Warrant Articles - 2010 - Town - Part 2 - The Zoning issues (Article 3 and 11)
2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:
...
ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
...
ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Both of these articles speak to a revamping of fire / safety codes here in Town. When they are read quickly, the first impression is "sure, who can be against more safety"? Who can be against the idea of more fire alarms, more tools against the loss of life?
Well, my first reaction over the last few years has grown to almost always to:
- And the cost / benefit to this proposal?
- Is this a case of incrementally relinquishing of our freedom?
Now, I'm not a planning maven nor a fire expert. However, I did ask Mr. Ayers the question as to the cost of Article 3 to future development:
approximately $50,000 for a such a cistern.
Thus, for a housing development of just 5 homes, it is an additional cost of $10K / per. This, just on a simple basis, effectively eliminates the standard family home at around $250,000 cost and may have the unintended (intended?) push to slant future development to much bigger homes - effectively shoving Gilford towards a future where our sons and daughters of median incomes might not be able to build for themselves in the town in which they now reside. It also will effectively raise the cost of "Work Force" housing as well.
Or force a clamor for an extension of the town water system in order to build. Or, this could shut down development altogether - which might suit some in town just dandy.
I also ask folks to reread what was written in the Jan. 14 version of the Gilford Steamer (Pg. A2) where Chief Hays was interviewed about this change in the fire code:
And how many of us have decks on which we have "the barbie" ready for quick use in reasonable weather? "No more grilling for you!" (shades of Seinfeld's Soup Nazi).Although the overall document has not significantly changed, fire alarm system codes have been updated, as well as a section dealing with outside cooking devices and gas grills. Hayes added that some sections have been rewritten solely for clarification purposes before being resubmitted this year.
“It prohibits the use on any exterior deck on a multifamily dwelling (such as a condominium). You can’t have a gas grill on a deck anymore,” said Hayes.
Any multi-family dwellings, new or substantially renovated units, either/ or consisting of four units or three stories or more, will now require sprinkler systems, regardless of the height or width of the building, said Hayes. Although an increased risk of fires are probable in multiunit dwellings with outside kitchen appliances, Hayes said part of the fire code prevention change has to do with the department’s abilities as well.
“It is really a matter of the size and capability of our fire department. It puts all occupants at risk. It is larger than what we are capable of looking at, and gives us a better chance to control the fire,” said Hayes.
I had to reread this a couple of times; each time I came up with the same conclusion. Even though I like Chief Hayes (and thank him for his years of service to the Town and wish him an excellent retirement), I am aghast at the assumption:
Because the Fire Department cannot handle a given situation because of a lacking on its part, we must make the act of simply cooking hot dogs, hamburgers, steaks, and the like, illegal. With that statement, my take away is that because the Fire Department is unable to assure the safety of a home's residents, the use of the Property Owner of his or her cooking a meal is denied?
Doesn't this totally shift the responsibility from the homeowner for an adverse outcome to the State (give me a moment for waxing a bit philosophical here)? Isn't this restricting the freedom of an individual to do what is otherwise legal activity? This is not Boston where there are streets upon streets of three-deckers effectively rubbing siding on siding here, where an ignition could literally take out a block of houses or more.
A more philosophical question: Does the Chief believe like many Statists, that the responsibility for the safety of its citizens resides solely with the State and not with individual responsibility of its citizens?
And do we wish to cede more control over our lives to Government and limit freedom? Cooking the family's steak on the deck may sound like a rather puny dispute, but when does it stop?
I may sound like I am going stark raving mad, and there are certainly those that already believe that, but I ask you to think this through - do not revert to what sounds good at the moment but instead, consider the basic philosophical tenets of our society at its founding (that is, if you can truly remember or if you received that education in the beginning) - who is really responsible for you?
I urge you to vote NO on both Articles 3 and 11.
..






