NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING AND WORK SESSION
NOVEMBER 13, 2012
1. Call to Order: Chairman Barbara White called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. In attendance were: Chairman Barbara White; Vice Chairman Jim Doggett; Planning Board members Frank Gibbs and Michael Blanchette; BOS ex-officio Charles Melvin; and Circuit Rider Planner Julie LaBranche. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
2. Town of Newton, NH review of waiver request by Lewis Builders Development, Inc. to amend living space square footage requirements for units located in the Sargent Woods condominium community.
Joshua Manning was present to represent Lewis Builders.
Mr. Manning addressed the Board. He stated that Lewis Builders is requesting to add 400 square feet of additional living space to the basements of the units in the Sargent Woods condominium community. Currently, the units have a maximum limit of 1800 square feet. With the amendment, the total allowed square footage of living space for the units would be 2200 square feet. The additional living space would be contained within the existing building footprints. There would be no additional bedrooms or increase in the number of residents per unit. The intention of the increased space was to allow the homeowners to use their basements to their maximum potential.
White asked for Board member comments in turn starting with the circuit rider planner.
LaBranche noted that the elderly housing section of the Town of Newton Zoning Ordinance gave the Planning Board the authority to grant a waiver to the requirements within that section of the ordinance. However, the waiver may only be granted if the general purposes of the ordinance are satisfied. In making its determination on whether to grant the waiver, the Board must primarily consider the genesis of the elderly housing ordinance and the purpose of the ordinance for the community at large. She further stated that the administrative assistant has prepared a summary of statements from the Master Plan and state statutes regarding inclusionary zoning to help the Board identify the purpose of the requirements of the ordinance and create findings in response to the waiver request.
Melvin stated that, based on his review of the summary of statements from the Master Plan, zoning ordinance, and state statutes provided to the Board, he was not in favor of increasing the living space.
Gibbs stated that he bases his opinion on whether money will be coming in to the Town of Newton. If the proposed additional living space will be taxed the same as an unfinished basement, he is opposed to the waiver. If the proposed additional living space will be taxed more than an unfinished basement, he is in favor of the waiver.
White stated that speculated tax implications of the waiver request do not fall within the parameters of the Board’s deliberation. The Board should consider the language and purpose of the ordinances and regulations.
LaBranche suggested that the purpose subsection of the Elderly Housing section of the zoning ordinance be read into the record.
Milner read an excerpt from the Elderly Housing section of the zoning ordinance as follows:
PURPOSE
This ordinance seeks to address the housing needs of the elderly and to encourage the development of such housing to meet the needs of persons who have lived in Newton and who would like to continue to reside in Town, but who are no longer able or interested in residing in and maintaining a conventional residence. The ordinance encourages the development of elderly housing by permitting such housing to be developed at a unit density and with a certain amount of planning flexibility that is greater than that permitted for conventional single family housing development.
The Townspeople recognize that one aspect of elderly housing development is that the housing built will continue to be put to this use in perpetuity, consistent with restrictive covenants and consistent with the provisions of state and federal law that permit housing units to be restricted by age.
Milner presented a summary of statements from the Town of Newton Master Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the State of NH RSA’s to provide the Board with information for identifying the purpose of the living space square footage requirement in the elderly housing ordinance. The summary of statements is as follows:
- Master Plan states that “housing is an indicator of the way a town responds to the needs of its residents of various economic groups. State statutes and court rulings stress the need for towns to provide opportunities for a wide range of housing types.”
- Master Plan states “to provide ample opportunity for a broad range of housing demand, land use regulations must be evaluated and modified to ensure continuance of a diverse housing stock.” …”If land use regulations are not amended,…single-family residential will continue to comprise the bulk of housing stock in Newton.”
- Elderly Housing section of zoning ordinance states in the PURPOSE subsection:
This ordinance seeks to address the housing needs of the elderly and to encourage the development of such housing to meet the needs of persons who have lived in Newton and who would like to continue to reside in Town, but who are no longer able or interested in residing in and maintaining a conventional residence. The ordinance encourages the development of elderly housing by permitting such housing to be developed at a unit density and with a certain amount of planning flexibility that is greater than that permitted for conventional single family housing development. The Townspeople recognize that one aspect of elderly housing development is that the housing built will continue to be put to this use in perpetuity, consistent with restrictive covenants and consistent with the
provisions of state and federal law that permit housing units to be restricted by age.
- Elderly Housing section of zoning ordinance states in the AUTHORITY subsection:
In accordance with RSA 674:21 C, F, H AND K, this ordinance is adopted to permit the establishment and construction of elderly housing in Newton.
This section of the RSA’s defines innovative land use controls. Specifically, “inclusionary zoning.”
“Inclusionary zoning means land use control regulations which provide a voluntary incentive or benefit to a property owner in order to induce the property owner to produce housing units which are affordable to persons or families of low and moderate income.” (RSA 674:21.IV.a)
Milner stated that, based on the summary of statements above, the intent or purpose of the 1500 square foot living space area requirement in the elderly housing ordinance is to provide for a different type of home than the conventional single family home that is predominant in Newton. This home is limited to a smaller size to accommodate seniors both economically and practically. Economically, a home with less living space is more affordable. Seniors who may not have the means to buy a home with more living space are given a level playing field (i.e. the opportunities that the courts have required). Practically, a smaller home is easier to take care of and live in. Seniors who may not have the ability to maintain a larger living space as proposed in this development are also given a level playing field.
The type of added living space proposed for the Sargent Woods units makes these homes more like conventional homes, not the senior housing intended by the creation of this ordinance. The goal stated in the Master Plan of giving a wider variety of people from diverse backgrounds the opportunity to live in these developments is the primary purpose of the living space requirement of the elderly housing section of the zoning ordinance.
Doggett stated that a waiver to these requirements should be entertained at the planning stage of a project, not at this late stage of the construction process. The original waiver allowing 1800 square feet of living space was granted during the plan approval process due to the special circumstances of the project at its inception. A waiver at this time would introduce a new concept of housing style that would change the nature of the units approved in the original recorded plan. The Board should not compromise its adherence to the zoning ordinance or the recorded plan.
Doggett further stated that the Board should consider the best interests of the Town as a whole when determining whether to grant the waiver request. The legislative body of the Town, the people, has stated their vision of land use through the language of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Board should not ignore the guidelines established by the people.
White noted that subsection V. of the Elderly Housing section of the zoning ordinance stated that the Planning Board shall take into consideration such factors as whether the design is adequate to meet the unique needs of elderly residents. She stated that the current living space area limit for the Sargent Woods units is more than adequate to meet the needs of elderly residents.
LaBranche noted that the original waiver increased the living space area 20% over the limit stated in the ordinance. The current proposed waiver request would increase the allowed living space area nearly 50% over the living space limit. Also, when determining the purpose of the elderly housing ordinance, the Board should consider that the ordinance is incentive based to achieve a certain purpose for the community. In exchange for providing this intended purpose for the community, the developer is given incentives and benefits that would not ordinarily be available. The participation of the developer is voluntary. When the developer undertakes a project regulated by this ordinance, the parameters of that type of project are understood from the onset of the project.
Manning stated that the proposed increase in living space will be an option for homeowners, not a part of the standard construction. The opportunity for a smaller living space will be available. The intention of the waiver request is to allow current homeowners and prospective buyers to upgrade their units. Lewis Builders is responding to the requests of homeowners and prospective buyers.
Melvin noted that all parties are aware of the conditions attached to this development in advance.
Manning stated that he disagreed with the concept that the intention of the Elderly Housing section of the zoning ordinance is to create affordable housing. A connection to affordable housing goals stated in the Master Plan cannot be supported. Affordable housing is not mentioned anywhere in the elderly housing section of the zoning ordinance. The granting of the waiver request will not affect the welfare, design, or aesthetics of the town. Therefore, the waiver request is reasonable. He does not believe that the Board can restrict how someone wants to maintain the internal space of their homes.
Milner stated that the concept of affordable housing is prominently referenced in the elderly housing section of the ordinance with the language in the first sentence of the elderly housing section stating: “In accordance with RSA 674:21 c,f,h, and k…” The letter (k) specifically references inclusionary zoning. RSA 674:21.IV.a defines inclusionary zoning as follows:
“Inclusionary zoning” means land use control regulations which provide a voluntary incentive or benefit to a property owner in order to induce the property owner to produce housing units which are affordable to persons or families of low and moderate income. (RSA 674:21.IV.a)
Milner further stated that the Board should consider how the granting of this waiver request will affect the other approved elderly housing projects (both developed and undeveloped) and the town as a whole; not just how it will affect individual homeowners in the Sargent Woods community.
Manning reiterated that the option for a more affordable unit with less living space is still being provided. If someone wants to upgrade the unit within the walls, there will be no detrimental effect to the spirit of the ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is being met.
Doggett stated that the waiver request is contrary to the spirit of the elderly housing ordinance. The granting of the waiver would require a complete suspension of belief in the intent of the ordinance enacted by the townspeople.
LaBranche noted that, when considering the implications for granting a waiver to a maximum standard and options within the range of a newly created standard, the Board should consider the maximum potential use allowed under the permitted standard. Even though the option of a smaller unit may be available, the potential to build out to a larger living space will probably happen over time. The Board should consider that the highest use permitted will be the eventual condition.
Doggett moved that the Planning Board grant the waiver request by Lewis Builders Development, Inc. to increase the allowable living space from 1,800 square feet to 2,200 square feet for all units in the Sargent Woods condominium community. Second by Gibbs. The motion failed 1-4 with Gibbs in favor and Blanchette, Doggett, Melvin, and White opposed.
LaBranche was released at 7:45 pm.
3. Other Board business.
a. Administrative Assistant annual review.
Doggett moved to enter non-public session under RSA 91-A:3, II (a) at 7:50 pm. Second by Melvin. Roll Call Vote: Melvin – aye; Gibbs – aye; White – aye; Doggett – aye; Blanchette – aye. Vote: unanimous.
Doggett moved to come out of non-public session at 8:00 pm. Second by Melvin. The motion carried unanimously. The minutes of the meeting will remain confidential until in the opinion of the majority of the members the circumstances no longer apply.
Doggett moved that the Planning Board accept the annual performance review for the Planning Board Administrative Assistant and recommend to the Board of Selectmen to approve a merit increase for Richard Milner from Grade X, Step 1 to Grade XIII, Step 5. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Review of proposed 2013 operating budget.
Milner presented the 2012 Planning Board operating budget and expenditures to date.
Gibbs suggested that the Planning Board attempt to propose a 2013 operating budget that was five percent lower than the 2012 operating budget.
The Board members discussed changes to several operating budget line items based on expenditures in 2012 and projected expenditures in 2013. The Board members agreed to propose a 2013 operating budget in the amount of $47,925.00. The proposed 2013 operating budget amount is nearly five percent lower than the 2012 amount.
Doggett moved that the Planning Board recommend to the Board of Selectmen a proposed 2013 operating budget in the amount of $47,925.00. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Review of 2013 meeting schedule.
Milner presented the Planning Board 2013 meeting schedule.
Doggett moved to accept the Planning Board 2013 meeting schedule. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
d. Acceptance of minutes.
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of the October 23 meeting. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
e. Manifests.
White presented a NPREA manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment to the Town Engineer for review of financial guarantee connected to Sargent Woods project and a legal advertisement.
Gibbs moved to pay the NPREA manifest in the amount of $801.45. Second by Doggett. Motion carried unanimously.
White presented an operating budget manifest to the Board. The invoices reflected payment for telephone bill and public hearing legal ad.
Doggett moved to pay the operating budget manifest in the amount of $139.58. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
f. Correspondence
Milner presented a letter from the Town Engineer recommending, based on a current site walk, that the Board does not need to establish an erosion control bond for Building #2 construction on Lot 27-4 in the Puzzle Lane project.
The Board came to a unanimous consensus to take no action regarding the erosion control bond for Building #2 construction on Lot 27-4 in the Puzzle Lane project at this time.
Milner presented information to the Board from the three 2012 LGC law lecture series seminars. The information concerned procedural basics, religion and land use controls, and innovative land use controls.
4. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
