At the March 8, 2011 Town Meeting you will be asked to vote on nine (9) separate zoning warrant articles. The items (article 2: A - I) are on the ballot after the election of officers.

All amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are proposed and recommended by the Planning Board, since no petitioned zoning amendments were received this year. The full text of the amendments is available at the Municipal Building, Baker Free Library, and on the Town web site at
http://www.bow-nh.com/PB_2010_Proposed_Amendments.htm.

Below is a brief explanation of the purpose and intent of each of the changes. The nine separate ballot questions under Warrant Article 2 are listed followed by the explanation.

Bryan Westover and I intend to be at the polls on March 8th to answer questions. Please do not hesitate to contact either of us at the Municipal Building or call us at 225 3008. My email address is commdevel@bow-nh.gov and Bryan’s is planassist@bow-nh.gov.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT A as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 16.01 Impact Fee Ordinance by adding Subdivision and Site Plan applicants to the definition of Feepayer; by adding waiver provisions; and by adding a new section “M” to authorize the Planning Board to suspend impact fee methodologies? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
           (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION A is a long amendment (8 pages), but revisions are limited to pages 2, 4-5, and 8. The first amendment is a minor point to add applicants for subdivision and site plan approvals to the list of potential fee payers. In general, the impact of development occurs when buildings are constructed, renovated, or changed to a different land use, so the fee is assessed at the building permit step, and paid prior to certificate of occupancy. However, the Planning Board is directed to determine the amount of impact fee during subdivision or site plan review. The change is intended to recognize that subdivisions and site plans can create impacts, but not require a building permit, and to clarify that the developer and Planning Board may establish alternate timing mechanisms for payment of impact fees.

The second change provides a waiver mechanism for the Planning Board. When the ordinance was written and adopted, its focus was on the school impact fee and provisions were made for waivers. Since the Planning Board is charged with determining the amount and timing of impact fee payments, the Board is well placed to hear evidence that the fee should be reduced or eliminated where the methodology does not accurately reflect the projected impacts of a project or where other contributions should be credited against the fee.

The final change clarifies that the Planning Board can suspend an impact fee methodology that it adopted. It may seem reasonable that if the Board has the authority to adopt and implement a methodology, that it has the authority to suspend or rescind a methodology. However, the Board has only the authority specifically granted to it by the Town and state law. Impact fees are not free money. With the best intentions and after careful consideration, the Board may adopt a methodology. In practice, however, the methodology may not generate sufficient funds to justify its continuation, or the Board may identify an alternative to impact fees to accomplish the goal of assessing new development for its fair share of the Town’s capital costs related to the development.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT B as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 3.02 definitions to add a definition of “Temporary Uses and Structures” to clarify when, where, and for how long temporary structures and uses are allowed? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
           (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION B defines and establishes limits on temporary uses and structures. At present, the Zoning Ordinance is silent on temporary structures and uses, so the Town must treat them as permanent. The Building Code has reduced requirements for temporary uses and structures. The amendment is intended to eliminate or reduce zoning requirements for temporary uses and structures, but the Town does not have authority to exempt them from building code requirements.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT C as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 3.02 definitions to add definitions of “Commercial Electricity Generation” and “Small Electricity Generation” and to revise Article 5.11 Table of Use Regulations to add “Commercial Electricity Generation” as an allowed or allowed by Special Exception use to business districts and to allow “Small Electricity Generation” as an allowed Accessory Use in all districts? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
           (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION C adds provisions for Electricity Generation Facilities. Although the Town hosts the PSNH Merrimack Station coal fired electric and Garvins Falls hydro-electric generation plants, the Zoning Ordinance does not list electricity generation facilities as a use in the Table of Uses. In addition, the Town hosts substantial electricity transmission facilities and easements for additional facilities. In recognition of existing facilities and widespread interest in renewable energy, the Planning Board voted to add provisions to accommodate additional generation facilities.

Because additional power production facilities could locate in Bow to take advantage of transmission corridors and access to the electric grid, the Board proposes to allow commercial generation facilities in the General Industrial (I-2) and Business Development (BD) districts and to allow them by special exception in other commercial and industrial districts.

Technology is making small scale electricity generation increasingly feasible from solar, wind, and other renewable power sources. Recognizing the environmental and economic benefits of small scale generation, the Planning Board voted to permit such renewable power sources as an accessory use in all zoning districts.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT D as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 5.06 Uses Not Permitted to add a new section “B. Use Not Specified” to add procedures for determining where and how an unlisted land use will be permitted? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
           (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION D establishes a procedure to determine how a new land use will be addressed. At present, a land use that is not listed in the Table of Uses is prohibited. Every year new types of businesses are created. With construction of the municipal water system, the Town expects additional business development.

The first part of the amendment essentially codifies the practice we have followed when a new business type is proposed. If the new business nearly matches a use listed in the Table of Uses, then we administratively assign the new business to that listing.

For uses that we cannot assign to a use category, that therefore would be prohibited at present, the procedure clarifies that the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) has the authority to hear an appeal. The decision on the appeal would be based on the facts of the case, whereas at present, the appeal would require a variance for the use, approval of which requires the ZBA to find that denial would cause a hardship.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT E as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 7.04 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) to calculate the size limitation for ADU based on Habitable Floor Area and to revise the definition of Habitable Floor Area in Article 3.02 definitions?  The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
          (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION E was requested by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) based on its experience in regulating accessory dwelling units. The Zoning Ordinance limits ADU to 800 SF of gross floor area (GFA), but does not define GFA. As generally used, GFA includes stairways and decks used for access, storage areas not suitable for human habitation, and unheated spaces. The Zoning Ordinance defines Habitable Floor Area (HFA), and the ZBA finds that HFA better meets the intent of the Ordinance.

In reviewing the definition of HFA, we found that areas with six feet of clear height are not considered habitable in the Building Code, so the Planning Board proposes to increase the clear height to 6'8" to be consistent with the Code.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT F as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 7.06 Home Occupation to clarify the definition of and limitations on home occupations? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
          (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION F was requested by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) based on its experience in regulating Cottage Industries (7.07) and in hearing appeals of decisions of the Building Inspector. The intent of the amendment is to clarify existing regulations. No changes of substance are proposed.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT G as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 7.14 Excavation of Earth Materials to clarify that bonds and other sureties are as approved by the Board of Selectmen and to clarify that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority to hire independent experts to assist in the review of excavation applications? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
          (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION G was requested by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) based on its experience in regulating sand and gravel excavations. Bonds and other sureties are required to guarantee that excavations are restored. The amendment recognizes that it is the Board of Selectmen that has the authority to determine the form of required sureties, rather than our contracted Town Counsel, and that NH statutes grant the ZBA the authority to hire an expert at applicant expense to assist in fixing the amount of the surety.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT H as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 3.02 definitions of “Basement” and “Story” to clarify when a basement is a story and to clarify the calculation of the number of stories?  The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

          (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION H was requested by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) and Building Inspector. The way the Zoning Ordinance currently defines basement and story makes many homes in Bow non-conforming and conflicts with Building Code definitions. The proposed definitions are adapted from the Building Code and are intended to clarify and increase the practicality of the Zoning Ordinance definitions.

We have hand drawn sketches to illustrate the new definitions.

Are you in favor of the adoption of ZONING AMENDMENT I as proposed by the Planning Board to revise Article 10.01 B.3. and F.2.e. to update references to NH Department of Environmental Services Rules for Wetlands, specifically stream crossings? The amendment has been on file at the Municipal Building since Tuesday, February 1, 2011.
          (Recommended by the Planning Board by a vote of 7-0)

ZONING QUESTION I updates references to NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) rules. The Town through 10.01 Wetlands Conservation District, the NHDES, and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulate fill, dredge, use, and development of wetlands. The Town wetland ordinance refers to rules and methodologies adopted by NHDES and ACOE. Last year NHDES added a new section to its wetlands rules to regulate stream crossings. The intent of the amendment is to keep the Town ordinance consistent with state law.