Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
APRIL 12, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Jane Ford, Ezra Temko (arrived at 8:21 p.m.. for this meeting), Peter Nelson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio Alternate)
Called to order: 7:03 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:55 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Eric Botterman stated Ezra Temko would be arriving at the meeting around 8:00 p.m. He appointed Peter Nelson to take his place until he could get to the meeting.
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 03/15/16
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of 03/15/16
Second: Janice Rosa
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated on page 22, line 18, omit the word “any” in the first sentence.
Vote: Val Shelton & Amy Burns abstained
All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
*Consideration of application for Alternate – Glen Wilkinson
Eric Botterman stated everyone had received his application and resume. Glen Wilkinson went over his background. He stated one of the reasons he applied was he recently moved back to Newmarket after about a year and a half away. He has made permanent roots in town and he would like to give back to the community and get involved. He served on the Zoning Board in Brentwood and he enjoyed it. He had always wanted to be involved with planning. His background was heavy with involvement with siting, locating and permitting solid waste disposal facilities and trucking operations. He is familiar with planning and zoning, in a broad sense, across the eastern seaboard. He got his real estate license a little over a year ago, primarily focusing on the Exeter market. If there was ever a conflict of interest in Newmarket, he would immediately recuse himself.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she was not comfortable with having a realtor on the Board. She stated Val Shelton is a realtor and she has known her and her family for many years. If there is a conflict, they would have to step down. She did not know if it would be a problem to have more realtors and/or developers on the planning board. She would be apprehensive about approving a realtor.
Val Shelton stated the likelihood that she or Glen would be involved with any particular transaction together would be highly unlikely. A realtor brings a particular perspective to a board, based upon experience with development. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated Val’s input has been very valuable. Val Shelton stated, if one of them has to recuse themselves, the Board still has the advantage of the other being able to contribute. She looks at it as a positive. Eric Botterman stated he did, too. Any one of them could have a conflict. In a small town, any one of their relatives could be in front of the board. If there is a conflict, Mr. Wilkinson would recuse himself.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated some of these larger projects take two or three years to go through. She asked what if a Planning Board member, who is a realtor, sat on the Board when something was approved. Then it is three years later and the realtor is asked to represent the developer as a realtor. She asked if the realtor would be willing to say they cannot represent them. Val Shelton stated there is no conflict of interest after the fact. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated to her there would be conflict of interest. She stated if someone sat on the Board and approved a project that did not come to fruition for two to three years and the realtor, at that point, decided to represent the developer, that is a conflict of interest. She was not in favor of adding any more realtors to the Board. Val Shelton stated they could take that position about any development that is approved in town and then one of the Board members decides to live there later. They could say they like the project, because they want to live there someday. In that instance, Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the Board member would be giving the property owner money. So, it is not a financial gain for someone to move somewhere, but it would be for the developer or realtor who is profiting financially from a project. She said she herself would not be sitting on the Planning Board if it was not for the confidence from Val Shelton and her father asking her to run and Val’s input has been very valuable to this Board. She just did not want to put more than one realtor on the Board. Eric Botterman stated he disagreed. Eric Botterman stated they have struggled over the years to have alternates. Someone is here volunteering to help. As everyone knows, Planning Board processes can get tedious and, if someone is willing to step in and help, he is more than willing to have them.
Val Shelton nominated Glen Wilkinson to serve as an Alternate on the Planning Board through 2018. Janice Rosa seconded. Rose-Anne Kwaks was opposed, all others were in favor 6-1.
Eversource Energy - Public hearing in accordance with RSA 231:158 for tree pruning and clearing on Town of Newmarket scenic roads by Eversource Energy.
This hearing is scheduled in accordance with RSA 231:158, as requested by Eversource Energy to engage in tree pruning and cutting along Bay Road in the Town of Newmarket. The proposed activity will include, but not be limited to, tree cutting, trimming, and removal of brush and trees. All proposed activity and criteria for action by the applicants will be presented and reviewed at this public hearing.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Bob Berner, represented Eversource. He stated they were seeking approval to trim and remove trees and brush along Bay Road, which was designated scenic, by the Town. They will remove limbs and branches that are growing within 8’ to the side, 10’ below and 15’ above their energized conductors. In addition, brush growing underneath the wire will be targeted for removal. They have identified and submitted a list to the Board of twelve at-risk trees they would also like to remove along Bay Road. Their contractor for this project is Lewis Tree Service. They would like to begin within a few weeks. All property owners have been notified, at least 45 days in advance. The only folks who have not been notified are the owners of the trees in question. If they get approval from the Board, they will speak to those owners before removing trees.
Eric Botterman stated he took a ride and looked at the trees. The list is self-explanatory. The trees are dead and they are going to fall and hit wires, cars or walkers. It is a prudent mission to undertake.
Peter Nelson asked if the same company had done the work on the Durham section of Bay Road. Mr. Berner stated that was Asplundh. Peter Nelson stated that work looked okay.
Val Shelton asked if there was any coordination with Public Works to remove dead limbs falling into the road. Mr. Berner stated he has worked with the Public Works Director a few times in the past. Eversource had provided a tree crew and the Town assisted with traffic and disposal. There is an ongoing relationship.
Janice Rosa asked when they would come back again in the future to trim more trees. Mr. Berner stated they are on a four year cycle. Janice Rosa stated some poles are not clearly marked. Eric Botterman stated he found eleven poles involved with this a week ago, but the markers could blow off.
Diane Hardy stated this is the third or fourth time she has been through the review of the cutting of trees on Bay Road. She went back in the old files to get an idea of previous concerns. There were conditions on the last approval. One was photographic evidence on what trees were involved. That would help if the Board members are out looking for the trees involved. There was also interest in the Town acquiring wood chips. Mr. Berner stated he can discuss that with the Public Works Director.
Peter Nelson asked what they do if the homeowner objects to the tree being removed. Mr. Berner stated they cannot remove the tree without the owner’s permission. They would ask to at least trim it. They can go to the Road Agent if they feel the tree is an imminent threat and he can grant them the authority to remove it.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant approval for the removal of the trees, there are eleven trees designated on the list on Bay Road, Newmarket, NH, as hazardous trees by Eversource on the condition that they do meet with Rick Malasky regarding the potential of storage of wood chips for the use by residents and photographic evidence of the affected trees to the Town Planner
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Grant Road, LLC – Continuation of a 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 stated there were questions at the last meeting, one regarding prime wetlands and the setback and the other was highway access from NH DOT and NH DES septic system approval.
Peter Zohdi, Edward Herbert Associates, Inc., represented the applicant. He went over the subdivision lot sizes. There is an existing cemetery. There is a driveway easement that was set up a long time ago. At the last meeting, there was a discussion of prime wetland. They are complying with prime wetlands and prime wetlands setbacks. The soil on the wetland was flagged by Jim Gove, Gove Environmental Services. The applicant’s surveying crew also picked it up. There were two approvals required at the last meeting. One is mandatory from NH DES. He got a letter from them on April 8. They have the State Subdivision Approval. They did not use any of the Hydric A or B soils in lot sizing, because they have plenty of land outside of that. They are hoping to have NH DES approval. The other approval needed was from NH DOT. About a month and a half ago, he met with George from NH DOT (Division 6) onsite. They found a location for the driveway with good site distance, where you can see an on-coming vehicle a distance of 400’ away in either direction. They sent their field crew out to make sure they met the requirement and they moved the driveway location about a foot. He was hoping they would have the approval by tonight. He has a letter from NH DOT saying there is a pending approval. The person who signs the permits is on vacation and no one else can sign it off.
Eric Botterman stated they added the prime wetlands to the plans and they meet the Town’s prime wetland setbacks. They are waiting for NH DES and NH DOT approval.
Val Shelton stated at the last meeting she read that the prime wetland setback for structures was 100’ and septic is 125’. This plan notes 75’. Diane Hardy stated the buffer is 75’. The building setback is 125’. The septic system is 150’ if it was within the Class A Watershed. She found it was not within that district. It is a 75’ buffer, which is a no disturbance zone. Mr. Zohdi will add another setback line. Diane Hardy stated it all becomes moot in the final analysis. Diane Hardy stated it is a 75’ buffer, no disturbance around the prime wetland, structures shall be set back 100’ feet from prime wetlands and onsite septic systems shall be set back 125’.
Eric Botterman stated Mr. Zohdi is saying that to show a 125’ setback to the prime wetlands is within the 50’ wetland buffer. It is just another line on the plan that makes it confusing. They meet the requirement. Rather than show a line, they should put a note on the plan. Adding another line would just make it very confusing.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the lot behind was going to be in conservation. Diane Hardy stated it was protected by NH Fish & Game. Diane Hardy stated it was her understanding the current owner is interested in donating some additional land to the Town for conservation purposes.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Eric Botterman stated they should approve the plan conditionally. They need NH DES and NH DOT permits and to show the setback to the prime wetland. Val Shelton stated the plans need to be stamped.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked who will maintain the shrubs and trees for site distance. Diane Hardy stated there is an easement. She believed the Public Works Director had authority to cut trees if they obstruct public safety. The homeowner is supposed to keep the site distance clear.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to grant the application for 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, subject to:
1. The approval of the State Highway Access permit for subdivision prior to the signing of the plans by the Chairman and notation placed on the plan indicating NH DOT approval.
2. Approval of the State Subdivision approval prior to plan signing and a notation placed on the plan indicating the NH DES approval number.
3. The addition of a notation on the plan with regard to the prime wetland setbacks.
4. The plans are stamped by Wetland Scientist and Surveyor.
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
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.
Alexx Schleider represented Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
Eric Botterman stated, at the last meeting, there was a long discussion about aesthetics. They have received a letter from the Town Attorney stating the Board can take aesthetics into consideration. Diane Hardy stated she did not distribute it to the applicant, because she wanted the Planning Board to make the decision on whether to release an attorney’s letter to the public.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to release the legal opinion from John Ratigan regarding aesthetics
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy asked if there were any abutters, who would like a copy.
Eric Botterman stated, at the last meeting, they were down to aesthetics. All of the engineering issues had been addressed. They had discussed drainage and had given them a waiver. He asked what the Board wanted to do with aesthetics. The Board has the right to address it, but it does not say they have to.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked the abutters if the electrical boxes that had been pulled off of the homes from the fallen tree on the wires had been repaired. Janice Lamontaigne, 3 Grape Street, stated she was one of the abutters who would be mostly affected by this plan. The tree that fell had been dead for a long time. She had spoken to Mr. Cheney about it and expressed her concern. There were live wires in her yard after the tree came down and the power was out for almost 24 hours. The broken tree is still on the property. This happened at the beginning of February. She contacted Mr. Cheney’s office and she was told it was Eversource’s problem. She asked why something wasn’t done about this, before it happened. The electricity had been fixed. She and Mr. Blake had to pay $1,000 deductible to the insurance company. Mr. Cheney has not responded to phone calls from her and Mr. Blake. In talking about aesthetics, she is looking out the window at a broken tree and limbs. She asked what kind of neighbor they were getting. She had to call the Cheney office just to get him to cut the grass when it was a foot and a half tall last summer. They had asked for a brick house or façade and dormers. They are hoping for that.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked which homes were being served by the wires going through the tree. Ms. Lamontaigne stated they were servicing 3 & 5 Grape Street, but did not know if there were other homes involved. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated Condition #1 of the Zoning Board decision stated “There shall be no financial obligation incurred on the abutting property owners associated with removing and relocating of the power and telephone lines for the abutting properties.” Eric Botterman stated that is a Zoning Board decision and is not enforced by the Planning Board. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, if they are not adhering to the Zoning Board decision, she did not think the Planning Board had any right to approve the application.
Alexx Schleider stated they have been talking to Eversource since last summer. They legally could not cut down the tree, because there were power lines through it. Eversource handed them off to two different people. They are working with someone who is moving the lines for them. She has been in contact with both Ms. Lamontaigne and her neighbor, who have contacted her many times. She forwarded them to Eversource, because the wires that are on the Cheney property illegally are not Real Estate Advisors’ responsibility. As far as the tree still being there, they have someone interested in cutting it up for firewood and they are going to come and get it. Because of the snow, ice and wet ground, they have not yet done so. As far as Ms. Lamontaigne’s reference to another person going onto the property and cutting firewood, that is trespassing. When the tree came down, she and Mr. Cheney went to the property immediately and talked to the people working there. There was nothing they could do. It was out of their hands. As she had addressed at the last meeting, those are all of the steps they have taken to try to be a good neighbor.
Eric Botterman asked what the Board wanted to talk about as far as aesthetics. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they should adhere to the site plan regulations and adhere to some aesthetic modifications to the building, in order to be aesthetically pleasing to the area. There should be dormers and brick facades on both ends, because that is what the abutters had asked for.
Peter Nelson stated the abutters made it clear that the neighborhood has a certain character. Everyone felt there was some historical significance to the neighborhood and they wanted to maintain compatible looking designs. What that translates to remains to be seen.
Diane Hardy stated she spoke to Attorney Ratigan after receiving his letter and asked about how to implement this. He suggested this be addressed as a condition of approval and the Board should be very specific. She put something on paper for discussion and has recommended a condition #10 with some language. She asked if this was something they wanted to have another meeting about, which would extend the review period. She was not sure that was in everyone’s best interest. The condition read, “The applicant to provide final building elevations and/or prospective 3D drawings of all building facades pursuant to Section 4.01 of the Town’s site plan review regulations to show dormers, porches with doors, overhangs, and pediments and brick detailing, so the structures will blend in with the architectural and historic character of the neighborhood. Such elevations shall be subject to review and approval by the Town Planner and Building Official prior to the signing of the final site plans and recording of the final site plans at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds and prior to the issuance of any building permits for this project. This will be consistent to Section 1.01 Purpose of the Town’s site plan review regulations which are designed to ‘promote the harmonious and aesthetically pleasing development of the town and ensure a visual harmony of the site with the surrounding neighborhood.”
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked to be more specific regarding brick detailing. Diane Hardy stated, if having brick on each end is appropriate that is fine. Her thought was just walling in a façade with all brick really doesn’t do a whole lot architecturally. Maybe some of that could be achieved by having brick textured patterns or doing part of the façade. She saw one rendering where the whole side of the building was brick and that didn’t do a lot for her. With some creativity and artistic design, the goal can be achieved probably at a much lower cost to the applicant.
Eric Botterman stated the abutters wanted some sort of brick and liked the dormers. He asked if the Board was okay with what Diane Hardy just read, which lays out a ground work, but lets Diane Hardy and the Building Official decide what is acceptable. The Board could also be very specific. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she felt, because of what has been going on and the statements by the applicant having been “wishy-washy” at best, they should have a rendering of what it will look like and the abutters can be here to look at it.
Eric Botterman stated they needed direction of what the Board wanted to see. This has been discussed enough to have a pretty good consensus. The issue with the brick on the ends was there were no windows. Diane Hardy asked Alexx Schleider to show the renderings again. Alexx Schleider stated she would show them and would like to put on the record that, in the neighborhood, not all of the buildings are brick. Some are brick, some are stucco, and some are vinyl clapboard just like what they have proposed. They came up with a rendering. They agree the bricked side of the building does not look good for real estate value or the community. They also would like to say for the record that this site review authority has never been implemented for any other project, except for theirs, with the exception of Route 108. It is brand new. The Board said they did not know how to do it. Diane Hardy stated for every project since she has been here they have asked for elevations, consideration of aesthetics, and they also used to have an Advisory Heritage Committee. Alexx Schleider stated they have submitted renderings of their proposed elevations. Diane Hardy stated they were never submitted to the Planning Office, so they could be reviewed by abutters. Alexx Schleider stated they were at the meeting. Diane Hardy stated they need to be submitted to the office, so people could come and see what they were proposing.
The renderings were shown. Alexx Schleider stated they thought this would be the best for the neighborhood and property values. This is the same building as before, except for the brick on the end.
Eric Botterman stated it was fine, if the Board did not want to answer this tonight. They just need to give the applicant clear direction. He said the Board should not abdicate all of the authority to the abutters and just say whatever the abutters want is fine. That is not a good road for a Board to go down. He asked if the Board wanted to have Diane Hardy and the Building Official look at the elevations or do they want to say what the Board wants to see. The Board needs to make a decision.
Eric Botterman does not have a problem with having the Planner and Building Official look over the design, but that leaves a possibility of the applicant coming to the Board and saying they are being unreasonable or the abutters coming to them and saying they aren’t making Mr. Cheney do anything. He felt the best route was to be specific.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what was going to be on the back side of the building. Alexx Schleider stated she did not have a back rendering, because they were only required to bring a front one. Diane Hardy asked for an elevation drawing. Alexx Schleider stated it will be a small deck with a sliding door. There may be two or three windows with the door.
Janice Lamontaigne stated Alexx Schleider was right. The neighborhood is not all brick. In the area where these condos will be, all of the buildings around it are brick. She did not see any brick on the rendering. She hopes the abutters will have some say. She wanted a brick façade. This rendering does not look like it will fit in with the neighborhood at all.
Dale Pike stated it would be handy to have some brick elements in the design. It would enhance it. There is a way to bring in less brick, but have more impact than putting two brick ends on it.
Rose-Anne Kwaks wanted to see all four sides on a rendering and to be able to have the abutters be able to review it. Diane Hardy stated she would be happy to work with the Building Official and meet with Alexx Schleider and the abutters to try to sit down and brainstorm and look at different options. Eric Botterman stated he was fine with that. This is a new direction for the Board and it is not really fair to Alexx Schleider, as she just got this information tonight. The Board needs to understand that, ultimately, this is the Board’s decision. He stated the Building Official, Diane Hardy, the applicant and abutters can come up with something and give it to the Board to consider.
Peter Nelson stated they are asking the applicant to come back with some solid designs, show the Board the building from all four sides, give some options and understand that they want it to fit into the neighborhood. Alexx Schleider stated she understood what they were asking for, but this is the fifth or sixth meeting they have had. There have been two TRC meetings, where they brought renderings for everyone to review. This is the final rendering tonight, hopefully, and they will continue to work with the neighborhood. Continuing until the abutters are happy is not going to happen. Eric Botterman stated they have never said that. This is a letter from the attorney that is new to everyone and has changed the way the Board has to think about this. It was fine, if the applicant does not want the Board to continue this. The Board will take a vote tonight. He asked the applicant what she wanted to do. At this point, another month isn’t long. Alexx Schleider stated every time she sits at a meeting there are financial consequences and risk in this process. Diane Hardy stated they are close. Everyone has to compromise a little bit to move this forward.
Ms. Lamontaigne stated she understood the concern about how long it is taking. That rendering is not what any of the abutters have wanted. The dormers are fine, but there is no brick. This project is where they live and what they have to deal with.
Tyler Jeffrey, 23/25 Cedar Street, who just moved into the neighborhood a few months ago, asked how many of the Board members have been to the neighborhood. Every Board member had. He saw what they were saying about how not all of the houses are brick, but in that area they are all brick. He asked if anyone did any studies on the impact of this on property values. He heard mention that the brick will not be a selling point for the applicant, but, for him, when he sells someday, he loves the brick. They need to clarify and need pictures. He lives right behind the garages on the property. He asked if there have been any property value studies on the effect of this unit going in. He bought his property as an investment. Eric Botterman stated it was not within the Board’s purview to assess real estate values. Diane Hardy stated the applicant had to get a variance from the Zoning Board and one of the conditions involved the future value of surrounding properties. Mr. Jeffrey stated he would like to see more on what brick detailing means and a rendering.
Alexx Schleider stated she was willing to continue to the next meeting provided they get some direction on where the Board wants them to go. Eric Botterman stated, after this meeting, Ms. Schleider, Diane Hardy, the Building Official, and the abutters need to get together immediately and start the process of determining what the building will look like. When the applicant comes to the next meeting, all parties can come and see a plan and the Board can take a vote. Alexx Schleider stated last time they were asked to continue, because a plan was submitted with not enough time to review the minor changes to it. She asked if they had to have this meeting within the next week and half to be submitted at the next meeting. Diane Hardy stated it should be submitted a week in advance, so they can get it to the Board to look at. Eric Botterman stated, if everyone comes in next month and says they cannot agree, he is more than willing for the Board to make a decision. It has been discussed enough. Alexx Schleider agreed to continue.
Diane Hardy stated what she has heard tonight is people want to know what the brick detailing will look like. She did not hear anyone say they did not like the dormers or the porticos. She thought everyone agreed those looked nice. She said they were all in agreement they do not want just a brick façade on either side. She also asked if the applicant worked with an architect. Alexx Schleider stated Paul Lebeau made the drawings. Diane Hardy said perhaps Paul Lebeau can also sit at the table with them. The renderings are very well done and attractive. He would know what materials are out there and what detailing might look good.
Ezra Temko arrived at the meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue this application to May 10, 2016 for 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.
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Discussion – Design Review Regulations
Eric Botterman stated Matt Sullivan would be in at 8:30 p.m. for the next agenda item, so they would move to the design review discussion.
He stated, at the last meeting, not a lot of members were volunteering for this item. It is a time consuming item. He stated Peter Nelson was kind enough to do some research and got design guidelines from other towns.
Eric Botterman stated Salem has 200 pages. He asked how detailed everyone wanted to get. Peter Nelson stated he found several good guidelines from other towns. He will work on that. He did not think this will turn out to be as difficult as everyone thought. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they can use what is in the regulations now on any application. Architectural review is along Route 108. If they utilize part of that language with what the Town Attorney wrote, they could work from there along with what Peter gave them. They could take out the section about being along Route 108. They could add “residential” to the list.
Val Shelton stated, after reading the Town Attorney’s letter, she thought it became very important that they have specificity within these documents. For any developer to come here and leave it to the subjectivity of what a Board member or majority of the Board likes, makes it very difficult to do business in this town. They would never know what the flavor of the Board will be relative to design. Given the Town Attorney’s letter, they need specificity. It is very unlike stormwater management, where it is all black and white. If they meet those regulations, the Board can’t say no. They need to look at it from the applicant’s and landowner’s point of view.
Diane Hardy stated they have a zone currently out on Route 152, which is the B3 zone. It allows a wide range of commercial and industrial uses, but there are no criteria, by which the Board would approve a Special Use Permit. It is very vague and general. Because of that, there have been no takers. They should look at different models and decide how to administer this. She learned from the Planning Director in Salem that they initially wanted design regulations and they got down to the end of the process and did not have the political support to adopt them as regulations, so they were adopted as guidelines. If you look at the Salem example, it is all recommendations. It is a 200 page document and is very detailed. It was prepared by a landscape architect and an architect. This is a good primer for anyone to learn about design review. It covers all aspects of it.
Eric Botterman stated perhaps Rose-Anne Kwaks and Peter Nelson and any other volunteers could get together as a subcommittee. Ezra Temko stated he could do it after May 13. Eric Botterman stated he did not want to have a three person subcommittee do a lot of work and spend months on this and then come to the Board and have them say they don’t like what they have. There should be communication with the Board all during the process. They should also think about the area of impact. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the whole town. Eric Botterman stated he had no interest in that and he would suspect that 99% of the taxpayers in this town have no interest in telling someone who wants to build a single family house what his house is supposed to look like. The Board would have authority in a new subdivision. He did not disagree with regulating multifamily buildings, but not single family. Diane Hardy stated it could apply to anything subject to site plan review regulations not subdivisions.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they should use the Salem regulations as a basis, so they could post this and discuss it. Val Shelton stated she would think the committee would want to review other town models and bring to the Board what they are proposing. Janice Rosa stated it should fit Newmarket. This is not Salem or Concord. Peter Nelson stated Dover and a couple of other towns have done it. You take a half dozen of those, look at them, say this or that seems to make sense, make some phone calls to see how it has worked for that town, and then you have something to report back.
Eric Botterman stated they could get together after the meeting and see when they can meet to start moving this forward.
Janice Rosa stated they have to create a clear understanding of the process for appeals and waivers.
Eric Botterman stated they could keep it on the agenda as a discussion point every month and, if the committee has something to bring forward, they can talk about it.
Matt Sullivan, Strafford Regional Planning Commission – Discussion of Future Land Use chapter of the Master Plan.
Matt Sullivan provided an overview of the process involving this chapter. It has been four or five months in process, with subcommittee meetings. There was significant work done between the first and second drafts. The language has been softened from the first draft.
He went over the document page by page.
Page 3 is a general background and a discussion of the process of this chapter. Val Shelton stated, on the very first sentence, she would like to include the economic development chapter. Most of this is coming out of that chapter and it should be reflected. They should add “future” to modifications, as this is a planning document.
The Residential Coastal Protection District (RCPD) is intended to protect sensitive areas around Great Bay. They did identify the general area.
On page 5, they define the CCRC Overlay District. He believed the discussion of the committee was about whether centralized facilities would be accepted by the Planning Board at a later date or if they would all require provision of municipal sewer and water. Diane Hardy stated it was because it was an aquifer protection area. The committee was divided on this. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that area should be all public water and sewer. Diane Hardy stated she agreed, given the vulnerable nature of the aquifer. Eric Botterman stated no one will ever build anything in that zone, because you can’t. Val Shelton stated they have to develop an ordinance that would be attractive to a developer to do a CCRC and has enough profitability to it that the developer will extend the water and sewer. The Town could do it as an economic development project. Eric Botterman stated, to extend that a mile, you would have a density of housing in that area that this town would never go for. There would have to be hundreds of units. It would be a multi-million dollar proposition to put a sewer line in for a mile. Diane Hardy stated if this was being packaged as an economic development package and you have a developer ready to go, there might be some federal funding. There are a number of programs. It depends upon the clientele being served. It would have to be Town public water and sewer, with that kind of density.
Val Shelton asked what if the MacIntosh well becomes our source of water and the B3 area is no longer involved in that. Diane Hardy stated it is still an aquifer and needs to be protected. Diane Hardy stated there are people in that area with private wells. We want to protect the area. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated with everything you hear going on right now in other parts of the country, water should be a town’s primary concern. They should do anything they can to protect it.
Janice Rosa stated the Conservation Commission should work to buy those properties, because nothing would be able to be developed up there. Down the road you will see a lawsuit coming from those property owners, because you are holding them back telling them they cannot do anything with that property, because no one is going to come in there for that type of cost. The Town should buy those properties. Developers will not come in.
Val Shelton stated the other thing that could happen is it would get rezoned as single family and all of the single family homes will be on well and septic. They have to figure out some way to make properties economically viable. The way they are zoned now, it is not happening. It was rezoned about fourteen years ago. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she did not know if the study that was done there would allow septic for single family homes. Val Shelton stated it would allow it for anything built up there. The Planning Board can’t say they can’t build up there, because they want septic. If the Board is saying only water and sewer, then they need to be developing an ordinance out of the Master Plan that will allow it to be developed as a CCRC to leave enough density or funding in order to have it developable.
Dale Pike stated he did not know how certain the science was to turn that into a specific density that meets that requirement. They know municipal water and sewer will meet the requirement. They are trying to debate this issue without those numbers available. The next step is to try to turn this into specific zoning recommendations. They could take a first try at it using language around municipal water and sewer, with the expectation they will start to come through the process.
Val Shelton stated, if it is in the Master Plan, they can’t adopt ordinances that are contrary to it. Dale Pike stated, if you can’t do something, you may have to amend the language of the Master Plan.
Eric Botterman stated all centralized systems are approved by the State, not the Town. This puts another wrinkle into it. He understood the concerns, but he thinks they are trying to fit something in there that will never happen. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they don’t know that. Eric Botterman stated he understood. He was willing to go forward and see what happened. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she thought the consensus was they did not want that centralized onsite wastewater treatment. They want it to say only with municipal water and sewer. Val Shelton stated that is what Rose-Anne Kwaks was saying, but she was not sure that was the consensus yet. She stated Rose-Anne Kwaks was saying she does not want onsite wastewater treatment facilities. It should state with municipal water and sewer only to protect the drinking water.
There was discussion of how the State is in charge of septic systems. Eric Botterman stated every system leaks. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that it would not be at the degree of having many large systems. She urged the Board to read the Dufresne-Henry report regarding that area. It was very specific. They did not want excavation in that area. It is a report that is integral to the protection of water in town.
Dale Pike stated he was in favor of taking out the centralized septic. If they were going to open that up to someone and they put septic systems and they were given a density bonus, then the Board wants to know what would happen at that point. He is not sure they are informed enough yet. Jane Ford agreed.
Janice Rosa asked when this would go into effect. Val Shelton stated this is the Master Plan. Nothing would go into effect until an ordinance was developed. Janice Rosa stated she was asking when they thought an ordinance might be developed. Right now, if someone wanted to build a house, as an accessory to the business, they would have to put in a septic system. Diane Hardy stated this is about CCRCs, not about single family homes. Eric Botterman stated currently septic systems are allowed there. You could put an industrial building in and it could have a septic system. This is not changing that. This is looking at changing that in the future or providing an option for this type of development. Janice Rosa stated they are putting restrictions on these people’s properties and taking away some of their rights. They are paying the taxes on these properties. Diane Hardy stated she is hearing Janice Rosa say that she would like the Town to make some investments in economic development and make some investments in financing the cost of water and sewer to that area to help facilitate the development of that area.
Val Shelton asked if Board members were interested in leaving the language about this as is or should they take it out of the Future Land Use chapter. Eric Botterman stated he was okay with taking this language out. The Board wanted to take the language out.
There were some minor modifications to some of the language on subsequent pages.
On page seven, it talks about design standards. Diane Hardy stated what she heard at the meeting tonight was the Board would want this to encompass the entire town, not just Route 108. Ezra Temko stated they might want to have something more specific for the Route 108 corridor. Diane Hardy stated they had discussed having a gateway district and more detailed design standards for that area. Val Shelton stated they should leave it as is and an ordinance could be addressed later regarding a gateway district. Dale Pike stated they should call this section something different. Calling it simply “Design Standards” will make it confusing with the design guidelines the Board is currently working on. They decided to call it the “Route 108 Corridor Overlay District.”
Regarding stormwater management, Val Shelton stated they wanted to adopt greater minimum soil disturbance thresholds. They should not be too specific, but they want to adopt greater minimum thresholds.
Regarding the open space design subdivision, Diane Hardy stated the ordinance is currently set up as an alternative. It has been suggested by Piscataqua Regional Environmental Planning Assessment (PREPA) that they make this mandatory. Some communities have done it. She felt we have had good results from the current open space design subdivision ordinance here. There are some areas in Town that are, particularly vulnerable, because of natural resources, wetlands, and proximity to Great Bay. Making open space design subdivisions mandatory, as opposed to optional, would provide a greater impact in protecting the resources that we have. Eric Botterman stated he does work in some towns where that requirement was for a subdivision with more than four lots. It has to be an open space subdivision. Diane Hardy stated they could maybe not do this on a town-wide basis, but hone in on critical natural and cultural areas. Some areas have been identified by the NH Coastal Program as a critical protection areas. Perhaps, they could tie it to that program that has already identified these resources.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, if you do open space subdivisions, they get a density bonus with more lots, which means more septic systems and that is what they do not want. The reason for Open Space Design was to keep the rural aspect of NH. When you drive by an Open Space Design subdivision, you don’t see any houses. This was not done for the golf course subdivision. You see all of those homes. The Open Space ordinance has to be beefed up. She would not make this mandatory in any area. If you have environmental constraints, you will have to have fewer homes. Eric Botterman stated there is a trade-off. There will potentially be more septic systems, but you will significantly reduce stormwater runoff. This is now a major concern with all the mosquito borne illnesses. In theory, they cut fewer trees. There is an overriding environmental benefit to doing these subdivisions. Every site is unique. There is no one size fits all. They should identify areas where they abut sensitive environmental areas, where they want to force the houses to be closer to the road and have more of a buffer to the sensitive land.
Diane Hardy stated she is hearing to make this mandatory for critical environmental areas, so they can target the effort to focus the conservation efforts. Ezra Temko stated they could have it say they may want to take up that discussion. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they don’t want to make this a law, it’s a consideration. Diane Hardy stated, if it is in the Master Plan, they would still have to change the zoning to implement it. There was a discussion of two acre zoning and open space development. Eric Botterman stated it has been proven that the two acre zoning is the worst thing to do to the environment.
Ezra Temko asked if this would encompass cultural or historical resources. There was discussion of whether to just have it say, “threats to natural resources”. The Board decided it should say, “…natural, cultural, and historical resources.”
Regarding pork chop lots, Val Shelton stated the idea of those subdivisions is to give a landowner, who has fairly significant acreage within a zone that may not have sufficient road frontage, the ability to put in one driveway for multiple lots. It could be limited to a two or three lot subdivision. The intent is so you do not have multiple curb cuts off of a scenic road. For example, if you go from Bay Road to Durham Point, there are several of these pork chop subdivisions, where there are several homes located off of one driveway. You don’t know that, because of the way the land is divided. In Durham, it is limited to four lots. You might see one or two houses near the road, but in most instances, you are not seeing them. That is how they are typically utilized.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated this is defeating all of the prior statements about open space design. If two acre house lots are the worst thing that could happen, it is either one way or the other. Cutting down on a curb cut along the road is not a reason to allow pork chop lots. It is going to add more development. This is causing more environmental impact where you are allowing more development, where it normally would not be allowed.
Eric Botterman stated he has worked in towns where this is allowed. The intent is to stop forcing people to have to build roads. Rather than someone putting up a 300’ long cul de sac with a bunch of lots on it, on a ten acre lot, with a lot of pavement and stormwater runoff, you can let them do a “glorified driveway” then you eliminate a lot of the environmental impacts associated with a roadway development. One size does not fit all. There are places where it helps people and there are places where it will never work and everything in between. The intent is to reduce the environmental impact of development.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they are going to draw up an ordinance that says “…in select residential districts…” She stated that was giving favor to certain areas. It is too specific. If the Board wants to do an ordinance to allow pork chop lots that is one thing, but something like this does not belong in the Master Plan. It is much too specific.
Diane Hardy stated she had the benefit of working for the Town of Durham in 1979 and they implemented and adopted the pork chop ordinance. She had been a Planner there. They hired a Planning Consultant out of Boston to assist with this. It was a Growth Management Ordinance. The idea, at the time, was that the town wanted to focus development in the urban core area and not encourage a lot of sprawling development. They were interested in making it feasible for water and sewer extensions, so there could be more users to help pay for the cost. She did not remember it being Bay Road, but that could have been a later change. The intent was to do this as a way to encourage more compact development in the inner area, so it is more feasible for extension of water and sewer, so you won’t have a detriment to groundwater resources. She stated she would like to go out and look at some of these. There is one on Mill Road that Chinburg did. You are putting houses one behind the other, but it is at a particular density. It is at least one acre zoning there, she believes. It doesn’t look bad at all and works well. The houses are nicely designed and fit into the character of the area. Val Shelton stated it also gives a landowner a tool they wouldn’t have under open space, because they probably didn’t have enough land. Open Space subdivisions require ten acres. Diane Hardy stated this is more for smaller lots fronting on major arterials. Val Shelton stated these are not big development parcels.
Ezra Temko stated he saw the advantage of this compared to a major subdivision going in. It seems like these are located in places you do not want homes to be built. They are on the river and bay. He asked what the advantage was of doing this vs. “down-zoning” or adding other restrictions. It still gives people rights, but is more restrictive. He asked if this encouraged more development in areas, where we don’t want it. Val Shelton stated it is one of the low impact development planning tools that towns can utilize. Peter Nelson stated this is just having another tool in the toolkit, for a situation that could use this.
Dale Pike stated a lot of the language they have been discussing had to do with ways to limit density. He did not see where pork chop lots fill any of the objectives for lower density.
Diane Hardy stated, as a practical matter, a lot of people don’t want shared driveways. This is not a perfect world and people don’t always get along. As a general rule, maybe it is not as practical, of each lot having its own driveway.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated if you do it in certain districts, she could be in another district and be angry because she does not have the same opportunity. She said she was not in favor of this.
Ezra Temko stated it will not be based on individuals, it will be based on the land and the configuration of it. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated then the person would ask why they did not consider her land and why is her land different. Ezra Temko stated he was sure they would have an answer.
Val Shelton asked if they should delete the whole thing or delete it in selected districts. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they should delete the whole thing. Dale Pike stated they should not put pork chop lots in the Master Plan until they have a place in town, where they need pork chop lots to meet some goal. Jane Ford stated to take it out. Val Shelton and Janice Rosa stated they wanted to keep it in. Amy Burns stated they should take it out. Peter Nelson stated they should keep it in. Ezra Temko stated to take it out. Eric Botterman stated he was for leaving it in. Taking it out had the most support, so they will take it out.
Matt Sullivan stated regarding property maintenance, he had some Town review by Michael Hoffman and John Ratigan.
Eric Botterman stated he did not think the Town Council would support it. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated some of the codes are so restrictive. Val Shelton asked if it was typical for property maintenance code or a junkyard issue would be in the Master Plan, as opposed to a Town Council function. Diane Hardy stated the Master Plan can include recommendations to the Town Council. It is an important tool to promote quality development in the town. They have instances where people complain about things, such as grass growing too high or an area that is unsightly, with too much junk in the front of the property and it is detracting from local property values. When people make complaints along those lines to the code enforcement officer, there is nothing to “hang their hat on”. There is a statute for hazardous buildings, if it is a public health or safety risk or threat. This would take it another step. Somersworth, for example, has a property maintenance code. She believed it has been an effective tool for them. Matt Sullivan stated it has been. Eric Botterman stated he would like this wording left in. It says it is recommended that a committee of the Planning Board be established to see if it is appropriate. There was discussion of the property maintenance code. After adopting it, Somersworth had to hire additional code enforcement personnel to administer it.
The Board felt they should keep the wording about considering adopting a property maintenance code rather than be too specific about which code to adopt or to adopt portions of a particular code.
Diane Hardy stated the International Property Maintenance Code is written in such a way that you can modify the provisions and tailor them to your community. Eric Botterman stated he did not support adopting anything, but it was fair to have the wording in the Master Plan. If the people in town want to adopt the code, that is fine, but, when someone comes to tell him his grass is too long, it would never get mowed again. Peter Nelson stated the point of it is not to over-manage. It is much broader, addressing issues such as public health. They had mentioned mosquito control. If you have standing water on your property and it is a junkyard and you are creating a public health hazard, and there is nothing on the books and no one can step in and do anything about it, then that is a different story.
There were some minor amendments to the wording of this section.
There was a discussion of including collection bins, dumpsters, and pods. Diane Hardy stated there was an ordinance passed about six months ago regarding dumpster screening that was suggested by the Code Enforcement Officer.
There was discussion of junkyards. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that is something the Town Council has to act on. The process is up to them and it is mandatory according to State RSAs.
Val Shelton stated, under the zoning modifications for economic development, at the end of the first paragraph, add “…and recommendations for zoning changes to those districts.” Under B3 zoning, she would delete “for example”.
Ezra Temko asked if there should be some language added that says the Planning Board is doing something about the recommendations. Otherwise, it is a statement saying these are recommendations that have been made. Diane Hardy stated they need to be turned into an action statement. Matt Sullivan made note of that. Val Shelton stated they could reword it “…and recommendations for the Planning Board to adopt zoning changes to those districts.”
Ezra Temko asked what the advantage was of round table discussions with closed, non-public meetings with staff and developers. Matt Sullivan stated it was comfort for developers, with the confidentiality that goes with it, as well as comfort for staff. It is pretty common with round tables. This does not mean the Planning Board would sit with developers in these meetings. Many communities want to engage the development community, before changes are made, and this would provide an opportunity to get their perspective and point of view. Then the recommendations would come forward.
Ezra Temko stated if these meetings happen then that is what happens, but he did not feel comfortable putting a non-public process that we are endorsing into a future land use chapter. Val Shelton stated this was just to try to get a developer’s guide. Diane Hardy stated it is an administrative process. It would not be a policy. They want to try to simplify and streamline the application and Board process, so it is not onerous. Ezra Temko stated this could be done in a public process. Eric Botterman stated yes, but that was highly unlikely to happen with developers. Val Shelton stated you will not get the participation of the developers. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if you need this process in the Master Plan. They decided to delete the last paragraph.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to move this to public hearing as amended for the May 10, 2016 meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Economic Development Committee
Val Shelton spoke with the Chairman of the EDC and, once they get through the Master Plan, they can move forward and he would like to have a joint meeting.
Town Council
Amy Burns stated the last meeting was organizational. They discussed a new ambulance and a dump truck. Both were approved.
Town Planner’s Report
Diane Hardy stated they now have an agenda for the Spring OEP Conference, which will be on June 4, in Concord.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:55 p.m.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor