Back to 2012 Town Warrant

Back To Amendment #10

Workforce Housing Section 619.  Add a new Overlay District to allow for Workforce Housing, in accordance with NH RSA 674:58-674-61 and consistent with NH RSA 672:1(III-e), as an innovative land use ordinance under 674:21.  This Ordinance would be applicable in the Rural, Residential B, Residential C, and Village Center Districts. The Ordinance lays out the applicable definitions used in the Ordinance, the procedure and requirements for Planning Board applications (conceptual, design review, and final), the conditions of approval, the development standards (density, dwelling units, frontage/setback/yard requirements, layout, roads, water and wastewater treatment systems), when in the process Variances would need to be obtained, and how appeal are made.   As part of the Ordinance, Conditional Use Permits are used by the Planning Board to authorize development that would otherwise not be allowed under a particular site per the Zoning Ordinance, Site Plan Review, or Subdivision regulations if certain criteria are met. Provisions for continued affordability (minimum of 30 years) and ongoing third party monitoring are outlined and a minimum of 50% Workforce Housing units are required in such a development.

Vice-Chair Crisler read the notice into the minutes.

Ms. Scott noted there were 2 minor points to address aside from the grammatical error on page 2:

        Attorney Campbell, referring to the 5 acre minimum, offered some suggested the Board should review and consider; and

        He further suggested the Board consider the Town’s obligation for multi-family housing.

Attorney Campbell does encourage the Board to move the proposed Ordinance to the Warrant.  Ms. Scott informed the Board that the numbering and reformatting corrections had been made.

Board comments/questions included:

        Vice-Chair Crisler, as a member of the WFH subcommittee, reviewed some of the more significant points the committee had worked on;

        A question was raised regarding 619.7.1 and the reference to “this” ordinance, Appendix A-1.  Appendix A-1 is not attached.  The language “of the Windham Zoning Ordinance” will be added after the phrase “Appendix A-1.”  This is not a substantive change;

        Regarding Attorney Campbell’s suggestion to reduce the 5 acre minimum to 2.5 or 3 acres; The Board decided to leave it at 5 acres;

        Ms. Nysten had a question about Section 619.3 and asked if the language meant that manufactured housing is not allowed in Residential C as a WFH project;  Vice-Chair Crisler said it is allowed, if it is zoned appropriately with 7,500 sq ft lots

        Ms. Webber expressed concern about the term “Work Force Housing” and suggested the term “Affordable Housing;”  The Board understood the perception concern and asked what the Board could do to encourage voters to vote for this Ordinance;  The Board will address this at a later date;

Chairwoman Post opened discussion to the Public.

Mr. Karl Dubay under Section 619.5.2 it says what Condition Use Permits cannot be granted, but does not say what can be granted.  He provided an example.  Vice-Chair Crisler explained that anything not listed under this Section could be considered.

Ms. Nancy Pendergast, 35 Sharon Rd, referenced Attorney Campbell’s memo where he addressed “realistic opportunities for multi-family homes.”  She asked the Board if they were satisfied that the Town offered that in Residential B, Residential C, and the Village Center District.  She asked if the Board wanted to add language allowing WFH in the Rural District or did the Board want to go forward with the Conditional Use Permit.

Board comments/questions included:

        Vice-Chair Crisler explained that the sub-committee thought the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) would give that opportunity, without being explicit in the Ordinance;

       The Committee also considered ways in which to encourage multi-family development; they determined that they could only do it through zoning and possibly working on re-zoning in the future;

       Ms. Nysten stated that the proposed WFH Ordinance allows multi-family in the Res C.  According to Ms. Scott, multi family is not allowed in Res C in our zoning Ordinance.  Ms. Nysten noted Res B and Res C Districts on the zoning map.  She also noted multi-zoned parcels containing Res B or Res C. 

       Vice-Chair Crisler noted that she and Ms. Nysten had a difference opinion about Residential C and the language is not clear.  The Vice-Chair clarified what development was allowed in each District and stated that Residential C does allow for multi-family; however, the intent was to allow for manufactured homes and that is why a 7500 sq ft per lot size required.  She thinks the Board ought to spend some time next year clarifying the distinctions.

       Ms. Scott has placed on the 2012 agenda the task to clarify the intent of Residential C.

       Vice-Chair Crisler noted that much of Residential C has already been built out as single family and that’s why there is not much Res C left.

       Ms. Pendergast stated that under this proposed Overlay District, it would allow for WFH projects and multi-family, regardless what the Town’s zoning says. 

       Ms. Scott, in response to Vice-Chair Crisler’s understanding of the various building allowed in the District’s, stated that she would not interpret the actual written language in the same way.  She explained the numbering was a bit odd and concurred that Multi-family is not allowed in C; however, manufactured housing is allowed. 

       Vice-Chair Crisler noted that the sub-committee made it clear in the WFH Ordinance that multifamily is allowed in Residential C District. 

Chairwoman Post closed discussion to the Public.

Chairwoman Post highlighted the points of the WFH discussion:

        Attorney Campbell’s concerns;

        The zoning problems separated from the WFH Ordinance;

        The Grammatical correction;

        The Board is OK with the 5 acre minimum.

Vice-Chair Crisler motioned to move to the Warrant the Work Force Housing Overlay District Ordinance as amended: 

        Changing the word “minimum” to “minimal;” and

        Adding the words, “of the Windham Zoning Ordinance” after “Appendix A-1.”

Seconded by Ms. Webber.  Motion passed:  7-0.