Jackson Planning Board
Jackson, NH
MINUTES - PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 -- UNOFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED
David Mason called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
The roll call was read. Members present were Scott Badger, Gino Funicella, Betsey Harding, Sara Kimball, David Mason and David Urey. Alternates present were Raymond Abbott, Jr., Bob Bowman, Frank DiFruscio, Mike Mallett and David Treadwell. There were no others attending the meeting.
The minutes of the August 9 meeting were reviewed. Gino Funicella was omitted from the list of members attending the last meeting. David Urey had several changes. Under the Subcommittee reports the subheading should be Accessory Structure Subcommittee. In the next paragraph he would like the wording changed to eight meetings and the word requests be changed to results. On page 2 of the minutes the third paragraph should be changed as follows:
David Urey brought up the issue of Article 4.1.6—Well Radius of the Zoning Ordinance. He feels the form the town provides as the release required by 4.1.6 does not contain the required holdharmless wording in favor of the town.
It was moved and seconded to accept the minutes as amended and all voted favorably.
ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA:
Ray Abbott asked for clarification about who should be voting. David Mason said generally all vote unless there is a noticed article. If we had to make a decision on an application would it be appropriate to say that we have a quorum and vote with 4 of 7 or should we call on the alternates because we have them. The feeling seemed to indicate that the alternates should be voting as that is what they are here for. The chairman’s duty is to choose the voting alternates to make up a quorum. Ray felt that the longest serving alternate should be the voting alternate. It was stated that the vote could wait until another meeting when a quorum was present but others disagreed. David Mason will check with the Local Government Center on this. Mike Mallett asked what constituted a quorum and the reply was 4 out of 7.
OLD BUSINESS
David Mason reported on the waiver on well-radius from the last meeting. He had spoken to an attorney at the Local Government Center and they felt that wording holding the town harmless should be added to waiver / release currently provided to applicants. The attorney was curious as to why this issue came up as this is usually a State and not a town issue. Dave Mason feels that Jackson is being extra careful. Scott Badger asked if the “holdharmless” carried extra weight in court and the reply was that it does. David Urey suggested that the chairman should contact the Board of Selectmen regarding this wording on their waiver.
Accessory Structure Subcommittee
David Urey explained that this subcommittee was brought up by a request from the selectmen to clarify the ordinance about whether mother-in-law apartments were allowed. He read an article explaining there is an increased use of accessory apartments nationwide.
Sarah Kimball said that she did make a few changes in the verbiage to get the original draft to a more manageable size for a zoning ordinance. If the members have a better way and wanted to change this it would be all right with her. She has suggested making a section for the accessory structures
Mike Mallett questioned the purpose of revising “dwelling units” by elimination of the words in the proposed regulation David Mason replied that this issue has been discussed and 4.3.1 now refers to single and multi-family residential dwelling units as allowed uses. He said, “my contention was it would be logical for people to believe they could build multi-unit dwellings and they didn’t have to qualify as a multi-unit residential development because that was a different thing. The majority of the folks at the meeting felt that this was a misunderstanding on my part. They felt there was no intention to let anyone build a multi-family residence on any lot without having to qualify under Section 8. If we do this we are saying that it is the intent of the Town of Jackson not to have
anyone build a multi-family residential unit without either qualifying as an accessory apartment or coming to the planning board and qualifying under Section 8.
Sarah Kimball stated we are trying to show consistency with the language of Section 8.
David Mason asked for the Board’s opinion on the question of requiring a landowner intending to build a multi-family dwelling on a lot to qualify under Section 8 or as an accessory apartment. David Urey questioned if this was for commercial zoning. David Mason wondered if a 2-family dwelling in a commercial district would be considered commercial
Scott Badger asked if this would encourage subdivisions. David Mason replied that it could but it certainly says you would have to qualify under Section 8. Ray Abbott questioned if this could eventually slide over into commercial use. David Mason said that we are not looking at commercial use at this time only the
Rural Residential District. David Urey pointed out that everything permitted in the Rural Residential District is permitted in the Village, or commercial, District so that unless we change other parts this will roll over and apply in the Village District. Scott Badger has a problem in that this may provide incentive to develop if you can’t put two families in a single house: the next option is to subdivide. It was pointed out, subdivision is an option now, if the land in question is qualifies for subdivision: the proposal changes nothing in that regard. David Mason explained the proposed ordinance changes don’t prevent anyone from building multi-family homes they simply require that they be qualified by application to the Planning Board under Section 8.
Scott Badger didn’t realize that there was a planning board issue with Section 4.3. Gino Funicella said that it is an issue that needs to be codified. The rules change with each change of selectmen. Each board member has their own interpretation of the rules. Sarah says that other people interpret things differently and this is ground to codify it.
David Mason said there have not been many 2-family homes built in the last 15-20 years so this hasn’t been much of an issue. The issue is with mother-in-law apartments.
There was a lengthy discussion on the need to have percentages and square footage requirements. It was decided to eliminate paragraph 2 which addressed the percentage formula for maximum accessory apartment size and to use the minimum / maximum size parameters contained in paragraph 3. Another discussion ensued in regard to the meaning of accessory as it relates to the size of the primary residence. As the proposed regulation allows detached accessory apartments it was pointed out someone could build a 100 sq. ft building when the primary residence might be smaller or no larger. Some members felt this was not in the spirit of accessory use and others saw no reason not to allow that situation. All agreed an acceptable compromise would be to allow detached accessory apartments in an existing
structure but to make clear the construction of new structures for such use would not be allowed.
Other section of the proposed ordinance were reviewed and generally approved without modification. Sarah Kimball volunteered to incorporate the changes discussed and agreed upon and provide a modified copy of the proposed ordinance.
There being no further discussion, a motion was made by Ray Abbott and seconded by David Urey to adjourn the meeting and it passed unanimously. David Mason adjourned the meeting at 9:00PM.
Respectfully submitted,
| 
