Minutes

Meeting date: 
Tuesday, June 14, 2016

 

NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING

 

JUNE 14, 2016

 

MINUTES

 

Present:            Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Jane Ford, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Peter Nelson (Alternate), Glen Wilkinson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio), Dale Pike (Town Council ex officio Alternate), Diane Hardy (Town Planner)

 

Absent:             Ezra Temko (excused)

 

Called to order:           7:05 p.m.

 

Adjourned:                   

 

Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance

 

Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments

 

              None.

 

Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes:         05/10/16

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of May 10, 2016 meeting

                             Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

 

              Val Shelton stated there should be a change on page 12, line 35, the second sentence should read, “Otherwise we just notice these hearings...”  One page 14, line 4, the end of the sentence should read, “…the Planning Board develops the Master Plan.” 

 

              Amy Burns asked about page 2, line 31.  She wanted to clarify.  “She had different elevations and options on it.”  She had thought there was only one elevation.  Diane Hardy stated she had a rendering showing all four sides of the building.

              Amy Burns asked about page 11, line 41.  “…takes offense to the fact that people are now going to tell her she can have a bed and breakfast.”  She stated it should say “can’t have”.  Val Shelton stated it is “can”.  She was pulling that quote out of the Master Plan.

 

              Amy Burns stated on page 14, line 28, Ms. Labonte stated “his father”, it should be “her father”.  Also, on page 17, line 1 & 2, “Amy Burns stated that they have had a lot of people come up and talk about this and not all…”  That should say “none”, instead of “not all”. 

 

                             Vote:   All in favor

 

Agenda Item #5 – Regular Business

 

Future Land Use – (Continuance) 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. 

 

              John Connery, who had done work for the Economic Development Committee (EDC), which developed these recommendations, spoke. 

 

              Mr. Connery stated he worked with the EDC and his charge was to look into the possibility of creating a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) District in the community, whether it  would create a fiscal advantage if it was built and what it would look like.  He looked at three or four potential locations in town and settled on two general locations.  One was the Town-owned land off of New Road and the B3 District on Route 152. 

 

              He looked at tonight’s meeting as a continuation of the EDC’s discussions.  He had read the minutes of the previous Planning Board meeting and also watched it online.  There were many things that were possibly misunderstood, but there were many good things mentioned by the general public and they should be addressed. 

 

              He showed the B2 District on the map and stated what was interesting was the community, back about twenty years, did something very similar to what he was charged to do, to look at a particular type of land use and see if it would create a fiscal advantage and help out with tax rates.  In this case, it was the expansion of the Forbes Road Industrial Park.  It is important to understand, historically, that the whole concept hinged upon access from Route 108 across the tracks into the B2 District, not access off of New Road.  It was always designed to be off of Route 108, because that was the main corridor for access and the least disruptive form of commercial development behind people’s homes in the R1 District.  Obviously, twenty years ago, it was all R1 zone (residential) there.  The Town decided to move forward with possibly creating a higher tax value zone in expanding the industrial park and they rezoned the property to B2.  What actually happened, during that process, was they realized the infrastructure improvements, including what would be a bridge from Forbes Road across the tracks. It was extremely expensive, possibly in the 10-15 million dollar range.  If you go out there today to the end of Forbes Road, it is relatively flat and there is a slight grade.  But in order to get a 5% grade for trucks, you would be (construction would be) back 300-400 feet and the road  would have to be about 15-16 feet over the tracks, with protected walkways, and you would have to transition the grade on the other end.  It would a major undertaking. 

 

The long and short of it is, it is a very good industrial park today.  It works wonderfully, but it is not that high of a value.  The process played itself out and the expansion didn’t really work.  What we were left with, was a residue zone, with no point of access to make it work.  You were stuck with the concept of using New Road and driving through a residential area to get to the back land up to the railroad tracks.  It hasn’t happened, because there is simply no market for it. With the location, the roads, the railroad bridge at the Newfields town line, and the regional context, competition is enormous, compared to the potential value of the site.  There are so many sites that are softer in Stratham that have much better highway access before anybody would develop the Newmarket land for a high level commercial development.  It might never happen and that is what the market has actually shown.  What we have is a residue use. 

 

When this project with the EDC came along, they looked at the fiscal capacity of continuing care retirement districts on the Town-owned property.  It has considerable value.  It would be an overlay district.  The question became, if we are doing this, what should we do with the rest of the zone.  In his professional opinion, right now it is essentially useless.  The Town has inadvertently reduced the owners’ ability to use that property to its highest and best use, which is residential.  Given the fact of its drainage characteristics with discharges into the bay, given how small (rural and narrow) New Road is and given points of access, low density residential is probably the best recommendation for development in this area.

 

His original recommendation was to put it back to R1.  R1 is an interesting zone, as Newmarket has something most communities do not.  That is an open space provision already within R1 that allows you to take lands that are a little more difficult to develop and use them in an environmentally sensitive way, so you don’t have to cut it up in a cookie cutter subdivision manner.  You give back to the owner what they originally had, not only the residential capacity, but the ability to do this in a sensitive way to gain value.  It also corresponds, in terms of a Master Plan or a zoning plan, with the idea of a low density zone to minimize pollutant loads going into the bay.  That recommendation of changing the land to R1 had a little resistance from the EDC.  There were some concern about the number of school children associated with residential development.  He was asked to come up with a larger zone, so he came up with a three acre residential zone concept, which reduced the development capacity in the coastal areas. 

 

He had listened to some of the comments at the last meeting and one of the comments that struck him and is altogether appropriate is if they are going to put three acre zoning there, have they thought about it in other parts of town.  Someone may just want to have a two acre lot, as their family has land.  The Town needs to consider, as they move forward, is whether to move the property back to R1 or, if they have a stronger feeling for it, they could continue with the three acre concept.  He thought they had an option. 

 

After listening to some of the public comments, the concerns about the protection of property rights resonates with him, but, at the same time, what resonates with him is the B2 zone needs to be changed.  It is an obsolete zone.  There were other suggestions about taking the B2 zone and adding a residential component to it.  If they did that, they might want to make it a somewhat different zone (such as B2-A), because Forbes Road is B2 and he did not think they would want to put residential uses on Forbes Road.  The underlying message he wants to bring about the B2 zone issue is New Road is a small country road, it has very poor access on each end, it has historically been residential, the State will continue to ask the Town to be careful about the pollution loading of the bay, and there are ways to deal with it.  The important thing is to move the land back to low density residential and to remove any possibility of, “Gee, I’m paying taxes on this, I’m in a B2 zone, I am going to have to put something back there.”  If the Town does this (re-zoning), the property owners will get some use out of the property, but, at the same time, you (the Town) has the responsibility of looking at individual property rights and what this (re-zoning) does to the neighborhood and town as a whole.  That balancing act is a difficult job.

 

He was saying they started out looking at a CCRC, you can put it over the Town property, but the thing that evolved and became very clear as it relates to the Master Plan and the larger issue, is it is time to let go of this idea that the B2 zone can work off with access off of New Road.  Even if there are points of access through people’s properties, it is a completely inappropriate commercial zone.  There was some criticism the EDC was changing people’s property rights and trying to remove open space.  That was anything but the case.  They were very protective of people’s property rights and tried to move forward in a way that was balanced, not only for the people of that area, but the town as a whole.

 

Part of the residual of this whole issue is the Town land itself.  It is time for the Town of Newmarket to dispose of that property and get out of the real estate development business.  How this is done and the parameters are up to the community.  Somewhere along the way it has to be said it is time to move this off, the Town is not going to develop an industrial park.  They should take the short term gain from any revenue from it and move on.  The reason is there is a great Economic Development Plan, from 2013, by Mr. Kwass.  His final recommendation was this is a small town, there is tremendous competition with better access and better sites all around here.  The Town should not try to be something it is not.  It is a quality residential community, there can be great commercial development where access is good, and the Town is doing that now with the downtown redevelopment and expansion at the Forbes Road industrial park. That is where it belongs.  You can’t try to keep stuffing it (commercial development) into an inappropriate location.  He hopes the Planning Board will make a recommendation to the Town Council that it is time for the Town to dispose of the Wilson and Hamm property in an appropriate manner.  For the B2 area, it is really important to get rid of that zone or alter it in such a way that there is a residential development capacity.  It should be low density whether it is two or three acres.  There are other concepts and overlays in the zoning that can preserve the environmental features of the land, promote open space and protect Great Bay.

 

Peter Nelson stated part of the confusion at the last meeting was related more to the idea of the Residential Coastal Protection Overlay District.  He asked if Mr. Connery could clarify to everyone how that works in combination with the other changes to the B-2 business district.

 

Mr. Connery stated it was not an overlay district, it was a change of zone to a Residential Coastal Protection District (RCPD).  It would be to remove the B2 zone and put in a new coastal protection zone with three acre zoning.  It would have the same characteristics as R1 zone, including the open space developments.  The main difference is it would be three acre zoning, instead of two acre zoning.

 

Amy Burns stated he mentioned, with the residential zoning, they would be trying to reduce or limit families with school children.  Mr. Connery stated there was pushback on that issue.  People were concerned, because they were talking about fiscal impact, if we put that area back to residential, there could be a lot of school children and that costs a lot of money.  His point was that is true to some extent, but if you take a look at where R1 is located, there is more R1 capacity in the Town than just this B2 area.  To say we have to be careful of the number of children by making this residential, puts the onus on these owners in the B2 zone, while everyone else is already getting that right and privilege.  He stated we are not all going to be here forever and, if you look at the age and the housing supply in this town, there are more kids that are going to come out of your current homes than out of any new single family development.  He stated the issue of zoning or a public policy worrying about the number of school children is wrong, particularly when the whole town is essentially R1.  This is a small New England town and a rural community.  He did not see a problem in going back to a simple R1 District.  The differential would not be a big deal at all. 

 

Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.

 

George Merrill, 108 New Road, stated he wanted to address the three acre lot size.  He used to be on the Planning Board and they used to go against sprawl.  Three acre house lots create sprawl.  Open space goes down the drain.  Most people are not going to maintain huge lawns and three acres.  It did not make sense.

Rose-Anne Kwaks stated regarding having sprawl with three acre lots and losing the open space, they could probably still utilize the open space overlay district there, but instead of the yield plan for two acre house lots, you do a three acre plan.  You still have your open space.  Diane Hardy stated she was going to say the same thing.  Mr. Connery stated he could not agree more with that statement.

 

Virginia Russell, Newmarket, stated she would like to clarify some of Mr. Connery’s comments.  She stated he misunderstood what she had said about the schools.  What she had said was, if there is a funding problem in the town, she did not know if he was from this area, but there have been a lot of votes about getting a new high school.  The problem is the tax burden on the taxpayers.  The problem is not more school children, she was merely pointing out that they could raise more money (tax revenue) by having a B2 District rather than a residential district.  She said thank you to him for his opinions, but they are just opinions and, while they are very valid to Mr. Connery, there are other opinions out there the Town should consider.

 

Steve Fournier, Town Administrator clarified that Mr. Connery was hired by the Town Council on behalf of the EDC.  The EDC hired a consultant in 2013 to look at where the Town is.  There were a lot of ideas about what the Town could be and what Newmarket should look at for economic development.  That was the Kwass Study and it is online and people can read it.  One of the things it showed and emphasized was Newmarket is a great community, with many assets.  The downtown is probably the number one asset and the mills.  The second would be the residential areas.  One of the weaknesses Newmarket has is lack of access to major highways.  The closest major highways are Route 101 and Route 4 in Durham. Route 108 is not the major highway a lot of commercial businesses would look at for a location.

 

From there, the EDC looked at some parcels of land and asked what was the best use for those parcels and what can the Town expect to get in way of businesses and industries.  Then, they asked Mr. Connery to come in and review it.  There were a number of meetings.  There was a lot of debate among the committee members on what would be the best uses for the different parcels.  He wanted to make sure it was understood this was not just Mr. Connery’s opinion.  This is a collective opinion that was brought forward by the committee talking with him, the staff, other community members and real estate people. There was a vast group of people who were involved in these discussions.  There were open meetings, where people could come and discuss this.  One of the big things they needed to realize is Newmarket is competing with a State-owned industrial park less than ten miles down the road that can offer a lot.  That is Pease. It is difficult to compete for large industrial development.  The best thing is to figure out what is right for us. 

 

They will also be discussing the B3 zone and what would be the least amount of impact for the community, as well as the best fit.  Right now, tax dollar-wise, they do not see a lot of impacts associated with commercial development in the community, but the land is just not selling.  On the other hand, with residential development, they are also not seeing a lot of impact in the community, but the land values are actually increasing at rates higher than expected.  That is one of the situations, where the notion that a house brings in two kids, is no longer valid.  He wanted to make sure there are clarifications on what Mr. Connery did for the Town and what the charge of the EDC was.

 

Renee Buzzell, from Somersworth, who also owns a property that falls into the area being discussed, stated she was confused by all this talk about commercial property or B2 zoned property not selling.  She did not understand how they could state that something is not selling, when it is not being marketed to be sold.  She is concerned about this idea and this concept that she has a piece of property deemed “not valuable”.  She did not understand that, because, to her, this property is very valuable and she did not think they are looking at it the same way she is.  She does not see her property as not having options for development, because they have not been marketing it.  She did not understand where all this was coming from and she, frankly, did not understand why people who have nothing vested in this property are telling her that it is valueless. 

 

Mr. Connery stated maybe he could have used a better frame of reference or choice of words.  The issue here is, when the land went to the B2 zoning classification, it was predicated on access from Route 108 for commercial development.  It has been about twenty years, and whether it has been marketed or not, he doesn’t know, but he does know, from a planning and development perspective or an economic development perspective, commercial property that has poor access on a road that is tucked in behind residential uses is at a certain major disadvantage against commercial development that has good highway access whether in this town or surrounding towns. 

 

The objective here is not to remove property value, it is to increase it, and to restore the highest and best use on the site, which is residential, with a cluster provision.  If it remains B2 and someone wants to put something in there, and he reminded everyone that permitted uses in the B2 zone go from retail to manufacturing, it is a very broad, intense zone.  If you want to put some kind of a use there, you might do it assuming that you can punch an access through the residential area into the back part of the B2 zone.  Then what do you have?  He asked if the Planning Board thought that was the best way to develop commercial development, where you impact the rest of the residential area and bring commercial development out on that small road.  You are not going to bring it through the one lane bridge (at the Newfields town line), you would have to bring it out the other end, he supposed.  It is not that there is no value, of course there is value.  The Town says there is value, because they are taxing it.  From an operational and ownership perspective, he believed and he felt the EDC believed the highest value of that land was the restoration of residential development and with the cluster option together gives a much better option for development.  This isn’t anywhere near in shape or form a quality commercial zone.  It just isn’t.

 

Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the word Mr. Connery used, and he was very kind, was “obsolete”.  It is true.  There is no access to this area on New Road.  It has not been marketed or promoted in any way by the property owners and it has not been developed in twenty to thirty years.

 

Peter Nelson asked for statistics on how many parcels are in the B2 zone and how many are Town owned.  Mr. Connery pointed out the Town-owned “Wilson” property and “Hamm” property on the map.  

 

Val Shelton stated there have been several proposals regarding redevelopment or commercial/industrial uses in the B2 zone east of the tracks over the years, ranging from Celestica, which was all of the B2 zone area when the TIF was set up, and then more recently the Boise-Cascade proposal.  Other than Celestica, through the TIF district, the other developments were focused on the Wilson and Ham/Shearwater properties.  There have been several attempts and interest with prospective developers coming forward to the Town that just never materialized, because of the fiscal impacts of trying to get access, so the property could be developed.  Diane Hardy stated Proulx Oil had a proposal at one time, too.

 

Bill Arcieri, 36 Briallia Circle, stated he was a member of the EDC.  This decision did not come easy.  They spent a lot of time talking about this.  Most of them would be happy to have it stay in open space as it has been, but their task was to figure out what was the most feasible in terms of making the land developable.  A lot of discussions were going through the history of what Val Shelton just said about past proposals.  The residential components seem to be the most feasible for development.  They did not view this land as not valuable.  They were trying to get the most value out of this land.  They thought residential use was the way to go. 

 

Micki Labonte stated she did not agree with Mr. Connery’s assessment.  There are access points there.  They have spent a lifetime considering things for this property.  If the Town wants the most value to add, so the tax base is less, and they change it to residential housing, they are probably going to get zero value on that, because that is not what the current owners are going to do. 

 

Rose-Anne Kwaks stated, as everyone knows, New Hampshire is becoming a great residential area.  The several homes already purchased at the golf course do not have that many children.  She did not see a big problem.  The Moody Point area has a couple of kids.  It is a different demographic moving in.  To say that, if we change it to residential, we are going to have zero value, well it has been B2 for 30 years and it is at zero value.  It is in current use and we are not getting much for taxes on most of that, so it has been zero value for thirty years.  She did not see that as a valid argument. 

 

Eric Botterman stated he had no problem to changing it to residential, but he did not see any disadvantage to leaving the commercial/industrial on the property, also.  They can‘t have it both ways and say it will never be developed.  This gives the property owners more potential uses of the property.  He did not see a down side of just allowing residential in the B-2 zone.

 

Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she thought it would be good for the residential property owners who have homes there to not have a business move in behind or beside them and to hear equipment coming in and backup alarms.  It has been proven over and over that there is no suitable access.

 

Val Shelton stated, in a point of order, that the Planning Board should be commenting and deliberating after the public comment portion of the meeting.

 

Micki Labonte stated she had been referring to their property alone, not the Town piece.  She asked how many other acres there were besides the Labonte property in that zone and who else it affected besides the Town and the Labonte family.  She was stating they did not have plans to do residential housing.  She stated people cannot see the truth of that property.  She asked Mr. Connery if he lived in town, because he kept saying “we” when talking about the Town.  He stated he did not live in town, but represents the Town as a consultant. 

 

Renee Buzzell stated to Rose-Anne Kwaks that what Micki Labonte was saying was, if you choose to rezone this as residential, it will not be developed as residential.  If your goal is to create revenue for the Town that is not what you want to do.  If your goal is to try to develop that land, she suggested it be left B2.

 

Eric Botterman asked if there were any more comments on the B2 zone.  There were none.  The Board moved on to the B3 zone.

 

Mr. Connery stated the second point of interest in the recommendation was the B3 property on Route 152.  He pointed out the area on the map.  The genesis of this district goes back a couple of decades.  The intent was to allow certain types of extraction uses to occur, but at the same time with a tremendous amount of high end development with office complexes, conference rooms, retail with the understanding that once you played that area out, the only way you could bring back an area that had been excavated like this was to have high density development to create a reuse with refurbishment of the area.

 

The fact of the matter is this is similar to the B2 zone in terms of a general location.  The idea was to create something to allow this extractive activity to occur and put some heavy duty uses in here for potential restoration.  In terms of marketability and access, it is an extremely dubious location.  No one will build a hotel here or office park.  There is a tremendous location just south of here in Stratham and to come here way off the beaten path to build a hotel or office park is not of value. 

 

The question is what to put on here.  They looked at a much larger scale CCRC (Continuing Care Retirement Community).  It is a 250 unit CCRC.  He went over how the process would work.  The wellhead protection district covers about 2/3 of the site.  This is a very important resource area for the Town’s water supply.  They used the concept of a CCRC over this area to create an opportunity to redevelop the land in a less intensive and more economically viable and sensitive way.  If you are building a continuing care retirement  district, it should be a quiet, rural setting, as opposed to a busy office complex, hotel, major retail establishments and uses that would allow outdoor recreation. That would be nonsensical.  The committee took the B3 zone and removed a series of uses and kept the more benign uses that would be allowed for some underlying use of the property.  It also reached a point in the discussion that, when you get to less than twenty acres of land left, then it flips back to R1 zoning district.

 

Most of the R1 development would be on a small portion of Ash Swamp Road.  You will also have to bring water and sewer in and you would have to have a density and value for that to happen.  This land has been sitting there for twenty years and no one has put in a major office park.  The Town should realize it doesn’t want to fall into a trap long term.  If the CCRC is constructed well and makes sense and there is a market and it doesn’t happen, you still have to think about protecting the property values of the people who own the underlying again.  The best way to do this is to have a low density district that conforms to what it was.  The committee wants to protect the underlying value, wants to see the property restored and does not want to see it left in its current state.  We realize it will take an investment to do that, not only for land restoration, but for the extension of utilities.  They were hoping a CCRC will do that.

 

Phyllis Wark, 221 Ash Swamp Road, stated she has lived on Ash Swamp Road for thirty years, she has seen residential growth increase tremendously and along with it,  the traffic has increased, as well.  Anything that could be done to that area of a commercial nature would increase the traffic on Ash Swamp Road far above what it can tolerate.  It is already used as a cut-through from Lee to Route 108.  People coming up from the south will use Ash Swamp Road to get to that area.  Anything that meets more of the character of the area, which is rural and residential would be beneficial to the area.  John Connery stated they looked at that.  The Regional Planning Commission was instrumental in giving them traffic numbers.

 

Phyllis Wark stated her mother currently lives in an assisted living CCRC facility.  In her facility there is an assisted living area, which is a building with condos where there is a parking garage, and there is another area with houses, which is more the retirement piece of it.  The residents move through the different steps as they age.  There is also a memory unit.  As you move through the various steps of the program, it gets more and more expensive. Ms. Wark stated regarding traffic, everyone in the early stages of program still has a car.  She has a concern about traffic.  Mr. Connery stated there will be employees, but you will find when you take a wide spectrum of land uses, such as apartments, homes, office buildings, the amount of traffic from an assisted living facility is about the lowest you can get.  If you look at Route 152, it has a low volume on it now.

 

 Steve Fournier stated there are aquifers out there and they need to make sure they protect those, as well.  For traffic, right now it is zoned B3, which could have a much larger impact on traffic. 

 

Peter Nelson stated it seemed like the biggest challenge for this area is the cost of water and sewer. He asked if the Town has considered or factored that into the analysis.  There may be some negotiations related to the cost of infrastructure and the secondary cost impacts on the wastewater treatment plant.  Steve Fournier stated the services are about a mile from the zone right now.  Those negotiations would be between the developer and the Town.  Peter Nelson asked if there was any concern about the capacity for the wastewater plant.  Steven Fournier stated the concern would be the water.  If they have their own wells, they could use those.  Wastewater would be no issue.  The water issue is currently being addressed with the new MacIntosh Well and, hopefully, with another well to be built in the near future.

 

Val Shelton clarified there are  water lines already out there.  She asked if part of the goal of the Council was relative to the new treatment plant coming on and the ability to generate additional revenue with tie-ins and impact fees.  Mr. Fournier stated the more people who hook up, the more revenue the Town would get.  That lowers the impact on the bond.  Once the new wastewater treatment plant comes online, there will be a significant amount of room (capacity) in it and they should be fine.

 

Gary Levy stated he felt it would be helpful to fill in a few areas that were not touched upon.  The EDC was made up of himself, Phil Nazzaro, Gerry O’Connell, Amy Thompson, Mike Provost, Jay Dugal, Bill Arcieri and Val Shelton.  From the Kwass report, there are  three takeaways regarding the B2 and B3 zoning, without getting into all of it.  Mr. Kwass said business growth is most likely to happen along Route 108, which most people understand, and the mill revitalization is the centerpiece of that, with expansion to going north and south of that core area. 

 

The other statistic that he brought up because he felt it was important for people to understand pertains the current industrial park.  He is aware there is a proposal at Planning Board right now.  As it stands from the last fifteen years, the industrial park would need to grow by five times to lower one dollar on the tax rate.  You could take the industrial park that presently exists, build five more throughout the town, which is highly unlikely, and you would only impact the Town’s tax rate by a buck. 

 

The types of businesses Mr. Kwass had suggested made sense for the Town was office administration and business services, professional technical services, medical services, small technology startups including UNH spinoffs, independent boutique retail, consumer services, small grocery and specialty stores, food and beverage establishments, custom products and services that are made locally and internet sales.  These are what he felt were right for a town this size and with its proximity to Route 95.  There are limitations. 

The businesses that have looked at this area since 1980 were Celestica, which was supposed to be accessed over the tracks and Conway was supposed to build the infrastructure and that didn’t happen, then Proulx Oil and Boise-Cascade wanted to come in. Boise-Cascade had a fifty year payback to the Town, when the TIF existed, if the Town did the infrastructure, which was not deemed an economically viable option.   The last option was a human sewerage to energy plant, which he thinks riled a lot of people. 

 

As far as some of the concerns expressed at the last meeting he did not think anything was being proposed for the B2 or B3 zone that limits open space at all.  He can’t find anything that would limit anyone’s ability to keep open space in what is being proposed by the EDC.  For the record, residential use was voted on in 2006, by the TIF Committee. (This was a proposal to build workplace housing on the premise if would lead to other development in the B-2 zone).  Mr. Labonte was in favor of this proposal and brought the motion forward to rezone a portion of the B2 zone so the Conway Group could build the housing. 

 

There were questions on what the Planning Board’s role is.  From the NH RSAs, it states, “Every zoning ordinance shall be made with reasonable consideration to, among other things, the character of the area involved and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, as well as, with a view for conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of the land throughout the municipality.”  So, the reason there has been concern over some of the businesses that have been brought up is there is residential all along New Road and the access was always supposed to be from Route 108 and that is a very expensive proposition.  If people wanted to do it, they certainly could have done it.  Mr. Levy stated  the Town owns about 50 acres. 

 

There were no other comments and the Board moved onto the other proposed changes to the chapter.

 

Eric Botterman stated the other change is the Residential Coastal Protection District.

 

Bill Arcieri stated he had nothing to do with the background of this proposal, but having looked at it, there were two points he would like to make.  Perhaps they could make the boundaries consistent with the watershed boundaries of runoff  that drains into Great Bay and isolate those areas.  The Town does need to be proactive about having smarter development and taking precautions for future development.  The new wastewater plant will cost 14 million dollars.  The Town is now also faced with being compliant with the EPA stormwater discharge (NPDES) permit and that will cost tens of thousands.  The Town, in ten or twenty years, will probably deal with more stringent regulations.  The issue is not going away.  He thought it was wise to be smart about how we propose future development.  UNH did a study last year that looked at the impact of future development.  For every 100 acres of new impervious area, it would cost 3 million dollars to retrofit that area and put stormwater treatment facilities in the future, if it was not done in the initial design.  Those are serious costs.  If they develop a property, which should be done, it has to be done smart.  The Town will be liable for future contributions of nutrients to Great Bay and needs to take steps to minimize those impacts.

 

Alexx Shleider, a representative of the Cheney Companies/Blackhawk Corporation, had given the Board a letter.  She stated a lot that has been said ties in with the general purpose of her letter.  Moody Point is an incredible neighborhood in the community that helps the tax base, as it is mostly age 55+ residents with very few children.  The land that will be affected by this district would change it from two acre to three acre zoning, with lower density zoning.  They have 100 acres of property.  She pointed it out on the map.  This has Town water and sewer.  Rather than increasing the acre size to be able to do a high density development similar to Moody Point, they should look at 55+ age restricted housing, which would be a great benefit to the downtown.  The property that they would like to develop is .4 acres from the downtown, so a very short walk for people to support their downtown businesses.  She knows Moody Point residents walk to the downtown on a daily basis.

 

Mr. Fournier spoke regarding the stormwater management issue the Town will have to deal with that was mentioned by Mr. Arcieri.  He knows the Master Plan is what they are focusing on for the future.  After the upgrades to wastewater treatment plant, finding water, and dealing with some infrastructure issues, a lot of time will need to be focused on stormwater management.  They don’t know what rules will come from the federal agencies yet.  We hear rumors and are trying to get ready as best we can.  It will have to be addressed one way or another.  They will have to address this by updating development regulations, upgrading drainage systems, by looking at runoff from properties that are already out there, including, but not limited to, counting the number of dogs in this region to see if runoff is being contaminated by their byproducts.  The Town is already spending tens of thousands of dollars to study it and get ready for it.  They have been putting $50,000 a year aside in the stormwater management capital reserve fund.  One way to do it, with minimal cost, is to increase the lot size to allow runoff to seep more easily into the ground, by having less impervious surface.  There are other ways.  Every town east of Interstate 93 will have to start addressing stormwater management in the near future.

 

Eric Botterman stated next is the Route 108 Corridor Overlay District.  There were no comments.

 

Next was a list of other recommendations.  Eric Botterman asked if anyone had any comments on the climate change section.  Peter Nelson stated, he had information from a recent Strafford Regional Planning Commission (SRPC) meeting.  There was a study done by The Nature Conservancy on Bay Road and it was a great example of the impact of climate change.  They spent about $40,000 studying a culvert on Bay Road looking at potential impacts of climate change on Lubberland Creek and corresponding flows going through the culvert in conjunction with the Newmarket Department of Public Works. They looked at different scenarios for changing the culvert.  If sea level rise happens as predicted, you are looking at a $400,000 culvert replacement project on Bay Road.  Newmarket is benefiting from that study.  The same study could be applied to New Road, which is also being study for drainage improvements.  The culvert study is  online and available through SRPC.  Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if there was any opposing information about sea level rise  or if  this written in stone and is really happening.  Eric Botterman stated they were going to do public comments first.

 

Gary Levy stated, if any of this is adopted into the Master Plan, this is just a goal the Town is setting, there is no implementation at this point.  They are not getting into the specifics yet.  These are goals for the Town.  When they vote on this, it will not be  implemented tomorrow.  This is just a first step.

 

There were no other public comments, nor were there any on the Shoreland Protection measures, Stormwater Management Standards, Open Space Design and Other Flexible Subdivision Methods, or Property Maintenance Code.

 

Cheney Property Management – Notice of Merger, 51 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 14, 54 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 13, and 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 12.

 

              Diane Hardy stated, at the January meeting, the Planning Board conditionally approved a site plan for a mixed use development on Exeter Road for a two story building for commercial on the bottom floor and apartments on the top floor.  One of the conditions of approval was there would be a merger of lots of the three lots involved.  Under NH State law mergers are a simple matter.  The Board may authorize the Chairman to sign the merger and then the merger document would be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.  She recommended the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the merger.

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion that the Planning Board authorize the Planning Board Chairman to sign the Notice of Merger pursuant to RSA 674:39A for Voluntary Merger for recording at the Rockingham County Registry of Deeds on the request by Cheney Property Management for 51 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 14, 54 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 13, and 56 Exeter Road, Tax Map U4, Lot 12

                             Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

                             Vote:                 All in favor

 

 

Brandt Development Co. of NH, LLC - Public hearing for an application for subdivision, at 5A-5C Spring Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 40-1, M2 Zone.  The proposal is to convert the three existing apartment units into condominiums.

 

Diane Hardy suggested taking up Brandt Development Co of NH LLC, at this point, as it could be dispensed with very quickly.

 

This is a project that came before the Planning Board in 2011 and received  approval for a site plan that involved the construction of a three unit, multi-family structure on the front part of the lot.  It was presented, at that time, that he wanted to condominium-ize the units.  Under NH State law, a condominium conversion is considered a subdivision.  It is not a change of land use.  It is a change of ownership.

 

Val Shelton asked if they could go forward without the applicant present.  Eric Botterman asked if the applicant was expected to attend.  Diane Hardy believed he was not going to be attending.  She stated it was a very simple matter and they could move forward with it.  Eric Botterman asked if the Board was okay with taking the agenda out of order and the Board was okay with that.

 

Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application of Brandt Development Co. of NH, LLC for subdivision, at 5A-5C Spring Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 40-1, M2 Zone to convert the three existing apartment units into condominiums

Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

Vote:                 All in favor

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to approve the application of Brandt Development Co. of NH, LLC for subdivision, at 5A-5C Spring Street, Tax Map U2, Lot 40-1, M2 Zone to convert the three existing apartment units into condominiums subject to the Town’s legal counsel reviewing and approving the condominium documents

                             Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

                             Vote:                 All in favor

 

Jarib M. Sanderson - Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation – Continuation of a 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 systems and wells, leaving approximately 21 acres of open space. 

 

              Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the application for the Special Use Permit and it is substantially complete.  She recommended acceptance for review for the Special Use Permit only.

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application of Jarib M. Sanderson - Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation 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 for the proposal is for an eleven lot open space residential design subdivision, with septic systems and wells, leaving approximately 21 acres of open space

Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

Vote:                 All in favor

 

              Mike Garrepy, from Tuck Realty Corporation, represented the applicant.  Also in attendance was Joe Coronati, from Jones & Beach Engineers, and James Gove, from Gove Environmental Services, Inc. 

 

              Mr. Garrepy stated they have a property consisting of two parcels on Dame Road.  They will merge those lots and contemplate an open space subdivision.  They propose eleven lots. 

 

              He showed a plan and stated it was located on Dame Road and was approximately twenty eight acres.  There is an existing house with a pool and garage, very dilapidated and abandoned.  It is a wooded site, with a wet meadow.  He has completed an area calculation analysis and a yield plan analysis.  They came up with a ten lot yield configuration, showing how the land could be developed under conventional zoning.   They are applying for a 10% bonus as they will be creating more than 50% open space.  They were looking to build an eleven lot open space development.  They are hoping for the approval of the yield plan and density bonus, so they can schedule a site walk and move forward.  Eric Botterman stated he did not want to speak for the Board, but he felt that was optimistic.  They can schedule a site walk and a technical review committee (TRC) meeting, but they need to have the opportunity to review the plans. 

 

              Mr. Garrepy stated this was a simple yield plan.  All of the lots have calculations and net out at two or more acres.  He and Diane have worked on the yield plan calculations and were in agreement on the calculations and configuration.  He showed a plan and described it.  Thirteen acres are considered developable land. 

 

              James Gove stated his folks did the original wetland delineation out there.  They checked with Natural Heritage Inventory and NH Fish & Game Department.  In essence, what they found was wet meadow, with a lot of clay soils.   The seasonal high water table is fairly high, the soils are poorly drained, and the meadow has remained open somewhat.  There is a lot of shrub growth coming in and a stream that meanders along the side.  The other lot has a little bit of upland and isolated wet areas.  It is a primarily forested wetland draining toward the stream.  There is another forested wetland at the foot of the slope.  He showed the steep slope area on a plan.  At the foot of that, the forested wetland continues down to the brook.  They also did the soil mapping.  They contacted the Natural Heritage Inventory.  They came back with hits.  If you are familiar with NHI, they draw a big circle a half mile in radius around the “hit” and they look at what might be in that area.  They had Blanding’s Turtle and Spotted Turtle and the Northern Long Eared Bat.  Last year, the bat was listed as endangered in NH.  The US Fish & Wildlife has gone through a variety of changes to their regulations regarding the bat and there is a time of year when logging is restricted.  From June 1 to August 1, you have a two month window where you are not supposed to cut any trees on projects that require any kind of federal permit.  A federal permit in their instance is a wetlands permit.  Any kind of wetlands permit is reviewed by the NH Wetlands Bureau and US Army Corp of Engineers for compliance with the 404 program.  They will require the restriction to be placed on the permit.  They have found that to be true all over the Seacoast, all the way to Dover.  Regarding the Spotted Turtle and Blanding’s Turtle, they contacted NH Fish & Game and they said once they get the actual documents prepared on how this area will be protected, they want to review it.  They felt the area they were building in was not an area where the turtles would go.  Turtles would be more in the wet meadow and forested wetland. 

 

              He went over some of the open space design criteria.  There are no floodplains on the site.  Regarding preserving some of the areas that are considered to be a little more sensitive than others, they are going to preserve the existing field, but there is the aspect of trying to maintain it in its wet meadow condition.  They are suggesting that it be mowed once a year in late fall.  That will maintain it as a wet meadow.  It will keep it open for some of the bird species that like these areas.  The area in the center was an old quarry.  If you walk up there, you will find steep slopes where they actually quarried out the stone.  It has grown up into mature trees now.  The trees have to be at least 50 years old.  He indicated on the plan where they have encroachment in the 100’ wetlands buffer.  They didn’t think that encroachment was that significant.  This is wet meadow area, not stream areas or forested combination stream/forested areas.  A lot of the stone walls there can be maintained.  Two of the lots have walls passing right through them.  They suggest the stone wall be moved to the outside of the lot line.  These are not highly erodible soils, they are not erodible and are mainly glacial till.  Silts and clays will be avoided.  There was some question on maintaining vistas.  There will be a viewshed looking across.  Along the road, there will be an area of all trees and steeper slopes, so you will not see the actual houses. 

 

              There will be a small wetland area impacted.  He showed it on the plan.  It is a roadside ditch.  They will have to impact it to bring the road in. 

 

              They contacted the NH Division of Historic Resources and they suggested this was an area where a survey should be done.  There will be a survey for areas of archeological significance. 

 

              The concept is to try to avoid fragmentation of natural resource areas. There is a small impact to the ditch. 

              Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.

 

              Wayne and Rhonda Riley, 41 Dame Road, live directly across from this subdivision.  They had spoken to Mr. Garrepy at the last meeting.  Their concerns were that they are directly across and all of the headlights are going into their home.  The driveway is right across.  They also have a pool at the side of the road.  There is a fence.  They want to know what kind of privacy they will have with homes and traffic going in and out.  Also, will there be any blasting.  Their pool is in-ground.  Also, they asked how all of the wells going in would impact their well.  Their well is in their front yard.  Mr. Garrepy told them he could do some screening for the lights and traffic.  She would like to make sure this will be a part of something in the decision.  Eric Botterman stated he understood her concerns and this was good to know.  They can look at that, when they have their site walk.  Mrs. Riley stated their pool was damaged before they owned it, because of the roads being worked on at the time.  That is why she is concerned.  Dame Road is in need of repair.  She did not want it to be that everyone else gets a new home and she ends up with a broken down one.

 

              Mr. Riley stated he had asked Mr. Garrepy how many trips people from each house would make to town.  Mr. Garrepy stated ten trips per day per house.  Mr. Riley said that is a lot of trips per day. 

 

              Eric Botterman stated they should pay attention to the meeting schedules and come on the site walk and attend the TRC meetings, so they can make sure their input does not get lost.

 

              John Bresideski, 51 Dame Road, was concerned about stormwater drainage.  It will go right into the bay through both streams.  Eric Botterman stated, as part of this review, the Town’s review engineer will review their stormwater and drainage plan and make sure it conforms to Town and State regulations.  That will all be reviewed to makes sure it meets all applicable standards. 

 

              Mr. Bresideski asked if a traffic study would be done.  Eric Botterman stated it will be looked at, but whether a full study is done is to be determined.  Traffic will be addressed.

 

              Val Shelton asked about the possibility of needing a waiver for the 100’ setback.  She asked if they could review that for the lots that will be impacted and whether it will affect the proposed building areas.  Mr. Garrepy stated it is on the concept plan.  He pointed it out on the large scale plan.  It is on proposed Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.  It is shown on Plan C2 and C3.  Under the ordinance, there is a 25’ setback from the wetlands and they all comply with setbacks to structures.  You can see at the edge the wetland, there is a 50’ setback.  They are 100’+ away from another wetland and, from the forested wetland, they are several hundred feet away. 

 

Mr. Gove stated the actual part of Item 4, under Section 3.14 Residential Open Space, it says “Maintains and creates an upland buffer of natural and native species and vegetative depth sufficient to protect and maintain the ecological stability of adjacent wetlands and surface waters, including creeks, streams, springs, lakes, and ponds.  A sufficient buffer will be set at 100’, unless waived by the Planning Board.”  What he was saying was the actual distance to surface waters is over 100’.  Those waters are the stream and an open channel in the forested wetland.  They are closer than that to the wet meadow area.  They will be seeking a waiver from that.

 

              Val Shelton asked if there would be any other waiver requests.  Mr. Garrepy stated, for the yield plan, there were not.  For the conservation subdivision plan, they have not identified any other than the one mentioned.  After going through the design criteria, they may identify one or two. 

 

              Diane Hardy stated there is a requirement, when you evaluate the yield plan, it has to be based on the existing regulations.  One requirement is you have to have interconnections between adjacent properties.  She had spoken to Mr. Garrepy about whether the Planning Board would waive that.  It would be part of the consideration of accepting the yield plan and the density calculation.  There are no areas where they could provide that connection without impacting on environmentally sensitive areas.  The Board would probably be inclined to grant that waiver, as necessary, in order to do the evaluation of that yield plan.  Mr. Garrepy stated it would be compliant, if that is a requirement under the regulations for a conventional design.  They could, in theory, show a right of way to abutting parcels, which would be to nowhere.  There are significant slopes and wetlands.  If you look at the ordinance, it discourages connectivity and to not fragment the open space. 

 

              Peter Nelson asked Mr. Gove if he would consider the land outside of the proposed subdivision area to be undevelopable.  Mr. Gove stated they have some upland within one of the lots.  You could probably access that upland and put something in, but you would have to get a wetland crossing to get into it.  Beyond that, there is an upland area with very steep slopes, which is probably not very developable.  There is other contiguous upland area, but the stream cuts across.  There is some developable land and some upland you could access.

 

              Rose-Anne Kwaks asked how much land was within the 100’ buffer.  Mr. Gove stated they have not calculated that.  Diane Hardy stated 63% of the conservation land is developable.  That is shown on Plan C2.  Mr. Gove stated all of the lots under the yield plan comply with lot size, frontage, etc. 

 

              Mr. Garrepy stated, after the last meeting, they met downstairs with several neighbors.  He stated the appropriate place to screen is on their property.  Any kind of blasting that might be required would have pre-blast surveys.  They will not break their pool or house.

 

              There will be a site walk on Wednesday, June 22, 2016, at 6:00 p.m.

             

Rose-Anne Kwaks, Val Shelton, and Jane Ford volunteered to be on the TRC.

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application for the Special Use Permit by Jarib M. Sanderson - Robin Realty Newmarket Trust/Tuck Realty Corporation 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 to a site walk on June 22, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. and the application for the public hearing continued to July 12, 2016 at 7:00 p.m.

Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

Vote:                 All in favor

 

Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., Inc. – Continuance of a 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.

 

Diane Hardy stated, for the boundary line adjustment, she stated she had reviewed the application against the checklist and there are a few outstanding items she wanted to mention.  They need to provide recording fees and the LCHIP fee.  They need to have a legend on the plan to show granite bounds.  It is hard to discern on the plan.  The application is substantially complete and she recommends acceptance for technical review.

 

Action

              Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application

              Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

              Vote:                 All in favor

 

Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.

 

Joe Persechino, from Tighe & Bond, represented the applicant.  Rob Graham, the developer’s agent, was also present. 

 

Mr. Persechino stated the boundary adjustment had a couple of different components.  They were before the Board in March.  As part of the entire project, there was a lot merger between the existing 2 Forbes Road lot and the adjacent lot.  Those were merged into one lot.  There are two separate lots located on Route 108 that were purchased by the developer and the plan is to realign the lot lines.  There will still be three lots, just in a different configuration.  It would allow for the development of the project.  Another component is related to the NH DOT right of way boundary along Route 108 which  would involve a land swap with NH DOT and would straighten out the right of way.  They will widen the intersection.  The last component is to make this whole intersection functional by widening it and increasing the radii. 

Val Shelton asked which plan in the set the Chairman would sign.  Diane Hardy stated S2 is existing conditions.  Sheet S3, S4 and S5 will be the plans signed by the Chairman.  They all say proposed lot line adjustment. 

 

Mr. Persechino stated he would go over S2 first.  This plan shows the existing industrial building and lot, which was recently merged with the residential piece for the prior project.  There are two other lots on Route 108 and then the other house that is part of the intersection widening plan on the east side of Forbes Road.  On page S3, you can see the new proposed lot lines and the old lot lines.  This page is kind of a first step.  If you go to S4, you would see the NH DOT land swap, which takes out that little jog in the right of way.  Going on to S5, it shows the land going to the Town. 

 

He stated they have met with representative of the NH DOT, who have reviewed it and they are essentially okay with going through their processes.

 

Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to grant the application for the boundary line adjustments at 169 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 5, R2 Zone, R3 9-6, Lot 7 and Lot 6 and other lots as shown on sheets sets S3, S4, and S5

              Second:            Glen Wilkinson

              Vote:                 All in favor

 

Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., LLC, & NIP-LOT6, LLC – Continuation of a 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 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. 

 

              Diane Hardy stated she identified a few deficiencies with the application.  The first item is that Lot 8 does not exist.  The title needs to be changed.  Mr. Persechino stated that was a holdover from the old application and can be removed.  Diane Hardy stated she couldn’t find the frontage figures for each lot.  Mr. Persechino stated it was on page C 102 under the site data block tables.  It is also on S3. 

 

Diane Hardy stated they need recording and LCHIP fees.  The fourth item is they would like to have the plans reviewed, including the geotechnical report by the Town’s Engineer.  They also need a traffic study for a project of this magnitude.  Rob Graham stated they have had a preliminary scoping meeting with Jim Hewett at NH DOT and have provided him their plans.  He is reviewing their scope.  They agreed, in concept form, of the scope and improvements, in terms of first blush, but they have no formal comments on it yet.  They expect to have them at the next meeting.  

 

              Diane Hardy stated building elevations were going to be shown by Michael Keane this evening.  She asked for a copy for the Town’s file.

 

              She asked if rooftop screening was addressed in the plans.  Mr. Persechino stated they have a drive-by animation they can present tonight.

 

              Diane Hardy asked if a note was added to the plans regarding ADA compliance.  Mr. Persechino stated they have added it.  It is Note 1.

 

              Diane Hardy stated the application is substantially complete and recommended acceptance.

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application of Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., LLC, & NIP-LOT 6, LLC for a 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, all in the B2 Zone

Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

Vote:                 All in favor

 

               Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.

 

              Joe Persechino stated they are waiting for comments from NH DOT.  They have also submitted their AOT (Alteration of Terrain) application and received the NH DES permit today.  He went over the prior project and showed the location.  He showed the current project on the plan.  They have parking and stormwater improvements for the new buildings.  Water service comes off of Forbes Road and they have designed pump stations for the buildings to pump sewage so they can tie into the Town’s sewer system.  They are coordinating this with Public Works. 

 

              He stated landscaping and screening.  They are having a landscape architect design along Route 108 to shield the buildings.  The animation will show what that will look like.  The excavation has started. 

 

              Eric Botterman asked if anyone from the public had any comments on the project.  There were no comments.

 

              Val Shelton asked if any work was being conducted on the site beyond the approval of the current site plan.  Mr. Graham stated they flagged their clearing prior to the start.  The only expansion of some of the clearing they did was to help with what the Road Agent wanted cleared from the side of the road.  They cut to the flagged limits of the clearing.  Tom Severino has been excavating there since March.  They just had a meeting with Mr.  Severino and expect to have a summary report on the percentage of progress and will get it to Diane Hardy when they receive it.

 

              Eric Botterman stated the previously approved building expansion was on a septic system.  He asked if it will stay on the septic system, too.  Mr. Persechino stated the building expansion will still be on the existing septic system. 

 

              Glen Wilkinson asked if there was any accommodation for pedestrians, especially along Route 108.  It is dangerous for walking, running and biking.  Mr. Persechino said they are not doing any work in the right of way.  Diane Hardy stated the bike path project is on hold for that end of town.  Mr. Persechino stated they are trying to make that intersection much safer.  Mr. Wilkinson stated the biggest challenge was in back of the guard rail.  You can’t even get behind it to walk or run. Eric Botterman stated that area is within NH DOT’s jurisdiction.  Mr. Persechino clarified that all of the work they will be doing will be at the intersection. 

 

              Rose-Anne Kwaks asked where the access was for the building closest to Forbes Road.  Mr. Persechino stated it would be off of Forbes Road.  There would be a front entrance for employees and customers off of Forbes Road.  In the rear would be an area for employees, service vehicles, and delivery trucks.  Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if this is going to cause the Town to foot the bill for sidewalks in the future like they have had to do up on Bennett Way.  Diane Hardy stated the regulations say you can require pedestrian walkways.  The problem is the sidewalk has to connect to something or becomes a sidewalk to nowhere.

 

              Val Shelton asked if they will be looking for any waivers for the Route 108 architectural standards.  Rob Graham stated Michael Keane is an architect who does a lot of commercial work for them.  He has prepared a model, because they know it is difficult to get a sense of how these buildings will look in the street and they wanted to give the neighbors some perspective.  He thought it would be helpful and fun for him to do an electronic presentation.  This animation will allow us to “drive” down the street and see how it looks.  It has some of the trees, but this is not meant to be a landscaping plan.  They will add to this as they go forward.  This is an early rendition, so they can talk about what people will see, what they would like to do and get some comments and feedback.

 

              Michael Keane, Michael Keane Architects of Newmarket, stated this was a rudimentary model.  They were able to take Mr. Persechino’s actual grades and introduce them into the models.  They showed building masses.  There is not a lot of architectural detail at this point.  They showed where they thought the main entrance to the building would be and how the facades that face the parking lots would most likely have windows.  They anticipate offices or small retail in the front facing the parking lot and then the warehousing or manufacturing is in the back.  They do show the buildings as 25’ tall, which gives them industrial clearance within the building.  At this point, they are showing some mechanical screening on the roofs in the center.  That roof screening may need to move as the industrial tenant comes in or if there is additional equipment required. 

 

              This is a one minute animated drive.  He does have the program with him and he can bring the model up and move it around to look at it from other angles.  He showed the animation.

 

              Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the buildings were tall enough where you could look over from Route 108 and see the rooftops.  Mr. Keane stated they would try to make it that tall.  As you drive by now, it is a bird eye view down to the buildings and one can see those.  The new buildings will be at eye level on the street, so they would definitely try to screen those roof tops with a mechanical screen.

 

              Eric Botterman, Jane Ford and Rose-Anne Kwaks volunteered for the TRC.

 

              Rob Graham stated they were working with the Town Water & Sewer Department.  There is a portion of sewer line that is antiquated near the extension to Rockingham Green.  They should have an updated engineering plan involving that for July.

 

              Action

Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to continue the Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co., LLC, & NIP-LOT 6, LLC public hearing to the July 12, 2016 meeting

Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

Vote:                 All in favor

 

Action

Motion:            Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to for this meeting to continue past 10:00 p.m.

              Second:            Val Shelton

              Vote:                  All in favor

 

DDC Realty Trust/David P.  Valcovic, Trustee - Public hearing for an application for subdivision, at 125 Grant Road, Tax Map R4, Lot 44, R1 Zone.  The proposal is to subdivide the 8.01 acre lot into three lots.  The lot with the existing house located on the corner of Grant and Ash Swamp Road will be 2.57 acres, the second lot located on Ash Swamp Road will be 2.30 acres and the third lot located on Grant Road will be 3.14 acres.  The full application is available to view at the Planning Office during normal business hours.

 

Diane Hardy stated she reviewed the application against the checklist and there is a list of things to be addressed.  She has reviewed them with the applicant and he is more than willing to accommodate those concerns.  She recommends accepting the application as substantially complete.

 

Action

              Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to accept the application

              Second:            Rose-Anne Kwaks

              Vote:                 All in favor

 

Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.

 

Christopher Berry, Berry Surveying & Engineering, stated they have conducted an existing conditions survey of the lot.  They hired Stoney Ridge Environmental to come down and work with them on the wetlands delineate.  The wetlands scientist delineated three small wetlands on the site.  Most of them are located on the third lot and he indicated the locations on the plan.  He was recently informed that Grant Road is a State road.  He had originally looked at ways of achieving 200’ of site distance on Grant Road, with a proposed driveway.  Being a State road, they require 400’.  They did not meet that requirement and they revised the plans to show one shared driveway access point onto Ash Swamp Road, which they reviewed with the Town’s Public Works Department and they feel that the shared access point was permissible.  It provides the optimum site distance to the south and clear site distance to the intersection.  As people move through from Grant Road onto Ash Swamp, they are coming to a stop and they are able to see the driveway access point and vice versa. 

 

Mr. Berry stated, because of the jurisdictional wetland area in the front, they made the easement not mutually exclusive to the third lot.  This driveway could be shared by both lot owners to not disturb the wetlands.

 

Page 2 of the plan set shows the well and leaching area for the existing house, the two proposed well locations on the two proposed lots and the permissible leaching areas on the proposed lots.

 

There was no chart for frontage.  They are happy to add that to the plan.  Also, needed is to isolate the land areas for each of the lots, with respect to the amount of wetlands shown on each site.  Their lot areas and wetland areas are small enough that they do not think they will have an issue making the 25%, but he will add that to the plan, as well. 

 

Recording fees will be provided, as part of the approval.

 

There is one existing house.  The landowner has changed.  The applicant has purchased the property.  The owner is now 38 Littleworth Road, LLC. 

 

Eric Botterman asked about the status of the NH DES approval.  Mr. Berry stated they have not filed for that yet.

 

Val Shelton asked if the shared driveway met the 200’ site line.  Mr. Berry stated it does to the south and the other direction is the intersection. 

 

Val Shelton asked if the flood plain was delineated.  Mr. Berry stated they show that the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map shows no flood plain.  He did not know of any water body with a flood plain in this area.  Val Shelton asked if the Piscassic River was behind these lots.  Eric Botterman stated it was by Price’s Garage.  The corner where the wetland is located is low, but he did not think that was a flood plain.

 

Phyllis Wark, an abutter to the subdivision, thanked the Board for extending the meeting time.  She stated she was concerned about drainage onto her property.  This survey was done when we have had one of the driest winters and springs.  The outline they show on the plan is not what they commonly see.  More like 75% of the time the wet area extends quite a bit farther over and actually buries the stone wall in a wet spring and winter.  Everything drains down a slope, which she indicated on the plan.  She showed the location of her leach field.  Her house was built in 1860 and has a piled rubble foundation for the house.  The leach field is built up 4’, because the contour of the land is so low and the water table is right at the bottom of their foundation.  Her biggest concern is anything that starts affecting this area and how the drainage will be managed.  They are quite a bit lower.  There are no culverts on Ash Swamp Road, it is basically just a ditch.  Everything will flow toward her property. 

 

Val Shelton stated she remembers several years ago, when we were having the major flooding, stopping on this road and being blown away by the amount of water that was in the woods on this lot.  She asked the abutter if she has any photos.  Ms. Wark stated she did have photos.  Val Shelton asked where all that water came from.  Is it backing up into this lot from other properties or just draining?  Ms. Wark thought it was coming from the intersection.  In the flooding from the big floods, the Piscassic River did come up over Ash Swamp Road, where Price’s Garage is located.  All of that was under the water.  Val Shelton stated that made sense, but all of this is on a hill and she was seeing all of that water.  Ms. Wark stated that all comes downhill and that is a low spot.  During the flooding, the water did make a slope to the edge of the road, as well.  It did travel into the first part of the lane, but it never completely cut off Ash Swamp Road. 

 

Eric Botterman stated most of the lot is higher, so the water drains off of the lot and then the road elevation is 2’ higher than the low spot, so it holds it in there.  It does get as high as the stone wall.  It does hold quite a bit of water in there.  It happens when it rains out or in a wet spring.  He would defer to the Wetlands Scientist.  At times there is water sitting there more than that.  He assumed it was not wetland, even though there is water there.  He drives by that all the time.  Ms. Wark stated it is probably the reason the road breaks down right there.  It is one of the areas where the tarmac breaks down.  The surveys are surveys, but the reality is that the water that flows down there is significant and they are downhill from it.  Eric Botterman stated there is no outlet for that water to go to. 

 

Diane Hardy stated she was aware of the flooding issues.  Her thought is this might be an area to have a site walk and would the Board like their own Wetland Scientist or review engineer look at the drainage to make sure there will be no negative impacts on other properties. 

 

Eric Botterman doesn’t doubt the wetland line, but he also knows it holds a lot of water at certain times of the year.  He didn’t know if it might be a vernal pool. 

 

Val Shelton has a concern for whoever purchases the building lot to the northeast of the proposed leaching area from having problems in the future.

 

Mr. Berry stated the DPW Director looked for a cross culvert and there is no relief point there.  That area toward the front is not an area that is large enough for them to build on.  They can look at a constructive way to restrict development in that area.  They placed the driveway outside of that area intentionally and the proposed leach field is also outside of that area.  Further back, you get into an area with much better soil, deeper sands, it is higher topographically, so there is less of an impact on the abutter and visually, as well.  He can talk to the owner. Perhaps, behind the buffer, they could look at restricting development.  He showed where the driveway could go where it might not affect the abutter as much.  The owner might not get a drive under garage, but restricting that development would benefit the abutter in a number of different ways and keep that area natural.  It is not a jurisdictional wetland or a flood zone, but it goes a long way toward holding water during larger events and, if they were to put a house or driveway there, they would be impeding that and making more of an issue down the line.  It would meet the written law, but not the intent.  He felt the applicant would agree to that.

 

Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what the effect of the impervious surfaces would be with the drainage flow.  Eric Botterman stated it depended on the locations of the houses and driveways.  He did not believe the driveway would have any adverse effect.  If the house went into the 98 contour where it says TH3A, they would have plenty of room to mitigate anything between there and the property line.  It might be good to direct where the development could be, but we have never dictated where you can and can’t build outside of the confines of the regulations. 

 

Val Shelton stated she was concerned, not only for the abutter, but for whoever builds there.  Eric Botterman stated, if the developer is willing to have an agreement on restricting where to build it would be a win-win for everyone.

 

There was a discussion of locating the driveway in a particular area, but that would put the leach field on a hill and restrict the type of house that could go in.

 

Board members will go out on their own to look at the site.

 

Diane Hardy stated Mr. Berry is going to talk with his client and see if there is agreement to restrict the location of the house, where they identified, and have it noted on the plan. 

 

Val Shelton asked if the Board would want their Wetland Scientist to confirm the wetland area of concern.  The Board was in agreement.  The Board has done it quite a bit in the past and has the ability to require a second opinion at the developer’s expense.

 

Action

              Motion:            Val Shelton made a motion to continue to July 12, 2016

              Second:            Peter Nelson

              Vote:                 All in favor

 

Agenda Item #6 – Other Business

 

New/Old Business

 

                            Discussion - Design Review

 

                             Chairman's Report

                             Committee Reports

                             Planner's Report

 

The Board decided not to address any old or new business due to the late hour.

 

Agenda Item #7 - Adjourn

 

              Action

                             Motion:            Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to adjourn at 10:34 p.m.

                             Second:            Glen Wilkinson

                             Vote:                 All in favor