 |
Jackson Planning Board
MINUTES –October 9, 2014 – REGULAR MEETING
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:05 pm by Dick Bennett, Chair. Attending were: Members Dick Bennett, Dave Treadwell, Larry Siebert, Sarah Kimball, Daren Levitt, Betsey Harding, and John Allen, and Alternates Scott Badger, Bea Davis and Kathleen Dougherty. In the audience were Jerry Dougherty III, Jay Henry, Bob Davis, and videographer Hank Benesh, who was filming the proceedings.
Minutes of September 11: Sarah Kimball moved and Dave Treadwell seconded their acceptance, and all approved.
Public comment: Jerry Dougherty asked when he should speak to the Zoning Ordinance proposals; Dick stated that audience members could participate during the discussions of proposals.
Jay Henry had been invited to speak with the Planning Board about potential changes needed in Zoning and/ or Subdivision provisions. Jay stated that, with changes in building inspectors, questions had arisen. He is working with others to gather regulations and policies together, for continuity even through future possible changes in personnel. Jay needs a current copy of the Road and Driveway Regulations, adopted in December 2008.
Concerning driveways, Jay inquired who inspects new subdivisions, whether the Planning Board does inspections and enforces the regulations, and do driveway regulations apply equally to all driveways in town. We noted that the regulations pertain to driveways “constructed” and not to old driveways that are not being constructed or reconstructed. Jay stated that, typically, the only driveways he inspects are those that intersect Town roads. We reviewed Section 4.1.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which states, “Driveways serving more than one Dwelling Unit shall be designed to accommodate prospective traffic and to meet requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and any additional requirements of the Fire Department” and Section 16.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: “It shall be the duty of the Board of Selectmen to
enforce and administer the provisions of this Ordinance….” Discussion hinged on whether these Zoning Ordinance sections mean that all driveway construction should be permitted, whether the Selectmen should decide whether to issue driveway permits, and whether they have the authority to do so; at this time, the Selectmen’s Office hands out driveway permit packets. When would enforcement happen? At the time of the Occupancy Permit? At some final inspection time? At the time of the first inspection – for example, if a particular grade problem needs to be brought to the owner’s attention? Should a Building Permit not be issued until a Driveway Permit has been issued? Jay indicated that the State Fire Code is vague about what is required for driveways; he has usually inspected for curb cuts, and approximately the first 10 to 20 feet beyond the curb cut for suitable fire access and possible drainage onto Town Roads, but not on Private Roads; in
complicated locations, he asks the Town Engineer to take over. Dick suggested that Jay make recommendations to the Selectmen for what level of enforcement could work best. On questions of permitting and enforcement, Scott recommended that an attorney at the Local Government Center be contacted to determine if the Planning Board would need to authorize the Selectmen to enforce regulations on driveway construction through issuing a permit, or if the existing Section 16.1 on enforcement suffices; John said Julie Atwell would make the contact with the LGC.
Concerning Town Hall Road, Jay stated that the Federal Government has a Right-of-Way on it for the Forest Service, but wondered whose road it is; it’s not a Town Road. Is it a Private Road? The Federal Government maintains it for erosion and general repairs, and the Town has an agreement for Bartlett to plow it in exchange for Jackson’s plowing at the Transfer Station.
Finally, Jay asked about Section 9.06, #1 of Jackson’s Subdivision Regulations, concerning fire ponds and dry hydrants, wondering how the Planning Board decides when such a requirement should be applied to a particular development. Board members concluded that the Checklist for Subdivision Applications should include reference to the possible need for a fire pond or dry hydrant, to ensure that the issue would be covered prior to issuing an approval on a Subdivision proposal.
Old Business: Betsey reviewed progress on the Community Survey: 1210 surveys were sent out; 1 was returned unused, 1 was returned with only the back filled out (not the front, where a respondent could indicate whether a town resident or not), and 1 had a note saying the property had been sold; 2 were returned as undeliverable, and a check made on the addresses verified that the addressees are not current property owners; Bea Davis was handed one when she said she could deliver it to Randy Davis since he had not received one. Of the 1205 which presumably have been received, 448 had “Jackson” postal addresses, and 757 were received at non-Jackson addresses; we recognize that some Jackson residents receive mail at other postal stations. 151 respondents listed themselves as year-round residents, 33.7% of 448, and 174
indicated they were not full-time residents, 23% of 757. Members agreed that we should set a deadline of October 15th for return of the surveys; Betsey will request that notice go out on Jeackson ENews, and post it.
Other Business: Papers were distributed indicating various proposed changes to the Jackson Zoning Ordinance. Sarah introduced them, as follows:
- Addition of a definition of the word “Premises” which is used in Section 13: Signs; this addition is recommended by planners at the NH Office of Energy & Planning.
- At Section 3.34, addition of “associated with Land Development” following “any human activity,” as recommended by Town Engineer Burr Phillips.
- Addition of the Town Meeting date of approval at Section 4.1.5 Driveways (housekeeping change).
- At 4.1.6 Site Disturbance, addition of “or activities that alter watercourses” following “Land Development” and “rate of” before “run-off,” both as recommended by Burr Phillips.
- At 4.3.1.1, addition to the Rural Residential District of several categories of uses already permitted in the River Conservation District, including: forestry, parks and conservation areas, open space, nature trails, and municipal facilities and areas. Sarah recommended addition of these uses.
- Discussion followed about “Lodging Houses” which are currently permitted only in the Village District, and not in Rural Residential. Examining the definitions of “Lodging Houses” vs. “Hotels, Motels” there is little distinction. Are Bed & Breakfast establishments sufficiently covered as Home Occupations? Is one of the Planning Board’s goals to have fewer non-conforming uses and structures, and how would we best meet such a goal? Dick stated that there is a difference in the codes between Lodging Houses and Hotels & Motels, and he will examine those.
- At Sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.3 Setbacks, addition of wording indicating that at the sideline of a public or Private Road that does not provide access to a lot only a 25-foot setback would be required; earlier Planning Board discussions had concluded that this would primarily affect corner lots which currently must meet a 50-foot setback at each street.
- At Section 4.3.2.1 Uses Permitted in the Village District, Sarah has proposed wording which would allow continuation of existing permitted and non-permitted uses, in a clearer fashion.
- Also at Section 4.3.2.1, “Municipal facilities and areas” would be removed if that wording is voted in at 4.3.1.1.
- We discussed whether “Nonprofit educational facilities for preschool aged children” should continue to be permitted in the Village District, whether educational facilities should be permitted everywhere and for all ages, whether they should be permitted as day-only facilities or allow over-night uses
- At Section 9.7, both Jerry Dougherty IV and Burr Phillips had proposed rewording as follows: One or more current State approved septic system designs sufficient to serve both the principal Dwelling Unit and the Accessory Apartment shall be provided before any construction or renovation is begun to add and Accessory Apartment, and shall be set in place if the existing system fails.
No vote was taken on these proposals. Dick recommended that we continue to review and discuss them at the November meeting. Larry inquired about some of Tara Bamford’s recommendations: her #1 at page 14 of the Build-Out Analysis, to incorporate the “Site-Specific Soil Mapping Standards for New Hampshire and Vermont” for use with our current soil-based minimum lot size zoning, and also Tara’s #2 on the same page 14, that Section 5.2 be clarified and combined with Section 12 to avoid redundancy and confusion (see her description on page 14 of that Analysis). Sarah agreed to contact Tara to ensure that we have correct information on her recommendations.
New Business: The Selectmen’s Office has asked how many NH RSA Land Use books the Board would like. Dick recommended that we request 12 books, one for each member and alternate. Betsey turned in our request at the Office door.
There being no further business, it was moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Betsey Harding
(Note: an audio-visual record of the meeting may be found on Jacksonflicks.com)
| |
