Thank you to all my supporters

Posted on 11 March 2020 by Rich Brown

I have already sent a note of congratulations to Tim Cook on the race for the seat on the Planning Board.

I also want to thank everyone who voted for me. I still plan to advocate for reasonable housing options in Lyme as an alternate member of the Planning Board.

Over the next several months, I will be asking, “What are your plans?” for housing now, and as you move through life. I would be interested to hear your story.

Thank you again.

Rich Brown
795-2525

Feel free to share this post on Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or email. Any opinions expressed here are solely my own, and not those of any public body, such as the Lyme Planning Board, Budget Committee, or Trustees of the Trust Funds where I volunteer. I would be interested to hear your thoughts – you can reach me at richb.lyme@gmail.com.

Q&A re: Planned Developments

Posted on 9 March 2020 by Rich Brown

Once again, I am pleased to add a “guest post” to my blog. This one comes from Rusty Keith and others supporting the petitioned Planned Development amendment, Article 2 on the ballot for vote at Town Meeting on March 10. The Q&A was handed out at the public meetings held last month.

Planned Development Zoning Amendment – Questions and Answers

In March 2020, Lyme voters will be asked to permit Planned Developments on parcels that abut NH Route 10 in the Rural District. This change addresses several concerns:

Enforcement and Fairness: When zoning was approved over thirty years ago, a few small businesses existed in the Rural District along Route 10. They continue as “non-conforming business uses” and cannot change their use (to another business) or increase their intensity more than 50% from what existed prior to 1989. This causes several problems:

There are no records of the commercial intensity that existed 30 years ago. Consequently, it is impossible for the Planning Board, or the Select Board that must enforce the regulations, to determine what a “50% increase” might be. A year ago, Lyme experienced an expensive, time consuming, lawsuit over this very issue, resulting in a Town vote to expand the commercial district.
It is a burden on existing businesses as well. Successful companies evolve and grow. With the current ordinance, they find their operations are constrained by the regulations and they must spend time and money to justify their success.
It is unfair that neighboring properties must live with the impact of these non-conforming business uses while their property is restricted to residential use. Permitting business use on those properties decreases the unfairness.

Business: Current zoning only permits businesses in the small defined commercial districts of Lyme. Most property in these commercial districts is already developed, so Lyme is hampered because:

New business can’t find anywhere to locate in an allowed district.
Much of the Commercial District is now residential or tax exempt (for example, Crossroads Academy).
Loss of potential tax revenue from lack of businesses in Town
Low staffing for the fire department and other services during the business day because so few volunteers work in town.

Housing: The Master Plan recommends that Lyme “allow for a diversity of housing types suitable for people in a broad range of economic circumstances.” But the reality is that the ordinance only encourages single-family homes on separate lots. This leads to:

Low availability of alternate types of housing, such as senior and workforce housing, which call for small units clustered together with options to age in Lyme,
A lack of multigenerational living arrangements that benefit all their residents.
Risk of a Workforce Housing lawsuit, since today’s ordinance doesn’t permit economically feasible workforce housing to be built as NH Law requires.
New (expensive) homes being built farther and farther out of town, fragmenting neighborhoods, increasing transportation energy use, and encouraging sprawl.

This Planned Development amendment can help address all these problems.

Q: How does this amendment benefit Lyme?

A: The Planned Development provision of our ordinance provides greater flexibility to a landowner in the ways they may use their property, subject to site plan review approval.

Planned Developments permit multiple units in a building, and multiple buildings on a lot. This flexibility allows landowners to design small dwellings, multi-dwellings, and other options for neighbors who want to stay in Lyme when downsizing and for teachers, nurses, firefighters, and others who work here but otherwise couldn’t afford to live in town.

Planned Developments can be a mix of business, institutional, and residential uses. This permits a variety of designs, for example, retail on the first floor of a building and apartments above.

By permitting Planned Developments in more parts of town, Lyme expands the potential for tax base growth, provide an opportunity for both business and affordable, senior, and other housing, and levels the playing field for neighbors of “non-conforming” businesses.

Q: Why a change to the Planned Development definition?

A: The amendment adds “May be 100% residential or” to the beginning of the sentence to read:

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. May be 100% residential or a mix of residential and institutional or business uses on a single lot in more than one building on a single lot.

This makes it clear that a Planned Development MAY be residential-only, in addition to being a mix of business/institutional/residential use. A business use would still require the inclusion of a 15% residential use.

Q: Where could Planned Developments be built?

A: This amendment would allow Planned Developments to be built (with Site Plan Review approval) on any property that abuts NH Route 10 in the Rural District. Planned Developments have been permitted in the Common and Commercial Districts since the adoption of zoning. In 30+ years since, no Planned Development has been built in those districts.

Q: Would this dramatically change the Route 10 corridor?

A: Probably not. There are several reasons:

Planned Developments are already permitted in both the Lyme Common District and the Commercial District. There hasn’t been any interest in building a Planned Development in those districts.
A large portion of the land abutting Route 10 has already been permanently conserved, and is not available for any sort of development. This amendment will not affect any of that property.
Dimensional controls will prevent “wall to wall” development, which could only be as large as would be permitted for a single-family home with its outbuildings.
Planned Developments must devote at least 15% of the floor area to residential use, which will cause the developer to consider the kind of business that is built.
Route 10 offers good and safe access for vehicular traffic for businesses. Consultants have advised the town that current traffic levels would support small, local business, but would never be attractive to large box stores.
Today, the small amount of vacant land remaining along this corridor is expensive. Buying an existing, developed property for reuse is most likely cost prohibitive.

Consequently, the facts on the ground (both economic and practical) argue against overbuilding in Lyme.

Q: Does this amendment propose any other changes?

A: Yes, there are two other changes.

The amendment removes restrictions on the kinds of businesses allowed in a Planned Development. Under the current ordinance, any type of business not specifically permitted is automatically denied. Not one of the existing seven businesses, north of the Common District, would be allowed under our current restrictions. This change permits any business that can meet the Site Plan Review requirements in a Planned Development.

The amendment removes the requirement for a permanent easement on any undeveloped land in a lot used for Planned Development. The ordinance already sets limits for dimensional controls: the maximum footprint, lot coverage, setbacks, etc. for developments. A Planned Development cannot exceed those limits. Any future change or expansion would require another approval by site plan review. There is no need to bind future generations from finding new ways to use the land due to a permanent restrictive easement.

Q: Would this amendment permit massive buildings or overbuilding on a lot?

A: No. Dimensional controls for a Planned Development follow the same rules for the district. A Planned Development can be no larger than what could be built as a single-family home with its outbuildings, garages, workshops, barns, etc.

Furthermore, Site Plan Review is a careful process run by the Planning Board that reviews an applicant’s site plan to ensure it meets state and national laws, plus conformity to our local zoning regulations. These specific requirements control every development.

Summary

Planned Developments along Route 10 will benefit Lyme.

This proposed amendment makes it clear that more businesses would be welcomed in Lyme. It may encourage new businesses to locate in Lyme and provide goods, services, and jobs that residents find attractive and useful.

New businesses in town also add to the number of volunteers for services that help Lyme residents. One member of Lyme’s volunteer fire department noted that only two members work in town. If an emergency occurs during the work day, Lyme must currently draw most of its first responders from surrounding towns.

This amendment will “allow for a diversity of housing types suitable for people in a broad range of economic circumstances” (as recommended by the Master Plan) and foster business so that Lyme can be viewed as an active and lively community.

Give this amendment some serious thought and be sure to vote March 10th. This is your town.

February 28 2020

The opinions expressed here are those of the guest poster: Rusty Keith.

How Big Could A Planned Development Be?

Posted on 7 March 2020 by Rich Brown

On the Listserv, a neighbor asked…

If someone bought up a 10 acre parcel, could they put up 75 or 100 2-3 bedroom condos? … or a 300 room hotel?

The simple answer is No. A big condo or hotel would require an enormous parcel (something like 165 acres) due to Lyme’s strict lot coverage and gross floor area regulations for the Rural District (calculations below).

This, coupled with the lack of municipal water and sewer and the already-conserved properties along Route 10, means there is no way to acquire the land or finance such a project.

But what could be built? If the opponents of the article really think about how restrictive and exclusive the Lyme zoning ordinance is, they will agree with the following statement:

Under the proposed amendment, that 10-acre parcel could support either a small business with at least one residence, or a handful of homes. The total impact – the land covered, and the total permitted size of the buildings – would be about twice that used by the Lyme Country Store.

Here are the details. (Please bear with me: the language of our ordinance is really complicated.)

Lyme Zoning requires the Lot Size within 1,000 feet of Route 10 to be at least three acres. If the lot extends even one foot over the 1,000 foot line, it must be five acres.
Lyme Zoning also computes the Lot Size after subtracting conservation overlays: agricultural soils, wetlands, wetland buffers, and steep slopes. Typical land along Route 10 subtracts half the area. The rest of this analysis assumes a 10-acre parcel that would yield a Lot Size that only has 5 “buildable acres”.
Lyme Zoning permits lot coverage (buildings, parking lots, etc.) of 12% of the Lot Size, or a maximum of 26,000sf. Twelve percent of a 5 acre Lot Size (217,800 sf) is slightly larger than the 26,000 sf, so that is the limit. The entire Lyme Country Store (LCS) lot is 0.31 acres, or 13,054 sf. So twice their parking lot is the entire lot coverage permitted on any single parcel.
Lyme Zoning permits the maximum building footprint to be 2% of the Lot Size, or a maximum of 7,000sf. Two percent of five acres is 4,356 sf. The Lyme Country Store (LCS) footprint is about 2,688 sf – so the proposed building footprint could be about half-again as large.
Lyme Zoning also permits the Gross Floor Area (the sum of all the floors of a building) of 14,000sf in the Rural District. The LCS Floor Area is 8,257 sf. Again, the proposed buildings could be about half-again as large.

How much space would a 100-unit development require?

The Lyme Zoning Ordinance permits large parcels to be subdivided to provide more Gross Floor Area, Lot Coverage, Footprint, etc. for a development. But the ordinance requires development to be spread out, so getting a large number of units requires a large amount of land. Actual subdivisions also require significant additional space to account for subdivision roads, setbacks, and other requirements. That might add another 50% to the size of the parent parcel. (As I said, it’s complicated.) Nonetheless, here’s a simple analysis:

Let’s assume 100 two-bedroom condos at 1,200 sf. The project requires 20% additional space for “circulation” (hallways, stairways, etc.) This would require (100 x 1,200 x 120%) sf or 144,000 sf of floor area. Since the maximum Gross Floor Area per lot is 14,000 sf, the condo buildings would require at least 11 “five acre” buildable lots. Given the typical conservation overlays plus the extra space for subdivision roads, setbacks, etc. a builder would need eleven 15-acre lots or 165 acres.

Someone finally said it out loud…

Posted on 7 March 2020 by Rich Brown

After Rusty Keith’s thoughtful presentation at Little Town Meeting about Article 2 (the Planned Development amendment), another member of the public said,

… this would be the town’s worst nightmare. It would allow apartment development everywhere…

Really? Could someone state clearly why apartments would be bad for Lyme?

Professional planning experts now encourage a variety of housing options in a town. Single family homes remain important, but so is the ability to construct smaller units that are close together, for social interaction, for mutual support, for convenience, and to improve the tax base. Some thoughts:

The Planning Board just spent the last four months of 2019 working to specify the look of senior apartments
People who want to downsize (who are not always elderly) want smaller units (apartments) where someone will mow the lawn and shovel the walkway.
Young people: unless we want our town boards and committees, fire department, FAST squad, etc. to be populated by septuagenarians, we need to attract younger people. Singles and new couples value small, clustered homes, often called apartments.
People in the “work force” – teachers, nurses, first responders – all have good jobs. Can they afford to live in town with our median $400,000 home? Apartments could help.
Families. Yes, families. Despite the scare tactics, actual facts indicate that in both NH and Lyme’s experience, single-family homes have 0.4 school-age children per home (about one child for every two homes). Apartments with five or more units average under one child per six homes – a far lower burden on the school system.
Improved tax base. Six $250,000 apartments on a 10 acre lot contribute $1.5 million to the grand list, almost four times a $400,000 home.
Finally, the existing stringent Site Plan Review regulations – still required by Article 2 – would keep any apartments well in the check.

With all these positives, I am curious to hear how apartments would contribute to “Lyme’s worst nightmare”.

Article Two Helps People

Posted on 7 March 2020 by Rich Brown

The hyperbole you’ve seen over the last week on the Listserv and in your postal mail regarding Article 2 has been focused on fear of losing “the way Lyme looked” years ago. Those notes bring incredible (that is, not believable) projections of traffic, development, and population increases.

But what about the PEOPLE in town? Can the opponents acknowledge that the amendment’s benefits – enabling smaller clustered homes and the opportunity for new local businesses to provide services and jobs in town – might have value? Or are they simply pulling up the drawbridge after “getting their own”?

I had hoped the Planning Board might take the lead on these issues, but some citizens decided start the ball rolling instead.

I support Article 2. It will allow us to see how business and housing opportunities might evolve if we loosen the reins a little bit. And if it appears that things are moving too quickly, we can dial things back next year.

Linkblog

Posted on 4 March 2020 by Rich Brown

A couple interesting items from the NH OSI (Office of Strategic Insights) late February issue of Planning News:

“If we want $200,000 houses, we have to allow for higher densities,” says former mayor Ed Engler of Laconia NH in an article in the Laconia Daily Sun that explains how regulations were passed in the 1980’s to limit growth, including lot sizes of at least two acres. (For comparison, many readers have heard that Lyme requires “three acre” and “five acre” lot sizes, but may not know that a parcel must be that big after subtracting wetlands, steep slopes and agricultural soils. This often means a “buildable parcel” in Lyme is must be two to four times larger than the stated minimum.)
I went to the first UVLSRPC (Lake Sunapee/Upper Valley Regional Planning Commission) public forum last month to talk about issues that exist on major transportation corridors in the Region. The inaugural session focused on Route 120 between Lebanon and Hanover. It was a well-run session, congenial, and gathered lots of good information from the attendees. I look forward to the upcoming forum to talk about Route 10 north of Hanover. For more information see the NHPR Story, Upper Valley Lake Sunapee Regional Commission Taking Closer Look At Transportation Issues or the UVLSRPC Regional Corridor Traffic Survey

Why I want to be an elected member of the Planning Board

Posted on 28 February 2020 by Rich Brown

At last night’s meeting, the Planning Board discussed the statement regarding Article 2 that it would present at Little Town Meeting. Only three (of the usual five) full members present: John Stadler, Tim Cook, and Kevin Sahr. Two alternate members were present as well: David Van Wie and me (Rich Brown).

Since this was to be a formal decision of the Planning Board, I asked whether the chair wished to appoint any alternates to make up a full board for the discussion. John Stadler appointed David Van Wie to sit, but not me.

The video starts at the point I ask the question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxyAzV7mlT0&feature=youtu.be&t=1335

I didn’t then, and still don’t understand Mr. Stadler’s reasons for not appointing me to have a full five-member board.

This is yet another reason I wish to be an elected member, so that my thoughts can always be included in Planning Board decisions. (You can read my other reasons in my earlier post.)

Renewable Sources of Energy article on the Warrant

Posted on 26 February 2020 by Rich Brown

I am pleased to present my first “guest posting” here on the blog. I support this article, and I hope you can cast your vote on the ballot at Town Meeting, March 10, 7am to 7pm.

Jim Nourse has been working over the last six months to gather support for an article on the Warrant in March to encourage the Town of Lyme to use 100% renewable sources of energy by 2030. Here’s his open letter to the Town, with the text of the Article 22 appended:

As we look forward to Town Meeting, I wanted to give you an update on where the effort to put forward a warrant article moving the Town and its residents away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy stands. The Energy Committed has voted 7-0 to support this article; the Select Board voted 3-0 to support the article. I have attached the article below.

I will be speaking in favor of the article at Little Town Meeting on Tuesday, March 3, 7 pm. I would love some support, if appropriate, from members of the audience. I would also encourage you to talk about the article with your neighbors and friends. It would send a very clear message if the votes at Town Meeting were overwhelmingly positive. A few talking points:

This article is a non-binding advisory article to give a “sense of the Town” in moving in the direction of a non-fossil fuel energy future. As such it does not mandate any actions by either town officials or residents. It is assumed that town officials and residents will continue to be fiscally prudent as we make this transition.

The Energy Committee sees this as the start of a town-wide conversation about how Lyme makes a transition to a non-fossil fuel, sustainable future.

The article discusses the major reasons that this transition is both necessary and immediate. Fossil fuels are finite in supply and even as advances in technology make it possible to extract the remaining supplies (think fracking as an example), the cost of that extraction will continue to become more expensive. And, perhaps the most important reason, the need to solve rapidly intensifying climate change which in large part is driven by our burning of fossil fuels.

People will ask what this transition might look like. If, as we expect, most voters support this article, it will give the Select Board and town committees a clear sense that this is the direction the town wishes to go in. It might mean a review and reshaping of energy guidelines for new municipal construction. It might mean the amending of zoning regulations to make it more conducive for community solar projects. It will guide the town’s committees as they update the Town Master Plan. It will most likely mean more community-wide initiatives like Weatherize and Solarize Lyme. It may lead to increased collaboration with area towns to aggregate electricity purchases in an attempt to both secure the most economical rate as well as purchasing from renewable sources of electricity. It may mean seeking state and federal grants for renewable energy projects. It will mean making sure that those residents who cannot afford to move to renewable energies are included in projects that provide access to those energies that are affordable.

A final point for me is the recognition that this transition will not be easy or straightforward. There will probably be times when the town or residents choose a “better” alternative, but not the “best” alternative given financial or logistical limitations. People may wonder how we will ever arrive at 100% renewable electricity by 2030, or for heating and transportation by 2050. My response is that these are goals, that the sooner we begin to work towards them, the farther along we will be. If by 2030, only 65% of our electricity comes from clean, renewable sources then that’s still more than it is today.

And speaking of beginning right away – there are two town projects on the immediate horizon that should be influenced by a goal of transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. You will most likely hear about these at both town meetings. The pellet boilers that serve the town garage are in need of replacement and there are plans to construct a new fire station. There are choices in what type of heating source to install as well as design choices for the new fire station that will impact whether it can be easily retrofitted to renewables, i.e. PV panels, in the future. I hope that you will add your voices in calling for those in charge of making these decisions to move away from fossil fuels and towards a future of renewable energy.

Many thanks for your support of this transition. Let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Best,
Jim

Article 22-Renewable Sources of Energy

(Can’t read the PDF above? Download it at
https://richb-lyme.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Warrant-Article-22-Final-02.20.2020.pdf)

Report: Meeting on February 22

Posted on 24 February 2020 by Rich Brown

A neighbor wrote to me:

I plan to come tomorrow to the meeting in the Library. In preparation, can you tell me what objections – what possible downsides – have been mentioned so far?

I responded:

Saturday’s meeting had about 22 people. Rusty Keith did a terrific job of introducing the petitioned “Planned Development” amendment and facilitating the discussion without being overly partisan toward the amendment.

Half the participants were curious about the amendment – they didn’t know much about it and wanted to learn more. Some were categorically opposed to any development in town, and there were a couple people who were skeptical, and concerned about its impacts.

You can imagine the objections – unbridled development, unchecked traffic, a parade of horribles. Junk yards and tractor trailer distribution facilities were mentioned as possibilities.

But those objections fail to use common sense. Lyme’s not going to be a hub for any big business. There isn’t enough traffic or infrastructure (water, septic, electric power) to support it. Tractor-trailers don’t willingly drive this stretch of Route 10, since it’s so far from the interstates. And nobody buys land for a junkyard (especially at $100K per lot).

And there was no acknowledgement of the good that could come from the amendment. The town could support plenty of local businesses that provide goods, services, and jobs in the town.

Rusty has focused on the fairness/enforcement aspect of the amendment: that the existence of a grandfathered business can negatively affect the property values of the neighbors. And when he was on the Select Board, he faced an impossible situation of trying to determine whether the business across the road has “increased in intensity more than 50%” from when the ordinance passed thirty years ago.

As a follow-on question: suppose the Select Board could prove in court that it had exceeded that limit. What’s the remedy? Shut the business down? How does that help Lyme?

And what signal would that send to anyone else who might be considering opening a business that provides goods, services, or jobs? “If you grow too much, we’re going to shut you down…”

It would be better simply to acknowledge that Route 10 has changed in the last 30 years. In the parlance of planning experts, it’s called “dynamic rezoning”. Allow the zoning rules to reflect the on-the-ground reality and the expressed needs of town residents.

The other argument for the amendment (that wasn’t discussed as much) is that it enables something besides “single family homes on separate lots” which is the sole form of development the Master Plan envisions for the Rural District.

I don’t need to tell you that you can’t get smaller, modest price homes if you have to start by purchasing a 5-10 acre lot for each one. And we can’t afford to continue to chop up our limited open land with more separate parcels that house one family.

I’ll be glad to see you tomorrow (Tuesday, Feb 25 at 7pm in the Lyme Library). Please let others know about this important discussion. Thanks again.

Public Meetings, February 22 & 25

Posted on 21 February 2020 by Rich Brown

There will be two public meetings at the Converse Library in Lyme to discuss the petitioned Planned Development amendment. Not only does it provide a measure of fairness for landowners near commercial properties on Route 10 but it enables new housing opportunities here in Lyme.

I support this Planned Development amendment. We all know that Lyme (and the entire Upper Valley) have a housing problem. Seniors can’t downsize in Lyme, many people who work here can’t afford to live here, and there’s no economical way to build modest price housing.

We are looking for a lively but civil conversation on this important topic. Please attend and let your friends know about the meetings. Thank you.

Saturday, February 22, 11am, Converse Library
Tuesday, February 25, 7pm, Converse Library

Rich's Planning Blog

Thoughts about Planning and Zoning

Author Archives: Rich Brown

Thank you to all my supporters

Q&A re: Planned Developments

How Big Could A Planned Development Be?

Someone finally said it out loud…

Article Two Helps People

Linkblog

Why I want to be an elected member of the Planning Board

Renewable Sources of Energy article on the Warrant

Report: Meeting on February 22

Public Meetings, February 22 & 25