NEWTON PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING
DECEMBER 18, 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 Ann Miles; Alternate Rick Milner; BOS ex-officio Charles Melvin; and Circuit Rider Planner Julie LaBranche. Minutes were transcribed by Administrative Assistant Rick Milner.
White appointed Milner to stand in for Blanchette.
2. Town of Newton, NH requests a public hearing to review proposed amendments to the Town of Newton Zoning Ordinance for inclusion on the Town Warrant.
White opened the public hearing.
a. Aquifer-Watershed Protection Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to delete Section 4d. Conditional Uses. Section 4d. Conditional Uses refers to sections previously deleted by a town vote. The section cannot be applied to any current language. The amendment will appear on the 2013 Town Warrant as follows:
Delete:
d. Conditional Uses (Amended March 2004)
1. The Planning Board may grant approval for those uses listed above in d, 1 (previous Section d, 1 deleted by March 2004 vote) only after it is determined that all of the following conditions have been met:
a. the use will not detrimentally affect groundwater quality, nor cause a significant long term reduction in the volume of water contained in the aquifer or in the storage capacity of the aquifer;
b. the use will discharge no wastewater on-site other than that typically discharged by domestic wastewater disposal systems;
c. the proposed use complies with all other applicable provisions of this Section.
d. the land owner must prove that the standard of 4.d, 2(a) (Section 4.d, 2(a) renumbered 4.d 1(a) by March 2004 vote) will be met and that provisions for continuous perpetual compliance are in place to insure protection of the aquifer and recharge area through substantial and credible evidence submitted to the Planning Board and reviewed in accordance with Site Plan Review process, including review of submitted materials by a qualified hydrogeologist, environmental engineer or other professional consultant.
2. All conditional uses shall be subject to inspections by the Building Inspector or other agent designated by the Selectmen. The purpose of these inspections is to ensure continued compliance with the conditions under which approvals were granted. Failure to insure and maintain constant compliance with this ordinance will result in revocation of the Conditional Use Permit in accordance with RSA 676:4-a.
Doggett moved to place the amendment to the Aquifer-Watershed Protection Ordinance as presented on the 2013 Town Warrant. Second by Miles. Motion carried unanimously.
b. Location on Lot. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to define what type of structures shall conform to the setback requirements specified in the zoning regulations. This amendment is proposed by the Building Department to eliminate uncertainty when trying to apply the zoning ordinance setback requirements to types of construction that are not buildings. This amendment will apply to RES A and RES B Zone Area Regulations.
Proposed language with changes in BOLD as follows:
Location on Lot: No building or structure, with exception to tanks and leaching beds of a septic system, which is subject to the permitting requirements set forth in the current State of New Hampshire Building Code, shall be within 65 feet of the centerline of the street. If the lot is a corner lot, the 65-foot distance will be calculated from the numbered side of the house. (Amended March 1995) Side and rear setbacks shall be 25 feet from lot lines. Side and rear setbacks may be reduced to not less than five feet (5 ft.) for one (1) accessory storage structure less than 120 square feet in size. (Amended March 2000) Other accessory buildings and structures (i.e. decks of all sizes, storage sheds larger than 120 square feet in size, playhouses, carports, swimming pools, or similar type of construction) shall meet the above
mentioned setback requirements.
Gibbs asked why the language regarding tanks and leaching beds of a septic system were included in the proposed amendment.
Milner explained that tanks and leaching beds were specifically included within the definition of a structure in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, they were added as an exception to the setback requirements that other structures would have to follow if the amendment was adopted.
Miles asked if dog houses, fences restraining dogs, and kennel structures would be required to follow the setback requirements if the amendment was adopted.
Milner responded that no language specifically included the items listed by Miles. However, the language at the end of the amendment stating “or similar type of construction” may address the issue noted by Miles.
LaBranche noted that fences above six feet in height required a building permit according to the State of New Hampshire Building Code. Therefore, a fence taller than six feet used to restrain dogs would be required to conform to the setback requirements if the amendment was adopted.
Melvin noted that the language stating “tanks and leaching beds of a septic system” could be interpreted to mean all tanks; not just septic system tanks.
LaBranche suggested adding “both” before “tanks” to clarify the intent of the language. The Board came to a unanimous consensus to add “both” before “tanks” in the first sentence of the amendment.
Doggett moved to place the amendment to Location on Lot for the Residential A and B Zone as presented with the addition of “both” before “tanks” in the first sentence of the amendment on the 2013 Town Warrant. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett moved for the Planning Board to recommend acceptance of the first proposed amendment. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
Doggett moved to recommend acceptance of the second proposed amendment. Second by Melvin. Motion carried unanimously.
White closed the public hearing.
c. Location on Lot. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to make editorial changes which clarify the original intent of the light industrial/commercial zone area regulation and its previous amendments.
Milner explained that the interpretation of the setback requirements for the light industrial/commercial zone has historically been that abutting properties which were both within the LI/COMM zone had a 50 foot setback requirement from the lot lines. However, amendments in 2004 and 2009 to increase the setback and buffer areas between the LI/COMM zone and other zones may have inadvertently changed this intent by using incorrect grammar. Based on a review of the current language with the circuit rider planner, the language now requires a 200 foot setback not only between LI/COMM and other zones, but also abutting properties which are both within the LI/COMM zone. Milner noted that the Board made editorial changes to the location on lot section of the LI/COMM zone regulations to conform to the original
intent of the LI/COMM zone setback requirements at the previous meeting.
After review and discussion of the current language and changes made at the previous meeting, the Board came to a majority (5-1) consensus that the following proposed language be presented at the January 8, 2013 public hearing as the amendment to Location on Lot for the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone (additions to the language in BOLD, deletions to language struck out):
Location on Lot: (Amended March 2004, amended March 2009)
- Side yard 200 foot structural setback with a minimum 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer when abutting any other zone.
and Any additional buffer that may be required by the Planning Board up to but not exceeding 1,500 feet on any side that abuts any other Zone for a side yard that abuts any other zone.
- Rear yard 200 foot structural setback with a minimum 50 foot undisturbed natural buffer when abutting any other zone.
and Any additional buffer that may be required by the Planning Board up to but not exceeding 1,500 feet where it abuts any other Zone for a rear yard that abuts any other zone, plus adequate provision for off-street parking as determined by the Planning Board.
- No building shall be set within 75 feet of the centerline of the street and nor within 50 feet of any lot line within the light industrial/commercial zone.
4. Other Board business.
a. Acceptance of minutes.
Doggett moved to accept the minutes of the December 11 meeting. Second by Melvin.
Discussion of motion – Doggett suggested that the language referring to the motion at the December 11 meeting to “accept jurisdiction” of an application be changed to “take jurisdiction.” The Board came to a unanimous consensus to amend the December 11 minutes to reflect this change.
Motion carried 4-0 with Miles and Milner abstaining.
b. Manifests.
White presented an operating budget manifest to the Board. The invoice reflected payment for public hearing legal ad.
Doggett moved to pay the operating budget manifest in the amount of $52.88. Second by Gibbs. Motion carried unanimously.
c. Correspondence.
White asked that all elected and alternate members of the Planning Board please inform the Planning Board office of their absence from a Planning Board meeting with as much advance notice as possible prior to the meeting. This notice will allow the Chairman to make arrangements to ensure a quorum at all meetings.
5. Adjourn: The meeting was adjourned at 7:52 pm.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rick Milner
Administrative Assistant
Newton Planning Board
| 
