PLANNING BOARD MINUTES November 11, 2009
APPROVED: _________________
AGENDA: SANDRA HEANEY, CHAIRMAN, ZBA, DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES WORKSHOP: PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES
ATTENDING: Dan Paradis (Chairman), Elizabeth Seeler (Vice Chair), Don Milbrand (Sel. Rep.), Murray Campbell, Janice DellaCroce, Denice DeStefano, Clay Dingman Alternates: Steve Favorite
ABSENT: Alternates: Tom Babcock (leave of absence), Don Martin
OTHER: Sandra Heaney (ZBA Chairman), Mike Farrell
The meeting opened at 7:00 p.m.
SANDRA HEANEY, ZBA CHAIRMAN: Ms. Heaney stated that the majority of cases that are coming in to the ZBA are for sheds and accessory buildings. She feels that the change that the Planning Board is proposing will be good. She added that some cases deal with lakefront property which creates blocking the view of abutters and the Board might need to address that.
Mr. Paradis stated that, when the Planning Board proposed the amendment that we have in the ordinance at present, they did not appreciate all that would happen. The Board’s thinking was that, if you could build a structure today it would be okay, but if not it would require a variance. He questioned what she thought of changing this to a percentage of structures on the lots. Ms. Heaney felt that we need height restrictions as well. The ZBA must take things on a case to case basis. She stated that there are now a lot of new members with no funds for training and they are struggling.
Mr. Paradis referred to the graphs that he had distributed in which he showed how cluttered a lot looked with the 25% structures in effect now. The second graph seems more reasonable at 15%. Ms. Heaney agreed that 25% looks really tight but nothing is in the setbacks. A discussion was held as to the importance of views being blocked. It is understood that abutting properties would diminish due to this but it is a choice between that and the property owner’s right to use his land.
Ms. DellaCroce brought up Spirit of the Ordinance and said that the Board had considered the Sewer to the Lake project that could create overcrowding when they wrote the present statute. Mr. Paradis added that it makes a clutter of buildings without this. He sited Swiss View and Turner’s Cottages. Ms. Heaney added the new Elderly Housing if they had been allowed the 2nd phase. Mr. Paradis stated that
-2- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
MS. HEANEY DISCUSSION continued: the Planning Board cut the 2nd phase out due to the lay of the land. Ms. Heaney stated that people complain that they can’t do what they want, but she feels that this is a good thing. At this point, Ms. Heaney asked if Mr. Paradis would be willing to come in to the next ZBA meeting (Dec. 1, 2009) and speak to the members about the whys and wherefores of the Zoning Ordinance thoughts and changes. Mr. Paradis said that he is willing.
Ms. Heaney said that the main issue for the ZBA is the sheds and deal with setbacks and views. Mr. Paradis felt that the height maximum of sheds should be addressed. Mr. Campbell questioned the “abuse factor” in which people put in sheds and then add projections for outside storage on them (such as ladders, canoes, etc. He felt that they buy these properties knowing that they are non-conforming. Ms. DeStefano disagreed, stating that most people buy substandard/non-conforming lots without checking into this.
Mr. Paradis brought up the point that there is a glitch in the ordinance where, if you buy a new non-conforming lot that has never been built on, as long as you stay within the setbacks, you can build. However, if there is a small cottage on the lot and you want to add on but stay within the setbacks, you are not allowed to do so. A discussion followed.
Mr. Paradis assured Ms. Heaney that the Planning Board will address the shed issue. He asked if the new sign ordinance has made things better for the ZBA and Ms. Heaney answered that they have not had any sign variances so it must be working.
Mike Farrell, lake resident, asked if there is any intent for a change in the Lake District in regard to height, whether up or down. The present situation takes away the grandfathered rights. If an owner knocks down his building, he cannot build without a variance. A change in the State law now puts this at odds. The ZBA is to go back to the Simplex test. Ms. Heaney stated that the ZBA here does the Simplex test. Mr. Farrell stated that he bought his cottage with the intent to retire here after modifications. Mr. Paradis stated that the intent is that an owner can build within the 3-dimentional envelope of the current cottage without a variance. He then thanked Mr. Farrell for the letter he sent to the Selectmen and the Board.
MICHELLE BONSTEEL’S QUESTIONS: As these questions dealt with some of the things discussed previously, Mr. Paradis sought to address them at this time.
10/28/09 Memo: Lake District Regulations – She requested that Mr. Farrell be placed on the Planning Board agenda in regard to these. As Mr. Farrell was here, that is no longer necessary. Mr. Paradis explained that we shall be discussing the changes further on Nov. 18th and hope to have the first public hearing on Dec. 9th with any needed 2nd public hearing to be held in January. He invited Mr. Farrell to attend if he wishes. -3- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
MS. BONSTEEL’S QUESTIONS continued: Excavation Permits: It was determined that Ms. Bonsteel can handle these.
Silver Shores PUD: Mr. Paradis explained that, after research, this is not a PUD. They have a unit ownership of property but Town Atty. Waugh says they never used it. They would have to file with the County. As the Planning Board is only responsible for Site Plans and Subdivisions of 3 or more units in a structure, this is not under our purview. Condos are considered a subdivision but units are not. Ms. Seeler felt that they were asking for a rendering for a site plan and Mr. Paradis stated that they do not fall under site plan requirements.
Proposed Expansion of a Condominium Unit: Mr. Paradis stated that the ZBA is involved but the Planning Board is not as it is not 3 or more in a single structure as was the case for Swiss View.
Newfound Boat Club: Ms. Seeler stated that, originally this was a business and then turned condo. Mr. Milbrand added that the debate is whether to sell or rent. As Ms. Bonsteel could find nothing on these slips, Ms. DeStefano suggested that realtors may have something.
10/29/09 Memo: 4.12.A.3.a – “Non-conforming contiguous lots under the same ownership shall only be developed with such adjacent lot”. Is this a merger? Mr. Paradis explained that this Board did not write this portion and he feels that it would require a variance. However, we can’t tell people that they have to merge or that they cannot sell the other lot. Ms. Seeler stated that it is a minimum lot that cannot be built up within the setbacks. Mr. Milbrand felt that it would need a variance. Mr. Paradis did not feel that the section as is would be hurting anything.
C.1.a – “If the nonconforming characteristics of the lot are such that no primary structure of any size or location could be constructed in conformity with the current zoning ordinance, then the replacement structure shall not extend beyond or expand upon any of the existing nonconforming footprint or exterior dimensions, including height”. When an applicant opted to demolish the existing house and were able to meet all setbacks (with the possible exception of lot coverage and lot area) would a variance be required? Mr. Paradis referred to his graphs for this one. A discussion followed as to the pros and cons of doing percentages of structures on a lot. Mr. Paradis asked if the Board would like to continue, tweak, or change this section. He mentioned that, in the case of Turner’s cottages, they are not ugly, do not obstruct anyone else’s view, and have improved the septic system. Ms. DellaCroce felt this needs to be addressed; many cottages need repair and people want to improve their properties. She felt that this should be deleted as well as the previous section. It was determined that it would need a variance because the new building would not be placed in the footprint of the original one. Ms. Seeler mentioned that, moving it could block abutter views.
As to the language with Harrington v. Town of Wagner, as has been now determined by recent legislation, Mr. Paradis would like to check with Atty. Waugh as to wording. -4- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
MS. BONSTEEL’S QUESTIONS continued: C.2 – Replacing Manufactured Housing (Mobile Homes). Mr. Paradis stated that we already have language for that; Section IV, 4.8 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses this. The thought was to address these like those on Fourth St. There is no restriction to expansion as long as there is no more encroachment on setbacks as is there now.
C.3 – “If the nonconforming characteristics of the lot are such that no primary structure of any size or location could be constructed in conformity with the current zoning ordinance, then no additions are allowed.” It was determined that there would be no increase, up or out. Ms. Seeler thought that the Board might want to put a height on this. It was generally felt that small additions should not be allowed as, for example, they could add 99 sq. ft. this year and then come back another year for another 99 sq. ft., etc.
Removal of use and area variance distinctions should be done according to recent legislation.
New accessory or primary structure – Ms. DellaCroce pointed out that if this only applies to existing structures, the owner could tear down the existing structure, wait a year, and start again. The Board felt that this was a valid point. Ms. DellaCroce asked if 4.12.C.1 contradicts this. Mr. Paradis answered in the affirmative and added that’s for the town but the Lake is different. There is no time limit here. If the structure is removed, no time restriction has been stated. His interpretation is that it must be a virgin lot. Virgin lots do not need a variance (4.12.A) and are grandfathered. This may be unfair but that is the way it is. The intent is to meet all setbacks and area requirements.
WORD FROM MIKE FARRELL: Mr. Paradis called on Mr. Farrell for his comments. Mr. Farrell stated that he appreciates the Board for listening to him on the Lake Restrictions. He mentioned that another inconsistency is on height. He understands the issue of obstruction to abutters’ views. If it is a conforming lot, the height is 35’ but if it is non-conforming, the owners are stuck with what they have. Mr. Paradis asked if the Lake District height requirement should be lowered. Mr. Milbrand felt that an empty nonconforming lot could also be 35’ but we should address this. Mr. Farrell stated that, normally, the height is set by the Fire Dept. reach. He would like to see the height to be equal everywhere. The Board felt that they would like to take this under advisement and think about it.
Ms. DeStefano asked what the down side would be to making it the same everywhere and was told that it might be blocking views. Mr. Milbrand suggested stages/tiers with something like 15’ for so many feet from the shore, 20’ for the next section, etc. until you reach the 35’. Mr. Favorite felt that to curtail too much expansion on the Lake, we could regulate how many bedrooms may be added. He mentioned the problems that Tahoe, Winnipesauke, and a section of Winnesquam are having for just this same thing. The Board mentioned how, in some of the areas, our 100’ ladder cannot get to. Mr. Paradis stated that lakefront owners want to develop their front (lake) side. The Shoreland Protection Act has
-5- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
MR. FARRELL’S STATEMENTS continued: now removed the height restriction. Mr. Milbrand suggested that the Board might want to take a year to think and discuss the Lake District regulations. Ms. DeStefano added that we might want to hold public hearings with Lake people input before we redo this. The Board thought that this would be good. Mr. Paradis asked the Board to think about this for our next meeting. Mr. Farrell thanked the Board and Mr. Paradis thanked him for coming in.
WORKSHOP: Building Codes: Mr. Paradis wishes to see what the Selectmen want as to the building code. Mr. Milbrand reminded everyone that this is not a Selectmen decision but belongs to the Planning Board. He added that he was unable to attend the meeting where the Selectmen voted on this. The vote was 3 to 1 against but Mr. Milbrand said that he would have been for it.
Sheds: Mr. Paradis mentioned that Mr. Campbell had previously wanted to forbid outside storage. Ms. DellaCroce was not sure that we could regulate that much. Ms. DeStefano stated that you can’t regulate taste. A discussion followed and this issue was dropped.
Signs: It was noted that we had missed #6 and #7 of Article IV, 4.11 from Ms. Bonsteel’s 10/29 memo.
#6. This refers to Zoning Ordinance 4.11m and no off-premises signs. It was felt that we might use the following wording: Off premises signs advertising events for not for profit institutions are permitted to be displayed for 2 weeks (or 14 days) and removed within 24 hours of the termination of the event.
#7. A discussion was held as to what is agricultural. It was determined to change the wording to agricultural activities but it is okay for the rest of what Ms. Bonsteel has written: Off premises signs advertising seasonal agricultural activities are permitted during the duration of the activity described. Mr. Paradis suggested that the person making the permit could determine what is allowed. He asked how many off-premises signs should be allowed. Mr. Favorite felt that they should be allowed by a permit. Mr. Paradis agreed and said that the size should be regulated. Mr. Milbrand suggested 12” x 18” (1 ½ sq. ft.).
Wetlands: Mr. Paradis stated that this applies to sub-surface disposal systems and added that we are stricter than the State, which is okay. He took the basics from the Innovative Land Use book. The new suggestion that he had distributed was read. The Innovative has gone from 50’ to 100’ now.
-6- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
WORKSHOP continued: Steep Slopes: Mr. Paradis explained that this is for slopes of 15% or more. It makes it costly to build there. The State uses 8% for Commercial and 15% for Residents. He has made it 10% for all. This does not address the Ridgeline stuff. You can cut up to 25’ and within 45’, cut trees to the level of the basement. You cannot build above the ridgeline. The Innovative regulates to natural, neutral colors and the State regulates the septic systems. Mr. Milbrand likes the thought of regulating ridgelines. Mr. Paradis will add ridgelines and viewscapes. The applicability section recommends 20,000 sq. ft. and Mr. Paradis asked the Board to think about the number. He will write something up about dropping use and area variances for next time.
Site Plan Forms and Procedures: Ms. DeStefano distributed copies of what she and Ms. Bonsteel have come up with. The Board is to look these over for later discussion. Mr. Paradis reminded all that the top priority is for the ordinance changes as they have deadlines.
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2009: The following amendments and clarifications were made: Page 1, Police, 2nd line, following “4 x 4” insert “Ford Expedition”. Page 2, Backhoe, 3rd line, replace “makers” with “manufacturers”. Page 4, Old Town Hall, 2nd line, replace “windows” with “screens”. Page 5, Downtown, 1st paragraph, 2nd line, following “1 of 11” insert “projects”. Page 6, Zoning Changes, 2nd paragraph, 7th line, following “We” insert “could”
C. Dingman made a motion, 2nd by M. Campbell, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried.
CORRESPONDENCE: The Henniker Planning Board public notice was held Nov. 9, 2009. Boyd Smith had dropped off several copies of the NLRA Watershed Plan. One will be kept in the office, Mr. Paradis took one, and the others are available in the office.
REPORTS: Historic District Commission: Mr. Dingman reported that the commission met last night with Doug Williams in regard to the TTCC concrete wall. They have done nothing about cladding and have until July 2010..
Selectmen: Mr. Milbrand said that he has had to work the last couple of meetings but understands that the Selectmen are not in support of building codes even if the Planning Board does. He heard that they feel that the State already covers this. He added that he would support bringing it to the voters. A discussion followed and Mr. Paradis stated that he will bring the 2007 version in to our next meeting.
-7- Planning Board Minutes 11/11/09
REPORTS continued: Capital Improvements Plan Committee: Mr. Campbell stated that the 12 book covers are on order and that he has corrected a mistake in the Transportation Enhancement: We had $99,400 with offsetting revenue and it should have been $497,000 with an 80/20 grant of offsetting revenue of $397,000.
Mr. Campbell made a motion, second by D. Milbrand, to approve the Transportation Enhancement correction as amended and the Committee in attendance approved.
Mr. Campbell reminded the committee that they are to meet next Monday, November 16th at 7:00 p.m. to present the CIP to the Budget Committee.
NEXT MEETING: The next Planning Board meeting will be held next week due to Thanksgiving (Nov. 18th). We shall meet in the upstairs meeting room and it is a Workshop meeting. Mr. Paradis hopes to complete the changes for the Zoning Ordinance so that we can hold the first public hearing on Dec. 8th. Ms. Seeler and Ms. DeStefano will be away.
OTHER: Mr. Favorite stated that he met with Alan Hanscom, DOT, and received a good comment from him. He seems to be supportive of our Downtown plans. Mr. Campbell thanked Mr. Favorite and the others who have worked so hard on this project. He suggested that everyone here tonight should talk it up to the townspeople to get their support.
With no other business, C. Dingman made a motion, second by M. Campbell, to adjourn at 9:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Jan Laferriere, secretary
|