Linkblog-8 Nov 2020

Posted on by
Reply

A few items from the news:

Workforce Housing Forum The NH Business & Industry Association will sponsor a forum on Workforce Housing this Thursday morning, 12 November at 10:00am. The focus will be on providing housing for workers, to help the economy grow, and to help employers recruit and retain talent. The registration is $25. I’m signed up to attend the video conference and will publish notes here next week. For more information: https://bianhassoc.wliinc23.com/events/2020-BIA-Forum-on-Workforce-Housing-405/details

Housing Forum: Needs, Trends & Opportunities Friday 10am brings another housing forum, this one sponsored by Space on Main in Bradford. Many local groups  plan to bring their voices. To register (no cost) and for more information, please visit: https://thespaceonmain.org/housing

Build Resiliency and Foster Civic Pride UNH Extension published an article about how, even with social distancing, towns can find ways for their residents to gather and build community. https://extension.unh.edu/blog/build-resiliency-foster-civic-pride


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.

“Outskirts to Downtown” from NHHFA

Posted on by
Reply

New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority presents two sessions about land use, taxes, and good planning practices.

Today’s session (29 Oct 2020, 11am) will be looking in detail at three Upper Valley towns: Claremont, Hanover, and Lebanon. Register at https://www.nhhfa.org/event/from-the-outskirts-to-downtown-taxes-land-use-value-in-upper-valley-communities/ The session will be recorded, so you can go back to that page to view it in a day or two.

The previous session was held on 15 October 2020. The recording and presentation slides are now available at: https://www.nhhfa.org/taxes-land-use-value-analysis-by-joe-minicozzi-urban3/

I hope that you can find the time review one or both of these sessions – their presentations are always valuable.


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.

Senior Housing Forum – Bring your stories…

Posted on by
Reply

As I think about tomorrow’s meeting, I realize that it would be helpful for the Planning Board to hear stories from Lyme residents.

What might you want from “Senior Housing”? I wrote a post a while back that you can use as a starting point. See What are your plans? and bring them to the Planning Board’s Zoom call. (See the Zoom link below.)

If you cannot attend the Zoom conference (there are a lot of other events, see below), please consider sending a note with your thoughts to the Planning and Zoning administrator, zoning@lymenh.gov Thanks!

Rich Brown
RandomNeuronsFiring.com
795-2525

Other Events on Thursday: It is regrettable that so much is happening tomorrow evening.

Senior Housing Public Forum – Oct 22

Posted on by
Reply

The Planning Board is working on a revised proposal for Senior Housing. They plan a public forum (by Zoom) on Thursday, 22 October at 7:00pm You can read the full announcement at: https://www.lymenh.gov/planning-board/files/senior-housing-amendment-draft-2020 The draft text is appended below.

Although this draft is better than the version proposed last year, it still will not provide good Senior Housing for the Town. It will be helpful for the Board to hear input from the public. The discussion might include these questions:
  1. Why must these units be limited to only one or two people 62 years or older? Why not permit “younger seniors”, say 55 year olds, a federally-recognized standard for “older persons”? Why is it important to prohibit a younger caretaker from living with a senior parent?
  2. Why must Senior Housing be limited to the Lyme Common District? It’s the most expensive land in town (per acre), which drives up unit prices. Furthermore, the language seems to have a built-in contradiction, relaxing dimensional controls to permit as much as 15,000 square feet of development on a parcel while remaining “harmonious and consistent with the present character of the neighborhood.”
  3. What is the justification for the “poison pill” provision? (This is the Board’s own term.) Although the current draft does not contain the language, the proposal would nullify this amendment if NH requires that towns extend the same density bonus for all housing as it gives to senior housing. How does that benefit Lyme?
I have asked these questions in working sessions earlier this year, but frankly, the minutes do not contain very good explanations. It would be quite helpful to have members of the public bring them up in the public forum. I hope to “see” you this coming Thursday. Thanks.
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.

Astonishing Lidar View of NH

Posted on by
1

The NH Stone Wall Mapper project uses Lidar data to display small variations in ground elevation. A UNH project built this map to identify stone walls in the state.

This site can be “misused” (in a good way) to show lots of other topographic features. Here’s a “Lidar view” of the grounds of Loch Lyme Lodge, near Post Pond. The features are shaded as if the sun were shining from the northeast. (Update: 31 Dec: Thanks to the good folks at the NH Geological Survey, the link now goes directly to the desired view!)

But wait… there’s more! You can turn on and off various “layers” to see other kinds of information. To do this:

  1. At the top-left, click the Layers Icon to display various layers
  2. Check on or off the Hillshade box to “show or hide the trees”…
  3. Click the More… icon to enable other features, such as the “Swipe Layers” that lets you compare two layers…

So much fun – play around!. Turn on/off layers, scroll to other parts of NH. If you find something interesting, send me a note and I’ll post it. Enjoy!

Senior Housing on the Agenda – 10 Sep 2020

Posted on by
Reply

I sent the following request to John Stadler and David Robbins, asking to incorporate these topics into the Senior Housing discussion when the Planning Board meets on Thursday, 10 September 2020 at 7:00pm. You can join by Zoom using this link: https://zoom.us/j/6808321113

John, David,

The Senior Housing amendment is on the agenda for the Planning Board meeting of 10 September 2020. Since I have not seen a list of the issues we might entertain, I submit the following to help frame Thursday’s meeting.

Would you please distribute this note in its entirety to the members of the Planning Board to review before the discussion.

I would also request that you distribute this note through the Town Notification email system so that the members of the public may be informed that the topic will be on the table. Thank you.

Rich Brown
Alternate, Planning Board

Points for discussion regarding Senior Housing amendment
Lyme Planning Board Meeting – 10 September 2020

1) I request the Board discuss allowing Senior Housing elsewhere in town.

I remember an argument for “walkability” last year, presumably to the services on the Lyme Common. However a significant portion of the permitted district – Orford Road, High Street, and Dorchester Road – is eminently un-walkable. Residents of Senior Housing built there would all have to drive to town.

I advocate that Senior Housing be permitted on any state highway or major town road. This would allow people to build farther from town, yet ensure safe and adequate vehicular access.

2) I request the Board discuss the age requirements for Senior Housing.

I remember a comment, “55 is too young for me” from discussions last year. Why it would be bad for Lyme to have senior housing occupied by 55 year olds? I would also like to understand why this proposal limits units to a maximum of two residents, prohibiting a live-in family member or health aide.

I advocate we adopt the rules of the federal Housing for Older Persons Act (HOPA) that defines senior housing as “at least 80 percent of the occupied units must be occupied by at least one person 55 years of age or older per unit…”  This would shorten the proposed amendment by incorporating those well-defined rules with a single sentence.

3) I request the Board discuss the restrictions on unit size for Senior Housing.

The proposed amendment limits units to no more than 1,200 square feet. This arbitrary constraint eliminates a lot of possible designs. For example, the well regarded and recently approved development on the Common could NOT have been built under this ordinance.

I advocate that the design of Senior Housing units be left to the creativity of local developers to create units that are attractive, marketable, and meet the other regulations of the ordinance.

I look forward to speaking to you on Thursday night.

Rich Brown
795-2525

Transmission of Covid-19

Posted on by
Reply

A friend (thanks, Ted!) directed me to a nice science-based article that assigns some probabilities of risks of transmitting a disease like coronavirus. The author highlights two major scenarios:

  1. Warm body transmission: how far apart should you be from other people if you want to avoid transmission from another “warm body”
  2. Surface-based transmission: what precautions should you take when you go somewhere that others have passed through recently.

You won’t be surprised by the takeaways:

  • 6 foot distancing is good
  • wearing a mask is good
  • washing hands is good

…but some of the discussion and details are interesting. View the full article at Medium.

Enable Virtual Public Meetings

Posted on by
Reply

Change.org is hosting a petition calling on Governor Chris Sununu of NH to allow for “virtual meetings” for the normal business of towns and municipalities. I would include Select Boards as well as those listed below. As I said on the petition page:

It will be months before we are “back to normal”. Most town boards or committees might be able to “skip a meeting” because of an emergency. But real residents have real needs, and cannot realistically wait for boards that have been shut down for a protracted period of time.

Specifically, the petition requests the Governor to:

  • Allow and encourage for both state and local municipal boards to continue with standard timelines and regularly scheduled board hearings through a virtual meeting template, such as Zoom. This includes, but is not limited to, historic district commissions, conservation commissions, planning and zoning boards.
  • Allow and encourage board members, city staff, design professionals and the public to participate through an open video forum and email regardless of city or town charter.
  • Provide state guidelines on how the local municipalities should conduct meetings and insist that mandated timelines for board decisions be maintained.

If you agree, please go to the petition at: https://www.change.org/p/new-hampshire-governor-chris-sununu-enable-virtual-public-meetings-for-planning-and-zoning-boards-in-nh and pass the word to your friends. Thanks.


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.

Thank you to all my supporters

Posted on by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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.


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.