 |
Jackson Planning Board
MEETING NOTES – APRIL 10, 2014 – PUBLIC “LISTENING POST” SESSION
Attendance: Debbie Siebert, Larry Siebert, Ann Bennett, Dick Bennett, Gayle Dembowski, Edward Good, T. Greig, Bill Lockard, Bob Thompson, Jerry Dougherty 4, Larry Garland, Kathy Dougherty, Jerry Dougherty 3, Joan Aubrey, Roger Aubrey, Joyce Allen, G. Huntley Allen, Robert Seaman, Jette Glazer, Paul Allard, Scott Badger, Dick Badger, John Allen, Bea Davis, Norman Head, Anne Peterson, Dave Tradewell, Sarah Kimball, Betsey Harding (+ perhaps others not signed in.)
Tara Bamford of North Country Council presented a slide show indicating the process through which a Build-Out Analysis was performed for the Town of Jackson. During the slide show, she explained the assumptions, parameters, data, findings, and results of the analysis. As she explained, a build-out analysis is a model for calculating development potential, based on the town's current zoning, and on the land's natural constraints.
ASSUMPTIONS:
For the vacant, developable lands, 18% was subtracted for subdivision roads and other utilities; surface water was excluded from the calculations. Tax-exempt federal, state & municipal lands were excluded, as were conserved lands. Overall development potential of lands within the River Conservation District was counted at about 50%.
RESULTS:
Using the data sources, assumptions, and methodology that Tara described, a total of 3,380 dwelling units could exist in Jackson when fully built-out, with 205 of those in the Village District and 3,175 in the Rural Residential District. According to the 2010 US Census, there were 816 Jackson residents living in 399 dwelling units, and 570 seasonal dwelling units, plus an additional 40 vacant homes. Further, "if we assume the same proportion of year-round homes (0.395) and the same household size (2.045) at build-out, this would mean an eventual year-round population of 2,730 living in 1,335 homes." At present, growth trends in New Hampshire are slow; the current year-round population of
Carroll County is projected to grow 15% between 2010 and 2040.
In calculating commercial development within Jackson, it was found that including grandfathered parcels located in the Rural Residential District tipped the balance to the extent that only 28% of commercial lands were in the Village District and 72% were located in the Rural Residential District. With current zoning, development potential in the nonconforming lots of the Rural Residential District is 64% while that of the Village District is only 36% of the total potential.
The Build-Out Analysis report ends with recommendations on zoning ordinance changes that the Planning Board could consider, and on discussions that could aid a Master Plan update. Charts and maps indicating the findings of the Build-out Analysis will be available for review in the Town Offices building; the entire presentation and discussion are available on the "jacksonflicks.com" website at JACKSON and PLANNING BOARD, thanks to Hank Benesh's taping of the evening's gathering.
Following the slide presentation, Tara both took questions from the audience and asked her own. First, she clarified that the analysis was not intended to be a population projection, rather an examination of Jackson’s buildable, non-restricted lots, in accordance with our current zoning requirements. Is the current zoning what the town wants? We have about the same density all over town, in both districts, so we have no built-in differential between the town’s core and its outlying areas. Do we want to have some parts less dense, and some more so? Should the areas up Route 16 be different from those at the Village core? Should lots currently non-conforming continue to be non-conforming, or do we want to permit them to expand, change their offerings, etc.? What commercial uses are
desirable and where? Do we want to keep some commercial areas non-conforming? Should we reduce density in some places, or increase it in some places?
Dick Bennett, Planning Board Chair, commented that the Planning Board’s next step would be to develop questions on the directions that townsfolk would like the town to take; toward that end, he encouraged people to submit questions to the Board for inclusion in the survey the Board intends to send out soon; questions could be submitted directly to the Planning Board through the Town Offices. This analysis presents a maximum build-out; do we want further control of development, and if so, how?
Tara commented that few towns currently use soils-based zoning. Comments indicated that, originally, it was assumed that soils-based zoning would lead to lot sizes of about 2-acres, where in reality it permits greater density. Current density in our town core is greater than would be allowed by current zoning, likely because of grandfathered parcels. What do we want our commercial areas to be, or look like; what types of commercial properties are appropriate or desirable? Are townsfolk interested in preserving additional lands? Do we want non-conforming uses in the Rural Residential District to be able to expand, add additional offerings – such as year-round activities at Black Mountain, or additional development at Eagle Mountain House? Any density bonus is restricted to the difference
between Jackson’s soils-based zoning requirements, and the slightly looser State DES requirements. Development is also limited by our road standards, though they are the minimum required for safety of emergency vehicles. Tara mentioned that may towns have road regulations within the Subdivision Regulations, for some greater flexibility during approval processes.
9,354 acres are privately owned, and not restricted as conservation lands; some of that total has already been built upon; much is still available, but where an existing structure is on a parcel, the owner may not anticipate subdivision for additional buildings.. The attached map is divided by Tara to show “A” as an enlarged Village core that includes some of the Rural Residential District; “C” is the Route 16 corridor north of the Village (Tax Maps 8 & 9); and “B” is everything else. Would we want to change our zoning districts, creating 3, 4, or more different districts to achieve some different goals? Would we want to add or allow community septic or public sewerage in places, to allow greater density? How would we wish to pay for provision of any
community sewerage system? A proposal offered years ago that could have provided a sewer system in the Village producing clean water was rejected by voters, perhaps because of insufficient information. If the Board wishes to propose such an idea in the survey, it might be wise to educate people first on that issue. Tara encouraged us to forget our current zoning and brainstorm on what we truly want the town to look like.
Dick Bennett thanked Tara for her work and the presentation, and added his appreciation for the participation by those in attendance. He also mentioned the fact that several town boards have open positions, and are seeking applicants.
Respectfully submitted, Betsey Harding
Check Jacksonflicks.com for a full video recording of the meeting.
| |
