NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING AND WORK SESSION
DECEMBER 28, 2010
1. Call to Order: Chairman Jim Doggett called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.
In attendance were: Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Ann Miles, Frank Gibbs, and Kim Vaillant; BOS ex-officio Trisha McCarthy; and Alternate Mary Allen. Minutes were transcribed by Interim Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
Doggett appointed Allen to stand in for Pettit for the evening.
Circuit Rider Planner Brian Groth was not able to attend meeting due to scheduled vacation.
2. Keith Hart of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to change the designation of the parcel of land as shown on Newton Tax Maps as Map 6, Block 5, Lot 11 from being part of and in the Residential A zone to being part of and in the Commercial zone.
Doggett opened the public hearing. Doggett read the citizens petition regarding Mr. Hart's property. Doggett noted that the petition, being signed by 25 registered voters, may not be altered by the board. Doggett asked Mr. Hart if he would like to comment on the petition.
Mr. Hart asked if any board members had questions.
Miles asked Mr. Hart for a history of the uses of this lot.
Mr. Hart explained that he maintains a garage, parks equipment, and stores old cars on the lot, which also includes his residence, since 1983.
Miles asked Mr. Hart what uses the property would have if the zoning change was approved.
Mr. Hart explained that he would continue to park his equipment, maintain the equipment, and store old cars on the lot.
Gibbs asked if there was an exit from the property onto a state highway.
Mr. Hart explained that there was no exit from the property onto a state highway.
Allen asked Mr. Hart for clarification on the abutters behind his property.
Mr. Hart explained that there are 3 lots of commercial property along the railroad tracks behind his property.
Allen asked if the equipment must exit the property onto Crane Crossing; or are there other exits.
Mr. Hart explained that access and egress from the property will always be from and onto Crane Crossing.
Allen asked how wide the driveway from the property onto Crane Crossing was.
Mr. Hart explained that the driveway was 30 feet wide.
Doggett recessed the public hearing until the second session scheduled for January 11, 2011.
3. Newton Grange of Newton, NH requests a public hearing regarding a proposal for the establishment of a Newton Agricultural Commission.
Doggett opened the public hearing. Doggett read the citizen's petition regarding the establishment of a Newton Agricultural Commission. Doggett noted that the petition, being signed by 25 registered voters, may not be altered by the board. Doggett asked if anyone in attendance had any questions regarding this petition.
Mr. Hart asked for clarification about the purpose of the commission.
Doggett explained that the commission is a non-regulatory board whose purpose is to promote small sustainable agriculture in the Town of Newton. As part of its municipal functions, the commission will facilitate the town's ability to apply for and receive grants from the USDA and other government agricultural departments.
Mr. Hart asked if the members of this commission would strictly be volunteers.
Doggett replied that the members would strictly be volunteers.
Allen noted that the commission would provide assistance to people who wanted to create small farms on their properties.
Doggett recessed the public hearing until the second session scheduled for January 11, 2011.
4. Town of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to review proposal for the creation of village district zones in the areas of Rowe's Corner, Central Main Street, and Newton Junction.
Doggett opened the public hearing. Doggett read the warrant article sponsored by the Planning Board creating the mixed-use zones. Doggett asked if anyone would like to comment on the proposal.
Mr. Hart asked if the border lines for the zones could be re-drawn to include his property.
Doggett explained that the article was still open for revision.
Miles commented that the article was very important for the growth of the Town of Newton. The article will provide an opportunity for small business to develop and allow local home owners to start a small business to offer conveniently located services for citizens in the town. The article is a straightforward zoning article that creates planned blocks of land uses to provide services, as opposed to the current unplanned spot zoning. The article must be flexible enough to provide several different types of services for the citizens of Newton.
Allen asked if all the buildings within the proposed zone will be owner occupied.
Doggett explained that the language of the article was changed at the previous meeting to allow buildings without owner occupation.
Allen asked why the language was changed. The original concept of the article was to have owner occupied buildings.
Miles explained that the language was changed to allow flexibility for different types of businesses offering services to the citizens to develop. In most cases, based on the environment of the Town of Newton, owner occupied buildings will be the norm.
Doggett commented that he has a problem with the revised language allowing buildings without owner occupation. The language allows someone to purchase a property, convert the building to office space, and rent the space. This scenario violates the original concept of the article.
McCarthy noted that the language was revised at the suggestion of the circuit rider planner. It was revised so as not to force current commercial properties that are not owner occupied to convert a portion of the property to a residence. She noted an example of a multi-family home in which all the units are currently being rented out being converted to a lawyer's office. The owner occupied language would now require the owner to live at this location.
Doggett commented that the revised language changed the concept of the article from a mixed-use zone to a strictly commercial zone. He further explained that there was a concern expressed by citizens that they will become the sole resident/home owner sandwiched between commercial businesses.
Vaillant commented that the original concept of the article was for owner occupied properties. The purpose of the article was to give residents the opportunity to make extra income and provide alternative uses for their property.
Citizens expressed to the board their desire that the areas stay residential in nature, not commercial. The board originally presented the properties in the zone to citizens as being owner occupied. The board cannot change such a fundamental concept at this late date.
Milner suggested compromise language that deleted the words "where there is a residential use." This would retain owner occupied concept. The words "unless otherwise approved by the Planning Board" could provide flexibility for exceptions deemed suitable by residents and the board.
Ken Sweet of 2 Laura Lane commented that the village district zone was a good concept. He stated that, in his experience as a contractor and member of a planning board, there is not a strong desire for developers to try to build commercial properties within traditionally residential neighborhoods. It is not economically feasible for them to do so. He also stated he did not believe it was reasonable to require an owner to occupy a multi-family dwelling that was allowed within the proposed zone. He noted that owner occupied language may not necessarily cure the problems associated with absentee landlords. These problems could still exist if owners lived on the property.
McCarthy stated that the deletion of the words "where there is a residential use" supports owner occupied concept. This change would address the concerns of board members regarding owner occupied concept.
Doggett expressed his concern that without owner occupied requirement pockets of commercial property may develop within residential areas. This will negatively affect the value of the residential property.
Gibbs suggested that the village district zone in the Newton Junction area include the properties of Hart and Zayas.
Gibbs moved that two parcels of land referenced on Newton Tax Maps as Map 6, Block 5, Lot 11 and Lot 11-1 are included within the village district zone in the Newton Junction area. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
Allen suggested that the list of permitted uses should be deleted to allow more flexibility for uses on a property. The list restricted possible uses.
Doggett and Vaillant noted that the board spent a considerable amount of time working on the list of permitted uses. It was an important part of the article. Vaillant further stated that the list should remain in the article out of respect for the input of residents regarding the list.
McCarthy suggested adding language that classified the list as an example of permitted uses.
Allen moved that the words "The following uses are permitted" under Section 2 - Permitted Uses be changed to "The following list is an example of permitted uses." Second by McCarthy. Motion carried 5-1 with Miles opposed.
Doggett suggested that, if a developer planned to convert a single family home into a multiple unit dwelling, the developer should be required to submit a site plan review.
Vaillant moved that the permitted use of multiple-unit dwellings be moved under the language requiring Site Plan Review and approval by the Planning Board. Second by Allen. Motion carried 5-1 with Miles opposed.
Doggett moved to delete the words "where there is a residential use" in Section 3b – Restrictions and Special Provisions. Second by Vaillant.
Discussion of motion – Miles stated that the language did not allow enough flexibility for small business to develop. The board was not enhancing the creation of a small village district. It was creating more problems for code enforcement over time.
Motion carried 5-1 with Miles opposed.
Gibbs suggested changing the setbacks defined in the article to conform to the town zoning ordinances. If more expansion (such as a multi-unit dwelling) occurs, the current town setback requirements will prevent crowding up to the lot lines and the addition of more buildings.
Vaillant further noted that the original concept of the article was to use the existing layout of the land and buildings.
Gibbs moved that the words in Section 3c(1) – Dimensional Requirements be changed to "All buildings shall be setback a minimum of twenty-five feet (25') from lot lines other than the front lot line; and shall have a setback of between twenty-five feet (25') and sixty-five feet (65') from the center line of the road." Second by Allen. Motion carried 5-1 with Miles opposed.
Doggett recessed the public hearing until the second session scheduled for January 11, 2011. Doggett opened the work session at 8:38 pm.
5. Other board business.
Allen moved to approve the RPC Circuit Rider Planner contract. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
Allen moved to accept the minutes of the December 14 meeting. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously with Vaillant abstaining.
Doggett presented the operating budget manifest to the board. The invoices reflected payment of telephone bill and matching funds for road design study.
Gibbs moved to pay the operating budget manifest amount of $5055.76. Second by Allen. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett presented the NPREA manifest to the board. The manifest indicated refund payments to developers of unused NPREA funds. The refunds were approved at previous meeting.
Allen moved to pay the NPREA manifest amount of $4942.44. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
McCarthy asked the board to revise its 2011 proposed budget to reflect the small increase indicated in the RPC Circuit Rider Planner contract.
Doggett suggested that the board should determine the dates for reviewing the list of finalists for the village district road design study and interviewing the finalists.
The board came to a consensus to review the list of finalists at the January 11 meeting and interview the finalists at the January 25 meeting.
6. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Interim Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
