Minutes
TOWN OF TEMPLE, NEW HAMPSHIRE
PLANNING BOARD
January 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES OF PUBLIC MEETING
Board members present: John Kieley, Mary Beth Ayvazian, Randy Martin, Camilla Lockwood, Tedd Petro, and Allan Pickman
Meeting started at 7:30 p.m.
Public Hearing re: Agriculture: The hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. Lockwood introduced board members and spoke about the purpose and scope of a planning board. Ayvazian served as moderator and asked the audience to be respectful when making comments or voicing opinions. Kieley narrated a PowerPoint presentation outlining what the board is trying to accomplish with the proposed zoning amendments and creation of Site Plan Review for Agriculture and Farming (SPR-A&F).
The main points displayed during the presentation included manure management, increased setbacks, encouraging use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), establishing a Site Plan Review process for large agricultural buildings, and consideration of grandfathering status.
It was pointed out these documents are a first draft and subject to revision after public input is received at this hearing. The revised documents can next be reviewed and discussed at a second public hearing. After that, only minor, non-content changes are allowed. The zoning amendments then become a ballot vote for residents in March, and the SPR-A&F can be voted in by a majority vote of the planning board.
This was followed by an extensive period of audience Comments/Questions and board responses:
Q) Does the $1,000 limit refer to profit or sales?
A) That needs to be more clearly delineated.
C) Suggestion to utilize portions of BMPs relative to the town of Temple,.
A) Agreed. Also, a link to the BMPs is available on the town website www.templenh.org on the Planning Board page.
Q) How many previous events in town would this ordinance solve?
A) The Selectmen have received several complaints and been made aware of several relative incidences.
Q) Is the planning board doing this, or the state, or who?
A) The state is not telling the town what to do, and in fact has not been overly helpful. There is a rather large loophole in the ordinance as it now stands. The planning board could sit on it for awhile longer, but in the meantime a large corporation could come in.
Comment from board member Tedd Petro – “The planning board is not unanimous in this process.”
Q) What does town counsel have to say?
A) Kieley has spoken with Bill Drescher, who advised the town get some form of SPR, or could get in a bind with a corporation sliding in, and there are examples of this in other towns. The planning board does not wish to affect existing operations.
Comment from board member Mary Beth Ayvazian – “The planning board understands the residents wish to keep the rural character of the town intact.”
C) Perhaps the board should just close the loophole and try not to affect small businesses; asked for clarification about adding a barn or arena and about the provision for bond/escrow; stated the SPR document seems vague and open to interpretation.
A) The process of adding a large new building was explained; bond or escrow usually used just for roads and can be taken out.
C) Grandfathering provision needs more focus. People are used to getting eggs, chicken, veggies from local people and this should be allowed to continue if use is not changed.
C) Feels information is being misinterpreted – look closely at the wording.
C) Example given of commercial farming using tractor trailer boxes as being unconventional, and allowable under current zoning.
Q) Regarding complaints, is there a list of written complaints and how many?
A) Information not available; board of selectmen matter.
C) Consider utilizing some type of mediation process to handle complaints.
A) Do not currently have such a process but would like to obtain further knowledge and get people involved. This would fall under the purview of the selectmen.
Q) Asked for the name of the specific corporation considering building in town? Suggested some people might welcome large business to help provide jobs, and feels too many regulations on businesses in this country.
A) Business was previously known as Kumatsu Gumi, now is called The Ranch at Nutmeg Hollow.
Comment from board member Mary Beth Ayvazian – “Over and over again residents have indicated they wish to keep Temple intact, the way it is”.
C) Example given of town of Hollis not remaining the same after being developed by large corporations; should protect Temple, as it could happen here.
C) Owner of “the smallest piece of property in Temple” said under the new ordinance he would not be able to have a chicken.” (Much laughter ensued).
A) Kieley responded – “There is a need to incentivize the use of BMPs and educate on manure management. The setbacks as defined won’t work. Rely on Temple people. Keep the loophole protection.”
C) Would like to see free enterprise, and gave example of town of Raymond, NH where the loss of a major manufacturing plant resulted in loss of jobs and increased welfare.
C) Regarding the use of the BMP’s, suggestion to put the statement up front in language.
C) Use of a mediation process would be a good result from this meeting, and also use education and BMPs.
Q) With a small property, if cannot follow state BMPs, how would this be handled?
A) “Temple-ize” the BMPs and simplify them.
Q) A large corporation coming into town, wouldn’t this fall under SPR as commercial?
A) There is a currently a loophole, and agriculture is exempt from SPR.
C) The PP slides seem to have different versions? Also, large ag (ex. Frank Perdue) does follow BMPs.
C) Statement that big ag does not follow BMPs and listed different problems, and it also does not create jobs. Smaller farms represent farming culture, and provides safety for future generation by being good neighbors. Mediation process is essential.
C) The planning board works hard and does a good job, but this version of the ordinance will not work. There should be a longer process of questions, forums, and resident participation. “Old farmers are rolling in their graves”. Asked the board to consider withdrawing this ordinance and indicated he would run for a board seat and help craft a better ordinance.
C) Suggestion to separate the two issues: 1) building a large building on property line, and 2) education process good for everyone. Split them up and deal with them separately. Deal with the building issue first, then take the time to design workable ordinance for BMPs and include a mediation process.
C) Residents can have manure removed from their property as a service. “Manure co-op”.
C) Expressed concerns and asked the board to give this subject more time and thoroughly examine it. Indicated there are lots of new people coming to farming and there is a need to be careful.
C) Feels alarming wording in ordinance and many concerned people feel it is extreme. Many would agree the board should put more time into this. Regarding the BMPs, a significant part seems to be manure management. There is mention of a concrete structure – is state grant money available? Can rotate pastures and fly predators, but most cannot afford what is laid out on BMPs.
A) There is grant money available, but unknown how difficult it is to obtain.
Q) If this is adopted, by what process can an experienced/skilled farmer join in?
A) Attend meetings. Temple is not unique in addressing these issues, it is an issue all across the state, and some towns have created ag committees/commissions to help deal with it.
Q) What are other towns doing? How about Massachusetts? How many complaints have been receipts? More info needed. The town’s Conservation Commission does address supporting farming in town. A group of concerned people could be helpful. Could clarify a part of this to get it on ballot, and feels also is a Master Plan issue.
C) Perhaps submit written suggestions via email. (Address: TempleAssist@comcast.net)
C) Comment about previous Maretti home vs. riding arena issue. There should be discussion on setbacks, but there is not enough time before the next public hearing to do it right. Suggested just stop at this point and develop a farm forum, then get it done. Felt if it goes to the voting booth as-is, would be “dead in the water”.
C) Proud to see all these people in attendance at this meeting, and appreciates the work of the planning board to preserve the town and farming. Expressed a willingness to help and urged the board not to hurry it – make it right for the town.
C) Regarding rural, think simple. Big commercial ag is a problem, and we need an ordinance to solve. Suggested large commercial ag should undergo SPR, and need a definition of commercial ag. Mediation is an excellent idea.
C) In agreement that the ordinance draft needs work and time. The SPR seems easier to address. Mentioned issues in neighboring Peterborough with farm wedding events and stretching the definition of ag, i.e. a winery or brewery. There have been complaints – the issues are right here.
A) Kieley responded - Forget about the manure management. The concept of closing the loophole is on the table. The ordinance does not address farm wedding businesses. With large ag, need to close the loophole and solve the bigger risk first. Regarding requiring big ag to go through SPR, here is the dilemma – put Frank Perdue through SPR but not local residents with a riding arena?
A) Pickman commented that the size of the building can be considered and the board can waive formalities based on the building, for example a riding arena vs. a large scale hog barn.
C) The state of Maine has dealt with these issues and there are resources available that might be helpful; also, willing to serve on the committee.
C) Regarding the BMPs, the problem is they could become law or a weapon instead of a tool.
C) Mention of large farm in Wilton, detailed numbers and types of animals and products, number of acres and overall annual income. Don’t confuse large revenue number with large agriculture.
Q) How many hearings and meetings on ag? Lots to do before a March vote, and need to get people together. Feels the town should just deal with the loophole at this time.
C) Encourage shorter SPR, value of one million or more, and get rid of standards.
C) That would not address arenas or lot lines. SPR for an indoor should not be burdensome and offers protection.
C) Stressed need for definition of commercial agriculture, and should put under SPR.
C) Regarding the loophole discussion, does leave behind SPR for other structures, and feels the issue should stay.
Q) If on ballot this year, what majority is need to pass?
A) A simple majority.
Q) What is considered a large farm – a gross of two million?
A) Marty Connolly responded – mentioned scare tactics and previous attempts, an agenda of farming again. Also, Kumatsu Gumi does not pay its taxes.
A) Comment from board member Camilla Lockwood – The exemption to ag was slipped in, then a petition warrant article did not pass.
A) Comment from board member Mary Beth Ayvazian – The board wishes to listen to everyone, farmers and neighbors. The planning board is listening.
C) The audience indicates this process did not engage the farmers yet, only other residents. Suggested slowing down, and asked for a poll of the opinions of the planning board after hearing from the community. Kieley – as written, should not go forward. Ayvazian – not as it exists right now. Martin – ill-advised as written, should not go forward, and agrees a “Frank Perdue” type situation would be awful for Temple – would like to do it right. Petro – we would still be plowing driveways if it were up to me. Not one for drastic change – advised having forums before hearings. Upset over the Maretti arena situation. Should continue this and bring forth next year, and do it right. Lockwood – be clear about separating the two items – BMPs need more study. SPR needs good looking at. There are other issues such as erosion, run-off, and some not looked at in the past like soils, lighting. Not that different from subdivision or large family house.
C) Regarding SPR – should not be based on dollar amount but on square footage of building. Also, visual impact of building should be considered – mention of having large acreage vs. big a building on small lot.
Comment from board member Kieley – see if we can up with a number to allow a riding ring to go under SPR “light” and big commercial agriculture to go through full SPR. The state says we need to be reasonable.
C) Could consider looking at concentrated animal units as well as size of building.
C) Concern over potential limitations on commercial trucks for agriculture.
C) Create a formula, something like square footage plus number of animals plus amount of poop plus dollars raised.
C) BMPs has a formula.
Comment from board member Petro – enforcement then becomes an issue.
C) If someone wants to put something on their own property, they should have that right.
Comment from board member Ayvazian – It could impact an abutter.
Q) The arena thing happened ten years ago – why an issue now?
A) It did impact abutter property values.
Q) Would SPR be on an individual basis? And could a neighbor turn it down?
A) Yes to the first question, no to the second.
Q) How much time did the board actually put into this>
The public hearing was closed at 9:34 p.m.
Board members held a brief discussion and agreed to hold a meeting next week on Wednesday, January 14th at 7:30 p.m.
Approval of minutes: Delayed until next meeting.
Meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Minutes submitted by Betsy Perry
~ Next meeting to be held on January 14, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. ~