Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Rose-Anne Kwaks (Acting Chair), Ezra Temko, Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Jane Ford
Absent: Eric Botterman (Chair), Val Shelton (Vice Chair), Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Gary Levy (Town Council ex officio Alternate) – All excused
Called to order: 7:03 p.m.
Adjourned: 7:56 p.m.
Diane Hardy stated the Chair and Vice Chair were not able to attend this meeting. The remaining Board members will need to appoint a Chair for the evening’s meeting. Rose-Anne Kwaks had volunteered, if the Board wished to appoint her.
Action
Jane Ford nominated Rose-Anne Kwaks to be Chairman for the evening
Ezra Temko seconded
All in favor
Agenda Item #1 - Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 - Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 - Review & Approval of Minutes: 01/19/16
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she would have to abstain and that would leave them short of a quorum, so the minutes were postponed to March.
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.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the applicants did not have final drainage plans ready, so they requested a continuance to the March 15, 2016 meeting.
Diane Hardy stated she put together an email list of abutters at the beginning of this process and she has been keeping them up to date and she will let them know of the next meeting date.
Action
Motion: Dale Pike made a motion to continue the application to the March 15, 2016 meeting
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Nathan G. & Jennifer L. Russell/Leo Manseau, Jr. – Public hearing for a Boundary Line Adjustment for property located at (Russell) 441 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 5, & (Manseau) at 435 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 4-1, both located in the B3 Zone. The proposal is to revise the common boundary between the two lots, so that 1.978 acres of land is added to Lot 4-1 from Lot 5.
Bill Doucet, Doucet Survey, represented the applicants.
Mr. Doucet handed out updated plans to the Board.
Mr. Doucet stated they were not creating any additional lots. They were changing two existing lots. He showed the lots on a plan. He showed the area to be conveyed from one lot to the other. Lot 5 will have over 2 acres and 200’ of frontage and the other lot will be just over 13 acres, with in excess of 200’ of frontage.
Diane Hardy reviewed the application against the checklist and she found it to be complete and recommended the Board accept the application.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion they accept the application as complete
Second: Dale Pike
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated, as she studied the plan, there were a few things she had noted. On Lot 5, there is a shed that does not conform to the setback requirements. It is the third building from Wadleigh Falls Road. Mr. Doucet stated Note 13 states the shed will be resized to meet setbacks. Diane Hardy would like to see compliance with that setback prior to plan signing. The second item has to do with subdivision approval. Even though there is an existing septic system on Lot 5, under the State’s requirements, there should be a plan submitted to the State. That plan has been submitted and they are waiting for approval. She would like to see the subdivision number added to the plan. She noted there are some wetlands that have been mapped. They identified the edge of prime wetlands. There are different buffer requirements depending on the type of wetlands. She would like to see the wetland buffers be shown on the plan. There is an access easement that will go across what will now be part of Lot 4-1 and it is shown in a hatching type of line. They would like to have a copy of that easement for the record. Given those conditions, the application meets zoning and subdivision regulations and she would recommend approval.
Rose-Anne Kwaks opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Rose-Anne Kwaks closed the public hearing.
Ezra Temko asked about the woods road that was shown. Mr. Doucet stated it is a local classification used for roads. Driveway could be another term. It is just a nondescript road running through the woods. You frequently see this on plans at the Registry of Deeds.
Dale Pike asked what the purpose of the change is. Mr. Doucet stated they want to change the sizes of the lots.
Diane Hardy stated Mr. Manseau had told her there were no immediate plans for the land.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion that the Board accept Diane Hardy’s recommendation with the four conditions regarding the septic, wetlands, the easement and the shed for Nathan G. & Jennifer L. Russell/Leo Manseau, Jr. – Public hearing for a Boundary Line Adjustment for property located at (Russell) 441 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 5, & (Manseau) at 435 Wadleigh Falls Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 4-1, both located in the B3 Zone. The proposal is to revise the common boundary between the two lots, so that 1.978 acres of land is added to Lot 4-1 from Lot 5.
The conditions are:
1. Pursuant to Note 13, the equipment shed on Lot 5 shall be relocated to meet the twenty foot side setback prior to plan signing.
2. State subdivision approval number shall be added to the boundary adjustment plan.
3. Delineate the corresponding wetland buffers on the plan. In Note 4, change the term wetland “setbacks” to wetland “buffers”.
4. Provide a copy of the access easement across Lot 4-1 to the Newmarket Planning Office after it is recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Second: Dale Pike
Vote: All in favor
Four Hersey Lane, LLC - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision Review, at 4 Hersey Lane, Tax Map U5, Lot 16, R2 Zone. The proposal is to subdivide the parcel, with an existing single-family home, into three lots. One lot will be .87+/- acres, one will be 1.17+/- acres (with the existing home), and the remaining lot will be .83+/- acres.
Dennis Quintal, a civil engineer, represented the applicant. Gary Denson was also present. He is the manager of Four Hersey Lane, LLC.
Rose-Anne Kwaks read Diane Hardy’s review which stated the plans were found to be substantially complete. The final plans must be stamped, certified and signed by the Licensed Land Surveyor and recording fees need to be paid for the LCHIP program.
Mr. Quintal stated this is an existing lot of record. It has Town water and an existing septic. They have surveyed the property and there are markers all the way around. They show two foot contours. It is all upland. They located all of the features, buildings, and abutters on the plan. The proposal is to create three lots. The lots will meet zoning requirements. He indicated everything on the plan. The new lots will be served by municipal water and sewer. The existing house has Town water and a functioning septic system. In the event of failure, they have noted the house lot will be tied into the Town sewer system. There is a sewer manhole across the street. They will need State subdivision approval and will need to do test pits. They have not done those yet. The soils are all good. They can proceed to send the application in the NH DES after doing test pits. They will need to set the bounds for the corners of the new lots.
Diane Hardy reviewed the application and stated there were some minor items that need to be addressed. The final plans must be stamped and certified by a Licensed Land Surveyor and there are some fees that need to be paid for the Registry of Deeds. The application is substantially complete.
Action
Motion: Dale Pike made a motion to accept the application
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated the lot numbering was approved by the Town Assessor. The application does meet Zoning and Subdivision regulations. She has been in touch with NH Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) and they have confirmed State subdivision approval is required. The State wants to be assured there are adequate conditions on the site to support a septic system if there is a failure in the future, should that owner decide not to tie into Town services. She recommended approval subject to conditions:
1. They go forward with getting Subdivision approval by NH DES and the approval number be placed on the subdivision plan for future reference.
2. Get written confirmation from the Water and Sewer Department that there is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the additional flows related to the three lots.
3. Impact fees to be paid prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the two new homes, which will be built on the new lots.
Rose-Anne Kwaks opened the public hearing.
David Beaver, 5 Hersey Lane, asked if these were single family homes that would be built on these new lots. Diane Hardy stated in the R2 zone, only single family homes are permitted. Age restricted housing may be permitted by Special Exception and there are some conditions with that. They are talking about single family homes. Duplexes and multi-family are not permitted in that zone.
Jim Legere, 3 Hersey Lane, asked about traffic on Hersey Lane. The road is very narrow. There are a lot of condos and traffic is very busy in the morning and afternoon. He was concerned with adding homes. Traffic getting out onto Route 108 from Hersey Lane can also be a nightmare. He wondered if anyone looks at the additional traffic from more homes. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that would be looked at in a larger development. Diane Hardy stated, if something is greater than 10,000 sq. ft., if it is commercial or multi-family, they have to do a traffic impact study. However, it is a State highway. If there are any improvements to be made, they would have to be required by the State. She did not think two houses would trigger the indicators for any major traffic improvements. His concerns are noted. They have had a lot of complaints and concerns. It is dangerous and tough to make a turn onto the road.
David Early, 12 Sandy Lane, stated they have protective covenants in the neighborhood. He asked if those had been reviewed. Diane Hardy stated covenants are not in the Town’s jurisdiction. Protective covenants are usually between the parties who are part of the original development on which those covenants were placed. They would be enforceable through the court system, if there were violations. Mr. Early asked if the Town was aware of the covenants. He did not know if the property in question was part of those. Mr. Quintal stated there are no covenants involved with this property.
Mr. Early stated they got notice of this approximately 30 days ago (notices were sent 18 days prior) and have had little time and little information to review. He wanted to know more about the Town’s process and what might happen tonight. He had concerns about the lot layouts. It seems a bit atypical. He would like to know where the houses will be placed. He asked if this would be approved tonight without any more public comment. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated yes, she thinks the application is complete and it would get conditional approval for the conditions stated. She felt that satisfied Town requirements. Mr. Early stated it seemed like, as abutters, they would have more time to review this. They may want to take legal action. They have been given very little notice. He would think there would be some time allowed. Diane Hardy stated, if the Board decides to approve this, you have 30 days within which to appeal that decision to the Superior Court and that is under the NH RSAs. This particular application does meet the Town’s zoning requirements and there are no wetlands that need to be protected, there is nothing that raises a red flag for why this could not be approved this evening with the conditions stated. If it meets the requirements and they go through the process, and get the proper approvals from the State and Town, there is no reason why it could not be approved this evening. Mr. Early asked if there were no regulations or ordinances governing the layout of the lot and the fact they are so narrow. Diane Hardy stated they do have a 100’ frontage requirement that helps to separate houses and they have some setback requirements that apply to the R2 district, which is the medium density residential district. Those are 15’ on either side and 15’ from the rear. They do meet the front setback of 25’ and they have indicated those lines on the plans. Conceivably, a house could be built within those areas.
Ezra Temko asked, since there are neighbor questions, could they be given the opportunity to speak on any further work there. Mr. Quintal stated they have identified the building setback limits. Once the plan is approved, whether the owners build there themselves or sell the lots, someone could choose to come and build their house way in the back or in the front. The intent is to put single family homes in that are similar to the setback of the existing homes. It would look odd to put them too close to the road. People have different opinions. Rose-Anne stated it will be a single family home within the setback requirements designated by the Town. Whoever will build will bring a plan to the Office of Building Safety and it will be reviewed for compliance. At that time, Mr. Quintal stated they will provide a plan to the Building Inspector. Once the foundation is in, they do a certified foundation plan, which assures that the building is located so as to be in conformance with the Town’s setbacks. That plan is given to the Building Inspector. Banks usually want that. as well.
Tamara Souriolle, 16 Sandy Lane, asked what was normal for a developer offering fences. Her property abuts the backyard. Diane Hardy stated the Town normally does not require fences for subdivisions. As part of a site plan for a commercial or multi-family development, there are screening and buffering requirements. This does not mean you cannot talk to the developer about it directly and see if they would entertain that. The Town cannot dictate it.
Jim Legere asked if the two lots were for sale, as well as the existing home. Mr. Quintal stated they will be.
Tamara Souriolle asked if the lots were “as is”. She and her husband had talked about purchasing part of the lot to make their lot bigger and not be as close to any new development. Are the three lots how they want them in terms of acreage. Mr. Quintal stated they could be smaller. They would have to talk to the owners. Diane Hardy stated, if this happened, they would have to file an application for a boundary line adjustment.
There were no further comments and Rose-Anne Kwaks closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion to accept the Town Planner’s recommendation with the three impacts that were talked about for Four Hersey Lane LLC at Tax Map U5, Lot 16 in the R2 Zone. That proposal is to subdivide into three lots. One lot will be .87+/- acres, one will be 1.17+/- acres (with the existing home), and the remaining lot will be .83+/- acres.
1. The applicant shall apply for and obtain Subdivision Approval from the NH Department of Environmental Services Subsurface Systems Bureau prior to plan signing. The plan shall reference the approval number.
2. Confirmation from the Water & Sewer Department that adequate capacity exists within the Town’s water and sewer system to accommodate the additional flows related to the three lots.
3. The impact fees for the project calculated according to the Town regulations shall be paid to the Town of Newmarket prior to the issuance to any Certificates of Occupancy for the two new homes.
Second: Dale Pike
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 - New/Old Business
Planner's Report
Diane Hardy stated the Planning Conference is coming up on April 23, 2016. There is money in the budget for the cost of the conference and travel. (Staff has since heard that the conference date has been postponed, until further notice.)
Conservation Commission
Ezra Temko stated Newmarket Recreation is planning a kayak event. It is still in the planning stages.
Macallen Dam Committee
Dale Pike stated they had what he thought was a significant meeting last week in terms of codifying some of the conversations that have taken place. They have not picked an engineering firm for the stability analysis. They decided to work with Gomez and Sullivan to clarify some of the hydraulic numbers. One of the significant things was that there was a conversation of trying to keep the spillway intact as is. Trying to modify the dam is something that might need to be done. There is one abutment in particular that is in question on whether it would overflow at the 100 year flood level. NH DES is very aware of what has gone on with roads north of Newmarket in recent floods. Any changes to Route 108 and Longmarsh Road in Durham will impact the high flood flow projections. Some of the changes that are being proposed could modestly improve the situation downstream at the Macallen Dam in Newmarket.
Future Land Use Committee
Diane Hardy stated they are reviewing a draft. She and other committee members have made some recommendations. Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) will be modifying the draft. They should be getting a new draft out by the end of the week.
Agenda Item #6 - Adjourn
Action
Motion: Dale Pike made a motion to adjourn at 7:56 p.m.
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor