Town of Warner – Planning Board

Meeting Minutes

Monday, December 21, 2009

Warner Town Hall , Lower Level

 

Members Present:      Barbara Annis, Paul Violette, David Hartman, Hank Duhamel, Rick Davies, Dan Watts, Ed Mical

Members Excused:      None

Members Absent:       None

Alternates Present:    Peter Wyman, Harold French

Alternates Excused:   None

Alternates Absent:     None

Presiding:                    Barbara Annis

Recording:                   Mary Whalen

Open Meeting at 7:00 p.m.

Roll Call

Ms. Annis said the meeting this evening is for a Public Hearing on the proposed changes that will be on the ballot at March Town Meeting.  

Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Planning Board to insert Article XIV-A, Workforce Housing Overlay District into the Zoning Ordinance in response to RSA 674:58-61 which mandates Workforce Housing Requirements for all communities? A full version of this Amendment is posted in the Town Hall and has been presented at a public hearing.                                                                                                                                              

RATIONALE:  If Amendment #1 is not passed, the state law is still in effect and the Planning Board will not have local guidance for implementation. This Amendment responds to a new state law mandate (RSA 674:58-61) to provide reasonable and realistic opportunities for the development of Workforce Housing in a majority of the land area zoned to permit residential uses. The proposed Workforce Housing Overlay District allows for a mix of Workforce Housing types within the B-1, R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts, as well as parts of the OC-1 District as shown on the Workforce Housing Overly District Map dated March 9, 2010.The proposed ordinance provides that the Planning Board may approve one or more incentives including a density increase, reduction to lot size, road frontage decreases, reduction in setbacks and open space reduction, and waiver of application fees only if the applicant demonstrates the Town’s land use ordinances and regulation induce a cost prohibitive Workforce Housing project.  

Rick Davies explained that the rationale is intended to be a brief explanation.  David Hartman asked if the amendments have been available to the public.  Ms. Annis said yes.   

Alice Chamberlain asked how will the Planning Board make a determination on the appropriateness for a work force housing project, what will be the criteria?  

Paul Violette said it will be a case by case basis.  He said this becomes a State law January 1st, even if the Town does not vote for it the Town will still be required to comply. If passed, the Planning Board will have an opportunity to have some dialogue and some negotiating points on various segments.   

Rick Davies explained that the consensus of the Board was to allow latitude for the developers of work force housing.  At the same time the developer has to prove that the cost incurred to have these provision for items such as less frontage etc. still meets the requirements for work force housing.  There is data that identifies work force housing.  In Warner it is a home that is worth less than $224K and rental fees that amount to $1,010 month; this data is updated annually.  

Alice Chamberlain asked when the regulation was drafted was there a number of options that were looked at from other communities.  

Paul Violette explained that the Planning Board worked closely with Central NH Regional Planning Commission, Local Government Center and models that were provided.  Other towns that also developed the ordinance were reviewed as well as some advice from Attorney Ben Frost.  

Charlie Albano asked if there a minimum and maximum for the number of units or homes a developer can build.  The point he is trying to make is that a work force housing development, with the requirements, would be several homes or units.  

The Planning Board members explained that there could be provisions where a developer could mix a project that includes work force housing.  Also, if the Town of Warner meets its “fair share” of work force housing the Planning Board is not required to approve the plan.  There are several ways to calculate “fair share”.  The ordinance will be a guide for the Planning Board.  

Charlie Goodwin asked if the town’s belief of fair share for work force housing would be placed in the Master Plan for future reference. The Planning Board explained that the variables can change from year to year.  

Steve Lindbloom asked if negotiation would be allowed for a mixed development or is the negotiations only allowed for work force housing.   

Dan Watts said it is not up to them to promote work force housing; it is up to the developer to present the plan as work force housing.   For market housing and work force housing being developed together, there could also be negotiations on the lots sizes and frontage with the best interest of the town in mind.  However, Paul Violette said through everything that he has learned about work force housing he does not recall any discussion on a mixed development.  He said negotiations can only be made for work force housing.  

Charlie Albano said the reasoning for “fair share” is because the cities have generally taken on most of the work force housing.

Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Planning Board  by deleting the current Building Code Ordinance as written and inserting thereof the proposed Building Code Ordinance in order to comply with the State Building Code RSA 155-A, other life safety measures, and specific local requirements? A complete version of the proposed Building Code Ordinance is posted in the Town Hall and was presented at a public hearing.

RATIONALE: The purpose of  amendment #2 is to bring the existing Building Code in compliance with the State Building Code Chapter 155-A and make house-keeping revisions.  By law, the State Code is currently in effect in Warner.  The Town’s Building Code refers to Codes and References that are out of date.  The minimum area of a dwelling remains at 500 square feet but is proposed to be the minimum on one level instead of on only the ground level; Warner’s egress requirements for 2 egress points were clarified to be remote from each other; the Selectmen were given the responsibility to appoint an Inspector and set fees; and Articles were renumbered as appropriate.  

The Planning Board said that this amendment was presented last year and turned down by the voters.  It is hoped that the rationale will clarify things for the voters.  

David Hartman said the goal is to bring the town within compliance with the State Law.  If the amendment is not passed the State Law will still supersede.

Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article XVII , Board of Adjustment, section D’s Hardship requirements for a Variance of the Zoning Ordinance in order to comply with State Law RSA 674:33? A complete version of the proposed changes is posted in the Warner Town Hall and was presented at a public hearing. 

RATIONALE: The purpose of amendment #3 is to respond to state law which has revised the language for determining “hardship” in cases seeking a variance from zoning ordinances. The law went into effect in January 1, 2010 .  The RSA consolidates the former “Use” and “Area” variance types of hardships into one “hardship” category. Some of the existing wording in section D was unchanged but was reorganized to be consistent with the State law format.

Alice Chamberlain asked if the standards were different between a use and area variance. Dan Watts explained that it was not clear sometimes which would apply to the variance, use or area.

Alice Chamberlain asked what the definition is for hardship.  Dan Watts said the State Law definition is used.

George Pellettieri said most of the court cases involved had to do with boards confusing the definitions for use and area.

Charlie Albano asked if the Planning Board potentially sees hardship concerns when applied to work force housing. 

Dan Watts explained a work force housing developer must guarantee the rental ability or the purchase price ability.  Ed Mical also added that life safety takes precedence over everything.  Paul Violette added that work force housing, because it is a separate entity, will not be able to go to the Zoning Board for any variances.  It is believed that any disputes would go directly to the courts.

Amendment No. 4 as proposed by the Planning Board to revise the Zoning Ordinance Article XIV Open Space Development minimum acre requirements as follows:   

For District OC-1 change 12 acres in the text to 15 acres, and in the corresponding table change 20 acres to 15 acres so they are in agreement. For District OR-1 change 15 acres in the text to 20 acres to be in agreement with the 20 acres amount existing in the corresponding table.  Full text of the proposed revisions is posted in the Warner Town Hall and has been presented at a public hearing.                                

RATIONALE:  The purpose of this amendment is to correct typographical errors created when the Town approved the Open Space Development Article in 2005.  The revised acreage amounts are consistent with the Planning Board’s best understanding of the original intent of the Article. Passage of this Amendment will eliminate confusion on the lot size required prior to implementation of the Open Space Development ordinance.  

George Pellettieri asked if the changes recommended by Central NH Regional Planning Commission could be added to the rational.  Ms. Annis said CNHRPC did not see these amendments.

Amendment No. 5 as proposed by the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change designated references to “building” to read “building or structure” as follows:  

          In Articles V, VI, VII , VIII, IX, X and XI, revise “building” in the paragraph pertaining to “yard requirement” set-backs in all Districts to read “building or structure”.

         In Article XIV Open Space Development, revise “building” in paragraph A.5 to read “building and structure”.

         In Article III Definitions: revise “building” under definitions for “Accessory building”, “Front yard”, and “Open Space” to read “building or structure”.

         Full text of the changes is posted in the Warner Town Hall and has been presented at a public hearing.            

 

RATIONALE:  Amendment #5 developed when reviewing definitions and general wording in the Zoning Ordinance the Planning Board found the words “building” and “structure” with similar intent which conflicted with the current definitions. “Buildings” are not allowed in a lot’s set-back from adjacent property or public right-of-way, but there is no reference to “structures”. The Planning Board proposes “structures” also not be allowed within these set-back areas. To assist in understanding these terms; a building is a structure, but a structure might not be a building per Zoning Ordinance definitions.  

Charlie Goodwin asked for examples. The Planning Board said carports; windmill and cell towers are structures.   

Alice Chamberlain asked if a fence can be placed on a property line.  The Planning Board said just off of the property line.  Discussion followed about fences and if they are considered a structure.  Clarification is still needed.

Amendment No. 6 as proposed by the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows? This proposed change was presented at a public hearing.   

ARTICLE IV – GENERAL PROVISIONS section I. Height Regulations:  Change height of structures allowed in any district from 35 feet to 45 feet to read as follows:  (deletions are crossed out, additions are underlined)  

“No structure shall exceed 35 45 feet in height unless approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment”.      

RATIONALE:   The purpose of amendment #6 to increase the allowable height of structures from 35 to 45 feet is designed to be less restrictive, while also providing an opportunity for new and additional businesses to locate in Warner in the Commercial and Business Zones. The Fire Department has assured us they are equipped to handle incidents at these heights and they support the amendment.  Under current building codes and under current plan review by Fire Department inspectors adequate fire detection and suppression systems would also be required for new construction and for expansion of existing construction.   

Rick Davies observed that in the Article IV it reads “change the height in any district” and in the rationale it speaks about commercial and business zones.  Paul Violette said the intent is to change the height regulations in the commercial and business zones.  The Planning Board members remembers the discussion to include any district, the rationale will be corrected.  

George Pellettieri asked if the amendment will encourage 4 story buildings.  

Peter Wyman explained the building could be 4 stories with a flat roof, but not so with a pitched roof.  

Charlie Goodwin said both issues about additional height and square footage were issues that were already decided upon by popular vote a few years ago.   He is not pleased about the idea of larger businesses coming into town and is opposed to the amendment.  

Paul Violette responded to Mr. Goodwin’s comment.  He said the amendment was presented 3 ago and voted down but since then the Planning Board has received comments to the contrary.  The current ordinance is too restrictive.   

An Energy Committee member spoke about her concern regarding large structures and their energy consumption.  Paul Violette said the Planning Board is looking for a balance.  Fuel would be saved by not needing to travel to Concord and also the potential for future employment.   

Sarah McNeil feels amendments 7 & 8 should be presented side by side.  She also said she was not concerned about a hotel at exit 9; her concern is the square footage that is being proposed in amendment 7.   

Steve Lindbloom feels the change in the square footage allows for big box stores and he also feels the height regulation is sloppy.

Charlie Goodwin feels amendment 6 and 7 could result in buildings that are out of scale for the Town of Warner .  

Someone asked the Planning Board if the whole board voted on the amendment.  The Planning Board said it was a roll call vote; the majority vote was in favor, 1 opposed and 1 abstained.  

Charlie Goodwin said a hotel was proposed on a small lot down at Exit 9, he said because of the small lot the building is going to appear large.  A Planning Board member responded by saying the Exit 9 area is zoned commercial.  

Audience members still feel the square footage amendment is still confusing.   

Rebecca Courser added that the effect on the infrastructure needs to be considered.  She also feels the Town of Warner should be thinking about development that provide residents with full time employment opportunities that include benefits rather than part time.   

George Pellettieri spoke about the reasons the amendment 6 an 7 were voted down 3 years ago.   

Rebecca Courser asked if there is a written definition regarding the historical nature when development is being considered.  

George Pellettieri feels the addition to the height requirement is positive but not coupled with the increased square footage.  He feels a modest increase would be more favorable.  

Rick Davies asked the audience if they would be in favor of a 45’ measured at the mid point of a pitched roof in the residential zones.   

Charlie Goodwin recommends small graduated changes.   

Charlie Albano commented on any commercial growth at Exit 9 or in the business district needs to be tied into the precinct; this growth could help the homeowners within the precinct.  This too needs to be considered.  Mr. Albano would like to see the Planning Board work with the precinct and develop some sort of fee structure for commercial growth.  

The need for a traffic light was discussed and how any new development will include exaction fees to help offset infrastructure costs related to any growth at Exit 9.  

Amendment No. 7 as proposed by the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows?   This proposed change was presented at a public hearing.   

 ARTICLE X  -  BUSINESS DISTRICT B-1  Section F:  Change the maximum gross floor area of buildings as permitted in this District and included in TABLE 1 of the use regulations from 2,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet and to read as follows: (deletions are crossed out, additions are underlined)

 “The maximum gross floor area for shops, restaurants, and other retail establishments shall be 2,000 6,000 square feet for new construction as permitted in Table 1 of the Use Regulations. Existing buildings may be expanded by a maximum of 1000 square feet to include a total of 2,000 6,000 square feet.  Adequate parking must be provided”.   

RATIONALE:  The purpose of amendment #7 is to provide for additional business opportunity and growth while maintaining reasonable building sizing and also to help address the parking needs of the B-1 District.  

Rebecca Courser said adequate parking in the village would be concerning. 

Amendment No. 8 as proposed by the Planning Board to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows? This proposed change was presented at a public hearing.   

 ARTICLE XI  -  COMMERCIAL DISTRICT C-1 section F: Change the maximum gross floor area of buildings as permitted in this District and included in TABLE 1 of the use regulations from 20,000 square feet to 80,000 square feet, and for multiple buildings from 40,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet. It shall read as follows: (deletions are crossed out, additions are underlined)  

“The maximum gross floor area for buildings permitted in Table 1 of the Use Regulations shall be up to a maximum 20,000 80,000 square feet and shall compliment the historical design of existing buildings in Town.  Where more gross floor area is required, multiple buildings may be grouped on the same lot up to a maximum of 40,000 120,000 square feet. Adequate parking must be provided”.                                                                                          

RATIONALE:  Amendment #8 is proposed to allow more flexibility for commercial growth within the existing Commercial Districts (C-1) and to help maintain a balance among all land uses in the town, while at the same time requiring a complimentary historical design approach.  

Steve Lindbloom asked for an example of a 80K square foot building that has a historical design.  Someone said the Common Man in Concord , NH .  

Charlie Goodwin would be pleased if the Planning Board would consider having larger buildings pushed back from the road to lesson the scale. 

Alice Chamberlain feels the fencing needs to be defined.  She also said in terms of work force housing, believes that Warner no longer allows for manufactured housing parks.  The Planning Board clarified and said zoning does allow for manufactured housing with restrictions.   

Rebecca Courser asked if Planning Board members will be available on voting day to help answer questions.  The Planning Board will consider Ms. Courser’s suggestion.  

Barbara Annis commented that the Charette shows larger buildings than what is currently being proposed.   

George Pellettieri said moderation is the key.  

Dan Gresky is also in favor of moderation.  

Ms. Annis closed the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m.  

Dan Watts moved to approve Amendment #1 with rational.  David Hartman seconded the motion, all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Dan Watts moved to approve Amendment #2.  Ed Mical seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Ed Mical moved to approve Amendment #3.  Dan Watts seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Dan Watts moved to approve Amendment #4.  Paul Violette seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Amendment 5 - Dan Watts recommends adding a definition that includes a fence or wall built along a property line is a structure no higher than 8’.  No motion  

Rick Davies moved to extend the meeting to 10:30 p.m. Dan Watts seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Paul Violette moved to approve Amendment #6.  Hank Duhamel seconded the motion.  Rick Davies proposed an amendment to read 35’ to 45’ in C1 and B1 zones and 35’ in all other districts, pitched roofs with more than a 6-12 pitch can be measured  to the mid point to the pitch of the roof.  Paul Violette seconded the motion.  Hank Duhamel has a concern with barns and copula’s.  Mr. Duhamel is not in favor of the motion; majority approved, motion passed.   

Paul Violette recommended considering public feedback on Amendment #7.  Rick Davies moved to approve Amendment #7 changing 6,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet.   No second to the motion.  Dan Watts moved to discuss Amendments 7 & 8 at the January 4th Planning Board meeting.  Ed Mical seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

Dan Watts moved to discuss Amendment #5 at the January 4th meeting.  Ed Mical seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

2. Communications

Ed Mical moved to appoint Paul Violette as the Planning Board’s representative for the Fire Station Committee.  David Hartman seconded the motion; all were in favor, the motion passed.  

3. Adjournment

Motion was made and seconded at 10:25 p.m. to adjourn