By Michelle Kim
GOFFSTOWN – Goffstown voters can expect proposed zoning ordinance articles
that prohibit churches and houses of worship in the industrial district and would
add surface water to the wetland conservation ordinances as some of the articles
to be placed on the ballot on Tuesday, March 11.
At its Jan. 24 meeting, the Planning Board completed the list of articles to
be presented at the deliberative session and heard cases including continued
hearings for the 42-lot Worthley Hill Road development and 92-unit Placid Woods
development on Bog Road.
The articles include a measure to prohibit in the industrial district use by
churches and other houses of worship and kindergarten, elementary and secondary
schools.
Discussion centered around a desire to preserve the limited amount of industrial
district area for industries and further developing Goffstown’s economic
base.
Another major proposed ordinance change came from the Conservation Commission
to add surface water, specifically any river or stream that showed up as a blue
line or broken blue line on a 7.5 USGS topographic map, to the regulations that
currently address and protect wetlands.
There were a number of doubts raised about the effect of this ordinance, especially
regarding the 100-foot buffer requirements.
Board member Alan Yeaton objected to putting the article on the ballot, pointing
out that there had been no presentation or study on the impact it would have.
Board Chairman JoAnn Duffy argued for keeping the article.
“We are so lucky to have Collis Adams on our Conservation Commission,” said
Duffy, referring to Adams’ job as wetlands administrator at the state Department
of Environmental Services. “He wrote this free of charge. To not put this
on the ballot would be a big mistake.”
Articles that were yanked from this year’s ballot included an amendment
to change the Zoning Board of Adjustment from an elected to an appointed board.
The article was proposed by Zoning Board members who said the board’s quasi-judicial
function would be enhanced by having more continuity, said Planning Board recording
secretary Gail Labrecque, who also serves as an elected Zoning Board member.
Zoning Board Chairman Tony Marts came before the Planning Board on Jan. 10 to
explain the reasoning behind the article.
The Zoning Board was an appointed board until 2004, when voters approved a warrant
article to change it to an elected board starting in 2005.
Ultimately, the amendment was pulled after the town attorney advised that it
was written incorrectly, said Steve Griffin, planning and economic development
coordinator.
Another measure affecting open space requirements for manufactured home parks
drew objections from Nick Campasano, who spoke as a private citizen. Originally
introduced to clarify interpretation of existing ordinances, according to Griffin,
the Planning Board was unsure about its meaning and effect and decided to pull
it from the ballot for this year.
An amendment that would have prohibited building or expanding seasonal dwelling
units on about 260 properties below a certain size and within certain districts
was pulled to give property owners notice.
“It’s rather draconian,” said Griffin, “but those lots
are tiny, they’re not buildable.”
If there was sewer and water service available in Pinardville, he said, that
would be a different situation.
Building developments
Discussion on the Worthley Hill development centered around the issues of sidewalks,
pedestrians and the merits of cul de sacs versus “hammerhead” layouts.
Board member Tim Redmond suggested the possibility of a grassy island with a
drain in the middle to address difficulties encountered by snow plows in cul
de sacs. Further discussion on sidewalks was held until the next hearing date,
Feb. 28, when a traffic engineer would address traffic issues.
In the Placid Woods development hearing, attorney Morgan Hollis, representing
the developer Woodland Trust, expressed a desire to continue with the hearing
despite awareness of a separate Zoning Board hearing that could be affected by
the Conservation Commission’s opinion against the placement of a detention
pond in a wetlands buffer zone.
There was further public comment from abutters and residents. Abutter Cathy Whooten,
of 112 Mountain Road, questioned why the board was continuing with the process
when there was a possibility the plans might change.
“This is what has been submitted for us to look at,” explained Duffy. “I
understand it’s like going around in a circle, but for now, we have to
take their word on it.”
The hearing was continued to Feb. 28.
Impact fee
In other business, the Planning Board unanimously passed the public safety impact
fee at the Dec. 20 meeting. No residents were present for the public hearing
on the impact fee.
The fee would charge $595 to support fire facilities and $137 to support police
facilities for a total of $732 per dwelling unit for new construction or conversions,
according to the town report detailing the fee’s calculation.
Goffstown did not previously have a public safety impact fee, but it did collect
school, recreation and road impact fees