain proper drainage. He agreed to do that again. They are carrying through the conditions from the original permit renewal in 2003. The last requirement is the performance bond for $27,000.00 will continue to be renewed yearly. Everything is current in the Rosa’s file. The application is in a form where it could be approved by the Board.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to approve the renewal of the excavation permit for three years for the property located at 421 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R-6, Lot 2, in the B-3 Zone subject to staff recommendations.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Real Estate Advisors, Inc. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for site plan review, at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone. The proposal is to add a four unit condominium building with related parking to the property.
Janice Rosa and Val Shelton recused themselves for this application.
Robert Medea, an abutter to the property, stated he had received copies of what was submitted to the Board for the proposal. He also had the Planning Board application review checklist. He stated there were items on the checklist that had yet to be completed. Eric Botterman stated that is what the Board discusses first. They discuss whether they can accept the application as complete.
Diane Hardy stated she had a meeting with Mr. Cheney and his assistant and they went through all of the conditions. They are in agreement with coming forward with the additional information. There was a question on the applicability of ADA and that will be researched as part of the technical review. Mr. Madea stated some of the items were not available for public review and he would like to have time to review them. He wanted to ask for a continuation. Eric Botterman explained only the Board and applicant can ask for a continuation, but he would have time to review the material. The Board will decide if the application is complete enough to start a review.
Alex Schlieder represented Real Estate Advisors. She showed a plan of the lot. It consists of two separate lots, at this time. They are proposing townhouse units. They have received a variance from the Zoning Board to be able to have four units. There is ample parking and access. There are two units of parking for each housing unit. There is an existing six unit garage used for commercial purposes, at this time. They have screened the property with trees. There is a rain garden to help with drainage.
Diane Hardy stated there were some questions regarding the checklist items. They would like to see an approval block on each plan that will ultimately be signed by the Chairman. The Town’s regulations require that soil types be shown on the plans. The applicant had stated they would add that information. There was a setback question. They were not delineated on the site plan, but were on the topographic plan. They also talked about the possibility of consolidating this information on one site plan. The applicant agreed to do that. Under the Town’s regulations, there needs to be at least one ADA accessible parking space. There was also an area with a 3’ wide sidewalk leading to the units. She believes that is in violation of ADA. Ms. Schleider stated ADA said it had to be at least 3’. They suggest 5’. Diane Hardy stated these are things that will be discussed in the technical review. They have designated snow storage areas, but they are rather small. Given some of the snow we have had, a larger area might be warranted. An alternative is to remove excess snow. The applicant agreed to that. Landscaping was a concern the Zoning Board had. They wanted the Planning Board to be extra diligent about making sure there was proper screening. She would like abutter input on that. Stormwater needs to be addressed. It is a constrained site. They would like to have the Town Engineer review that for offsite impacts. There is a dumpster located on the plan and that will be screened. She had a concern whether there was enough room for a truck to pick up the trash and wanted to be sure the hours of the pickup would minimize the impacts on the adjacent property owners. For lighting, there is nothing specifically planned other than lighting on the building and that will be downward deflecting. At this point, there may be some waivers, but that will become clearer with the technical review process. They would like to see elevations and she sees they have provided photographs of a similar project they have done. There are some flow calculations that will be reviewed by the Town Engineer. They have included conditions of the Zoning Board on the plan. She had some confusion on the utilities. In one place, it states they will be underground and in another place there were overhead wires shown. Those discrepancies need to be corrected. The Zoning Board placed a condition on the variance that any cost associated with relocating any of the utilities and accommodating the plan would not be borne by the abutters and would be borne by the developer.
She stated, at this point, their recommendation is, if these deficiencies can be addressed and the applicant has indicated they will be, they would like to forward this to the engineer for review and to get a cost proposal. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting should be set up to review the plans and look further into any issues. Once that documentation was provided, it would be forwarded to the TRC. The Board should now decide whether to accept the application for technical review. Eric Botterman stated the deficiencies are minor and it should be accepted for review to start the process.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to accept the application
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Eric Botterman explained the application review process.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked, if there is a lot of snow, as it melts, would it drain onto abutting properties. Also, the Zoning Board approval said the abutters would not incur expense in the removal of telephone poles. When they are moved, she had concerns that it would it cause a visual interruption to the abutter’s properties they do not currently have. Ms. Schleider stated they were still in the process of working with the electric company to determine that. They hope to reroute all of the poles to another location. Eric Botterman stated this will be worked out in TRC. Ms. Schlieder stated they were planning a site walk with the Building Official and the electric company.
Janice Lamontagne, 3 Grape Street, stated Peggy Small-Porter, who is not an abutter, but lives on Beech Street, could not be at the meeting and she asked if she would read a letter. She read the letter and it has been placed in the record in the file. She had concerns about the project and its impact to the area, regarding drainage, lighting, landscaping, and snow removal. She felt it was important to honor the historical integrity of New Village. She gave a report to the Board from “The Preservation Company”. (This report is from a company hired by the abutters). This was also placed in the record. It described the history of New Village. It stated they were of the opinion the area would be eligible for historic district status. Ms. Small-Porter stated she felt a brick duplex would fit the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Lamontagne asked where her house at 3 Grape was on the plan. She would like the plan explained a little bit better.
Robert Madea, owner of 7-9 Grape Street, stated they have been looking at the plans and have walked the property with Mr. Cheney. He wanted to reiterate what Peggy Small-Porter said. They tried to work with the Zoning Board on this. He asked for the Board to assist with the issues brought up tonight. He feels this project deflates the property values in the area. This is “cramming” 4 units into a very small space. He understands brick construction was expensive, but it would be nice to at least see a brick façade or something to make it blend better. They were concerned that the project, as planned, amounts to overcrowding with four units on a small lot. They would like to be sure it doesn’t impact the safety of the residents, including the children, with the increase in traffic from the four units. They have not seen a formal traffic review. There is one way into the neighborhood and one way out and all of that traffic will go down Grape Street. He would like to see a traffic study. He would also like to be certain the noise in the neighborhood would not be elevated with that many more people and cars from four units. It should not impact drainage. The area has a lot of clay and it does not drain. Water does not percolate well and it runs into their basements. They all have sump pumps. When the Town replaced the sewer systems, they did put catchbasins in that people could tie into. A drainage plan should be looked at. Although the ZBA approved the variance, the lot is just large enough for a single family house. It was beyond his comprehension they approved anything other than that. A duplex would be a stretch, but would work well with the surrounding duplexes. He would like the Board to make sure this blends in seamlessly in the neighborhood.
He stated, on the plan, he noticed, at the back at 3 Grape Street, there is a catchbasin noted as 1050. There is a “grading” in the ground. It is an old drainage system for the neighborhood. He thought it drained into distant wetlands. Many years ago, he had inquired about tying into that line. The Town said they had no record of that line. They could not say he could tie in. If that is to be used in the plan, it should not be. Ms. Schlieder stated they have no intention of using it.
He had concerns about drainage onto Grape Street from the parking lot. Ms. Schlieder stated there is a swale that will redirect it. Diane Hardy stated there is a drainage study that was submitted. He was welcome to look at it and the Town Engineer will review it.
He had also noted the small snow storage area.
He did not know if a fire hydrant would be necessary. Eric Botterman stated that was up to the Fire Chief and would come up at TRC.
Mr. Madea stated it was mentioned earlier that the TRC meeting was open to the public. He asked if he could get notified when that would be by mail. Diane Hardy stated he was welcome to contact the office to get the time and schedule, but they could not notify everyone of the meeting personally for each meeting involved.
Mr. Madea stated they were concerned about the property use. He stated the units would be owner occupied. He understood the Planning Board could not require that. There would have to be an Association agreement. He asked if the Board reviewed that. Eric Botterman stated the Board does not get involved in whether it is owner occupied. Mr. Madea stated he would like to see those documents.
Peter Meneghin, whose wife owns 20 Beech Street, which abuts, spoke. He was concerned about with the four units and extensive paved area. The permeable area is limited. He urged the Board to consider, along with drainage arrangements, that the plan reflects the presence of large deciduous trees that are proposed to be removed. Any competent study should take into account the water consumed by those trees. They have been responsible for taking care of a lot of the water. Diane Hardy stated, with the biorention area that is proposed, the Town Engineer would typically require test pits.
Paula and Richard Curran, 15-17 Cedar Street, expressed concern about the water retention behind their property. They have flooding in their house. They were also concerned about the dumpsters and potential vermin if trash is left too long. Eric Botterman stated those concerns would be addressed at the TRC meeting.
Rich Curran asked about the rain garden. Ms. Schlieder explained how a rain garden works. This is effective, environmentally friendly and is very pretty in the yard. Mr. Curran stated kids cut through the property now. Ms. Schlieder stated they were willing to work that out with the abutters.
Ms. Lamontagne asked if they would explain the plan to her. She said her house should be shown on it. It looks like an empty space is there. Ms. Schlieder went to the plan with her and explained to her where it was.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked how much land they would have had to have for those units without a variance. Diane Hardy stated she would have to look it up. They have a variance for the density. In the R3 district, the maximum density is two units per acre. So, they would have needed two (2) acres. They received a variance. All of the documentation is in the office.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she would like to see the minutes of the ZBA meeting and would like to view the recordings of the meetings. Diane Hardy stated the meetings are on the Town’s website, as are the minutes, and the Notice of Decision is in the office. The file is available for viewing. The Zoning Board ruled on this on October 20, 2014.
Paula Curran stated they bought their property to retire in. In the past, the utility companies have moved things and taken their fence down several times and put it back up without notification. Eric Botterman stated they cannot do that without notification. It is a legal requirement for them to do it. The Town can’t make that part of the Board’s decision. She should call the police if they take the fence down. They do not intend to take her fence down for this application.
Paula Curran stated that no one showed up at the Zoning Board meetings, because they never thought they would pass it.
Diane Hardy added this was appealed to Superior Court by the abutters and the Court ruled in favor of the Town.
Robert Madea stated there was a pole in the center of the property that provided power to the area. It may require buried utility lines to their own duplexes out of that location unless they go down the street. Their entrances are at the back of the houses that align with that pole. The Board should have a site walk. Having the lines buried would be a good thing.
Rose-Anne Kwaks, Eric Botterman, and Jane Ford will be on the TRC. Diane Hardy stated she needs to coordinate with Department Heads and the engineer. They tentatively scheduled a meeting for December 21, 2015 at 10:00 depending on the availability of others. They will confirm that. They would like Christian Smith present.
There were questions on how many TRC meetings there would be. It was explained that every application was different and the number of meetings involved in each was unpredictable.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked why Janice Rosa and Val Shelton recused themselves from this application. Val Shelton stated she works for the applicant and may have a financial interest. Janice Rosa stated she stepped down, because sometimes Mr. Cheney hires her husband for work. She was stepping down in case her husband was hired for this job.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue the application for major site plan review requested by Real Estate Advisors on Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lots 206 and 206-1, in the R3 zone to January 19, 2016
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Cheney Property Management Corp. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for Site Plan & Special Use Permit, at 52, 54, & 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lots 12, 13 & 14, M2A Zone. The proposal is to remove three existing buildings and construct a two-story 27000 sq. ft. mixed-use building, with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor.
Mike Sievert, MJS Engineering, represented the applicant. He stated, since the last meeting, there was a TRC meeting. They have a full list of comments from the Town Engineer, Building Official, Dept. Heads, and Board members. In response, they prepared a revised set of plans, which the Board received on December 1, and a letter addressing all of the issues that came up in the review. They also submitted a waiver request for parking and a road setback. The road setback is part of the Special Use Permit. They also talked about elevations and those were contained in the updated plan package.
Mr. Sievert stated one item that was left a little tenuous at the TRC meeting was the drainage. One of the questions that came up was whether this was a redevelopment project. It would be very helpful for him to be able to address the drainage, if the Board feels that this is a redevelopment project. He described in the review comments on page five, why this is a redevelopment project. They feel it clearly is a redevelopment project and the reason for that is under the “Definitions”, it states, “Any construction, alteration or improvements that disturb more than 20,000 square feet of area or adds more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area” and they meet both. It is important to them that it is a redevelopment project, because it allows them to fall under those drainage calculations and design. They are not trying to say it has to be that for some other reason. The lots are all clearly developed now. Eric Botterman stated he agreed with them. Diane Hardy stated, after the TRC meeting, she went back and looked at the definition and, in this case, it does fall under redevelopment. They are demolishing what is there and rebuilding. In this case, the applicant shall attempt to meet the minimum stormwater requirements and was required to make it meet for 50% of the site. She explained the requirements.
Diane Hardy recommended, if the Board concurred, they move forward using that definition and they have another TRC meeting. Eric Botterman agreed. Val Shelton stated she concurred. This project meets the regulations for a redevelopment project.
There was discussion of the stormwater issues and the Town Engineer’s findings. Eric Botterman stated they were getting ahead of themselves at that point. Diane Hardy read the redevelopment definition.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that the project proposed at Tax Map U4, Lots 12, 13, and 14 at 52-56 Exeter Road fall under the definition of redevelopment under Section 1.03 of the Site Plan regulations
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: Rose-Anne Kwaks opposed
All others in favor
Motion passes 5-1
Mr. Sievert stated the drainage design meets the requirements. They will work further to try to minimize the potential of downstream impacts. In another section of the regulations, under 3.07(D) (4) for new developments, they are referred to the NH DES regulations. This site is so small they do not have to meet those regulations, but they already meet them. You take a percentage of the soils that are now impervious and create a volume or percentage that will be used to infiltrate into the ground. That is what DES wants for you to infiltrate the run-off back into the ground. They calculated their recharge to be about 500 cubic feet of water that would be infiltrated back into the ground. Eric Botterman stated that is roughly 70 gallons of water. Mr. Sievert stated the basin had been designed as a rain garden and may be changed to an infiltration basin. It already infiltrates now more than the 500 cubic feet. They have done some test pits and may add an infiltration trench. They will exceed the requirement. They are also decreasing the peak runoff. Their intention is to amend their drainage analysis, by adding a few things and addressing some of the issues that were brought up.
Val Shelton stated it would be beneficial to have the Town Engineer look at the drainage and work with Mr. Sievert with the drainage. She felt there should be another TRC meeting.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked regarding the Town Engineer’s original letter of November 10, under question 20, did Mr. Sievert make changes addressing his concerns about increasing stormwater to the “bowl” area. Mr. Sievert stated he confirmed the infiltration rates by doing the test pits and then confirmed the infiltration out of that rain garden would be adequate to do the groundwater recharge and they will work on adding that infiltration trench.
Diane Hardy stated one other concern raised in the email from the Town Engineer she just received tonight at 5:30 was that he acknowledges the Board issued a waiver to the traffic impact analysis. He goes on to say the Town and the applicant should recognize the traffic and turning queues on Route 108 will likely increase as a result of increased turning movements. The engineer suggests the plans be submitted to NH DOT for review and comments for traffic and drainage. The drainage system on Route 108 is the State’s system.
Diane Hardy stated she would like to invite Jim Hewett from NH DOT (Division 6) to the next TRC meeting. Mr. Sievert said he would send him some materials ahead of time.
Eric Botterman stated they were still talking about site plan review. They have not accepted the Special Use Permit application. They had been waiting for the financial information (fiscal impact and marketing study). They now have half of the information. The marketing study has been completed. Diane Hardy stated the consultant is working on the cost data and has been in touch with the Police and Fire Department and the Town Administrator. This has taken him a little longer than he expected. The Board could consider that a consultant has this under way. This consultant is working for the Town. Val Shelton asked if they had the ability to determine this application is complete. Diane Hardy stated there is no checklist for this. She checked on the verbiage involved to find out. She read the regulations. Typically, they don’t accept applications until all the pieces are there. Eric Botterman stated the consultant is very competent and working for the Town. It is out of the developer’s hands. He asked if there was a down side to accepting this. Diane Hardy stated it just starts the clock.
Val Shelton stated the issue is they cannot discuss any part of the Special Use Permit until they accept the application. Not being able to discuss it is complicating their site plan discussion. This would just allow them to start talking about it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application for Special Use Permit on the Cheney Property Management Corporation application for 52, 54, & 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lots 13 & 14, M2-A Zone for mixed use of the property
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman stated there are waivers. The road setback waiver impacts the whole site design. If they do not get the waiver, they have to change the whole site plan. Mr. Sievert stated this application could not meet the setback. The project setback is 12.1 feet and 15.1 feet. The roof overhangs about 6 feet. They were setting up a patio out front, which is 10-12 feet wide. The building is right on the property line. The major piece is to keep that close, so it would allow them to keep the elevations as low as possible in relation to the road and access. It is already sitting up off the road, but that is the existing grade. He stated they want to keep the grade down.
Dale Pike asked when they would discuss the pedestrians out front at the railroad, where the sidewalk ends. Eric Botterman stated they talked about that at the TRC meeting. The consensus was it was not this developer’s responsibility to try to make that connection. It is a very difficult and costly connection to make. The Town owns the parcel to the south of this property. It is a valid concern. There was discussion of crosswalks. Crosswalks are a State decision.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to grant a waiver to the maximum road setback of ten feet and minimum of 5 feet under the zoning regulation in Section 3.04(B)
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Mr. Sievert stated he had one more waiver for parking, under Section 3.02. It requires a defined number of spaces, which is 91 for these proposed uses. They are proposing 61 spaces. The reason for the decrease is, when they came for Design Review, they had quite a few more spaces and the Board requested they reduce them. They believe there are enough spaces for the residential units. Those would not all be used during the day and those spaces would be available for the commercial space. They don’t believe the waiver would be a detriment. There is no off-street parking. It would not be injurious to other parties. It is consistent with the regulations and it provides accessible parking to the building on the same level. The parking requirement for restaurants is one space for three people. Office use would be lower. They tried to come close to a mixed use number. Jane Ford asked whether there was enough parking for the first floor businesses after taking parking for the eleven units. Diane Hardy stated there is an opportunity for shared parking in the regulations with the business park offices. In the off hours, those spaces could be used. Jane Ford stated, for the parking for the residential units, if she lived there she wanted her own parking space. If she came home for lunch from work, she would want to find her space open. That should be hers. Val Shelton stated that is the developer’s prerogative on how they manage parking and how it effects the marketability of the project. Janice Rosa stated no one knows what is going in there for commercial use. It could be anything. It could be a hit and you would not want to have parking tight. Eric Botterman stated the Chinburg development on Spring Street had parking concerns when it was going through the process. Now that it is there, he has never had a time when he could not find a parking space there. Many parking lots are over-designed. Mr. Sievert stated their anticipation was that no 13,000 square foot restaurant is coming to this facility. Diane Hardy stated the fact they cut back on parking from the earlier plan will help the water runoff situation. Val Shelton stated, at Design Review, the Board wanted to cut the parking back.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion that they grant the waiver request from the applicant to waive the requirement for the provision of 91 parking spaces in our regulations and approve a proposal to provide a total of 61 spaces
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
The TRC is Rose-Anne Kwaks, Val Shelton and Eric Botterman. They decided to have a meeting on December 21, at 11:00 a.m.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the public hearing for the site plan and special use permit at 52, 54, & 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lots 12, 13 & 14, M2A Zone until the January 19, 2016 meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Karen Tucker, Executor; Donald Tucker, Revocable Trust; Donald Tucker, Trustee - Public hearing for an application for subdivision, at 22 Neal Mill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 4-2, R1 Zone. The proposal is to create a five lot subdivision. Proposed Lot 1 would encompass the existing house, with proposed Lots 2 & 3 having frontage on Neal Mill Road, while Lots 4 & 5 would be oversized lots
encompassing the remainder of the property.
Val Shelton recused herself from this application.
Diane Hardy stated she has reviewed the application and identified a few minor deficiencies. She has reviewed them with Matt Fagginger-Auer, from Doucet Survey. They have agreed to add some information to the plans. She was concerned the septic system radii with relation to wetlands were not shown on the plan. He has agreed to provide that information. He has some revised plans for the Board. She stated her only concern was, given the fact it is a rural location, the Fire Chief may want to weigh in on the firefighting capabilities.
An abutter stated he did not receive notice of the meeting. Eric Botterman stated just because he did not receive a notice did not mean one was not sent. Chandler Blake stated he owns 16 Neal Mill Road. He says it abuts the applicant’s property. He lives at 93 Schanda Drive. Diane Hardy stated there is a Certified Mail receipt in the file showing that a notice was sent to his address at 93 Schanda Drive and it is date stamped by the Post office on November 24, 2015. The Board only legally has to prove they sent the notices to the abutters. They do not have to prove abutters actually received them, so no return receipts are used. This receipt shows it was sent to 93 Schanda Drive. It does meet the legal definition of notification. Diane Hardy stated, in addition to that, legal counsel has stated in the past that, when someone says they were not notified and they show up at the hearing, they are aware of the application and it does not warrant grounds to start the process over.
At Mr. Blake’s request, Eric Botterman explained the application process.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the application for the subdivision at 22 Neal Mill Road, Tax Map R7, Lot 4-2, R1 Zone. The proposal is to create a five-lot subdivision. Proposed Lot 1 would encompass the existing house, with proposed Lots 2 & 3 being frontage lots on Neal Mill Road, while Lots 4 & 5 would be oversized lots encompassing the remainder of the property.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Matt Fagginger-Auer, from Doucet Survey, represented the applicants. The project is a five lot subdivision. It involves a 33 acre lot off Neal Mill Road. The intent of the project is to subdivide five lots, one of which would encompass the existing house. He described the plan. The intent of the project is for the estate to sell of the existing house lot and Lots 2 and 3 in order to settle the estate. Lots 4 and 5 are up in the air. There are a number of possibilities. There is potential to subdivide Lot 4. The flood zone line runs through it. FEMA is in the process of revising flood zone lines, but it will be a couple of years before that is done. At that point, they could come back for further subdivision. He showed a plan showing that potential. Other possibilities involve some conservation interest. There is conservation land on all sides of that lot. There is also potential for wetland mitigation with the prime wetlands there. Lot 1 has a septic approval from 2009. Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 have working test pits and could support on-site septic systems. They have State subdivision approval for Lots 2 and 3 already. That is included on the plan.
He stated they are asking for two waivers. One is from Section 4.10(B)(1)(b) for contours. They provided two foot contour data for the proposed developed areas of the lots. It is a large lot and it seemed reasonable not to supply topography for the undeveloped areas. They are also requesting a waiver from Section 4.10(B)(2) for wetlands. They were delineated on the entire lot and located in the field for areas of proposed development. He has sketched the areas that were not field located. They are out in the back area where there is no proposed development.
He stated access is shown. There is a draft driveway maintenance agreement in the packet. They idea is to keep the existing driveway that goes to Lot 1 and that would potentially serve Lots 2 and 3, as well.
He did get the checklist and he feels he addressed the comments. Everything should be reflected on the revised plans.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Chandler Blake, 16 Neal Mill Road and 93 Schanda Drive stated, when he was looking at Lot 2, which is the closest to his property, he sees that there is a septic and well identified. He was curious where the house was going to be situated and what impact runoff would have on the wetlands that run back into his property. Matt Fagginger-Auer stated they have not determined exact home locations. The idea was to push it toward the back side of the lot, probably north of the septic location. Mr. Blake asked if that would impact the amount of water he would find on the back of his property. Mr. Fagginger-Auer stated he was not an engineer, but with the size of the wetland he found it hard to believe there would be that much runoff from a single house lot. This is a pretty massive wetland. Eric Botterman stated typically for single family houses you put drip strips to catch runoff from the roof in rainstorms. In the winter nothing happens, it is just frozen. That is typically what happens. Mr. Blake stated he had to protect his interests and wants to make sure that, if something does go in there, he did not see a devaluation of his property.
Dave Hinchcliff, 5 Neal Mill Road, stated he was concerned whether there would be a traffic study. There are only four houses and this would double the traffic. Eric Botterman stated something like this does not require a traffic study. For four additional houses, you would expect about seven trips per house per day. A trip is in or out. There would be 29-30 additional trips. Mr. Hinchcliff said coming off of Grant Road to Neal Mill Road is tricky. Eric Botterman stated it was not the best intersection.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked about the flood zone and whether it would be better to have them shown on Lot 2 to see if it will flood the abutter’s property. Matt Fagginger-Auer stated there is topo on those lots as shown on sheets 3 and 4.
Charlie Smart, Grant Road, stated it shows Lot 5 with nothing planned on it at this time. Matt Fagginger-Auer stated it is a lot with potential to subdivide. Mr. Smart stated the wet area that comes through that goes exits through that, hits Hilton Drive and goes through his piece on Grant Road. There is a lot of wetland involved out there. It is an extensive area.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to approve the five lot subdivision at Tax Map R7, Lot 4-2, in the R1 Zone at 22 Neal Mill Road. Proposed Lot 1 would encompass the existing house, with proposed Lots 2 & 3 being frontage lots on Neal Mill Road, while Lots 4 & 5 would be oversized lots encompassing the remainder of the property, with the conditions that: (1) the plan be forwarded to the Fire Chief for his review and comment. If there are concerns they would have to be considered at a future meeting; and (2) the maintenance easement that is proposed for the access across Lots 2 and 3 be reviewed and approved by our Town’s legal counsel.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated she needs to get signatures on the Vision Statement from the Board. She sent it around to the members.
She also stated the subcommittee that is working on the Future Land Use chapter needs to schedule a meeting. She has some dates that Matt Sullivan gave her to run by the members. The members decided on December 16 from 4-6. She will check with Matt Sullivan to make sure he is available at that time.
Town Council Report
Dale Pike stated he attended the Coastal Preparedness meetings. There are four held in the next couple of weeks. It covered what was expected if sea level rose. It mainly covers building. He also mentioned the Council met last week and one resolution changed the Economic Development Committee membership from nine to seven members. It will be easier to have a quorum for meetings.
Other Business
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she has talked about design review for a long time to protect the downtown and Route 108 area. She went to Durham and they just renewed their design review regulations last month. If the Board thinks it is something they would be interested in, she would go through the materials she has gathered and they could discuss it at a future meeting. Eric Botterman stated she was talking about architectural design standards for buildings. He said he has been on record saying that he is not interested in talking about it. Property owners have a right to develop what they want provided it is within our Planning regulations. He did not see a problem in town. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated not yet, but if something happened to a building downtown that they just put millions of dollars into redeveloping and someone might put a big chrome ugly building in. Eric Botterman asked what everyone’s thoughts were. Val Shelton stated she was in favor of review of the current ordinance relative to review of architectural standards and design review. That is where we should start and see where we are. Eric Botterman stated he was fine with that. That is a different discussion. Val Shelton stated it would be important to get the Building Official’s input on what issues there might be in the downtown. Eric Botterman stated they could set up a small committee and have the Building Official involved. Val Shelton stated they should have a couple of property owners in the affected areas on the committee, as well.
Jane Ford stated the ladies and gentleman who decorated downtown for Christmas did great job.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:47 p.m.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor