TOWN OF TEMPLE, NEW
HAMPSHIRE
February 4, 2002
FINAL MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING
Board
members present: Bruce Kullgren, Alan Pickman, Rae Barnhisel, Marty Connolly,
Ted Petro, Alan Oxman
7:40
p.m. Meeting called to order by B.
Kullgren.
1. This meeting was to cover
Proposed Zoning Changes submitted by the Selectmen.
B.
Kullgren started by explaining how he felt “we would drown in red tape.” Discussion followed on why the Selectmen
were presenting zoning changes.
Selectman Bob Frazier said the changes were needed as a result of trying
to enforce ordinances. A. Oxman said
these issues are to make the ordinances more enforceable. B. Kullgren thought the ordinances contain
too much now. B. Frazier suggested the
town consider adopting the BOCA code to help alleviate problems. T. Petro asked if these changes would help
any existing problems. B. Frazier said
no. B. Frazier explained why the junk
yard definition was being changed. It
needed to be more specific to accommodate requests the Selectmen had
received. A. Pickman thought this would
be more lenient than State laws on the issue.
He failed to see the wisdom in this.
M. Connolly thought this change could create more junk yards rather than
avoid them. B. Kullgren asked if the purpose
of the change was to legitimize the auto enthusiast. Discussion followed on whether this would allow more cars than
the State specifications. T. Petro
thought more changes would not cover every possible infraction. B. Frazier agreed. He said the Selectmen put in their best effort and ultimately the
townspeople vote for or against a change.
The Selectmen offered to withdraw the junk yard definition zoning change
if the Planning Board wanted them to.
B. Frazier pointed out that the town is changing a lot. A. Oxman reiterated how much the town has
changed recently. The Selectmen
withdrew the junk yard definition change.
B. Kullgren asked if similar items in the remaining changes could be
grouped together for voting purposes.
A. Oxman said yes. Chris Bradler
asked if a license was available for a car collector. A. Pickman said no, it would have to be a junk yard permit.
2. 8:10
p.m. B. Frazier spoke on the change
regarding signs. He said the ordinance
currently allows only 2 signs. Signs on
buildings are not part of the building.
The Selectmen are submitting this for a better definition. Discrepancies had arisen on the specific
technical meaning of the current ordinance.
Discussion followed on whether or not permits should be required. The size of signs was also discussed. B. Frazier reminded the Planning Board that
they had an opinion but the townspeople had the ultimate vote. A. Oxman asked for specifics rather than
philosophy. He mentioned Wheeland’s as
an example of possibly needing a different size sign. T. Petro described some “what ifs”. B. Frazier felt the Planning Board should help enforce rules by
changing ordinances as needed. A.
Pickman disagreed. He also commented
that the town has no commercial zone.
He thought the change was too vague, and suggested 1/10% of the building
size as a maximum sign size. B. Frazier
explained they are using interpretation which is arbitrary. Howard Bradler suggested the Zoning Board of
Adjustment (ZBA) could help with interpretation. B. Kullgren felt that because violations had happened in the
past, it should not affect future sign ordinances. He did not want anymore than 2 signs allowed, and he supported
the efforts to enforce the current ordinance.
A. Oxman asked why hadn’t the Planning Board members complained about
obvious infractions if they felt the current rules were adequate. T. Petro said because it wasn’t across from
his house. B. Kullgren said he never
really noticed the infractions. T.
Petro asked how the Planning Board would be notified in the future to make
discretionary decisions about signs. B.
Frazier said, when someone requested a site plan review, the Board would be
notified. Wayne Edwards thought the ZBA
should be the officials to oversee this.
A. Oxman thought each situation was unique and had to be treated as
such. David Holt felt some businesses
needed more than 2 signs. Discussion
followed on past vs. future enforcement.
A. Oxman said the Selectmen were requesting a change to fit
reality. The Planning Board did not
agree. M. Connolly thought if a house
is not commercial property the zoning ordinance would not apply. A. Pickman wanted to add to the existing
zoning change a size of not more than 1% the footprint of the building. The Planning Board voted not to support
Pickman’s change. Both items relating
to the sign zoning ordinance will be combined for voting purposes. The Planning Board voted 5 no, 1 yes. Planning Board does not support these zoning
changes.
3. 8:50 p.m. Changes to the Private Residential
Development (PRD) section of the zoning ordinances. The Selectmen agreed to combine all items relating to Article IV:
Section 19 for voting purposes. The
first items covered were changes to the terminology in the existing
ordinance. A. Oxman explained these
recommendations were to correct the intention of the ordinance. Ben Tirey asked if the zoning ordinance had
a definition for “open space”. A. Oxman
said no. Wayne Edwards asked what the
difference was between a tract and a parcel.
A. Pickman said tract refers to the entire piece of land, parcel refers
to the small pieces after subdivision.
T. Petro suggested they add tract and parcel under the ordinance
definitions. Discussion followed on
where the terms came from. A. Oxman
clarified why this change was being recommended. Wayne Edwards suggested each parcel should have 300 feet of road
frontage not the entire tract.
Explanations followed on the definition of a PRD. B. Frazier will include a definition of
tract and will notify the Planning Board of it before adding it. The Planning Board voted 5 yes, 1 no. Planning Board supports these zoning
changes.
4. 9:25
p.m. This change to the PRD relates to
how much and what type of land is included in the “open space”. T. Petro asked how one would define “to the
extent possible”. B. Frazier defined it
as “favorable” or “unfavorable”. A.
Oxman said the intent was to create quality open space in the future not just
open space and not to inhibit a PRD plan.
Chris Bradler asked if the open space was already defined as
contiguous. B. Kullgren said all the
open space must be available to PRD residents but does not have to be
contiguous. A. Oxman showed a sample
drawing to clarify the intent of the change.
R. Barnhisel asked for the definition of tract, did this exclude roads
and undevelopable land? Is the open
space considered a lot? Ben Tirey said
confusion exists between building parcel and open space lots and on specifying
that open space lots cannot be subdivided.
Discussion followed on “tract” as currently defined in the PRD ordinance
and the definition of 50% undevelopable land.
A. Pickman and B. Frazier gave examples and discussed wetlands and steep
slopes. B. Kullgren said people just
want to stop development while other just want to build a house to live
in. He felt stiff requirements make it
more difficult to build, he stated he was on the Planning Board to prevent
this. He did not support regulation
which would exclude people. B. Frazier
explained what the 50% would include.
A. Pickman felt this did not protect the wetlands more than the current
ordinance. A. Oxman explained this
change would only affect lots with a large amount of undevelopable land. He gave examples. A. Pickman thought it should say that 50% of the open space needed
to be developable land. Howard Bradler
stated that a PRD does not help low income people, therefore it should benefit
the people living here not speculations on who might live here. PRD’s as currently written do not benefit
the town. He felt the PRD ordinance is
wrought with problems. B. Kullgren felt
wealthy people are buying up the land and that communities need to address this
issue. Discussion followed on future speculations. Discussion followed on licensed forester vs.
qualified forester. M. Connolly felt it
should not require a licensed forester for work on the open space. B. Frazier explained this would help protect
the multiple land owners involved. The
Planning Board voted 5 yes, 1 no.
Planning Board supports these zoning changes.
5. 10:40
p.m. The change to the Remodeling section and Repairing section was discussed
next. The Selectmen have added that
changes to structures cannot exceed 1 electrical branch without needing a
building permit. B. Kullgren asked if
this change was more stringent then State requirements. B. Frazier said he did not know. The Planning Board voted 5 yes. Planning Board supports these zoning
changes.
11:00
p.m. Adjourned.
Minutes
submitted by Sherry Fiske.