TOWN OF SUNAPEE
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
TOWN HALL
Zoning Amendments
December 15, 2005
Roll Call
PRESENT:
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman
Barbara Hollander, Vice Chairman
Bruce Jennings
Allan Davis
Staff: Michael Marquise, Planner
ABSENT:
Dereck Tatlock
Emma Smith, Ex-Offico Member
Frederick Gallup, Ex-Officio Alternate Member
Robert Reiseberg
Philip Porter, Alternate
John Wheeler, Alternate
Roger Landry, Zoning Administrator
OTHERS ATTENDING: Catherine Bushueff, William Roach, Peter Urbach, James Lyons, Lee Page and Mary Epremian.
7:00 PM ROLL CALL
The hearing was called to order by Peggy Chalmers at 7:15 PM. P. Chalmers explained that the Board would be reviewing the proposed zoning amendments and that Michael Marquise would explain each amendment as discussed. She asked that if any of the public attending had any questions, would they please raise their hand to be recognized for the minutes.
Amendment #1
Amend Floodplain Development Ordinance – by updating the Flood Insurance Rate Maps and effective date(s) per the documents entitled “Flood Insurance Study for the County of Sullivan, NH”
P. Chalmers explained that this amendment simply updated the Town’s maps in accordance with FEMA. She asked if anyone had any questions. Catherine Bushueff asked what the implications were of the adoption of these maps. Michael Marquise responded that if not adopted, the Town would loose its flood rating and flood insurance. This is a mandatory requirement of the federal government. Bruce Jennings added that it would be very hard for individuals to get a mortgage without flood insurance. C. Bushueff asked how often the maps are amended. M. Marquise responded that the last set was amended in 1989. These are maps of Sullivan County and the most change M. Marquise saw was along the Connecticut River. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #1 to
Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #2
Amend Floodplain Development Ordinance – by updating definitions and references to make the Floodplain Development Ordinance consistent with the new maps as referenced in Amendment #1. The full text of the revised Floodplain Development Ordinance will be available in the Town Clerk’s Office.
Peggy Chalmers explained that this followed the same reasoning as Amendment #1. M. Marquise distributed the full text of the Floodplain Development Ordinance and noted that the word amendment is written after each section of the ordinance that is proposed to be amended. The boundaries of some zones and names of some zones have been changed. There are fewer zones and different definitions. M. Marquise explained that the Planning Board was taking input from the public at this hearing and it would be the Board’s vote that would put this in front of the voters for the March Town Meeting. The voters of the Town are the ones that actually approve the amendments – not the Planning Board. The Planning Board is recommending placement before the voters. William Roach asked if these
amendments could be amended at the deliberative session. M. Marquise responded that they could not. M. Marquise stated that the Board could make some minor text revisions if they wanted, but could not alter the meaning of the amendment. No changes can be made once it goes to the deliberative session. Motion was made by Allan Davis to approve forwarding Amendment #2 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #3
Amend Article III, Section 3.40 (a) – Additional Requirements - by deleting the provisions of this section. If this section is deleted, the design guidelines for septic systems will default to the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services requirements.
Peggy Chalmers explained that this amendment dealt with the design guidelines for septic systems and rather than having its own, the Planning Board are replacing them with the state standards. M. Marquise explained that the Planning Board’s guidelines are just like the State’s. The problem is when a waiver is needed, the applicant must go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. This increases the work load of the ZBA and lengthens the time an applicant can begin construction. Any waivers, if needed, will have to go before the Department of Environmental Services. William Roach spoke against the amendment citing past experiences with systems that should not have been approved by the State, but were because they contained a designer’s stamp. One such system was within 40 feet of a
water way. W. Roach would like the Town to have a method to insure that all bodies of water within the Town are kept clean. M. Marquise stated that the Town Health Officer would still have the right to review and to make comments. This amendment would take it out of the duties of the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board does not feel they are qualified to review septic systems. Their duty is more building and development related. M. Marquise explained that before the State grants a waiver, there are several steps that must be taken. Peter Urbach spoke as a member of the ZBA explaining that his board usually defers to the State for assistance. Discussion was held on the current technological designs of new systems vs. the older systems. Discussion was also held on how often a system should be pumped. M. Marquise explained that often in new construction, the designer provides the owner with a contract that mandates
pumping within a length of time. Jim Lyons, member of the ZBA, spoke against adoption of the amendment. He believes that neighbors should have the right to review septic system plans. Bruce Jennings stated he thought the ZBA approved recommending adoption of this amendment. M. Marquise stated that he felt it was the majority of the ZBA that does wish adoption of the amendment as they don’t feel they have the technical expertise. Bruce Jennings agreed because when he was on the
ZBA, he didn’t feel that anyone felt comfortable reviewing septic system designs and recommended that this be put before the voters. Allan Davis stated that he did not feel it was right to expect any member of the various boards or commissions to be engineers and be able to review items such as septic system designs. M. Marquise explained that a process still exists in Town to review septic systems and that would be through the Health Officer. This amendment does not change the state process, it only takes away the obligation of the Zoning Board to review septic systems. He further stated that the State has a very strict process, so why have two processes especially if in the zoning process no one has the expertise to review it. Motion was made by Allan Davis to approve forwarding Amendment #3 to Town
Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #4
Amend Article III, Section 3.40 (b) – Additional Requirements - by deleting the provisions of this section. If this section is deleted, the design guidelines for septic systems will default to the State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services requirements.
M. Marquise explained that amendment #3 was 340 (a) and amendment #4 addresses 340 (b). He further explained that 340 (a) follows the state regulations completely and 340 (b) requires a 100 foot set back from wetlands whereas the state regulations have various set backs depending on the type of wetlands. This amendment would do away with the 100 foot set back and follow the state regulations. Motion was made by Bruce Jennings to forward amendment #4 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #5
Amend Article III, Section 3.40 (j) – by adding a provision that all multi-tiered retaining walls must have a terrace whose depth is equal to or greater than the adjacent height of any wall. The full text of this section as amended will be as follows:
(j) Retaining walls over 42” in height must meet all of the setback requirements of the Zoning District in which they are constructed. All multi-tiered retaining walls must have a terrace whose depth is equal to or greater than the adjacent height of any wall.
M. Marquise explained that this amendment would require that a wall have a 45 degree angle back and will have to set back to have a true terrace. The article was put in 3 or 4 years ago and this amendment will make it more workable. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #5 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #6
Amend Article III, Section 3.50 (b) – Special Exceptions – by deleting the word “town” where it refers to roads. The effect of this amendment will be to reference all roads, not just town roads. The full text of this section as amended will be as follows:
(b) Where structures that do not meet front setback requirements exist in proximity to and on the same side of the road as the lot for which a certificate of compliance is being sought, the ZBA may allow a lesser front setback. The proposed structure shall be no closer to the road than the structures on such lots and in no case closer than 10’ to the right-of-way line of the road. The portion of the proposed structure encroaching on the front setback shall be no higher than 25’.
P. Chalmers explained that this amendment would take out the word “town” roads and would make reference to all roads both town and state. This would only cover private roads that meet town specifications as stated in the definition of “roads”. Discussion was held on setbacks. William Roach asked how this amendment affected emergency lanes. These are private roads that are not built to town specifications. M. Marquise stated that he did not feel it would have an affect. Setbacks are measured from the legal property line. Motion was made by Allan to forward amendment #6 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #7
Amend Article III, Section 3.50 (e) – by deleting the provisions of this section. If this section is deleted, the zoning requirements for all cluster developments will default to the Cluster Development Regulations found in Article IV, Section 4.50.
P. Chalmers explained that this article should have been taken out of the ordinance when Cluster Development Regulations were created. This is a house keeping amendment that was overlooked. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #7 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #8
Amend Article IV, Section 4.10 – Use Regulations – by changing the district boundary which currently runs from the intersection of Sargent Road and Route 11 to the dam in Sunapee Harbor to run from the intersection of Sargent Road and Route 11 to a point on the Shoreline of Lake Sunapee 400’ northeasterly of the dam in Sunapee Harbor. This district boundary separates the Village and Residential Districts.
P. Chalmers explained that this was a change to the Village District line. M. Marquise pointed out the outlines of the district with the proposed alteration. He explained that a concerned citizen who owns property at the harbor had asked for this change. Bruce Jennings asked what changes this would create. M. Marquise explained that the residential district only allows small commercial use such as offices and bed breakfast. Also, there is a one acre lot size requirement which allows for stricter density. The Village District allows more commercial uses and density is a little more flexible. Catherine Bushueff asked why this is coming forward just prior to looking at the master plan. She also asked what the build out potential was. She expressed concern what the future might bring to the
property this change will effect stating that going from Residential to Village is a very dramatic change. Bruce Jennings stated that anyone can come before the Board to request a line adjustment. The Board makes their decision based on the justifications presented them. He also stated that as long as he has been on the Board, he does not recall many changes. P. Chalmers agreed adding that the public was told when zoning districts where adopted, they could come in to speak with the Board about adjustments. Lee Page asked if the Master Plan was being revised, why was the Board doing this now? P. Chalmers explained that it impacts what people can now do with their property which was always viewed as Village but is really zoned Residential. She added that she always thought this property was Village and should be zoned that way. Bruce Jennings agreed stating that this property should have been in the Village
district from the beginning. C. Bushueff disagreed. She would like to see this property
remain Residential. She would also like to see more public input from the residents in the harbor area. M. Marquise explained that this is why the Board is having a public hearing. It was noticed in the paper and around town. The hearings are held to receive input from the public. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #8 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. Bruce Jennings stated that he would vote to forward this to the Town Meeting not so much because he backed it, but due to the interest expressed by the property owner. Peggy Chalmers stated that she was fairly comfortable that nothing would happen with the property in question within the next year and an adjustment could always be made at a later time. A gentleman from the public
stated that he felt it was a good change as the properties in that area should be zoned consistently. The motion carried three to one with Peggy Chalmers voting no.
Amendment #9
Amend Article IV, Section 4.10 – Use Regulations – Mixed Use District – by adding Day Care as a use permitted by right in the Mixed Use District.
Peggy Chalmers explained that “Day Care” was allowed in every district either by right or special exception except in the Mixed Use District. This was seen as an over sight by the Planning Board and they would now like to add it to the Mixed Use District. Mary Epremian stated that she would like to see this as a special exception use and not as a right. P. Chalmers explained that if someone did want to have a day care, they would have to come before the Planning Board for site plan review to look into parking, safety, etc. This is what is meant “by right”. If it is allowed under special exception, then the applicant would have to appear before the Zoning Board. Allan Davis added that this is a piece of administrative correction. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward
amendment #9 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion passed unanimously.
Amendment #10
Amend Article IV, Section 4.33(B)(5) – Shorelines – Specific Provisions – by changing the wording of this section to read as follows:
Lots within the Shoreline Overlay District shall not be used as common areas for waterfront access to other lots in a development, regardless of the location of such lots, unless approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the Standards and Criteria set forth in the various Land Use Ordinances.
Michael Marquise explained that the ordinance already contained this regulation. This is new wording to try to make it more understandable. There is no change in the intent of the article. The Planning Board is trying to prevent waterfront areas from becoming funnel development areas. Peggy Chalmers expressed concern that the wording would not prohibit a developer from doing a PUD. M. Marquise stated that the developer would have to have an enormous amount of water frontage to do this. He would need at least 200 feet of frontage per dwelling unit. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #10 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #11
Amend Article IV, Section 4.50(B)(7) – Cluster Development Regulations – by requiring a 10’ setback to property lines in any cluster lot. The full text of this section as amended will be as follows:
Setbacks – No building may be located within 20’ of the edge of the any road, 10’ from the edge of any right-of-way within the development, or 10’ from any side or rear property line of a cluster lot unless such property line is part of the buffer strip as defined above.
Peggy Chalmers explained that the present ordinance did not address set backs in cluster developments. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #11 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #12
Amend Article X, Section 10.30 – Hearing and Public Notice Requirements – by adding a requirement that public notices shall be posted in at least two public places in Town. The full text of this subsection as amended will be as follows:
Prior to exercising its appeal powers, the Zoning board of Adjustment shall hold a public hearing. Notice of public hearing shall be given as follows: Notice must be sent by certified mail by the Board to the applicant and all abutters and the notice shall be given not less than five (5) days before the date fixed for the hearing and shall state the time and place of the hearing. The Board shall hear all abutters desiring to submit testimony and all nonabutters who can demonstrate that they are affected directly by the proposal under consideration. The Board may hear such other persons as it deems appropriate. A public notice of hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulations not less than five (5) days before the date fixed to hear the appeal
and shall indicate the time and place of the meeting and the nature of the relief being sought. The notice shall also be posted in at least two public places in Town not less than five (5) days before the date fixed for the hearing. Where possible, there should be reference to the ordinance sections under which a special exception is being sought or from which a variance is being sought or under which an administrative appeal is being taken. The applicant shall pay the cost of notice in advance, including mailing, publishing, and posting costs. Failure to pay such costs shall constitute valid grounds for the Board to terminate further consideration and to deny the appeal without public hearing.
Peggy Chalmers explained that this amendment deals with notifying the public of up coming hearings before the Zoning Board. The only change here is adding that the notice must be posted in at least two public places in Town not less than 5 days before the date for the hearing. She added that this has been done all along but was not an official regulation. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #12 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #13
Amend Article XI – Definitions and Explanations – by changing the definition of Certificate of Compliance to read as follows:
Certificate of Compliance – The Certificate issued by the Board of Selectmen and/or its Agent indicating that the project complies with the terms of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to any relief granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Peggy Chalmers explained that the change to this article was the addition of the wording “and/or its Agent”. This would refer to the Zoning Administrator in being the agent of the Board of Selectmen. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #13 to Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #14
Amend Article XI – Definitions and Explanations – by adding a definition of Junkyard to read as follows:
Junkyard – Any use which meets the terms and definitions found in State of New Hampshire RSA 236:112.
Peggy Chalmers explained that this amendment added a definition of a “junk yard” by referencing state statute. Junk yards are not allowed in any zoning district in Sunapee. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #14 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Barbara Hollander. The motion carried unanimously.
Amendment #15
Amend Article XI – Definitions and Explanations – by changing the definition of Lot of Record to read as follows:
Lot of Record – A lot which is part of a subdivision approved by the Sunapee Planning Board and recorded in the Sullivan County Registry of Deeds or a lot created and duly recorded prior to the adoption of Subdivision Regulations by the Town of Sunapee.
Michael Marquise explained that this is how the Planning Board has been working all along, but there was a term of “metes and bounds” that the town’s counsel thought should come out of the definition as this is not often referred to in deeds now. Lee Page spoke regarding this article. He expressed concern that the Planning Board and ZBA are making it too easy for developers to build on very small lots by the granting of special exceptions and variances. He also hoped that subdivisions would be scrutinized more and not have any that create these very small lots that become un-buildable lots. He referenced a past case that was before the ZBA. Mr. Page feels the words “metes and bounds” should remain in the ordinance. Catherine Bushueff agreed with Mr.
Page. M. Marquise stated that he believed what Mr. Page is referring to would be more appropriately governed by covenants in deeds. Peggy Chalmers brought up the fact that the term lot of record does not necessarily mean the lot can be built on and that the discussion is leading to the definition of a buildable lot. M. Marquise stated that lot of record does give you more of a right to build on it because there are fewer regulations that apply to a lot of record. Bruce Jennings stated that he feels that taking out “metes and bounds” will be a benefit and cleans up the article. M. Marquise stated that the town attorney did say to take it out because it creates problems. Motion was made by Allan Davis to forward amendment #15 to the Town Meeting. The motion was seconded by Bruce Jennings. The motion carried unanimously.
Michael Marquise wished to address the audience. He asked those present to become involved in the rewriting or review of the Master Plan. It is not a regulatory manual – just a guidance tool. Catherine Bushueff stated that she did not think that much of the public has any knowledge of planning and zoning and felt that the Master Plan survey will be very helpful.
The question was asked how the process began to review articles for amendments. M. Marquise explained that the zoning and planning individuals thought of these each year. The gentleman was told he could present an amendment if he wished.
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 PM.
NOTE: The above minutes represents a summer, not a verbatim transcript of the tape.
NOTE: Any hearings now open and under consideration by this Board are continued to the next meeting of the Sunapee Planning Board.
Submitted by, Darlene Morse
__________________________ __________________________
Peggy Chalmers, Chairman Barbara Hollander, Vice Chairman
__________________________ __________________________
Bruce Jennings Derek Tatlock
__________________________ __________________________
Robert Rieseberg Allan Davis
__________________________ __________________________
John Wheeler, Alternate Emma Smith, Ex-Offico
__________________________ __________________________
Philip Porter, Alternate Frederick Gallup, Ex-Offico
| 
