Warner & BIGBOX Zoning

CLICK COMMENTS above to view or add.
SCROLL DOWN to see posts

Jan. 5
Quick note from George Packard: No Big Box Zoning this year!

>>Board members in last night’s working session (not a public hearing) did a lot of talking about proposed amendments to raise square footage for both business and commercial zones. They voted to change the proposed business zone amendment from 6k square feet to 4k square feet, which doubles existing max square footage regulation for new buildings (was 2k).

Regarding max size of new buildings in commercial zone, there was much discussion on whether “footprint” should be used instead of “gross square footage”, with some consensus that “footprint” would encourage multi-use buildings of several floors, while “gross square footage” would encourage box-type single use retail buildings. The proposed amendment was to increase square footage for single buildings in commercial zone from 20k to 80k, and for multiple buildings on the same lot from 40k to 120k. In their wisdom, the board seemed to agree that this was too complex an issue to put forward to the town now, and voted to table amendment re. commercial zone and study the question for a year.

#######################

Jan. 5

Charlie Goodwin writes:

>>What a great thing that we had something like thirty or thirty five people there! You presented the planning board with the best evidence possible that the public was not interested in the proposals that had been originally offered.
A couple of my own observations on last night’s meeting … The work isn’t over; there will be further public hearings; and the Planning Board will still be looking at the topic of size limitations in future, but I think we should be glad some of the seeds that were planted by the Charrette seem to be sprouting.
Some good ideas seem to finally be taking hold, and I am very encouraged by that. Members of the Planning Board last night started proposing the board look at grouping multiple smaller structures in a something of a “retail village” (my term) like Powerhouse Mill in Lebanon, rather than the vast boxes that the original proposal would have allowed. The fact that they are using that idea seems to me to be a major win.
Another concept that got well deserved mention was “mixed use”. The idea that a structure could have, for example, retail on the ground floor, and offices, or residences above got a number of mentions. Mixed use is associated with more vital village or city life.
The Planning Board ultimately decided to defer decision on a couple of the most crucial issues. I believe wisely so. They saw a need for more discussion on their part to look deeper into the issues – and opportunities – each kind of size rule would involve. Far better the issues get more attention than to be decided prematurely.
Consequently, there will, too soon, be more we have to pay attention to. But for the moment, it feels like we have moved solidly in the right direction. The thinking and language Warner first encountered through the Charrette process are seeping into the general discourse on growth and development. That is a huge win for good planning for Warner.

##########################

Jan. 4
Two comments from Warner residents:
>>> FYI,
At the last meeting the board made it clear that in their opinion,the proposed changes would not accomodate big box stores and were meant to allow office space development. I though this was quite important because they will be making that point when they go to town meeting.
While we may recognize this “fig leaf”, others will not. We have to be ready to demonstrate how the proposed changes will lead to big stores and why this will be harmful to the town.

>>>I think it is really pretty straight forward. The Hotel was approved at DOUBLE the allowed square footage. Thus, any new developer will ask for the same consideration. If the PB goes ahead with any increase in size, the Hotel precedent will be difficult to fight.

####################

Dec. 20 From Neil Nevins:

I just wanted to alert all of you about some significant revisions to our zoning/planning ordinances being proposed and are expected to be on the warrant for this coming town meeting. These are revisions that will, I believe, undermine our hard work over the past several years that has put us on a path toward a vital local economy that has reinvigorated our Main Street and has protected our small town quality of life. I realize there has been a push to allow any type large scale development in an effort to bring our property taxes down, but that effort always focuses on just one side of the equation – growing the tax base – though the tax benefits promised never materialize. It actually ends up increasing property taxes. That has certainly been reflected in the current development already at exit #9. The costs of large scale development are actually quite high and usually end up as a net loss for a community, increasing property taxes, destroying local independent businesses, etc. As we know, not all economic development is created equal.

This is why several years ago, we beat back an effort to gut established restrictions on size and character by a 2:1 margin. What is being suggested now would even be a more serious challenge to what we have accomplished and open this community to big-box development. We need to make a strong stand for our locally owned and operated businesses and the related efforts on-going that focus on all aspects of the local from food to energy to the social and cultural.

The three man areas involved in the proposed revisions are:

1. Changing the height restrictions from 35′ to 45′
2. Changing the square foot limitations for the business district from 2,000 sq. ft. to 6,000 sq. ft.
3. Changing the square foot limitations for the commercial district from 20,000 sq. ft. to 120,000 sq. ft.

This puts us into to a “Big-Box” for sure! Please attend the public hearing on these changes this Monday evening at 7 PM in the Town Hall. Bring family, friends and neighbors.

Locally yours,
Neil Nevins
456-3614

##########################

Dec. 26 From Sara McNeil
I was at the last Planning Board (PB) meeting and I’m guessing there were about 15+ of us in the audience. I did not hear anyone speak in favor of the proposed revisions; perhaps, there were just a few there to listen. However, the ones that spoke were against the revisions. Following is my summary of key points, in no particular order of importance:
The most recent work and analysis done on our Master Plan was adopted at the March 2007 town meeting….less than 3 yrs. ago.
Many of us expressed the fact that we are NOT against growth but rather against tearing apart what was just adopted by the Town less than 3 yrs. ago.
The hotel proposal was shot down due mainly to the height and perhaps square footage (not sure about the footage) combined with the looming building size near a residential zone.
An underlying issue that was not outwardly said by the PB but was felt (by me) is: they believe that more growth means lower taxes. This is a huge piece that I feel we need to develop. Last I looked, my taxes have not decreased since McDonalds, Market Basket, etc. have come to Exit 9. And, in fact, we may be looking at paying more taxes in the future as this area is further developed. (my opinion)
Many of us spoke about the need to make small versus huge steps if we wish to propose any revisions, specifically as it deals with square footage. Current proposals are asking for increasing commercial-sized buildings three-fold and higher. In other words, several of us suggested that we propose much smaller increases for square footage and then see what happens in the next few years….and go on from there. Adding is a heck of a lot easier than subtracting when it comes to laws.
Several mentioned the concern with how these proposals might affect our Main Street businesses and ambience….the heart of what makes Warner the town that it is. This is a huge issue in today’s environment of what we need and want.
One person (& others agreed) that our Town needs to protect our own Town’s interests by requiring more from the developer(s)….specifically monies for water and sewer. And, I’ll add that we need to think about traffic lights/round-a-about and perhaps even sidewalks, police/fire safety issues, etc.
One person emphasized the fact that we don’t need big stores as we have everything we need now….and what we really need can wait for a trip to Concord.
I would like to add that I was very impressed with how the PB held the meeting. It was more of a dialogue rather than a formal meeting. It was friendly and I felt good vibes, even though many of us may not have agreed with many of the PB’s opinions. There was plenty of opportunity to make your voice heard and recorded. I also felt that all the PB members (all were present) had something to add to the dialogue which, frankly, I have not always seen with some of the meetings I’ve attended. I look forward to input from others who may or may not have attended the last PB meeting.

Finally, I am willing to work on a letter to the PB but would appreciate working on this with at least another person, and hopefully more. I think this also requires more than a letter to the PB as I believe that most of Warner folks don’t know anything about this as I did not prior to Neil’s initial email. Anyone willing to help?
Sara McNeil