Jackson Planning Board
Jackson, NH
MINUTES – December 8, 2005 -- UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED
Members present: Richard Bennett, Betsey Harding, Sarah Kimball and Stephen Weeder. Alternates attending were David Mason and David Urey. Bill Kelley, Ira Lynn and Scott Badger had notified the board that they would be unable to attend.
Chairman Betsey Harding called the regular meeting of the Jackson Planning Board to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the November 10 meeting and the December 1, 2005, work session were reviewed.
In the November meeting minutes David Urey had a question on the fourth paragraph. He wanted to know what the Crowes have now. He feels that the phrase “unit subdivision” should be put in quotes. David Mason made the motion to accept the minutes with this addition. Stephen Weeder seconded this motion and all approved. On the December work session notes there was a typo in the 5th sentence—the “8” should be removed from the word certification. On the second page, the third paragraph three should read “A member asked why Sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 came up.” David Urey made the motion to accept the minutes with the changes. David Mason seconded the motion and all voted favorably.
Betsey Harding informed the Board that she had checked as requested with Attorney Upton on her statement during the Crowes’ ZBA hearing that the Planning Board had erred in granting a two-unit subdivision to the Crowe in January 2005. Upton affirmed that the error had been properly explained—that honesty is the best approach. David Urey asked that Betsey discuss with Attorney Upton the current situation concerning the Crowes’ property to determine what actions are needed in light of a letter from an abutter’s attorney.
ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA: There was no public participation.
PUBLIC HEARING: RALPH BUXTON—request for reversal of Previous Boundary Line Adjustment, Lots involved: V10-33A & 36.
Betsey Harding explained Mrs. Ralph Buxton’s wish to have the Boundary Line Adjustment reversed. The plat map was recorded at the Carroll Country Registry of Deeds but no deed was written to reflect the change. During Board review of the submitted plans, several questions arose: 1) Dick Bennett felt it would be helpful to have Lot 33A show the house location, to confirm placement not within the setback, 2) Stephen Weeder noted that the signature block is missing, so we cannot confirm both parties approval, and 3) the Zoning Ordinance prohibits us from creating a non-conforming lot, which would happen if we simply reverse the prior approval. Because the deed was never filed, it was decided that perhaps it does not need Planning Board action, and that only a filed affidavit may be necessary. Betsey will discuss
the matter with Attorney Upton.
CONTINUATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE PROPOSAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSSION:
After lengthy discussion a motion was made by Dick Bennett to accept the following draft after approval of Attorney Upton. This motion was seconded by David Urey, and all voted favorably.
Note: Italics
indicate wording added
Section 2 (The second sentence below is new, intended as a clarification of existing policy.)
2.2.3 A Non-Conforming Structure or Building may be moved, enlarged, altered, restored or replaced within the boundaries of the lot it occupied at the time this ordinance took effect, providing that the change does not make the structure more non-conforming in any way. By way of example and not limitation, ‘more non-conforming in any way’ means that a structure or building positioned within a proscribed Setback (Sections 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.3) may not be altered in such a way that the structure or building extends for a greater width, a further depth, nor to a greater height, which would have the effect of increasing the volume of the structure or building within the proscribed Setback area. Similarly, a structure or building that exceeds the permissible
Building Height (Section 4.1.3) may not be altered in such a way that the structure or building extends to a greater height, nor may the volume of the structure or building exceeding the Height limit be increased.
2.3 Non-Conforming Lots (A new addition to codify current practice)
A Non-Conforming Lot, as defined herein, which does not satisfy the requirements of Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance, relative to Minimum Lot Size by Soil Type, but which has received approval from the State of New Hampshire (DES) for a sub-surface septic system and leach field, shall be limited to the construction of a Dwelling Unit not to exceed two (2) bedrooms, provided that, with the exception of Sections 4.3.1.3 and 4.3.2.4, all the other requirements of Section~4 of this Zoning Ordinance are met.
4.1.6 Well Radius (A new addition to codify current practice)
In order to protect water quality on all lots, the well radius for each lot must be located within the same lot that the well serves; if a well radius cannot be entirely located within the lot that the well serves, then it shall be located within the well radius of an abutting lot, or within land which is non-buildable under state and/or local regulations.~ In the event that the well radius does not fall entirely within the lot it serves, the landowner shall release the Town of Jackson from any obligation in connection with the protective well radius and shall obtain an easement from any abutting lot owner whose well radius or other land will be necessary; said release and easement shall be recorded at the Carroll County Registry of Deeds.
Section 7: PERFORMANCE ZONING IN THE VILLAGE OVERLAY DISTRICT
(This section is entirely new, to allow Planning Board review of proposals within the Village area.)
7.1 Purpose
7.1.1 The purpose of Performance Zoning is to permit predictable flexibility in planning in the Village Overlay District of Jackson, permitting development to occur in accordance with specified criteria based on the merits of each specific development.~It shall apply to the following types of development proposed for the Village Overlay District: (1) Commercial Use developments, (2) Cluster Single-Family Developments and Multi-Family Residential Developments, and (3) multi-family buildings in excess of two (2) Dwelling Units.~It shall not apply to any non-cluster single-family residential uses.
7.1.2 Performance Zoning allows the Town of Jackson to guide future growth within the Village Overlay District in a direction that will encourage desirable development without dramatically changing the landscape and rural character appreciated by residents and visitors alike.
7.1.3 Performance Zoning 1) encourages cooperative and creative planning efforts, 2) permits a natural mix of desirable uses while protecting existing and future development from a mesh of incompatible uses and undesirable nuisances, 3) allows a balance between desirable growth and preservation of natural landscapes and rural character, and 4) recognizes that each parcel of land and each development proposal has unique characteristics which are best considered on a case-by-case basis.
7.2. Authority
7.2.1 This Performance Zoning Ordinance is adopted in accordance with NH RSA 674:21, Innovative Land Use Controls, to encourage future development within the Village Overlay District to occur in a manner consistent with existing development patterns. A determination that any part or section of this Performance Zoning Ordinance is illegal or unconstitutional shall have no effect on the legality or enforcement of any other section or part. Repeal or invalidation of this Performance Zoning Ordinance or any portion thereof does not abrogate or annul any Development Permit or any other lawful permit, easement or covenant created because of this Performance Zoning Ordinance.
7.3 Administration and Permits
7.3.1 The Jackson Planning Board shall be responsible for implementing the Performance Zoning Ordinance according to the authority conferred by NH RSA 674:21-II. This RSA also confers the authority to grant permits to the administrative officer (Planning Board), which may grant 1) a “Development Permit” on an application that passes the standards contained in the Performance Zoning Ordinance before permits are requested from the Board of Selectmen, and 2) an “Occupancy Permit” to certify that all required and approved standards of the project have been met and that all fees have been paid before the project is put into use.
7.3.2 The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall 1) hear Administrative Appeals of a Planning Board decision, and 2) a request for a variance from the strict application of any of the criteria, pursuant to NH RSA 674:33 and 676:5.
7.4 Village Overlay District Boundaries
7.4.1 This Performance Zoning Ordinance shall apply only to the “Village Overlay District,” which shall consist of that land within 500 feet on either side of the traveled center lines of public Route 16A (Main Street), and Route 16 from the Bartlett town line on the south to the northern junction of Routes 16 and 16A, that land within a 500-foot radius arc around the northern intersection of the center lines of Routes 16 and 16A, and all other land between Routes 16 and 16A within the Town of Jackson.
7.5 Process
7.5.1 Commercial Use developments, Cluster Single-Family Developments and Multi-Family Residential Developments, and multi-family buildings in excess of two (2) Dwelling Units planned for construction within the Village Overlay District described in 7.4 above must comply with these regulations, which shall form an Overlay District to work in conjunction with this Zoning Ordinance. The process involves two groups of criteria: Absolute and Relative. Absolute Criteria are all those criteria that every development proposal must meet in order to receive Planning Board approval. Relative Criteria permit flexibility and negotiation, and are designed to allow a development proposal to be considered under its own special merits and circumstances.
7.5.2 Absolute Criteria
7.5.2.1 Each Absolute Criterion shall be answered with “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A” (not applicable). A “No” answer will automatically exclude the development from further consideration until a change in the development proposal could be made to permit a “Yes” answer. A criterion must be considered applicable if it can be reasonably applied to the development proposal.
7.5.3 Relative Criteria
7.5.3.1 Each Relative Criterion shall have a multiplier established from time to time by the Planning Board as a value from 1 to 5, with 1 being of least importance and 5 being of greatest importance.
7.5.3.2 Each Relative Criterion has a point range from -2 to +2 to be applied to each proposed development within the Village Overlay District, as follows:
§ -2 means that the proposed development is unable to or makes no attempt to comply with the relative performance standard.
§ -1 means that the proposed development makes an attempt to comply with the relative performance standard.
§ 0 means that the proposed development complies exactly with the relative performance standard, or that the standard is not applicable to the proposal.
§ +1 means that the proposed development implements the community’s goals.
§ +2 means that the proposed development makes an outstanding effort to implement the community’s goals.
Note: The full point range is not necessarily available for every relative performance standard. For example, a range of “0” to “-2” may be used where the intent is only to discourage a particular type of performance, or where no positive result comes from exceeding the standard. In the case of required parking spaces, a +1 would not be given for providing more than the required parking unless the Planning Board were to determine that extra parking would be beneficial in a particular circumstance. If no majority vote of the Planning board is established to decide a Relative Criterion’s point value, then it shall be set at “0” for that Criterion.
7.6 Procedures
A development proposal may be processed by: Review of a Conceptual Plan, and Review of a Final Plan.
7.6.1 Review of a Conceptual Plan is optional for all Commercial Use developments, Cluster Single-Family Developments or Multi-Family Residential Developments, and (3) multi-family buildings in excess of two (2) Dwelling Units, within the Village Overlay District. It is encouraged as a way to discuss requirements and standards applicable to the proposed development in order to identify and solve problems prior to submission of a more costly proposal. For this process, sketched plans may be submitted and reviewed by the Planning Board. The Board shall respond with comments, explanations and recommendations to assist the applicant in preparing a subsequent application. This is an informal review process and no formal notice to the public or to abutters is
required.
7.6.2 Review of a Final Plan is required for Planning Board approval of any development proposal within the Village Overlay District. The Final Plan shall specify uses of the land and the layout of any structures, buildings, circulation, infrastructure, topographic and other natural land features, and landscaping. For this process, plans meeting requirements outlined in the Appendix shall be submitted. Proper legal notice shall be given in newspapers of general circulation, public places, and to abutters, in accordance with NH RSA 676:4. Approval of the Final Plan shall result in issuance of a Development Permit reflecting approvals for all aspects of the Plan including layout and densities. Final Plans shall be filed with the County Registry and with the Town Offices with
the intent that they shall accurately reflect conditions at the development site at the time of completion of the project. If changes are approved after this filing, then the Final Plans shall be corrected and refiled.
7.6.3 The Planning Board may require a Performance Bond or other appropriate security for the completion of the development proposal.
7.6.4 Changes following earlier approvals: Minor changes to a Final Plan may be approved by the Planning Board without additional public hearings. Major changes shall be reviewed by the Planning Board at public hearings and with proper notice in newspapers, in public places, and to abutters as required, and shall be recorded as amendments in accordance with the same procedures established for the filing of initially approved plan documents.
7.6.4.1 Major changes are defined as including any of the following:
a) A change in the use of the development
b) An increase in the approved number of Dwelling Units or lots
c) An increase in the anticipated amount of traffic circulation and/or public utilities
d) An increase of greater than 2% in the approved gross floor areas of buildings
e) A reduction of greater than 4% of the area reserved for common open space
f) An increase of greater than 4% in the total ground area covered by buildings.
7.6.5 Effective Period of Development Plan: The development shall be constructed in a timely manner. The Development Plan shall be subject to revocation under the following conditions:
7.6.6 Final Plan Time Limit: The applicant must complete the development of an approved Final Plan within THREE years from the date of approval of said Final Plan. For purposes of this section, a development is substantially complete once all structures, buildings, and engineering improvements are installed and completed in accordance with applicable regulations at which time the Planning Board or its representative shall inspect the development and issue an Occupancy Permit. If the applicant foresees that the development will not be completed within the specified time limit, applicant may return to the Planning Board for a further review of the Final Plan and current circumstances, at which time the applicant may request an extension. Failure to return for such a review
shall cause a forfeiture of the right to proceed under the Final Plan and require resubmission of all materials, and reapproval of same.
7.6.7 Occupancy Permit: No Occupancy Permit shall be issued for any development until all improvements shown on the approved Final Plan are in place and all fees are paid; however, the Planning Board may allow occupancy upon payment of an agreed performance bond, cash deposit, or equivalent, deposited with the Town, conditioned on and guaranteeing the installation of all improvements shown on the approved plan, to be in the amount of 125% of the estimated cost of the improvements as determined by an executed contract to install such improvements or by adequate appraisals of such cost. Any bond, cash deposit, or equivalent deposited pursuant to this requirement shall be released upon certification by the Planning Board that the required improvements have been completed.
7.6.8 ABSOLUTE CRITERIA – the following must be answered affirmatively, or as “not applicable,” for the development proposal to be accepted for approval.
1. The development proposal is consistent with the adopted goals and objectives set out in the Town of Jackson Master Plan.
2. If the development proposal requires subdivision or replatting of an existing parcel, that action must be taken according to regulations.
3. The development proposal will not affect the current Capital Improvements Program in a negative way. If it is anticipated that an impact of a development proposal would be extra municipal expenditures, then those expenditures are appropriately planned for through a cooperative process between the applicant and the Town.
4. If the development proposal involves a Scenic Road designation, it maintains existing stonewalls, trees, other existing vegetation, and other amenities consistent with applicable requirements.
5. The development proposal provides adequate access for emergency vehicles and for those persons attempting to render emergency services.
6. The development proposal provides a community water system or is served by the Jackson Water Precinct with adequate capacity for anticipated needs. All applicable water system design standards, specifications and requirements are met.
7. The development proposal is served by the following utilities with adequate capacity, or adequate arrangements have been made for installation or augmentation of existing services for electricity, cable or broadband, telephone, fire protection, streets, and pedestrian access.
8. The development proposal conforms to applicable local, state and federal water quality standards including erosion, sedimentation and runoff control, solid waste disposal, waste water disposal, and hazardous substance control and disposal.
9. The street and parking system provides for smooth, safe, convenient movement of vehicles both on and off the site.
10. The buildings within the development proposal comply with building Height restrictions as stated in this Zoning Ordinance.
11. The development proposal complies with Section 6 of this Zoning Ordinance.
7.6.9 RELATIVE CRITERIA – The final score must equal 0 or a plus amount to gain approval.
1. The area to be developed is suitable for development, conforms to the planned pattern of growth, and fits into both the natural and man-made environments. (-2/+2)
2. The design and arrangements of elements of the development proposal (buildings, roads, parking, open space, etc.) are appropriate both in terms of the site and in terms of compatibility with the area or neighborhood. (-2/+2)
3. Building bulk and scale are compatible with that of neighboring buildings. (-2/+2)
4. The intensity of use, as measured by traffic generation, noise generation, hours of operation, the extent of parking, signing and outdoor lighting, and similar measurable factors, is compatible with that of neighboring properties. (-2/+2)
5. Necessary precautions have been taken to prevent or limit erosion into any/all water bodies on site, both during the development process and after the development has been completed. (-2/+2)
6. Necessary precautions have been taken to prevent or limit erosion from the site, both during the development process and after the development has been completed. (-2/+2)
7. If the development proposal includes lands that are ecologically sensitive and/or significant (e.g., an important source of drinking water, or important forest areas), then these areas have been set aside from development and/or protected through easement or other protective covenants. (-2/+2)
8. If the development proposal contains areas of natural or geological hazards (e.g., slopes of 15% or greater), Floodplain areas, or soil conditions unfavorable to development (e.g., wetlands and/or poorly- or very poorly-drained soils), then these areas have been set aside from development and/or protected through easement or other protective covenants. If site is located in a Floodplain area, the development proposal complies with Section 10 (future: Section 11) of this Zoning Ordinance. (-2/+2)
9. If the site has impervious coverage of more than 15% of the total space, or if any building, wall, or other structure is planned for an area where the slope is at 15% or greater, then a plan submitted by a certified engineer shall indicate stability, and runoff or erosion control measures. (-2/+2)
10. If the site contains an area which serves as a habitat for wildlife and/or plant species identified in the NH Fish and Game/NH Natural Heritage Inventory as significant and in particular need of attention, then special precautions have been indicated in the plan to prevent the creation of influences environmentally adverse to those habitats. (-2/+2)
11. If the development proposal includes an area known to contain a mineral deposit of which commercial extraction is economically feasible, then the project been designed to preclude extraction. (-2/+2)
12. Sidewalks and bikeways are included in the plan. (-2/+2)
13. Vehicular use areas, pedestrian circulation paths and exterior portions of buildings are provided with adequate lighting for safety and security. Lighting plans comply with lighting regulations of this Zoning Ordinance. (-2/+2)
14. Where access by fewer than 25 cars per hour is anticipated, one access/egress shall be the maximum. (-2/0)
15. Setbacks are designed to perform the function of creating an effective visual and sound buffer between different, conflicting uses. Provision of additional buffering may be rewarded with additional points. (-2/+2)
16. Off-street parking is situated either beside or behind the buildings when viewed from the street. Parking meets the requirements stated in this Zoning Ordinance for the proposed use and density. (-2/+2)
17. Loading areas and outdoor mechanical equipment are appropriately screened from public view by landscaping or a landscaped opaque wall. (-2/+2)
18. Solid waste containers are (1) animal proof, and (2) appropriately screened from public view by landscaping or a landscaped opaque wall.(-2/+2)
19. The development proposal makes suitable provision for snow storage. (-2/+2)
20. The development proposal includes a desirable mix of residential and commercial use.(0/+2)
21. The development proposal includes residential housing with 20% designed to be perpetually affordable, according to current Federal and/or State regulations. (+1 for 20%/+2 for exceeding 20%)
7.7 Enforcement and Penalty
If any violation of this Ordinance occurs, Section 14.3 (future: Section 15.3) of this Zoning Ordinance shall be applicable.
Note: If approved on the day of Town Meeting, this new Section 7 will be inserted into Jackson’s Zoning Ordinance and current sections 7 through 16 shall be renumbered accordingly.
This wording was submitted to Attorney Upton and will be presented at a Public Hearing on January 12, 2006, at 7:15 pm. Our meeting time will be delayed because of a school facilities committee meeting on that same night, in the same room.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
There being no further discussion, a motion made by David Mason and seconded by Sarah Kimball to adjourn the meeting passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan G. Way, Secretary
| 
