MINUTES, REGULAR MEETING July 14, 2011 (UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED)
Chairman Scott Badger called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ATTENDING:
Members – Ray Abbott, Scott Badger, Frank Benesh, Bea Davis, Betsey Harding, Sarah Kimball and David Treadwell. Alternates – Larry Siebert. George Howard, Daren Levitt, and Michael Mallett contacted the chairman to say they would not be able to attend.
Others attending the meeting were Susan Chase, Jerry Dougherty III, Kathleen Dougherty, Jerry Dougherty IV and John Allen.
The minutes of the June 9th meeting were reviewed. Betsey Harding made a motion to accept the minutes as written; Ray Abbott seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
SITE DISTURBANCE CLARIFICATION:
The town engineer and a member of the Board of Selectmen had expressed concern over the ambiguity of “prevent increased run-off” in 4.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The question is whether the intent is to prevent an increase in rate of run-off or any increase in quantity.
Frank Benesh commented that it is inappropriate for the Planning Board to interpret the intent of an ordinance, as that is the job of the ZBA. Scott replied that though that is the legal function of the ZBA, the Board of Selectmen also need to interpret the meaning and intent of the Zoning Ordinance in its application of it. As such, any better understanding of an ordinance that can be gained from the board that wrote it seems appropriate. Further, it would be the Planning Board that would redraft an ordinance if clarification were needed.
The Town Engineer, Burr Philips, had recommended that the wording be changed to, “prevent increased flow rate of run-off”. In his estimation, if the ordinance were intended to mean “quantity of run-off”, then nearly any significant site disturbance in Jackson would not be possible.
During the meeting, it was asked whether the term rate refers to a volume over time measurement, or velocity. David Treadwell indicated that in hydrology, rate typically signifies volume over time. It was also suggested, though, that regarding erosion, velocity of run-off can also be a factor. Similarly, in an email, Mike Mallett suggested that concentration also be taken into an account, using an analogy of a gutter system where a relatively small amount of run-off can be concentrated in a way that causes significant erosion.
It was also suggested that in some cases flooding might be an issue and perhaps quantity should be taken into account as well.
Jerry Dougherty, III asked if the current wording of 4.1.6 requires any kind of submittal. Scott replied that it does not, though if the Board of Selectmen determines that erosion, or other problems, are occurring in a particular situation, they may require a plan be submitted that rectifies the situation. In any case, the general consensus was that it’s still a good idea for developers to discuss their project with the BoS, and consult the available guidelines, as correcting problems before they occur is always easier for everyone involved.
It was decided to continue the discussion at the next meeting and ask the Town Engineer for guidance to help the board redraft 4.1.6 so as to make it more clear and better address the primary intent of preventing erosion. Scott will also research other towns’ ordinances and whether the state provides any models that might be used.
CONTINUATION OF ROAD FRONTAGE DISCUSSION:
The Frontage discussion was continued from the last meeting. Frank brought in a copy of the Ellis River Watershed project and suggested that a formula may have been used for that report to determine potential further build-out, or density, in Jackson. And that there might be a variable representing the frontage requirement that could be changed to determine what the potential increased density in Jackson would be under lower frontage requirements. In an email to Scott, Dave Mason also suggested this.
Scott talked with David Publicover, Chair of the Bartlett Planning Board, about the impact of Bartlett’s residential frontage requirement of 50 feet on density. It was the opinion of Mr. Publicover that the lower frontage requirement was not causing density problems and that, perhaps like Jackson, Bartlett’s soils requirement, as well as a large portion of the town being National Forest land, keeps density at an acceptable level and that frontage isn’t as much of a factor.
Given the work that needs to be done on the Site Disturbance ordinance, and the possibility that the Planning Board may want to work on the Building Permit ordinance and how it is enforced, it was proposed that further discussion of Frontage be put off to some later time.
Frank Benesh made a motion to table the Road Frontage discussion at this time; David Treadwell seconded the motion. All voted favorably.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS:
Scott had some discussion with attorneys at the Local Government Center who felt there are problems with Jackson’s Building Permit ordinance (16.2) towards enforcing the State Building Code. The first issue being that the $10,000 threshold for requirement of a building permit (for alteration or maintenance work within the same footprint) is less stringent than what the State Building Code requires, and therefore not allowed by RSA 674:51. Secondly, it was the opinion of one attorney at the LGC that for a town to enforce any building code, including the State Building Code, the legislative body of the town must first adopt that code. This is the case despite the SBC being in force for every NH town, whether or not any town chooses to adopt and enforce it. Though the RSAs are not very clear on this issue, the language of 676:11 suggests
that a town first adopts a building code before enacting provisions to enforce it. Frank pointed out that town counsel, Rob Upton, disagrees with this opinion and believes Jackson is enforcing the SBC legally and appropriately.
Scott raised the concern that if Jackson were not to perform residential building inspections, property owners may have to pay higher insurance rates as well as have difficulties obtaining mortgages.
Betsey Harding suggested that an “either/or” vote might be possible, where Jackson voters could decide whether Jackson enforces the SBC through inspections and, if so, under Building Permit requirements more consistent with the SBC. Research will be done as to the feasibility of an either/or vote and the discussion will continue at the next meeting.
Ray Abbott made a motion to dissolve the meeting; it was seconded and all voted favorably. Chairman Badger dissolved the meeting 9:50 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan G. Way, Secretary
July 19th, 2011
| 
