FINAL MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING
Board
members present: Bruce Kullgren, Randy Martin, Alan Oxman, Ted Petro, Alan
Pickman, Rae Barnhisel, Marty Connolly
Call
to order by B. Kullgren at 7:30 p.m. B.
Kullgren informed Planning Board members that they would cover the Public
Hearings first and other board business after the hearings.
Public Hearing
1. 7:30 p.m. B. Kullgren read the proposed amendment as
follows:
“Are
you in favor of amending the Town of Temple Zoning Ordinance Article IV:
General Provisions, to add the following new Section 24 as follows: Any lot
created after the adoption of this Section, in addition to meeting the
requirements of the District in which the lot is located, shall have a minimum
of 40,000 square feet of contiguous land which is not classified as poorly
drained or very poorly drained soils.”
Silas
Little then spoke on the intention of the amendment stating that no existing lots
would be affected and the major reason for the amendment was to protect the
environment. The soil conservation
service puts out a book which does not recommend using poorly drained or very
poorly drained soils to build on. The
question was raised on how many acres is 40,000 sq. ft.? Mr. Little said 40,000
sq. ft. is called a “builders acre”, and is actually a bit less than an actual
acre. A. Pickman pointed out that part of a lot is consumed by the 75 foot well
protection radius, which could consist of a major part wetland. He felt the
40,000 sq. ft. requirement was excessive. He also felt the cost for a soil
study is too high. Mr. Little explained that soils mapping is a common practice
and the Planning Board could decide whether or not the requirements had been
met without extensive soils study; only marginal land would come into play for
soils studies. A. Pickman said this would not protect surface water from
pollutants. B. Kullgren commented on
the 250 ft. by 250 ft. square required by the town in the existing zoning. He thought the State did not require this
land to be without hydraulic soils. The
State required 4,000 sq. ft. for a septic system and he believes septic systems
are getting better and smaller. He also
felt the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement was excessive. Jerry Rosenberg, soils scientist, showed a book for the western
part of Hillsborough County. He
explained some towns set lot sizes based on soil type, the worse the soil, the
bigger the lot requirement. He explained if the town adopted this method it
might mean more work for him. He also said existing available maps show a scale
of the smallest item being approximately 3 acres. He felt the maps may not be accurate enough and that future lots
may require a site review. T. Petro
asked him for an approximate cost for a soil map on a 3 acre lot? Mr. Rosenberg
said about $65-$75 per hour, varying number of hours, usually 3-4 hours at
most. T. Petro asked him how accurate
the work would be? Mr. Rosenberg said
it depended on the maps used and scales provided. He works on a scale of 1 to
50. Surveyors make a map of 2 foot
contours which could be more expensive.
He said mapping for wetland would be accurate to an inch and soils
mapping to within 5-10 foot accuracy.
He asked who would determine the soil types? Bruce Kantner spoke on how
to determine the mapping needed. Mr. Rosenberg said most towns have
requirements, and you could obtain the measurements off existing maps and not
need to hire anyone. M. Connolly asked
if the 40,000 sq. ft. requirement included the in-law zoning ordinance of 6
acres. Mr. Little said the 40,000 sq.
ft. would be adequate and would not need to be doubled for the in-law
ordinance. M. Connolly asked if this
would require the Planning Board to approve only a certain area which could be
built on. Mr. Little said no. M. Connolly asked if this was prohibiting
some people from moving in. Mr. Little
said no, he didn’t believe it would. T.
Petro asked if the Planning Board would need a regulation to satisfy the amendment. Mr. Little said the same procedures would be
used that are currently used for the 4,000 sq. ft. septic requirements. Tim Winship thought it was not a bad idea
but might not accomplish the actual goal. Mr. Rosenberg asked if the Planning
Board would waive requirements for high cost items? B. Kullgren said yes. A.
Pickman agreed and gave as an example: a minor subdivision may not require
contour maps. Carol Ogilvie said as
written, the provision could not be waived.
A. Pickman suggested Mr. Little
was advocating lots by soil types. Mr.
Little disagreed and said he was advocating environmental protection where
on-site septic systems are proposed.
The well protection radius area is not soil dependent. Discussion followed on defining potential issues. B. Kullgren said he thought this amendment
still did not address the pollutants.
Mr. Little felt regulating people’s activities was not a good
alternative but requiring a minimum area of dry land would lessen pollution
impact. C. Ogilvie said she knew of 2 towns with buildable area requirements,
Mason being one. She believed that
additional regulation often means additional work. She reminded the Planning Board of their responsibility to
recommend the amendment or not. A.
Pickman asked if anyone could site an example where a subdivision had caused
problems. M. Connolly asked Mr.
Rosenberg how much land would be required to cleanse contaminants. Mr. Rosenberg said without specific details
he did not know. B. Kullgren closed
public hearing at 8:45 p.m.
2. 8:45
p.m. B. Kullgren read the proposed amendment as follows:
“Are
you in favor of Repealing Section 19, Planned Residential Development (PRD),
contained within Article IV of the Town of Temple Zoning Ordinance?” R. Barnhisel spoke on the definition of a
PRD, and why it was developed. She
described Temple’s PRD ordinance as having flaws and why it often may not
benefit the town. Mr. Rosenberg asked
if the amendment repeals or changes the PRD? R. Barnhisel said, it repeals
it. T. Petro said he thought the town
wanted cluster developments in the past.
Mr. Little said there is no State statute on PRD’s and the town gets to
decide on them. Ben Tirey presented
survey results from Town in the past.
The majority of people answering the survey did not approve of
PRD’s. He reiterated the definition of
“open space” and it’s use as discussed at a Planning Board meeting and that
“shall comply” was not clearly interpreted.
He reviewed various other problems with the ordinance and the obscure
wording or misleading terminology. “Open Space” is not defined as a lot in the
existing ordinance. Bob Frazier spoke
on how you can make numbers say whatever you want and he felt the PRD should
not be repealed, it should be fixed. He
asked if the Planning Board could waive the PRD requirements. A. Pickman said no. B. Kullgren read the 1st line of Section B,
Item 5: “minimum lot size, frontage, setback and other dimensional requirements
specified in the Zoning Ordinance and/or Subdivision Regulations may be modified
or waived by the Planning Board with the PRD provided that the Planning Board
after review of the required application materials finds that the proposal is
consistent with the objectives outlined in paragraph A and other provisions of
this Article.” Will Wildes said he was
on the Planning Board previously and he felt the ordinance allowed clustering
of houses. He said “amend it, don’t end it” and that he had originally worked
on the ordinance with Carol Ogilvie. B.
Kullgren felt the ordinance was not designed for a specific developer. George Willard said it was a lot of work and
included working with the State Office of Planning. He did not feel it should be repealed but it needed work. A. Oxman commented on current use open space
and general open space. He said Section A, Item 3 open space definition should
be changed. John Bauchat asked if the
houses are actually clustered? R.
Martin described the details of his PRD.
It is a specific use PRD and he believes three areas are clustered. Each lot has restrictions on it. Tom Baker asked when the Planning Board
would address changing the ordinance.
B. Kullgren said next year. A.
Oxman said the Selectmen had some changes to present to the Planning
Board. Mr. Kantner spoke on the many
organizations which approve of PRD’s.
He also reiterated that changes were in the works. Mr. Frazier said the ordinance was created
for R. Martin because no rules existed that would allow R. Martin to do what he
was requesting, but it was created with good intentions. Mr. Winship thought everyone agreed that
changes are needed and R. Barnhisel should get credit for bringing this to
light. He asked for an opinion from C.
Ogilvie. Ms. Ogilvie agreed that the
terminology should be more specific and changes are needed. She felt it could be fixed rather than
repealed. B. Kullgren said he felt
wetland and steep slopes should be included in the open space and not the good
buildable land. The good land should be
used for houses. He felt no one would
buy into a PRD if the land was open to the public. He said the town benefits just from it being open
space. R. Barnhisel showed a map of the
R. Martin PRD and showed that no further subdivision could happen but future
building could, as the plat did not specify protection of the open space. She also showed that open space is not
protected on the second PRD. T. Petro
said he felt the board was very careful in the creation of the PRD to ensure it
was good for the town and done in good faith.
Mr. Winship asked for clarification of the protection of open
space. R. Barnhisel gave an
interpretation. R. Martin addressed the
question as well. R. Barnhisel asked C.
Ogilvie to clarify. C. Ogilvie said the
issue is based on the enforceability of the protection of open space. B. Kullgren said don’t throw it out but fix
it. A. Pickman wanted to address
whether more houses are allowed in a PRD. He said the Christopher Ross
subdivision could have been 8 lots. He
felt the existing PRD’s were no worse than conventional zoning. B. Kullgren said he felt we should save the
ordinance. Mr. Rosenberg agreed with
Mr. Frazier that we should require the open space protection to show on the
plat. Mr. Bauchat asked A. Pickman if
Mr. Ross had asked for a 5 lot subdivision and if that was based on Mr. Ross’s
means. Mr. Bauchat asked if the
subsequent application was for a 6 lot PRD.
A. Pickman said yes. M. Connolly
believed he had suggested the PRD alternative to Mr. Ross. He originally did not like the PRD but now
feels it have value for the town. He
believes it has increased the value of surrounding land. He agreed that “no further subdivisions”
should be on the plat as that is what title searches would look at. Kathy Boot believed the Board had not looked
at the “big picture”, making it hard to trust the people involved. Discussion followed on the old town
dump. Ms. Boot asked that the board
review the surrounding area more carefully in the future to be sure that the
best interest of the town is considered.
Mr. Kantner encouraged Town participation to ensure better communication
and more trust in the future. B.
Kullgren closed public hearing at 10:30 p.m.
3. 10:30
p.m. Doug Guy Jr. submitted an application for a subdivision on Old
Peterborough Road. B. Kullgren asked
him to come back before the Board on 2/6/02 to review the request. Mr. Guy agreed to do that and is scheduled
for 7:30 p.m.
4. 10:45
p.m. R. Martin motioned, seconded by T. Petro to accept the 1/2/02 minutes. Voted affirmative.
5. 10:50
p.m. Bruce Kantner presented changes to the PRD ordnance from the
Selectmen. See attached sheet for
changes.
Discussion
followed.
Section
B, item 6, change “open space shall be at least 40%” to “open space shall be at least 50% and not more than 50% of
that total will be steep slopes and/or wetland”
A.
Oxman made a presentation to the Board for clarification of this change to the
ordinance. Discussion followed. B.
Kullgren felt trying to make changes to the PRD within the existing time
constraints was a bad idea. He believed
changes would take a lot of time and deep thought. T. Petro said he didn’t like making changes this late and without
more public input. M. Connolly said he
did not want any changes until after the vote takes place in March on the
proposed amendment. T. Petro and R.
Barnhisel agreed. A. Pickman wanted
language changes only. R. Martin asked
R. Barnhisel for an overview of her suggested changes. R. Barnhisel said she had provided them and
needed more time to give specific details.
R. Martin did not vote. B.
Kullgren said small changes only. The
Board was reminded they did not have a choice about accepting the proposed
amendments for a Town vote and the Selectmen’s proposed changes were to be
processed as required.
6. 11:45
p.m. B. Kullgren asked the Planning Board to vote on the proposed amendments
from the public hearings. The first
amendment on the 40,000 sq. ft. of dry land vote was:
R.
Barnhisel - yes, M. Connolly - no, T. Petro - no, A. Oxman - no, A. Pickman -
no, R. Martin - no, B. Kullgren - no.
Board does not recommend this proposed amendment.
Vote
on the proposed amendment repealing the PRD vote was: R. Barnhisel - yes, M.
Connolly - no, T. Petro - no, A. Oxman - no, A. Pickman - no, R. Martin - no,
B. Kullgren - no. Board does not
recommend this proposed amendment.
B. Kullgren motioned, seconded by A. Pickman
to adjourn meeting, adjourned 11:55 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Sherry Fiske