Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 21, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner, Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Glen Wilkinson (Alternate),
Absent: Rose-Anne Kwaks, Amy Burns, Dale Pike excused to assist with election recount
Jane Ford
Called to order: 7:04 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:19 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 01/24/17 & 02/14/17
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of 01/24/17
Second: Glen Wilkinson
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of 02/14/17
Second: Glen Wilkinson
Val Shelton stated an abutter had made a comment on page 8, line 33, and was identified only as “an abutter”. Robert MacDonald, 1 Grape Street, was identified as the abutter.
On page 9, fourth paragraph at the end of the last sentence, “on the building” was added after “clapboards”.
The Board determined that they did not have enough members to approve the minutes so they were postponed until the next meeting.
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Consideration of appointment of full Board member to fill vacancy: Peter Nelson
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion for Peter Nelson to fill in for the remainder of Ezra Temko’s vacated full Planning Board member term ending in March 2018
Second: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor
Janice Rosa nominated Eric Botterman for Chairman. Val Shelton seconded. All were in favor.
Janice Rosa nominated Val Shelton for Vice Chairman. Peter Nelson seconded. All were in favor
Regular Business
Kim & John Parrett/Parrett Family Revocable Trust of 2013 - Public hearing for an application for subdivision, at 7 Eagle Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 36-9-3, R1 Zone. The proposal is for a minor subdivision, which involves subdividing out the building footprint, driveway, & sidewalk to be retained by the current homeowners, the remaining land to be conveyed to The Hill at Moody Point Homeowners Association, in accordance with the Revised Final Site Plan for Lots 10-2 through Lot 10-16 and Lots 9-1 through 9-4, D21471 RCRD, dated September 1991.
Diane Hardy recommended acceptance, as the application was complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Diane Hardy stated this is the second step of a two-step subdivision/site plan process that was approved by the Planning Board in 1991, when the original subdivision plan was approved. The idea was there would be a carving out of individual lots within the subdivision, which would then be sold. Upon completion of the house and driveway, there would be a second step, where the applicant would come back to the Planning Board and the Town and get an approval to carve out the footprint of the building and the driveway. In a sense, it was a zero lot subdivision. This is part of Moody Point, designed under the old Alternative Design Subdivision regulations, which provided the Planning Board the opportunity to waive some of the lot size, density, and setback requirements. Years have gone by now and two owners on Moody Point have recently built houses and they are ready to close on the property and get the second step of the process approved, by the Town, so they can go forward and convey the remaining land to the Homeowners Association. It is a housekeeping item from a previous approval. They have reviewed this with legal counsel and he has assured them that this is indeed a subdivision that needs to come before the full Board. Once it is approved, they will be free to go ahead and take care of that last step to move into their home.
Peter Nelson asked how that impacts the tax assessment. Val Shelton stated it is not a condominium. These are single family homes. Diane Hardy stated there will be common land associated with each home, which will be held by the Homeowners Association. Val Shelton stated they have a separate Homeowners Association that will maintain all of the land around the house and then Eagle Drive itself is owned by the Homeowners Association. It is a private road. She stated Newmarket does not tax association land. They embed the value of it within each individual home. Under State law, the towns are required to assess at market value. This is a housekeeping issue. The Board cannot reject the plan, because it is required as part of the original subdivision approval. This has to be done.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion for approval
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Malea Hughes TTE/Moody Point Nominee Trust - Public hearing for an application for subdivision at 5 Eagle Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 36-9-2, R1 Zone. The proposal is for a minor subdivision, which involves subdividing out the building footprint, driveway, & sidewalk to be retained by the current homeowners, the remaining land to be conveyed to The Hill at Moody Point Homeowners Association, in accordance with the Revised Final Site Plan for Lots 10-2 through Lot 10-16 and Lots 9-1 through 9-4, D21471 RCRD, dated September 1991.
Diane Hardy stated the application was complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no public comments.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Real Estate Advisors/D. R. Lemieux Builders, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for site plan, at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone. The proposal is to build a four unit residential condominium development, with associated parking, utilities, and drainage features.
Diane Hardy stated there were a couple of housekeeping measures. She asked Christian Smith, Beals Associates, who represented the applicant, to sign the abutters list, which he did.
Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the application against the site plan review checklist. There are some items she wanted to go over.
An abutter, Robert MacDonald, had mentioned at the last meeting there was an easement across his property. They would like to make sure that is reflected on the site plan. Christian Smith stated it is shown on the existing conditions plan. There is a metes and bounds description.
Diane Hardy stated one of the parking spaces needs to be a designated ADA space.
There is a need to have some kind of bicycle facility shown. She stated that was going to be added to the plan and she couldn’t find it. Mr. Smith indicated the location, near the existing garage.
Diane Hardy stated a note was added to the plan that designates handicap accessibility, for the walkways leading from the parking lot. She wanted to make sure the access from the parking lot to the sidewalk out front is also ADA accessible. She stated, in the past, they have asked the applicants for a general note stating that all site improvements will meet ADA requirements.
It was suggested at the last meeting, by Mr. Wilkinson, to have an area for recycling storage containers that could be rolled to the curb on pickup days. Mr. Smith stated they thought that was a great idea, as well, and they revised the plans to reflect that. They will clarify how that will be handled, whether someone from the pickup company will go up and get the containers or whether the owners will roll them to the road. They will put a note on the plan.
Diane Hardy asked about outdoor lighting. Mr. Smith stated none was proposed other than the safety lighting at the doors.
Diane Hardy state they provided the Board with a list of waivers. Mr. Smith stated it was a single waiver, just kind of long winded.
Diane Hardy stated the Town departments have had a chance to review and comment on this project. She will follow up with them to make sure everyone is all set with the new plan. This project has gone through a technical review process.
Diane Hardy stated there will be a driveway permit required by the Public Works Director.
Diane Hardy recommended accepting the application for review.
Christian Smith stated the existing conditions plan is considered “Sheet 1 of 5”, the site plan. They will make one of the sheets into a recordable site plan. Eric Botterman asked Mr. Smith if they could label the existing conditions plan “1 of 6”, so there is no confusion later on. Mr. Smith stated he would do that.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to accept the application as complete
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Eric Botterman stated this is basically the same project they talked about last year. For the sake of clarity, he asked Christian Smith to walk everyone through the changes that have been made to the plan that had been before them.
Christian Smith stated the changes include a slight modification to the walkways to the units. As opposed to having them all staggered in a northeasterly direction, Mr. Lemiuex has configured them so there will be two jutting out to the east in the middle and two units which will be slightly recessed from that. He took that information from some of the previous hearing minutes. Some of the abutters felt that was a more consistent look with the rest of the neighborhood. This is the same rendering as suggested at the design review. It does depict the middle two units projecting out slightly. Mr. Lemiuex has agreed to brick and mortar the protruding face of the inner two units on the front side of the building. That came out of his review of the minutes. They tried to keep the drainage as consistent as they could to the previous iteration. They are trying to keep the water going in a similar direction as the previous existing condition. They collect everything in a small swale. There is a small berm that will be built up to make sure the water reaches the biorention pond in the back. Aside from that, it is about the same. They have revised the plan by eliminating the proposed dumpster and now have four large roll-off cans, inside a screened area. One will be assigned to each unit. They will either be brought to the curb by the renters or the pickup company. Mr. Lemieux intends to retain ownership of the building. There will be the same number of screening plantings along the side. Snow storage stays the same. These units will have sprinklers.
They would have to create six different locations to treat stormwater. It seems highly inefficient. The property to the southwest has an open area right now with a good place for a bioretention pond. These structures are extremely effective in nutrient removal. In all iterations of required storm events, they show a reduction in peak flow offsite, to the west and to the existing catchbasin in the street.
Val Shelton asked Mr. Smith to take them through the topography changes. She could see they were grading the parking lot from 43 to 42. Mr. Smith stated that was correct. It is laid out a little oddly right now, with the existing gravel. Val Shelton stated the abutters were at 42. The water will sheet off, go into the swale and then the catchbasin. Mr. Smith indicated the direction of the water flow. The right-hand side of the swale is under 42’.
Peter Meneghin, 20 Beech Street, of which his wife, Dorothy, is the owner of record, asked if he was correct in understanding that the properties closer to Beech Street that the elevations are at 43’, whereas along the driveway within the plan the elevation was 42’.
Janice Lamontagne, 3 Grape Street, stated she planted some trees on her property line and she can’t see where her property line is on this diagram. Mr. Smith showed where it was on the plan.
Ms. Lamontagne stated, when the applicant’s property was surveyed, she asked them to show her where her property line ended. She stated there is a green space next to her driveway and half of the green space is her property. She said the surveyor marked it for her. She had planted some arborvitae there in 2015. Eric Botterman stated, according to the plan, in the front corner there is a little bit of land beyond her driveway. The property line goes through a corner of her driveway then continues on to a corner on the applicant’s property. According to this plan, there is no green space there. He did not know where the trees were relative to the line. Mr. Smith stated he did not know either.
Ms. Lamontagne asked if they would be excavating in that area and disturbing the grassy area next to her driveway. Eric Botterman stated they would be, as that is where the swale is. He stated it sounds like the trees may not be on her property, if they are to the right of her driveway. Ms. Lamontagne stated she specifically asked the surveyor to show her where the property line was and he said that was her line. That is why she planted the trees there and she spent a lot of money on those trees. She was also told that when she purchased the house. Eric Botterman stated he was not disputing that, but what they told her was not correct. He did not know exactly where the trees were whether they were on her property or not, based on this plan. They may not be.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Lemieux had just indicated to him that in the event the trees are in the way of proposed grading he is happy to take them out and restore the area. They are creating a small berm there. He would be happy to replant the trees. It looks like they are on Mr. Lemieux’s property that he has under agreement. Eric Botterman stated it should be easy to tell where the line is. Mr. Smith stated they will note the reference to the trees on the landscape plan. Eric Botterman asked if and when they start construction, would they mark this out and have a conversation with Ms. Lamontagne before they do any work. Mr. Smith stated absolutely.
Bob MacDonald, 1 Grape Street, stated at the last meeting he requested the drainage plan, which he has reviewed. He is satisfied that the elevations look proper. He and his wife have spoken to the potential owners about the easement and that will be on the plan.
Bob Madea, owner of 7-9 Grape Street, stated there had been discussion about the existing garage. He asked if it would be for parking or modified for vehicle space. He stated they had even talked about taking it down. He sees on the plans it says the garage to stay. He just wanted to follow up and see if there was anything further discussion on it. Mr. Smith stated their intent is to convert it to storage for each unit. They understood it was the desire of the neighbors for the garage to remain. It is not intended to be converted to garage space. It is not big enough.
Peter Meneghin stated there are four proposed residential units. There are six units in the garage structure. There had been a suggestion that the interior walls could be altered so you could end up with four units that were sufficiently spacious to accommodate vehicles. The reason he raised the possibility is because they have some concerns about the adequacy of the parking for four units. There has been no provision for visitors parking. He asked if they would entertain further discussion on that subject. Eric Botterman stated, from the Board’s perspective, to use that for parking would involve increasing the amount of impervious area on the lot. It would have to be paved and that would exacerbate any runoff issues. Mr. Smith stated, while the interior walls could probably be reconfigured, the exterior walls and doors are separated by brick and mortar. It would be quite a challenge to change that to four drive-in bays. The end two units will have two spaces each for storage and the two interior units will have one apiece.
Mr. Smith stated the parking meets the letter of the Town’s code, which is two parking spots per unit.
Eric Botterman asked if there were any more comments and there were none.
Eric Botterman stated they can address the waiver requests. These were the requests the Board had discussed previously.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the waiver to Site Plan Review Regulations Section 3.07(C)(3)
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated the last time this project was discussed, she had prepared recommended conditions of approval. One of them was for approval subject to the architectural issues being resolved. From a technical standpoint, the only remaining issue is this. She would like to hear comments from the Board on whether they are in agreement with what has been presented.
Peter Nelson stated based on neighbors who had spoken to the past application, their opinion was the more brick the better. They are not hearing that this time. They seem satisfied with this design. Barring any other issue from the neighbors that it doesn’t fit, it is a step in right direction.
Glen Wilkinson stated he liked the new design and it fits much better into the neighborhood.
Janice Rosa agreed with both comments and she thought the new person who has taken over this project has worked very closely with the abutters and has tried to accommodate their concerns.
Val Shelton agreed, they had not heard anything regarding architectural issues this evening from any abutters.
Eric Botterman agreed. He stated they had a technical computer issue tonight and they do not have access to the list of conditions prepared by Diane Hardy. Diane Hardy stated perhaps someone has a copy from the previous application with them. Mr. Smith stated the applicant would be happy to accept a conditional approval. He recalled there was nothing earth shattering in there. Diane Hardy stated she would feel more comfortable finding the list of conditions and updating them. Then she could package it in the correct way.
Peter Meneghin stated he recalled the conditions had addressed various areas of concern and they were part of the earlier plan. It would seem that the absent conditions were a part of the overall approval process. It is appropriate for any party to be able to see that before the Board acts.
Some Board members searched their email on their cell phones to see if they could locate the list of conditions. They were not able to locate it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant conditional approval for the application for site plan at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone to build a four-unit residential condominium development, with the associated parking, utilities, and drainage features subject to the applicant providing a completed site plan and update of the plan submitted this evening and, further, subject to the Planning Board ratifying the proposed conditions of approval relating to the 2016 application for the same property
Second: Peter Nelson
Janice Lamontagne asked what the conditions were. Eric Botterman explained the conditional approval is subject to the Board ratifying the conditions at the next meeting, once they locate the paper listing them. Diane Hardy stated they are mostly standard conditions.
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Workshop: Continuation of discussions on signage regulations and other zoning amendments.
Eric Botterman stated they were not going to talk about those tonight. Diane Hardy stated the Town Council approved the zoning changes recommended by the Planning Board.
Planner's Report
Diane Hardy stated there is a seminar on Thursday at the Town Hall for Great Bay municipalities to address coastal flooding.
Diane Hardy gave out a handout from a meeting at UNH attended by herself, Peter Nelson and Dale Pike. The meeting was about the project on groundwater modeling as it relates to salt water intrusion. She read a paper from Liz Durfee about analyzing these impacts.
SRPC
Peter Nelson stated they have started utility work on the Route 108 bike lane north of downtown. That is all moving forward. They are also in the early phase of the next ten year transportation plan. He will share some documents about this. One thing that came up was potential for a rail station on Beech Street Extension at the site of the former senior center. Val Shelton stated that would be huge. Peter Nelson stated it opened up another discussion on getting additional rail service. SRPC is moving toward forming a 501(c) non-profit corporation to help fund some of their ideas in light of what is going on politically. They brought up having some sort of Port Authority or Transit Authority to implement rail improvements. They will be selecting projects for the ten year plan shortly.
Diane Hardy stated she had spoken to Rob Graham, the contact for the industrial park, and they finally reach a tentative agreement with the NH DOT on improvements to the Forbes Road/Route 108 intersection. They agreed to put in the center turning lane. They have to meet their conditions of approval by May.
Agenda Item # 6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:19 p.m.
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor