Planning Board
Thursday, November 4, 2004
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC).
Mrs. Freeman opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will conduct a public hearing on Thursday, November 4, 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.
Mrs. Freeman explained that the Planning Board was looking to make some innovative changes to the Zoning Ordinance. She explained that she would try to present the material in manner that was easy to understand. She said that everyone’s comments were appreciated. She also said that the Planning Board would be having additional public hearings on the proposed changes. She explained that she would first present the material and then open the hearing to public comment. She requested that when commenting, the speaker should state their name and where they are from.
Mrs. Freeman said that she wanted to give some background on the zoning amendments as well as discuss who would be impacted by the amendments.
First, however, she wanted assure property owners that existing lots would not be greatly affected by the amendments. She said that a lot of record would still be a lot of record. An existing lot will be a buildable lot. The only aspect of the new zoning regulations that would affect an existing lot would be the “building envelope”. She explained how to determine the building envelope: subtract steep slopes, wetlands, setbacks from wetlands and deeryards, what remains is the building envelope. This is the area on the lot where you are permitted to build. She said that that was not much different from what is currently done to determine where the house and associated buildings are constructed. The amendments have added setback from wetlands as a factor.
In discussing the background of how the zoning amendments evolved, Mrs. Freeman explained that there had been a substantial increase in development and subdivisions. She noted that there had also been an increase in the number of building permits. Citizens, the Selectmen and Planning Board were all concerned that the Town would not be able to handle this rate of growth. She presented a chart that Mr. Bachelder had done showing a direct correlation between the town budget and the number of housing units in town. Selectmen were concerned about the impact of development on the town budget.
Mrs. Freeman noted that the Town of Newbury currently has a Master Plan in place. One of the Master Plan’s directives from Newbury residents was to protect the rural character of the Town.
Mrs. Freeman said that the flat, easily developed land in Newbury is mostly developed. Now very sensitive sites come before the Board: sites with wetlands, steep slope and animal habitat. She said that the Planning Board has no tools to deal with this type of situation.
In their search for solutions, the Board came across innovative regulations in the Town of Norwich, VT. These regulations addressed environmental conditions and applied to the way Newbury is zoned.
Mrs. Freeman presented a map that was generated from the Master Plan that showed what areas were currently developed and how many additional lots were possible. She noted that a build-out study done by the UVLSRPC in 1994 indicated that Newbury could have a total of 6,216 housing units with current two-acre zoning.
Mrs. Freeman said that the idea behind the new Residential District zoning would be to reflect traditional New England settlement patterns with a dense town center. The further away from the town center, the more rural the area would be. She presented a map to illustrate how the distance from the town center impacts density.
Dave Mathews from Colburn Farm Road asked what the red on the last map Mrs. Freeman presented was.
Mrs. Freeman explained that that showed the areas that were already developed.
Mrs. Freeman referred to the bulleted presentation that was handed out to the public (attached). She discussed the zoning changes, the purpose of the changes and some definitions as written in the hand out. She explained that the Residential District was the key change and the other districts were modified to correspond with the Residential District.
Mrs. Freeman explained how density would initially be determined if a developer were subdividing a parcel of land. This did not apply to a single lot of record. She used Fisherfield Park as an example because the Town owns that property and it would never be developed. She said that after doing a site analysis, it was determined to be a very sensitive site with a lot of wetlands and steep slopes.
First, she showed an example of how this site could have been developed under current two-acre zoning ignoring wetlands and steep slopes. This subdivision had 26 lots.
Then Mrs. Freeman showed how an applicant would proceed under the amended zoning regulations. The first step would be to map out wetlands, setbacks for wetlands and surface water, steep slopes and deer wintering areas, etc. She said that the remaining areas (white areas on the plan) were developable land. She said that non-developable areas that overlap only need to be subtracted once. After the applicant and Planning Board determine the developable area, the applicant uses table V.2 to determine initial Development Density for the parcel. This table presents impacts on the parcel resulting from the conditions of the parcel’s access road, the distance of the parcel from town center and its proximity to major open space land. In the case of Fisherfield, it is on a Town paved road, so the
multiplier would be one. You would then determine the site’s distance from the Town Center. In this case, it is less than two miles, so the multiplier would, again, be one giving a final density of one dwelling unit per two acres. Finally, Fisherfield is not near any major open space and so the multiplier again is one. This resiults in a maximum allowable density of one dwelling unit for every two acres. The final step would be to divide the number of developable acres by the maximum allowable density of two acres. In the case of this analysis of Fisherfield it allows 12 dwelling units on the site.
Mrs. Freeman said that if this property were located on Brown Road, a developer would only be able to put a total of 3 lots because of the distance from the town center and the type of road that it was on. After adjusting for those factors, the density would be 9 acres per dwelling unit.
Mrs. Freeman showed a few examples of how the land could be subdivided. She also showed an example of a possible cluster development. She explained that if a developer were to use cluster development, they would get a 10% bonus, plus an additional 10% bonus if they were to have affordable housing. If they were to use a cluster development to develop these lots, they would be able to build 14 units, instead of only 12.
Mrs. Freeman asked for any questions from the public.
Marty Newell, a Newbury resident, had concerns about the taxes because a 94 acre lot had been turned into a 24 acre lot.
Mrs. Freeman said that it was not much different than how it was currently done because you currently can’t build on steep slopes or wetlands. This doesn’t mean you can’t use the land, you just can’t build in those areas.
Mr. Newell asked how this affected the value of the land?
Mrs. Freeman said that you were simply not able to subdivide it.
Mr. Newell said that if you were not able to subdivide it, then the value had diminished.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was not necessarily true. The value of the land is in the lot size, view etc.
Scott Falvey from South Newbury said that you are currently charged so much per acre because it can be subdivided.
Mrs. Freeman said that taxes were not based on whether the land could be subdivided or not.
Mr. Falvey said that the Master Plan said that rural living could be achieved by having two acre parcels of land. He was concerned that it was just a small group of people coming up with these new regulations and felt that maybe a survey would be more appropriate.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was the purpose of having these public hearings, to get the public’s input. She said that the example that she was giving was an extreme example of a very sensitive site. She said that that was the type of area that the Town was trying to protect.
Tanya McIntire from Blodgett’s Landing asked if the board had considered using soil types in determining lot size and suitability for building.
Mrs. Freeman said that they did talk about using soil types in determining lot size, but decided that they would leave it up to the developer to prove that the soil was suitable.
Dave Mathews, a Newbury resident, said that if you were to take Fisherfield and put it in the far end of Town, the lots would have to be much larger and therefore raising the price of the land. He did not feel that this was fair to the tax payers.
Mrs. Freeman said that this plan was based on logic. The Board went through the Town with the Fire Chief and it was harder to get to places the further they were from the town center. She said that the terrain was more difficult and they didn’t want heavy development in those areas.
Mr. Mathews asked if there were any other towns in New Hampshire who were doing this.
Mr. McWilliams said that there were a couple of other Towns that were looking into it. He noted, however, that a number of surrounding towns had increased the size of building lots in the outlying areas of their towns. New London has 10-acre lots. Lyme has 25-acre lots.
Jay Gamble, General Manager of Mt. Sunapee Resort, said that there were two issues. The first was the protection of natural resources. The second was unintended consequences. He said that the larger parcels would drive the price of land up.
Mrs. Freeman said that she would research impacts on land costs in other towns.
Mr. Falvey said that he did not feel that the Town should dictate the impact of the distance from the town center. He said that the insurance companies were the ones taking the risk, their rates were higher the further you were from safety services.
Mrs. McIntire said that she thought that there really could be more than one town center.
Mrs. Freeman said that although there were other dense areas in Town, there was only one safety service center.
Mr. Wright, Newbury resident said that this was an attempt to control density and maintain the quality of the Town. He said that the taxes would increase if development continued at the current pace.
Mr. Mathews said that he moved to Newbury because the taxes were so low because of the wealth on the lake and Bly Hill. He was concerned that this type of density management would drive the prices of land up and eventually drive the local people out of Town.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were trying to allow for affordable housing by allowing for cluster housing.
Mr. Falvey said that he agreed that growth needed to be controlled, but commercial growth was not encouraged and that was where the money came from. He said that he would like to see the Town make it easier for businesses to come into Town.
Mrs. Freeman said that she does not think that the Town discourages business growth. They do however, need to look out for public safety.
Mr. Newell, said that he does not feel that someone who has a flat lot on a suitable road should not be able to subdivide it just because it was five miles from the Town Center.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were trying to prevent huge developments in remote areas, not minor subdivisions.
Mr. Wright said that because all of the good land was gone, the lots needed to be larger.
Mrs. Freeman said that there were already areas in Town that were not developable.
Mr. Gamble said that he felt having the building envelope would help control density, but felt that the Board should look at the distance from the Town Center more carefully.
Mr. Falvey asked what would happen if a piece of property was in Newbury, but could not be accessed by a Newbury road.
Mrs. Freeman said that the distance would be clocked by the distance traveled by road and the lowest quality road on that route would be used.
Mr. Falvey asked how long these regulations had been in place in Norwich.
Mr. McWilliams said that they had been in place for a couple of years.
Mr. Wright asked why they were giving 50% credit for deer yards. They are protecting 100% of wetlands and steep slopes, but only 50% of deer yards.
Mrs. Freeman said that although they were giving them 50% credit for deer yards, it does not mean that you can build in the deer yards.
Mr. Wright said that if they did allow building in the deer yards, it would kill the deer.
Mrs. Freeman asked if he thought it was acceptable to not allow building in deer yards or does the Board need to do an overlay.
Mr. Wright said that he felt that they should do an overlay to protect the deer.
Mr. Bachelder said that they had discussed deer yards and decided that these should be regulated as part of the subdivision process and felt that a biologist should come in and clearly define areas that were deer yards.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would address this issue.
Mr. Wright said that he did not want to see fragmented habitat.
Mr. Falvey said that he agreed with Mr. Wright regarding deer yards, but also felt that some credit should be given for steep slopes and wetlands.
Mrs. Freeman said that she did not agree with giving any credit for steep slopes or wetlands because current regulations permit this and were resulting in poor environmental conditions.
With no further questions, Mrs. Freeman thanked everyone for their input. She said that they were going to discuss changes to the ordinance and have another public hearing.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Coordinator
| 
