Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Rose-Anne Kwaks, Diane Hardy (Town Planner), Michal Zahorik (Alternate), Gretchen Kast (Town Council ex officio Alternate)
Absent: Peter Nelson, Glen Wilkinson (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio) – all excused
Called to order: 7:04 p.m.
Adjourned:
Agenda Item #1 – Pledge of Allegiance
Eric Botterman appointed Michal Zahorik to fill in for Peter Nelson.
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 – Review & approval of minutes: 10/10/17
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 2017
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Agenda Item #4 – Regular Business
The Hill at Moody Point Homeowners Association, Inc. - Public hearing for an application for subdivision/site plan. The following lots are involved in this application. All are located on Tax Map R2 and are within the R1 Zone. The lots are 36-9-1, 3 Eagle Drive; 36-9-2, 5 Eagle Drive; 36-9-3, 7 Eagle Drive; 36-9-4, 9 Eagle Drive; 36-10-10, 10 Eagle Drive; 36-10-11, 11 Eagle Drive; 36-10-9, 12 Eagle Drive; 36-10-12, 13 Eagle Drive; 36-10-8, 14 Eagle Drive; 36-10-13, 15 Eagle Drive; 36-10-7, 16 Eagle Drive; 36-10-14, 17 Eagle Drive, 36-10-6, 18 Eagle Drive; 36-10-15, 19 Eagle Drive; 36-10-5, 20 Eagle Drive; 36-10-16, 21 Eagle Drive; 36-10-4, 22 Eagle Drive; 36-10-3, 24 Eagle Drive; 36-10-2, 26 Eagle Drive; 36-10-1, 28 Eagle Drive. The purpose of this application is to reaffirm the lot lines, as originally approved by the Newmarket Planning Board in 1991 Plan D-21471, affirm that the policy of requiring a “Final Configuration Plan” does not apply to these lots, and reaffirms their prior votes that density, setback, and building location requirements continue to be vested, as established under the Alternative Design Subdivision (ADS) approval for Moody Point.
Val Shelton recused herself.
Attorney F. X. Bruton, Bruton & Berube, PLLC, represented the applicants.
Diane Hardy stated the application was complete.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to accept the application
Second: Gretchen Kast
Vote: All in favor
Attorney Bruton stated this may seem like déjà vu for some of the Board members. He had represented the owners of Lubberland Creek two years ago. They had requested the same relief being requested tonight. At the previous meeting, they were granted relief unanimously. This is an attempt to simplify a process that, for some reason, became somewhat convoluted and unnecessary.
This relates to lots 9 & 10 of the original Moody Point approval. That approval resulted in an approval of the allowance of multi-units on certain lots. It was reconfigured in 1990 and resulted in a plan, which the Board received in their packets. The policy that came about for The Hill and Lubberland Creek became somewhat convoluted, but the gist of it was that a person would buy a lot, a survey would be done and they would provide a design for the house. They would get a mortgage and build the house. Then they would be required to come to the Planning Board to get a rubber stamp approval. The policy stated the Planning Board Chairman would stamp (and approve) the plan and then, to complicate things, the homeowner would convey the property in its entirety to a trustee, who was the original developer, then the trustee would convey back to the homeowner a deed for that portion of the land with the house and the driveway and easement rights to the yard. The trustee would then convey the remainder, in a separate deed, to the homeowners association. This was a very convoluted process and has caused a lot of problems for people who wanted to refinance or sell their homes. He used a flow chart to help explain the process.
What they would like to do is simplify things to two steps so people would just buy a house and then get a mortgage. This was the way it was done, in the past, and the way they would like to do it now. So, they would like to reestablish the plan that was approved by the Board in 1990, so that the homeowner owns that entire lot, and they would like to extinguish the previous policy, so the process can work as it should have worked and now works well at Lubberland Creek.
The suggestion is that the policy requirement for a final configuration plan be removed and the Board reaffirm the vote to create the lots that were created on that plan. They also asked the Board to reaffirm its prior vote that the density and zero lot line provisions that were approved then are still applicable going forward. There are four (4) undeveloped lots on the property. They will be built consistent with what is already out there. This would serve to benefit those lots and also the existing lots with houses. People putting their houses on the market are having a very, very difficult time explaining what he just went over to banks and they are not getting banks to underwrite the mortgages or they are scaring away buyers. When you have to go through that explanation with buyers, their eyes start to roll back in their head and they just leave. They are losing the ability to convey their property.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated the final configuration plan was done 20-odd years ago as part of the Planning Board approval. She asked why that was done. She asked if it was because the buildings being built there would not have to adhere to setbacks or was it just something that is done for condos. Diane Hardy stated it was originally an Alternative Design Subdivision, where setbacks, lot sizes, and density would be waived. This was a precursor to the Open Space Development Ordinance we have now. It was something that was requested by the applicant and his attorney and it was something that the Planning Board at the time embraced. They wanted to make sure there was a clearly laid out process, where the plans would come back and there would be some kind of review of the metes and bounds and that it was consistent with the original plan approved by the Board. The Planning Department reviewed that with Town legal counsel and they advised this is a new subdivision and it needs to go through the full Planning Board process. That is why we are here. Attorney Bruton stated what it required was also not necessary and was an additional expense.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated these conditions were granted for The Hill and Lubberland Creek over 25 years ago, because they wanted the Alternative Design. Diane Hardy stated not because they wanted an Alternative Design. Moody Point was always an Alternative Design subdivision. This was something that was requested by the developer at the time, because it was a way of achieving the goals they had for the property. Eric Botterman stated the financing situations have changed since then and that is why people can’t get mortgages.
Diane Hardy stated Val Shelton had been involved in some of those earlier transactions and she might be able to shed some light on this.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated there are four or five lots left now. Attorney Bruton stated there were five. Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if changing this: (1) will still keep the vested setbacks, etc., and (2) would allow for those five lots to become more than five lots. Attorney Bruton stated yes to the first question and no to the second question. The land cannot be further subdivided. They are asking to reaffirm the plan.
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Diane Hardy stated she had put together a summary of the conditions from the previous approval for Lubberland Creek. They are based on the presentation Attorney Bruton had provided at that time. She had one change to Item D on the Staff Recommendations. It states “the document”. She would like to change that to “the Notice of Decision” to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds.
Attorney Bruton stated, in “B”, it uses the word “does”. They always use the word “shall” or “must”. It says the same thing, but is a little more definitive.
Diane Hardy explained the “Planning Board’s previous policy”. Back when this came before the Planning Board as a re-subdivision of this land, a Planning Board policy was drafted. Everyone on the Board got a copy of it for tonight. It was a streamlined process for these applications, so that it would not be an unwieldy process, where you would have to come back for each and every application and have a formal public hearing, with notifications. She had legal counsel review it and it was his opinion that what we were doing was a re-subdivision of the plan and the Planning Board Chairman cannot take full authority for it. It has to go to the full Board and go through some kind of a process. The language is written to say these requirements do not apply. It is not consistent with State law.
Attorney Bruton stated it clarifies by having the entire lot the way it was originally planned. The Homeowners Association would then convey the portion they have back to homeowner. Then they would be consistent with everyone else.
Eric Botterman stated this cleans up a mess. There is no downside to the Board approving this.
Attorney Bruton stated this won’t change anything. In essence, it will clear up the trouble this created for everyone.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to approve as per the staff recommendations, with suggested changes, for A, B, C, and D
Second: Gretchen Kast
Vote: Rose-Anne Kwaks opposed
All others in favor
Motion passes
Nip-Lot 6, LLC, & Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC - Public hearing for an application for Lot Line Adjustment, at 2 Forbes, 175 & 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lots 6, 7, & 9-6, B2 Zone. The proposal is to adjust the lot lines, in order to modify two building lots. The lots are larger and have more frontage than required and will be conforming industrial lots.
The above applicant had requested to be put earlier on the agenda. The Board voted to accommodate them. Janice Rosa stated only if it was going to take about ten minutes, because it was not fair to the other applicants who were waiting.
Rob Graham, Maplewood & Vaughn, stated they have been in front of the Board for a series of applications. They had proposed originally an addition to the existing building on the site. The site plan application tonight takes that addition and moves it onto its own lot. Therefore, they will move a lot line and shuffle another line to balance some of the land. This is a simple lot line adjustment.
Diane Hardy stated the application had a few items to be addressed. The building setbacks needs to be shown for the respective lots and they need to be added to the plan. It shows the plan is drawn at a scale of 1”= 50’ and the requirements call for 1”=100’. The applicant can request a waiver or modify the plans. The soil types and boundaries are not listed on the plan. This information can be added or a waiver may be requested. Item 4, a copy of the grading easement, in favor of Lot R3 9-6 be provided as a condition of approval. The staff recommendation is this application may be accepted for technical review, subject to the applicant addressing the items mentioned.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to accept the application
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Rob Graham stated they will ask for no further discussion of this application this evening.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue Lot 6 LLC and Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Co, LLC, application for Lot Line Adjustment, to the December 12, 2017 meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC - Public hearing for an application for Site Plan Review at 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, B2 Zone. The proposal is for a 24,000 sq. ft. stand-alone industrial building, with municipal water and sewer. The application previously approved will not be constructed. The full application may be viewed at the Planning Office at the Town Hall, 186 Main Street, Newmarket, NH, during business hours.
Diane Hardy stated there were items regarding completeness of the application. The scale of the plan is 1”= 30’. It should be 1”= 20’. The lot area and length of the road frontage on the building lot needs to be added to the site plan. A note needs to be added that all site improvements will be ADA compliant. A bicycle rack needs to be added to the plan. Dumpster screening needs to be added to the plan, in the construction detail section. Plans need to go to the Police Chief, Fire Chief, Public Works Director and Code Enforcement Officer requesting their comments and copies are needed of the transmittal letters. Water and sewer calculations need to be submitted, for review of the Town’s Engineering Consultant. They need easement language for the access maintenance and construction related to the bio-retention area that is shown on the southwesterly edge of the site. They would like to get some correspondence from NH DOT saying their approval of this plan is under the earlier approval they had granted from 2015 for the 24,000 expansion on the lot adjacent. They would like to see an updated landscaping plan that shows the plant materials for the infiltration area and for the buildings. They would like to see renderings and cross sections showing a 3D visual representation of what the new building will look like from the road. They would like to see a construction phasing plan for the stabilization of the banks that have been exposed as part of the earth removal phase of the project. And, finally they were asked to complete and submit the stormwater checklist for review by the Town Engineer. She recommended the application be accepted and a technical review be scheduled.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to accept the application for Maplewood & Vaughn Holding Company, LLC for Site Plan Review at 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lot 7, B2 Zone
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric Botterman opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Eric Botterman closed the public hearing.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue to the next Planning Board meeting on December 12, 2017
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Rose-Anne Kwaks and Eric Botterman volunteered to be on the Technical Review Committee.
Jonathan Smith & Caitlin Smith – Request for a Waiver of Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone.
Jack Dion represented the applicants. He is Caitlin Smith’s father. He was looking for a waiver for impact fees related to the conversion of a master suite bedroom to an accessory apartment at this location. It is a studio apartment. There was no increase in square footage and the footprint never changed. There was no additional bathroom added. It took a four bedroom, two bathroom home and made it a three bedroom, one bathroom home, with a studio apartment with one full bathroom. He felt there was potential for a decrease in taxes because they are reducing the size of the house to a three bedroom home.
Diane Hardy stated she had the request letter from the applicant and she read it.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked what the square footage of the master bedroom was. Mr. Dion stated approximately 350 sq. ft. This is a master bedroom over a 2 car garage. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated they need something in writing, like a development agreement. Diane Hardy stated the letter could be agreed to and signed by both parties and serve as the development agreement.
Val Shelton asked if water and sewer tie in fees have been paid. Diane Hardy stated they had not yet been paid. She asked if the apartment had been built and Mr. Dion stated it was finished. Diane Hardy stated those fees are coordinated with the Water & Sewer Department. Eric Botterman stated those are not Planning Board review items. Val Shelton stated perhaps they had not been assessed a tie in fee, because the water and sewer were already in. Editorial Note: Water and sewer tie- in fees were owed and had not yet been paid or waived by the Water and Sewer Department. Impact fees were owed and had not yet been paid or waived by the Planning Board. Based on this, the Certificate of Occupancy has not been issued.)
There was discussion of the State law as it relates to tie-in fees and how it might pertain to this project. Val Shelton stated it would be difficult to waive the water and sewer impact fee under the Town’s ordinance. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated tie in fees shall be paid under the newly amended State law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units. There was further discussion of tie-in fees.
Val Shelton stated the last time they waived water and sewer impact fees, they waived them because water and sewer tie in fees had been paid.
Eric Botterman asked if they wanted to get more information. Val Shelton stated she was hesitant to waive water and sewer fees. As far as school fees, she felt that any impact on the school from a studio apartment would be highly implausible.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated she read all of the legal language on this and having an attached or detached accessory apartment is now a right. They had to take out of their ordinance the statement that it could only be a one bedroom, because it was not legal for them to say that. They had to say “up to a two bedroom”, which dictates that you could very well have children living there. Someone could make a tiny bedroom the size of a closet. It is not the Planning Board’s option. It is up to the individual. The Board cannot say they will waive this fee, because the applicant says there will be no children. From what she has read and reread and, from the Planning Board’s discussion at the workshop on accessory apartments, they will not be able to give any more waivers. The Board members had all agreed on that when the Board discussed waiving impact fees for accessory apartment last spring. The taxes here just went up $1.29 and the school renovations are coming up and it will go up again next year. The Planning Board cannot keep giving waivers. The Town cannot afford it. She would like a legal opinion, before they hear any other applications on waivers. She felt it was not legal to give waivers. Val Shelton stated the ordinance reads they can waive fees when shown good cause. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that was not true. She cited language from the Zoning Ordinance. They could waive for age-restricted units, but they can’t just waive them for everyone.
The Board agreed to obtain a legal opinion on waiving impact fees.
Action
Motion: Rose-Anne Kwaks made a motion to continue this application to December 12, 2017
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Eric DeWitt – Public hearing for an application for Design Review, at 81 Exeter Road, Tax Map U3, Lot 137, B1 Zone. The proposal is to remove the existing two houses, garage, and shed and replace them with a single, two-story building. The second floor would be eight studio-style apartments. The first floor would be commercial space to allow for two small businesses.
Diane Hardy explained what a Design Review was, as opposed to a Site Plan Review.
Eric DeWitt stated he was hoping to get as much feedback as possible, in order to move forward.
He showed a plan of the property. He showed the existing conditions, with two houses, a garage and two sheds and a footpath. There are two driveways from Exeter Road. One is a raised on-grade parking area and the other is a driveway going down to the garage. There are substantial wetlands on the lot. The proposal does include a residential component. He went before the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and they approved the variance for the mixed use. He showed the existing buildings and stated they were not aesthetically pleasing and need TLC. The driveway is cracking and has lichen. The garage needs work, too. It terms of being located at the gateway to downtown Newmarket, it is not ideal. It could be much better. He showed the site plan proposal. They would remove the existing buildings and get rid of the parking spaces off of Exeter Road to make a single driveway. He showed where the new parking spaces would be and the mixed use building. It would be two stories, with commercial on the first floor and residential studios on the second. The building design is meant to resonate back to the agricultural past of Newmarket and New England. It is a modern version of a barn. On the first floor, there is enough room for two small businesses. The second floor has residential units. This will not exceed the density of 2 units per acre listed in the Zoning Ordinance for the B1 Zone. He envisions wood construction and hopes to incorporate some post and beam aspects. The first floor is an open floor plan to allow flexibility. The second floor is compact living studio apartments. They will be targeted toward people, for example, transitioning from grad school to a career and they want something all their own without the costs of a larger living space. They are about 250 sq. ft. with a sleeping loft. The code requires one room that is at least 120 sq. ft. He hoped to get feedback on site plan or get the word on anything that might cause him to have additional costs in going back to his engineer or architect.
Diane Hardy asked if he had met with the Fire Department, as far as sprinkler systems. Mr. DeWitt stated he had. Sprinklers will be required.
Eric Botterman stated he liked this idea and it would be a vast improvement in the area. He cautioned him to talk to NH DOT about a driveway permit before he got too far. Then stormwater would have to be addressed because there is a high groundwater table, and with all of the wetland there.
Val Shelton stated stormwater management will be the key element within the engineering plans.
Val Shelton asked about the area right of the building. There were hash marks on the plan. Mr. DeWitt stated he was aiming for green development, with limited impacts on the land. He is utilizing the natural landscaping. He will be offering an area for each person to garden, so they can produce their own food on the land.
He may ask for a waiver for the parking being inside the wetland buffer setbacks.
Eric Botterman asked for further comments from the Board and there were none. He said there seemed to be no major objections and they looked forward to seeing him at a future meeting.
The Planning Board took a five minute break at this point.
Newmarket School District - Public hearing for an application for Site Plan, at 239 South Main Street, Tax Map U4, Lot 53, and 243 South Main Street, Tax Map R5, Lot 95, R2 Zone. The proposal includes the reconstruction of the Newmarket Elementary School, which includes expansions to the building and associated site improvements, including stormwater management, utilities, and site lighting. The full plans are available to view at the Newmarket Planning Office, 186 Main Street, Newmarket, NH during business hours.
Eric Botterman stated he was on the School Facilities Committee, but it was not necessary for him to recuse himself.
Meredith Nadeau, Superintendent of Schools, presented the application. They are continuing to work through the process, as a result of the voter approval last year, with their architect and civil engineering team. They are about 50% of the way through the drawing process and things continue to evolve. They have begun the permitting process. NH DOT, DES, and sewer permitting are in process.
With her was Ingrid Nichols, Banwell Architects, Ken Mavrogeorge, Tighe & Bond. Also, present were Rod Mikita, Tighe & Bond, and Greg Marles, Facilities Director. Al Zink was also present from the School Board. He is also a member of the Building Committee.
Ingrid Nichols gave an overview of the plans. She stated there are two additions off the back side of the school. She showed the current driveway to the school. All of the paved areas will be redone. One of the main goals was to make the site safe for buses and parent drop off. With the purchase of the abutting property, they will make a separate bus loop. It would be one way. There will be a gymnasium and kitchen addition, with some bathrooms for the gym. She showed where the parent drop off would be. There would be two ways in and out. The other addition is for fifth grade classrooms and ancillary special education spaces. There will be some minor renovations inside the building, but nothing major at the front of the building. They have also found a cemetery and are keeping a 25’ setback from the bus drop off driveway. They are expanding the parking. They are upgrading the lighting to LED. They will have a whole new stormwater system. Landscaping will be updated. There will be more buffers at the edges that impact the neighbors.
Ken Mavrogeorge stated there have been a number of changes they are incorporating into the stormwater plan. The site and adjacent property are relatively flat in elevation, so there is not a lot that can be done, but they will try to do as much as possible. They have had multiple meetings with abutters. There are a number of issues offsite relating to stormwater and the amount of rainwater that enters their properties. They submitted applications to the NH DES Alteration of Terrain Bureau for a couple of things. They have a number of infiltration basins onsite. There are bioretention systems onsite and an underground detention system to hold back water and meter it out, as it discharges across the property. Those systems are scattered to mimic existing flow patterns. The intent is for the peak runoff to be less than what it is now. They have done a number of test pits. They found, with the purchase of the property next to the school, there are really good (soils) materials to get the stormwater to go into the ground. They designed a couple of systems on that side to infiltrate stormwater as much as they can. They have Moonlight Brook at the back of the property. They don’t want to discharge stormwater into the brook without treatment. They want to get it into the ground and away from the abutters.
Ms. Nichols stated they are avoiding redoing the playground. There is money in the budget for some upgrades, but the bulk of the existing playground will remain. The other benefit of purchasing the adjacent property was they will be able to expand the play area and also have a play field on the back side. There will be a new transformer and area for the dumpsters and underground propane tanks in that area and a new grease trap. They have met with the Fire Department, the Building Official, and they will continue to do so to coordinate all of those issues.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if they had said there were 200 parking spaces. Ms. Nichols stated yes. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they were working to increase the number of parking spaces in front of the school and adding some on the side. Today they have 160 and it is pretty packed.
Janice Rosa asked if the additional parking would be for the parents. Meredith Nadeau stated it was for both. Janice Rosa stated it was really dangerous right now there. She is there every morning dropping someone off and, to pick them up, there is potential for an accident to happen. Meredith Nadeau stated that has been a long-standing challenge. There are a couple of modular classrooms on site. They have been beyond capacity for a number of years. The parking on the side is anticipated to be staff parking. The additional spaces on the front will be available for parent parking. There are about 25 new spaces in one corner. Right now, buses are pulling through the front and parents are dropping off at the same time and it is very congested, both at morning drop-off, as well as afternoon pickup. The special education buses, because the only ramp access is in the front of the building, are parked in front at the end of the day, even though the other buses are at the back of the school. They are pulling into the same traffic flow as parents. It is not a great situation right now. Part of the NH Department of Transportation (DOT) review is they will look at the proposed traffic pattern. DOT has asked them to have a traffic study done. That will be happening in the next couple of weeks.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if the road down the side that goes out to South Main Street will have the problem with the accumulation of water addressed. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they met with the DPW staff. There are a couple of catchbasins there that are drains that do not tie into anything. Currently on the site, a lot of the stormwater just flows uncontrolled. With this design, they tried to capture as much of the water that is heading there now and tried to bring it back onsite and to change the direction and get it into the ground, as opposed to bringing it back to that intersection. They are trying to reduce the amount of water that gets to that point. They do not propose to change the drainage, at that location, because it would require a significant disturbance to that entire system in the road. The closest basins that connect to anything are a block or so closer to the High School.
Val Shelton stated, in the southeast corner of the property, there is an additional play area. She asked about the drainage. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they are trying to get the stormwater into the drain, like a septic system, except this would be for rainwater. These are chambered systems that are enclosed in crushed stone. Water goes in and slowly filters into the native soil below. From the surface, you will not see a pond, where there would be a mosquito breeding ground. Ideally, it functions in a similar fashion as a septic system. Val Shelton stated they were moving water from the improved area into the chambers and the outflow is to the south side. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they have an outflow at the back, beyond the playfield. They are using a system of catchbasins and manholes throughout the site to bring stormwater to this basin. They did test pits and found really good soils that can infiltrate stormwater at a good rate. That allows them to pull stormwater from the neighbors, who have significant impacts from stormwater. Val Shelton asked, on the outflow, if they saw any drainage going off of the property to abutting properties. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated the direction they are discharging stormwater is directed toward Moonlight Brook, instead of neighbors’ properties. With normal rainfall, you will not see much outflow, if any.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked, when there is a significant storm, what would the sheet flow be. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated, in the two, ten and fifty year storm, they are reducing the peak flow, as required by the NH DES permits. DES does not require anything above the fifty year storms be reduced, just that it be handled. That is what this design is being held to. It is reducing the flow collected from the property.
Eric Botterman stated he failed to mention at the beginning, because this is the school, they are not coming here for approval. They are coming here for informational purposes. They have been meeting with the abutters. There are some abutters present here, who may want to speak. If there are any comments, this is the time to get them out there. The Board wants to hear them.
Gretchen Kast stated asked about maintenance of the chambers. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated, in theory they operate like a septic system. There are pipes and the water infiltrates into the ground. Maintenance-wise the application is submitted to the Town and the State DES. That includes an operation and maintenance plan, which generally mentions how frequently inspections should be performed and things to look for after rain events. The Town will contract with a stormwater management company that will oversee and perform those inspections on an annual basis. If there are issues, they will make recommendations. The inspections are required by the State Alteration of Terrain permit.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if there would be a lot of cost to the school each year to do that. She asked what happens if it backs up. Would the whole area be dug up for a new chamber to go in? Greg Marles stated they did contract with a company and part of the inspections is to check that and clean it, if necessary. They will have those reports and they will also be sent to DES. Any physical damage, obviously, will have to be dealt with. The cost to do this inspection, if you look at the cost of running a building is not really a ton of money. The quote to do both the High School and the Elementary School is under $5,000 a year for all the inspections and cleanings. That would be in the school’s operating budget. The contractor would deal with catch basins and maintain that whole system.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if there was any way mosquitos can build up in there. Greg Marles stated mosquitos could not easily get in there and it is not stagnant water. In a dry period, there is nothing there. Eric Botterman stated, typically, they maintain the catch basins and make sure they do not fill up with sand and silt. Greg Marles stated that is part of the contract they are working with the company on to actually clean those systems. The contractor will use their own “vac” truck.
Janice Rosa stated she was there yesterday and today. Regarding, the house the school bought, there will be a flow of traffic coming out of that area. She asked if they would explain it. Ms. Nichols stated it was a one way road. You enter either way from Route 152 and it is primarily for buses and deliveries. She indicated the one and two way areas. There will be a ”No Entry” sign. When the kids get off of the buses, you want them on the same side of the road they exit the bus on.
Janice Rosa stated there were a lot of meetings with the abutters and she asked if they were happy with what was being presented. Eric Botterman stated there are mixed feelings. Meredith Nadeau stated some were present. The concerns include stormwater and drainage. There have been longstanding issues on both sites. They are low lying areas. On the Elementary School site, she indicated where Pond Street was located. The concern from neighbors was whether they would provide fencing. They are proposing a six foot high fence from the end of the road to the tree line at the end of the last property on Pond Street. There will be trees, shrubs and plantings to try to buffer some of the sound and make it more attractive. This road is in the center of the property. If you are looking at the property right now, it would be dead on where the center chimney is in the middle of that house. They figured 42’ from one side to the other. They came closer to the property line in back, because of the cemetery.
Gretchen Kast asked where the play areas were. Meredith Nadeau indicated on the plan where they were located. One off the back of the property and one off of the existing play area. Kids will cross a road to get to the back area. This will be a physical education area, so they would not be out there without teacher supervision. They do not anticipate buses pulling in during those peak times. They do not have any field space. They have a very tight play area. The ability to have extra play area is a real plus. They are presuming this space will largely be used for PE class, with teachers with the students back and forth.
Janice Rosa asked if any extra classrooms will be created. Meredith Nadeau stated the modular classrooms will go away and they are being replaced with the addition. The full size gymnasium will go on the back and this allows them to “right size” the cafeteria, offices and special education and nurses office areas.
Eric Botterman asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak.
Debbie Hale, 231 South Main Street, stated all of the folks at the abutter meetings have heard this, but she wanted to tell the Planning Board, too. She stated all of those living between Grant Road and the High School are very concerned about the sight lines and the speeding traffic. There are times when they take their lives in their hands trying to get out of their driveways. The signage is not adequate. People come from the Lee side and there is a small sign saying “school coming slow down”, but they cannot see a school. Most people don’t realize there is a school there. The trucks are the worst and scariest. Regarding the traffic coming through they observe the 30 mph speed limit and not the school zone speed limit. The only people who go the required speed limit are the people who live there. It is scary. They wanted to make sure their concerns are addressed. She does not like the fact the parent drop off is a two way. It should be one way. They are afraid of a bad accident. The people living there know what it is like.
She stated their other concern is the drainage. For the people living on the side of the street where the schools are, at every driveway between Grant Road and the High School, ponding occurs. She goes out with a snow shovel and scoops the water across the street, so the kids can walk without being in a foot of water. She is not the only one who does that. Their concerns are traffic, drainage and a buffer from the noise for the folks on Pond Street.
Eric Botterman stated he would talk to the Public Works Director about the drainage issues. He did not think this project will make it any worse, but there are certainly issues there. They will be reducing the drainage going there. He also understands people speed, but that is an enforcement issue. It doesn’t have anything to do with the school.
Rose-Ann Kwaks asked if any cost estimates were done to eliminate the flooding along the street. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated it was outside of the scope of the project. Eric Botterman stated that is an existing issue that has been there forever. It hasn’t taken care of it yet, because it is a big issue and the State maintains the road, not the Town.
Meredith Nadeau stated what the abutters heard tonight is a long standing discussion on drainage. She has spoken with the Public Works Director and they are going to provide feedback to NH DOT. It is beyond their property lines to control all of it. They have engineered their projects to try to improve upon the situation. But, it won’t eliminate the problem.
Eric Botterman stated the Town was out there in the past trying to fix the situation. Diane Hardy stated there was supposed to be a joint meeting with the Town, the State and abutters with an eye to resolving some of these issues. She did not know what the outcome was of that meeting.
Meredith Nadeau stated, if all goes according to current plan, they will be breaking ground in April 2018. The plan involves the parking lot area and the access road going in around the side for the bus loop. The parking spaces will be available when school opens next year. This year, the traffic flow will not change. Construction will be during the school year. They will be fully occupied by fall 2019. It will be a year and a half for the Elementary School construction to be completed.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if any gardening area would be there for the kids. Meredith Nadeau stated they will be reinstalling gardens after construction.
Eric Botterman stated, if any Board members or members of the public have any comments or questions later on, get them to Diane Hardy and they can be forwarded to the School Department.
Newmarket School District - Public hearing for an application for Site Plan, at 211 South Main Street, Tax Map U4, Lots 42 & 101, M3 Zone. The proposed project includes the reconstruction of the Junior/Senior High School, which includes an expansion to the buildings and associated site improvements, including stormwater management, utilities, and site lighting. The full plans are available to view at the Newmarket Planning Office, 186 Main Street, Newmarket, NH, during business hours.
Ingrid Nichols presented the details of the additions. The main entry will be at the front of the school. The parent and bus drop offs will be separated. This will be a one way bus drop at the front. Parents will do as they do now and come around the back. They are using the former Carpenter property for staff parking. The buses are parking there when not in use. The Perkins building is remaining. They are building another maintenance shed on the other side of the property. Most of the existing pavement stays where it is and they are adding more landscape buffer. This is an event entry point. After hours, this can be used for the gymnasium or the café-torium. They will have an interior courtyard to keep the natural daylight in the classroom on all sides. There will be grass and it could be used as an outdoor classroom to retain that natural daylight. Landscaping was requested by some of the abutters. One issue with snow storage is to try to keep it, so it does not run off on other peoples’ properties.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked if any space was being built for the school administrative offices to go in. Ms. Nichols answered no. Eric Botterman stated that was discussed in the early Facilities Committee process, but it is not going to be done.
Val Shelton asked why the snow storage and drainage flow can’t be moved to the east side of the property, so it is away from abutters. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated, in the winter time, there will be some snow storage along paved areas. At some point, if the snow storage fills up or starts to exceed the areas, snow storage would be moved across the road. Val Shelton asked why the area had to be behind the Maplecrest properties. She asked why it couldn’t be on the east side. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated he thought it could. They heard that from the abutters last week. They can take that into consideration and try to show additional areas on the eastern side.
Val Shelton stated she had a similar question where they have the outflow abutting Maplecrest. She asked if the infiltration basin could be moved to the east side. Mr. Marvrogeorge stated it was a very flat site. The further away they move it makes it very difficult to outlet that basin. They want to make sure, during larger storms, it can outlet to that wetland. Val Shelton said it is the same elevation on the east and west side. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated the topography of the site was flowing toward the west. They are trying to mimic the existing drainage patterns. The State requires they reduce the amount of peak flow coming off the site. They do have additional green spaces that are not present today, in the large green island and in that infiltration basin. They are trying to get the water into the ground with those smaller storms, so you don’t see water coming out of that pipe. Val Shelton stated she thought for higher volume (50, 100, and 500 year flood events) storms they were creating a problem for the Maplecrest neighborhood. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they could look further into that to see if there was anything else they could do.
Eric Botterman read a letter from Joyce Sharples into the record. The letter may be found in the Planning Board file for this application. She had concerns regarding water drainage and snow storage areas. She was also concerned about view and sight related issues. She thought, overall, this was a good plan. As far as the snow storage, it is the issue Val Shelton brought up earlier. He did not see why they could not move the snow storage away from that house. Meredith Nadeau stated the Town will continue to plow the school. Eric Botterman asked, in a year where there is a lot of snow, would snow be trucked offsite. Meredith Nadeau stated yes. Eric Botterman stated another concern mentioned was for trees and shrubs for screening. Meredith Nadeau stated this was addressed at the abutters meeting last week. That same letter was read and Mrs. Sharple’s daughter was in attendance. They showed the screening on the plan and that is reflected in their notes, as well, and will be part of their process moving forward.
Rose-Anne Kwaks asked whether there will be evergreen or deciduous screening. Meredith Nadeau stated Ingrid Nichols had stated it would be a mix. They have not arrived at the point where there is a detail level yet.
Eric Botterman asked if any abutters would like to speak.
Jim Grochmal, 219 South Main Street, on the west side of the school, stated he had a couple of issues. One is the water issue. Over the last twenty years, the pitch of the parking lot has pitched toward his house, rather than the brook. This has led to frequent basement flooding. Working with the Public Works Director in recent years, they put a berm between the school and his house to route the water away from it. The second issue is with snow storage. It is right along pretty much where they are showing now on the plan. That created flooding in the spring, when the snow melted. The snow also always seemed to extend five to ten feet onto his property. That creates more flooding issues, as well as the removal of a fence that was there. When they come up with a final design, they will really be flooding this area. The other issue is the crosswalks. There will be one in front of the middle of the school. The location of the gymnasium will be off to the side. He did not think people are going to park across the street, walk all the way up 152 to the crosswalk located across from the middle of the school, then walk all the way back to the side of the school to the gym. You would also not want to open the front door of the school to let people walk through inside from the front to the gym. You would not want any people or people from outside of town just walking through the building to get to the gym. He stated they would need crosswalks at both ends of the parking lot across the street to accommodate people. People are already crossing there to get to activities.
Eric Botterman mentioned the snow storage location. Mr. Grochmal stated, when he had spoken with the Public Works Director, they changed the direction of plowing the snow. The snow is now plowed to the south, so the snow goes over the hill between the upper and lower parking areas, so the runoff goes into the brook. Eric Botterman asked the engineers if there was any reason why if the three little snow storage areas on that part of the plan could be moved to where the parking area stops. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they have tried to stay within the existing footprints, but where they could add green space, they have. So, where they show snow storage on the plan is where pavement exists today. They are trying to leave more of a buffer, so, if there is limited snow storage needed, it stays on the school property. If snow storage does exceed that area, they will work with the Town on where the excess snow needs to go.
Eric Botterman stated if they could put the snow in the corner and not pile snow at the Grochmal’s property line, it would benefit everybody. It should work with the way they plow now.
Eric Botterman stated, with the crosswalks, his understanding is that it falls under NH DOT’s purview. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they have designed this to encourage people to use the crosswalk. DOT is requiring a traffic study, which should provide more clarity on this. Eric Botterman stated, when his kids were in school and people parked across the street, everyone just crossed at the driveway. It is a convenient area to cross. He doubted DOT would allow two crosswalks that close together. Whatever they say to do, has to be done. So, there will be some education for parents for special events. At graduation, people cross that street every place they can. You are not going to stop most of it. Meredith Nadeau stated, for large events like graduation, they usually have a police presence. She stated it will be an ongoing education process for people to cross. As far as walking through the building, there is a central corridor that comes through and there are gates that preclude people from going into classroom areas when going to events. For large events, they anticipate those entry doors to the building will be open. Eric Botterman stated that is typical for newer schools, such as Sanborn and Exeter.
There were no further public comments.
Rose-Anne Kwaks stated across the street it looked like a lot of trees and shrubs were proposed. She asked if they could cut back on that for snow storage.
Janice Rosa expressed concern about people walking through the building. Eric Botterman stated there were controls for that. Meredith Nadeau stated, right now, there is a buzzer system for access and a camera system and that will be true for this, as well. There is a double secured vestibule with a second set of locked doors that will bring you into the main office. You cannot get into the classroom wings without being allowed in through the office. If there was a large event, people could come into the central corridor to the gymnasium or the café-torium. The classroom wings would be closed off by locked doors pulled across. Security cameras are part of this project, site-wide. The school resource officer’s office will be located by the front entrance. They have submitted grant applications for reimbursement for installation of impact resistant glass or film overlays at the front entrance. Rose-Anne Kwaks stated that glass should be put in whether grants are available or not.
Eric Botterman asked about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Mavrogeorge stated they will be losing 50 on the school side, but gaining 80 across the street.
There were no further questions or comments. Eric Botterman stated if anyone has any questions or comments, please get them to Diane Hardy and she will forward them to the school.
Agenda Item # 5 – Other Business
New/Old Business
Report on Town Council approval of “New Road Skilled Nursing Overlay”
Diane Hardy stated the Town Council approved the New Road Skilled Nursing Overlay district. One slight modification was suggested by legal counsel. One of the requirements was the applicant had to supply evidence they had applied for all of their State approvals from DHHS for the nursing facility. Under the State law, that cannot be a requirement for acceptance of an application. However, it can be a condition of approval.
Form a subcommittee to work on B-3 zoning on Route 152
Diane Hardy stated they had received additional recommendations from the Economic Development Committee for zoning changes. They looked at the B3 zone on Route 152 as a possible location for a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC). They would like to move forward on this area, now that the zoning for the New Road area was complete. Eric Botterman stated he would like to be on that committee. Val Shelton stated, based upon previous comments, there should be involvement from landowners in that area. Janice Rosa stated she would like to be on the committee, but is a landowner there and was concerned about conflicts of interest. Val Shelton stated this goes with having the landowners involved in the process. She could attend as a landowner and recuse herself as a Planning Board member. Val Shelton and Rose-Anne Kwaks were on the former committee and they volunteered again to be on this one.
Agenda Item #6 – Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 9:14 p.m.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor