Zoning Board of Adjustment

Warner, NH

Meeting Minutes of February 11, 2009  

 

Members Present:  Martha Thoits, Chair, Dennis Barnard, Vice Chair, Mike Holt, Eric Rodgers, Janice Loz and Alternate Gordon Nolen.  (Jean Lightfoot recording)  

Excused:  Alternate Rick Davies  

Not present:  Alternate Ted Young  

Ms. Thoits opened the meeting at 7:00 pm .  The roll call was taken.  Mr. Rodgers suggested that the minutes be approved before beginning the discussion of the zoning change suggestions.  The Board agreed.  

1.  MINUTES  

Mr. Rodgers MOVED to approve the December 12, 2008 minutes.  Mr. Nolen seconded.  There was no discussion.  The motion was PASSED unanimously.  

2.  DISCUSSION OF SUGGESTIONS FOR ZONING CHANGES  

Ms. Thoits explained that the following listing is comprised of the things that the Planning Board members are thinking of working on for the next year.  Each member received a copy and the listing is provided below.  

Rankings: 1=anticipated that these will not take too long to resolve

                 3=anticipated that it may be more involved to resolve  

Zoning and other ordinance change suggestions – 1/19/2009

Ranking

1  REG

Driveway regulations

1  ORD

            Height regulations

1 ORD

            Multi family (workforce housing)  also see Use Regulations

1 ORD

            B-1—    new construction 2,000 square feet for shops, restaurants & other retail10,000 square foot lots

1 ORD

            C-1       20,000 square feet up to 40,000 square feet (2 buildings) No definition how far apart, do we allow 3 buildings up to 40,000

1 ORD

            C-1 should there be a formula so large lots could have multiple businesses on the same lot (see Charette illustration)

1 ORD

            Wind turbines—height-distance to abutters, where allowed, etc

1 ORD

2.       Changes to Zoning Ordinance regarding commercial building size

1 ORD

·            use measurable incentives

1 ORD

·            overlap gross area, footprint, height, density and architectural provisions to keep rural town appearance and promote growth

 

·            kick this off early so review and suggestions from citizens can comment as wording progresses

1

7.       Ask Conservation Commission and ZBA if there are any items they would suggest

1

10.   Investigate grants for Intervale Traffic and larger Park & Ride (federal money)

1 REG

12.   Get Allan Brown to update road specifications. Get drawing of Cul-De-Sac updated.

1 ORD

14.   Wind generator issues not covered by the State.

1 ORD or REG

1.  Follow up on audit performed in 2008 by Planning Commission on all of our ordinances and regulations for uniformity.

1 ORD

2.  Change Zoning Ordinance to increase commercial building size in C-1 Zones.  

1 ORD

3.  Look at the State Regulations regarding Solar (ranked 2) & Wind (ranked 1) power and determine if they fit the bill for us.

1 REG

5.   Update road specifications for sub-divisions.

1 REG

6.  Update our checklists for site plan reviews and subdivisions.

1 REG

Color coding plans

1 ORD or REG

1.       Following up on the results of the coming March Warrant Article vote by checking the Site Plan Review and Subdivision Regulations for continuity and consistency with definitions and other changes to the Zoning Ordinance.  Follow through with the 2007 CNHRPC audit suggested changes in the same.

2 ORD

            Signs-   temporary (define) see use table Agriculture section on definition.  Should compare zoning to site plan regulations for any irregularities.

2 ORD

            Use Regulations—multi family in an R-1 with Special exception ?????

2 ORD

???Enlarging the Commercial area at Davisville

2 REG

            Monuments have given us problems

2 ORD

3.       Review Zoning Use tables and provide more specific  items for the ZBA to check to allow Special Exceptions – give ZBA more options and directions (Mike Tardiff had some illustrations)

2 ORD

5.       Coordinate Shoreline Protection Act issues with Zoning Ordinance

2 ORD

6.       Update sign ordinance – not sure what the issues are, but I understand the Selectmen have concerns.

2 REG

8.       Review Intervals Area exaction fee structure and cost escalation

 

9.       For Open Space Development, set requirements for maintaining common area – maybe Site Plan review item.

2 ORD

13.   Solar power issues not covered by the State.

2 ORD

            Subdivision Application--???tying into state grid (this has caused problems because no one knows what it means)

3 REG

            Section III Part C—clarify difference between preliminary conceptual consultation and Design Review phase—neither one results in a decision but the Design Review phase requires abutters to be notified by certified mail. 

3 REG

            Section III Part C,5-E  ???change shall to may and why do we designate only CNHRPC

3 REG

4.       Work Force Housing:

3 ORD

·            Prepare prior to a future developer requesting special WFH related ordinance relief

ORD

·            See what other towns are doing

ORD

·            Review ordinance restrictions – apartments (size, number of units), multifamily housing, lot density, etc

ORD

·            Determine Warner’s % of housing within WFH cost range – is this our “fair Share”

ORD

·            Perhaps add site plan review guidelines for WFH review

ORD

·            Get Ben Frost to come speak to us

deleted

11.   Sharon Wason said there are grants for sidewalk repair – some of Warner’s need help

3 REG or ORD

16.   Incentive provisions to encourage Green and energy efficient construction

3 ORD

17.   Demolition ordinance for historic structures

3 REG or ORD

4.  Look at what others are doing in the area of "Green" incentives and regulations.

deleted

15.   Building Code or Site Plan Review – require professional review of commercial building design documents

 

Ms. Thoits explained that the Planning Board has requested input from the Zoning Board of Adjustment regarding these items or the addition of others of concern.  She said that if there are any of these that seem very important that they deal with, those should be mentioned.   

Mr. Holt asked what the height regulations refer to.  Ms. Thoits said it meant the height of a building.  

Mr. Rodgers asked what workforce housing means.  Ms. Loz said it refers to affordable housing for the people who work in Warner.  She said, for example, if a median income person cannot afford a house in your town, you have to make affordable housing available.  Mr. Rodgers asked how the State can tell the Town that we have to provide for anything.  Ms. Thoits said she believed that it may be the Federal Government that is dictating it to the State.  Ms. Loz asked if anyone has determined if we have workforce housing available.  There was a discussion about the various rental properties in town that may be considered affordable workforce housing.  Mr. Rodgers said he doubts that it will significantly affect the Town, but he said he does not like the wording and what appears to be the intent.  Mr. Holt said that there were a number of cases where someone wanted to put a mother-in-law apartment and he wondered if this may have arisen from cases like that.  Ms. Lightfoot explained that the Planning Board is waiting for direction from the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission before they take any steps on the issue of workforce housing.  There was a general discussion about the median income in Warner and the tax rates and property values in town.  Ms. Thoits referred the Board to the new RSA on page 570 of the New Hampshire Planning and Land Use Regulation 2008-2009 edition.  Mr. Rodgers said that he thought if multiple family housing is allowed in some of the zoning districts in town, then that should cover the requirements.  

Ms. Loz asked if there is anything in the regulations now about wind turbines.  Ms. Thoits said that is something the Planning Board needs to work on because that is another thing that the State has said that the towns need to be more lenient on.  It was agreed that this item would be highlighted to the Planning Board as one that they would like to see completed in the following year.  There was a discussion of the height restrictions and the engineering requirements for wind turbines.   

Mr. Rodgers asked what driveway regulations they are referring to, since those are set by the State.  Ms. Lightfoot said they were talking about who inspects the driveways, the slope and curvature for the purpose of getting emergency equipment into an area, etc.  Mr. Rodgers asked what the Zoning Board should be saying about this.  Ms. Lightfoot said that if the driveway regulations have presented a problem for the Zoning Board members, then the Planning Board would like to know about it.  Ms. Thoits said that the question to the Zoning Board from the Planning Board is:  is the wording okay?  Is it a variable thing that they need to be thinking about?  She added that if the driveway regulations, for example, were put in the Zoning Ordinance, then it would be up to the Zoning Board to interpret it.  However, she added that if it is put in their site plan regulations, then the Zoning Board will have nothing to do with it.  She said if slope restrictions are put in the Zoning Ordinance and one person comes to the Zoning Board for a variance, then that is not a problem, but if it results in 50 people requesting variances, then, clearly it is a problem and perhaps would have to be changed.  Mr. Holt said that he recalls that Dick Brown, the Fire Chief, said that getting fire trucks up and down the very steep driveways is a problem.  It was agreed that the Zoning Board has no input to the driveway regulations.  

Mr. Rodgers asked about height regulations.  It was agreed that this may come back to the Zoning Board because of requests for variances to make taller buildings, but nothing will be suggested this year to the Planning Board related to this.  

There was a discussion about what was meant by the 2,000 square feet for shops, restaurants and other retail and how the 10,000 square foot lot applies.  The Board also discussed the square footage limitations for commercial buildings in the C-1 and B-1 districts.  It was agreed that the size needs to be increased.  And, it was agreed to send a thought to the Planning Board that perhaps there be no size restriction on commercial buildings, but that there be very long setback requirements from abutters and the road.  Ms. Thoits said that by having such a low size restriction, businesses that would be beneficial to the town are being discouraged from coming in and this should not be the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.  She said that by not allowing these businesses into town, the taxes are not being helped.  Mr. Barnard asked if someone wants to come into town and build a big building on a commercially zoned lot, why should we tell them how big it should be.  Ms. Loz said she thinks they are trying to set limits to keep a look in the town.  Ms. Thoits said that 40,000 square feet is not very large for a business.  She referred to Madgetech which currently is renting property in Contoocook, but intends to build on property they own in Warner by Exit 7.  She said that these restrictions are quite small for him and wondered if they would be restricted from building something that is too small for his company, especially given that this is the type of business that she thinks would be good for Warner.   She said she does not think it makes sense to force any business to build 3 buildings so they can house their whole business, rather than only one building, even though that is how the Ordinance currently reads.  Mr. Rodgers agreed that this does not make sense.  Ms. Loz asked how often people have come before the Board and said that up to 40,000 square feet is not enough.  Ms. Thoits said it has happened and there are probably others who know they cannot do it, so they don’t ask for a variance.  Mr. Rodgers suggested that if the driving factor is that the town does not want a Walmart on Main Street , it is understandable, but if you allow just one building at 40,000 square feet would prevent a Walmart, but would perhaps be friendlier to other businesses that would be beneficial to the town.  He said he does not understand the 2,000 square foot restriction.  Mr. Rodgers said that there are very few people in town who would not want Warner Power to be here. He said there is a 90-acre lot on North Road where a business could locate and would, hopefully, bring more jobs to town.  He said that if the Zoning Ordinance was more favorable, then perhaps another Warner Power or two could build there.  Ms. Thoits said that Madgetech has a similar problem but does not want to fight the Board to build a building on his property in Warner.  She said instead he will stay renting in Contoocook, which he does not want to do.  Mr. Rodgers said that no one wants a steel mill in town, but that won’t happen because there’s no ore around here.  Ms. Thoits agreed and said in the center of town there is no place to put a steel mill.  She said this is referring to the Commercial Zones.  Mr. Rodgers suggested that there be no limit to the square footage of the building, but make it a requirement that it be a very large distance to any abutting properties.  He said so long as it was not heavy industry, which he said it will not be in this area, this might work.  He suggested perhaps a 200-foot buffer and then this would restrict the size of the building.   

Ms. Loz asked if there is something that allows for higher buildings, so long as the setbacks are long enough.  Mr. Rodgers agreed that there is something that can be allowed.  He referred to the hotel where they wanted to go higher than the 35 feet and could have without a variance, except they did not have the setback required.  There was a short discussion about the results of the court case on the Hampton Inn.  Ms. Thoits said that she thinks they are not going to come back to the town and it is regretful because of the financial loss to the town.  

Mr. Rodgers referred to the question as to whether there should be a formula so large lots could have multiple businesses on the same lot.  He said he does not think there should be a formula in the Ordinance because every time something is that specific, it opens the interpretations to too many lawsuits.  He suggested making it very clean wording, for example, if you have a 200 foot setback from the edge of your buildings to any other lots, then you can do whatever you want.  Ms. Thoits agreed.  Mr. Rodgers suggested making the wording not so convoluted and confusing, but very simple which the ZBA can use as a guide, rather than formulas for square footage and driveway sizes, etc.  Mr. Holt said that this may also result in more applicants coming in asking for variances of the 200 feet.  Mr. Rodgers said there will always be people asking for variances.   

The Board went through the rest of the items and had no other items on which they wanted to comment that related to the Ordinance and not the Planning Board regulations.  There was a discussion about the suggestion that the Zoning Use Tables be more specific and the Zoning Board be given more options and directions in the Ordinance.  Mr. Holt said that this is more restrictive to the Zoning Board and it was agreed that the Board would prefer to have more rather than less leniency in interpreting the wording of the Ordinance.  

There was a discussion about the sign ordinance, and it was agreed that it was generally good, but would prefer that someone be allowed to have a two-sided sign.   

There was no further discussion.  

Mr. Rodgers MOVED to adjourn.  Mr. Nolen seconded.  The motion was PASSED unanimously. 
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.