I further clarified what was presented at the 15 January Planning Board Meeting. See the link to the meeting video below.
A little background on current state law as it pertains to development. State law RSA 674:21 Chapter 4 Innovative Land Use Controls (https://www.nh.gov/osi/planning/resources/documents/pb-chapter-4.pdf) provides municipalities with a wide range of options to use in their efforts to shape land development in ways that reflect the vision of their master plans, and to deal more effectively with growth-related issues. A community has the option to make an innovative land use control a mandatory requirement when supported by the master plan. These ordinances must also contain within them the standards to guide the person or board that administers the ordinance.
In 2015, when the Amherst Planning Board placed the Integrated Innovative Housing Ordinance or IIHO on the ballot for adoption, the inherent impacts of that ordinance were not stated on the ballot. The ballot measure failed to mention granting of density bonuses, power of the Planning Board to waive minimum lot size requirements, wetland setbacks or scenic setbacks; all integral parts of the current Town Master Plan that aims to keep the rural aspect of Amherst intact. In other words, IIHO went against the main premise of the Master plan.
The IIHO and resulting regulations are vague and lack necessary details for applicants to calculate density bonuses and for the Planning Board to grant such density bonuses. Residents have sat through recent planning Board meetings where even the board members were confused and openly contradicted each other on the interpretation of the density bonus calculation method. Terms like “double-dipping” were frequently used and argued by Board members and back of the envelope calculations performed to determine bonuses to be granted.
RSA 674:21 allows for many “innovative” development types, but it also lays the groundwork for growth management or growth moratoriums. The current IIHO does not have any such means for controlling growth and, furthermore, the IIHO lacks any means for the overall tracking of IIHO developments, density bonuses granted, and overall units proposed and granted. For growth moratoriums, RSA 674:24 recommends as a first step the planning board prepare a study of the municipality’s current and projected growth rates and need for additional municipal services to accommodate such growth. Any growth management ordinance such as IIHO should outline how the municipality will establish the needed community services. This should be reviewed at least annually to confirm reasonable progress. Per the RSA, this data should be reported to the legislative body in the annual report. Our current IIHO, without any growth ordinance or even tracking controls in place, will inevitably lead to the unruly densification of Amherst.
Furthermore, IIHO does not address Impact fees. In 2005, voters of Amherst voted to institute Impact Fees, fees paid by developers to offset impacts to development (schools, roads, infrastructure etc.). Interestingly and unbeknownst to the voters, Impact Fees were never established. During the Jacobsen proposal, a plethora of excuses where given as to why Impact Fees were never established, and it became clear they were not supported by current planning board members. Of note, Impact Fees are one part of the existing state law RSA 674:21.
The impetus for the citizens petition to remove the IIHO is the overall lack of understanding of the impact in how it was originally presented to the voters. Citizens do not understand the purpose or need for such development, town boards do not understand the implications of densification caused by such development, and the planning board does not understand how to manage such an ordinance. Reverting to pre-IIHO ordinances such as 4.14 Workforce Housing and 4.17 Planned Residential Development will allow for adequate development options in Amherst.
Therefore, the citizens of Amherst have filed a citizens petition to delete section 4.16 IIHO of the Amherst Zoning Ordinance and revert to pre-IIHO ordinances until such a time that IIHO is re-written in line with a new Master Plan and contains the necessary details for a volunteer board to assess, execute and manage the growth allowed by such an ordinance.
Comments