Planning Board
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
Members Present: Barbara Freeman (Chair), William Weiler (Vice Chair), Al Bachelder, David Thayer, Ron Williams, Travis Dezotell (Alternate), Deane Geddes (Alternate), Lacy Cluff (Alternate) and Ken McWilliams (UVLSRPC).
Mrs. Freeman called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
Notice is hereby given that the Newbury Planning Board will conduct a Public Hearing on Wednesday, January 5, 2005 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 explained that the Planning Board had already had two public hearings on the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and had made changes in response to the public comment from those hearings.
Mrs. Freeman asked how many members of the public were new to the process and had not been to any hearings yet. There were three who raised their hands.
Mrs. Freeman discussed the major changes to the ordinance since the last hearing. She said that in Article V (Residential District) the allowance for setbacks was changed to 100% as part of the developable land, the multiplier for the distance from the town center was removed and the multiplier for a substandard paved and dirt road was changed to 1.5. With these changes, the maximum lot size was now six acres. The Board also made changes to the parcels sharing boundaries with open space. The definition of a wetland was 10,000 square feet or larger. The Board eliminated the section that prohibited the withdrawal of water for commercial sale because that was regulated by the State. Mining was no longer prohibited in the Aquifer Overlay District. A building envelope needed to be at
least one acre of contiguous land.
Mrs. Freeman noted an error that was inconsistent between the Residential District and Article 8.6. 8.6 should read 100% instead of 50% in relation to wetlands. She also noted an error in 15.12.3 where it had 16 and 20 acres, it should be 20 acres for both. Under the definitions section, the building envelope is determined by omitting (not deleting)…
Mrs. Freeman said that she would like to open the meeting to public comment. She asked that anyone wishing to comment wait to be recognized and then say their name and where they are from before commenting.
Bob Stewart from 50 Alsubet Court asked if Section 5.9 was referring to cluster developments when it referenced Article 12.
Mrs. Freeman said that it was.
Mr. Stewart asked for clarification on Section 5.9. It said that the setback requirement is to the building foot print or attached structure.
Mr. Weiler said that the foot print of a house is measured by the drip edge of the roof. An example of an attached structure would be a deck.
Mr. Stewart said that the building envelope does not include the setbacks, but it is in the setback definition.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would look at that because there did appear to be an inconsistency.
Mr. Stewart commented that in that same section, it referred to septic, wells, etc. He asked what the etc. was.
Mrs. Freeman said that the etc. could probably be removed.
Janet Kruger from Newbury asked for clarification on what the setback requirements were.
Mrs. Freeman said that they were 15 feet from either side and the back of the property and 30 feet from any adjoining right of ways.
Dick Wright from Morse Hill in Newbury asked what the deer wintering area allowance was.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was a 50% credit to make up a lot, but deer yards could not be built in.
Mr. Wright asked what would happen in the case that someone had a four acres lot and three acres of it was a deer yard.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would need at least one acre of contiguous land to build on it.
Mr. Wright asked if foot note #6 was the only reference to deer yards.
Mrs. Freeman said that it would not be the only reference and that deer yards would be further refined in the Subdivision Regulations. She said that the Board was going to require that a developer have a wildlife biologist define the areas where deer yards were located.
Mr. Wright said that he thinks that it needs to be clearer in the Zoning Ordinance and asked where it stated that deer yards could not be built in.
Mrs. Freeman said that it was in the definition of building envelope. However, she said that she did see his point, all of the other items mentioned had their own article. She said that the Board had discussed having an overlay district. She said that the Board would discuss it further after the public hearing.
Bob Stewart from Alsubet Court in Newbury said that on the third page in the Residential District it refers to onsite water supply and waste water and asked if that would be in the building envelope.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would address it.
Mr. Stewart asked if there was a definition of contiguous and could it have an inclusion of a wetland or steep slope so long as at least one acre was buildable and all connected.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would have to discuss what was meant by contiguous and how it should be defined.
Mr. Stewart said that the Board should really look at how realistic it was as well. He said that the Board was basically looking for one acre of perfect land.
Bob Bell from New London referred to Article 5.7.1 where it permitted accessory apartments in existing buildings that were over five years old.
Mrs. Freeman said that that article had not been changed and was therefore not being discussed at this time.
Janet Kruger from Newbury said that she noticed that none of the articles addressed farms or farm animals. She asked if there were any plans in the future to address those issues.
Mrs. Freeman said that they did not currently have any plans, but the Board has heard from other residents who had the same concerns and it may need to be addressed in the future.
Mr. Stewart referred to Article 5.12.2 and asked what was meant by fragile features.
Mrs. Freeman said that it could be removed because it was not necessary.
Mr. Stewart said that Article 5.14 had the same issue with the well and septic with respect to the definition of building envelope that he brought up earlier.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would address it.
Mr. Stewart asked about grandfathered lots that were less than two acres. He did not feel that it would be possible to do a one acre building envelope. He said that people had a right to build on existing lots.
Mrs. Freeman said that the building envelope only applied to new subdivisions. However, if they could not meet the setback requirements, they could apply to the Zoning Board for a Variance.
Mr. Stewart asked if State and Town paved roads would have to meet town standards.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would.
Mr. Stewart asked about the current list of Town road types that Article V referred to.
Mrs. Freeman said that it did not exist yet.
Mr. Stewart asked how the Board could try to pass something that did not exist yet.
Mrs. Freeman said that this was not an uncommon way to handle this. She said that if the list were approved at Town Meeting, then any updates to it would have to be approved at Town Meeting each year. She said that if they do not include the list, then it can be updated at any time.
Mr. Stewart expressed a concern about steep grades (10% or greater) on roads. He said that parts of route 103A were greater than 10% and therefore would be a three acre zone, but the Article referred to it as a two acre zone. He named multiple Town and State roads that would have the same problem.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board understood his concern and would review that section of the article.
Mr. Stewart noted that Article 8.6 stated that there was a 50% credit for wetland setbacks instead of 100%.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would make that correction.
Mr. Stewart said that there was no definition of a wetland.
Mrs. Freeman said that there was in Article 2.11.
Mr. Stewart asked if Article 9.2 was referring to any type of development, even utilities.
Mr. McWilliams referred him to the definition of development under Article 2.9.
Mr. Weiler said that that was not new.
Mrs. Freeman said that she appreciated all of the comments because it was difficult to iron out all of the inconsistencies.
Ken Dustin from Newbury asked if fire ponds were considered new development.
Mr. McWilliams said that fire ponds were addressed by the Subdivision Regulations on a case by case basis.
Bob Bell from New London said that Route 103A was a State road and did not meet the 10% grade. He thought that perhaps that minimum requirement should be looked at.
Mrs. Freeman said that he made a good point and they would discuss it.
Mr. Bell said that they should have a length associated with the grade.
Mrs. Freeman said that the Board would discuss it.
Mr. Stewart asked if these road requirement would preclude the Planning Board from asking a developer to upgrade a road.
Mrs. Freeman said that that was not the intention.
Mr. McWilliams said that it becomes an issue of safety for accessing a subdivision.
Mr. Stewart asked about a case where a developer was looking to build on a road that was already developed.
Mr. McWilliams said that it would need to be looked at on a case by case basis.
Janet Kruger from Newbury asked it these regulations were going to be voted on at Town Meeting.
Mrs. Freeman said that they would be voted on at Town Meeting by ballot vote.
Ms. Kruger asked if there were going to be any more hearings on these changes before Town Meeting.
Mrs. Freeman said that there would be one more hearing.
With no further comments from the public, Mrs. Freeman closed the hearing to public input.
Mrs. Freeman said that the first issue that she would like to discuss was whether or not to permit the construction of wells and septics in the property setbacks. If the Board wanted to permit it, then they needed to be removed from the building envelope.
After discussing the issue, the Board decided to permit the construction of wells and septics in the property setbacks because the regulations already prohibit construction in the wetland and steep slopes.
Mrs. Freeman asked the Board if they felt that the size of the building envelope should be decreased from one acre.
After much discussion, the Board decided to keep the building envelope as one contiguous acre. They decided that one contiguous acre was one acre of land that was all connected, the shape did not matter.
Mrs. Freeman suggested referring to Table 5.1 under developable area instead of using the term fragile features. She also suggested changing 5.1.2.3 from 20 acres to 6 acres to be consistent with the table.
The Board agreed.
Mr. Dezotell asked if there were anyway to allow someone to subdivide so that they could give a portion of their land to a child or other family member.
Mr. McWilliams said that he felt that that would cause a lot of administrative problems.
The Board agreed.
Mrs. Freeman asked the Board if they felt the need to better define deer yards.
The Board agreed that deer yards should be defined by a wildlife biologist. They decided to add this to the definitions. They also decided that on Table 5.1, #6 would refer to the definition of deer yards.
Mrs. Freeman said that they needed to add a definition for affordable housing.
The Board agreed.
Common Land Buyout from Bob Bell
Mrs. Cluff asked the Board what they wanted to do with the money that was donated to the Town by Bob Bell last May in leui of common land for the Whitethorne Subdivision.
She said that it needed to be voted on at Town Meeting.
The Board decided that they wanted the money to go towards Fishersfield.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Mr. McWilliams handed out the Zoning Amendments to be voted on at Town Meeting.
The Board agreed to have the next public hearing include items 7, 8 and 9 as well as the changes to the building regulations.
Angel Hawk
The Board decided that they need to get direction from Bart Mayer as to how to proceed with Angel Hawk and the wording for the public notice.
A motion was made to adjourn. It was seconded. All were in favor. Meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lacy L. Cluff
Land Use Board Coordinator
| 
