Planning Board
February 2, 2010
Approved March 2, 2010
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Barbara Freeman, Vice-Chair; Bruce Healey; Bill Weiler; Travis Dezotell; Ron Williams, Alternate; Alison Kinsman, Alternate; Ken McWilliams, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of October 6, 2009 and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor.
Ken McWilliam’s Contract
The Board reviewed the “2010 Town Planning Services Agreement” between Kenneth B. McWilliams & Associates LLC and the Town of Newbury.
Mr. Weiler asked about the hourly rate. Mr. Vannatta said the hourly rate stands at $50.00 per hour and is consistent with the hourly rate charged to other communities served by Kenneth B. McWilliams & Associates. LLC.
Mr. Healey asked if the maximum cost of planning services and expenses remained the same as in 2009. Mr. McWilliams said yes. Mr. Healey asked if the contract agreement contained additional wording or changes in wording from the 2009 contract. Mr. McWilliams said no.
Ms. Freeman pointed out that the Board did not use the entire 2009 budget for Mr. McWilliams’ services. Mr. Vannatta agreed, saying the Board used about 80% of the 2009 budget.
There was discussion concerning moving the remaining 20% of unused funds from the 2009 contract into the 2010 budget. The conclusion was that the leftover 2009 funds could not be rolled over into the 2010 budget.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to accept Mr. McWilliams’s contract as presented. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
The Board signed the “2010 Town Planning Services Agreement” between Kenneth B. McWilliams & Associates LLC and the Town of Newbury.
Potential Alternate Member Interview
Mr. Vannatta introduced Russell Smith as a potential Alternate to the Board. Mr. Vannatta said Mr. Smith has monitored the Board meetings for the past three months and expressed an interest in joining the Board as an Alternate. Mr. Vannatta described the duties of an Alternate to Mr. Smith as follows: attendance at Board meetings; no voting rights unless appointed by the Board Chair to sit in for an absent member; completion of a training period conducted by Mr. Weiler; and an expectation of participation in the meeting discussions.
Mr. Smith said he originally asked the Board of Selectmen for guidance and they recommended that he approach the Planning Board for involvement. Ms. Freeman said the Planning Board is a good place to initiate his involvement in the Town.
Mr. Smith said he is a native of Swampscott, MA, and his family vacationed on Lake Sunapee for four generations. He and his wife and two children moved to Newbury five years ago. He is a licensed elevator repair technician in NH and MA, a state elevator inspector in NH, and a licensed plumber in MA.
Mr. Weiler asked Mr. Smith what drew him to the Planning Board. Mr. Smith said he wanted to become involved in the Town government and that the Selectmen recommended that he start with the Planning Board.
Ms. Freeman said it is important that Alternates attend the meetings to ensure that they are informed of the issues before the Board. Also, she commented that it is good for the Board to have its members present varying backgrounds, professions, and experience and welcomed Mr. Smith’s interest in participating.
Mr. Vannatta said the Board meets twice monthly on Tuesday evenings and that the Alternate appointment is for three years. Mr. Smith said he has cleared his schedule to ensure attendance Tuesday evenings.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept Mr. Smith as an Alternate member of the Planning Board. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
COMMITTEE REPORT: Sign Ordinance
Mr. Healey reported that there has not been a meeting of the committee and said he intends to encourage the committee chair, Mr. Powell, to call another meeting soon.
Ms. Freeman said the topic needs attention because there are inconsistencies throughout the town regarding types and placement of signs and cited the unfairness of that approach.
Mr. Healey agreed and repeated his commitment to move ahead with a committee meeting to address this topic.
Ms. Freeman reminded the Board that when subcommittees hold meetings, the meeting must be advertised and posted in the Town Hall, the Post Office, and the library. Mr. McWilliams said meeting minutes are also required, adding that the Open Meeting Law requires that the meeting notice be posted 24 hours in advance excluding holidays and weekends. Mr. Dezotell added that the posting could be placed on the website. Mr. Weiler said the website posting would be in addition to the aforementioned three locations.
COMMITTEE REPORT: Workforce Housing
Mr. Dezotell presented to the Board his research on workforce housing and summarized his findings in a document titled “Workforce Housing Statute Report”. The report stated that the Workforce Housing Statute (RSA 674:58-61) is now law. Mr. Dezotell said the law was enacted in response to the recognition that New Hampshire’s work force is aging and that young workers are leaving the state due to a lack of affordable housing.
Mr. Dezotell said that the RSA also is aimed at communities that are using the land use regulations to stop development. He said the consensus opinion is that the law will be tested in a court of law when a community strongly utilizes its zoning to regulate against development.
He said the biggest question for each community is the standards used to judge compliance. The New Hampshire Finance Housing Authority indicates that HUD numbers for each county will be the determining factor. Mr. Dezotell said that the HUD numbers for Merrimack County are as follows: the median income for property owners (a family of four) is $74,900 with the estimated affordable housing price would be $224,000; and, the median income for renters is $40,450 with the estimated affordable rent being $1010, which includes utilities. Of note is that the HUD numbers for Merrimack County are the highest in the state (non-metro).
Mr. Dezotell said that in Newbury a house can be built and sold for under $224,000 and according to Gail Bostic [Family Services] there are several rental properties currently available in Newbury for under $1010. Mr. Dezotell said, therefore, the HUD guidelines do not present an onerous situation for the town.
He suggested several steps the Board could take to “insulate ourselves from any types of challenges”. He listed the following items to meet the requirements of the state law:
- Add a check box on the current subdivision application form that identifies the project as workforce housing.
- Determine a standard for workforce housing in a development to fit workforce housing standards on resale. That means 60% of the lots in the development that are long term deeded (25 to 30 years) must fit the HUD numbers.
- Before denying or approving the project the Board must provide the developer with a list of requirements, conditions, and restrictions that will bring the project to compliance. If the project is approved, it is considered a conditional approval at this point in the process.
- Determine a review period of at least 30 days during which the applicant makes a financial review of the project in accordance with the compliance list provided by the Board. After the review period, if the applicant wants to challenge the economics of the compliance requirements (in terms of the HUD numbers) the applicant must pay for a third party economic review (typically a civil engineer). At the public hearing the Board may review the evidence provided by the applicant (by the predetermined dates), alter or rescind any conditions and/or restrictions, and issue a final decision or allow for a continuance. If the applicant does not submit within the specified time the Board may issue its final decision
Ms. Freeman commented that a reason why the HUD numbers for Merrimack County are so high could be because there aren’t affordable places for people to live. Mr. Dezotell agreed and added that the New Hampshire Finance Housing Authority has asked that the HUD numbers reflect a county-by-county breakdown – instead of a statewide breakdown – which results in a skewed profile of each community.
There was general discussion on the Workforce Housing Statute, the HUD numbers, and the potential impact the Statute may have on future developments within the Town.
Ms. Freeman pointed out that developers of larger subdivisions may find this cost-prohibitive. Mr. Dezotell said the New Hampshire Finance Housing Authority offers some solutions to substantially reduce developer costs on this type of project, namely, to limit road frontage requirements, increasing the allowed density, and reduce road width requirements.
There was further discussion about road frontage, the cluster development option in the current subdivision regulations, and safety issues surrounding road width requirements.
Mr. Dezotell recommended that the Board set up a recurring “mock” development test every two-to-three years to ensure the Town remains in compliance. He said the New Hampshire Finance Housing Authority is developing a template to assist with the test and will offer it on their website.
Mr. Healey asked if a community is exempt if there is enough existing affordable housing within the town.
Mr. McWilliams said that 15 years ago, the regional planning commissions did an assessment, community by community, of how many affordable housing units were in each community.
Mr. Weiler said if the Board did an assessment on an ad hoc basis for the Town, and if the assessment indicates that 25% of Newbury’s housing is considered affordable, could the Town get an exemption from the Statute?
Mr. Dezotell said that the New Ham[shire Finance Housing Authority clearly says “no” to that question because it has nothing to do with providing reasonable opportunity, which means new development.
Mr. McWilliams cited RSA 674:59, Workforce Housing Opportunities, III., which states: A municipality’s existing housing stock shall be taken into consideration in determining its compliance with this section. If a municipality’s existing housing stock is sufficient to accommodate its fair share of the current and reasonable foreseeable regional need for such housing, the municipality shall be deemed to be in compliance with this subdivision…
There was discussion concerning the term “regional need”, the historical basis for offering affordable housing, and possible additional data gathered by the regional planning commissions to more accurately reflect each community’s profile. Additional discussion included the factors governing long term effects of the Statute and the potential damage that could be done to the Town’s regulations once the Statute is challenged in court.
Mr. Dezotell recommended that the Board examine all of the existing regulations and make sure they are backed up by scientific data, namely national standards to support why each regulation exists.
Mr. Vannatta asked Mr. Dezotell about the future direction of the Workforce Housing Committee. Mr. Dezotell said the four aforementioned steps must be discussed and implemented.
Mr. McWilliams said Item #2 is a change to the Zoning Ordinance and would require a Town Meeting for implementation.
Ms. Freeman suggested that the Board further review Mr. Dezotell’s report and discuss it again in its March work session meeting.
Mr. Dezotell suggested that the Board visit the NH Housing Finance Authority website to review the “mock” development information titled “Working with the Workforce Statute”.
Mr. McWilliams said the term “workforce housing” is not solely directed towards meeting the needs of just working people. Instead, it also encompasses the elderly, young people, families, etc.
COMMITTEE REPORT: Subdivision Regulations
Mr. Weiler reported that the committee will be meeting to review several items including a primer on security for subdivision improvements, along with legal agreements with developers to ensure compliance.
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS
Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Planning Commission (UVLSRPC) Guidelines
The Board reviewed the draft of the UVLSRPC Guidelines to Determine Developments of Regional Impact document which was developed by the UVLSRPC in accordance with RSA 36:54-58. Mr. Vannatta noted that Mr. McWilliams sent review comments on the document which the Board also reviewed.
Ms. Freeman questioned the need for the Guidelines since determining regional impact is clearly stated in the RSA.
Mr. McWilliams said the UVLSRPC is trying to draw attention to the RSA thus encouraging planning boards to be more mindful of regional impact when reviewing projects. He said currently, each planning board in each town makes the determination on whether or not a project has regional impact on neighboring communities.
There was discussion concerning Mr. McWilliams review comments. Mr. Healey asked about increasing the term “transportation network” to include neighboring communities. Mr. McWilliams said “transportation network” overlooks the local roads of neighboring communities which often can be affected by a project.
There was discussion about the size and type of dwelling units. Mr. McWilliams suggested adding language to ensure land use compatibility between the size and type of dwelling units.
Mr. Dezotell asked if the RSA gives towns a stronger position for oversight. Mr. McWilliams said towns have the same status as the abutters during the subdivision process – namely, comments may be made personally or in writing and submitted to the local planning board and those comments must be taken into account during the board’s decision making process.
Mr. Dezotell said it doesn’t give the right to impose impacts. Mr. McWilliams agreed.
Mr. McWilliams said the UVLSRPC will hold a public hearing on the Guidelines on February 17, 2010, which will be publicly noticed in newspapers.
Ms. Freeman made a motion to have the Board draft a document to send to the UVLSRPC prior to the public hearing. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mylar/Deed Submission Procedure
The Board reviewed the current procedure regarding the recording of mylars and deeds. It was noted that, in some cases, problems arose for annexations and lot line adjustments in which deeds were not recorded. Mr. McWilliams said the Town Tax Assessor suggested that before recording the mylar, it would make sense to get the deeds to record with the mylar. Mr. McWilliams says the problem becomes one of timing, when the attorney for the property owners is reluctant to release the deeds to the Board for recording with the mylar.
Mr. Williams said what “you’re really doing is protecting people downstream”. He said if the people have filed the mylar for the lot line adjustment but haven’t transferred it by deed, then when someone goes to search that record for a proposed sale there is a title problem.
Mr. McWilliams said an additional problem is how the Tax Assessor is going to assess those properties.
Ms. Freeman said according to state law the property is supposed to be assessed as soon as the subdivision is made.
Mr. Weiler asked if the Town tax map is the Official Map of the Town.
Mr. McWilliams said no, and defined the Official Map, RSA 674:10, Establishment of Official Map, as follows: After the planning board of any municipality has adopted a master plan which includes a major street plan, or has progressed in its master planning to the stage of the making and adoption of a major street plan, and has certified a copy of a major street plan to the local legislative body, as provided in RSA 674:9, the local legislative body is hereby empowered and authorized to establish an official map of the municipality showing the location of the exterior lines of streets of the whole or any parts of the municipality up to that time existing, laid out and established by law as public streets, and may also show the location of the exterior lines of parks. The official map is to be deemed to be final and
conclusive with respect to the location and width of streets and location of parks shown thereon. ....
Mr. Vannatta told the Board that in the case of the Graf mylar (Case 2009-007: Annexation-Walter & Marlene Graf), the Graf’s attorney signed a release form in which he assumed responsibility for recording both the mylar and the deeds within 30 days. The release form also requested copies from the registry office.
Mr. Weiler said the above procedure was an excellent one and should be used in the future. He said the release form could be modified to differentiate between lots that are created and retained by the sub-divider, and lots that are created between two different parties. He said those two categories would cover most lot line adjustment and annexation situations.
Mr. Vannatta said the issue of responsibility for the recording remains unaddressed.
Mr. Weiler said the Planning Board is ultimately responsible for the recording and suggested having a two-step process in which the Board requests the deeds first from the attorney and if the deeds are not forthcoming, then the filing of the mylar and deeds is transferred to the attorney via a signed release form.
Mr. Weiler suggested that Mr. Vannatta draft the release form into a document that includes the conditions under which it is to be used, and circulate the draft to the Board. Upon Board approval, the document may be incorporated into the Planning Board Rules and Procedures.
Ms. Freeman said the document should go into the sub division regulations to ensure the applicant sees it.
Mr. McWilliams said it would require a public hearing with a vote.
Mr. Vannatta said he will circulate the document and the Board will further discuss the content and placement at its next work session meeting.
Farm Friendly Workshop (ASLPT)
Mr. Vannatta shared information from a November 12, 2009 workshop “How to Make Your Town Farm Friendly”. He said the workshop offered ways to encourage farm friendly strategies within a community. His report covered the definition of a “farm” and the top three farm categories in New Hampshire (nursery/greenhouse/floriculture/sod, milk/dairy, and vegetables/fruit). Forming an Agricultural Commission was discussed along with revising zoning ordinances to encourage and preserve existing and potential farm land.
Ms. Freeman said Newbury has very little land considered prime agricultural land.
Mr. Vannatta said the workshop suggested conducting an inventory using an agricultural profile to determine what the Town has and how the Board can preserve and encourage future agricultural growth.
There was discussion about properties in Newbury that qualify as farms including a fish (carp) farm, llamas, sheep, chickens, hay, and maple syrup production.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if they saw the need to conduct an inventory of farms in the town, make definitions within the ordinances, or revise zoning to encourage and preserve farming.
Mr. Weiler said he did not see the need to take any overt action on this topic and the Board agreed.
Baker Hill Golf Club Building Permit
Mr. Healey raised the question about an approved building permit for an expansion. Mr. Vannatta said he spoke to the Town Building Inspector and said, at the very least, the Board wants to see a new site plan for the Baker Hill Golf Club along with photos of the new expansion.
Ms. Freeman suggested writing a letter to Baker Hill Golf Club requesting a new site plan and photos for updating their files.
Mr. Vannatta said the expansion involves expanding the porch roofline and enclosing the porch. He said the footprint is increased but it is less than the minimum that requires a Planning Board review.
Mr. Weiler asked if there is a regulation against creeping expansion.
Mr. Vannatta said the Building Inspector will investigate the situation and report back to him.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Freeman seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
