Members present: Terry Silverman, Chairman, Suzanne Gray, Robin Haynes, Mac Landy, Carlotta Pini, and Diane Schott.
Others present: Nancy Carney, Deputy Fire Chief.
Call to Order: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Ordinance review:
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article II, Section 127-6 Interpretation of Boundaries. Amend by adding a new paragraph to redefine the Light Industrial District along lot lines per Town tax maps, in keeping with definition of General Industrial District.
The Board reviewed the lots lines to be included in the Light Industrial District. Two lots on the west side of Route 12 N, Map 18, Lots 18 and 1, have a boundary on Bowker Pond, and Lot 1 has an access point from Bowkerville Road. Several lots on the east side of Route 12 N also have access from Gap Mountain Road. The Board discussed how best to protect, preserve and develop land that will be affected by the ordinance change. Light industrial uses already exist on many of the lots to be included.
The Board discussed access to these lots. They don’t want to burden the abutting land or neighbors with possible light industrial use vehicles or equipment on Bowkerville Road or on Gap Mountain Road, which is a Class VI road as it borders some of these lots. Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to add the following language to the amendment. “Access for Light Industrial Uses on lots in the Lt. Industrial Dist. is to be from NH Route 12.”
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article V, Section 127-19 D. Hammerhead Lots. Amend by deleting section.
Pini was not in favor of deleting the hammerhead lot provision because there are many parcels of land in town with sufficient acreage to allow for two dwellings but without enough frontage for two dwellings without a hammerhead provision. Silverman noted that the current ordinance states the Planning Board may “in its sole discretion” permit the creation of a hammerhead lot. However, he said the Board seems to feel forced to approve every one proposed if it meets the criteria stated in the ordinance.
There was some discussion about adding to or deleting the criteria by which the Board can judge these lots as appropriate or not. Schott said a hammerhead ordinance can work by keeping houses out of sight of the road, keeping roads a little greener.
Landy asked what criteria might be used to deny a subdivision with a hammerhead. That it overdevelops the parcel? The purpose of a hammerhead, as stated in the current ordinance, is to develop backland. The expectation was that a hammerhead would be an option in rare situations, not that every three-lot subdivision could become a four-lot subdivision.
Landy suggested adding language that said the Planning Board may permit hammerheads when it appears it is in the best interest for protecting rural character. Silverman noted that ‘rural character’is a very subjective concept. He said the current frontage requirements are sufficient to maintain rural character with a 300 foot separation of dwellings in the rural district. A driveway every 300 feet allows for wildlife corridors and it protects the backland. He added that the potential for cluster developments to provide more open space is subverted by building close to the road where they are visible, as it is less expensive for developers to build houses close to an existing road.
Schott asked if a hammerhead would be allowed if the ordinance was deleted. The Board agreed hammerheads would not be allowed in that case. Pini believes the Board has all the tools it needs to apply the ordinance appropriately – saying the Board just needed to use its discretion. Schott suggested removing the criteria for judging hammerheads and develop a Board policy for approving hammerheads. Haynes said she has never seen a hammerhead she liked, but understood Pini’s point about large parcels with inadequate frontage.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board agreed to discuss this further at the next meeting and possibly amend it then.
Public hearing continued: Steve Filipi proposes a seven lot subdivision of property located on Upper Troy Road, Map 15, Lot 6, Residential, Rural and Historic Districts.
Mr. Filipi reported he had come to an agreement with Chris Covel and Terry Silverman about the scope of work Mr. Covel will do on his proposed subdivision. Mr. Covel will produce a surface map identifying a buffer zone to protect the fractures that constitute the bedrock aquifer. He will not do the electronic mapping of the fractures themselves. By delineating the buffer zone, Mr. Filipi will be able to create a new subdivision proposal with development away from the fractures.
Silverman moved, Landy seconded and the Board voted to continue the public hearing to January 16, 2007 at 8 PM. Silverman asked that abutters be called and notified when the hydrology report is completed and the Board will begin reviewing it.
Preliminary consultation: Mike Methe to discuss new retail outlet business in Concord Industries building, NH Route 12, Map 15, Lot 29, Residential and Light Industrial Districts.
Mr. Methe presented a plan for Concord Industries to open a factory outlet retail store at the site of their manufacturing operation on route 12 N. They produce licensed sports team logos on a variety of products. They would be open from May 15th to October 15th. It is anticipated that two employees would be on site, selling or doing sales telemarketing.
Silverman noted retail uses are not allowed without a variance in the light industrial district.
Ordinance review continued:
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article III, Section 127-8 E. – Livestock Keeping. Amendments to clarify ordinance.
Robin Haynes worked on the ordinance but would prefer to re-write the whole ordinance working with local farmers and someone from the cooperative extension. She suggested deleting the whole ordinance, and convening the committee to work on it for next year’s town meeting. Silverman said he didn’t like the idea of having no ordinance, and suggested convening the committee but not changing the ordinance until there was something to take its place.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to make no changes to the ordinance now, but to convene a committee to work on changes for 2008.
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article IV, Section 127-16, Cluster Development Overlay District. Amendments to clarify ordinance.
Suzanne Gray worked on ordinance 127-16, and suggested amendments to:
127-16 C. Common Land. Recommended changing the words ‘common land’ to ‘open space’ and adding language allowing open space to be conveyed to the Town or a nonprofit organization or to a homeowners’ association.
Discussion about requiring access to land that may be in private ownership.
127-16 B. (3) Discussion about dimensional requirements. Decision to change side and rear yard dimensional requirements to conform to respective district in which cluster may be developed; leave the frontage requirements as is at not less than 100 feet. Silverman noted that common land or open space is reduced by the amount of acreage that is required for each lot; setbacks within each lot do not diminish the amount of open space. Further the acreage requirement is what protects people from each other.
Decision to include maximum lot coverage and height requirements to mirror these requirements in the land use ordinances.
Public hearing continued: William Gordon and John Heikkinen propose a two lot subdivision of property located on Templeton Turnpike, Map 3, Lot 02, Rural District.
Following the site walk on December 14th, the owners agreed to have the wetlands delineated. Neither of the property owners were present, nor has a revised plan been submitted to the Board. Several abutters were present.
Silverman moved, Pini seconded and the Board voted to continue the hearing to Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 8:30 PM.
Ordinance review continued: Article IV, Section 127-16, Cluster Development Overlay District. Discussion about adding language to insure a wood buffer, to protect the entrance to the development and to buffer the boundary lines between the cluster subdivision and neighboring land owners. Setbacks protect owners within the cluster. Discussion about increasing setback from boundary lines too. Silverman suggested a 100 foot buffer along boundary lines, saying neighbors should not have to bear the burden of bordering a development where dispensation was given that decreased lot size.
Decision not to add language that would require cluster houses to face an interior road. House siting decisions are based on many factors including slope of land, character of land and facing an interior road may not be appropriate. Silverman noted that 127-16 E. gave the Planning Board authority to discuss the shape of the cluster development, allowing some give and take.
Decision to refer to the subdivision regulations when determining road construction within a cluster development.
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article VII, Signs and Advertising Devices. Mac Landy continues to work on this – he is planning to revise the definitions section to further clarify the ordinance.
Amendment to Land Use Ordinance Article IX, Section 127-39.1 Growth Management. Amend by deleting the sunset clause, in effect extending the ordinance.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board voted to present a proposal to amend the GMO by deleting reference to a sunset deadline.
Minutes: The Board reviewed minutes of the December 19, 2006 meeting. Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board approved minutes as written.
Administrative: Silverman read a letter from the 55 Housing Partnership, LLC notifying the Board that the elderly housing cluster development project approved in March 2004 was being put on hold for the time being. The Partnership has not found any feasible option for the site.
The parcel on which the project was to be sited was rezoned from General Business to Residential to accommodate the project, and in future the Board may want to consider rezoning it. Silverman suggested leaving it the way it is as a 7-lot cluster development. Landy pointed out that two artesian wells have been installed on the property. The cluster development Special Permit was issued in March 2004 and because the Town had not adopted a definition of active and substantial development to determine vesting rights at the time, the timeline for vesting is four years per RSA. The Board decided not to take any action at this time.
Silverman moved, Haynes seconded and the Board vote to adjourn at 9:30 PM.
| 
