Planning Board

Minutes

January 6, 2011

Official as of January 13, 2011

Chairman Robert Strobel calls the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. 

PRESENT: Chairman Robert Strobel, Selectmen’s Representative Scott Bryer, Babette Morrill, Adam Sprague, Town Planner Elaine Planchet, and Board Administrator Linda Smith.

VOTING DESIGNATION: Bob Strobel, Scott Bryer, Babette Morrill, and Adam Sprague.

ABSENT: Vice Chairman Herb Johnson, Rick Wolf, Roger LeClerc, and Alternates Pat Bell and Victoria Parmele.

MINUTES:
December 16, 2010
Mr. Strobel makes a motion, second by Mr. Bryer, to accept the minutes of December 16, 2010, as amended.
Page 2: Add: …to…
Motion passes unanimously; 3/0/1. Mr. Bryer abstains.

Public Hearing - Proposed Changes to Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Strobel opens the public hearing at 7:05 pm.

Proposed Ordinance Change: Accessory Apartments
Mr. Strobel explains that this proposal will give economic viability to the larger homes in town. Ms. Smith explains background information for why this proposal came about. She explains that the zoning board of adjustment had expressed concern with both the difficulty of some residents to obtain “in-law” apartments via a variance and also the desire to retain the residential aspect of some of the older, larger homes in the town.  She states that this will give a greater opportunity to keep the homes as residential. She adds that this will allow for a rental accessory apartment as long as the specific criteria are met.

Ms. Smith provides suggested changes for discussion in a revised draft dated January 5th.   She explains the process of a zoning board special exception and meeting the necessary criteria in that if the criteria are met, the apartment is approved. She notes that if this proposal were for a permitted use, the process would be through the building department. Ms. Smith states that she has presented language for a special exception option for the board’s consideration based on feedback from the prior hearing.

Ms. Smith states that a developer could develop the property with homes and an accessory apartment and that could be how development would occur. She states another reason is that as rental apartment anyone could utilize this to maximize the property. This would impact the schools as well as impact the tax rate.

Mr. Bryer states that he understands the reason for the proposal; however, he also expresses concern with the impact to the schools.

Ms. Planchet states that there is a state law now which requires communities to have workforce housing available and that this proposal may be a way that the planning board could take a proactive approach for work force housing. She states that accessory apartments have been suggested as a way to meet this need by a consultant report for Strafford Regional Planning Commission. 

Discussion is held regarding the accessory apartment and the proposed requirement that it be owner occupied. Mr. Strobel mentions rights of renters which would require full disclosure during sale of the property.

Ms. Morrill expresses concern with the way the item is written as she feels it may just as well go before the ZBA and request a variance. She asks about the footage requirements. Ms. Smith states that the 700 sq. ft. was provided by the building apartment and was deemed reasonable by the building department. Ms. Smith states that based on the size, it would limit the number of people that would be able to reside in the apartment. She adds that this will also impact the tax base.

A discussion is held regarding eligibility. Ms. Planchet states that a duplex is a permitted use at this time with at least 4 acres. Mr. Strobel states that many lots along Rte. 4 would not be eligible for this option. Ms. Planchet states that another intention mentioned for this change is to preserve the existing older homes. She adds that lake front properties are noted to be too small to be eligible for this option.

Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Strobel, to approve the January 5th draft and to have the next public hearing on conditions added to the document; and forward to town counsel with recommendations and comments of town counsel added to the document.

Discussion is held regarding the adverse impacts on neighboring properties and allowing people to be able do what they want if they meet all requirements. Mr. Bryer notes that the board should consider that there may be a neighbor who doesn’t want you to do the proposed activity.

Ms. Planchet states that if this was strictly a checklist, an administrative official could make it and this could also be a special exception. She states that sometimes the abutters present information for the board’s consideration that the board may not have available otherwise. Ms. Smith states that she feels that there are very few adverse impacts that could be raised for adding a residential accessory apartment to a residential use that is allowed town wide; it would be a rare exception to prove an adverse impact. She notes that by restricting the size many issues are relieved.

Mr. Bryer suggests a letter to the papers and states that he would like to strike the section regarding the adverse impact. Ms. Planchet states that there was an article in the paper and on the town website.

Mr. Strobel states that he agrees with the added item on the January 5 draft about not increasing other non-conforming aspects on the existing lot.
Ms. Morrill states that she would like the proposal to be for a one bedroom apartment as she feels that it makes more sense with the 700 sq. ft. Mr. Bryer notes that if the proposal is amended to one bedroom than that would eliminate a school impact.

Mr. Bryer withdraws his motion and Mr. Strobel withdraws his second.

Mr. Bryer motions to amend the language of the January 5 draft to:
- strike “two” and insert “one”; change the plural “bedrooms” to “bedroom” in the “Accessory apartment definition,” line 2 and to delete bullet 5 “The expansion will not have any adverse impact….”; and that the last bullet shall read: “the lot contains only one owner occupied single family residential structure”; and to strike the remaining words in that bullet; and on the last page, strike (g) and the word “and at end of (f)” and to amend by deleting the whole section beginning “Amend Section VB(2) …” on the last page; and that if legal counsel has recommendations to improve, that staff make the recommended changes.
Ms. Morrill seconds. The motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Bryer makes a motion to recommend the proposed amendments to the Northwood Development Ordinance for the next public hearing. Second by Ms. Morrill. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0.

Mr. Bryer makes a motion, second by Mr. Sprague, to adjourn. Motion passes unanimously; 4/0 at 9:07 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Fellows-Weaver
Board Secretary