Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MAY 9, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Peter Nelson, Glen Wilkinson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio)
Absent: Jane Ford, Gretchen Kast (Town Council ex officio Alternate) - excused
Called to order: 7:10 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:42 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Eric Botterman appointed Glen Wilkinson to sit in for Jane Ford.
There were no public comments.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 04/11/17
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the 04/11/17 minutes
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
[
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Company, LLC - Extension Request - Proposed Industrial Development 2 Forbes Road, 169, 175, 177 & 181 Exeter Road Map R3, Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9-6
Eric Botterman read the written request for the extension from Tighe & Bond. They were requesting a six month extension. The approval was granted on November 15, 2016. The formal driveway permit has not yet been issued by NH DOT. They anticipate it will be issued soon.
Diane Hardy stated they have some minor things left to address, but this is the biggest issue.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the Maplewood and Vaughan Holding, LLC request for extension for (another) six months for the existing site plan approval
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Public hearing to amend Chapter 32 Zoning and Appendix A Subdivisions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Newmarket, New Hampshire, in accordance with RSA 675:2, RSA 675:6, and RSA 675:7. The purposes of these amendments are to: (1) make modifications to Sec 32- Special Use permits to allow “assisted living and memory care units”; (2) add a new Article V. Section 162 Assisted living overlay district as an overlay district over a portion of the existing B-1 and B-2 zone off New Road; (3) modify and update Sec 32-11 Definitions and Article VI Signs; and (4) Changes to Appendix A – Subdivisions to encourage landscaped entrances to new subdivisions.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing for (1) make modification to Sec 32-9 Special Use Permits to allow “assisted living and memory care unit” and (2) add new Sec 132-162 Assisted Living Overlay
Diane Hardy explained the Planning Board is recommending the addition of a new overlay district. This would approximately be a 90-100 acre area off of New Road. The area is in southern Newmarket, not far from the Newfields town line. It is on the easterly side of the Pan Am Railway’s right of way. She showed the area on a map. She stated it would be an overlay to the existing zoning. A portion is currently zoned B2. Another area was B1. There are two property owners affected by this. The largest portion is owned by the Town of Newmarket. The northern part of the proposed district has approximately 39.5 acres of land owned by the Town of Newmarket. This is the so-called “Ham property”. The Town also owns some property in the southern part, the so-called “Wilson property”, which is 20+ acres. In the middle is land owned by Shearwater Investment Group, which includes Susan Conway, who was involved in the earlier development of the industrial park.
She stated the first recommendation is there be an assisted living overlay district. That would be an area within which assisted living facilities, as well as memory care facilities for dementia and Alzheimer’s patients, would be allowed. They would be allowed by a Special Use Permit issued by the Planning Board.
They are recommending adding a new section to the zoning ordinance, which is an assisted living overlay district. The purpose of that is to allow the opportunity for low traffic impact development of that type within the overlay district. It includes portions of the B1 and the B2 zones. The actual tax map references are listed. The base map used for this presentation is from the Town of Newmarket tax records. They have heard there are some discrepancies in some of the boundaries. They have forwarded this to legal counsel for review. For purposes of tonight’s meeting, they wanted to at least present the overall concept to everyone.
She stated the definitions for assisted living are the definitions that are used by the State of NH, through the Department of Health and Human Services, as defined in RSA 161(J)(2). She read the definitions of Skilled Nursing and Memory Care.
She stated they were talking about assisted living, memory care and accessory uses in Paragraph D. They are not talking about housing for individuals over age 55, who are living independently, or even those who would need some kind of health care services. What is being proposed is a highly specialized type of housing with skilled nursing facilities.
In Paragraph E, development standards would be established. They would be looking at a minimum lot size of 20 acres, a road setback from New Road of at least 100’, and there would be an overall development cap of 75 units within the entire overlay district area. There would be a development review process and these projects would have to comply with all of the Town’s subdivision and site plan review regulations. These projects will not be built on a phased basis.
Changes to the approved site plan would have to go back to the Planning Board. The special use permit would be good for two years. The Special Use Permit would be subject to the public hearing requirements, including notification of abutters.
Eric Botterman asked if anyone in the public had any comments or concerns about this section of the proposed changes.
John Geraldson, no address given, asked if the 75 unit maximum was per 20 acre lot or total. Diane Hardy stated it was total, awarded on a first come, first served basis.
Claudia Vatcher, 184 New Road, stated they have said 75 units. On Route 152, there are 57 units, she believed. She asked why they need 100 acres for 75 units that could be built on 20 acres. Diane Hardy stated the intent is to provide extensive buffers around the property. There is a buffer requirement of 75 feet. Also, the buildings would have to be 100’ off of New Road. The idea was to try to make it as compatible as possible with the character of the area.
Mrs. Vatcher asked if the land had been surveyed by the Town. Diane Hardy stated the Town has not surveyed, to her knowledge. Eric Botterman stated there are survey plans for some of the properties. He did not believe the Town has ever surveyed them. The outline on the plan is from the tax maps. The deed says 39.5 acres, the tax map show 31+ acres. They will have the lawyers get to the bottom of which figure is accurate. Whoever would develop the land would have to have a boundary survey done as part of their application.
Mrs. Vatcher asked if a traffic study had been done. Eric Botterman stated there has not been one, at this point. If a project came before the Board, the Board could ask for a traffic study. Diane Hardy stated under site review regulations, if a project involves more than twenty units, the developer is required to have a detailed traffic study done by a professional traffic engineer.
Mrs. Vatcher stated, back in 1980, the wooden bridge on New Road was the center of a big argument between B&M Railroad and the Town of Newmarket. The bridge was taken down. In 1980, her father had a very bad heart attack, while the bridge was closed. The only way around was almost 2 miles down New Road toward downtown, to the old funeral home at the corner of Route 108 and New Road, then you would go south to Exeter Hospital. Luckily, her father did not die. You wonder how many other people had to take the long way around when they were ill. Her point was that particular bridge does not sustain a lot of traffic. Yet day by day she sees trucks that are over 26,000 pounds going over it. This is a wooden bridge that supposedly cannot sustain over 18,000 pounds.
Mrs. Vatcher stated, in the fall of 1988, her husband at that time was Lester Heath. They owned property on New Road. Her parents owned it first. Her father built the house and, before it was done, he passed away. Her mother and father had life tenancy in that property. Her mother died three years ago.
Mrs. Vatcher stated she was home one day, in 1988, and a bulldozer came to the side of her property, on the left side if you are looking at the property. It started dozing in a road right next to her stone wall, with no buffer. By the time she called someone, they had gone quite away up, tearing down the large trees and taking the topsoil off. She called Arthur Beauchesne, who was a Selectman at the time. He came and put a cease and desist on Afton Realty Trust a.k.a. Susan Conway, who is now the Shearwater Investment Corporation. Mrs. Vatcher stated she had an agreement and she brought it with her that she and her now ex-husband signed in 1988, with Afton Realty Trust. It was to become a part of the Planning Board minutes at that time. She does not know if it ever did.
Mrs. Vatcher stated Susan Conway came to her house that evening, with a bottle of wine. She sat down with her and her husband and told them Afton Realty Trust would do all these things for them, if they let them put the road in on the wetlands. She asked Susan Conway if they had a wetlands permit and she said, no they don’t. As far as she knows, there never was a wetlands permit. If you go riding by there today, you will see why that road should not be there. It is full of water. At that point, she had never had water in the cellar at all. When her father built it, he left a hole in the cellar, because they are right on the water table. She stated thank goodness he had the foresight to do that, because, as soon as they dug that road, she had water in her cellar, and she had a well that was ruined by bacteria from the change in the flow of water. To this day, she has water in the cellar. They did nothing about putting anything back to the way it was. The whole pile of topsoil is still sitting there. They had agreed to put up a fence and the road would cross into the Industrial Park, which she believed they were supposed to post a bond for and it never got posted, because it was too high. Diane Hardy stated her understanding was the adjacent Ham property was used as collateral (via a mortgage deed), to ensure the railroad crossing would be built. That was in lieu of a performance bond. She was not sure of the exact timing of this, but the railroad crossing was never built and the Town re-acquired the Ham property.
Mrs. Vatcher read from the agreement, “Afton will repair any damage to the Heath’s driveway. It will install, to the Heath’s standards, including bacteria tests and approval, an Artesian well…” At the time she did not have an Artesian well. “…and will install Town water...” She stated how about that, way out there, Town water. “…whichever is preferred by the Heath’s. Afton will install a crash gate at the New Road industrial park road intersection after construction access is complete.” What they wanted to do was access through that road, with the trucks, to go to the industrial park and that road would be considered just an emergency access road that would be gated. They also said they would install a street light and the house would be inspected and photographed, as appropriate, prior to the blasting of Afton property. The agreement was titled “Afton Realty Trust, Lester Heath and Claudia Heath agreement, October 25, 1988. Afton was to repair, replace, re-landscape any damage done during completion of the above mentioned items. All work to be completed within one year of Planning Board approval. Afton requested that his agreement be included as part of the Planning Board approval.”
Val Shelton asked, in 1988, was the company before the Planning Board with a proposal. Mrs. Vatcher stated that was her assumption. Arthur Beauchesne stopped the whole thing. Susan Conway cut that road in without any permission from anyone. The agreement was supposed to be in the minutes of the Planning Board. Nothing was done.
Mrs. Vatcher stated she has legitimate concerns. If you go past the property, you will see why, because of that water. Eric Botterman stated there are no plans to for access that way at this time.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if Susan Conway had made good on the well. Mrs. Vatcher stated she had done nothing for them. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she is still legally obligated to do these things. Diane Hardy did not know if the Planning Board had ever approved anything for Susan Conway during the one year timeframe mentioned in the agreement. Eric Botterman asked Mrs. Vatcher if she could stop by Town Hall with a copy of the agreement. Mrs. Vatcher stated she gave a copy to a man who came to the site. She said someone from the Town came and asked her for a copy of it and she gave it to him. She said she told him every time she saw the Town tax maps, it says there is a road here and there is no road here.
Eric Botterman stated, just to be clear, this proposed change gives no one any permission to do anything without coming before the Planning Board. The regulations have changed significantly since 1988. There would be an elaborate process that would have to happen before anyone could do anything. This gives someone the ability to do this type of development there, if they chose.
Mrs. Vatcher stated there would be a lot of traffic. People in assisted living still drive and other people come to visit
Eric Botterman thanked her for her comments. Mrs. Vatcher stated that bottle of wine Susan Conway had brought them was lousy.
Gary Levy, 81 New Road, stated he had been the Chair of the Black Bear TIF Committee and the Economic Development Committee (EDC). He stated he was pretty familiar with past proposals for this area. When the options for the various types of elderly housing were being studied and discussed, by the EDC, he personally was under the impression that New Road, with its clear issues in terms of capacity, size, safety, traffic, etc., would be considered for the most low traffic impact, highest value options, i.e. value of land and facility, which would be specialized brain care, dementia, memory care and Alzheimer’s.
He stated the current proposal includes different varieties of CCRC. There are difference categories of assisted housing under the State’s system. Under State administrative rules, Section 804 licensing applies to an assisted living facility, which, in some cases, is a level up from an apartment facility. It includes ambulant people and a fairly low level of care, so it is not skilled nursing. The people who can drive generally go to those types of facilities.
The 805 licensing offers a higher level of care and they need a staff to assist people in the event of evacuation. That said, the land within the proposed overlay district needs to be more properly defined, as providing skilled nursing. This is not the same as assisted housing that provides more independent living arrangements.
He had given the Town the mortgage deed for the newly acquired ‘Ham” property and hopes the Town will enforce it. The map being used is possibly over 20 years old. It shows there is a paper road that crosses the railroad that was never built. He had sent a letter to the Town Administrator last August. He pointed out that there were discrepancies with the tax map that was being used for the overlay district talked about at the time and the mortgage deed was never properly enforced. The Town Administrator wrote back to him saying that was odd. The Town Administrator listed out the lots owned by the Town and Shearwater. He stated in the letter the tax map shows that the Town owns 31 acres and there was an issue with the tax maps. That confirmed the tax maps were not accurate. In 1980, the subdivision plan was filed, as the final plan. It created a paper street and moved some land from one lot to another and it would not have been an issue, because both sides were owned by the same developer. The Town had filed this as a proper record, but it is not. The Town Administrator went on to say that Planning was doing more research. It was explained that this appears to be a title issue and has been referred to the Town Attorney. The Town Attorney had stated, as soon as that was completed, they could fix the tax map, as needed, which may mean abating 9+ acres to Shearwater, which were being taxed, but should not have been since 2013. It is back land, so it is not a lot. He had written that he may have Doucet Survey do a survey of the property and they should be unraveling this in the next few weeks. This letter was from August of 2016.
It is Mr. Levy’s opinion that the deed of 39.5 acres trumps everything. That would be the Town’s acreage. Diane Hardy stated she hoped he was right. Mr. Levy stated he was reading from the Town Administrator’s letter, so if he is wrong, she can take it up with the Town Administrator, her boss. Until the map is cleaned up, he felt there should be no action taken. He did not see how they could assess that. On page one of the proposed ordinance, paragraph 2B, it describes the boundaries of the overlay district and references the proposal and the map, which is not accurate. Without knowing if the 75 units is feasible and the actual carrying capacity of New Road, which has never been determined, and without knowing how the proposed district was determined, and knowing that the map being used is in error, it is hard to understand how the Board and public can really discuss this zoning amendment, at this time, or take action.
He was hoping they could get the information back from the attorney, so they know which parcels are actually the Town’s and which are Shearwater’s and then he would like the time to review and evaluate it. Without having that information, he can’t speak to this proposal tonight. He had never envisioned assisted living. He had always envisioned they were going to have memory care and skilled nursing.
He stated, if you read the proposed ordinance, it says “assisted or memory care or skilled nursing”. It is not all of them. Presently, assisted housing will bring the least amount of value to the Town, particularly if you go with the Section 804 definition, which he would not recommend. The highest tax value to the Town is the skilled nursing for the memory. impaired. Unfortunately, there is a need for it.
He hoped the Board holds off taking action on the re-zoning proposal until these maps get straightened out. He would like to then come back and give an opinion.
Eric Botterman stated with understanding the issue with the lot size, he thought this evening was a productive meeting for initial feedback. He personally was not ready to move on this, because he felt they need to resolve the map issue. He was not speaking for the Board. He felt there was a title problem with those parcels.
Mr. Levy said it was up to the Board to figure out where the most value is. He feels 75 units is a little heavy and he did not agree with the assisted living. He did not think that was what was intended for this area.
Val Shelton stated, with the EDC, they were talking about skilled nursing assisted living, not independent assisted living. Mr. Levy stated he spoke to the owner of a fairly substantial facility today. She explained some of the differences. He is not an expert. His sense is 805 Assisted Housing has more care givers available, people to assist people, help them get up, eat and shower, etc. Skilled nursing is for someone who is wheelchair bound, who needs help with their day to day functions, getting out of bed with a lift, etc. That has the lowest impact on traffic and is where the money is from the cost of the facility and the tax revenue for the Town. The same is true with dementia. The 805 level has more people who can help people who cannot get out of the building if it was necessary to evacuate. It is the skilled nursing they were looking for on the EDC. They had one proposal that came before them at the Planning Board. The gentleman wanted to do over 55 age housing without all of the skilled nursing components, because it was too costly to do that. If you just build a bunch of apartments and say it’s assisted and it goes south, then you have 75 regular apartments and that is the last thing Newmarket needs. It is a complicated issue. The land has to be surveyed.
Diane Hardy asked if he had a classification for the Section 804 vs 805 housing. Rose-Anne Kwaks state she spoke to a woman at “The Pines.” What they had discussed at their committee meetings, was just assisted living with some skilled nursing thrown in. Section 804 is based on RSA 159:9 VII (a)(1). Section 805 is more stringent and that is what “The Pines” facility is. That one is RSA 151:2 (I)(e)(2) and it also refers back to 151:9 VII (a)(2). She will copy those for the Planning Board. There is a big difference. The committee should look at it.
Rose-Anne asked if they could find out from the Town Attorney if the railroad has the right to remove the bridge. They have to think twice about doing anything there, if that is the case.
Mr. Levy stated, after they get the boundaries straightened out, they could have a site walk, so people could see exactly where it is.
Ken Schaitman, 178 New Road, stated he moved to the area three years ago. He was originally from Stratham. He lived in the Guinea Road area for almost his whole life. He witnessed that area being built up. Sterling Hill was built in that area, which was supposed to be 55+ housing, but they recently changed it to accommodate younger people. There is a lot of traffic. He had told his real estate agent he wanted something close to things, but wanted to feel distant. When he found the New Road property, he knew that was it. He was not too close to neighbors and there was little traffic. The times where work was done on the railroad crossing on Exeter Road and the detour was on New Road, they got a taste of what it was like living on Route 108. That was only for a couple of days. They frequently walk out in back of his property and they see the nature and know it is wet back there. There are a lot of animals back there. It would be a shame for something to be built there, although he knows it is not his property.
There were no further comments.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the public hearing on Chapter 32 zoning Section 320-162 regarding assisted living overlay district to June 13, 2017 Planning Board meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Janice Rosa was concerned they would not have the map information by then. Eric Botterman stated they could vote for a continuance, in that case. Diane Hardy stated she would, at least, like to get the letter from the attorney. Janice Rosa stated that could take a long time, if they started asking about this back in 2016. Diane Hardy stated they have the attorney’s attention. She spoke with him today. She has pulled out some of the plans and has started looking them over herself. It will get done. They will have something from the Town Counsel for the June meeting.
There was a request for a copy of the agreement for the Board. Diane Hardy stated there was an agreement recorded at the Registry of Deeds and she was wondering if it was the same one. She stated they will check the Planning Board’s records, too, from back then.
Peter Nelson asked if this would include the right of way from the railroad and if anyone knew how much property they own there. Diane Hardy stated they own the right of way. Eric Botterman stated they do not own any developable land. Mrs. Vatcher stated, in reference to the railroad, when her father bought that land, he subdivided and sold to Dave Paquette’s mother. These nice people, the Schaitmans, who have been here for three years, are now in that property next door to her. They are separated by a swamp. On the other side of their property is a railroad right of way that people are probably not aware of. It is on the tax maps, but it is between their property and the guy on the other side. Eric Botterman stated that was a maintenance access way to get out to their tracks for service. Mrs. Vatcher stated that was correct. Peter Nelson stated he was referring to anything to do with the railroad. They tend to be old and tricky.
Vote: All in favor
(3) Amend Sec 32-2 Purpose of Zoning
Diane Hardy stated, back in January, they received a letter from Town Counsel concerning language that could be added to the zoning ordinance to enhance the understanding of what the Town’s rights are, in terms of aesthetic values as part of Site Plan review. He recommended that some specific language be added to our “Purpose” section. He recommended that the Board add another “Purpose” statement “9. To advance aesthetic values through design and architecture, because the preservation or enhancement of the visual environment may promote prosperity and the general welfare.”
There were no further public comments.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to amend Section 32-2 Purpose by adding the following as a new subsection 9 that reads as follows: “To advance aesthetic values through design and architecture, because the preservation of enhancement of the visual environment may promote prosperity and the general welfare.” (See page 14 of these minutes for amendment to this motion.)
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
(4) Signs
Sec 32-11 Definitions
“Signs”
Mike Hoffman, Code Enforcement Officer, stated a number of issues have come to bear on the sign ordinance recently. One was a Supreme Court case, Reed v. Gilbert, AZ, where municipalities cannot dictate a message on a sign. You can dictate material and design, but not the words on the sign. That was important, because some of the sign ordinance allowed certain entities to advertise in certain ways and others could not. It also opened the door to some unintended consequences, as simple as a time/temperature clock. That is an electronic message center. Therefore, if you allow one, you have to allow them all. There could be all kinds of remotely controlled electronic message centers and they could light up. That has been a problem in some other communities in New Hampshire and across the USA. The recommendation was to remove anything that allowed for some sort of electronic message. Also, under the current zoning, it is allowed to have illuminated signs in all districts, except for M2. This was also somewhat unintentional. All of the residential districts could have internally illuminated signs, which is obviously not what the intent was. That language should be cleaned up.
“Sign, Electronic Message Board”
Mr. Hoffman went over the proposed change. He stated they are defining electronic message boards.
“Sign, Neon/LED Style”
They had also talked about LED signage and it made sense to include that technology and regulate that, as well.
Sec 32-121”Application Process (1) Exempt Signs (g)”
There was also a small issue with what he calls “perpetual yard sales”. They happen every single weekend. To him, that is a business occupancy. The decision of the subcommittee was to limit that to no more than four days per calendar year. The four days seemed like a reasonable number of times for yard sales. They don’t want to be too restrictive, but, at the same time, don’t want a business set up in the R1 Zone, for example.
Sec 32-123(a) “Illumination”
He stated they stayed with the same theme with some of the illumination standards, with flashing and blinking lights. They took out the time/temperature portion.
Sec 32-123(e) “Materials”
They changed the wording from “plastic shall be minimized”, which is really difficult to enforce. The words “shall” and “prohibited” are more concrete. It takes away a lot of argument. There is an exception with the material that mimics natural materials, like a high density urethane. The most beautiful signs in town right now are urethane. They look like wood, but last for many years.
Sec 32-123(h) “Movable Signs’
They had talked about moveable signs. They took the terminology out about allowing them on a registered vehicle. They don’t need to get into motor vehicle law on registered vehicles. The permanently located vehicle that sits in the corner of a lot that is situated just to look like a billboard is not appropriate. They don’t want people to buy or rent a tractor trailer and put their business sign on it and park it on the corner of the lot. As long as the vehicle is regularly moved, it is not a problem. If it gets parked there for six months, it is a problem, as that is a movable sign. Eric Botterman stated Newburyport had a court case on this. The City wouldn’t give a person a sign permit, so he parked his oil truck with his name and phone number on it. The City won. This proposal is fair and reasonable.
Sec 32-123(k) “Sandwich Board Signs”
Mike Hoffman stated, quite a while ago, the Newmarket Business Association had pleaded for sandwich board signs to be permitted. A previous Town Administrator said they would not be regulated. A previous Building Official had said they were okay and, as long as they were wood and not plastic, they would be allowed. That was never codified. It was just a statement. They looked at Exeter and Portsmouth’s sandwich board sign regulations and mimicked the best of them. They will be small, chalkboard style and wood. Not plastic, with fly away letters. There is a clearance requirements for the sidewalk.
Sec 32-123 (b) “Regulations by District”
Mike Hoffman stated an unintended situation was that the ordinance actually permitted very large projecting signs, of a size no one has ever used. It would be very difficult to secure them to a building, considering they should be designed for 100 mph winds. They dropped it down to 8 sq. ft., which is pretty consistent with what people already have.
Sec 32-124(2) “Wall Signs”
Mike Hoffman stated another issue was with wall signs. We currently allow a 10% wall area. Most businesses have 3% or 4%. Some, like the one at Kennebunk Savings Bank, is .7% of the wall area. Some people thought their sign was pretty big, but it is only .7%. It could have been ten times larger or more. Jeremy’s Pizza is probably the biggest and his is roughly 9%. The subcommittee felt they should bring the size down. The subcommittee ended up saying 3% of the wall area or 5% with a Special Use Permit issued by the Planning Board. A larger sign can look good and be done in a pleasing way. The Planning Board would have an opportunity to look at it. This is more in keeping with surrounding communities’ regulations.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to modify and update to this Section to the definitions and articles pertaining to Signs and pass it to the Town Council
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Changes to Appendix A - Subdivision Regulations
Diane Hardy stated one of the changes was that someone could have a subdivision identification sign not to exceed 12 sq. ft. in size located at the entrance to the subdivision and it would denote the name of the development. The idea being it would be outside of the public right of way and it would require approval by the Planning Board. In order to implement that, the Board is recommending adding more specific language to the subdivision regulations.
Sec 3.09 “Landscaping”
Under this section, they are suggesting adding a new paragraph (C) Entrance Design and Signage. This states that landscaped entrances are encouraged and contains details on plantings. There would be provisions in the homeowner association documents for maintenance. There could be a second sign on a monument or stone wall.
Val Shelton stated she was not sure if they looked at this in compliance with the zoning ordinance. This would be in conflict with sign sizes in the zoning ordinance. These would be considered free standing signs. Maybe the language needs to be more generic, not in conflict with the ordinance.
Diane Hardy stated just take out the size and height restrictions, which are actually part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion they amend Appendix A of the Subdivision Regulations Section 3.09 Landscaping, by adding a new Section (C), as proposed in the public hearing with deleting the verbiage “which may not exceed 12 sq. ft. in size and 6’ in height”.
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated one of the earlier motions should have mentioned forwarding the changes to the Town Council for consideration for adoption, as the Planning Board does not adopt zoning changes.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to amend her original motion of just approving Section 32-2 and adding “send it to the Town Council for approval.”
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Appointment to SRPC – Peter Nelson
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to recommend to Town Council to appoint Peter Nelson as representative to Strafford Regional Planning Commission
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated, at the end of April, she submitted to SRPC a grant proposal to update our stormwater regulations. There is a new stormwater management ordinance that is being recommended by the Seacoast Watershed Coalition, which reflects the state of our thinking on stormwater management. It is an $8,000 grant to update the regulations. They were last done in 2008. There have been quite a few changes, since then. These regulation will be required under the MS4 program, which will go into effect in July 2018. The Town Council has joined other communities, which are appealing the NPDES permit for the MS4 program, which was issued in January 2018. There should be a decision soon.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she loves the new “Welcome to Newmarket” signs. Diane Hardy stated those were Mike Hoffman’s initiative. He worked closely with the Town Administrator on this, met with the sign people and made sure the design was something that would be compatible with the historic downtown theme. There will be a new sign at Heron Point Sanctuary, as well.
SRPC
Peter Nelson stated the SRPC submitted the next round of projects for the ten year plan and there were five projects from Newmarket on there. He will circulate that information.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:42 p.m.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor