Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 11, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Jane Ford, Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Glen Wilkinson (Alternate)
Absent: Ezra Temko, Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio alternate) – All excused
Rose-Anne Kwaks arrived at 8:22 p.m. (excused)
Called to order: 7:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:26 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comment
An audience member stated they liked the new downtown crosswalks.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 09/13/16
Eric Botterman stated they just received the minutes, so they will take them up at the next meeting.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Jarib M. Sanderson Trustee of Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation – Continuation of public hearing for an application for Subdivision and Special Use Permit, for property at 36 Dame Road, Tax Map U2, Lots 297 & 320, R1 Zone. The proposal is for an 11 unit residential open space design development. The Special Use Permit will allow a 150 square foot wetland impact pursuant to Section 5.03 Paragraph (F) of the Wetland Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance.
Diane Hardy stated they received revised plans and had a Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting last Thursday. They did not have full attendance, but had a good exchange of information. There was discussion between the Public Works Director and Phil McDonald, Underwood Engineers, regarding the drainage in the cul-de-sac area and some changes that would accommodate driveway platforms and get them to mesh properly with the shoulder grading. There was a recommendation that the elevation be changed in the drainage detention basin. Those were the major issues. The applicant agreed to modify the plans and present those to Underwood Engineers.
She has put together a list of conditions for approval and the elevation change is one of them. Also discussed was the need for fire protection. The Fire Chief had major concerns about fire flows in that area. The Building Official put together a memo on what the NFPA Section1 says about rural water supplies. It requires there be adequate fire flows and, where there are not adequate fire flows, alternative means such as cisterns or approved reservoirs can be provided. As a result of that discussion, the Fire Chief waived the cistern requirement, which was his first preference, and the applicant agreed to put sprinklers into the eleven houses that will be within the subdivision.
They also received review comments from Mark West, the Environmental Consultant. He reviewed the Special Use Permit application for a very limited wetland impact near the entrance of the development. There were also concerns about the suitability of some of the front lots for building. There was a shifting of property lines to make those lots more usable. Mr. West has provided a final review letter stating he was pleased with the revisions made and that he wanted to see signage along the wetland buffer area. His final comment was there be care taken to minimize the amount of tree removal and clearance within the forested wetland buffer area that coincides with the 75’ well radius.
Eric Botterman asked the applicant to walk them through the lots and sizes for the record and the sloping of the cul-de-sac.
Joe Coronati, Jones & Beach Engineers, represented the applicant. He stated that some of the things they added since the last round of changes was a wooded buffer on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 to provide an expanded wooded area on those lots. They are in the 100’ wetland buffer. They moved the house on Lot 1 forward. All of the development was kept on the upland side of the stone wall. One of the comments at the TRC meeting was about the design of the detention pond. There were concerns about it being a wet pond, so they eliminated the lower contours and they will seed it with a seed mix that matches the wet meadow plantings. The detention pond is built in the upland area. They are adding wooded buffer plaques, so residents know there is a no-cut line running through their parcel. This will also be described in their deeds. The design of the cul-de-sac is such that the slope of the road slopes away from the middle. The goal was to save the existing vegetation in the middle of the cul-de-sac. One concern was during plowing there would be snow pushed into the middle. They wanted to have a catch basin in the middle that would be added to catch basin #2. They will add that. The underdrains will tie in. The lot sizes are all still above 20,000 sq. ft. Lot 1 shrunk a little bit.
Val Shelton stated, when they approved the Special Use Permit for the open space subdivision on the yield plan, part of that discussion was the connectivity to the trail system that comes out onto Ham Street Extension area, by the old ice pond. She asked how they envision the owners in the subdivision would access it. Mr. Coronati stated they had walked through the cul-de-sac to the trail. They propose the public access be along the existing trail, with some minor improvements of cutting back brush. They had talked about folks just coming along the back sides of their properties and accessing the trails from there.
Val Shelton stated she wondered if they would do a right-of way through the long driveway on Lot 5 for access. Mr. Coronati stated he was hoping to avoid the public/private conflict, with an easement along someone’s driveway on a property line. If there is a way for people to go out of their backyards into the open space and navigate to trails, it would be the preferred method for them. Val Shelton stated the concept of the open space and wetlands is that people are not back there creating trails. Glen Wilkinson asked if an access path could be made from the main road. Val Shelton stated it was all steep slopes. Mr. Coronati stated the plan shows the limits of the wetland. People could hop over the wall and be in uplands and on the yet to be established trail that could easily be blazed without having to cut trees to get to the existing trails. The last thing they want is the owner of Lot 5 to get all kinds of traffic with people walking down his driveway. They created the open space where people could easily go from their backyards onto trails. It works without any wetland impacts.
Eric Botterman stated they had told the Conservation Commission that they are staying away from the wetland. Mr. Coronati stated the only thing they would propose for the wetlands is passive recreation like walking along the border of the wetland. They are not proposing cutting trees.
Val Shelton asked if the owners would create their own trails or would the applicant create a trail system behind those properties. Mr. Coronati stated they are proposing the owners would create their own access to their open space. That would be part of the covenants. Diane Hardy asked if this would be noted. Mr. Coronati stated they would delineate it on the plans and it would be limited to the existing trail system. Diane Hardy stated she would like to see it as a legal right-of-way or easement.
Eric Botterman stated they told the Conservation Commission they are staying away from the wetlands, but they now intend to tell people to climb over the stone wall in their back yards and walk along the edge of the wetlands to get to the open space. Mr. Coronati stated there is no existing trail along the wall, but it would be easy to create one. If that is not agreeable to the Board, they could come up with an alternative. Glen Wilkinson stated people tend to cut trails wherever, whether there is a wetland or not. There was discussion of people walking along Dame Road to the trail on Lamprey Street. It was stated that would be dangerous. Glen Wilkinson stated you could put a path along Lot 11. Mr. Coronati stated they could create an easement along the edge of the road through the open space to connect to their new road.
Diane Hardy stated the storm water management area will be on land owned by the Homeowners Association. Implicit in that is the owners are responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of that stormwater system. They would like to see an agreement subject to doing maintenance. The applicant mentioned having inspections by an engineer. They need to memorialize that. She would recommend this as a condition of approval. Mr. Coronati stated typically they would incorporate the deed of the right-of-way upon road acceptance, along with any easements. Prior to the road acceptance, the Association would own and maintain it. Once accepted, it would be turned over to the Town. Diane Hardy stated the road is turned over and the easement would allow drainage from the Town road to exit. That does not mean the Town would be responsible for maintaining it. Mr. Coronati stated they give the Town the ability to maintain it. They give that easement right to the Town upon road acceptance.
Eric Botterman opened the public comments.
Rhonda Riley, 41 Dame Road, stated they missed the last couple of meetings, so they were not up to speed, but they had attended the first couple of meetings. They had voiced concerns about their property directly across the street. They had not heard from anyone and did not know if their concerns would be met. Mr. Coronati stated they had met on site and took a look at the possible impacts to their property. The concern was headlights may impact the enjoyment of their property. His suggestion to them was to not throw a fix at something they don’t know is broken. The current driveway is in the approximate location where the road is proposed to enter the site. They can do some engineering and guesstimates as to what headlight glare might do and how it might impact, but they just don’t know at this time. To him, it appears there will not be an impact. They are willing to put $1,000.00 into escrow, if the Board wishes, to cover the cost of a few significantly sized evergreens that could be planted on Ms. Riley’s property, in the event there are issues with headlight glare. If there is no impact the money would come back to the applicant.
Jane Ford stated she just had tree work done and she did not think it was enough money. She asked if the Board could say not to exceed $2,000.00. To buy something substantial that would last on Dame Road would cost money. Mr. Coronati stated it would be about 8-10 evergreens. Jane Ford stated that is what she just planted and $1,000.00 was not enough. Mr. Coronati stated, in this case, he did not believe there would be an impact, because of the position of the house and the roadway. He thought the headlight glare would go between the house and the pool. If there needs to be a little bit more money, they can do that. Rhonda Riley stated the reason they can’t tell if it will impact is that everything has leaves right now. Once they fall, it is wide open.
She asked about the street light at the intersection. Diane Hardy stated it is being required by the Public Works Director. Rhonda Riley asked where it would be. Mr. Coronati stated it is shown on the plan. He indicated it on the plan and stated it was away from the house on the other side. It will be to the left of the driveway toward town. The down-shielded lights focus the light down.
Rhonda Riley stated they would make a decision when the foliage comes down regarding the screening. She asked who makes the decision. Eric Botterman stated he anticipates there would be money escrowed. If she and the applicant agree screening is needed, that is fine. It would go to Diane Hardy, if there was any discussion about it. Diane Hardy stated the Town Counsel would recommend there be an escrow agreement drawn up where the details would be clarified. The length of time may be a year, so it will go through all four seasons. This would be an agreement between the Town and the developer. Eric Botterman stated the Planning Department makes the decision.
Eric Botterman stated everyone has a copy of an email from Jeff Goldknopf, from the Conservation Commission, apologizing and saying they have not had a chance to look at the current plans. Diane Hardy stated they have a meeting on Thursday and they would be putting this on the agenda. The gist of the letter is they did not have too many concerns about the wetland impact itself, but there were concerns about reducing the buffer and they wanted to have an opportunity to weigh in and see the plans. It is up to the Planning Board whether to continue this application until the Conservation Commission could meet. She pointed out in the regulations that the Planning Board may waive the 100’ setback that is in the subdivision regulations. The Special Use Permit has a provision that says the Conservation Commission will provide written comments to the Planning Board, before the decision is made. She stated she has crafted conditions of approval that provide an option for them to come to the Board after. Mr. Coronati stated they met with the Conservation Commission and received their verbal input. They were supportive of the Special Use Permit for the direct wetland impacts. They had concerns about the 100’ buffer. He assumed they were working in tandem with Mark West. They would love to see the Board condition the approval. They have addressed their concerns.
Val Shelton stated the first thing they would approve would be the Special Use Permit relative to the 5.03 Wetland Protection Overlay District for the impact. The recommendation from Diane Hardy is that one of the conditions would be subject to the written comments being received. Second, they would be voting on a waiver of Section 3.14(A) relative to the 100’ buffer. They do not need comments from the Conservation Commission. They are requesting that they receive comments before they grant that.
Glen Wilkinson stated he did not know if there was precedent for this. He did not know how often this sort of thing may have come up in the past. They have a lot of good information and it is actionable. Diane Hardy stated there was no precedent to that effect. They usually try to coordinate as closely as they can with the other Boards.
Eric Botterman stated he generally wants to move things along. If the Board wanted to approve this tonight, he would not have an issue. He would prefer to wait. They don’t know if the Conservation Commission is in agreement with Mark West. He would like to have some discussion. Mark West is a very competent Wetland Scientist, but they have no way of knowing if the Conservation Commission is in agreement with him. He knows the applicant wants an approval, but he would prefer to wait for the comments. The only other way he would be comfortable voting for it would be with the condition that, if they got negative comments from the Conservation Commission, they can open up the hearing again. They might as well just wait.
Val Shelton stated they were planning to add one of the markers along that line on Lot 1. Mr. Coronati showed the location on the plan. Diane Hardy had just given them a copy of staff recommendations. Val Shelton stated she would like to see, under staff recommendations, on #14, a reference to the required sprinkler systems in the deeds conveying the property to subsequent owners. She would like it in the deed rather than just on the plan. The buyers really only look at the deed. She stated add to #15 that the plan will show a 10’ public easement along the existing trail from Dame Road to Lamprey Street. On #16 it would state the plan would include a defined trail within the subdivision to the existing woods road, as shown on plan C1 and C2. On #17 the applicant would place $1000 in an escrow account for plantings to be placed on the abutting property to minimize impact of headlight glare to be determined within a one year period after road completion. On the waiver request for Section 3.14, at the end she would state there would be no cutting within the restricted area and she would add “…with exception of limited cutting for wells to be located within the buffer of Lots 2 and 3 to meet any required 75’ well protective radius from the leach field. They know there will be some cutting within that no-cut zone. On #4, on the permanent marker subject, at the end, it should state “…and be shown on the approved plan”.
Mr. Coronati asked about #14. At the TRC meeting, it was made clear they would need fire protection for the subdivision. At the time, he had agreed to sprinkler the homes. He was hopeful that there would be the option of a note on the plan of sprinkling or providing fire protection in accordance with the Fire Department. So, if they decide to do a cistern, they could do that instead. Eric Botterman stated that was reasonable. He stated the only caveat would be, if they do a cistern, they would need to see it on the final as-built. Diane Hardy stated they might need easements and they need to know what the location would be. They would need details showing how it would be laid out. It is not that simple, it needs to be designed.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion with regards to the Jarib M. Sanderson Trustee of Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation application for 36 Dame Road, Tax Map U2, Lots 297 & 320, R1 Zone they grant the waiver for Section 3.02(B)(4) Roads of our Subdivision regulations to reduce the minimum roadway width from 24’ to 22’ feet, with a 2’ shoulder
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application to November 15, 2016
Second: Amy Burns
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., LLC, & NIP-LOT 6, LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application Major Site Plan Review, at 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6; 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6; 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7; 181 Exeter Road, all in the B2 Zone. The project consists of constructing two new industrial buildings (approximately 14,000 sq. ft. and 20,000 sq. ft.) along with a 12,000 sq. ft. addition on the existing industrial on Lot 9-6.
Diane Hardy updated the Board. A TRC meeting was held on October 6. She met with NH DOT last Wednesday and the applicant and the engineer were also present. At that meeting, it was clear that DOT was not ready to issue the driveway permit for this project and had some concerns about it. They are reviewing it with their design division. They indicated they would be getting comments back to the engineers and the developer’s representative, as soon as possible, which they hope will be in time for the November 15th Planning Board meeting. At the TRC, they talked about the renderings provided, by the applicant. She stated she and Rose-Anne Kwaks had expressed some concerns about the elevations of the buildings. They questioned whether they met the intent of the Planning Board requirements in the architectural design review section of the Site Plan Regulations. The applicant had indicated he would be working with his architect to provide new renderings and he has them here this evening. They have not completed their review of drainage and some other aspects, although Underwood Engineers has indicated they are in basic agreement of what was proposed. There were concerns about the cross sections and the applicant’s engineer was going to go back and provide new cross sections in response to those concerns.
Eric Botterman stated he is hearing that drainage and stormwater aspects are pretty close to complete. Rob Graham, representing the applicant, stated they have addressed all of Phil MacDonald’s concerns. The last outstanding concern was he wanted them to further illustrate the cross section view from Forbes Road and they have that tonight.
Some of the angst of that is they are dealing with the terracing of the site, as it moves down Forbes Road. They have graded out from Forbes Road and tied their floor elevations for that grading, tractor trailer circulation, loading and minimizing retaining walls.
Mr. Graham stated Mike Keane, their architect, was also here to go over the elevations. They build a lot of industrial buildings and have a very good grip on what it costs to build them and what the market bears for rent. It puts them in a box with being able to deliver viable industrial space. He will show you the state of the art in this type of panelized building and has a couple of options.
He stated they have their Alteration of Terrain approval. They were able to address NH DOT’s concerns about the slope. DOT was concerned about the placement of a detention pond at the base and whether water would saturate the slope. They provided the necessary materials for that and DOT acquiesced to their report and has what they need.
They are still working on the issues at the intersection. He thought they were further along with that, but the issue has gone sideways. They were led to believe very early on in the process they would be making some compromises. They purchased real estate based on advice from DOT. DOT has now gone sideways on that after eight months of waiting for them to process their permit. They are pretty disappointed with that interaction. They are still working hard to make something work. They have some suggestions in terms of getting consensus with the municipality. He stated Diane Hardy had some great ideas on incrementally approving it, getting a design done and getting the road on the ten year plan for DOT. That makes a lot of sense. For now, he would like to resolve these few outstanding issues, so when they come back in November the only thing they are dealing with is the resolution of the DOT permit.
Michael Keane, architect, showed a rendering showing what the industrial building will look like. The footprint has not changed. As you go by the site, because the new grades are so much lower than Route 108, the front building at the corner of Forbes Road is the only one you will see from Route 108, unless you are right at the edge of the road looking down. This building is set down 10’ below the road, so half of it is below the slope. It is an industrial building clad with structurally insulated panels. They are proposing a flat panel, not the corrugated panel like at the racquetball club. They have built two of these in the Stratham Industrial Park from scratch and one they just put an addition on and renovated. It is very energy efficient, low maintenance, and cost effective. It gives them insulation and interior and exterior finish within the industrial spaces all in one package. They understand this does not meet the architectural standards along Route 108. This is a difficult site in terms of the context. There are houses on one side and new houses down the street, the cemetery is behind them, and the racquetball club and golf course are also down the street. Further into Newfields, you have the storage facility and Stratham Tire. There are also the industrial buildings on Forbes Road, with which they need to work within context. They thought this was the best approach to put in a modern, low maintenance building that would meet the market for industrial space. This is not retail space and they cannot rent it for retail space rent. They need it to be as cost effective as possible.
There are a couple of other options, where they looked at lowering the front section of the building, which is often times office space. They have that in the Stratham Industrial Park. There is a lower front section and a taller back section. They found that, by lowering the front section, the roof becomes more prominent. That was a concern for them. The third option is they design it with a step down. They also made some color changes to try to break up the mass of the building. It still won’t meet architectural standards. They feel what most of those standards call for, in terms of finish materials, is really too expensive to install in this size building and far too difficult to maintain or detail properly. If they took this box and put clapboards on it, it will not look much better than the building they originally presented. It is a modern industrial building. They are hoping, by having it lower from the street, it will lower the impact of the building. He showed the building from various angles. They will have mechanical screens for mechanical equipment. That will be based on whatever the end user puts in. The intent is there might be two tenants in there. They put the entrances in the center. If it is subdivided down the middle, they will have two sections. They are showing it much more like a storefront than you would normally have in an industrial park partly to give it a retail feel or in case any user came in with a retail component. There is lots of glass.
He showed the first option that sticks with a monochromatic building, but it steps down in the front section roofline. This was where they were concerned about the roof showing as you climb the grade on Route 108. It breaks up the mass of the building.
He showed simple color changes to help break up the mass of the building a little bit more.
The drawings contained an accurate representation of the proposed landscaping and screening from the landscape plan.
It is a metal panel building, generally 2½ - 3 inches thick depending on the insulation value. Every three or four feet there is a seam, so there is faint shadow line. You can see a similar style building with the H D Smith Building in Stratham in the industrial park. Just before that building, there is a building with a similar panel in gray. Down a little bit further there is Mbraun. They put a large addition on that and took the original concrete block building, with corrugated metal face, and peeled that off and covered the block with the panel.
Val Shelton asked for clarification of the landscaping and parking area. Mr. Keane showed a rendering of Route 108 and Forbes Road.
Val Shelton stated he had commented that this would not be used as retail space and then he made a comment about the glass and that a tenant may later want to use this as retail space. She asked if they were really trying to have a building that has an image from Route 108 for potential retail. Mr. Keane stated their expectation is that it will be an industrial building. They are hoping to have an office or retail component with it. They would put in the front section, which would justify the glass, so they don’t end up with just this big warehouse box arrangement in there. If it had a retail component, hopefully the retailer would come in with their brand identity and maybe change the design of the building a little bit. If it changed dramatically from what you see here, it would be brought back to the Planning Board.
Val Shelton asked, if they were inclined to waive most all of the requirements under this section of the regulations, would there be any issue if a condition of that was to actually completely buffer the entire visual from Route 108 of the building. She stated it is being set up for retail. Rob Graham, representing the applicant, stated Mike Keane was using the term “retail” interchangeably in a building design. For example, they have Exeter Rent All in the old Vyn-al building. They have a storefront, which is essentially their tables and chairs on display, but they run a warehouse operation. The Granite Group over in Exeter runs a plumbing supply warehouse, which is an industrial warehouse. They have a parts counter and people do walk in the front door. It is a commercial purchasing transaction. It would not be a retail tenant like Walgreens or Hannafords. They think having a retail component has value and may help attract an industrial tenant, who might have that component in their business model and wants to be in Newmarket and would like some visibility. It doesn’t really change how the building construction is done. It is important they have some visibility. If the building converted to a retail user, this is not the building they would build. They have had this site out to every retail user they could think of and could not get anyone to take it. This type of 26’ tall warehouse building is very specific industrially. It is not what you would build for a strip tenant in a retail use. Eric Botterman stated retail would not need a 26’ high ceiling. Mr. Graham stated that was correct. There is a very rigid and specific formula to be able to attract industrial users in NH. There are ceilings in the rent that are very low in getting them to operate. Everything goes into that formula for them, when they locate. It is tax rate, building costs, costs to operate. They have developed a formula with Mr. Keane over the years where they want to make sure their construction costs are within the margin and they want to make sure their operating costs in terms of energy allows them to run their business without a lot of overhead. That is what it takes to get industrial tenants for this type of manufacturing, light industrial and any of those users. You can’t pull them out of seacoast towns or out of Manchester, where they can rent buildings for $4 a square foot.
Eric Botterman stated he looks at Val Shelton’s question on buffering and he thinks it would be virtually impossible to buffer that from Route 108, because of the intersection. You could buffer the 108 corridor, but if you go to that intersection going south and look left, because of Forbes Road, you will see that façade.
Mr. Keane stated this rendering was taken from a little higher than eye level to show the building. If you drop it to eye level, you will see that you lose some of the building from sight. This rendering is probably up to 10-12 foot high eye level.
Rose-Anne Kwaks arrived at the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Val Shelton asked if the screening on the roof would be solid block. Mr. Keane stated it would be more metal panel, just not insulated. The height of that would depend on the equipment. Val Shelton felt like the step roofed building was less of an industrial building. Mr. Keane stated it was not less industrial, but the roof becomes more prominent as you go up Route 108. It steps down visually from the front, giving it a better look. He knew rooftop equipment was a concern in town. They may not be able to put any equipment up there at all or they could add another level of screen, if needed, which might not be a bad thing. It adds more interest to the roofline.
Diane Hardy stated she did not like the gray tones. Mr. Keane stated there were color options with the panels.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, at the TRC meeting, they had said they were going to ask for a continuance and tonight she turned on the TV at home and found them in front of the Board. Diane Hardy stated she received an email from Rob Graham saying they would like to come and present some improved façade renovations. They are showing a3-D set tonight to give us a better idea of how it will fit into the landscape.
Val Shelton stated there should be some kind of transition. You have the industrial park, with very industrial looking buildings. To her, it would look very out of character to have an 18th or 19th century building next to industrial buildings. Their regulations talk about historic New England architecture. That is not what is going on down there. She asked how you bring some architectural element into it that is transitional to the highway and buffering.
Eric Botterman asked if this was the same intent for all three buildings. One is obviously the most visible. Mr. Keane stated two are new buildings and the third is an addition to the existing building. Rob Graham stated originally their design concepts were for all of the new buildings to be at grade on Route 108. Then they decided to get them down as low as they could and use some of the buffering to make them more part of the industrial park than have them up on Route 108. It makes sense and works in the development. For the second building in they would probably use the square building design. They don’t know who the user is yet. They could get a user that is 50% offices and that would change the building significantly. They set up for 90/10 and in extreme cases they see 80/20. He prefers the stepped roofline, as well.
Mr. Keane showed the elevations again and showed the stepped roofline. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they get a tenant once the site is well defined, would they have to change the size of the building. Rob Graham stated it would be pretty rare to go taller than these buildings in this environment and at these sizes. That would a very specific user. These heights are the industry norm. It is driven by rack sizes and fork lifts. Diane Hardy stated a substantial change would require them to come back before the Board. Rob Graham stated, if they got a specific retail user, they would definitely come back. Their site plan would definitely change. Eric Botterman stated je thought they do need robust plantings on Route 108. He felt a good buffer with nice landscaping would be appropriate.
He asked the Board how they would like to move forward with the architectural process. Diane Hardy felt insecure about making recommendations on architectural design. She stated she was not an architect or a design professional or a landscape architect. This project is one that might warrant a third party be hired to work with the Planning Board to help facilitate this process and bring ideas to the table to help make the façade more consistent with the intent of Route 108 architectural design regulations. She has been in touch with Jeff Highlander, a Landscape Architect with Ironwood, located in the mills. He was on the Stratham Planning Board and worked with them to develop gateway design standards to create more of a town center and gateway concept for Stratham. There have been buildings constructed under those guidelines. If you tour Route 108 in Stratham, there are nicely designed buildings along Route 108 that echo the New England tradition, with more gables and detailing that defines the architecture of the area and the historic character of the town and the region. She felt the Board needed help in going through this process. She recommended considering hiring Mr. Highlander. He has given her a proposal, which she provided to the Board. They do this for engineering and wetlands evaluations, so she is presenting this to the Board as a consideration given the complexities of making this fit into the landscape to do justice to that corner. There have been some major improvements with the golf course property. The Board needs to think about what the gateway is and do everything they can to preserve and protect it.
Val Shelton stated she looks at it in the context this is the entrance to the industrial park. She looks at it from a location standpoint relative to the health club and the cemetery. She asks how they can have an attractive building that is the entrance to the industrial park that is also consistent with some type of transitional architecture to what is already in the industrial park. Her opinion was she would not have an issue with waiving Section 3.21 relative to this site. If they were proposing this on North Main Street, she would have a different opinion. This is an attractive building. They have done a nice job with it not being the same as the industrial buildings. It is a transitional feature. Landscaping will be extremely important. The applicant has done a good job in really thinking about this as a gateway to the industrial park. Coming south on Route 108, you are not going to see a lot of this building. A lot of that section of Route 108 can be well buffered. They can achieve the intent of the regulations relative to buffering as opposed to a building on Main Street, where it really is about the architecture because of what is around it.
Jane Ford stated, when they did the golf course, it was very important how that looked, as it was the entrance to town. She wanted to make sure they kept that philosophy moving forward. She agreed along Route 108 should be very well buffered. She believed the step roof is more attractive.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the step roof is more attractive compared to what they were given in the first place, which was a box. The golf course across the street was subdivided under open space. Under open space, you are not supposed to see any of the homes. She would not use the athletic club as a comparison. It is buffered by a lot between this project and the cemetery.
She noticed the new Subaru dealership in Stratham that was developed under the new Stratham Gateway Regulations. Today she looked left and right in that area and the other older buildings are just the plain flat boxes. There is just no comparison to the Subaru dealer. She realized it is an industrial park, but before anyone does any projects, they know what is required and they know we have Section 3.21 and what the architectural requirements are. She stated they now have that ugly sign on South Main Street with those awful colors. They are siding the same place and she did not know if all of that beautiful gingerbread shingling would be covered. She asked how many things they were going to lose in town to lose the character of the town, because of giving waivers out. The applicant knew about the requirements. Especially on that last building, they should adhere to them. She was not in favor of any waivers at all. The other building will be down lower and in the park, so you won’t see much of that and the third one is just an addition. There was supposed to be a berm with the buffer. That is almost gone away. They are losing a lot of what can be hidden with landscaping, as well. There should be a good berm buffer, with adequate landscaping, not deciduous, but evergreen, so you don’t see the tops of the buildings when the leaves fall, especially the second building.
Glen Wilkinson stated he likes the step design better. Transitioning from the sports club to a more New England style is a tough thing. The challenge he has is he considers that area as sort of disconnected from the rest of the town on a couple of levels. He loves the pedestrian and bike aspect the town has and his concern was that the south part of town will disconnect from the north part of town. They should look at some pedestrian and bike options through there. Diane Hardy stated it is expensive. The bike path proved to be too expensive and the Town had the cancel the project. Glen Wilkinson stated, when he looks at sites like this in other parts of the country, there are paths, trees, screening, and there is texture to it. They have done a good job on the texture and screening. There should be a pedestrian aspect to it. Eric Botterman stated that is a valid discussion, but this discussion is about architectural aspects. There is nothing to for sidewalks to connect to there.
Glen Wilkinson stated he was okay with the design of the building. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked him how he would like to look at that, if he lived across the street, in the new development. Glen Wilkinson stated you have an area there right now is a little bit of a transitional desert. They have to figure out how to get from where it is now to something better. He feels this meets that. There are some other things they could do, but as far as that it is an improvement over what it is today.
Amy Burns stated she can see all sides of these opinions and doesn’t disagree. She felt they do need to keep the architecture of the town. At the same time, this is the entrance to an industrial park. The landscaping will be a huge key to buffering and making it look nice. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the Route 108 architectural regulations would apply. Amy Burns stated she is hard pressed to say an absolute no, because this is an industrial park entrance and you are kind of flowing into town and should keep that flow from the newer architecture into the historic architecture.
Val Shelton asked the applicant to explain what the actual distance was where they would be able to retain line of sight from Forbes Road and the distance between Route 108 and the proposed building and parking areas along Route 108. She asked what the width of that was that would be available for real landscaping.
Joe Persechino, Tighe & Bond, stated it might be beneficial to look at some of the cross sections. He had the requested additional cross sections with him and he handed them out to the Board. They will give everyone a sense of perspective into the site. Rob Graham suggested looking at the corresponding 3-D drawings at the same time.
Mr. Persechino explained the cross sections. One showed from Route 108, down the slope, to the midway point on the building. He explained what the Board was looking at on the drawing. Val Shelton asked what the elevations were for Route 108 and the top of the building for Building A, the one that will show from the road. Mr. Persechino stated the road was approximately 98, the finished floor of the building was 84. The building is 24 feet high. Val Shelton stated it would probably be about 12’ above Route 108. Mr. Persechino stated the building will be about 50’ off of the right of way and another 25’ to the edge of pavement. So, about 75’ back from the pavement. They are showing the landscaping on the property side of the right of way line. There is a little berm there and they will grade from the property line.
Val Shelton asked what the distance was from the edge of the right of way to the point where they would stop planting. Mr. Persechino stated the area for planting is at the top of the berm and would be 5’-6’ and then down the slope. What they are showing are a number of plants, which are evergreen, arborvitae and spruce. Val Shelton stated the original concept was to buffer Route 108. You would drive south on Route 108 and not see any buildings. Mr. Persechino stated the concept is now that you would see Building A. Building B is going to be below Route 108 and C is much further back. Also, the addition to C was 24,000 sq. ft. and it is now 12,000 sq. ft. Mr. Keane showed them a video of what the site would look like as you were driving on Route 108. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she did not like the forsythia bushes, as they are a “weed” bush and very messy looking. She thought a Golden Thread Cyprus evergreen would be stunning there.
Mr. Persechino stated they have Arctic Fire Dogwood and New Hampshire Gold Forsythia. Rose-Anne Kwaks said she did not think either would work. You will lose the leaves all along that side and you will see nothing but branches. Forsythia is a “weed” shrub. It is not a foundation planting. If you want to enhance that building and make it look nice, those are not the shrubs to use.
Eric Botterman stated he liked the step roofline. He did not believe this location warrants going to the level of architecture referred to along Route 108 in the regulations. If they demand that, all they would do is assure this land will not be built upon. It is an industrial park and it is in kind of a no-man’s land with the gym there. He would like to see a little bit more robust landscaping, especially on Route 108. He understood they did not want to block the sight of the building. He was okay with waivers for architecture and then maybe Mr. Keane can do some things to the building to give it a better flair. Mr. Persechino stated the arborvitae are not the small ones, these are nursery grown, good sized trees.
Eric Botterman stated, as far as landscaping goes, he would have no problem with having a Landscape Architect help them with the landscaping. Mr. Persechino stated they had a Landscape Architect help them with this plan. They just need feedback from the Board to bring back to them about it and they can make changes. They have their own means to do this. Eric Botterman stated they should have their Landscape Architect look at this again through a different lens. No one, except Rose-Anne Kwaks, on the Board was qualified to critique this. He would like the Board’s own Landscape Architect to look at it and confirm whether something will look nice and work. Val Shelton stated nice and not nice is a matter of opinion. She likes the sign mentioned earlier that another Board member did not like. She wants someone to tell the Board the landscaping meets the regulations. The Board is supposed to be voting relative to regulations and whether or not to waive regulations. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she does not mind doing waivers, but she does not want to waive the whole ordinance. She stated it is an expense and it is an industrial park and everyone uses the excuse of the sports club down the street and that they should keep the same thing going. If they keep that going in the industrial park and then someone comes in a few houses down with a site plan and says the Board kept it for the last one, they will just keep hip-hopping down Route 108 and end up completely ignoring an ordinance that is weak to begin with. She likes the design, but she felt they could doctor up the building a little bit and get rid of the deciduous shrubs. Val Shelton stated they do require 10’ landscaping buffers.
Eric Botterman asked Rob Graham if he had a problem if the Board got a Landscape Architect. Rob Graham stated he did have a problem. They have been in this process for a while and there had been plenty of time for them to bring in an expert. They have hired several. He is happy to go back and work on the landscaping buffer. They have all seen enough buffering to know when something is buffered or not. He has worked with the gentleman who used to be in Stratham and he would vehemently be opposed to using him. He had enough projects that could not be built, because of the costs that gentleman put in. They have had to go back and rework projects several times. The Planning Board has the right to ask for any expert advice they want. At the end of the day, every time they have gotten good useable feedback from the Board, they have responded and made changes to the plan and made progress with it. They would like the opportunity to do that here. They will not extend past the next meeting. They will be here at that meeting for an up or down vote. Hopefully, they will have their input from DOT and will be able to put their best foot forward on what they can do here. They know what their budget is and what they can build to make the site work. They are doing their best to take the buildings off of Route 108. If anyone else was building out there, they would be building right on Route 108. At every opportunity, they have incorporated the Board’s advice and direction and taken a step forward. They can do that again on the landscaping. He hears the Board’s concern about it. He is glad they made some progress on the architectural renderings of the building.
Eric Botterman stated the applicant will update the landscape architectural plans. They will continue in order to get a closure letter from Underwood Engineering on the site design. He hopes NH DOT will have an answer for them. Rob Graham stated they have been piece-mailed into many of the incremental improvements out there. They are happy to do them and they will make the intersection work. They will be cutting the grade back and they are able to get the site lines they need. If they were trying now to build the intersection that is there, it would not be allowed. They were able to get all of their site distances, because of the work they were able to do on the two properties. They will be cutting a site back. The corner rises up and there is a corner that sticks out. The road is a congestion point for snow and ice pack in the winter. It is difficult to see. They will be able to improve a lot of the functionality of that intersection. They are swapping them 2-1 land to straighten out the right of way, which will give Newmarket and DOT long term ability to do widening or whatever the future plans are for Route 108.
He stated there was a new crew at District Six. They are decent, but new and inexperienced. He has never, in 25 years, been through the things he has been through with this district in the last two years. He has applications that have been open 8-10 months. A lot of people don’t realize DOT has a hard statutory timeframe of six months. The pass-by traffic, not the industrial park traffic, will always make any driveway trip need a turn lane warrant. It is independent of their project. They said down with DOT eight months ago with several design prospects. They asked them to put the buildings down low. They knew they would be bringing this traffic to one point on Route 108. They had a very honest discussion about doing that and whether to commit to the design not knowing if DOT would trip a turn lane warrant or if they would work with them on a compromise on what they can achieve there. DOT flat out told them they did not intend to go in that direction. They have been operating under that all of this time. They had gotten rid of four driveways. They are hoping, at the end of their analysis, DOT will make the right decision. The reason they have all of the outbound traffic in the morning is people are all leaving town, because there are no jobs here. This will put jobs in the town. They are still willing to go forward and help with the design of the turn off. He wants the Board to be aware of what they are trying to do with DOT. This is ultimately a Newmarket permit. This is a worthwhile exercise. It was right for the Board to look at the intersection. It is unreasonable for them to be asked to go into this process with DOT and be told they have to fix everyone’s problems, because there is no money.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they already made intersection improvements. Rob Graham stated there were more improvements coming. The big improvement in this intersection is it lowers the amount of time for someone to be sitting there to turn left. If you have a truck waiting to get out, it is not blocking half the road. Also, the truck doesn’t have to cross into half of the other side of Route 108 to make the turn. Even though it looks like it is not on Route 108, the significance of the improvements relative to how the actual traffic movement functions is very significant. There will be 23 trips in a peak hour.
Rob Graham stated they will go back to work on improving their buffer on Route 108. Eric Botterman suggested getting that plan to Diane Hardy in time for comments by Board members prior to the next meeting. If any Board members have comments for Diane Hardy, they should get them right to her, so she can forward them to the applicant.
Rob Graham stated, if Rose-Anne Kwaks has a list of plantings, to forward them to him. She invited him to stop by her property and she could show him what she has planted and how she applied it. He stated he would stop by.
Val Shelton stated they will need to provide a specific waiver request for the architecture.
Rob Graham stated they would get everything to them next week.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the public hearing on the site plan application at 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6, 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, 181 Exeter Road until the November 15 meeting
Second: Amy Burns
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Chairman's Report
Eric Botterman stated there is a severe drought and the Town hasn’t invoked a complete water ban yet. They do have the ability to do that. The Board spends a lot of time talking about water resources. For every development, the biggest issues are stormwater management, treatment, and infiltration to help recharge groundwater. He wondered if it was time to update our stormwater regulations. Diane Hardy stated it is in Future Land Use chapter of the Master Plan. Val Shelton stated they may want to revisit the Water Resources chapter. Eric Botterman asked the members to review the current regulations and chapter. He would like to have a conversation with the Town Administrator with how they update the Master Plan. He felt they fall behind significantly with updating. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the Future Land Use chapter committee has a meeting tomorrow night. Eric Botterman stated they are statutorily required to update it and it is $10,000 to $20,000 to update a chapter. They are dealing with contradictory goals. They want to treat stormwater and infiltrate it, but they don’t want to have a lot of surface water. There is a balance.
Rose-Anne Kwaks had concerns about issuing water permits for all of these homes and businesses coming in. Before the mills were built, there was a 35,000 gallon surplus. It was enough for the mills with 60 units. They now have 120 units. Then there are 50 more houses at the golf course. There isn’t enough water for it all right now. The Planning Board should consider some type of moratorium on water permits until the water situation is completely fixed. Eric Botterman stated he understood her concern, but that is way beyond their purview. There is enough water, assuming the MacIntosh Well comes in good. He believed and will check that there was one town in the past where the State came in and said they couldn’t issue any more permits, because there wasn’t enough water. The State is paying attention to it. If it was dire, the State would come in. Diane Hardy stated Sean Grieg was going to do a water buildout analysis. Wright-Pierce was working with him on it. It is an update of the old reports. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the Board is approving all this and they should let the Town Council know they have a problem doing this, because the other citizens are going to suffer because of it. We will remain at Level 4. Eric Botterman stated they cannot deny an application by saying there isn’t enough water. Diane Hardy stated they do ask Sean Grieg with every project if there is enough water. There is a new well going online soon. They should update the buildout analysis to look at the improvements that have been made in the last couple of years and where things stand for future growth.
Eric Botterman stated there is a School Facilities Committee meeting on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. He is on that committee and they will be making a recommendation to the School Board on whatever alternative is chosen for the schools.
CIP Committee Report
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated Diane Hardy has presented the CIP to the Town Administrator and they will be getting the report out to everyone by the end of the week.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to adjourn at 9:26 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor