Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 19, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio), Diane Hardy (Town Planner)
Absent: Ezra Temko, Gary Levy (Town Council ex officio Alternate), Jane Ford, Rose-Anne Kwaks all excused
Called to order: 7:03 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:15 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 12/08/15
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the minutes of 12/08/15
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Real Estate Advisors, Inc. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for site plan review, at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone. The proposal is to add a four unit condominium building with related parking to the property.
Eric Botterman stated they were asking for a continuance. Diane Hardy stated that was correct. She received an email from them requesting this.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue this application to the February 16, 2016 meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Cheney Property Management Corp. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for Site Plan & Special Use Permit, at 52, 54, & 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lots 12, 13 & 14, M2A Zone. The proposal is to remove three existing buildings and construct a two-story 27000 sq. ft. mixed-use building, with commercial on the first floor and residential on the second floor.
Mike Schlosser, MJS Engineering, represented the applicant. He went over the letter they had submitted with the revised plan. It addresses Review #2, from Underwood Engineers. Underwood submitted a third review, with a few additional questions, and he will go over those, too.
Regarding the item for residential density, Underwood requested they clarify the calculation. In General Note #2 on the site plan, they added the existing business park area and the proposed area after adding the three parcels. Note 12 was changed to clarify the residential density calculation, which allows for 22 units based on the area. They are asking for 11.
Regarding the item for traffic circulation, they added Note 15 for when the pavement overlay for the rest of the park would be provided. They indicated it would be provided when this portion was going to be paved. In the third review letter, Underwood stated they would prefer they give a little more detail. They are going to add that the wearing course overlay shall be applied prior to building occupancy. That is for the entire park.
They have submitted the NH DOT permit application and they have received some feedback. They need to provide some additional information. They have a Traffic Engineer, Steve Pernow, on board to assist.
Regarding the stairs, Sheets C1 and C3 on the plans provide the layout for the stairs that provide access from the sidewalk up to the patio area. They are calling for them to be 5’ wide with a 1’ tread depth and less than a 7” step height. They were also asked to add a railing and they will add that in accordance with regulations and safety requirements.
They modified the drainage design. They took out the underground storage chamber system that was proposed. On Sheet C3, there are two separate systems on the north end of the building. The one closest to Route 108 will also provide infiltration to detention. They have changed the rain garden to an infiltration basin on the opposite side and they added the infiltration trench under the patio. Underwood was in agreement with that design.
There were some additional comments from the December 21 TRC (Technical Review Committee) meeting. They have landscaping to shield the infiltration basin. There is an updated landscaping plan provided.
They updated the proposed crosswalk to be a continental style across the Business Park access drive.
Mike Sievert, from MJS Engineering, and Rick Malasky, Public Works Director, and Walter Cheney Jr met at the site to talk about the access down to the Town parcel. They are proposing to cut the pavement back just a little bit there. There will be a little grading on the old driveway. It will be loamed and seeded. They were all in agreement with that.
Regarding the railing for the patio, they are showing a railing and calling out Note 10 on Sheet C1, which specifies, if the future use of the building warrants a railing on the patio, it shall be a black metal ornamental railing meeting all applicable safety requirements. They would like to word that so as not to limit the use of the commercial tenant.
Regarding specifying the material and type of fencing along the top of the ledge cut and providing a waiver, if necessary, they did ask for a waiver, but there is one small misprint on it. They were originally asking for a woodgrain or black vinyl privacy fence. They interpreted that as an “architectural material” that would fall under the regulations. They did provide the waiver request, in case the Board felt otherwise. The misprint is they did not mean to write “white”. It will be black or wood grained or wood. This is on C1, Note 11.
They will add the fence around the dumpster on C1.
They also added a bike rack to the plan.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Val Shelton stated, at the TRC meeting, they talked about the facing on the gravity retaining wall cross section. They have it as a stone retaining wall. She asked where it was shown on the plan. Mr. Schlosser stated they did not anticipate there being a wall, but it would be along the rear section. Val Shelton stated the front section stated it would be granite infill.
Diane Hardy pointed out that, in the Special Use Permit criteria to allow mixed use in the M2-A district, it talks about the importance of enhancing the design by providing something that is compatible with the pedestrian scale and is also compatible with the historic nature of the town. On that basis, she recommends that the waiver not be approved. The Town’s regulations read, under Section 3.21, “Any development along Route 108, which requires fencing, it shall be on natural wood or architectural materials, such as ornamental metal fencing.” This is part of the Site Plan Review Regulations and the Planning Board does have authority over architectural aesthetic review.
The Board should be encouraging as much compatibility with what was done downtown as possible. One way of achieving this is to use the same materials and designs that are characteristic of the period of architecture, which is predominately a 19th century mill town. She has discussed this with the Building Official and they are both on the same page. The Board has talked quite a bit lately about design review. The Town has made a major investment in the downtown. They have had several developers who have successfully built and redeveloped sites in the downtown and she heard loudly and clearly at the last meeting, when they were talking about future land use, that they really want to be able to protect and preserve that integrity. They are protecting the investments that people have made.
She cannot say how many times she has spoken with other planners and people in the state, who say Newmarket looks great and how amazing it is how the town has transformed in the last five years. She would like to show a couple of photographs that illustrate this. She showed the fencing in front of the Post Office that was done as part of the Main Street project. It is very well done and attractive. She showed the fencing across the street and next door to Rivermoor Landing. The fencing is well done and is compatible with the design of the architectural characters that we would to protect, preserve and promote. She showed a photo of the fence along the front of Rivermoor Landing and on the bandstand. She showed a photo of the fence along the front of the mills, across from the library. Eric Chinburg voluntarily offered to provide this kind of high quality detailing, so it would enhance the aesthetics and blend well with what was done downtown. It adds character. Many times the success of a project is hidden in the details. These photos speak to what they are trying to achieve. She did not believe having vinyl privacy fencing is an appropriate material and does justice to the location. There is a beautiful granite stone wall that runs along the back of the property that separates the Wentworth Douglass facility and this site. They would like to pay attention to the details. She would not recommend this waiver and further recommend that the Planning Board require that fencing similar to what was done in other developments in town be used.
Val Shelton asked about the fencing around the dumpster. Diane Hardy stated the wood product would meet the requirements.
Walter Cheney, Jr., stated, on the street side, they want to make the aesthetics look as nice as possible. They feel the metal fence is appropriate for the use that may be required in the future. The fencing in the back, where it is substantially off the main road and, unless you are physically looking in that direction or looking to go into that property, you will never see it is elevated way beyond the sight line of someone driving by. There are two functions to this fence, safety and some help to minimize lights from parking vehicles up top at the Wentworth Douglass building. He would like to be able to have some options on how to best provide some advantage to keep that from being a problem in the future. If you look at the overall fencing in the downtown area, beginning at the southern end of this zone, most of it is white picket fence, there is a brand new vinyl fence right at the railroad tracks, there is chain link fence and, if you get closer to downtown, there is metal railing. If you go down Water Street, they have granite posts with a chain roped through. There is also a little bit of the same kind of fencing, but instead of granite, they have metal posts. The majority of the fencing in this area is mostly wood natural finish picket fence or white painted picket fence, with some granite posts and/or chain. The majority of the fence shown in the photos is isolated around the mills. If you look at the project off Elm Street, it is all white picket fence. There is no fencing behind the library in the parking area. If you travel up and down most of the streets running parallel to Main Street, there is very little fencing that is not wood painted. He was not trying to cheapen this area, but the ordinances allow particular fencing uses and he would like to be able to stay with that, with his options open, and not be required to do a specific kind of fence.
Eric Botterman stated he and Diane Hardy discussed this and, if the Board does not want to approve vinyl fencing that is fine, but the regulations say “ornamental or wooden fence”. If the Board does not approve a vinyl fence, they could put in a stockade fence. That is well within the developer’s right. He personally would rather see a nice looking vinyl fence than a wooden stockade fence. In six or seven years, it would warp and fall apart. There is stockade fence in the residential area almost across the street. Neither is ideal.
Val Shelton stated it was like a Catch-22. No one wants to see a stockade fence there, it would cheapen the visual of the property. This is a really high end project, as it is being built out. This is kind of a flagship project for the south end of the main road. She would encourage the developer not to minimize the visual of that back area. It is very much a part of creating this high end architectural feel for the building and the development. When people are driving into the development or live there, from a real estate perspective, she would think they would want an ornamental architectural fence, certainly not stockade. She felt black vinyl wouldn’t hurt. If lighting becomes an issue, they could do landscaping in that area, as well. She would love to see the developer want to do the ornamental fencing. She would like the developer to reconsider.
Diane Hardy stated it was not just the view from the road, it is the environment they are creating. People going to the Wentworth Douglass building will see it and that building is very attractive. It looks great. Why would they want to hide that? They should showcase it. The wall that is there gives a character of Newmarket that should be enhanced.
Eric Botterman stated, as far as the fence goes, the applicant had said something about lighting. That parking lot is significantly higher. He asked if he was concerned about lights shining into the apartments on the top floor from cars at the Wentworth Douglass building. Mr. Cheney stated yes. Peter Nelson stated there was minimal use up there at night. Mr. Cheney stated that was one thing that came up. Val Shelton stated the whole concept relative to the depot look to the building, this architectural feature, in combination with the building, would be really appropriate. Mr. Cheney stated he agreed. It comes down to dollars and cents. Peter Nelson stated he agreed with Val Shelton’s comments. The people looking at the fence are the people, who will be living up above and looking out. It is a selling point.
He stated Diane Hardy brought up a good point. We have design criteria that the Town is trying to promote. He did not buy the excuse about some haphazard places where the fencing isn’t the same. The point is to continue the trend of quality in the same direction to build consistency over time to have high end sellable, rentable properties. He felt it was worth the added expense from an aesthetic perspective, it fits with the Town’s design goals and it makes the property more attractive to people who want to buy or rent there.
Eric Botterman stated his concern, as a Board member, was they could either approve or not approve the waiver. After that, they cannot tell the applicant what type of fencing to use. Val Shelton stated, if they disapprove the waiver, they will, in all likelihood, have a stockade fence up there. Eric Botterman stated the applicant has heard loudly and clearly they would rather see an ornamental fence, but the Board does not have the ability to tell him to put that up there.
Diane Hardy stated, if you look at the authority for architectural review, the Board can go above and beyond. If it is wood, the Board can require they look at the details of the fencing. If it is just a stockade fence, they can say no and request something more ornamental. The Board wants to make sure they are reinforcing the theme they started in order to continue to have quality development. There are examples where there isn’t ornamental fencing in the area. However, for everything that has come before the Planning Board in the last five years, as part of site plan review, the developers have come forward with that proposal. We are not treating this developer any differently.
Janice Rosa agreed with Diane Hardy and she understood Mr. Cheney’s point of view. In this town, the developers do not have to deal with a historical committee, which is a big, big savings for them. She did not think asking someone to consider installing fencing to coincide with the theme that has been going on is too much to ask. She realizes it is money for the developer, but developers coming to Newmarket have been fortunate in a lot of ways.
Eric Botterman stated he did not believe the Board disagrees with that. Diane Hardy reread paragraph six regarding fencing. It does not stipulate it has to be ornamental, but it is something used as an example. It does state “metal”. It goes on to say chainlink is prohibited. Val Shelton stated the question is whether the applicant has the choice of which way they want to go on fencing and what is the role of the Planning Board in approving the specific proposal for fencing. No different from landscaping. Diane Hardy stated the Board always asks for details and reviews the specifications. If they Board does not like the design, they ask for modifications.
Eric Botterman stated the applicant can say that he is putting up ornamental fencing. He did not know if the Board could approve it, but they can discuss it. The regulations are not specific enough.
He stated they need a motion on the waiver.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to deny the waiver request for Section 3.21(C)(6)(A) for the change in the fencing requirement
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Eric Botterman voted against
All others in favor
4-1 Motion Carries
Eric Botterman explained it will be a wooden or architectural fence.
Diane Hardy explained the Special Use Permit. It is pretty straightforward. She developed Findings of Fact based on the regulations:
Special Use Permit (pursuant to Section 2.03 M-2A to allow a mixed-use development with three (3) or greater residential uses)
Findings of Fact
A. The Planning Board found that the proposed use is consistent with the purposes of the district to protect, enhance, and expand the commercial and residential functions of the downtown village area. The applicant has enhanced the village by providing a design which is compatible with the pedestrian scale and historic nature of the Town.
B. A Fiscal Impact Analysis has been completed by the Town’s consultant, Mark Fougere, which shows the development will not have a negative fiscal impact on the Town and a market analysis has been completed that shows the project will not have a negative impact on the housing market.
C. The project has at least two (2) on-site parking spaces per residential unit; no residential units are located on the street level space; and the proposed rental apartments do not exceed 1,000 square feet or have more than 2 bedrooms.
She stated she believes the application meets the criteria for the Special Use Permit and she recommended approval by the Planning Board.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 2.03 M-2A to allow a mixed use development of three or greater uses for Cheney Property Management Corp., located at 52, 54 and 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lots 12, 13 and 14, M2A Zone
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy asked why the developer proposed three bathrooms for each unit. Mr. Cheney stated it is only 2 ½ baths, one includes a laundry area.
Diane Hardy stated there have been two TRC meetings on this application. She felt they had made a lot of progress and a lot of changes have been made. The applicant has been very responsive. Most of the recommendations are loose ends that need to be tied before the final approval is signed. The others are perfunctory type things, such as permits issued by the State.
Diane Hardy stated the following conditions would apply:
Site Plan (involving the removal of three (3) existing buildings and construction of a new two story 27,000 square foot mixed use building.)
A. Addressing the final comments and plan revisions as recommended by Underwood Engineers in their letter dated January 14, 2016, including the final approval of the flow calculations.
B. Issuance of Sewer Discharge Permit by the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) and an updated highway access permit by the NH Department of Transportation, Division 6, prior to plan signing.
C. Filing of appropriate plans and paperwork to the Newmarket Planning Board for a merger of lots (Tax Map U-4, Lots 12, 13, and 14), prior to plan signing.
D. The Applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement, with the Town of Newmarket, which include findings of facts, special site plan approval conditions, the Town’s expectations prior to and during construction, requirements prior to the issuance of building permits, certificates of occupancy, scheduling and time of site improvements and construction, prior to plan signing.
E. This site review approval shall be deemed to have lapsed twenty-four (24) months after the date of approval, unless active and substantial development or building has commenced within said period as provided by RSA 674:39. For purposes of vesting, the site plan approval shall be deemed to have permanent vesting upon substantial completion of building and site improvements as shown on the plan. Substantial development or building shall occur after grading, installation of infrastructure (parking, water, sewer, drainage structures, underground utilities) and foundation work.
F. Revisions to the Site Plan, prior to plan signing.
(1) Note 11 on the Site Plan, titled C-1 shall be revised to read:
“The proposed fence at the top of the ledge shall be black painted metal ornamental fencing consistent with the style and type of fencing found in other redeveloped areas along Route 108 in the downtown village area. It shall not be wood grained or black or vinyl privacy fencing or chainlink fence and shall meet all applicable safety requirements.”
Eric Botterman asked if the Board was comfortable with the vesting. The Board was comfortable with that.
Eric Botterman asked about Note 11. Val Shelton stated it should state on Route 108 in the downtown village area and will be meet all applicable safety requirements. She did not think they needed the additional wording. Eric Botterman stated it is beyond what the regulations require. If the applicant wants to do it, he has no problem with it. To say they want ornamental fence, when the regulations say ornamental or wood, he has a problem. Val Shelton stated they now have nothing on the plan that is proposed for what the fence will be. The next step is whether they can vote on this without seeing that or are they going to include a condition of approval that the applicant is agreeable to for what will be added to plan relative to fencing.
Mr. Schlosser stated he anticipated it will be very similar to the vinyl detail, but wood. An alternative could be a note including the other option to be black painted ornamental metal fencing. Diane Hardy stated they need to know what the specification will be. They can add this condition to the plan. Mr. Schlosser stated they could add the detail to the plan for the final submission set. Diane Hardy stated they need to know that. Either they put it on as a condition knowing up front what that will be or they will have to come back with a revised plan at a future meeting before they can approve it. Mr. Schlosser stated they would go with a wood fence. It is the same detail, just made of wood. There will be another detail with the proposed ornamental or metal fence.
Janice Rosa asked if you put up a wooden fence, it ends up rotting and they are dangerous. She asked where it says, if these fences rot, the developer is responsible for the upkeep. Diane Hardy stated they have an approved site plan for a particular use. That use continues and they have to comply with the site plan. So, if the fence rots, they are expected to replace it. That is why you want it clear on the plan.
Val Shelton recommended the wording be amended to read:
“The proposed fence at the top of ledge cut shall be wooden privacy or ornamental metal fencing. The fence shall not be chain link.
Val Shelton also recommended the next section read:
(2) The Construction Details on Sheet D-2 of the plan set shall be amended, as follows:
(a) changing the fence detail which shows “ vinyl“ to “wooden” privacy fencing;
(b) deletion of reference in the fence detail note to “wood grained”; and
(c) addition of details for metal ornamental fencing.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve the site plan involving the removal of the three existing buildings and construct a two-story 27000 sq. ft. mixed-use building, to include all of the recommendations that were discussed, and contained in the Town Planner’s January 19, 2016 memo, as amended by the Planning Board:
A. Addressing the final comments and plan revisions as recommended by Underwood Engineers in their letter dated January 14, 2016, including the final approval of the flow calculations.
B. Issuance of Sewer Discharge Permit by the NH Department of Environmental Services (DES) and an updated highway access permit by the NH Department of Transportation, Division 6, prior to plan signing.
C. Filing of appropriate plans and paperwork to the Newmarket Planning Board for a merger of lots (Tax Map U-4, Lots 12, 13, and 14), prior to plan signing.
D. The Applicant shall enter into a Developer’s Agreement, with the Town of Newmarket, which include findings of facts, special site plan approval conditions, the Town’s expectations prior to and during construction, requirements prior to the issuance of building permits, certificates of occupancy, scheduling and time of site improvements and construction, prior to plan signing.
E. This site review approval shall be deemed to have lapsed twenty-four (24) months after the date of approval, unless active and substantial development or building has commenced within said period as provided by RSA 674:39. For purposes of vesting, the site plan approval shall be deemed to have permanent vesting upon substantial completion of building and site improvements as shown on the plan. Substantial development or building shall occur after grading, installation of infrastructure (parking, water, sewer, drainage structures, underground utilities) and foundation work.
F. Revisions to the Site Plan, prior to plan signing.
(1) Note 11 on the Site Plan, titled C-1 shall be revised to read:
“The proposed fence at the top of ledge cut shall be wooden privacy or ornamental metal fencing. The fence shall not be chain link.
(2) The Construction Details on Sheet D-2 of the plan set shall be amended, as follows:
(a) changing the fence detail which shows “ vinyl“ to “wooden” privacy fencing;
(b) deletion of reference in the fence detail note to “wood grained”; and
(c) addition of details for metal ornamental fencing.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
NIP-Lot 6, LLC – Notice of Merger for 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6 and 181 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 8.
Eric Botterman stated the Board needs to vote to allow him to sign the merger.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to authorize the Chair to sign the Notice of Merger for 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3 Lot 9-6 and 181 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 8
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5
New/Old Business
Eric Botterman stated Jane Ford, Ezra Temko and Rose-Anne Kwaks are all excused absences. He confirmed that Peter Nelson was appointed to act as an Alternate.
Committee Reports
Peter Nelson stated he was at the Town Hall meeting, as Newmarket’s representative to the Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC). One of the key items on the agenda was the Route 108 to Durham transportation safety project. The Town has a vested interest in seeing it completed. The Town has invested close to $900,000 in water and sewer and improvements. Everyone from the State heard that loudly and clearly. Everyone from the State was apologetic for the delay in the project. Val Shelton stated it goes back to the 1970s.
He stated another thing that came up was flood mitigation. It was made clear this was not a flood mitigation project. It is a safety project. Everyone wants to see it move forward. There is some risk it may not happen, but everyone wants it to happen.
Economic Development Committee
Diane Hardy stated there is a draft Future Land Use chapter prepared by Matt Sullivan. They hope to get a subcommittee together next week. These updates need to be done in order to update the zoning amendments.
Town Council
Dale Pike stated a vote was coming up for an efficiency study for the town. They are calling it an organizational structure and efficiency study.
Agenda Item #6
Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m.
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor