RYE 2014 ELECTION: BACKGROUND ON
WARRANT ARTICLES 3-6 (ZONING)
Final Revision D -- Provided by the Rye Civic League
Quick links
ARTICLE
3: ZONING AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE
PLANNING BOARD
Article 3: Rye
Planning Board’s proposed amendments to Rye Zoning Ordinance
Amendment 1: Septic systems in Aquifer Protection District
Ballot text
of amendment
Add a new section to the Aquifer
Protection District to require recertification every two years that a property
remains in compliance with all conditions of the conditional use permit and all
applicable special requirements of § 306.5 and all applicable performance
standards of § 306.6. Failure to file such an affidavit shall be deemed a
rebuttable presumption that the property is not in compliance.
Planning Board Vote: 6-1, Mel Low opposed.
Full text of Amendment 2014-01: Click
here.
Background and explanation
The amendment provides a mechanism for the town to monitor a
property’s continued compliance with conditional use permits issued within the Aquifer
Protection District, the areas in Rye which are subject to infiltration into
the Water District aquifers supplying the public water supply. 306.5 refers to Special Requirements for the use permit such as septic systems,
salt, de-Icing, drainage, and safeguards for hazardous toxic substances. 306.6 refers to performance standards for
regulated substances. The Planning Board’s impetus for this amendment is the
recent development at Marjorie Way, which is located within the Aquifer
District and adjacent to Rye Water District wells as well as potentially other
developments. Only developments subject
to a conditional use permit are affected by this amendment. A primary concern is septic system
performance over time.
During the discussion prior to the Planning Board approving
this amendment, concerns were expressed about enforcement, about it being an
“undue burden” on property owners (with certification perhaps only necessary on
transfer of title), the lack of input from the Building Inspector, and the lack
of specificity as to who would do the certifcation of the septic systems. The Planning Board concluded this was a start
and could be amended or reversed in the future.
Links
Notes of the November 12, 2013 Planning Board meeting approving the
amendment: Click
here.
Town Minutes of the above meeting: Click
here (page 26).
Amendment 2: Name change of State agency
Ballot text
of amendment
Update
outdated references to the “NH Water Supply and Control Commission” (or Board)
to
“NH Department of Environmental Services”.
Planning Board
Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-02: Click
here.
Background and explanation
Update outdated references to the “NH Water Supply and
Control Commission” (or Board) to
“NH Department of Environmental Services”. Concerns septic systems.
Housekeeping.
Links
Notes of the November 12, 2013 Planning Board meeting approving the
amendment: Click
here.
Town Minutes of the above meeting: Click
here (page 24).
Amendment 3: Wetlands buffer applicability to vernal pools
Ballot text
of amendment
Amend § 301.8 Wetlands Buffer to clarify that a vernal pool
does not have to be 1 acre or larger in size in order for the 100 ft. wetlands
buffer to apply to it.
Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-04: Click
here.
Background and explanation
Vernal pools or ponds are temporary pools which, due to not having
fish, allow the safe development of amphibians and insects without fish
predators present. Due to the placement
of punctuation in the ordinance, the provision relative to vernal pools could
be interpreted as requiring that they be an acre or larger in size for the
wetlands buffer to apply. In fact many,
if not most, are smaller.
Links
Notes of the November 12, 2013 Planning Board meeting approving the
amendment: Click
here.
Town Minutes of the above meeting Click
here (page 26).
Amendment 4: Parking space width
Ballot text
of amendment
Change
the parking space width requirement from 10 ft. to 9 ft.
Note: The
Sample Ballot as of 2/27/2014 has this amendment posted incorrectly as
increasing the width from 9 to 10 ft, 10 ft being the current width.
Planning Board
Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-05: Click
here.
Background and explanation
This
amendment applies primarily to commercial development. In recent years,
applicants have requested variances to the width of parking spaces to 9 feet, the common/standard width for parking spaces is 7.5 to
9.0 feet. See Wikipedia article here. The potential
effect of this amendment is 1) less parking impervious coverage on a lot for a
set number of spaces or 2) more parking spaces in a given area. The Foyes
Corner restaurant project approved in 2013 received a variance for a parking
space width of 9 feet allowing more parking spaces in the available area.
Links
Notes of the
October 8, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click here (***upload rev C final
and change link)
Town minutes
of the above meeting: Click
here (page 17).
Video of the
above meeting: Click
here
Notes of the
November 12, 2013 Planning Board Meeting:
Click
here
Town minutes of the above meeting: Click here (page 27)
Amendment 5: Map delineating Berry’s Brook watershed
Ballot text
of amendment
Amend
the § 301.8, A.3 description of the Wetlands Buffer within the Berry’s Brook
watershed to use a map titled: “Berry’s Brook Watershed Rye, New Hampshire
Wetland Soils and Tax Parcels March
2003” to portray the Berry’s Brook Watershed.
Planning Board
Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-06: Click
here.
Background and explanation
This
amendment concerns the Wetlands Conservation District, section 301 of the
Zoning Ordinance, where permitted uses, uses by special exception, and
restrictions are spelled out for defined wetlands. Wetlands are defined as
tidal marshes, fresh water marshes and streams; and wetlands. The March 2003
map provides a better delineation of the boundary of the Berry’s Brook
Watershed than the map in the 1998 Master Plan, which is the map currently
referenced in the zoning ordinance. The March 2003 map also shows wetlands and
parcels within the watershed. That
information is not shown on the map in the 1998 Master Plan.
Links
Berry’s Brook
Watershed Map-Watershed and Soils (March 2003):
Click
here
Notes of the
October 8, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click here (***upload rev C final
and change link)
Town minutes
of the above meeting: Click
here (page 18).
Video of the
above meeting: Click
here
Notes of the
November 12, 2013 Planning Board Meeting:
Click
here
Town minutes
of the above meeting: Click
here (page 27)
Amendment 6: Variance and special exception expiration
Ballot text
of amendment
Amend
§ 701.8 to change the expiration period of unused variances and special
exceptions from 1 year to 2 years and to otherwise comply with state law.
Planning Board
Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-07: Click
here.
Background and explanation
The
amendment is required in order to comply with Chapter 93 of the Laws of
2013. As a result of this legislation,
variances and special exceptions are valid for 2 years and may be extended by
the zoning
board of adjustment for “good cause.”
The amendment is housekeeping to comply with state law. Previous
variances were valid for one year and were extended if they had not expired or
substantial construction had begun. A potential effect is that projects could
be delayed in commencing for long periods after the grant of variances.
Links
Notes of the
October 8, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click here (***upload rev C final
and change link)
Town minutes
of the above meeting: Click
here (page 18).
Video of the
above meeting: Click
here
Notes of the
November 12, 2013 Planning Board Meeting:
Click
here
Town minutes
of the above meeting: Click
here (page 27).
Amendment 7: Special and conditional use permit expiration
Ballot text
of amendment
Add a new provision establishing that unused special use
permits and unused conditional use permits expire after 2 years unless the planning
board has extended the permits for good cause.
Planning Board Vote: 7-0
Full text of Amendment 2014-08: Click
here.
Background and explanation
Special use permits and conditional use permits are granted
by the Planning Board in accordance with requirements of the zoning ordinance.
The zoning ordinance has provisions for the expiration of unused variances and
special exceptions but none for unused special use permits or conditional use
permits.
Links
Notes of the December 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click
here.
Minutes of the above meeting: Click
here (page 16).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (137:06 elapsed)
Amendment 8: Existing Wireless Telecommunication
Facilities
Ballot text
of amendment
Amend § 505 Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities to exempt collocation and modifications from
the requirements of §’s 505.3 to 505.11. The exemption does not apply to
substantial modifications of existing towers, mounts or personal wireless
service facilities.
Planning Board Vote: 6-1 Mel Low opposed
Full text of Amendment 2014-09: Click
here.
Background and explanation
This amendment is required in order to comply with Chapter 93
of the NH Laws of 2013 and recent
changes in federal law regarding wireless telecommunications services. The
changes in law reflect
state and federal polices to facilitate the collocation of personal
wireless services facilities on existing
antenna mounts or existing towers in all areas, while also allowing for
expeditious modification of
existing personal wireless service facilities to keep pace with
technological improvements. New towers
would remain subject to the requirements of the ordinance. “Substantial
modifcations” include among others: increasing the height by more than
10%, new horizontal protruberances of
more than 20’ or more than the width of the tower, and adding or modifying
camouflage so that the effect of the camouflage is defeated. Existing wireless faclilites in Rye include
the Congregational Church steeple, and a tower on Water District land off Grove
Road.
The Pulpit Rock Tower or any existing structure may be
potential site for a Wireless Telecommunications site as it is an exisiting
structure and under the new ordinance would no longer be subject to Planning
Board review. Only new towers or substantial modifcations to existing towers
remain subject to planning board review.
The Town Attorney has stated that, if the voters reject this
amendment and the ordinance is enforced as it currently stands, a rejected
applicant could bring suit against the Town seeking to invalidate the ordinance
insofar as it is inconsistent with State and Federal law.
Links
Notes of the December 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click
here.
Minutes of the above meeting: Click
here (page 17).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (138:26 elapsed)
Amendment 9: Expansion and renaming of the Aquifer
Protection District
Ballot Text
of amendment
Change the Title of the Aquifer Protection District to
“Aquifer and Wellhead Protection District” and enlarge the district to include
all of the area within the Rye Water District Wellhead Protection Area.
Planning Board Vote: All in favor
Full text of
Amendment 2014-10: Click
here
Background and explanation
This amendment was suggested by the NH Department of Environmental
Services and requested by the Rye Water District (“RWD”) in order to enhance
protection of the groundwater around RWD wells. Essentially, areas between Love
Lane and Garland almost to South Road are added to the Aquifer Protection
District so that the Aquifer Protection District and Well Head Protection
District cover the same area.
Links
Notes of the December 10, 2013 Planning Board meeting: Click
here.
Minutes of the above meeting: Click
here (page 17).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (159:40 elapsed)
Town minutes of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting: Click
here.
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (117:31 elapsed).
Amendment 10: Retirement Community Development waivers
Ballot Text
of amendment
Amend § 401.8 Retirement Community Developments (RCD’s) to
allow the planning board to waive Subsections 401.4 B, G, L, M, N, but not
Subsection 401.4, E.
Planning Board Vote: All in favor
Full text of Amendment 2014-11: Click
here.
Background and explanation
A word processing error resulted in an incorrect reference to
subsection E in the waiver provisions. Subsection E limits the density of
RCD’s, and it was not intended that the planning board could waive density
requirements (maximum four dwelling units per contiguous upland acre).
Subsection G limits the number of dwelling units in a building to four, and it
was intended that the Planning Board could waive that requirement. After
reviewing the RCD regulations at the end of 2013, the planning board determined
that § 401.8 should also provide for waivers of subsections B(Parcel Size); L
(Occupancy); M (Floor Space); and N (Parking).
In particular, subsection L (Occupancy) speaks to potential waivers on
the the age restrictions, i.e. 62 plus vs. 55 plus. Different requirements
apply to age restricted 55 plus housing. Namely, at least 80% have to be for 55
plus residents and it was felt it would be better that all potential waivers
for an RCD be considered by the Planning Board and not have the jurisdiction be
split with the ZBA. A question arose as
to whether the the age requirement could be subject to a waiver at all, as it
is fundamental to the ordinance itself.
Links
Town minutes of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting: Click
here (page 16).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (117:31 elapsed).
ARTICLE
4: FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE
Ballot text
of amendment
Amend the variance requirements of § 2 to add additional
requirements stated in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Planning Board Vote: All in favor
Full text of
the Floodplain Ordinance Amendment: Click
here
Links
Town minutes of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting: Click
here (page 20).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here.
Background and explanation
The amendment makes the requirements for a variance
consistent with federal law governing the town’s eligibility for the National
Flood Insurance Program. See 44 C.F.R. 60.6.
Straightforward housekeeping.
ARTICLE
5: BUSINESS DISTRICT LOT COVERAGE
Text of amendment
Are
you in favor of the adoption of this amendment to the Rye Zoning Ordinance as
follows?
Amend §210.3(E relative to the allowed
building area in the Business District as follows (Note: Deleted language struck through. New language emboldened and italicized):
No more than forty percent (40%) of the
area of any lot shall be occupied by buildings.
Driveways, parking lots, unwalled covered areas, barns, sheds and
other impervious areas shall not be included in the ground floor area, but
their additional area, together with the total area of all buildings on the
lot, shall occupy no more than forty percent (40%) of the lot. For purposes of this calculation, any area
which is submerged at mean high tide, or which is wetlands, shall be subtracted
from the lot area. The building
requirements for dwellings in this district shall be the same as specified for
dwellings in a General Residence District.
No principal building other than a dwelling on a lot in this district
shall have less than 1,200 square feet of ground floor area, excepting tourist
camps.
Background and explanation
Per the ballot’s explanation from the petition: “The Zoning Ordinance currently includes
impervious areas in the lot coverage calculation in the General Residence
District, but not the Business District.
This makes the calculations more consistent, and also excludes submerged
and wetlands areas from the calculation.”
This amendment was submitted by a citizen petition containing
more than 25 signatures. It is a
companion ordinance to Article 6 below, but neither depends upon the other
passing.
Currently the lot coverage limit in the General Residence
District is 30% and that calculation includes impervious surfaces (referred to
as “impermeable” in the Zoning Ordinance).
The Business District in Rye consists of small pockets of land, all of
which are located in close proximity to residential areas. Currently, the Business District has a 40
percent lot coverage limit, but impervious areas that are not buildings,
including asphalt parking lots, are not part of the calculation. The Commercial District is separate from
the Business District, and permits up to 75 percent lot coverage. All of the land adjacent to Route 1 is zoned
Commercial.
The Rye Master Plan provides that the allowed uses in the
Business District are, in addition to uses allowed in the Single Residence District,
“small retail, service enterprises [and] lodging establishments.” The Commercial District has a broader range
of permitted uses.
Limiting impervious coverage reduces potential flooding, prevents unfiltered surface water from
entering watersheds and water supples, and reduces overcrowding of the land and
the excessive urbanization of Rye.
While existing buildings, parking lots and other structures
would be “grandfathered” and not subject to this amendment, this amendment
could have the effect of limiting uses in the Business District which would
cause a large fraction of the lot to be covered with buildings and asphalt
parking lots unless a variance is obtained, which should be possible if
effective mitigation of runoff is provided for.
The Planning Board voted not to recommend citing not enough
time to study and possible “unintended consequences.”
Links
Town minutes of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting: Click
here (pages 17-20).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (139:44 elapsed).
Document submitted by petitioners in support of amendments (Articles
5&6): Click
here.
ARTICLE
6: IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE
Text of
amendment
Shall the town amend Appendix A Definitions of the Rye Zoning
Ordinance for “Impervious Coverage” by adopting the definition for “Impervious
Surface” of RSA 483-B:4.VII-b.
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IMPERMEABLE SURFACE,
IMPERMEABLE
AREA: Means any modified surface, area, or coverage that cannot effectively
absorb orinfiltrate
water. Examples of such surfaces, areas, and coverage include, but are
notlimited to,roofs, and
unless designated to effectively absorb or infiltrate water, decks,
patios, and paved, gravel, or
crushed stone driveways, parking area, and walkways. (RSA 483-B:4. VII-b).
Note: the ballot incorrectly
transcribes the text on the petition. “Parking area” was written as “parking
areas” on the petition, and “designated” was written as “designed”.
The above text replaces:
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: The addition of pavement, cement, stone or other
ground cover, including
buildings and structures that prevents water from flowing through to
subsoil layers. (Adopted 3/11/08)
Planning Board Vote: 6-0 against
recommending, Mel Low abstained.
Background and explanation
Per the ballot’s explanation from the petition: “This amendment provides a single definition
for impermeable and impervious surfaces in the Zoning Ordinance. It is
consistent with NH RSA, the scientific definition of impervious surfaces, and
the Rye Master Plan-2009 Chapter 1-Vision, page 1-2: “Impervious surfaces limit
natural water cleansing and potentially cause flooding.”
RSA 483-B:4. VII-b is the definition of Impervious Surface in
the NH Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act.
This amendment was submitted by a citizen petition containing
more than 25 signatures. It is a
companion ordinance to Article 5 above, but neither depends upon the other
passing.
Currently, the only defined term in the Zoning Ordinance
relative to this issue is the term
“Impervious Coverage” as it applies to the Aquifer Protection
District. The term “impermeable” is a
synonym, and would be brought under the common definition. Under the proposed new definition,
requirements would be tighter such that gravel driveways and parking areas beyond
lot coverage limits would require that the surface be designed to effectively
absorb or infiltrate water in order to not be included in the lot coverage
calculation. Alternatively, a variance
could be obtained if the site is constructed with facilities to absorb the
water that runs off of impervious surfaces.
Currently, impermeable areas are part of the lot coverage only within
the General Residence District, but Amendment 5 seeks to have this apply in the
Business District as well.
Under the current definition and in practice, the assumption
is that gravel is pervious. However, once packed down by repeated traffic, the
ability of gravel driveways to infiltrate water is scientifically proven to be
greatly diminished unless they are specifically designed to avoid this, or the
lot as a whole is designed to effectively inflitrate water using rain gardens,
grading, drip beds, and similar techniques.
Absent a definition, imprervious materials such as gravel and
crushed stone may be substituted for asphalt without limit as to the percentage
of lot coverage. Rye is currently
estimated to have 12.7% impervious coverage, with 10% considered a healthy
maximum. Limiting impervious coverage
reduces potential flooding, prevents
unfiltered surface water from entering watersheds and water supples, and
reduces overcrowding of the land and the excessive urbanization of Rye.
The Planning Board voted not to recommend citing not enough
time to study and possible “unintended consequences.”
Links
Town minutes of the January 14, 2014 Planning Board meeting: Click
here (pages 17-20).
Video of the above meeting: Click
here (139:44 elapsed).
Document submitted by petitioners in support of amendments (Articles
5&6): Click
here.