Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 15, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Jane Ford, Ezra Temko, Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio), Peter Nelson (Alternate)
Absent: Gary Levy (Town Council ex officio Alternate) excused
Called to order: 7:01 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:47 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 01/19/16 & 02/16/16
01/19/16
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of 01/19/16
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Ezra Temko, Jane Ford abstained due to absence
All others in favor
02/16/16
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to approve the minutes of 02/16/16
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: Janice Rosa, Eric Botterman abstained due to absence
All others in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman
Rose-Anne Kwaks nominated Eric Botterman to be Chairman. Val Shelton seconded the nomination. Vote: All in favor
Rose-Anne Kwaks nominated Val Shelton to be Vice Chairman. Janice Rosa seconded the nomination. Vote: All in favor
Grant Road, LLC - Public hearing for an application for Subdivision, at 216 Grant Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 27, Zone R1. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.936 acre lot into two lots, one being 4.035 acres and the other being 4.901 acres.
Eric Botterman the Grant Road, LLC, the applicants, had asked if they could be first on the agenda. The abutters and applicants for Real Estate Advisors, Inc. did not have a problem moving to second on the agenda.
Eric Botterman stated they have a memo from Diane Hardy recommending accepting the application as complete.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application of Grant Road, LLC for Minor Subdivision, at 216 Grant Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 27, Zone R1, to subdivide the 8.936 acre lot into two lots, one being 4.035 acres and the other being 4.901 acres
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated she had contacted the applicant after doing her review and they had made some revisions to the plan.
Shane Gendron, Herbert Associates, an engineering company located in Windham, NH, represented the applicants. He stated this is a small subdivision. There is a small house existing on the parcel. They would like to subdivide into two lots. They meet all of the zoning requirements. He handed out plans to the Board with revisions that had been requested by the Town Planner.
Mr. Gendron went over the revisions. The first change was in Note 3. Originally, there was a note about being in the aquifer district. The Planner informed them they were not in the aquifer district and they removed the note.
On the cover sheet, Note 14 was added. They added a driveway access easement that will benefit both lots. It is located on Lot 27. On page 2 of the plans, the easement is shown. There is also a sightline easement. On page 4, there is a proposed condition plan. He showed where the proposed driveway would go that would service both lots. They are going to eliminate the existing driveway. They are creating an easement to benefit both lots and they are creating a sight line easement. They are proposing to cut any vegetation and obstructions that are in the way. They have been out with a survey crew and this is the best location for the driveway. They will obtain 400’ of sight distance in both directions. They applied to NH DOT for the driveway. They are waiting to hear back from them.
He stated some other small changes have to do with notes, a stamp block for approval, and they have a revision date on the plan.
They added a note on the bottom of page 4 that talks about the 3,817 sq. ft. easement for access. There is a note about the sight line.
They have not submitted the application to NH DES for Subdivision Approval. They wanted to see what the Board had to say first. He did all of the test pit and perc tests. There are no problems. It is a good property. There is a little wetland to the west of the property that curls around the back. They show that and the setback on the plan. All of the wetlands were flagged by Jim Gove, from Gove Environmental out of Exeter.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
A member of the audience asked for clarification of the location of the property. Eric Botterman stated it was the former Dearborn property. The audience member stated he understood the location.
Val Shelton asked if these were prime wetlands. Diane Hardy stated they were not according to the information they had. They are Hydric A wetlands. It has not been designated as a prime wetland, by Mr. Gove. There was discussion of the setbacks and whether this would be a buildable lot. Diane Hardy read prime wetlands setback information. Structures shall be 100’ from prime wetlands, septic systems were 125 ‘.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked who would maintain the vegetation to keep sight distance. Diane Hardy stated the Public Works Director or the State. Mr. Gendron stated it is a State road.
Mr. Gendron stated, on the cover sheet, in the Notes, they list the frontages for the lots.
Eric Botterman stated an issue was whether this was prime wetlands and NH DOT can approve the application for the driveway permit.
Diane Hardy asked if the surface water was in the vicinity of the Piscassic River tributaries. There are wetlands adjacent to a stream. The Piscassic River is governed by the Watershed Protection Overlay. This would require a 150’ setback to septic systems.
Sherry Spencer asked what impact, if any, would there be on the conservation land behind these lots. There is a 38-acre conservation parcel. Val Shelton stated that is why they are asking these questions. They want to make sure this subdivision meets all of the regulations.
Eric Botterman stated the Board needs an answer to the prime wetlands question. Diane Hardy stated she could verify that. She has a map in her office.
Mr. Gendron stated the lots are over 500’ feet deep. They are looking at building two homes toward the front of the property. They will maintain about 300-400 feet of separation between any new construction and the conservation land to the rear. There is a wetland buffer. The existing house may be taken down and they may put up a new home there. Any new construction will happen within the first couple of hundred feet of the lot. That is really where the building envelope is. That is where they prepared their test pits and proposed septic.
Rose-Anne Kwaks wanted to see some conservation posting. Eric Botterman stated there is no new rear property line. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated new people would be moving in and would not know where the line is. Eric Botterman stated if you post signage along the property line, you are in the middle of the wetland. Val Shelton stated conservation postings occur on the land on which the easement is located. If Fish & Game is holding the easement, it would be their responsibility. You can’t go on someone else’s land and post. Eric Botterman stated this property is unique, where there is a big wetland in between. People would have to walk through the wetland to get to the conservation land. He did not anticipate anyone doing that.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the hearing for Grant Road, LLC, on the application for subdivision at 216 Grant Road, Tax Map R6, Lot 27, R1 Zone, to subdivide the 8.936 acre lot into two lots, one being 4.035 acres and the other being 4.901 acres, so that the applicant can bring confirmation to the Board that the wetland, as designated, is not a prime wetland and a Class A Watershed Protection Overlay map is not applicable to this subdivision, together with the NH DOT comment, to April 12, 2016
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
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.
Val Shelton and Janice Rosa recused themselves. Alternate Peter Nelson was appointed to fill in.
Christian Smith, Beals Associates, represented the applicant. Alexx Schleider, Cheney Companies, was also with them to answer questions.
Mr. Smith stated there was a Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting the previous Thursday. They ended up with five items on a “to-do” list. They have accomplished all of those.
He stated a parking sign, if necessary, was added to Sheet 2. The note dealt with the fact that all of the site work and facilities would be ADA compliant. The second item was about getting Jim Gove, a certified Soil and Wetland Scientist, and himself out to the property. They did that the previous day. They did two test augers and a double ring infiltrometer infiltration test to confirm the design criteria. They found the seasonal water table was slightly higher than what they had anticipated and based their design on. The design infiltration rate went from what was originally in the model at 10” per hour down to 8” per hour. They have elevated the base of the pond and the berm 7/10 of a foot. The swale will be slightly shallower. In addition to that, the southeasterly and southerly property lines have been demonstrated and labeled with spot grades. They have flood arrows shown on Sheet 3, as well. He went over the drainage flows, indicating them on the plan. There will be a 6” back berm, so it is very clear to the developer there will be a back berm and there will be no allowance for any of that runoff to leave and run onto any adjacent properties. It will all stay within the swale and go to catchbasin out front or it will stay within the swale that runs south/north into the bioretention pond.
He stated they have provided his and Jim Gove’s stamped test pit logs. They provided the revised drainage calculations to depict the new elevations and infiltration rate. The Town Engineer looked at those and took no exception to any of it.
He stated they do have a waiver pending. This request came out of a meeting they had with Ben Dryer, an engineer from Underwood Engineers, some time ago. The ordinance requires that not more than 10% of the impervious area on a given lot go to a single BMP. They have a 25,000 sq. ft. lot, which is very small. This means 25,000 sq. ft. can go to a single BMP treatment area. For this parcel, that would require six individual treatment cells. It appears that code was written for a much larger piece of land. Ben Dryer spoke with Bill Arcieri, the water quality specialist who was instrumental in crafting the Stormwater regulation language and, as it turns out, this bioretention pond is overdesigned. It collects and infiltrates the 100 year storm event without overtopping. There is a huge reduction in flow and volume to the northwesterly side of the property and to the catchbasin, as well. The bioretention area disconnects the runoff from the impervious areas on site as well as from this proposed development from the overall Grape Street watershed. There was even commentary from Mr. Arcieri stating the section of the storm water ordinance be revised so it applies to a property that has greater than 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious area proposed.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Peggy Small-Porter, 28 Beech Street, stated she had been asked by Janice Lamontaigne, who is at 3 Grape Street, to speak for her. Ms. Lamontaigne is having surgery. She read a statement from her. The written statement will be requested from Mrs. Lamontaigne so is on file. She spoke about an incident that occurred on February 3, 2016 involving a tree that came down in a windstorm on the Grape Street property. It took down wires that crossed the property, pulling the electrical boxes from the houses at 3 and 5 Grape Street. It took electricians all day to repair the problem. She included a photo of the downed tree. Ms. Lamontaigne called Alexx Schleider, at Real Estate Advisors, and was told she should call Eversource, because the wires were in the tree illegally. Her insurance company also tried to speak with Mr. Cheney and was given the same story. She stated Mr. Cheney had to have known about the wires in the tree and knew the tree was dead and was a hazard. She asked why he didn’t contact Eversource when he purchased the land and why he did not take the tree down. The tree is still on the property and no effort has been made to clean it up. She stated Mr. Cheney has been trying to appease the abutters during this process. She stated he knows they are opposed to his building. He has said he would try to install a brick façade and has said he will do anything to make them happy. She fears these are just words spoken in order to get the go ahead from the Board and, once he gets it, he has no intention of following up on his promises. She asked what kind of neighbor ignores a dangerous hazard on their property and refuses to take responsibility for the damage it caused and does not clean up the mess. The dead tree is a hazard, especially for children.
Alexx Schleider, Real Estate Advisors, stated they have been in contact with Eversource, and have since starting to talk about the property. They have had no progress. The first person they talked to had to leave work ill in the middle of the project. It was delayed a few months. The new person has come on and she gave his information to everyone who has asked for it. He is working to get the lines off the property as soon as possible. Mr. Cheney plans to move the tree when they start construction. There is no reason to move it before that.
Bob Madea, owner of 7-9 Grape Street, stated, as far as the waiver for the drainage, he wanted to bring to the attention of the Board that this property is being developed with four units. The developer got a variance for it. The area is large enough for a single family home. It is in a very dense area in New Village. It is extremely developed and there are additional units going into that area. Now they are asking to get a waiver for drainage. He asked when was everybody going to see that this property is too small for the number of units. It is because of the number of units they can’t get proper drainage. With the impervious paving, the runoff exceeds the limits. The limits were imposed by engineers who knew what they were doing and now the Board is being asked to approve a waiver. He asked the Board to open their eyes and take a look at this development and see what is going on and think about that, if and when they approve this waiver. Denial of this waiver could hold back this development and they could go back to having a single family house that belongs there.
He stated the neighbors around this property have seen development that Mr. Cheney has done in the area and it is typical for what he will build on this property. All they have seen, for this application, are some elevation views and conceptual design views. He knows the Board has asked Mr. Cheney to do some aesthetic work to the design, such as adding dormers to the building. The Planning Board has made some statements about the building needing better aesthetics. The abutters have been asking that the aesthetics of the building be improved with some type of brick façade. The neighborhood is brick and stucco. To stick a clapboard unit right smack-dab in the middle of it just doesn’t fit. If this does move forward, he asks the Board consider having some say in what the exterior might look like. It is adequate for the two sides to have brick. Brick would help it blend in. Some of the redesigning in the neighborhood has included blending clapboard and brick.
Peggy Small-Porter, 28 Beech Street, thanked the Town Planner for helping to guide the abutters through the process. They appreciated being included in the TRC process. She stated she had some procedural questions, because it has not felt like a logical process, from the time the variance was granted by the Zoning Board up to now for the waiver of a regulation. The only impervious surface on the lot now is the roof of the six bay garage. With a four unit condo plus all of the asphalt for eight parking places and the driveway, it will make a significant portion of the property impervious. Attention to stormwater drainage and best management practices is critical. She understood there will be permits and ordinance changes revisions under the MS4 program. She wondered why anyone would want to go leniently, when they are first trying to interpret this rule. It sets precedent.
She stated she did not quite understand the process when the Planning Board approves an application. She asked when they sign an approval shouldn’t they have more proof that all those conditions are being met. She knew the aesthetics were important. She wanted to state one last time for the record that this is a 100 year old neighborhood whose inner circle has been kept pretty much untouched. That lot was purposely built in there to give people some elbow room to breathe. These are closely connected homes. That is the only open space people have access to. To stuff four more units in there makes no sense. The brick façade is important. The aesthetics are important. She wants those units to sell. Mr. Cheney has said he wanted those to be condos for sale. If the price point is not right, if the aesthetics are not right, if the people feel too cramped, no one will buy them. She asked why they would buy those, if they can afford something else. That would mean Mr. Cheney would be adding more rentals. The aesthetics need to be nice.
She stated Mr. Cheney has come to them on several occasions and said, if they did not keep pushing this drainage issue with all of the extra expenses, he will spend it on aesthetics or brick. When the renderings came to one of the TRC meetings, there was only one side wall of brick, the rest was clapboard. She thought some of the promises and things he has shared are a little bit suspect. She knows he is a property developer and trying to make a profit.
She stated this is a half-acre lot with four units. It is too small to accommodate those. She asked if there was an appeal process for a Planning Board decision.
She stated she spoke with people yesterday about stormwater best management practices, at Strafford Regional Planning Commission. She was given the name of Bill Arcieri and she called him. She asked him if he could explain to her why anybody would want to accept a waiver on this, as it makes no sense. He said to her that some of her logistical questions around procedure and the waiver he could not argue with. She asked if the she and the abutters need to hire their own engineer to question. Eric Botterman stated the Town does that. Bill Arcieri told her there are opportunities for abutters to get a second opinion. She asked if that was what happened when someone appealed a Planning decision. She also asked if that was a legal decision or if it was an internal decision. She stated they have already spent lots of money. Eric Botterman stated, if they do not like the Board’s decision, their appeal would be through the court system. They could hire their own engineers, surveyors, etc.
Christian Smith stated he would like to address the waiver issue. It appears people don’t understand what is being requested. They are asking to have a single best management practice treatment facility. Under the strict letter of the code right now the way it was written, they would have to have four or five treatment areas. He showed on the plan that he could create three in a certain area by creating a berm. He could create four more by putting little bioretention areas in between each of them. He has twenty three years of experience and he has seen what goes on when you make little small treatment areas. People are going to look at it as their little garden, then decide they don’t like those dogwood bushes, for example, they go and plant something else, and then it doesn’t get maintained. What they are proposing will be very visible and will look attractive when it is seeded and planted with the sedge and shrubs. It also will be written into the condo documents and he has a lot more confidence it will be maintained. For someone to contemplate that the disapproval of that waiver is going to block the project is untrue. They will redesign it. All of the water will end up in the same place. It will all end up in the soil matrix. It will end up as something that does not make nearly as much sense as having a single facility that is over-designed that far exceeds the criteria of the drainage requirements in the ordinance.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the elevations had been added. Diane Hardy stated the spot elevations were added. They put drainage arrows to show the directional flow of water and they included a berm to prevent any of the water from flowing into the adjacent properties. It will be channeled to where it is supposed to go. That was a significant improvement. The Board had only asked for two or three spot elevations and they provided six or seven.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she had asked at the TRC that they do test pits, because the abutters said there is a lot of clay there. Diane Hardy stated the Town’s Engineer reviewed the revisions made to the plan, the test pit data, as well as the revised design for the stormwater and he sent her a memo, dated today at 3:56 p.m. He stated he has no exceptions to the modifications. A few points worth noting are the revised infiltration rate of 8” per hour is more conservative with respect to the biorention cell capacity for storage. The hydro cad model shows the biorention area will have over two feet of freeboard at 100 year storm. The basis for raising the bioretention elevation appears to be to provide typical separation between the stormwater treatment and the estimated seasonal high water table. In this case, stormwater treatment is being provided by the filter medium, which is a foot above the estimated seasonal high water table. The treated stormwater is then being stored in the stone reservoir course prior to infiltration. So, his comments to her were that what has been proposed or revised in the drainage design is an enhancement over what was there previously.
Diane Hardy stated she also wanted to mention, on the issue with the waiver, that Underwood Engineers reviewed it and spoke with Bill Arcieri. Bill Arcieri is the person the Town worked with on the subcommittee to develop the stormwater regulations. Bear in mind, this is new technology and has had some tweaking. Mr. Arcieri did review it and felt that, given the scale of this development, strict adherence to that requirement really was not going to be critical in terms of the Town documenting their results to EPA under the MS4 program. Mr. Arcieri felt, if a waiver was granted, it would not be contrary to the intent of what we are trying to achieve under the MS4 program or the stormwater regulations.
Eric Botterman agreed with Christian Smith about having just one area. He has done subdivisions where they have done rain gardens in every yard. You go back a year later, there are swing sets in them, people have planted gardens in them and the Conservation Commissions has to tell them to rip them out, because they are not working.
Diane Hardy stated they had been asked what happens from here. This is not a case where they are going to sign plans and they are going to go off and build their development, as they please. This will be inspected by a construction engineer hired by the Town, with funds being provided by the developer, so there will be construction oversight to make sure the site is being developed in accordance with the approved plan and drainage details. If there are issues, they will be addressed at an enforcement level with the Town. That is why we have a Building Official, a Town Engineer, and a Town Planner to go out there and make sure things get implemented according to the approval.
Rose-Anne Kwaks said all of the engineers say the waiver is fine. She served on the Zoning Board and you have variance criteria you have to meet. One of the criteria is that there is no diminution of surrounding property values. Eric Botterman stated that has nothing to do with Planning Board. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she knew that, but the Board voted they met all of the criteria. In effect, Mr. Cheney putting in the design without dormers would affect the abutters in a negative way. Eric Botterman stated, if the Zoning Board had demanded he put dormers and brick on the building, then that would have been their decision. As a Planning Board, they cannot get into aesthetics. They have permission to build four units. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the Board could get into aesthetics. Eric Botterman stated not for site plan review.
Diane Hardy stated one of the renderings showed brick treatment on the two ends of the building. They are making an effort to address the aesthetics and they will show those considerations to you. Eric Botterman stated they are showing that, but they are not committed to it. Diane Hardy stated they can have architectural review as part of site plan review. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she thought there should be brick on both ends and there should be dormers. If they want a waiver for the drainage, there should be give and take. The developer is getting a good deal with four units. If the Planning Board can accommodate the developer, the developer should accommodate the Planning Board and abutters. She would have to vote no on the waiver and the approval, if the brick and dormers are not included in a condition of approval under architectural review, which she feels this Board has every right to grant. Alexx Schleider stated, in the conversations she had with some of the abutters, they love the dormers and were undecided on the brick on the gable ends. Each of these dormers adds about $15,000 to each unit in cost to build. The brick façade on each end adds about $100,000. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that was not the Planning Board’s concern. She believed Mr. Cheney has shown he was less likely to be a good neighbor with this development. The abutters deserve some commitment that it will be done. Ezra Temko stated he fully agrees. He did not see what benefit this project was bringing to the community. He would say, Mr. Cheney is asking for a waiver from the Town as a for-profit entity, so it will cost a little bit more to be something that will help it to fit in with the surrounding community, when they are doing something against what the community wants and is being perceived as a bad partner in the community. He is leaving a dead tree, for example.
Alexx Schleider asked if it was the waiver the Board was hung up on. If it is the waiver that is going to make them do architectural review, they will forego the waiver and do the tiny bioretention ponds that are not going to be as effective. She stated they were not hung up on the waiver. Eric Botterman stated the Board does not have any architectural review on this project. Diane Hardy stated it is part of site plan review.
Christian Smith stated there are there very specific criteria lined up for the waiver to Section 5.01(A)(2) and they are:
Granting the waiver will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
That is specifically stormwater treatment.
Granting of the waiver will not be injurious to other parties.
Post development flows to the northwest are significantly reduced under all storm events evaluated. Again, the waiver is specific to stormwater. It has nothing to do with the finish of the building.
Granting of the waiver will be consistent with the purpose and intent of this regulation.
All the impervious area delivering stormwater to it would be effectively disconnected from the Grape Street drainage area via treatment and infiltration.
He stated the Board is compelled by their ordinance to judge the waiver, not what the house looks like. Eric Botterman stated he would argue, if the Board does not grant the waiver, they are only hurting the abutters, in the long run.
Dale Pike stated he was not in favor of linking the waiver to architectural review. It makes sense the waiver should be granted, because it is a better solution of managing the water on the property. His impression is this is a tight fit, having so many lots in a small area and they should make whatever accommodation they can for the abutters through architectural review.
Peggy Small-Porter stated she wanted to make sure she understood. The four unit variance was an approval. It is not a mandate that he build a four unit building. Diane Hardy stated they were granted a variance. The Planning Board cannot reduce the number of units. Peggy Small-Porter stated that was not what they were told during the zoning process. Diane Hardy stated the Planning Board cannot reduce the number of units. A variance has already been granted and it went through appeals. Peggy Small-Porter stated she understood that. Eric Botterman stated they have no ability to reduce the number of units. He stated this Board is charged with ensuring that any development is done in conformance with the rules and regulations. That is why there have been TRC meetings. Peggy Small-Porter stated if they only build three units it will be a lot less money. They would only have to build three dormers and they could have brick.
Ezra Temko asked if they could have more time to review plans that were dropped off six days ago, if they felt more time was needed. Diane Hardy stated that was up to the individual. Diane Hardy stated the TRC worked hard to identify what needs to be done and the applicant has complied with their requests.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked how many units would have been allowed, if they had not gone to Zoning Board. Eric Botterman stated it would have been one single family home. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated it was beyond her why the Zoning Board ever allowed four units. It was foolish.
Jane Ford stated, in the condo laws, it will say the neighbors cannot park on the driveway. Diane Hardy stated she recommends they incorporate parking into the condo documents, so the owners know that. If people illegally park on the access road, they have the ability to self-regulate. Eric Botterman stated this came up at TRC, because the abutters now park in that driveway area. This is really for the abutters, so they do not park there and block access.
Jane Ford asked how they get snow out. Eric Botterman stated there is a snow area. Diane Hardy stated it will be noted on the plan that any excess snow will be removed from the site.
Bob Madea stated there was something in the Town Engineer’s summary that talked about a 100-year runoff and the amount of freeboard. Diane Hardy stated she had a copy and it was in the email she had forwarded to the abutters. Bob Madea stated he saw the bioretention area has a floor elevation that is only six inches below the top of the surrounding high point. From six inches to two feet, he felt he was missing something. Christian Smith explained all that freeboard means is the depth below the top of the berm that they expect the peak elevation of the water to be within that and pond under a 100 year storm event, based on the soils. Mr. Madea stated he was talking about water level within the pond. The pond is only six inches deep. Christian Smith stated the water level will be in the filter media, below the surface.
Diane Hardy stated there is an architectural review section in the ordinance. It includes a general purpose statement that sets the stage for what is there. Then it goes on and lists specific regulations and restricts those regulations to properties along Route 108. She thought the first paragraph gives a general overview of what the Town’s wishes are and the intent. She read that section. She recalls statements throughout the process that they were going to do their best to make these buildings architecturally pleasing and add some details and features, add brick and they would do their best to make it fit within the context of the neighborhood. She heard that time and time again throughout the review process.
Christian Smith stated he had no input on that specific point. He was not involved in that or the Zoning Board relief. He did hear in the text that was just read by Diane Hardy that they must allow diversity of these structures to continue. So, it does not need to look like little boxes. Eric Botterman stated, at the TRC, Mr. Cheney was pretty clear that he would entertain doing a brick side, if costs did not get too high.
Diane Hardy asked for a commitment. She stated this has been “wishy-washy” ever since they have seen the plans. She asked if there would be a brick façade on either side of the building and will there be dormers. Alexx Schleider stated, in the TRC meeting, they had entertained the idea of doing either/or. In the TRC meeting, everyone seemed to like the dormers. Eric Botterman stated Bob Madea mentioned the Planning Board liked the dormers. He was not so sure that was 100% true. He stated he personally liked the dormers, but not as an official Planning Board position. Alexx Schleider stated they also wanted to see the character of the porches match the existing porches. That was in the 20-page historical review they got.
Ezra Temko stated the plan being shown right now, was not the final plan. Alexx Schleider stated that was the deluxe version. Ezra Temko asked why she was showing it to them. Alexx Schleider stated they wanted to know what it would look like to have both versions. This is what they saw at TRC.
Jane Ford stated the review section does not say “must allow”, it is important to continue “to allow”. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated you have to read the rest of the sentence. “It is important to allow diversity of building designs and architectural styles, which blend well with the buildings from these periods.” Eric Botterman stated that has nothing to do with this site. That is only for Route 108.
Peter Nelson stated, in the last meeting for the other development on Route 108, there was clear pushback on the design of a fence. Alexx Schleider stated that is a different subsection. Peter Nelson stated, if they are getting pushback on Route 108 for architectural design considerations, where the Board has some teeth, the supposition is it will be less a strong case. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He sympathizes with the abutters. Their hands are tied by a Zoning Board decision. The Planning Board can’t change the number of units. The Board should change their Vision Statement, so they have tighter architectural control. In the meantime, they should concentrate on things they can tie directly to the plan. The Board cannot tell them what building to design. They can make recommendations. It comes down to dollars and cents. There is a balance there of how much you can cut corners. He would prefer to see the water retention issue addressed, with a single water retention pond and that part of the waiver should be accepted.
Ezra Temko wondered why the waiver was being requested. His guess was this was the most cost effective measure. He was curious what this project would look like, if they did not approve the waiver and what they would come forward with. Alexx Schleider stated, profit-wise, it will not change anything for them. Eric Botterman stated it would be the exact same building footprint with a smaller bioretention area in the back, the front will have three or four bioretention areas and that will be it. Ezra Temko asked if that would change the selling price on these units. Alexx Schleider stated no, it would look like a small garden in the front yard.
Dale Pike stated the applicant stated they have other plans they could show. Alexx Schleider stated they were pretty similar.
Bob Madea stated he liked the dormers and porches. He understood the dormers cost money. There is another side to that. It is the value they add to the property, as far as resale. That is not just dollars in construction cost to be ignored. He liked the dormers, porches and brick on the side, to some extent. The brick is a must. It should be on both ends of the four units. He could not understand why it would be on one side.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to continue this to the April meeting, with the understanding that the community and abutters would have time to review and he hopes, if they we were to do that, that the developer would take some time to listen to all of the feedback that has been given today and what they want their role in partnership to be in our community and with Newmarket that they might come back with something. To review the plans that were submitted six days ago.
Alexx Schleider stated there were no major changes on those plans. There were some changes the abutters had requested and an ADA change.
Ezra Temko went on to state: People might want to look at the details of that to confirm the updates. You have heard there is a lack of trust with the developer. I do not think they should be required to take your word for it, when they’re not experts nor should they be expected to on the details on these types of things. My hope would be that, during that time, the developer would also consider what they actually are willing to say, yes to or no, to regarding brick on one side, brick on both sides. What they would actually be proud of in terms of offering something to the community that would benefit the health and welfare of our community. That would be my motion.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Eric Botterman stated he felt for the abutters, but he disagreed. The Zoning Board approved this and the plan conforms to the Planning Board’s regulations. They are just spinning their wheels. Christian Smith designed it and the Town’s review engineer has said it is okay. The changes that were made in the last week were requested, because Bob Madea had some questions about grading and they added some spot grades and did some testing. It doesn’t change anything. Our own review engineer, to whom we pay good money, has said the project is okay. Rose-Anne Kwaks agreed as far as the engineering. As far as aesthetics and as to what the ZBA did in approving the four unit building, which should have been a one unit, the Planning Board should exercise whatever they can to help accommodate these abutters, because of what the ZBA did. She felt it was in their jurisdiction. Eric Botterman stated he completely disagreed with that. There is nothing in the regulations that says they have any architectural review of this. It is a slippery slope. They are way beyond what their regulations allow. If they are going to keep talking about architectural items that he does not think they have a right to, but some members disagree, they should get a legal opinion.
Eric Botterman stated he would like to put one housekeeping item behind them. He would like to discuss and vote on the waiver.
He stated granting this waiver was the best thing they could do. It was the best way to ensure this drainage is going to work, not just next year, not ten years, but twenty years from now. If they force them to design individual little gardens, people will rip up plants, they will put things in them, they will not work and, in 15-20 years, there will be a problem. This way, it ensures that there is not a problem.
Dale Pike asked about making a motion for the waiver.
Rose-Anne Kwaks rescinded her second to the motion on the table.
Action
Motion: Dale Pike made a motion that we approve the waiver
Second: Peter Nelson
Bob Madea stated he stood in one position on this earlier. With the conversations that have gone on and hearing from the engineering group with their experience, granting the waiver is a good way to go.
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to continue this proposal to the April 12, 2016 meeting. I want to make sure we are on firm legal ground with what I am proposing in the rationale for it. Definitely the proposal was to make sure everyone has a time to review all details of the most recent up to date plans that we have, but my hope would also be that we review what we can do and can’t do in terms of architectural review assuming that we may have things in our broader plans and Master Plans that, if we are not prohibited from acting, would still give us legal authority or would not, and we would have that information for our next meeting.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated he also mentioned that he would like a definitive yes or no at that point to coordinate with the information we get from legal as to whether or not he is willing to do…
Ezra Temko stated he would like the developer to share with us what we are actually voting on in its entirety.
Second: Peter Nelson
Ezra Temko stated, if they do not have the legal authority to do some of these things and the developer is not coming forward with something that seems aesthetically to fit, it would make sense for them to be reviewing their guidelines and ordinances in a way that may be more onerous to a developer in the future in terms of what they are required to meet, as opposed to this negotiation. Eric Botterman stated he agreed. If the Board wants to tell people what their building should look like, they should change their regulations.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she has been asking for a workshop on design standards.
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman asked for the Board’s authority to ask Diane Hardy to get a legal opinion on the Board’s ability to discuss architectural. All were in favor of that.
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Company, LLC, & NIP-Lot 6, LLC - Public hearing for a Design Review for an application for Subdivision and Site Plan, , for property located at 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6, B2 Zone; 169 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 5, R2 Zone; 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6, B2 Zone; 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, B2 Zone. The proposal involves the adjustment of lot lines delineating existing lots R3 6, 7, & 9-6 to create three new lots. The existing industrial building at 2 Forbes Road, located on Lot 9-6, which was merged on 01/26/16, will be expanded and have additional onsite parking. Lot lines on Lots R3 6 & R3 7 will be reconfigured to create sites for two new industrial buildings and dedicated onsite parking. The existing lot at Tax Map R3, Lot 5 will remain a residential lot. The intersection of Forbes Road and Route 108 will be improved to include a right turn lane and larger turning radii.
Eric Botterman explained the Design Review process to the audience.
Joe Persechino, Tighe and Bond, represented the applicant. Rob Graham was also present.
Mr. Persechino gave an overview of the project. He stated what has happened since the last time they were before the Board was the owner has been able to purchase adjacent properties. Also, the current tenant of the existing industrial building, Hagan Machine, has agreed to expand into the proposed addition on this building, but does not need the space that was previously approved, which was 24,000 sq. ft. They only need about half of that. Those are the two driving factors. The tenant will have more space, but not as much as previously approved and the owner has purchased the property adjacent to it, allowing them to develop back to the corner.
He stated the offsite improvements, at the intersection of Forbes Road and Route 108, were completed prior to them starting that process. They went back and met with NH DOT to talk about the new three building arrangement and they discussed further improvements, as far as the intersection of Forbes Road goes. There will be a dedicated right turn lane and wider turn radii for truck access and egress, as well as some potential adjustments to the right of way to straighten it out.
He stated they were before the Board to get some feedback and comments, so when they come back with a full application, they have addressed comments.
Eric Botterman asked how many square feet the proposed buildings would be. Mr. Persechino stated the existing building was 24,000 sq. ft. with a 12,000 sq. ft. addition. The middle building will be 14,000 sq. ft. and the corner building is 20,000 sq. ft. The buildings are laid out the way they are, because of the grade change.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Eric Botterman asked if any abutters or audience were present, who would like to speak. The audience members present stated they were just listening, at this point.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the buildings would be visible from the street. Mr. Persechino stated due to the grade change it is hard to see the existing building, because it is so far down. The middle building will not be as far down as the existing building. It will be significantly stepped down from the corner. The other building will block it. There is one building, where you would see the front portion as you come down Route 108 almost level with the street. At this point, they have no definitive plans for the exteriors, other than matching the existing buildings. Eric Botterman stated, if those two new lots are visible from Route 108, he would suggest they consider robust landscaping on the Route 108 side of the buildings. That was a concern the last time. The two new lots won’t be as steep.
Mr. Persechino stated they are still talking to NHDOT about straightening out the shoulder that is there now. There still will be a hill going down into these lots. There will be a slope. They will do their best to address what they can along the right of way. Diane Hardy stated it was not just landscaping that was going to be provided. There was going to be a berm built up, so it would provide dense screening to minimize the visual impact from Route 108. That was a really important consideration. There were, at one point, some buffer requirements around the Industrial Park, when it was an excavation site. The Planning Board made a decision that it was not an excavation, so the 50’ buffers would not come into play. There was an expectation to see that the buffer and the berm remain to provide maximum screening of the new industrial buildings from Route 108. There is a requirement that the Planning Board can require more than the minimum buffer in the site review regulations and she expects that would be part of the negotiations with the developer.
Val Shelton stated it would be important to understand what has already been approved and not completed and what is being proposed as changes to that.
Peter Nelson stated it would be helpful to get profile views from both sides. It is an extremely topographically challenged site, especially from a design and aesthetic view. Diane Hardy stated some 3D visualizations of what it will look like as you drive down Route 108 would be helpful. She stated landscape architects have software programs for that type of visualization.
Rob Graham presented the plan. He showed the berm on the plan and the initial expansion of the building. It is their intention to have a more commercial look and have the buildings somewhat visible from Route 108. They want to be good citizens and make sure they are acceptable from that viewpoint.
Peter Nelson asked if they will be taking the hill, where the houses were, down to road level. Rob Graham stated it will come down to Forbes Road. They are eliminating all of the access points currently on Route 108. They have not gone through a review with NH DOT about the grading on Route 108. When they did the financial analysis of the geodic slope they had designed, it was one of the factors that killed the larger expansion of the existing building, along with the fact they were able to purchase more land. They have softened the slopes. Their intention, at this point, is portions of the area where the berm was proposed will remain. As they get down into the site, they need to start the slope as soon as they can to make sure they can down at a 2:1 instead of a 1½:1. They will come back with some building and landscape renderings to illustrate these issues. They hadn’t gotten that far, they were focused on the site issues.
He stated they give NH DOT more right of way for the entire length of the property, because they have some long term ideas where they may widen or drop the profile of that road in the future. If we do not accommodate for that now, it will be very difficult later.
Peter Nelson stated it would be nice to improve the buffer or make it consistent. What is there isn’t that great right now. Some of it is marginal. Rob Graham stated they will address those issues.
Val Shelton asked if this new design would propose new lot line revisions. Joe Persechino stated there will be new lot lines. Each building would be on its own separate lot.
Val Shelton stated it would be important to show the top of elevations of the buildings on the plans and also calculations of impervious surface for each lot. Mr. Persechino stated they will have that when they come in with the full application. Val Shelton asked if they will need any waivers. Mr. Persechino stated they have not identified any waivers yet, but they have not done the full site plan application yet. As far as State permits, there is an existing Alteration of Terrain permit that was granted. They will have to go back and obtain a new one.
Eric Botterman asked if this will also require an amendment to the approved site plan. Diane Hardy stated they would have to do that. Mr. Persechino stated they would bring in a whole new site plan application.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they would still have to do a geotechnical survey for it. Mr. Persechino stated they would be consulting with a Geotechnical Engineer. Eric Botterman stated NH DOT will ask that, too, because of the stability of Route 108.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she would like to remind the Board that these buildings face Route 108 and they are allowed to use aesthetic review. Eric Botterman stated it was not that they face Route 108 that triggers this, they abut Route 108.
Peter Nelson asked if there was any impact with the Route 108 bike path. Diane Hardy stated there will be a discussion with the Town Council and Underwood Engineering at their meeting. The proposal is to widen the shoulders on either side. The question is whether they will be able to do the whole length from Bennett Way to Newfields. It turns out the cost estimate is much higher than anticipated. They will be looking to the Town Council to see if they just want to do part of the project with the money available. There is 100% funding from Federal Highways and NH DOT for part of it. They could do a portion of the project or the Town could be willing to do the 20% match to be able to do the whole thing, but that would require Town funds at about $80,000. Eric Botterman stated that would probably not impact this project. Their right of way will be on Forbes Road.
Eric Botterman asked if NH DOT will say a signal will be necessary at that intersection. Rob Graham stated they sent their preliminary analysis to NH DOT. They have not seen a full analysis, but the conditions on Route 108 are such there is no place on it that will not trigger that left turn. NH DOT asked them to make sure they were wide enough for the full right with the center turn and to change all of these radii, so none of the turn radii push out into other traffic. They may end up with more discussion. They are selling the corner property now, but they have reserved some easements on it to make sure that, if they have to give some right of way to NH DOT or do some work, they can. He feels confident they can get to a reasonable mitigation with any issues with NH DOT. Joe Persechino stated, not only are they eliminating three driveways off of Route 108, there is a fourth driveway that was eliminated, as well. They moved it to Forbes Road.
Diane Hardy stated this triggers the requirement for traffic impact analysis, because the commercial buildings are over 10,000 sq. ft. They will need an updated report.
Also, since they are talking a lot about landscaping, Tighe & Bond will be doing the landscape design and she asked if they still had a Landscape Architect. Joe Persechino stated that was correct. Diane Hardy stated they would like to see the landscaping plans for the site.
Val Shelton asked if they were proposing any retail out of these buildings. Rob Graham stated that is a great question. There is potential for some retail use. They have not gotten so far into that. The interest they have for the site so far is an industrial use in one of the buildings. They have not begun to get into what will go in . They would hope to have some retail value to that type of building, with storefronts or some type of bridge of an industrial to retail. They will listen to ideas.
Diane Hardy asked if these were one story buildings. Joe Persechino stated that is what is envisioned.
Ezra Temko stated he would think the front façade would be very different from industrial to retail. He also mentioned potential signage and having a nice, New England design. For people on Route 108, that is something that could be attractive and useful.
Val Shelton asked if the applicant was required to define the proposed use. Diane Hardy stated, in order to do the traffic and parking analysis, you would have to know what the use is. It varies. Eric Botterman stated what they generally do is design to the highest traffic use. Val Shelton asked if the design approved last year was designed for highest use or an industrial use. Eric Botterman stated that was industrial, because that is what they told us was going in there. Val Shelton stated what was important, as they do their design, was there be no assumption this will be an industrial use.
Michael Dionne, 172 Exeter Road, straight across from Forbes Road on Route 108, asked if there will be any change in the zoning of his property through this. Eric Botterman stated there was not. Mr. Dionne stated his other concern was the number of accidents at that intersection down to Hersey Lane. He would recommend a center turning lane. They seem to be addressing northbound traffic, but not southbound traffic. A proposal with a 100 space parking lot and another 100 vehicles would create a lot more accidents. A center turning lane could alleviate a lot of that. Eric Botterman stated that was a point well taken. As they go through this process, they will work with the State on that. The State may dictate something like that. Diane Hardy stated they have talked with the State about that before.
Eric Botterman asked how far away they thought they might be submitting an application. Joe Persechino thought maybe a month away.
Scott Bresnahan, 174 Exeter Road, across Route 108, stated he was not clear about the elevations. He asked if they were digging down into the lots across from him. Rob Graham stated that was correct. Mr. Bresnahan asked what he would be looking at from his side of the street. Joe Persechino and Rob Graham stated they would have to look at it when they are out there. Eric Botterman stated they do not really know yet. Joe Persechino stated the building will be visible heading south on Route 108, but he was not sure specifically from his property. They would be happy to meet with him at the site.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked, with the houses being demolished and the hill taken down, what was going to happen with the abutters across the road. She asked, if they do not put a buffer there, will they be looking at the tops of those buildings and into the industrial park. Eric Botterman stated they do not know that yet. He suspects they will see the buildings. The second building on the right, they will definitely see. The building in the middle may still be below grade and they may just see the top of that. Until they have the design and grading done, they don’t know. Joe Persechino stated right now the road is approximately at elevation 110. The proposed building is at elevation 74, which is 30+/- feet below the road elevation. The building on the corner will be down, adjacent to the road. You will be able to see it. As you transition to going uphill again, it will drop off below you.
Consideration of Alternate application – Peter Nelson
All members were in favor of appointing Peter Nelson as an Alternate member, with a term to expire March 2017.
Agenda Item #5 – Other Business
Rose-Anne Kwaks requested a committee be formed for design review. Eric Botterman stated they had talked about that being done in context of Future Land Use. Val Shelton stated they would be design recommendations. Diane Hardy has spoken to Matt Sullivan, Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC), and he is working on the draft for that chapter. He said he would have a new draft by Friday. She would suggest a workshop after the April meeting. Val Shelton stated it was important, before starting on that as a Planning Board committee, they have the buy-in from the Planning Board as to the adoption of the change to the Master Plan. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they have delayed this long enough. She wants it posted and the Board working on it, so they have standing in case someone comes in with an obnoxious development, so the Board can say no. She wants a meeting on April 12. She stated she does not want to wait for SRPC Master Plan updates. Eric Botterman asked what the Board thought. He agreed with Val Shelton that they need to go through the right process to get there. They should do the Future Land Use chapter and present the idea for design guidelines as a recommendation. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the chapter would recommend they form a committee and do that. They know they need this. They don’t need the Future Land Use chapter to tell them it is needed. Diane Hardy stated this is why they need to have a workshop.
Peter Nelson stated Rose-Anne Kwaks makes a good point. The logical outcome is the Board finishes the vision process and goes into the next stage of what that is. There is no reason they can’t have a committee putting together the “best of breed” ideas of what other communities have done and adopted and have a set of talking points to bring to the table after the logical process of approving the master plan. It doesn’t cast anything in stone. They just know they have to work on it.
Dale Pike stated they were talking about the Future Land Use chapter at the next meeting. That chapter alludes to design standards. He asked if they were hopeful this could be approved at the next meeting. Diane Hardy stated they would have to have a public hearing. She hopes this will be a “roll up your sleeves” kind of work session, where they would make any changes, then go on to have a public hearing and get it adopted. After the public hearing, it is up to the Planning Board to adopt the Master Plan. She did not think that was unreasonable unless there is no consensus.
Eric Botterman stated, if people want to get together and have a committee and start talking about what they want to present for design review, he has no problem with that. There should be at least three people on a committee. Ezra Temko stated it could be people outside the Board. Val Shelton stated it should be Planning Board members. The members really want to evaluate whether to put the time into it, because the Board may not have the support on it to adopt it. There should be more than just one member committed to doing this. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated people are committed to it. It is a question of who has the time to do it. Eric Botterman stated he knows her position is that she wants to do it. He stated he does not want to do it. He asked what the rest of the Board thought. Ezra Temko stated he wants to do it. Where he used to live, they had design guidelines, rather than standards. There was a booklet of what was encouraged and a process through which a developer submitted renderings and there was a design review committee who reviewed them and gave feedback that was discussed. There are different ways of doing this involving middle ground. He supports either option.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they have to get a discussion started. Peter Nelson stated he was interested, but time-challenged. He would participate at some level. He would bring ideas to the table. Janice Rosa asked if, years ago, they had started design standards. Diane Hardy stated they had historic guidelines. The Advisory Heritage Committee put together a book of guidelines.
Eric Botterman stated he felt this was a solution looking for a problem. He asked where the problem was. He asked for anyone to point out any projects that are an absolute disgrace to the town. Ezra Temko stated the application tonight was not ideal and the Aroma Joe’s sign. Peter Nelson stated they had talked in the past about solar panels going in all over town any which way. There are other things that may not yet have been thought of. Eric Botterman stated he is old school where people have a right to build what they want. They go through the process, make sure water isn’t going to drain on other properties, etc., and they have a right to build whatever building they think is appropriate for their property.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated someone could building something inappropriate that will devalue other properties and not contribute to the overall heritage of the town. She asked what if something happens to one of the beautiful brick buildings downtown and someone comes in and put this big thing in. Val Shelton stated that is on Route 108 and there are aesthetic standards for that area already.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the New Village application tonight is an example. Those are beautiful homes there, she loves that area, and what is going in there is not conducive to the area. She stated they have to protect the taxpayers of Newmarket, who invest in their properties. They should be protected to a certain degree. It is not a historic district thing, with tons of restrictions. Dale Pike stated he agrees, but is not prepared to volunteer for another committee. Val Shelton stated they have a lot of ordinance updating to do, especially now that these various Master Plan updates. She asked when the last time was they worked on any ordinances. It has been several years.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to have the Design Review discussion at the April 12 meeting
Second: Ezra Temko
Jane Ford stated one of the things she finds attractive about Newmarket is the value of what they have committed to downtown. It is a shining beam of light. It is special. If there is a way to take that philosophy and vision and extend it, without telling people they have to have black doors and white lights and a ten foot this and a five foot that, that is the ultimate goal. She struggles. They all have different goals and aspirations, but are all heading to the same point, but are not quite there yet. They should look at it, if they can bring those elements together, but she does not want someone telling her she has to have a certain color door or a certain light. Janice Rosa is all for putting some standards in, but is concerned when someone brings up something like the solar panels tonight. She stated if she wants to put solar panels on her house, she has a right to do that without having to come in front of a Planning Board and be crucified for wanting to put something in that someone else may not feel fits into the neighborhood. Peter Nelson stated planning and design go hand in hand. It is a concept. It is not downtown Nantucket. It does not have to be that restrictive. Janice Rosa stated she is talking about houses. They may go too far on people. Ezra Temko stated it is a complex issue, but towns need tool kits to create vision in a way that does not overstep.
Diane Hardy stated she had mentioned a workshop for the Future Land Use chapter. Rose-Anne Kwaks said she would like her discussion to be a separate discussion.
Vote: Eric Botterman opposed
All others in favor
Conservation Commission
Ezra Temko stated Chris Schoppmeyer recently passed away and there was a tribute to him at the last meeting. They are forming a committee to have conservation land in his name. There is a donor offering $50,000 and, if the committee raises $50,000 more, the donor will match that, as well.
They approved kiosks being built at Schanda Park and the Loiselle area.
The Lamprey River Advisory Committee (LRAC) update is they are still interested in the canoe access by the library.
The kayak event is August 27.
LRAC also brought up the 12 mile footpath around the Lamprey River and sidewalks and accesses to it.
Town Council
Dale Pike stated they talked about having an engineering firm being the engineer of record for the town.
Town Planner
Diane Hardy stated they had a bid opening for the pedestrian crossing project. They received two bids. They came in a little bit higher than anticipated. With the money that has been committed by the Federal Highway Administration, they should be able to at least do a base bid. Hopefully, they can move forward and start construction as early as June1. They were able to make the budget figures work.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:47 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor