Zoning commission February 22, 2012

On February 22, 2012 the Newbury Township Zoning Commission (ZC) held their regular scheduled monthly meeting in the upstairs meeting room of Newbury Town Hall. Carolyn Paschke called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. with Jerry Hudak, Alice Munn, Judd Douglas, Sue Wagner and alternates Steve Kitko and Margaret Avalon present. She welcomed the visiting high school students.

Jerry Hudak suggested revising the sequence order to let the trustees comment on proposed changes prior to sending the amendment to the Planning Commission. Alice Munn moved and Jerry Hudak seconded the amended minutes that passed by unanimous vote.
Ms. Paschke reviewed the changes made by the trustees to amendment 2011-1: approved were definition of applicant, dual signs on corner buildings and specific permitted trades added, disapproved were land banking and 350 ft. sign spacing.
Glen Quigley asked whether land banking (LB) was paved over at Panzica’s or done with initial development. Ms. Endres said she would verify the Panzica land banking status. Mr. Kitko said the intent (and county recommendation) was to maintain the green space as long as possible until additional parking was actually needed. Mr. Quigley added that Middlefield Bank required perimeter parking. Mr. Kitko said land banking allows for parking mixed uses at the developer’s option whereas N code now requires “x” number of parking spaces for each unit that is often costly (un-needed) duplication. Mr. Skomrock asked who is responsible for maintenance of land-banked spaces. Ms. Paschke explained the land banking concept to the students and Panzica’s shopping center approved variance. Mr. Kitko ‘s opinion was that the trustees didn’t approve because they did not completely understand the LB process. Mr. Quigley asked Ms. Endres to verify Panzica’s paved LB spaces stating he was unclear in his objections but asked to continue this LB discussion at the next meeting. The board continued regarding “conditional use” definition, permitted uses, BZA powers, enforceability, etc.
Next topic: Wind turbines (WT) – road and infrastructure damage during installation, fee structures could be imposed by trustee resolution. Mr. Kitko explained the problems with the two turbines erected at the Pond ice rink in Auburn: the distance from the road is within the fall-zone, they are ready to operate upon payment (waiting for grant dollars to primary to installer), 2 miles of rebar in the 5000 psi concrete pad making it non-removable. There was a discrepancy with the specs for the WT pad at Kenston School rendering it inadequate for the 250 ft. tower.
Ms. Paschke outlined the new alternate energy topics as there were none currently in Newbury’s code with one year’s work on WT and now working on solar energy (SE). Ms. Wagner said the NZC for WT is ready to submit to the Planning Commission (PC) – that some WT code is better than none. Mr. Kitko suggested reviewing our code with the PC to explain: bonds for infrastructure damage and decommissioning, fee for engineering study, CEI dual meter/buy back, commercial vs. agricultural, etc. He also agreed it would be wise to discuss the WT & LB code with the trustees at their next meeting for agreement prior to submission to the PC.
Other Updates on ongoing work: Changing Conditional Use (CU) definition to permitted uses in Article X, ZC board vote on CU prior to trustee’s review, discussion on composting – residential vs. commercial, review of BZA powers in Sec. 1701c. Mr. Hudak asked what the difference was between “mulching” at Manfredi’s and what VanNess and others were composting elsewhere? He said these on-going composting operations are needed by the people. Ms. Endres described the special circumstances at the Manfredi property; the EPA monitored wells, the filtration system, objectionable smells and noise among many.
Ms. Wagner and Mr. Hudak both will investigate the restrictions in the currently operating EPA, Class IV composting permit. Mr. Douglas was ready to submit his outdoor boilers report. Ms. Endres pointed out an error to be corrected with the next amendment: page 123, sec. 6.03 should be 6.04, same with sec. 7.03 should be 7.04. She also pointed out a code void covering huge accessory buildings, now restricted to 500 sq. ft. per acre, that could open the door to business operations in a residential zone. She suggested a cap ”not to exceed X sq.ft. per lot”.
It was agreed to wrap up the alternate energy topics at the next meeting scheduled for Mar. 28, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Paschke adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.