Minutes
NEWMARKET PLANNING BOARD MEETING
DECEMBER 12, 2017
MINUTES
Present: Eric Botterman (Chairman), Val Shelton (Vice Chairman), Janice Rosa, Peter Nelson, Michal Zahorik (Alternate), Amy Burns (Town Council ex officio)
Absent: Rose-Anne Kwaks, Jane Ford, Gretchen Kast (all excused)
Called to order: 7:05 p.m.
Adjourned: 8:03 p.m.
Agenda Item #1 - Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Item #2 – Public Comments
Eric Botterman stated Rose-Anne Kwaks could not make it to the meeting this evening due to the icy conditions.
He also read a letter of resignation from Glen Wilkinson, Alternate.
He appointed Michal Zahorik to sit in for Rose-Anne Kwaks for tonight’s meeting.
Public Comments
None.
Agenda Item #3 - Review & Approval of Minutes: 11/14/17
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to approve the minutes of November 14, 2017
Second: Janice Rosa
Val Shelton had one minor edit on page 16, line 23, to delete the word “road”.
Vote: Amy Burns & Peter Nelson abstained due to absence
All others in favor
Agenda Item #4 - Regular Business
Jonathan Smith & Caitlin Smith – Continuation of a request for a Waiver of Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone.
Eric Botterman stated, at the last meeting, the Board decided to reach out to the Town Attorney regarding impact fees. The letter from the Town Attorney says the Board has the right to waive the impact fees. Diane Hardy stated there was no limitation on them for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The State statute does allow Planning Boards to waive impact fees provided there is wording for it contained in the zoning ordinance, which there is. The Zoning Ordinance lays out different options. There was also a question that had come up regarding water and sewer connection fees. A separate statute enables the Water & Sewer Department to impose fees and the Planning Board does not have authority to waive those.
Val Shelton stated, as she understands it, unless the particular facility has some type of restriction put on it relative to the fee in question, the Board does not have the right to waive it. There would have to be a deed restriction on the apartment saying it is limited to an age restriction. Diane Hardy stated also it could be limited to a single individual. Val Shelton did not think the Board had the right to discriminate on familial status. Diane Hardy stated the applicant can agree to that. The Board cannot force him to do that. Eric Botterman stated he was not comfortable asking for any of that.
Diane Hardy stated, in a previous waiver request, the Board waived water and sewer impact fees. In that particular instance, the person had paid the hookup fees required by the Water and Sewer Department.
Jack Dion represented the applicants. Eric Botterman explained, according to the Town Attorney, the Board has the right to grant waivers of impact fees. Diane Hardy stated a suggestion was made that perhaps a deed restriction could be put on the property by the homeowner.
Jack Dion stated he had no problem with that, because all he has ever wanted was for the accessory dwelling to be a single occupancy. Eric Botterman stated the onus would be on him to come to the Town with a deed restriction or covenant. Diane Hardy stated the Board may want to have it reviewed by the Town Attorney to make sure they are on solid legal ground and there would be no constitutional problems with it. Val Shelton stated they should check with the Legal Counsel to make sure it does not violate any Fair Housing laws.
Val Shelton stated there are too many unknowns with this. She did not know whether the applicant could deed restrict a single occupancy. She also asked how this would be enforced.
Diane Hardy stated the Board would need a draft of the document. It would be incumbent for the applicant to get that to the Board for legal review.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the request for a Waiver of Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 14 Woods Drive, Tax Map U1, Lot 1-50, R2 Zone, to January 23, 2018
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Alex Capron & Kathleen West – Request for a waiver of School Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 7 Moody Point Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 39, R1 Zone.
Janice Rosa recused herself.
The applicant’s representative stated she thought she was in the same position as the previous applicant. They have one tenant. Val Shelton stated they are on a septic system, so the owner could limit the occupancy of the unit and justify a waiver of water and wastewater impact fees on the basis that the current septic system is not adequate. The owner indicated that the septic system has been upgraded so that would not be possible.
Eric Botterman stated they will continue this and the applicant will need to develop a document with some sort of deed restriction. Val Shelton stated the Board needs to find out if it can legally limit the number of occupants within the structure. Diane Hardy stated the applicants are offering to do it, the Board is not requiring it. Diane Hardy asked for the documents ten days in advance of the meeting to allow for a legal review.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to continue the application of Alex Capron & Kathleen West for a request for a waiver of School Impact Fees for an accessory apartment at 7 Moody Point Drive, Tax Map R2, Lot 39, R1 Zone, to January 23, 2018
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Nip-Lot 6, LLC, & Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC – Continuation of a public hearing for an application for Lot Line Adjustment, at 2 Forbes Road, 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.
Eric Botterman read a letter from Rob Graham requesting a continuance to the January meeting.
Action
Motion: Peter Nelson made a motion to continue Nip-Lot 6, LLC, & Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC at 2 Forbes Road, 175 & 177 Exeter Road, Tax Map R3, Lots 6, 7, & 9-6, B2 Zone to the January 23, 2018 meeting
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: All in favor
Maplewood and Vaughn Holding Co., LLC – Continuation of a 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.
Eric Botterman stated they had the same request for a continuance.
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to continue the application to January 23, 2018
Second: Peter Nelson
Vote: All in favor
Troy Zerveskes - Public hearing for an application for site plan review, at 187 Main Street, Tax Map U3, Lot 142, M2 Zone. The proposal is for a change of use from single occupant residential to mixed use commercial/residential.
Eric Botterman stated they have a waiver request from Section 1.05 to make this a minor site plan, rather than major site plan.
Diane Hardy stated the threshold for a major review is any conversion from one use to another.
Troy Zerveskes stated the current use is a single family home. He lived there for 15 years, put a lot of money into the house, and then they tried to move and all of the feedback was that was not a great residential use. It is on the railroad tracks. He had his home office there for a number of years under the home-based business provisions. In talking to lots of people, it just seems like that mixed use development is a better use for that location. The mixed use would be for commercial downstairs and residential rental upstairs. Diane Hardy stated the commercial use space would be about 1,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Zerveskes stated this project, given the spirit of the ordinance, seemed much more like that requiring a minor site plan. The proposed commercial space would be the area where he had his home office, a nonresidential use, for a number of years. He had a sign and an employee or two. The business was two-thirds of the main level. It is zoned M2. Every corner around the building, except for the Town Hall, is a multifamily, not a single family use. Val Shelton stated, with a home based business, you have owner occupancy within the building, as opposed to mixed use. It is a different concept.
Mr. Zerveskes stated the property could be a multi-use residential and be apartments. Diane Hardy stated she would have to look at the density. Mr. Zerveskes stated it is a .19 acre lot, with no setbacks. The house is on the driveway of the neighbor. It is hard when you are going through these regulations, because nothing conforms. He feels the spirit of what he is trying to do is much more a minor site plan than a major, which would be the same as if someone was putting in a housing development.
Val Shelton asked if the only thing triggering the major vs. minor aspect is that it is a change of use. Diane Hardy confirmed stating it is residential use changing to nonresidential.
Peter Nelson asked what the financial differential was between a major and minor review. Mr. Zerveskes stated there isn’t a significant financial difference in fees, but there is in processing the review that could translate into significant fees with a land surveyor and other required elements. He realizes now his Excel document (conceptual plan) he submitted wasn’t enough. If the major review is going to cost him to go through several thousand dollars of protocols, it seems out of the spirit.
Val Shelton stated he could ask for waivers on various requirements in major site plan. Diane Hardy stated it requires a boundary survey, a topography/existing conditions plan, and a stormwater drainage plan, for examples. She looked at previous applications that are similar. One of these is the Perkins Agency/Eames building, which is two or three buildings down. It is about 1200 square feet and they did hire an engineer, who did a very detailed plan. They also did some stormwater engineering, because there were drainage issues. The Perkins property plan was very clearly laid out. Val Shelton stated that was what she was expecting.
Diane Hardy stated they should not waive anything just because it was a home-business at one point.
Diane Hardy stated drainage is an issue on site. The driveway is right at the edge of the railroad bridge, site distance is an issue at that location. It comes under NHDOT control. She spoke with the District Engineer’s Office today and they will require an evaluation. When they looked at the Perkins property, just down the street, they did have several concerns, including traffic impacts, which they had hired an engineer to meet the requirements.
Mr. Zerveskes stated it seemed like the new design of the Perkins property was pretty significant. In the spirit of that business, there is a fair amount of traffic. This is hard for him, because he does not have a tenant. It will be something like a small office for an attorney, an architect, or a CPA. Val Shelton stated that was his desire. There was a tenant for the Perkins building already lined up, so they were able to provide information on the use to the Planning Board. Once a plan is approved, it’s not for a particular tenant. It is for the use. You could have an architect go in and, two years later, a development firm goes in with more employees and traffic.
Eric Botterman stated he would prefer to see a more thorough application. He has no problem granting appropriate waivers to help speed it along. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the site. He asked if the applicant had any conversations with NH DOT. Mr. Zerveskes stated he had. He will be submitting an application to them. Eric Botterman stated he would like to see a complete application, so they can grant waivers, as appropriate, and maybe do a site walk. Then they can make educated decisions.
Val Shelton stated drainage, traffic, and parking would be important. There will be handicap parking space requirements. Diane Hardy stated there was a crosswalk adjacent to the driveway and a grade change. Site distance is a problem, because of the steep grade of the railroad bridge.
Mr. Zerveskes asked if there was any other feedback for a successful application. Diane Hardy stated she had sat down with him once and reviewed the regulations and she is willing to do it again. She had offered to show him the Perkins application to see what a minor site plan application is supposed to look like. It would be helpful for him to come in and review it. He should make sure what he comes up with for a site plan is detailed enough, so the Board can evaluate parking, drainage, circulation and all of the things they did for the Perkins property.
Mr. Zerveskes stated he filled out the application and, when he submitted it and there was a myriad of things not on the application form that were needed. He wanted to know how to meet the Board’s needs when it doesn’t say on the application. Diane Hardy stated she had sat with him and reviewed the minor site review regulations. It is incumbent on the applicant to review the Town’s regulations and put a package together.
Diane Hardy stated she is recommending that his application for a waiver of major site plan review be approved so he can submit a fully compliant minor site plan application meeting all of the Town’s requirements. If there are any requirements he can’t comply with, he should submit appropriate written waivers to the Planning Board that can be reviewed. What we have from him now does not meet the requirements for a minor site plan review. The application is not complete. Her staff memo lists the reasons why she is recommending this. The applicant should go over the regulations and hire people, if necessary, to help him lay the site out.
Eric Botterman stated there is a checklist that has been reviewed by Diane Hardy. That will tell the applicant what is missing. Eric Botterman stated they have to be comfortable that the site can handle what might go in there. Diane Hardy stated there are regulations based on parking needs. For example, a doctor’s office would need more parking than an accountant needs. Eric Botterman stated, as he goes through this process, whoever he ends up hiring will make recommendations. Typically, you permit the use your site will handle. If you get a site that needs ten parking spaces and you want to change it to a site that only needs six, you don’t generally need new approval for that. If you wanted to go up to fifteen spaces, you would have to come back, for example.
Diane Hardy explained, in the Permitted Uses Table, there is a list of what’s allowed. With the M2 zone, the lots are small and it’s not like dealing with a piece of land that has never been built on before. You are stuck with what you have. In M2, there is leeway on traffic and parking requirements. The onus is on the applicant to provide justification for those. The applicant can set the parameters and the Town will review it accordingly. This is all done on a case by case basis.
Mr. Zerveskes stated he was not sure if he would hire anyone. He had gone through the regulations. Based on the application form, he did not realize that is what was called for. He asked if he was outlining through the regulations. Diane Hardy stated he needed to develop a site plan that meets the requirements, that lays out all of the parking spaces, provides the dimensions and is drawn to scale. When the application comes in, they can go through the checklist to make sure it is complete. That is the first step. Once it is complete, it goes to the Planning Board and they will make a decision. Technically, they go through a review process that may involve a site walk of the property, sometimes they set up a Technical Review Committee (TRC), if it is a complicated application. The first step is a complete application. She is more than happy to sit down and go over his application with him before it is submitted.
Eric Botterman stated he should look at the Perkins application. Diane Hardy stated she would have to figure out density to see if he could put in more apartments. It is a tiny lot. He may have to go to the Zoning Board.
Action
Motion: Val Shelton made a motion to accept the waiver request for 187 Main Street relative to a proposed site plan review to change the use for residential (amended at the 01/23/18 meeting for italicized text to instead read “major site plan to minor site plan review”)
Second: Janice Rosa
Vote: Peter Nelson, Michal Zahorik opposed
Val Shelton, Janice Rosa, Eric Botterman, Amy Burns in favor
Agenda Item #5 - New/Old Business
Committee Reports
Diane Hardy stated the Stormwater Committee has been working diligently and is about 75% complete. They are, hopefully, reviewing the final draft this Thursday. They hope to have something to present to the Planning Board in January.
Amy Burns stated she has not seen the most recent status update on the MS4 situation. She will meet with the Town Administrator on it to get any update to share with the Board.
Diane Hardy stated the Town should have good stormwater regulations in place regardless of whether they are required to under the MS4 program, it is only good planning and design.
SRPC
Peter Nelson stated they are in the middle of the Transportation Budget Review. The next round of hearings is underway. There is really nothing right now affecting Newmarket. Work will continue on the Route 108 Shoulder widening/bikeway project, north of the downtown, in the spring. Newmarket does not have any other major projects in the works.
Town Council
Amy Burns stated Town Council met last week. They had a presentation on the Macallen Dam. Diane Hardy stated the gates are very old and are problematic. By replacing the gates now will save the Town money down the road, as well as lower the elevation of the abutment walls. There will be a public meeting in the spring, when they will invite all of the land owners and stakeholders, and present the alternatives to them to get feedback before selecting the “preferred alternative”.
Agenda Item #6
Adjourn
Action
Motion: Janice Rosa made a motion to adjourn at 8:03 p.m.
Second: Val Shelton
Vote: All in favor