Planning Board
Thursday, December 16, 2004
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Ron Williams, Deane Geddes (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC).
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing on Thursday, December 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Newbury Town Office Building, 937 Route 103, Newbury, N.H., to receive public input on amendments to the Town of Newbury, N.H. Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of these amendments is to regulate the density distribution and building envelope of development and construction for residential uses. Amendments also include changes to the Business District, Residential District, Wetlands Conservation Overlay District, Steep Slopes Conservation Overlay District, Cluster Development and Aquifer Overlay District to support these amendments for residential density management.
Copies of the proposed amendments are available for public review at the Town Office Building during regular business hours.
Mrs. Freeman read the above public notice and stated that this was the second public hearing on the zoning changes. She said that the Board had already made some changes based on the public’s input and said that copies of these changes were located in the back of the room. She asked who in the public had not read the changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Only a couple of people raised their hands.
Scott Hill from Newbury asked why they were changing the Residential District.
Mrs. Freeman read the purpose from Article V as follows:
The purpose of this Article is to regulate the density, distribution and building envelope of development and construction within the Residential District so as to 1) Reinforce the goals of the Town of Newbury Master Plan to preserve its rural character, 2) Promote construction of housing which maintains and strengthens traditional New England settlement patterns of compact villages surrounded by open, rural landscape 3) Promote the economical and effective use of services and resources, including roads and highways, fire protection and police protection 4) Preserve natural, scenic and historic resources, 5) Protect and minimize the fragmentation of natural areas, critical habitat and productive forest, agricultural land and open space. It is the intent of these regulations to limit development density
on land where fragile features and critical natural resources are located. The goal is to balance individual property rights with the protection of the Town’s community assets and rural character through appropriate and sensitive land use. Rather than designating multiple zoning districts within the designated Rural Residential District, minimum lot size and maximum density for a site shall be based upon the unique characteristics of the parcel relative to the presence of Steep Slopes (equal or greater than 25%), Aquifers, Wet Lands, Flood Plains and Deer Wintering Areas as well as highway access, distance to the town center, and proximity to protected open space.
Mrs. Freeman explained that the Planning Board has seen more and more development in sensitive areas. She said that the current regulations protect the environment, but do not prevent a developer from subdividing and fragmenting environments. She said that the Board would like to see more sensitive development. She said that the Board also wanted to protect the rural character of the Town by having a traditional New England development with a town center. The further from the town center, the more rural the Town would be.
Mrs. Freeman said that there were three things that she wanted to address. They were as follows:
1. An existing lot was still an existing lot. These regulations would only effect where a house could be built.
2. The Zoning Ordinance was only one part of the regulation, the subdivision regulations would guide how the development would be laid out.
3. The Board welcomed input. The Board had not written these regulations to put anyone at a disadvantage, inevitably, some would benefit and some would not. The Board wanted regulations that would be advantageous to the Town.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to open the hearing to public input and asked that each person wait to be recognized, then state their name and where they were from before commenting.
Iris Thompson from Chalk Pond Road said that she was attracted to Newbury because of its natural beauty. She said that it would be hard to replicate once it was bull dozed. She said that Newbury’s natural beauty was what attracted people to the area and supported the Planning Board’s proposal. She felt that everyone’s life would be enhanced by them.
Marty Newell from Newell Road said that people would not have a place to purchase without development.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Zoning Ordinance was not preventing development, it influences density and where building could take place.
Mr. Newell said that he owned 20 acres and may only be able to build one house on that property. He said that that property had been in the family for a long time and the possibility that he may not be able to give part of it to his son someday bothered him.
Scott Hill said that he had lived in Newbury his entire life and felt that development was what paid the taxes. He said that his mother owned 200 acres and felt that these regulations were going to depreciate the value of her land.
Bob Bell from New London referred to the bulleted presentation and said that he read a non-development lot to be any lot that was in current use could not be sold.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was not what they were referring to. She said that they included that for someone, for example, who wanted to subdivide a piece of land to give to their child, but they were going to use it for recreation or logging, but never develop it, then these regulations did not apply.
Mr. Bell asked if they could put that it did not include land that was in current use.
Mr. Weiler commented that not everyone puts their land in current use.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would review it and clarify.
Tanya McIntire from Blodgett’s Landing asked if these regulations were intended to slow the rate of growth in Newbury.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were intended to control how the growth occurred, but not slow it.
Marion Deroche from Newbury said that if lots were required to be larger, it would slow the rate of growth. She said that she was afraid that she would not be able to subdivide her land to give it to her children.
Mrs. Freeman asked if she had looked at how the regulations were going to affect her property.
She said that she had not.
Marty Newell from Newell Road said that the value of land was going to increase because developers were going to have to raise the price of land to break even.
Scott Falvey from South Newbury said that it took a certain income level to buy a large piece of land and that larger lots were not as saleable because there were less people who could afford them. He said that the fire and highway departments still needed to be able to get to a development regardless of whether there were three houses or eight houses.
Mr. Falvey asked if businesses were required to adhere to the same regulations.
Mrs. Freeman said that developers would only need to adhere to these regulations for residential uses in the business district.
Mr. Falvey also felt that salt sheds should not be permitted over the aquifer. He said that although the Town did it, he did not feel that others should be allowed to.
Mrs. Freeman said that she did not think that it was currently permitted, but that the Board would take it into consideration.
Mrs. Freeman said that the safety services issue was a complicated one. She said that the Board had data from Al Bachelder showing a direct correlation between an increase in households and an increase in the budget. Mrs. Freeman asked Mr. Prussman, Highway Administrator, if he wanted to address the safety services issue.
Mr. Prussman said that in terms of plowing the roads, he agreed with Mr. Falvey. He also said that he felt that more thought needed to go into the road quality. He said that he did not think that all gravel roads were created equal.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would have Mr. Prussman come in and meet with the Board.
Bob Scott had a question regarding land that abutted the conservation land and what if new conservation land was to be acquired.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would look into that.
Bob Bell from New London said that he was concerned about how these regulations would affect the value of the land. He asked if the Board could shed some light on how these regulations would affect a real subdivision.
Mrs. Freeman asked Richard Reeves, one of the owners of Angel Hawk, how it affected his subdivision.
Mr. Reeves said that under the old regulations he was able to do a 20 lot subdivision, but under the new regulations, he was only able to do 8 lots. He said that the Planning Board had a hard job to do, but felt that they should look at the multipliers, especially the ones for the distance from the town center.
Mrs. Freeman thanked him and said they would take that into consideration.
Kerry Behrens from Newbury said that she thought that some of the definitions were going to cause problems. She said that deer wintering areas could be subjective because the deer could leave.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board was concerned about fragmentation of habitat and that it would be further addressed in the subdivision regulations.
Bob Bell said that he felt that the density increase for cluster developments was admirable, but was concerned that there was no minimum size for wetlands. He said that a skidder could create a wetland.
Mr. Weiler said that a skidder could create a wet area, but not necessarily a wetland. He said that wetlands had certain soil types and plant habitat.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board had discussed having a minimum size for wetlands and would discuss it again.
Scott Falvey said that over time, a wet area that was created by a skidder would eventually develop into a wetland with the specific soil types and plant habitat.
Jim Pickman from Newbury said that he owned a piece of property that was six miles from the Newbury town center, but only 8/10 of a mile from the Bradford fire department. He does not feel that the distance from Newbury’s town center should be an issue because of mutual aid.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would have to talk about that.
Cal Prussman, Newbury Highway Administrator, said that the same was true with the highway department. He said that Bradford plowed and sanded Old Sutton Road and that Newbury does the entrance to Forest Brook in Bradford.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would discuss that when he met with the Board.
Marty Newell was concerned about if there were to be a wet summer and he had wet spots on his property.
Mrs. Freeman said that the soil types and plants would be tested and that it would probably not be considered a wetland.
Mr. Newell asked if the Board actually goes and looks at the land.
Mrs. Freeman said that they do and that it was going to be a requirement in the new regulations.
Mr. Newell asked if it would be possible to find out how this could affect the tax rate.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would look into it.
Jim Powell, Selectmen, said that he did not feel it was going to negatively impact the tax rate because two, two acre lots were worth more than one four acre lot.
Iris Thompson from Chalk Pond Road said that it was obvious that a majority of the public that evening were developers. She said that the developers wanted to develop in Newbury because of its natural beauty and without that, they would not be making the money that they were.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was a good point and that the New Hampshire advantage was that it was a beautiful state.
Reggie Morris from Newbury said that a lot of nice development had taken place and that the Board should not rush into anything. He said that what the Planning Board did would inevitably affect the taxes.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board was not rushing into anything, they had been working on these regulations for months.
Lynne Bell from New London said that she wanted to commend Mrs. Freeman on the tone that she kept throughout the public hearing.
With no further comments from the public, Mrs. Freeman said that she appreciated everyone coming out that evening and said that the Board would take all of their comments into consideration. She said that the Board would be having another public hearing as well.
Before closing the public hearing, Mrs. Freeman read two letters, one from Ronald Karlson and the other from Dan Wolf (Please see file).
The Board discussed the issues that were brought up at the public hearing and decided to drop the distance multiplier. They also decided to change the multiplier for substandard paved roads and gravel roads to 1.5 and then fine tune it next year.
The Board was unable to come to a consensus on how to handle the unnamed open space and given the time constraints decided to eliminate it for this year and work on it next year.
With the advice of Bart Mayer, Town attorney, (Please see file for letter) the Board decided to make the following changes:
1. Consider a wetland to be 10,000 square feet or larger.
2. Eliminate section 20.2.12 , prohibiting the withdrawal of water for commercial sale because it was regulated by the State
3. With respect to mining, the Board decided to say that it was prohibited except as provided in 20.2.10 and 20.3.3.
4. Give 100% credit, instead of 50% credit for setbacks to wetlands.
5. Decided that the building envelope needed to be a minimum of one acre of contiguous land located by the subdivision process.
The Board decided that the next public hearing on the zoning ordinance would be Wednesday, January 5, 2005 at 7:00 p.m.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Coordinator
| 
