Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MAY 10, 2016
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Ezra Temko, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Glen Wilkinson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Dale Pike (Alternate Town Council ex officio)
Called to order: 7:03 p.m.
Adjourned: 9:34 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 04/12/16
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to approve the minutes of April 12, 2016
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the recording secretary had contacted her, as she was not sure about the vote on page 12, lines 1 and 2. Rose-Anne Kwaks made the motion to continue the Grape Street application to May 12. The secretary had watched the video over and over and was not able to tell how she had voted. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated since she made the motion, she was sure she had voted “aye”. Also, her name was left off of the list of members present.
Ezra Temko stated on page 18, line 26, he was pretty sure he had stated the homes were located in places where they do not want homes to be built. Also, regarding the discussion and vote on Grape Street, he thought that he was there for that discussion and voted on it. It states he arrived at a certain time after that vote. He remembers being there for the discussion, but he could just be confused. Eric Botterman stated there was no mention of him commenting and he was sure he would have. The minutes are probably correct the way they are.
Val Shelton stated on page 14, line 4, add the word “defined”. On page 17, line 18, at the end of the sentence it should be a period. On page 18, line 39, “lot” should be changed to “driveway”.
Vote: All in favor
Ezra Temko abstained due to missing a portion of the meeting
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
Real Estate Advisors, Inc. – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for site plan review, at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone. The proposal is to add a four unit condominium building with related parking to the property.
Val Shelton and Janice Rosa recused themselves. Eric Botterman appointed Peter Nelson to fill in. He did not appoint the other Alternate member, Glen Wilkinson, as he had not been present at the prior meetings.
Diane Hardy stated she had a meeting with the Building Official, two neighbors in the Grape Street area and Alexx Shleider, Mr. Cheney’s representative. They looked at different renderings that Alexx Shleider had brought. She also had a presentation board, where she had different elevations and options on it. They talked at length about alternatives to traditional brick masonry. The Building Official, from his background and experience, was able to give them some good information about new products on the market that are an overlay of sorts that looks like brick. The look can be achieved at a much lower cost. They also spoke with Mike Provost, who lives in the neighborhood and has done a lot of work in Rochester with their Main Street program. They were unable to reach a consensus. The abutters made it clear they thought these were not appropriate treatments for the exterior of the building. They also talked about rearranging the configuration of the units. They are a staggered type of configuration. If the two middle units were brought forward, there could be an opportunity to do some brick treatment on a portion of the façade in the front. Ms. Shleider went back and spoke to their engineer and he said, at this late date in the process, it would be difficult to go into a complete redesign, where they would have to redo the drainage and all of the engineering that had gone into the plan. The directive from the Planning Board was that, if an agreement could not be reached, they would come back to the Board and the Board would make the decision.
Alexx Shleider, Real Estate Advisors, Inc, stated the Town Attorney’s letter had provided some insight to this. It says the property must fit in and be harmonious and aesthetically pleasing with neighborhoods. She stated New Village is diverse and varied. Two projects had been approved previously in the New Village area by the Planning Board. She showed photos of the two projects. The Planning Board (in 2002) had decided those projects fit with the neighborhood and they were very similar to what they are proposing. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated those could have been approved under old ordinances.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Bob Madea, owner of 7-9 Grape Street, stated they have been talking about aesthetics. The abutters have asked for the design to blend into the neighborhood a little better. They have concluded that it will be a four unit building and there is nothing more they can do about that. They ask it blend in better. It is being proposed as a clapboard building in the middle of all multi-unit structures of brick construction. The Town Attorney did say, in his letter, the Board has the authority to make sure new development fits in with existing neighborhood. He is asking for some brick, a brick facade or brick type surface. He is not asking for the whole building to be of brick. Brick and clapboard do blend together. The applicant had proposed making one end of the building brick, but that would just look lopsided. It doesn’t blend into the neighborhood, because the other end will be a different material. He would hope the developer would put his best foot forward to make things blend together in the neighborhood. Some small porches were proposed, which are a wonderful addition. Someone had also come up with adding dormers. He would like to see final renderings. Alexx Shleider stated they were willing to do some brick detailing, but they could not come to an agreement with the abutters, as to what that would look like. They have not done a rendering with brick detail, because they were not instructed to do so.
Peggy Small-Porter, 26 & 28 Beech Street, thanked the Board for including the abutters in this process. She did not think the ZBA did a service to the New Village community by approving this project. It was a significant disservice. She is concerned about setting a precedent. She stated the lot should not have been approved for a four unit condo. That is really shortsighted and the quality of life and the property values of the abutters will be negatively affected. She wanted to let citizens know not to wait to get a lawyer to be able to understand the rules and the process from the onset. That is a mistake they made. The historical integrity of the neighborhood is with bricks. She did not understand how the Planning Board can approve aesthetics and architecture when no renderings have been presented. She thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. People are concerned about the historical integrity of the neighborhood. The two properties that Ms. Shleider mentioned are on the perimeter of the village. The inner portion has never been built upon. That is a different scenario.
Eric Botterman asked if here were other members of the public who wished to speak and there were none.
Ezra Temko stated it was unfortunate that a plan was not submitted that he felt complemented the character of the community there.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she did not feel she could approve this plan, based on the Town Attorney’s letter ref. Section 1.01(A). To bring up a unit built in 2002, just doesn’t sit well. They have had a lot of input from abutters. It was a disservice of the ZBA for approving this.
Jane Ford stated she appreciated the Planner’s, abutters’ and developer’s efforts on this project.
Peter Nelson stated he was disappointed that no alternative plan has been submitted over the last couple of meetings. The point was made loudly and clearly. The developer has had every opportunity to make some sort of attempt and none has been made.
Amy Burns stated she agrees with the Board members. When you walk through the neighborhood, it is all brick and stucco. She has watched the meetings and it is clear the abutters want something that fits in. It is too bad something could not have been submitted that fit in.
Eric Botterman stated the Board has three options:
They can vote to approve the plan in front of them.
They can vote to deny the plan in front of them.
They can vote to approve a plan they have not seen yet.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko stated he would move to approve the plan that was presented to us, which he would be voting against, but he thought that is what the developer has presented and that that’s what they should be voting on and that they have asked that they have a final kind of decision on what it is and he thinks to vote to approve something that is not here, (and) that hasn’t been presented is not the way he would want to go. He would move that we approve the elevations and the site plan for 1R Grape Street. (Diane Hardy asked for clarification if this was a motion for final approval on the whole application or just on the aesthetic treatment of the façade. There are other conditions that have been recommended. Or, is this motion about the exterior of the building and the architectural renderings and elevations that have been presented?)
Ezra Temko withdrew his motion. Diane Hardy stated they have to have Findings of Fact and specific reasons clearly stated for a motion for denial.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion that they deny the application for the site plan approval at 1R Grape Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 206, R3 Zone, because the renderings are not aesthetically pleasing and they do not ensure visual harmony of the sites within the surrounding neighborhood
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: Rose-Anne Kwaks – aye
Jane Ford – aye
Eric Botterman – nay
Amy Burns – aye
Peter Nelson – aye
Ezra Temko – aye
Motion passes 5-1 to deny the site plan approval
Lela P. Love - Public hearing for an application for a Boundary Line Adjustment, at 201 Bay Road, Tax Map R1, Lot 3, & 209 Bay Road, Tax Map U1, Lot 4-1, both in the R1 Zone. The adjustment also includes Durham Tax Map 19, Lot 23. The proposal is Lot 3 would become a 2-acre lot, fronting on Bay Road, while the remaining 27+/- acres would be combined with Lot 4-1.
Val Shelton recused herself.
Diane Hardy stated the application was complete and she recommended acceptance. She has reviewed the application against the subdivision and zoning requirements and she recommends conditional approval of the application. She stated they needed an LCHIP check and would like to see the NH DES Subdivision Approval number on the plan.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to accept the application as complete
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Matt Fagginger-Auer, Doucet Survey, represented the applicant. Lot 4-1 is contiguous to the Durham lot. The proposal is for a boundary line adjustment of existing Lot 3, a 29.3 acre parcel, with 459’ of frontage on Bay Road. The proposal is to make it a 2 acre parcel, with 442’ of frontage on Bay Road. The remaining 27 acres would be combined with the existing 64 acres of Lot 4-1 in Durham and Lot 23. He showed a plan to the audience that was a before and after of the subdivision. Both lots currently have conservation easements held by NH Fish & Game. The agricultural area in Exclusionary A will be abandoned. Exclusionary B will remain. The remaining acreage will go under a conservation easement. They have supplied the Board with a letter from NH Fish & Game stating they are aware of what is being proposed. The proposed lot meets all of the current zoning regulations. They have passing test pits on the lot and an existing 75’ well radius is shown on the lot. They have submitted their application to the State for subdivision approval. They are waiting for the approval.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the public hearing was closed.
Peter Nelson asked about the Exclusionary B, with a small part abutting the road. His overall thought was, since this lot is getting carved out, was there a way to leave this as access to the property if another lot is ever carved out. Matt Fagginger-Auer stated there will still be an access there.
Eric Botterman stated this was pretty straightforward.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to approve the boundary line adjustment at 201 Bay Road, Tax Map R1, Lot 3, & 209 Bay Road, Tax Map U1, Lot 4-1, both in the R1 Zone. The adjustment also includes Durham Tax Map 19, Lot 23. The proposal is Lot 3 would become a 2-acre lot, fronting on Bay Road, while the remaining 27+/- acres would be combined with Lot 4-1, with the two conditions referenced by the Planner at the beginning of the discussion.
1. A check be provided under the LCHIP program to the Town prior to recording the plan at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds.
2. The NH DES Subdivision approval number by put on the plan prior to plan signing.
Second: Jane Ford
Vote: All in favor
Jarib M. Sanderson - Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation - Public hearing for an application for a Special Use Permit, at 36 Dame Road, Tax Map U2, Lot 297, and Bay Road, Tax Map U2, Lot 320, both in the R1 Zone. The two lots total approximately 28 acres. The proposal is for an eleven lot open space subdivision, with septic and wells, leaving approximately 21 acres of open space.
Eric Botterman stated, if anyone had come in for the next two hearings for Maplewood & Vaughn on Forbes Road, they are going to be continued to the June meeting. He apologized for not mentioning it earlier.
Diane Hardy stated she went over the original submittal for the Sanderson application and there were several things missing and some calculation errors. She did a thorough overview and identified the deficiencies in the application. She met with the applicant’s representative last week and went over the checklist. As a result, there is a new plan that came in today. She went over the plan and, for the most part, the application meets the Town’s requirements. For the open space development, they will need a complete boundary survey. She did not see any survey data on the plan. She asked if they had a survey for the whole property.
Mike Garrepy, with Tuck Realty Corporation, represented the applicant. They have a purchase & sales agreement. The survey is being updated and the final boundary plan will be submitted with their formal application for the open space. The surveyors have completed their research and field investigation. They are putting together the final boundary plan. For purposes of the yield plan discussion, they do not have a complete boundary plan. Diane Hardy stated that is an important item to have accurate legal descriptions of the property. Otherwise, how can you do a yield plan analysis? She was interested in seeing the property and asked if they would entertain a site walk. Eric Botterman stated they should do that after the application is accepted.
Mr. Garrepy stated this is a multi-step process of meetings. Diane Hardy stated she was not comfortable making a recommendation on the yield plan or calculations without it being based on a boundary survey of the entire tract.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application of Jarib M. Sanderson - Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation public hearing for the application for a Special Use Permit, at 36 Dame Road, Tax Map U2, Lot 297, and Bay Road, Tax Map U2, Lot 320, both in the R1 Zone. The two lots total approximately 28 acres. The proposal is for an eleven lot open space subdivision, with septic systems and wells, leaving approximately 21 acres of open space to the June 14, 2016 Planning Board meeting.
Second: Amy Burns
Vote: All in favor
Rose-Anne Kwaks mentioned they need to have any additional paperwork in to the Planning Office by May 31, 2016.
Eric Botterman advised the abutters to look for the agenda for the June meeting and, if this application is not on it, it would mean the Board will not be hearing it.
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., Inc. - Public hearing for an application for Boundary Line Adjustment, at 169 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 5, R2 Zone. The proposal is to adjust the boundary line to accommodate the widening of Forbes Road.
Action
Motion: Jane Ford made a motion to continue to the June 14, 2016 meeting
Second: Ezra Temko
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., LLC, & NIP-LOT6, LLC - Public hearing for an application for Boundary Line Adjustment & Major Site Plan Review, at 2 Forbes Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 9-6; 175 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 6; 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7; 181 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 8, all in the B2 Zone. The project consists of constructing two new industrial buildings (approximately 14,000 sq. ft. and 20,000 sq. ft.) along with a 12,000 sq. ft. addition on the existing industrial building on Lot 9-6. The existing houses and driveways on Lots 6, 7, and 8 will be removed and the lots will be combined with Lot 9-6 and the boundaries will be adjusted into three new lots, one for each building.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application to the June 14, 2016 Planning Board meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Future Land Use - Pursuant to RSA 675:6 and 675:7, a public hearing will be held by the Newmarket Planning Board regarding the adoption of the “Future Land Use” chapter, as an amendment to the Town of Newmarket Master Plan. The amendment includes the future land use map with changes, for a Residential Coastal Protection District (RCPD), Continuing Care Retirement Overlay District, Assisted Living Overlay (AL0) District, and Route 108 Corridor Overlay District, and recommendations related to zoning for economic development, a developer’s guide, climate change, shoreland protection, stormwater management, property maintenance, and junk yards.
Matt Sullivan, Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC), presented the chapter.
Val Shelton went over some corrections to the document involving some deleted words and information.
Matt Sullivan went over his changes. Page 3 focuses on the development of this chapter and the process behind it, as well as some of the statutory requirements related to having a Master Plan and, specifically, a vision chapter. The second piece covers the varying levels of input that went into this document.
On page 4, there are more specific zoning recommendations. The first is the Residential Coastal Protection District (RCPD), which is an environmental protection district located along the Great Bay area.
On page 5, is the Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) overlay district, located along Ash Swamp Road.
On page 6, is the Assisted Living Overlay District (ALO). This is similar to the CCRC, but focuses on facilitating the development of assisted living facilities in this area along New Road and the southern portion of Newmarket.
On page 7, is the Route 108 Corridor Overlay District. The focus is on design standards and architectural standards along the Route 108 corridor.
On page 8, the first section is about climate change and resiliency, focusing on the infrastructure resiliency piece, then moving to the shoreland protection measures on page 9 and then stormwater management in the middle.
On the bottom of page 9, there is a brief discussion of open space design and other flexible subdivision methods.
On page 10, it is devoted to the exploration of a property maintenance code for the town.
On page 11, there is a discussion of junkyards and regulating those in the future.
On page 12, there is a short discussion of a developer’s guide, which could involve a developers’ round table.
Next are suggestions for a zoning ordinance modification focused on economic development.
On pages 13 & 14, there is a map of surface waters that are subject to the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act. There is also a Future Land Use Map.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
Micki Labonte, New Road, stated she has been following some of this and her family has been in this town for about 100 years. She has lived here for 25 years. She, her sisters, and brother own in excess of about 400 acres, which the Board is now trying to rezone. She felt that it is inappropriate, since they are the people that know the most about this land. She and her family has taken care of this land for many years. She is speaking about the Residential Coastal Protection District. That is an awful lot of property and they could include her uncle and cousins’ land. They have been singled out for the Town to try to take charge of what they can and cannot do with their property. She has been following along thinking, “Who is really going to do that?” Their legal counsel did not come tonight, but they have counsel and will bring them, if need be. It is not proper to try to tell other people what they should be doing with their property. As far as changing that large 200 acre swath on the other side of the road to make it for daycares (one of the permitted uses) is totally unacceptable. She must be confused about what they are zoning that property for.
Val Shelton asked if they were aware of what was allowed there relative to the current zoning. Micki Labonte stated, “Why don’t you tell us and we’ll all know exactly what it is.” Val Shelton stated she was the Planning Board representative to the Economic Development Committee (EDC). One of the things they have come to understand after many, many years is that the area across the railroad tracks that has been zoned B2 for businesses, industry and manufacturing simply has no access. In order to be utilized for industrial/commercial development, for which it is currently zoned, there needs to be suitable access. Micki Labonte asked if she had read the deeds in depth and whether she knew all of the access points they have on that property. Val Shelton stated they are speaking of access relative to development potential for industrial/commercial use. Micki Labonte stated the land is not industrial. Val Shelton stated it is part of the industrial park. An issue has always been the bridge in Newfields and the cost to replace it in order to get large truck traffic and other vehicles that are typically and consistently needed in a business zone. As far as an economic development perspective, they started out by asking how they could have zoning where a landowner can’t do anything with their land, because of physical constraints, not deed constraints, but actual physical constraints. Micki Labonte asked if she was saying that the small bridge on the Newfields side could never be reconstructed. Val Shelton stated the studies that were done, and there was a lot of time and money spent on those, stating that the cost to expand that bridge crossing was prohibitive, because it would have required public money to improve the access. Ms. Labonte asked how many millions of dollars she was talking about. Val Shelton stated it was at least 2 million. Ms. Labonte stated she did not see that as being cost prohibitive, if Newfields and Newmarket both benefit from it, you could work with both towns. Val Shelton stated Newfields was involved in some of the earlier meetings. Newfields would not directly benefit from it, because it would provide access only to properties located in Newmarket. There is no longer the ability to get an at-grade railroad crossing over the tracks through to the vacant industrially zoned lands on the other side. Ms. Labonte stated there are several access points on New Road and there is one over by the storage company, which already exists. In some of the deeds, there are provisions to potentially have a bridge on another property to provide access. Val Shelton stated they are looking at this from an economic development perspective. They looked at where there is land in Newmarket that was zoned for business and what factors made that land not useful for development for the owners of that property.
Ms. Labonte stated the owners might think differently than what you think and what other people on the Economic Development Committee think. Sometimes people have set agendas of what they want and don’t want in town. She understands what Val Shelton is saying and she knows there has been a lot of work since about 2013. Val Shelton stated they have been working on this since 2000 or 2001. Ms. Labonte stated she understood the TIF. Now with this recommended zoning proposal, putting this land into this ocean land thing (i.e. the Residential Coastal Protection District) for treating stormwater runoff into the Bay, totally restructures that. Val Shelton stated you have two separate issues. One is the changes to the zoning, for what is permitted on the property. The other issue is related to protection of the Great Bay by limiting nitrogen levels and promoting development within the shoreland areas to be more in line with the Town’s conservation objectives. Ms. Labonte stated personal property rights are very important and she felt that her family has and always has taken Newmarket as a place where people love driving up and down New Road and running and biking, because of the way they take care of their property. She takes offense to the fact that people are now going to tell her she can have a bed and breakfast. If she wants to subdivide her property and have two of her nieces have a house, she should be able to do that without these incremental little zoning laws that keep creeping in and that is what she is irritated about. Val Shelton stated she appreciates that, but those uses are already permitted there. Ms. Labonte stated that was correct right now, but this is a foothold to start changing things to tell people what they can do with their property. Her father dealt with this and she spoke to him at great length about it. She is not a silly little girl who will sit back and say “Oh, okay.” She wanted the Board to know that she takes offense to people trying to tell her what to do with her property. A lot of other people in town that may be in this overlay thing for conservation or whatever it may be, might take offense, as well. Val Shelton stated this is why we are having a public hearing. They appreciate the input.
Eric Labonte, from Exeter and one of the Newmarket property owners, stated they all know what a large property this is. His dad and his family had amassed it. His father had a plan in his head and it was never to spoil it. It was family property for over 100 years. They are all trying to get in and live in there. He asked where climate change comes in with the Planning Board. Eric Botterman stated this, too, is a topic of discussion. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with climate change, it is part of the discussion. Mr. Labonte stated, as a Board, he is praying to God that you don’t dig that. There are ten of you, and, if you adopt that, you are biased or tilted. Maybe the Town should take a vote on what they think of climate change. The Board is made up of elected representatives and this is not an opinion (issue) that he feels comfortable with. That land is a big piece of ground that someone has paid for over the years in his family. Every hunter in town goes on it. There are four tree stands on it. It has never been posted, it has been a farm. What they do with the land is their choice. They found out about this hearing by accident. He stated this isn’t right, think about what you are doing to people. Eric Botterman stated they have been talking about this for a couple of years.
Val Shelton explained with any zoning ordinances that this Board would propose that comes out of a Master Plan, every owner of property in a district that is proposed to have a zoning change is officially notified. The State of NH passed a law last year, if there are any proposed changes to a Town zoning ordinance, where the Town is saying they want to put regulations on a property, every property owner within that district that the proposed regulation would impact, has to be legally notified. From the perspective of anything that would ever come out of a Master Plan that would be a regulation change, you would get a legal notification, just as if you were an abutter to a developer who wanted to do a project on a property. Otherwise, we just notice these hearings through the website and public notices and newspapers.
Mr. Labonte stated you saw what his father amassed, that was his fortune. He worked 78 years and never cost the Town a dime. He did everything he could for the town, he loved the town and he went to school in this building when he was five years old. The property is a wonderful piece of “dirt”. Also, they own quite a large chunk of land in Newfields that ties into that land.
George Merrill, owner of Tax Map R3, Lots 60 & 61, stated he has lived there for 53 years and loves the town and taking care of the property and it being maintained as open space, which the Board talks about all the time. He did not know why they want to put restrictions on open space, but that seems like what they are trying to do. It is really irritating to find a Planning Board that is trying to squeeze people into their thoughts as to how the property should be used. As far as he was concerned, his land is not for sale, it will never be for sale, because his heirs will inherit it. It will be maintained as open space. He knows what some of the Board members might think. He has eight farm tractors, they are all antiques and all have a different function. He likes antique engines. They are extremely useful in maintaining open space. One of those happens to have a five foot brush mower that he uses to keep the bushes cut back to maintain open fields and space. He would hope the Board realized that all bears cost. It is not cheap. The tractors require maintenance, as well. It all bears heavy cost and he bears that cost, because he likes open space. He constantly sees wildlife in his dooryard, with over 35 different kinds of birds at his feeders. He sees coyotes, fisher cats, deer and different wild animals, because of the open space. He hopes it is a heavy consideration for the Board.
Virginia Russell, Fremont, had a question specifically about 128 New Road, known as “the Beaudet piece”. She believed it was currently zoned as B2. She asked, other than perceived lack of access, what the Board was hoping to gain with the rezoning of that. She asked what it hurts having it zoned as B2. Val Shelton stated she is hearing they have no interest in having the Town rezone the property to residential. Eric Botterman stated the purpose of the Master Plan and talking about this is to identify areas where development may be able to occur. The thought process has been that, because of access issues, commercial development has not occurred there, as envisioned. Ms. Russell stated they were just cutting down on areas that could be zoned as business. Eric Botterman stated that was correct, for the B-2 zone. Ms. Russell stated that does not make any sense whatsoever. That is completely illogical. If you are trying to drum up business for the town, you want a new school and raise revenues, this is not the way to do it. Rezoning something that is currently zoned as business to residential makes no sense. Val Shelton stated, if there is no economically feasible way to allow a property to be developed, they have to look at it. Ms. Sullivan stated that was the Board’s perception. If there isn’t any way to develop it, what does it hurt to leave it as a B-2 zone. It doesn’t make sense. If there is no access, why zone it as residential? It is illogical.
A woman said she was another Labonte, from Somersworth, and an owner of the Newmarket property asked, if this is approved tonight, what the timeline was they are looking at. Eric Botterman stated there is no timeline. Ms. Labonte asked how long it typically takes for this all to come to fruition. Val Shelton suggested that Diane Hardy give an overview about the Master Plan and about updates to it.
Diane Hardy stated the Planning Board is required, under State RSAs, to update the Master Plan every five to ten years. The economic development section was updated about 2010. The Master Plan is the legal basis for zoning regulations. There needs to be some relationship between the zoning you have in effect and the Master Plan. The Master Plan is a conceptual framework of what the town’s desires are. They did go through a Visioning Session last April, which the Regional Planning Commission helped with. The Planning Board develops the Master Plan. It is a comprehensive document, a blueprint, but it is not cast in stone, it does not have the weight of law. It is to provide a guidance document to the Planning Board, so the Board can make recommendations for changes.
The first step is to have the Master Plan be consistent with the Land Use Regulations. It has been recommended by the Economic Development Committee that we look at rezoning some of these areas, so they can bring uses to the areas that would have some revenue generation for the town. This is part of a more comprehensive package that looks at possibly having opportunities for assisted living and continuing care retirement communities within the town. The Economic Development Committee put together a policy document with the assistance of a consultant who looked at what the best type of use would be for some of these areas to help bring in that kind of revenue.
It is a beautiful piece of property, and she says this respectfully, but it hasn’t yielded any economic benefit. They have had many developers look at the property, but they turn away, because it is not economically viable to develop it for a number of reasons. The bridge situation was mentioned. There is very limited access. The opportunity to put in a railroad crossing is not feasible. Ms. Labonte asked if they understood when they were told there were multiple access points to the property. Diane Hardy stated the Town has been looking into developing that property since the TIF was created in 1998, but we have not had any takers. That area was designated as a TIF district and was rezoned from R-1 zone to a B-2 commercial zone.
Ms. Labonte stated her father had people interested in that property, but he didn’t sell it. Diane Hardy stated there is this large section of the town, where there have been no takers or interest and the cost associated with making it accessible is astronomical. Ms. Labonte asked the Board to consider the fact that perhaps the fact the piece of property has not been used may be because the people who own the property have not wanted to sell it. Val Shelton stated there is more than just their property that is impacted in there. Ms. Labonte was talking about their property. Diane Hardy stated this is the first step in the process. All of the property owners will be notified if there are specific zoning changes that are entertained. If the Planning Board feels this is a concept they want to embrace, they would direct her to draft an ordinance and they would start a process. A notice would be posted and they would go through all of the legal requirements of notifying abutters, and they would be engaged in a six to eight month, if not longer time frame where the issue would be vetted and they would hear input. The Planning Board would be making a recommendation, only a recommendation, to the Town Council, who ultimately has the authority to change zoning. That process would probably take another six to eight months.
Eric Botterman asked what the percentage of the properties where the owners are not interested in having them rezoned was relative to the proposed district. Val Shelton stated it is probably 400 acres, so she would say it is probably 15 -20%. The proposal is the Great Bay Watershed. This wasn’t just the Board drawing lines around. It also goes to the Durham town line on Dame Road. The open space design application they couldn’t accept earlier this evening would fall into this area as well. It also includes a lot of land on that side of the Lamprey River and on Bay Road that is already under conservation easements. The district was formed along the boundaries of the watershed. Thinking about zoning, it would help the Town to address some of the thresholds they need with the wastewater treatment plant upgrade. There are steps the Town needs to take relative to the protection of natural resources. It is about protecting Great Bay and minimizing the nitrogen levels that are going into Great Bay. That is what this is really about. The B-2 zone is a separate subject. What they are hearing is that the parcels of land owned under the Labonte, Merrill umbrella, if they have land that is currently zoned as business use, they have no interest in any ordinance that will change that use. Ms. Labonte stated, not only do they have no interest, but it does not even make sense. She understands what they are saying and the reason, but she is not buying it. An economic development vision is not to take a piece of land that could, at some point, become a revenue generator and replace it with something that sucks resources out of the town. Val Shelton stated the EDC was saying, if you don’t have access to it or a road or infrastructure to support it, then it won’t ever get developed. Ms. Labonte stated she was not so sure there is not another agenda there on the Economic Development Committee.
Mr. Merrill asked if anybody on the Planning Board has physically walked the properties and actually gone out there and seen what the properties look like in terms of elevation and drainage. It is easy to work off of a map, but that doesn’t tell the story. They had a gentlemen come and appraise the property, his wife had inherited it, and he swore up and down he could drive up and down the road and tell him what it was worth. Mr. Merrill told him it was B.S. It doesn’t work. He took him for a walk up an access road and he swore there were no wetlands. Then he stepped in all the way to his knee. Unless you walk the properties, you have no idea what is out there. On his properties, he does not have a lot of buildable land, but some of it is. It is very high elevation. The bay level would have to come up 45’ to reach his house. Val Shelton stated it is the drainage into the bay that is referenced. Mr. Merrill stated he understands that, but does not believe it. There is a great amount of so-called drainage off of agricultural land, but in reality, if you look in a piece of grassland, any water that is moving through there isn’t carrying anything more than a few feet before it is trapped in the vegetation. Three Planning Board members stated they had walked some of the property.
Eric Botterman asked if anyone else would like to speak and there were no further comments from the public.
Eric Botterman stated he had no interest in rezoning a big piece of land that the people who own it have no interest in the rezoning. The Town is generally looking for commercial properties and they are taking these properties out of that. He has been part of the discussions with the railroad bridge and are they ever going to fix it. He was never up to speed on the fact that part of the reason this property was never developed was because the owners did not want to develop it. He had never realized that.
Val Shelton stated she would like to see a modification of the map. There are two issues. There is only one comment in here about rezoning the residential portion of the land. It doesn’t need to be under this zone. The Board can just rezone the Town-owned pieces within the B2 to residential. Those entities make up all of the properties that are zoned B2.
Peter Nelson stated this would have been a good conversation during the visioning process. One of the Labontes stated it would have been great if they had been notified. Peter Nelson stated there was plenty of notification, lots of people attended. This is the property owners’ chance to provide input. Everyone who just stood up made it clear they do not have an interest in selling their land or developing it right now. The message is they don’t want the option taken off the table should they want to develop in the future. Nobody here wants to take away someone’s right to develop a property in the future.
A woman from the public stated she was part of the visioning sessions and it emphasized the wonderful things about this town and what we wanted to preserve, advance and promote. It was a positive experience. She was confused. It sounded like what the Board was saying was they were trying to expand their opportunities, so it would not be limited to these two zoning opportunities. Eric Botterman stated it was not more opportunities, it was different opportunities. This proposal is not putting anything into place. It is providing a framework for something that might happen in the future.
Ezra Temko stated he was also hearing that what the property owners say they want matches a lot more with the Residential Coastal Protection District that has more open space and residential character than industrial uses. Ms. Labonte stated they hold their cards close to their chests. Ezra Temko stated as the body creating a Future Land Use chapter it is helpful to know the vision. Virginia Russell clarified that the reason they were hearing two different voices is because there are two different parcels. A section that is currently B2 is one aspect of it and is currently behind her sister, Denise Littlefield’s, house. That is one of the reasons it has not been developed yet. The other portion is what they own along Great Bay. There are two parcels, so that it why the Board is hearing something that might sound divided.
Ezra Temko stated they had been asked about climate change and, on page 8, it outlines the rationale for why the Board should be considering it. It is entirely appropriate.
Amy Burns stated they have had a lot of people come up and talk about this and none were supportive for the change. She knew this wasn’t actually making any changes right now, but she was not comfortable forcing the issue.
Rose-Anne Kwaks clarified that the Labonte property only encompasses 15-20% of the total area. She asked Val Shelton to point out their property on the tax map, which she did. Val Shelton explained there is a 220 acre parcel that is between the railroad tracks and New Road that is owned by the Labonte family. The homestead is 42 acres and there are some other family properties. Most all of that property would fall into the area in question, approximately 400 acres.
Dale Pike asked to clarify that the family wanted to keep the property B2. Eric Botterman stated that was correct. Dale Pike didn’t object to it remaining B2. Eric Botterman also didn’t object to it.
Micki Labonte stated, in retrospect, if the Town wanted to develop elderly housing out there, then they will listen as anyone else in town would. That doesn’t have anything to do with their property. They don’t want anything stuffed down their throats, when the Board may or may not know what is actually going on with that property.
Dale Pike asked, on the bay side, what are the actual changes that the Residential Coastal Protection District would engender in the Master Plan vs. what is there now. Val Shelton stated what would typically come out of the Master Plan, if the focus of having an RCPD is to have any development occur that would have innovative land use controls or minimization of impact on the watershed and drainage into Great Bay, that would precipitate a change in the current R1 zoning. An R1 Zone has 2 acre lots, 200’ frontage, with potential to do open space developments. An RCPD could have zoning that requires lower density and zoning that is more in line with the philosophies that we are hearing here tonight that the family has maintained their properties in open space for 100 years, where that is not the case for a lot of properties.
Ms. Labonte stated, depending on what happens with the school, there may be a day that her tax bill mortgage is too extortionate and they may have to have some other subdivision. She stated she did not want her current rights taken away. That school is a big thing in Newmarket and those tax bills up and down that road are very high right now. The tax bill is (like) a mortgage.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they are allowing them to find a use that is easier to do on their property, because there is no access over the bridge and no access on the road for heavy trucking for businesses. You can’t put a business in there, unless you want to reconfigure and redo the entire New Road, which has a clay underlayment and it is not suitable for trucks. To put in the 2 million dollar bridge (that was the price several years ago, who knows what it is now and if you could even get the railroad to say you could do it) is a major impediment. They might have several accesses off New Road, but they can’t be used for businesses with any heavy trucking. The Board thought, by doing this, it would alleviate the problems they have in developing their land and they would be able to do other things with it that are not business uses.
Eric Botterman stated he was not saying that the EDC did a bad job. What they are hearing tonight is there are facts out there that no one was aware of. Maybe they had opportunities to develop the land and just chose not to do so. He was on the Town Council when they were trying to get the other side of the railroad track in the Industrial Park going with a developer.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that land is not developable with the uses allowed there now. That is why they are talking about this proposed re-zoning.
Eric Botterman stated there are projects where developers rebuild roads and bridges. It is not likely to happen here, but it could occur. He stated he has no interest in rezoning something from an industrial or business use to a residential use, however against the will of the property owners.
Val Shelton stated they had thought they were doing the property owners a favor.
Janice Rosa stated she did not think the Town government has any right to take control of their property rights. If the property owners are happy with the way it is, they should leave it be.
Jeff Goldknopf, Ash Swamp Road, speaking on his own behalf, not the Conservation Commission, asked about the open space on the golf course. It was being shown on the map in blue. He asked if it was being rezoned. Val Shelton stated that it is in the existing Route 108 Overlay District. Mr. Goldknopf asked if the option could be there for both types of zoning. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated you would not want to have a residential home and then have a business go in next door to it.
Val Shelton stated you have to go back and look at when this was created. These properties in B2 were going to be accessed across the railroad tracks. It was all part of the Industrial Park zoning and development plan. But that ship has sailed. From a planning prospective it makes no sense to go from B2 to R1. There is no buffer zone in between. If, in fact, the landowner wanted to do development on an R1 property, it would literally be right up against an industrial use. There is no buffer zone from the highest use in intensity and density to the lowest. Both extremes were right up against each other.
Jane Ford stated Janice and Ezra both stated we don’t want to tell people what they can do with their land, but we just did that. As a Board, tonight we told a property owner that they can’t build something the way they want to. She believed, at the time, they made the right decision. She is now hearing from these people about their passion for their land and she supports them. Yet, one hour ago, she said to a property owner that she didn’t support them. She asked the Board to educate her on what they stand for and what they should be doing. The attorney’s letter helped guide them. Diane Hardy stated, as a policy matter, their role as Planning Board members is to weigh the pros and cons, look at the cost and benefits, and take into advisement the comments from the neighborhood and do what they feel is in the best interests of the community. It is a balancing act and they need the input, so the decision made is one that reflects all points of view. Jane Ford asked if they were sending mixed messages. Eric Botterman stated he believes in property rights. This case is no different. It is a matter of where to draw the line. Any zoning is an infringement on property rights. That is a given and it is generally accepted that you have zoning for the greater good of the municipality. Jane Ford agreed, but wanted the Board to have a consistent message.
Dale Pike stated having some sort of ordinance in place to protect the bay is something he thought they really didn’t want to throw out there, because they haven’t had a lot of specifics. He agrees about not rezoning from business. The Board had thought that change might be helpful to the landowners, but if they do not like it, that is fine. In terms of changes that might be happening, because the climate is changing and the need to protect the bay is greater, he thought it was a good idea. There are a lot of efforts going on in the community and they should not abandon this without more careful thought.
Eric Botterman stated that the Board saying that industrial or commercial development is more damaging to the bay than a residential development is kind of naïve. He stated they should be careful about saying a residential development is preferred for the benefit of the bay, because they do not know the facts at this point. Val Shelton stated that had nothing to do with this. Dale Pike stated he did not mean that, what was talked about in terms of business to residential was on the west side of New Road. A lot of what they are talking about in terms of the Residential Coastal Protection District is not exclusively to the east of New Road adjacent to the bay.
Micki Labonte asked if he knew the setbacks. She said there are quite a few already. (Note: The R1 Zone setbacks are 40’ from the road, 25’ from side and rear property lines. B2 Zone setbacks are 25’ from the road and 30’ from the side and rear property lines.) Ms. Labonte stated you also had to count and measure trees (under the NH Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act), so there are tons of protections there already. She asked how many more restrictions will the Board (Town) place on their property. She said there was a storm that blew this tree down and she had kayakers turn her in for cutting a tree that she didn’t cut and they had to pay engineers to go measure all the trees to prove it. The Google Maps showed they were blown over. For everyone to enjoy that view, it is very expensive at her family’s expense. Leaving the zoning as R1 to her is not asking too much for that area. She wanted to know what other restrictions they were thinking of putting there.
Ezra Temko stated in the visioning process there was a lot of support from the broader Newmarket community for taking additional measures for the protection of the bay. Ms. Labonte stated it would be an awfully ugly bay behind a stockade fence.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, before she can make a decision, she would like to see a map drawn to see exactly what parcels are there, the acreage, and whether it is in R1 or B2. Eric Botterman stated that was not unreasonable. Val Shelton stated they need a larger map, so people can see where their property lines are. Ezra Temko stated they don’t want to get into spot zoning. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that is why they want to see that to make sure they are not spot zoning.
Dale Pike stated what he is hearing is they need to modify the map of what is proposed as the Residential Coastal Protection District (RCPD). They are saying there are legitimate needs and the property owners all understand about conservation and have done a wonderful job protecting their property. They are saying there is also a piece to develop, so it is simply a mapping exercise at this point. He did not think they were changing the chapter or the plan. The need was clearly defined by the Town that there be a conservation protection zone around the bay. The majority of the town residents that showed up at all of the meetings gave plenty of public input. This feedback is good. They need to adjust the definition of the zone. Val Shelton stated you can still retain an overlay district with the underlying zoning staying R1 or B2. That would give the opportunity for the B2 land to be developed as residential or business.
Eric Botterman stated they would like to see an updated map highlighting the various properties. Diane Hardy suggested a work session downstairs, put the tables together and invite the abutters and public to attend and have some large scale maps they could all sit down and look at and have a more informal discussion, so they can draw those lines on a map and work toward some kind of conclusion. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they just spend an hour and a half listening to the abutters, between the Planning Board, the public input and the work with the committees, they have done their due diligence in encouraging citizen participation at this point; however it would be helpful to see more detailed maps.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to table this conversation about the Residential Coastal Protection District
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the public hearing on the Residential Coastal Protection District section of the (proposed) Master Plan to the June 14, 2016 Planning Board meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Diane Hardy stated she will work with the Planning Commission and get a larger scale map and a table that identifies the acreage, tax map number, ownership, current land use and get that out to the Board members before the meeting.
Eric Botterman asked if there were any comments on the rest of the chapter.
Jeff Goldknopf stated wanted to commend the Board for having the forward thinking to protect the bay as a valuable resource and looking at climate change impacts.
Action
Motion: Ezra Temko made a motion to continue the public hearing on the Future Land Use chapter of the Town of Newmarket Master Plan in its entirety to the June 14, 2016 Planning Board meeting
Second: Rose-Anne Kwaks
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #5 – New/Old Business
Rose-Anne Kwaks mentioned to Peter Nelson and Ezra Temko about getting together for the design guidelines.
SRPC
Peter Nelson stated he will be attending the Spring Conference and the committee meeting in Meredith. He attends as many meetings as he can to make sure Newmarket is well-represented.
Committee Appointments
Diane Hardy stated they needed to appoint someone to the Conservation Commission, CIP Committee, along with an Alternate, and to the EDC. There is also another opening for SRPC.
Ezra Temko stated he is still interested in being on the Conservation Commission. Eric Botterman appointed him to be on the Conservation Commission.
Eric Botterman appointed Rose-Anne Kwaks and Jane Ford (as Alternate) to the CIP Committee.
Eric Botterman appointed Val Shelton to the Economic Development Committee.
Peter Nelson will remain on the Strafford Regional Planning Commission.
Val Shelton stated they need to still keep the Future Land Use Committee of herself, Dale Pike and Rose-Anne Kwaks.
Town Council
Dale Pike stated they voted on the transgender rights at the last meeting. They approved new playground equipment for the preschool children. The second reading was done for the New Road drainage improvements and that passed. In the discussion phase, there is preparation for a combined Town Council/School Board meeting. They would like to see if there are efficiencies to be achieved by integrating Town and School functions.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the water shortage was being addressed. Dale Pike stated it had gone to Stage IV. They have not heard anything to say the MacIntosh Well was not still on schedule. Rose-Anne Kwaks expressed concern about the golf course. If one of their greens goes down, it is $50,000 - $100,000 to replace it. They can’t water at specific times, because of customer use. They come under the veil of watering only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Then you have the car wash on Town water and other businesses with outside sprinklers watering their lawns. A lot of accommodations were made for the golf course under the Open Space Subdivision ordinance to keep it there, because it is the first thing you see when you come into town. They have put a lot of time, effort and money into the golf course. Bramber Valley closed and there are a lot of people at Rockingham now.
Dale Pike suggested she come to the Town Council meeting and make this a public comment. It would be a good way to bring it up for further thinking. Steve Fournier and Mike Hoffman stated they would be more than happy to work with the golf course to help them with DES to allow them to pump out of the pond.
Eric Botterman asked the members not to talk over each other so much. He tries to be laid back and hates to shut anyone off from having their say, but members are tending to interrupt each other and he would like to have the meetings be a little more orderly. He doesn’t want to go to pushing a button or raising a hand to talk. He wants everyone to have their say, but please just be patient while someone else is talking.
Planners Report
Diane Hardy reminded everyone June 4 is the OEP Conference and the Rec Connect Program sent an invitation to community leaders to attend a function at the mill space, The Rec Connect Recognition May Mixer.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:34 p.m.
Second: Jane Ford
hg Vote: All in favor